19150901_senate_6_78.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1915-09-01</date>
    <parliament.no>6</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>6442</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <para class="block">Senate. </para>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1915-09-01</day.start>
      <para>The  President  took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>6442</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COMMONWEALTH BANK</title>
          <page.no>6442</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The  President  laid on the table the following paper: - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>Commonwealth Bank Act 1911. - True copy of aggregate balance-sheet of Commonwealth Bank of Australia, made up to 30th- June, 1915, together with AuditorGeneral&#39;s Report thereon. &#39; </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6442</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In view of the fact that the Printing Committee may not have an opportunity to meet, I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the document be printed. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>6442</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>EXPEDITIONARY FORCES</title>
          <page.no>6442</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Rejections at Claremont Camp : Troops tor the Front. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6442</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2D</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator READY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline> 1.Is the Minister aware that many complaints have been made in Launceston with reference to men who, after being passed for service by the Launceston medical officers, arerejected after reaching the Claremont Camp? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. von</inline> See the doctor in charge at Claremont? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Is.Dr. von See responsible for the rejection of -men who have been passed in Launceston? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers are - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>I understand complaints have been made in some cases where country medical officers have failed to strictly observe the clear instructions issued for their guidance. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>No. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>No. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTD</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCDOUGALL, Allan</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McDOUGALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Is it a fact that the 10th Battalion, partially trained men, has received orders from HeadQuarters to proceed to the front, whilst the 9th Battalion of fully trained men has not received such orders? </para>
          </quote>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6443</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The answer is: - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The 9th and 10th Battalions are at present fighting at Gallipoli. The question apparently refers to the 9th and 10th Reinforcements for the 13th Battalion. Orders were issued for the 10th Reinforcements to embark on a transport, which, it was subsequently found, would leave Austrafia prior to the departure of the 9th Reinforcements. These orders have since been countermanded. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>6443</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>K A LGO ORLIE -PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY</title>
          <page.no>6443</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Cooks and Waiters</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What is the number of hours worked each day of the week by the cooks and waiters employed at the main camp departmental dining rooms on the transcontinental railway, Western Australia ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The total -hours worked each week ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The time of starting and finishing work each day? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>The time, if any, off duty allowed to the -employees during the course of the day? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>The number of days worked by each employee in each and every week? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>If the hours worked by each employee exceed forty-eight weekly, will the Minister increase the staff so as to reduce the working hours to forty -eight? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Assistant Minister</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The information is being prepared, and will, I anticipate, be laid on the table to-morrow. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>6443</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PANAMA EXPOSITION</title>
          <page.no>6443</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>In what way does the Government intend to inform Parliament and the public of the contents of the report of the Chief Commissioner of the Commonwealth to the Panania Exposition? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer isIt is intended to lay before Parliament any report received by the Department of External Affairs from the former President of the Commission immediately on its receipt. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- May I ask a question arising out of the question answered, sir? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6443</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6443</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The answer is beautiful humbug. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6443</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I will try it again. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SUPPLY BILL (No. 2), 1915-16</title>
        <page.no>6443</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The War: Defence Administration - Expeditionary Forces : Enlistment : Appointment of Medical Officers : Training: Distribution of Camps - Liverpool Camp : <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich&#39;s Report - Enemy Trading Companies - Nurses&#39; Outfit - Purchase of Remounts - Catering Contract - Public Works : Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway : Federal Capital - Taxation : Tea and Kerosene - Unemployed - Case of Lieutenant Patterson - Treatment of Persons of German Descent - The Press and the Labour Party - Captain Hughes Onslow - Post and Telegraph Department : Letter . Carriers Award: <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anderson&#39;s</inline> Report - War Loan - Cruiser Brisbane - Armourers&#39; Assistants - Contract for Locomotive Bogies - Old-age Pensions : Case of Constable Campbell. </para>
      <para>Debate resumed from 31st August <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 6371)&#39;, on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> - </para>
      <para class="block">That this Bill be now read a first time. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6443</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K18</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
            <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - Notwithstanding the latitude of debate which is allowed on this motion, I do not propose to indulge in a very lengthy discussion on the subjects touched on by preceding speakers, but I cannot help saying that last night the Minister of Defence took up quite an unnecessary attitude in regard to certain criticisms which have been levelled against the Defence administration from time to time. He spoke of certain persons who are wise after the event, and who could teach Marshal Joffre, FieldMarshal Kitchener, and the rest of the military leaders how to conduct the war. Remarks of that sort are of a very cheap character. In a Democratic country we must expect to hear opinions ventilated and criticisms made from time to time, and if it is any information to the Minister, I tell him that before the war was a month old I said that Australia would have to set itself to the task of providing at least 250,000 men to put in the field and to keep its quota in the Field Force at that standard, and that she would have to recognise, in- all probability, if the war lasted only two years, that she must finance a war expenditure of &#163;130,000,000. I said that eleven months ago, and the statement is still on the. black-board. I adhere to my opinion expressed very early in the war, and it will be well for the Minister of Defence, the Government, the Parliament, and the people of Australia to recognise that they are face to face no longer with opinions, but with facts. Adjutant-General Cameron, who has just returned from the seat of war, evidently with authority to make a special statement, has told us that we shall have to prepare ourselves at once to put a very much larger Field Force on Gallipoli Peninsula. We have a soldier with the experience of two campaigns, and who took part in the landing on Gallipoli Peninsula, corning back from the field of operations with the rank of Adjutant-General, and telling us that we want to address ourselves to the task of sending another 100,000 men away before Christmas, and a further 100,000 before next June. In the face of such statements, what is the use of the people of Australia, the Defence Department, or the Parliament halting to dispose of what is called credit - halting to resent criticism ? It is absolutely futile to take up that attitude. I am not insensible to the difficulties which have presented themselves to the Defence Department. I think that I have been very tolerant in my attitude to the Ministry during the discussion of Defence questions. Nothing could be better, or more loyal, than the support which has been accorded the Ministerial efforts by honorable senators on this side. No criticism has been captious, or made from the party stand-point. That is because we are as one in this matter. Yet directly certain criticisms are referred to - criticisms which have been proved to have a foundation - we have the term of Tory introduced. We have the term used in a disrespectful sense, and applied to the well thought out, well-intended and well borne out criticisms which have been addressed to the administration of the Department by public men, not altogether here, but in another place as well. The Minister had better recognise, and we had all better recognise, that this is a War Parliament, and that we shall have to bear the burden of national opinion in connexion with our efforts. We shall all share in the glory of an unqualified success, or in that public execration which will be directed towards us if the legislative and national efforts do not succeed. It is well for the administration, and for all of us, to recognise that the only touchstone in this matter is the touchstone of success. It is of no use to halt and ask for credit and laurels. I tell the Minister, the Parliament, the Nation, and the Army that all heroic efforts will be as dust and ashes unless we achieve an unqualified success. For human opinion is very cruel in that regard. Success is the only standard. It is of no use to talk about our having enrolled 124,000 men for service at the front if 200,000 men are needed. It is of no use to stop and ask is that not a creditable performance. I ask, is it a performance which will insure success, and if it falls short of achieving complete success it has no merit in it. For if there are laurels to the vanquished as well as to the victors in world struggles, all that I can say is that the laurels are very rarely worn by the vanquished. They are not particularly proud of them. Success is what we are out to achieve, and the Minister had better recognise that, and his administration, too. There is to be no apportioning of laurels if we fall short of that very great achievement which is absolutely necessary to our Empire and to the world at large. I ask the Minister to think, because surely he is not insensible to the lessons of history, of what the French people had to do a little more than a century ago when they found themselves face to face with the problem of preserving their nationality, of preserving those principles of liberty which were then only new born. The delegates from the National Convention accompanied the Generals into the field, with one finger pointing to the front, and the thumb pointing back to Paris, to remind the Generals that the only alternative to complete success was the guillotine. Lo and behold, we have a modern ,&#39;Minister of War, capable in many respects I have no doubt, but . like some restive child under this criticism. What is the use of the Minister taking up this attitude with reference to the discussion about the Liver- pool Camp? <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard,</inline> in whose constituency the camp is situated, visited the camp in pursuance of his duty as- one of the representatives of the people, and he cam&#169; to the conclusion that the state of affairs there was not all that could be desired. He therefore gave his information from his place in Parliament, with a result that the Government constituted a tribunal to inquire into the grievances which had been ventilated by that honorable member. They appealed to Caesar - a Caesar erected by themselves) - a Judge of the High Court of Australia, to inquire into the statements made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> and the charges as formulated by the Administration. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What about the charges he did not inquire into? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- We have his report to the effect that in almost every particular the statements - I will not call them charges - made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> were borne out. I understand that it has been stated by the Minister of Defence that the Administration was hastening to give effect to many recommendations contained in <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich&#39;s report. That being so, what is the reason for the attack on honorable senators on this side? Can they explain why honorable senators on this side are stigmatized as Tories ? Tories for what? For doing their duty to their country? Is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McGrath</inline> a Tory? Is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Finlayson</inline> a Tory? Is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mathews</inline> a Tory? Is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Carr</inline> a Tory? Is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anstey</inline> a Tory? Are they all Tories? The most vitriolic criticism in connexion with the war administration has been launched from the Ministerial ranks, and yet, because statements concerning the camp were made soberly by a member of this party in another place, and those statements have been inquired into by a High Court Judge, there seems to be a disposition to charge us with party feeling because one member of our party had the temerity to make the complaints. If those statements had not been borne out, I wonder what would have happened? There has been no attempt to make political capital out of this matter at all, and if in the country at any time I refer to this subject in any party spirit, may my tongue wither in my head. I hope to see this war carried to a successful conclusion, and if the Minister is restive under criticism, let him remember that his reward will be great if we achieve unqualified triumph for our arms in this great world struggle. Does anybody doubt that if we are successful the Sovereign, of whom the Minister is a representative, will hesitate to give him a guerdon for his service? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In what way - a title? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I venture to say that if we are successful in this struggle the Minister of Defence will be offered some sort of title. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Marquis of Woolloomooloo ! </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He will almost surely receive some substantial mark of recognition at the hands of the Sovereign. But there must be no pause in the national efforts for the distribution of praise. We must go on relentlessly doing everything we can to achieve victory. We must not stop, like children, half way in order to claim credit for what has been done. There will be little credit and little praise for any individual if we fail, and if we neglect to do something that we should do in order to insure success. We must recognise that this struggle will last probably another couple of years, and if, after the ample warning we have received, we fail to make the necessary preparations to achieve victory, we shall get our due reward in the .shape of a great volume of national execration as being unfaithful stewards. Honorable senators might just as well realize the seriousness of the whole position. In connexion with the prosecution of the war, Ministers do not include in their ranks any more loyal supporter than I am. I hesitate at nothing to give the Administration the powers they claim to be  necessary  for the purpose. But if they halt and falter, or show a lack of wit which prevents them from properly appreciating the position, and in consequence put forward only a partial national  effort  when a complete effort is required, the blame will fall, not on their heads alone, but unfortunately on ours also. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1L</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Barnes</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But is there any evidence of that partial effort? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6445</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I think the honorable senator has only just come in. I have fold honorable senators that we are patting ourselves on the back for what we have already done. As a matter of fact, up to the present, so far as the European theatre of war is concerned, there  has  been very little in the way of a substantial result from our efforts. Five months ago, in April last, when we had only enlisted 75,000 men, we were praising ourselves for what we had done. I was derided then for suggesting that we were giving ourselves too much praise. At that time we had not put forth a tithe of the national effort that is absolutely essential to secure unqualified victory. Now, when we have enlisted 125,000 men, one of the most experienced soldiers who ever left Australian shores, an ex-member of the Senate, and a man who fought in the Afghanistan and South African campaigns, according to telegrams which reached us from Fremantle, has been charged by Lord Kitchener with a message to the people of Australia to put forth even greater efforts than they have done up to the present time. I referred to  Colonel Cameron  in the earlier part of my remarks, and let me rub in what he said at Fremantle as soon as he put his foot on Australian soil . He said that we should send another 100,000 men before Christmas, and a further 100,000 before next June. Singular to say, the day before  Colonel Cameron  landed at Fremantle I had placed in my hands correspondence from officers attached to the Australian Expeditionary Forces now operating on the Gallipoli Peninsula in which precisely the same opinions were expressed. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Mullan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Is that the opinion of Colonel Cameron or of Lord Kitchener ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator may be aware that since  Colonel Cameron  left Australia he has been appointed to the position of AdjutantGeneral of our Forces that have landed at Gallipoli, and he has returned to Australia with a full knowledge of the difficulties our troops have to face. It is with that knowledge that he says that it is necessary for us to send an immensely greater Force than we have sent. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2D</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Ready</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Did he have Lord Kitchener&#39;s authority for saying that? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He has Lord Kitchener&#39;s authority for asking the people of Australia to enlist in much greater numbers than they have done so far. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2D</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Ready</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If things are so bad, why has not Lord Kitchener advocated conscription in England? He has not done so yet. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am sensible of the fact that there is on the notice-paper a motion in my name dealing with thequestion of conscription. I have therefore refrained from ventilating my opinions on conscription in connexion with this debate. But let me tell <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ready</inline> that in my view conscription is in the same position to-day as Napoleon stated the French Republic to be in when the treaty with the Austrians was being framed. The Austrian envoys, with a. great deal of consideration, inserted a clause in the treaty to the effect that the Austrian Empire recognised the French Republic. &#34; Strike that out,&#34; said Napoleon. &#34; The French Republic is like the sun. None but the blind can fail to see it.&#34; I say that none but the blind can fail to see the necessity for conscription and the proper organization of our National Forces at this juncture. I will make no further allusion to that matter at this stage, because I do not wish to delay the passage of this measure. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6446</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- The honorable senator is very sweeping in his opinions. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6446</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I propose to make further reference to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich&#39;s report. Unfortunately, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> was inferentially denounced as a Tory here yesterday. Some time ago a claim was advanced to the effect that of the rank and file of our Expeditionary Forces, the majority were unionists, and the inference was drawn that they consequently were also members of the Labour party. If that be so, how is it that the rank and file at the Liverpool Camp did not denounce <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> as a meddler and a grumbler? On the contrary, they acclaimed him as their mouth-piece. How is it that within the last few days <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> has had honours showered upon him so far as that can be done by public acclamation of a public man? The rank and file, largely composed, as we have been led to believe, of unionists and Labourites, have constituted themselves a supplementary jury in regard to the inquiry into the Liverpool Camp, and have carried <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> shoulder high, though he has been denounced here as a Tory. He has not come back to his place in Parliament to loudly claim that the inquiry has borne out the correctness of his assertions. I think that he has comported himself like a very modest and well-meaning gentleman. I have had to make a number of visits to </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">Sydney during the last few weeks, and have frequently been in <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard&#39;s</inline> company, and it is due to him to say that he never once gave utterance to a single sentence that would lead to the conclusion that he hoped to make party capital out of the inquiry, or to embarrass the Defence administration of the Commonwealth . </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No one has impugned his character. Why defend him ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It has been said that certain Tories - and I have assumed that he was included amongst them - by making complaints would like to impugn the Defence administration. I was not going to allude to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich&#39;s report, but immediately after it was published the Minister of Defence stated that it was intended to take action in connexion with it, and yet we yesterday afternoon heard from him a long statement impugning the .good faith of people who make statements such as those which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich inquired into. I should like to know whether the members of the Ministry have anything to complain of regarding myself? Have I been critical of their administration? I have had dozens of letters pointing out that this and that connected with the administration were open to &#34;censure, and should be ventilated in Parliament. I have gone into these complaints, and have considered them rather small to be ventilated in this National Parliament. I have had no desire to unnecessarily hamper the Defence administration by a continual reference to these things. I know the difficulty which must attend the working of, as yet, a comparatively unorganized Department, and I have therefore refrained from captious criticism of the Defence administration. But when other members of Parliament, whether Liberal or Labour, in the exercise of their undoubted right have indicated defects which, in their opinion, should be remedied, it is ungenerous of the Minister of Defence to refer to their utterances in the spirit which he displayed yesterday afternoon. Three or four days ago I was standing on the steps of Parliament House conversing with a. man who has had a lengthy military experience, and who wishes to join the Expeditionary Forces. He wants a commission, because he considers that he is too old to enlist as a private. We were discussing certain matters connected with the war when one of the returned heroes from the Dardanelles came up the steps and informed us that he wanted to see &#34; George &#34; Pearce. He further said that he wanted to see &#34;Andy&#34; Fisher. He mentioned that he had heard &#34; Andy &#34; Fisher&#39;s Gympie speech, and he seemed to think that a feat worthy to rank with the endurance of shot and shell in the Dardanelles. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I think he was entitled to the V.C. for it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In the pocket of his tunic he had a bundle of notes, a halfsmoked cigarette, and a box of matches. He solicited my good offices in obtaining an interview with the Honorable George Pearce, to whom he familiarly referred as &#34; George Pearce.&#34; I said to him, &#34; It is rather a difficult matter, when Parliament is sitting, to obtain a word with either the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister. They are very busy individuals at present, and unless you have something of importance to communicate, I would recommend you- to go away home.&#34; He replied that he had to be operated on next day - that a bullet had to be extracted from one of his kidneys. He produced his pay-book, and, beyond doubt, he had come from the Dardanelles. Then a bright idea suddenly appeared te strike him, and he inquired, &#34;Are you a member of the Federal Parliament?&#34; I said, &#34; Yes. I am one of those who sit in the seats of the mighty,&#34; and he at once asked, &#34;Are you a Liberal or a Labourite?&#34; I told him that I happened to be one of the few members of this Chamber who are called Liberals. He paused for a moment, then became very wrath, and denounced the whole of the members of the Federal Parliament as a set of .inept illegitimates. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is a very fine phrase, but I do not know what it means. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6447</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That sort of talk did not make me restive. He said that we are all fixed at &#163;600 a year, and that we have no thought for the care of our soldiers. As a parting imprecation, he cast a great deal of doubt on the legitimacy of my extraction personally, and of that of every member of this Parliament.  His  complaints, when analyzed, boiled down to the fact that tablecloths had not been provided in that section of the ship in which he travelled, whilst the officers lived on the fat of the land, and had fine linen and glassware on their cabin tables. We shall have criticism directed against us from every quarter so long as we sit here. No National Administration can expect to he exempt from criticism. And criticism has its uses. Within the last few days, I have received an anonymous letter accusing me of all sorts of crimes, and expressing a heartfelt wish for my early decease, a wish which I hope will not be gratified. As a matter of fact, I do not think that it will be gratified, for I feel fairly well at the present juncture. What is the use of being restive under criticism ? The Minister of Defence must do his duty. I believe that he has endeavoured to do it. He must remember that great rewards await him if his duties lead to a successful conclusion. Once more I say to the nation, to the Parliament, and to the Administration, that success is going to be the only criterion by which our collective efforts may be judged. Unless our arms are successful at Gallipoli, what will be the use of talking about the courage of our troops? What will it avail us to speak of their achievements if those, achievements fall short of the desired result? If, after the war, the Turks still sit at the gate of Constantinople, of what us&#169; will it be to acclaim the wonderful feats that we have performed? We must be successful to an unqualified degree. We must absolutely triumph; and, therefore, the Administration should address itself, not to the question of asking credit for what has been done under its auspices, but to that of inciting the nation to put forth the greatest effort of which it is capable. That is all I intend to say about the war. Before this Parliament reassembles after the adjournment. I hope that we shall hear of a very pronounced success in the field. Although I am in the habit of asking honorable senators to put forth greater efforts than have already been put forth, I have great hopes of success. I believe that we are not very far from the first substantial success of our arms in the war. When the Dardanelles have been forced, when the Turkish power on the mainland of Europe has been broken, affairs: will assume a very much brighter complexion than they wear at the present time. I receive a good, deal of correspondence from Home, and I arn sensible of the fact that the British Government are putting forth a very great effort indeed. That effort, however, has not yet matured. But in the matter of guns, munitions, and other essentials to the successful prosecution of the war, I know that the Imperial authorities are doing a very great deal. Notwithstanding that from the inception of the struggle I have advocated its prosecution upon somewhat different lines, I am not unmindful of the fact that much has been done to insure the success of our arms. I have in my possession a letter from a responsible gentleman in the Old Country, who states that he recently counted 150 British guns going through Bristol for shipment to the theatre of war, each gun being capable of throwing a ton shell a distance of twentyone miles. I recognise that a very great deal indeed has been done in the way of making preparations for that victory for which we all so ardently hope. At the same time, we ought to take out the biggest policy of Imperial insurance that is necessary. Let us make the biggest effort of which we are capable. Then only shall we be able to sit down with the consciousness that we have done our individual and collective duty to secure that triumph for the Empire&#39;s cause with which we are inseparably associated. I wish now to say a word or two on the necessity which exists for exercising enonomy  in our finances. I have heard with a great deal of pleasure that our first Australian war loan has been over-subscribed. I trust that it has been over-subscribed two or three-fold. Even if it has not achieved as great a measure of success as I had hoped for, it is undeniable that a great success has been attained. After the drought through which we have just passed, if the loan has been substantially over-subscribed it will be something of which we may well be proud. I believe that the moral effect of its successful flotation will be great, alike upon our Allies and upon those who are opposed to us. I would again urge the capitalists of Australia, whose cause I have espoused on more than one occasion, in the face of a good deal of opposition, to put forth even greater efforts than they have done up to the present to assist our national finances. It is with very great pleasure indeed that I learn that our first national war loan has proved a considerable success. Undoubtedly the exercise of .economy in our finances is necessary. But I think there are many critics outside Parliament who do not altogether understand the disabilities under which, members of the Commonwealth Legislature labour when the question of economy in connexion with national administration is approached. Where are we to start economizing <inline font-style="italic">1</inline> I happen to be a member of a Committee which was created in the hope that it would effect substantial economies in connexion with national enterprises. I believe that after a while that body will be able to point to very successful work. But it is no disparagement to its <inline font-style="italic">personnel,</inline> to its worthy  chairman  - an excellent man, who in the course of its investigations, is revealing abilities the possession of which his best friends did not suspect - to say that it is proceeding with no more speed than that of a traction engine. Our inquiries are very slow, and years would elapse before we could investigate the finances of every department of the national administration. A pressman in the habit of going round the Government Departments would probably know more about the directions in which economy could be successfully applied than the ordinary member of Parliament. It must be remembered that unless a member of Parliament is a man of considerable ability he does not survive many elections. It takes the ordinary member some time to find his feet. He comes here with very clear ideas as to the legislation he desires to see placed on the statute-book, but so far as concerns the ordinary processes of administration he sees through a glass very darkly. Does the Minister of Defence, who, I believe, represents the Treasurer in this chamber, know the <inline font-style="italic">personnel</inline> of the Treasury staff, or how many men are engaged in administering the finances of the Commonwealth ? Does anybody here know the <inline font-style="italic">personnel</inline> of the staffs of the Departments of External Affairs and Home Affairs ? What do any of us know of the ramifications of Government Departments ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6449</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Why did not the Public Accounts Committee start first to find out something about the fountain of all the accounts, the Treasury ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6449</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The first thins; the Committee did was to have the permanent heads of the Treasury before them. It was because of the two or three lengthy consultations which took place with those gentlemen that the inquiries of the Committee are being prosecuted in the pre sent directions. The first inquiry that the Committee embarked upon certainly produced an improvement in the efficiency of the enterprise, and did something towards securing an increased output,- which must reduce the average cost of rifles produced at Lithgow, and consequently have a substantial influence upon national economy. However, we in this Parliament are attempting to economize with an absolute neglect of first principles. I have said before, and the thought is not original, that a politician to be successful requires to be somewhat of a philosopher. In other words he needs to understand human nature, and from that stand-point I really believe we must offer bonuses for efficiency and for the promotion of economy. Knowing how difficult it is for the ordinary member of Parliament in the course of a short parliamentary life to get a complete grip of the national administration, which he must have before he proceeds to suggest economies, I should proceed along altogether different lines. If the national expenditure is assuming such proportions as alarm the Administration - and no doubt our Governments, both State and Federal, are having economy enjoined upon them not only by outside critics but by those who are responsible for the institution of economies and the conduct of the nation&#39;s affairs - I would call together the permanent heads of Departments, who know, or ought to know, most of the ramifications of Government administration. If the Estimates of one Department amounted last year to &#163;500,000 and this year to &#163;650.000, I would say to its permanent head, &#34; The national exigencies are such that we cannot afford &#163;650,000. Cannot you conduct your Department for what it cost last year, or even guarantee efficiency with a reduction of &#163;50,000 on that amount ?&#34; </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6449</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- And they will tell you &#34; no.&#34; </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6449</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Because there is no incentive to them at present to effecteconomy. Money is the lubricant that makes all wheels revolve, particularly other people&#39;s money, and the money they are disbursing comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. I would give the heads of Departments and every responsible officer under them a bonus for the reduction of expenditure. If the head of a Department could maintain the efficiency of those under him, conduct his share of the national service, and yet save &#163;50,000 I might give him a 10 per cent, bonus, increasing his salary by &#163;5,000. That would be a bonus beneficial to the nation. Unless the energies and sympathies of heads of Departments, are enlisted in the prosecution of economy, and it is made financially worth their while to effect substantial savings in the cost of the national administration, those savings will never be effected, for there is a constant tendency on the part of those who have Government money to spend to suggest increased rather than reduced expenditure, especially in a continent like Australia, where the national services are being increased from day to day, because happily, the Commonwealth progresses whatever Administration it is under. Although I have been six years in State and National parliamentary life, I confess that I do not feel competent to suggest a single item of economy straight away, because I have not so far secured a complete grip of the ramifications of administration. Therefore if economies are required to be speedily effected, the heads of Departments must be told straight out that savings must be made, and that it will be worth their while to make them. Ordinary legislative inquisitions do very little towards disclosing clearly the directions in which economies can be effected. Between us and the civil servants intervenes, and properly so, the Public Service Commissioner, because the members of the Service must have some assurance of stability of employment before they can become efficient in the discharge of their duties, but the whole tenor of Government service is in the direction of reduced efficiency as compared with outside service. The manager of a private enterprise has to keep a close eye on expenditure. Longer hours are worked by those under him, and he is responsible for any inflation of expenditure that will reduce profits. It is to his personal interest to see that expenditure is reduced, but that is not true to the same extent of the manager of a Government Department. I would make the conditions in the Public Service approximate to those in private employment, and make it to the personal interest of every Government employee to secure economy in expenditure. It does not follow that his salary would be reduced. I would ask anybody in the chamber to tell me, if he can, what proportion of the total expenditure of any Department is represented by the salaries paid to the officials. I fear that of a question of the sort notice would have to be given, and lengthy inquiries pursued before anything like an approximately correct answer could be obtained, which indicates that ordinary legislative processes are insufficient to disclose the directions in which administrative economies can be effected. I therefore would throw the responsibility on the heads of Departments straight away and give them bonuses for effecting substantial reductions in the national expenditure, particularly in times of national exigency like the present. That is the question to which I particularly wished to direct attention this morning, and the earlier portion of my remarks was occasioned entirely by the somewhat injudicious attachments indulged in by the Minister to an otherwise very well ordered discourse. We have every consideration for him, and I believe he is doing yeoman service to the Commonwealth and the Empire. Although it may seem brutal to speak as we have had to speak, he must know that human judgments are always cruel in this regard, and inevitably so. I tell him that the only standard by which he will be judged will be the standard of success or failure. If Australia&#39;s efforts are completely successful, any minor defects in his administration of the Department will vanish into thin air and smoke at the end of the war. But if we do not achieve a successful result, if the Empire and all its units fall short in the pursuit of their great goal, he &#34;will be adjudged to be a failure, his administration will be adjudged to be a failure, the nation which he and his colleagues represent will adjudge them to be a collection of moral failures, as people who did not have the resolution to pursue the struggle to its ultimate conclusion, who had not the will to victory. Having the will to victory, as I believe we have, let -us exhibit it, and great will be the rewards to those whom fate has designed as instruments to direct the national energies in the prosecution of this gigantic struggle. I have something more than an ordinary respect for the Minister of Defence; I have that loyal regard which every member of the Chamber ought to have for him in connexion with the  posi-  tion he fills, but he must not be a child. I believe that he is a man, and has all the attributes of manhood. It is childish for a man occupying his position to resent that criticism which is directed towards every one of us in no measured volume. I wish him well. Let him go on and carry out the reforms suggested by those who have inquired into various channels along which reforms must proceed. Let him recognise that our criticism is not captious or partisan, but is designed in the best interests of the nation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6451</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KTD</name.id>
            <electorate>N&#34;ew South Wales</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MCDOUGALL, Allan</name>
            <name role="display">Senator McDOUGALL</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I rise for the special purpose of referring to a matter which I brought before the Minister of Defence some time ago, and that is the appointment of a young man to a position in the Expeditionary Forces. I stated at the time that I had no desire to reflect on the young man or on his loyalty and ability, and that I was aware that he had given up a great deal to serve his country. My only contention was as between the Minister and the Selection Committee. I have had from this young man&#39;s father a communication and a visit. He was very much put out that I should imply that he had used any influence to get the young man his appointment, and wished to emphasise the fact, as he put it, that he obtained the position &#39; &#39; off his own bat.&#34; I told him that I had nothing to say against his son in any shape or form. I addressed to him a letter setting out the facts, and stating that there was no malice in my statement to the Senate. The other day I received from him a letter threatening me with the dire penalties of press criticism and the publication of all my letters if I did not stand up in my place here and withdraw any imputation I had cast on his son or himself. All that I have to say to that gentleman now from my place in the Senate is that I withdraw nothing. If he is desirous of exposing me in the press of Melbourne let him fire away. I did on that occasion what I considered my duty. I was one of the critics of the administration as regards that matter, and I had every right to come here and express my views if I chose. I exercised my right, and so far as the Department and I are concerned everything is over. I certainly am not going to stand up here and apologize to anybody for anything I have said. This gentleman has gone so far as to make some very serious reflections on the loyalty of the officers who compose the Selection Committee. In my view, the best thing he can do is to communicate his reflections to the gentlemen themselves, and I have no doubt that they would be able to defend their action. I had no intention, I repeat, of saying anything against the loyalty of the young man or of his parents. My only desire was to get justice for the members of the Committee, who, I believe, had tried to do their duty, and did carry out the order of the Minister. So far as I am concerned, that matter is now closed. I desire to say a few words about the military camp at Liverpool. I am one of those who have taken a special interest in the camp, living close to it as I do, and knowing a large number of the men who have been trained in .it. There is no doubt that the camp has not been all that could have been desired. It has not been a palace; but it is one of the best camps which I have ever seen, and I may say that I have had a little experience in that regard. On Sunday it was visited by the Governor-General and his aide-de-camp, who has had experience of camps all over the world, especially in Great Britain. He declared that it was one of the finest military camps he had ever seen. The opinion of that gentleman is quite valuable. While the inquiry was proceeding, I gave in the names of twenty men in the camp whom I knew at the Trades Hall in Sydney, who were prepared to go before the Commissioner and . state their opinion of the camp, which was, that the conditions were good, and that they had nothing to complain about. Those men were never called. I asked the Minister here whether we would receive a copy of the evidence. Of course, I am going to reserve my criticisms of the result of the inquiry until I get a copy of the evidence. I have the names of a number of men whom I know personally, who were prepared to give evidence as regards their own lives in camp and to rebut the evidence given by others. All the reforms which have been instituted at the camp, and all the reforms which are now in progress, were brought under the notice of the Department months before the inquiry was thought of. The other day I visited the new camp at Warwick Farm. At every new camp there must be certain disabilities. The hospital at the Warwick Farm Camp is in a tent, which must serve the purpose until better buildings are arranged for. In temporary camps, men cannot have that degree of comfort which is provided in an old-established camp. As regards the Head-quarters Staff in New South Wales, in my opinion, they have done wonderful work, but there are persons now who are thirsting for their blood. In some of the Sydney newspapers we have read a demand on the Minister of Defence to immediately shift the whole of his staff at Sydney. I consider that they have done good work. They have worked night and day, and, in my opinion, the results of the work have been perfectly satisfactory. Last night the Minister explained that the staff have been continually depleted through men going away and new men being appointed. I have seen the Commandant attending two or three recruiting meetings in one night. I have seen him attending such meetings during the day and doing all his ordinary work as well. I have seen the men working day and night in their efforts to cope with the extraordinary amount of business connected with the despatch of Expeditionary Forces. Yet some persons want to have their blood simply because a little disaffection has existed. I trust that before the Minister attempts to reduce any of the men, or to shift them, he will have better proof than has been furnished so far that they have not done their duty. So far as the Medical Staff are concerned. I may say that, for some time, I have known <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Schlink</inline> in connexion with his military services. I met him in the garrison artillery camp three years ago, and have known him ever since. He is a hard worker in the Army Medical Corps. The testimony is there, pure and simple, that he has done good work in the hospital at Liverpool. The testimony is there that he has been a. good soldier, and a clever man as regards his work in the Prince Alfred Hospital. In my view the attacks on him have been very unfair, and the inquiry itself has proved that the hospital at Liverpool has done good work, that the average of sickness has been very small compared with the number of troops in camp, and that the average death rate has been lower than that of any of the well-equipped Sydney hospitals. The other day I visited the military hospital at Randwick for wounded soldiers. It is absolutely one of the best equipped hospitals I have ever seen. The officers of the Army Medical Corps carried out that work at a very little cost to the Government. A number of citizens supplied the beds, and all the equipment, and there is accommodation for, I think, 1,000 wounded men. Of course, there are grumblers at that hospital, as there are everywhere. I saw one man by himself in a big ward. There was nobody near him, and thinking that he seemed rather lonely I went up to him and had a little conversation. He told me he had plenty of companions at night, but that there was nobody in the ward in the day-time. He spoke about his complaint. He told me what he had &#39; suffered from in Egypt, and that he had never seen the Dardanelles. Thinking it was peculiar that he should be in a large ward by himself, I asked the doctor the reason, and he said : &#34; That is the only way we can keep him sober. We have to take his clothes away. If he gets out he comes in drunk soon afterwards.&#34; The man was grumbling because he was kept there in the day-time, the only way by which they can try to cure  him of the disease brought on him through his camp life in Egypt. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6452</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If he had been found at large away from that hospital without a coat, people would have said : &#34; There you are, a soldier without a coat!&#34; </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6452</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCDOUGALL, Allan</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McDOUGALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He would have gone without a coat, but the pants he could not get. No doubt there are grumblers at that hospital as there are everywhere. But I am satisfied that the officers and staff in New South Wales have done wonderful work as regards getting the transports away and looking after their other duties. I was one of those who took exception to the Commandant doing so much work as he did in connexion with the National Rifle Association. Still, he did it in conjunction with his other duties. Last night <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> spoke about the staff in New South Wales not carrying out the orders of the Minister to avail themselves of the services of the expert rifle shots and instructors of the rifle clubs. But there is a reason for that : The complaint was brought to me, and, on inquiry, I found that it was not necessary for the officers to avail themselves of the services of those gentlemen, because, in New South Wales, there is a school of musketry, and they have sufficient instructors to carry out all that is required. They are instructing. 750 men a week, and getting splendid results. They cannot instruct more, not because there are not sufficient instructors, but because there are not sufficient rifles. I say this because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> tried to infer that the Staff Officers in New South Wales were flouting the decision of the Minister of Defence. If there was any necessity at all for the use of more rifle club instructors there is no doubt that their services would be availed of. That is all I have to say with regard to the organization in New South Wales. I will not comment upon <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich&#39;s report until I have read the evidence, and I presume that we shall be given an opportunity of discussing that matter later on. But I will say that if any evidence in rebuttal of the charges made was obtainable, he had a right to hear it. I will leave it at that. I want now to refer to the question which I asked the representative of the Attorney-General concerning the Continental Tyre Company. For some time I have been endeavouring to get satisfactory information regarding the treatment of that firm, which was allowed to continue business while other firms, engaged in the same line of business, have been closed up. In his reply to my question last Friday, the Minister said that the Attorney-General had no knowledge that any rubber firm had been closed up. Well, I want to refer him particularly to the Polack Tyre Company:&#39; This admittedly is a German company, which has been closed for a month or six weeks, but the management have kept their staff together. They are ready to wind up their business if they can get no satisfaction from the Government. I am not claiming that they should not be closed, but if they are to be prohibited from carrying on business, the Continental Tyre Company should be placed in the same position&#34; Steffans  and Noel have been closed up, but I believe that they are evading the order by starting some of their employees under another name in another part of Sydney. I understand that this matter is being inquired into, so I will leave it alone for Che present. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">Why is the Continental Tyre Company allowed to continue business while the Polack Tyre Company has been closed up ? The latter company has a factory in England, and its business there is carried on under a supervisor. It supplies the Imperial Government with tyres for vehicles necessary for war purposes, and if it is allowed to do that in Britain, surely the company should be able to get some satisfaction here. It should be allowed to wind up its business and clear out of the place, or else it should be given the same privileges as the Continental Tyre Company. One reason for the Continental Tyre Company being allowed to remain open was, I think, that if it were closed a large number of employees would be thrown out of work. That is a fair reason, no doubt; but the same reason can be alleged for the Polack Tyre Company. The Continental Tyre Company is not a manufacturing firm. It simply imported a huge quantity of india-rubber goods before the war, and all I can say is that if the directors did not anticipate the war, they certainly stocked up to an extent that they had never done before. Then, because they had such large stocks, they have been allowed to dispose of the goods to prevent deterioration. What did the Germans do with regard to British firms with places of business in Germany and Austria? They compelled them to go on with their business, employ the whole of their men and to pay them, although they had no market for their products&#39;. They had to continue in this way, until finally they were compelled under financial pressure to close up altogether. I am not complaining of the treatment meted out to British firms in Germany, but I say that it should open our eyes to the position here, and prompt us to take effective action to deal with enemy firms. We are allowing the Continental Tyre Company to do business to the detriment of these colonial firms that are quite prepared to manufacture all the india-rubber goods required for the Defence Department and for private use. Melbourne and Sydney manufacturers should be protected, and the Continental Tyre Company closed up. These local firms are prepared to employ more men than would be thrown out of employment by the closing of the Continental Tyre Company. </para>
        <para class="block">Customers who used to rely upon the Continental Tyre Company for goods have been patriotic enough to transfer their patronage to the Australian firms. All the German firms should be treated in the same manner by the Government, and be closed up until this war is over. I wish to read an extract from a Melbourne newspaper, from a London correspondent writing under date 15th July- </para>
        <para>Since August the Australian prospects have encouraged English tyre manufacturers to give this market considerable attention, and in the near future at least one English company may open a factory in Australia. A decision will rest, I am informed, on the attitude of the Federal Government towards the Continental Rubber Company. &#39;If this concern is permitted to start manufacturing in Australia, the English company will not, because there is insufficient trade available. As &#163;4,997 out of every &#163; 5,000 of profit made &#39;by the Continental Rubber Company will go to German shareholders in Germany, those who desire to retain trade within the Empire . are hopeful of yet being able to secure the sympathy of the Federal Government to attain this object. </para>
        <para class="block">There is no necessity for us to rely upon the German firms at all for the supply of this class of goods&#39;, and if an opportunity were given, the English manufacturing firms would become established in Australia. I hope the Minister will bring this matter more clearly under the notice of the Attorney-General, who complained that he did not know the name of any rubber firm that had been closed. The Polack Tyre Company, as I have stated, has been closed. It is keeping its hands on from week to week in the hope that it will be treated in the same manner as the Continental Tyre Company. I trust my remarks will not be taken as unjust criticism. I simply want something done for the Australian workmen, and for the benefit of those who desire to render service to their own country. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6454</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JYX</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I desire to congratulate the Minister of Defence on the excellent speech he made yesterday in reply to the unjust and unfair, and, in some cases, the unmanly, attacks made upon the Department over which he has so capably presided since the Labour Government came into office. I have been sufficiently long in politics to know, when certain moves are made by those in opposition to Labour, that those moves have not been made, as they appear on the surface to be, for patriotic purposes, but have been made for purely party reasons. It is not so long ago since the Leader of the Opposition here, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> through the columns of the newspapers in the capital cities, made a simultaneous attack upon the Defence Department, in respect of which he alleged there were shortcomings regarding the working of the double shift at the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow. I am fairly familiar with newspaperdom, and I ask any honorable senator in this Chamber, or any man in any other part of the Commonwealth, whether he has ever yet been successful in having a letter, no matter how legitimate might have been the reason for its publication, published simultaneously in the principal daily newspapers of all the capital cities of Australia <inline font-style="italic">1</inline></para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6454</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They have never tried it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6454</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They have never tried it, because they knew what the result would have been. This attack on the Defence Department through the columns of those newspapers was made solely for party purposes. The Leader of the Opposition here, who is the ex-Minister of Defence, apparently got some inside information as to what the Department was doing, and intended to do, when the time arrived for two shifts to be worked in the Factory; and then came along at the psychological moment and said - or some of his friends said - that, as the result of this continuous agitation on his part, through party newspapers remember, the Government had been moved to do what the Opposition had been asking them to do for weeks past. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6454</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Do not they call it patriotism ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6454</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes; and they think it pays for political purposes. The people are not slow to distinguish between moves made for truly patriotic purposes and those made in the name of patriotism for party purposes. The double shift business is not heard of today, so our friends make attacks in other directions. We have had members of the Opposition here and in another place making speeches condemning the allowance fixed by the Defence Department for the equipment of nurses accompanying the Expeditionary Forces, and those who are to-day in the Army Medical Service of Australia. But when it was discovered that it was the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, who, as Minister of Defence, was responsible for fixing the allowance for nurses&#39; equipment, the attack weakened. Our friends got upon another track. They thought that the Defence Department under <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> was responsible for the issue of a circular instructing nurses to go to certain firms for their equipment. They thought they were on a right good wicket then. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- So they were, in &#34;bringing the matter forward. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But when they discovered that this circular was not issued by the Minister of Defence or his Department, they said that the firms in question were overcharging the nurses for their equipment. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gardiner</inline> proved last night that the nurses are getting full value for their money. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The nurses do not &#171;ay so. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have had conversations with gentlemen who are cognisant of all the facts, and familiar with the making of such uniforms, and they have told me that the nurses get excellent value for their money. Thanks to the present Minister of Defence, the allowance fixed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> for the equipment of nurses has been increased from &#163;15 to &#163;21. If there is any discredit attaching to the fixing of. an inadequate allowance, it rests upon <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I fixed it on the recommendation of the most experienced matron in Melbourne. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I anticipated that interjection. The honorable senator fixed the allowance on the recommendation of his responsible officer. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I would not take the recommendation of the responsible office* until he  assured  me that he had consulted the most experienced matron in Melbourne. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If that be so, what has the honorable senator to say in reply to the complaints made by all the nurses who were called upon to equip themselves out of the insufficient allowance fixed by him? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I say that the allowance was insufficient. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6455</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then what becomes of the honorable senator&#39;s business capacity? He talked last night of get ting a man into the Defence Department who possessed some business experience and knowledge. If he possessed business experience and capacity, is it not marvellous that the honorable senator did not discover that the allowance for nurses&#39; equipment was insufficient until the nurses had seriously complained of their treatment in this regard ? The honorable senator also told us that the business should be separated from the military side of the Defence Department. He quoted from a report presented to the Senate in May, 1914, and certain recommendations made by General <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Ian</inline> Hamilton. If he is in favour of the adoption of those recommendations now, why did he not give effect to them when he was himself Minister of Defence and in times of peace? He did not attempt to do so even in peace times, and he now makes the serious proposition in a time of war that the present Minister of Defence should give consideration to the matter. Later on, when the war broke out, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> showed his business capacity in more ways than one. We were naturally surprised by the sudden outbreak of the war, and I admit that in the circumstances a man in the position <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> then held was confronted with very grave difficulties. He consulted the heads of the Military and Naval staffs, and when he was told that it would take six months to thoroughly equip and send a Force abroad he asked why it should take such a length of time. According to the statement he made here last night he was told that the main reason was that it would be difficult in the time to secure a sufficient number of horses. The honorable senator said, &#34;Horses! Leave that to me.&#34; He brushed the military men on one side. The matter was left to him, and what did he do? He commissioned a number of agents, amongst them being Dalgety and Company, the New Zealand Loan and Finance Company, and the New Zealand Land and Agency Company, to buy horses in different parts of Australia. They were bought, and they were good buying for those who bought them. If some of the stories told in connexion with the purchase of those horses be true, I should not like to call myself a business man and be associated with such buying. But the horses were bought, and whether sound or unsound, suitable or unsuitable, the military authorities had to take them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Does the honorable senator not think that that reflects as much on the buyer as on the man who had to take them ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes; but if the Defence Department is responsible for the purchase of horses, business methods should be adopted, and such methods were not adopted by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline> I have said that whether sound or unsound, suitable or unsuitable, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> instructions were that the horses should be handed over to the military authorities. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  To do what? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The military authorities had no say as to whether the horses were suitable or unsuitable for their purposes. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is absolutely wrong. They were handed over to the military authorities to accept or reject them as they thought fit. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They had no say in respect of their purchases. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is another matter. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  There were veterinary officers appointed by the Department. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That was afterwards. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The first purchases were made by the firms without veterinary inspection. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  And the horses were forwarded to the depots and then inspected. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But they had then been purchased. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Of course they had, because I was not going to wait six months. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They were purchased by private firms under instructions from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> and after purchase were to undergo an examination. Was that the way in which to do the business ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What have been some of the results of this business deal? Some of the horses have been sold to the zoos and to the bone mills. Horses that were purchased for &#163;16. &#163;15, and &#163;14 were sold for 30s. and &#163;1, and one was sold for five &#34; bob.&#34; This is an example of the marvellous business ability displayed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> when in office. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The honorable senator knows that the horses he is now speak ing of were purchased bv the military authorities, and not by the agents whom I appointed. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They were bought while the honorable senator was in office as Minister of Defence, and he is responsible for their purchase whether they were bought by the firms named or by officers of the Department. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I do not mind the responsibility. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- When officers under <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> do anything wrong that honorable senator is held responsible, but_ <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> would shelter himself behind his officers when he was Minister of Defence. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I do not, but I wish to distinguish between the horses purchased by the private firms I appointed and those purchased under the ordinary military procedure. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is immaterial to the point I am making whether these horses were bought by private firms or by officers of the Department during the time <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> was Minister of Defence. My point is that proper business methods were not followed in connexion with their purchase. There was a woeful lack of system, and the transactions were absolutely disgraceful. When <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> came into office, did he follow the shocking example set by the ex-Minister of Defence? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  No, he did not. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What did he do ? He appointed a responsible officer of his Department and associated with him a duly qualified veterinary surgeon. It was duly announced that on a certain day a military officer, accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, would visit a particular district for the purpose of purchasing horses suitable for the Defence Department. I warrant that as a result of the business ability of the present Minister of Defence, as compared with the lack of it shown by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> thousands of pounds have been saved to the taxpayers of Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Under the present system, could the Department have obtained 8,000 horses in six weeks? That was the problem with which I was confronted. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6456</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I venture to say that, if the present Minister had been in office at the time, even if 16,000 horses had been required within  that period, his resourcefulness is such that he would have obtained them. The reason is that he knows how to go about matters better than does any previous Administrator of the Department. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>A good deal of criticism has been levelled against the Defence Department by &#34;Captain&#34; Cook, &#34;Lieutenant&#34; Millen, and &#34;Private&#34; Orchard. I venture to say that &#34;Private&#34; Orchard, when he made his attack on the Liverpool Camp, was not speaking so much for himself as he was speaking for &#34; Captain &#34; Cook and &#34;Lieutenant&#34; Millen. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- For whom does <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich speak? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> stated that his charges were based on the speech made in this Chamber by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Only one of his charges. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the honorable senator who established the camp at Liverpool, New South Wales? I believe that I am right in saying that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> did. Yet last night he affirmed that if he had remained in office the camp would not have been located at Liverpool. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Nor ought it to remain there to-day. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I like the honorable senator&#39;s method of attempting to escape from an untenable position. He established the camp at Liverpool upon  what he considered was the most suitable site in his State. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I did not consider it a suitable site at the time. But it was the best site then available. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Is New South Wales such a pockethandkerchief State that it was impossible for the honorable senator to get another site ? This kind of fighting does not do the honorable senator any credit. I believe in fair fighting. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This kind of fighting does the honorable senator himself no credit. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Senator Millen</inline>had an opportunity of putting the Defence Department upon a business-like basis. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What opportunity? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Was not the honorable senator Minister of Defence for some time? I propose to give one or two samples of his administration. In peace time, we know that opportunities present themselves which do not arise in time of war. But in peace time and in war time members of the honorable senator&#39;s party are stout champions of the contracting system. Naturally, therefore, the average contractor is an ardent supporter of the honorable senator&#39;s party. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He is fattening more out of the present Government than he did out of any Government which has preceded it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- During the time that the honorable senator was Minister of Defence, the Government of which he was a member had an opportunity of eliminating the contractor. But they did not do it. They are believers in the contract system. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What have the present Government done to eliminate it? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The present Government have eliminated <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton,</inline> who had a contract for the supply of meals at the Instructional School at Broadmeadows. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Who gave that contract to him ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The present Minister of Defence. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- And who cancelled it? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The contract was let by the Commandant, under the authority that he possessed by virtue of the mobilization orders of the Department. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Exactly. That officer let the contract to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton-</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Just as horses were bought in Tasmania. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6457</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But in letting that contract it was specifically laid down that the items on the menu were to be supplied at a stated price, and that certain industrial conditions were to be observed. After <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> had had the contract for a short period, it was discovered that he was not observing the conditions imposed by the Department. He sought to shelter himself behind the Wages Boards. He did not even observe the award of those Boards. The Defence Department, however, insisted that the conditions laid down by it in respect of the Hotel and Caterers Union must be observed. There were complaints, too, that this gentleman was not giving thorough satisfaction in regard to the services at the camp. As a result, the present Minister cancelled the contract, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> was given  &#163;500  compensation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator -Millen.</inline>-  Why should he receive compensation if he was not carrying out the terms of his contract? </para>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That is another matter. My point is that the contracting system, whilst a good one for those who are engaged in it, is a very bad one for the Department which adopts it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  It was very good for <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The present Minister of Defence has eliminated him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  And he has paid him  &#163;500  compensation to do it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  And he has made a profit in doing it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr. Crichton</inline>complained of the cancellation of the contract. In one of his letters he makes this remarkable statement: - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>I would point out that on my contract I was saving the Government &#163;235 for every four weeks on the next lowest tender, or any previous tender, lot by the Defence Department for instructional schools. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">That statement conclusively shows what a good wicket contractors must have been on during past years in regard to contracts entered into by them with the Defence Department. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  If the contract system is so good, why did the Minister give a monopoly to one firm at the Liverpool Camp? The honorable senator might touch on that aspect of the case. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I know nothing about that matter. I am dealing only with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton&#39;s</inline> case. That gentleman held his contract for  58  days, and it had  90  days bo run when it was cancelled. According to his own statement, his expenditure, including wages for those  58  days, was  &#163;1,208.  On that expenditure he claimed that in addition to his tender being  &#163;235  less than the next lowest tender, for every four weeks over which the contract extended, he had made a profit of  &#163;644.  Because of the complaints made by the Hotel and Caterers Union, that he was not observing the conditions of his contract, and because the officers, it was .alleged, were being improperly fed, the Minister for Defence cancelled the contract, and allowed <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> &#163;500 compensation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Why allow him any compensation if he was not observing his contract ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Apparently he had some legal claim. But I wish to tell <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> &#34;that it would have paid the Department to have given <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> &#163;1,000 and to have cancelled his contract. During the time that he held the contract he employed eighteen men, and they were not all unionists. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That was the trouble. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No, the trouble was that they were not all capable men and the service was inefficient. Unionists are efficient workmen. The men employed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> were engaged in the registry offices of this city month by month. They had to pay fees to those registry offices. That was good for the registry offices and also for <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton.</inline> But since the cancellation of the contract the work has been done direct by the Department, which has employed only union men. To-day there are twentyeight men employed where only eighteen were previously employed, and as the result of the cancellation of this contract the following savings have been effected:- February,  &#163;163;  March,  &#163;101;  April,  &#163;125;  and May,  &#163;134.  Thus there has been a total saving effected during four months- </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  But the contractor had only three months to run. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He had ninety days. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The saving in three months has been  &#163;300,  and the Minister paid <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> &#163;500 to effect it. On the honorable senator&#39;s own figures that is the position. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My point is that the system introduced by the Minister of Defence is a payable one. It has resulted in a considerable saving every month since the contract was determined, in addition to which the men are now being properly fed, and we are receiving efficient service. During four months there has been a saving to the Department of  &#163;524.  That is something to the credit of the Minister. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The Minister has paid  &#163;500  in order to save  &#163;300. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6458</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The honorable senator, if he had been in office, would  have  had to let another contract. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> party believe in the contracting system. The Labour party do not believe in it because it is a bad system for the taxpayers of Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then why did the Minister let a contract to one firm only at the Liverpool Camp? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not aware of the conditions which obtain in regard to that contract, nor do I know the conditions of that contract, if it exists. The Minister of Defence is to be complimented on having eliminated, in various directions, the contractor who in years gone by, according to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> Crichton&#39;s  own statement, has made substantial profits in catering and other ways; and, whilst making these huge profits for himself , has failed to recognise what are just industrial conditions for the men he has employed . </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>We are told that these are days for the exercise of economy everywhere, and one of the chief advocates of wholesale economy is the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Age,</inline> which, I admit, has a very large circulation; but I am not yet satisfied that it has much influence, or very many friends. Like the Opposition, it does not know where it stands from day to day. A little while ago the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> said that <inline font-weight="bold">Sir George</inline> Reid&#39;s term of office was about to expire, and, in effect, that it was a good thing that he was not to be re-appointed, because he was a Free Trader, and a strong Protectioninst  was wanted in the position. A little later it said in a leading article that the appointment of a High Commissioner for the Commonwealth should not be a party matter, and the appointee should not be a party man. I fail to see how we could get a Protectionist who was not a party man. The paper also said the man appointed to the position should be able to speak many tongues, and that a man who could speak only one language would be taken as indicative of the intellectuality of the Australian people. The <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> says, also, that all non-productive, public works should cease, including work on the &#34; desert railway,&#34; and on the &#34; bush capital.&#34; I protest against these literary larrikins indulging in such phraseology with regard to Acts of Parliament. Is such a term as the &#34; bush capital &#34; calculated to elevate the people&#39;s mind? Is it calculated to improve the estimation of Australia outside? </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is not very nice language, but it is on a level with &#34; literary larrikins.&#34;- </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-- These Acts have proper titles, and should be called by them. Men should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the names of Acts on our statute-books. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Have you ever called it the &#34; bush capital &#34; ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not think I have, because I have always said that we shall never have a truly national sentiment in Australia until we have a capital city removed from the existing State capitals. The paper also calls the east-west railway a &#34; desert railway.&#34; It is not, and ought not to be, known as such. It should be known by its proper title. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Victorian senators in this Chamber have so called it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I cannot help that. Members of Parliament are privileged to say what they like in Parliament, but I do not know that newspapers should be privileged to say what they like. The <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> claims a larger circulation than any other newspaper in the Commonwealth, and that it finds its way to every part of the globe. What sort of opinion will its readers in other parts of the world form of Australian matters when they see references to the &#39; &#39; desert railway&#34; and the &#34;bush capital,&#34; and read in this organ demands that these works should be stopped ? This newspaper&#39;s opinion is that to stop nonproductive works will be to study true economy. If that proposition holds good, every municipal, State, and Federal undertaking which is not for the moment reproductive should be immediately stopped. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- To stop the transcontinental railway would be the reverse of economy. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6459</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-Such a proposal is sheer madness. On the railway 2,471 persons are directly employed, and, adding the number indirectly employed, we should probably get a total of about 5,000 people who would be adversely affected by the stoppage of the work. There are 650 people directly employed on Federal Capital works, and that number may be multiplied by two or  three to include those indirectly engaged ; so that the stoppage of those two works would mean the displacement of from 8,000 to 10,000 persons. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.</inline>
        </para>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6460</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that the proposition put forward by a certain newspaper for the cessation of works at the Federal Capital and the stopping of construction work on the transcontinental railway would mean the displacement, directly and indirectly, of between 8,000 and 10,000 persons at the very least. When this proposition is seriously suggested we have a perfect right to ask ourselves why it should be put forward in these times. We know that prior to the submission of the Constitution Bill to the people of Australia this newspaper was on the fence, so to speak, in regard to the question of Federation, and also the Constitution itself. It was on the fence watching to see which way things would go, and because the feeling in Victoria was growing stronger and stronger every day in favour of Federation, it came over to the side of the Federalists, and strongly supported the movement. In the Constitution Bill it was specifically laid down that the Federal Capital should be in the State of New South Wales and at least 100 miles removed from the city of Sydney. Any man who knows anything about the Constitution is aware that we cannot alter that provision unless we alter the Constitution itself. Whilst I think that no Constitution should be so framed that it would not be capable of amendment, I would not favour or support a proposition to amend our Constitution to break a bargain which is binding on the people of all the States, and that is in respect of the Capital being in New South Wales. Is it seriously proposed that we shall meet for evermore in the city. of Melbourne? I dare say that it would be to the advantage of a certain newspaper that we should continually meet here. But have we a right, in the interests of the people of Australia, to sit here indefinitely? What earthly reason can be put forth why this Parliament should for evermore assemble in Melbourne? I am a Victorian, and if I were to view this question from a Victorian stand-point I would say, &#34; Stop here for evermore.&#34; My home is here, and is situated within, so to speak, a hop, step, and jump of this building. I know the State of my birth better than I know any other State. But are there not others besides Victorians assembled here ? Is their convenience not to be studied ? Are the wishes of the people of Australia who voted for Federation and for the Capital to be located in New South Wales to be set aside? Certainly not. In accordance with the provision in the Constitution and in compliance with the wishes of a majority of the people of Australia, we chose a site for the Capital, and that is binding on all of us. Having made that choice, what do we propose to do with the site? To look at it - to let it be for all time a white elephant, or to act as business men and make it a profitable proposition? That is what the Government intend to do. There are in progress to-day works which will yield, when the Parliament assembles at the Capital, substantial revenues by way of rentals. The desire of the Government, further, is to centralise Commonwealth activities in the Capital, and before very many years have passed away I am hopeful that it will be a real live city, with a substantial population and activities which will mean the employment of a large army of workmen. As regards the transcontinental railway, there are about 2,500 men directly employed on its construction. Ever since it was seriously proposed to build the line, a certain newspaper did all in its power to prevent men from being returned to the Senate and another place who favoured its construction. I have never wavered in my support to the proposal. I believe that I was the only Victorian to support the Bill authorising a certain expenditure on a preliminary survey. I supported not merely the Survey Bill, but also the Construction Bill. I do not think for a moment that we shall ever have a true Australia until it is crossed by a steel riband from one end to the other. Prior to the construction of the line being commenced, West Australians, although many of them came from Victoria - as a matter of fact, the bulk of them came from the different States - were known by the name of  T&#39;othersiders.  In Australia there should be no  T&#39;othersiders,  but all Australians. The fellows in Western Australia were looked upon as foreigners as compared with the men in the other States, mainly because the latter had&#39; railway communication. The transcontinental railway will link up the east and the west in a truly Federal manner. We talk about expedition. Commercial men speak of an hour&#39;s delay as meaning substantial losses in respect to the delivery of their communications. The transcontinental railway will shorten by probably a couple of days the period for the conveyance of mails between Australia and the old country. Will not expedition in that regard mean something to the people of Australia ? If it is not a payable proposition from the passenger and freight view-point, it is absolutely essential, if we want to adequately defend Australia, that the line should be completed as quickly as possible. The newspaper to which I have referred had the same objection to military expenditure eighteen months anterior to the outbreak of the war. It urged on the taxpayers of Australia the necessity of curtailing military and naval expenditure, and inferentially said that those who favored the continuation of such expenditure here should not be supported. It contended that we were as far removed from war as we were from the millennium, and it said, &#34; Let us get back to sanity.&#34; When the war did break out this newspaper - the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> - got back to sanity, because, since then, we have not heard a word in respect to the curtailment of either military or naval expenditure for the defence of Australia, and to help the defence of the Empire. To stop the works at the Federal Capital, and the building of railways; to tax the poor man&#39;s light, and the drink of teetotallers and others, is the great national policy of this so-called national newspaper. It says, &#34;Stop all the works which you have in hand; sack all the men, women, youths, and girls whom you employ on non-productive undertakings, no matter in what State they may be, and after you have thrown them out of work tax their light and &#39;their tea.&#34; God  knows there is a number of them who cannot pay for any kind of light now. Although there are difficulties in the way of the average man in respect to the cost of living, this newspaper says, &#34; Do not hesitate to tax his light.&#34; The man in the bush who cannot get the electric light or gas light, and who cannot afford an acetylene plant, has to resort to kerosene. That article, we understand, is in the hands of a monopoly. The <inline font-style="italic">Age,</inline> which is apparently concerned about that monopoly, says, &#34; Tax everybody who uses kerosene,&#34; and then comes out with the brilliant idea of taxing tea. It is a wonder that it does not propose to put a tax on all persons who are out after dark. That would be about as sane as a proposal to tax kerosene. According to a return which was obtained a few days ago from the Trade and Customs Department, at my request, a greater quantity of tea was imported into the Commonwealth during 1914-15 than during the preceding financial year. We are told in the return that, according to the importers&#39; invoices, there has been approximately  an increase of Jd. per lb. on the tea imported. We are told by the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> in its financial columns that &#39;certain persons in the tea trade in Australia have bought the crops on all the main plantations in India. The Customs invoices, which ought to be reliable - and if the tea imported has been undervalued the importer should be made to sit up - show approximately an increase of Jd. a lb. Yet we know that a certain brand of tea which I consume in my home - and I think that I consume as much as the next man - has been increased by 3d. per pound. Tea that was ls. 3d. has been increased to ls. 6d., and tea that was sold at ls. 6d. has been increased to ls. 9d., and yet it has been seriously suggested that on top of these increases, which are not legitimate, so far as some merchants are concerned, there should be an additional tax, which will make it almost impossible for some people to get even a cup of tea at the average meal. We know the condition of the labour market in this State. No one regrets more than members of the Labour party the presence of an army of unemployed in any part of Australia. Unfortunately there came upon Australia a drought as severe as any we have ever experienced, and on top of that came the Titanic struggle in which we are at present engaged, which havehad a marked effect on the labour market of the Commonwealth. I do not expect that any State has felt this condition more acutely than Victoria. I read in the paper to which I am referring a paragraph published on Friday last regarding the distress in different parts of the State, particularly at Ballarat, with the conditions of which city Senators </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">McKissock and Barnes are better acquainted than I am. The conditions at Ballarat for some time past have been extremely bad, and I notice that at a meeting at the Trades Hall of the Labour Council in that city on Thursday night last it was stated that during the winter there had been 1,400 families in destitute circumstances in Ballarat, 1,300 of whom resided in Ballarat East. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Fourteen hundred families ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes ; and 1,300 of those families were residing in Ballarat East. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That seems almost incredible. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The report also said that - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>There are still in Ballarat many unemployed miners, tradesmen, and others, and the prospects of the summer, should the war continue, were not regarded as cheering. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">In the&#39; same issue of that paper I read an article headed &#34; Destitution in Melbourne. - Action by the Trades Hall Council.&#34; The following motion was carried unanimously by that body last Thursday night: - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That, in view of the distress and destitution amongst the people, and for other reasons, this council holds that the institution of a Federal destitute pension is imperative, and therefore instructs its executive to organize a deputation to the Prime Minister to urge the case for the immediate legislative recognition of the principle of destitute pensions. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">The mover of the motion said - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>During a visit to Prahran that day he had seen 58 children partaking of soup, and had been informed that it was made from leavings of the military forces. The meat was boiled off the discarded bones, and the bread, which was stale, also came from the same source. The ladies in charge had letters from the teachers of the schools attended by the children that they came to school hungry, and had to sit all the morning in that state. There was also the case of a family within five minutes&#39; walk of that hall, the members of which had to subsist for three months on bread and jam, and when the case was brought under the notice of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Bottomley</inline> he said the husband would have to be placed on a special diet. The man subsequently collapsed at work. Another case was that of a married woman who had to bear the sufferings of motherhood in the most abject conditions, both as regarded food and furniture. Those were only a few of many cases that might be cited to prove that destitution &#171;nd famine were rampant in and around Melbourne, and it was only right that the Federal Government, which had promised so much, should do something to relieve the situation. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">These, I believe, are the absolute facts with regard to the destitution existing in the metropolitan area. As a matter of fact the destitution is wide-spread. This paper says that all Government works should be stopped, notwithstanding the fact that children are going hungry to school, that men collapse at their work, and that women who are in a critical state bordering on motherhood have insufficient food and clothing. I shall be no party to a policy of this kind. I say to the Government, &#34; Go on. Never mind this criticism levelled against you by a paper that never had any love or regard for Labour in politics or the Labour  movement, but which respects Labour only because it fears its strength.&#34; </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Where there is no love a little fear is sometimes necessary. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6462</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This paper has never had any love for the Labour movement. Read the preface to the <inline font-style="italic">Life of David Syme,</inline> written by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Alfred</inline> Deakin. That preface makes it clear that a Government in Victoria was, at the time to which he refers, impossible unless the late David Syme had a say in regard to it3 <inline font-style="italic">personnel.</inline> We know that before the birth of the Labour party men humiliated themselves by going up the stairway at that office, cap in hand, so to speak, and asking, &#34; By your leave, can I get your support in respect of my candidature if I come forward?&#34; Because the Labour party would not stoop to that kind of thing, and because they came into the opeD and fought for the recognition of the rights of labour, as a result of which that party knocked the stuffing out of the so-called Liberal party, we are now told that party government has had its day. Of course party government, their party government, has had its day. When our opponents had this great party newspaper behind them, everything in the garden was lovely. We have party government in Australia to-day as we never had it before, a Government in the interests of the people, and representing a majority of the people, a Government that puts forward a bold and progressive programme that will mean the employment of more and more people, and an increase of happiness and comfort for those who have had too little of it in days gone by. I am not going to say anything more this afternoon except that, so long as the Government continue as they are doing to-day, they will have my undivided support and the support cf every member of the party to which I belong. I urge them not to hesitate to complete the transcontinental railway, And to proceed with the Federal Capital works as speedily as possible, so that in the not far distant future we may see the Government removed from Victoria to the Federal Capital site, where we shall then - provided the Labour party is in power - have a truly national Government in a truly national atmosphere. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6463</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KAO</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WATSON</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I desire to offer a few remarks in regard to our recruiting system. There is no doubt that the State Governments, up to the present, have shown a most zealous spirit in the prosecution of this war, and have done all they could to assist the Defence Department. I have taken some little part in the recruiting campaign, and I have noticed that there are certain difficulties in the way which might be overcome if attention were drawn to them. One of the suggestions I wish to mention is the fact that men who  owing  to faulty teeth have failed to pass the medical test should have an opportunity of getting dental treatment at the camps, so that while the defects are being remedied no time need be lost in their training. Under present regulations, recruits with marked dental caries have to be turned down. If a dental depot could be formed at Camp, the local medical officers could accept these cases, and send them on to the Camp for treatment. While their teeth were being attended to, the recruits could be trained, and the Empire would not lose a lot of good, hard-fighting men. The reason for this suggestion is that a large percentage of bush workers have decayed teeth, and are not in a financial position to have them attended to locally. Speaking generally, it would oust about &#163;3 3s. per man to rectify these defects. These men represent an asset of the nation, and if we can see our way to spend about &#163;200 in equipping and preparing a man to send him to the front, it is not asking too much that we should spend an additional &#163;3 3s. to overcome the physical disabilities of men with defective teeth who are willing to enlist. With regard to the selection of men for the work for which they are best fitted, another suggestion of the recruiting committees of several of the centres I have visited is that, as the local medical officer of a district will usually know most of the men offering in that district, and the kind of work they have been doing, he could roughly draft them into various branches of service, and the military officer in charge of the different units would then have a number of selected men, whose qualifications he could test himself. With regard to the vaccination of recruits, I may mention that, after they are sworn in, recruits at the present time get fourteen days&#39; leave. During that leave they are practically idle, as they are physically unfitted to follow their ordinary avocations. This has been unfavorably commented upon by the recruiting committees, and it is contended that the men should receive pay from the time of their vaccination. Many of the recruits have no money of their own, and to meet such necessitous cases it is suggested that a sum of money should be sent to each local association to cover the expenses of the men. Apart from necessitous cases, it would be well if all recruits were regarded as being entitled to pay from the date of their vaccination. It is considered that the financial arrangements are somewhat unsatisfactory, inasmuch as no adequate provision has been made for meals for recruits on the journey from the local centres to the Camps. It is further suggested that when soldiers are given their final leave they should be granted passes to and from their homes. These are a few suggestions offered, which, if acted upon, would be of great advantage to our recruiting system. In my opinion it is the duty of the Government to see that a systematic effort is made, from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, for the enlistment of as many recruits as possible. Whilst I am not an advocate of conscription at this stage, I think that a step in advance might be taken by the Government by the institution of compulsory drill for all men of military age. It would have a salutary effect upon the whole of the manhood of Australia. If it were adopted, and the necessity arose for every available man being pressed into the service, they would then be qualified to render the service demanded of them. Certain difficulties may present themselves in giving effect to this proposal for the compulsory drill of allmen of military age. I have endeavoured to get into touch with those who understand what would be required to give effect to the proposal. I met a man at Inverell, engaged in the training of recruits, who strongly favours this project. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">Speaking of Inverell, as an instance of what might be done, he mentioned that in that municipality there are about 1,000 men of military age and good physique. At the present time there are only 100 doing drill with the Citizens Rifle Club, and about another 100 in the Australian Light Horse. It is therefore seen that out of the 1,000 men available in Inverell 800 are undergoing no training whatever. Fancy such a state of things being allowed to exist in any town of the enemy country. Doubtless what may be said of Inverell in this connexion would apply with equal force to every town in Australia. If that be so, it is something to be deplored. It may be argued that it would be difficult to secure the necessary instructors, but that difficulty would disappear as the adoption of the system progressed. In the meantime, the Government could make good use of all local officers in the Infantry, Light Horse, and Senior Cadet units, and with the addition of a good staff sergeant-major for each centre and good sergeants and other noncommissioned officers taken from the local units, such could be done until the machinery of the system was got into working order. In order to carry out the proposal successfully, it would be necessary for Government Departments to release from his  duties any officer having the necessary qualifications to assist the military authorities. We might expect that this would be done, as during the present crisis military matters are of paramount consideration. I suggest that every man of military age should, be re- &#34; quired by law to give up four hours per week to compulsory drill - two hours of his own time, and two hours of his employers&#39; time. The services of officers in charge of local military units could be availed of for instruction and organization. Arrangements could be made with Government Departments other than the Defence Department to release from their ordinary callings officers qualified to assist in carrying out the scheme. The <inline font-style="italic">S</inline> expense would not be very heavy, whilst the good that would result from such a scheme properly carried out would be of incalculable advantage to the whole military movement. The effect of the operation of such a scheme would be to educate the people, and especially the men of the Commonwealth, in the immediate need for united action, and it would do away with the urgent necessity for conscription. The difficulties in the way of giving effect to the proposal would be the difficulty of supplying a sufficient number of qualified military instructors, and of rifles for drill and rifle shooting. I have already explained how the first difficulty might be overcome. The second could also be overcome. In all country centres of any size or importance there is a cadet corps, for which a supply of rifles has been provided. Certainly these are not the service rifles, but they are none the less very deadly weapons up to 600 yards, and they would answer very well for the purpose of teaching the various rifle exercises. It is suggested, for instance, that with a supply of about 150 rifles in Inverell, it would be possible to train the 1,000- physically capable men of military age in that town in each week. The rifles could be used by a certain number of men during a certain number of hours, and so the whole number of available men would be given the necessary rifle drill. Every effort should be made to bring to a state of preparedness all the men who later may have to be called upon to bear arms for their King and country. We do not know how long the war will last, but we all realize the nature of the struggle in which we are ^engaged, and everything that can be done to show that we are in deadly earnest about the prosecution of the war to a victorious conclusion should meet with the commendation of all right-thinking men. I offer these remarks believing that we cannot be too diligent in our prosecution of the war, and I sincerely hope that during the forthcoming adjournment a united effort will be made by the Government and by every member of this Parliament to insure that every man capable of rendering military service will come forward to do his duty to King and country. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6464</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K8W</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
            <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I listened with interest to my honorable colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley,</inline> but I must admit that I was astonished at some of the remarks he made. The honorable senator attacked the press, and in common with other honorable senators who have spoken, he is against the cutting down of public expenditure. Every one agrees that it is necessary that we should do all that we can to find employment for our people at a time like the present. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley</inline> told us that there is so much destitution and unemployment in </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">Victoria that the Melbourne Trades Council has met and passed a resolution calling upon the Federal Government to come out and do something. The question is : What are the Federal Government going to do ? It seems to me that if there is anything which they can do to relieve unemployment or distress in any part of Australia it is their duty to do it. I intended to deal with a matter which has been intrusted to me, and in connexion with which I asked a few questions yesterday. However, I shall not deal with it now, except to ask that the papers in connexion with the case of Lieutenant Patterson be laid on the table of the Library, so that I may be able to make myself more familiar with the facts of the case. I do not anticipate that there will be very much time to deal with the matter at present, as I understand that it is proposed that the Senate shall adjourn within a day or two. I was very glad to hear the remarks made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gardiner</inline> last night in dealing with the case of a doctor in Sydney, who has a German name, and was employed at the Liverpool Camp. The Minister said he had no sympathy with attacks upon such men. and that natives of this country should not be penalized in any way if their loyalty and ability cannot be questioned. I agree with those sentiments, and I think the Vice-President of the Executive Council in giving utterance to them was supposed to be voicing the policy of the Government. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In my view the principle involved is one which should be applied all round, and not merely to persons occupying high positions. I wish to mention one or two cases that have come under my own observation. I was informed, in writing, that a native of Queensland, who was in a small Government job worth from &#163;30 to &#163;50 a year in connexion with the Post Office store which he carried on, had been deprived of his employment. I have known this man for a number of years, and I knew his father, who is a magistrate of the Territory, and can sit on the bench with another justice of the peace in Queensland and sentence to a term of imprisonment any person proved before him to have been guilty of a breach of the law. When I received this communication. 1 felt that probably there was some mistake about the matter, and I went to the Post and Telegraph Department, which was the Department concerned. I was told to send in the particulars of the case, and I did so. I mentioned the </para>
        <para>Position of the father, and the fact that <inline font-style="italic">1</inline> had known the family for years, and knew nothing against them. I was told that that made no difference, that there were quite a number of native-born men of German descent occupying similar positions, and that the Defence Department thought it necessary that they should get out of the Service. If this principle is going to be applied in one case, surely it should be applied all round. These persons I claim are entitled to just as much consideration as is the doctor with the German name. In this connexion, I may mention the case of a man with whom I worked for many years, and who waited upon me on the occasion of my last visit to Brisbane. He said, &#34;I think that I am being treated very badly.&#34; I asked him why, and he replied, &#34;I was granted a permit to enable me to go to work, but when I went to the wharf to-day I was told by the boss that the Defence Department has. issued an instruction under which I am not to be employed. I think that is rather rough.&#34; I fancy that he also informed me  that he had two sons at the front, one of whom had taken part in the operations of our Naval Expeditionary Force to New Guinea. He repeated, &#34;I think that I am the victim of very unfair treatment,&#34; to which I replied, &#34;And I think so, too.&#34; Fortunately this man, after he had given&#34; all the information he could to the authorities, was granted a permit under which he was enabled to earn his livelihood. Another man whom I had known for many years also waited upon me. He stated, &#34;I have been told that I am not to go to work.&#34; When I inquired the reason, he said, &#34;They say that I am a German.&#34; Now, the position of that individual was that he was born in one of the free States and his father was killed whilst lighting the Prussians when he himself&#39; was a very small boy. Yet this man received no consideration, and to this day I am not aware whether he has been able to secure a permit to enable him to earn his* living. As a matter of fact, quite a number of persons have surrendered themselves to the authorities with the request that they should be interned, simply because they have been out of employment. I think that the sentiment expressed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council last night is one which should be acted upon more generously. Of course, it may be urged that I am boosting aliens. But I was brought up in a school in which aliens were not boosted. In my earlier years I saw notices posted in shipping offices to the effect that no Britisher need apply for work, simply because persons of other nationalities could be obtained for less wages, and because they would tolerate conditions to which a Britisher would not submit. To my mind, the sentiment uttered by the VicePresident of the Executive&#39; Council is worthy of every consideration. When the war is over I hope that the aliens in our midst will not be able to chide us with having adopted an unwarrantably harsh policy, to which effect was given by a Labour Government. I admit that I was a little surprised at the outburst of the Minister of Defence yesterday in reply to some criticisms of his Department. Speaking for myself, I have never criticised the administration of that Department on the floor of this Chamber. Plenty of evils have been brought under my notice, and I have approached the Minister with a view to securing their rectification. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6466</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Without fireworks. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6466</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Without fireworks. That is the reason why I was rather surprised at the fireworks that we  got from  the Minister. He has charged all and sundry with criticising the administration of his Department. I am inclined to take more and more notice of the statement which was made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> during the course of the first speech that he delivered in the Chamber after the reassembling of Parliament. On that occasion he pointed out that we should be very careful to guard against the growth of militarism in this country, because his experience had shown him that it would practically ride roughshod over everything if it were allowed au opportunity to do so. The way in which the Minister resents criticism is not fair to the members of his own party, or to any honorable senator who makes a suggestion which he thinks will be of value at this crucial time in our history. The honorable gentleman affirmed that those who criticise his Department do so because they desire to get into the limelight. I do not know that honorable senators have any such desire. They could get into a flood of limelight if they wished to do so. The Minister also stated thata great deal of criticism was beinglaunched at our military camps. Is thata matter for wonder ? What is the position in Victoria? We had a camp at Broadmeadows, but on account of the wet weather which prevailed it had to be removed to Seymour. Then an agitation was commenced in favour of the establishment of a military Camp in close proximity to almost every little country town. Why ? Because it was recognised by the* people of each of these towns that it would be a good thing for them on account of the expenditure which would take place there. Was it in response to this agitation that a Camp was established at Broadmeadows, one at Seymour, one at Castlemaine, one at Ballarat, one at Bendigo, and that requests for the establishment of camps are coming from. Warrnambool, Benalla, Kilmore and Hamilton ? At the present time we havea camp at Broadmeadows, another at the Domain, and still another at Royal Park. In fact, there are camps throughout theentire State. Does that mean economy in administration ? I do not think so. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6466</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Minister stated&#39; that the camps had been distributed with a view to stamping out cerebromeningitis. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6466</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The outbreak of cerebro-meningitis was very opportune, but I would remind the honorable senator that contagious diseases have occurred in other places, and that as a result our military camps have not been scattered. It is the old story that the closer one is to the Throne the more consideration he is likely to get. It is just as well to say these things as to think them. Again I ask: &#34;Does the distribution of our military camps make- for economy?&#34; Certainly not. A full staff is required for every one of these camps; otherwise the men cannot be efficiently handled. But how many camps are there in existence in New South Wales ? I only know of two - one at the Agricultural Ground and the other at Liverpool. How many camps are there in each of the other States? One generally. In Brisbane the authorities had to shift the whole camp on one occasion. But they did not break it up and locate one portion of iti in a particular centre, and another portion in another centre. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Would the honorable senator favour the bringing of more men into one Camp with the risk of assisting in the spread of the epidemic? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- When it comes to establishing a dozen military camps in Victoria, obviously the thing is a little bit overdone. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator challenges the distribution of the camps in this State. The Minister gave as the reason for that distribution the outbreak of cerebro-meningitis. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Where did that outbreak originate? I am told that it originated amongst civilians, and that it spread to the Broadmeadows Camp. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If there were an epidemic amongst a lot of sheep, the honorable senator would distribute those sheep. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator TURLEY.</inline>_ If our military camps are split up their cost will be trebled or quadrupled. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Government are acting on the principle that prevention is better than cure. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- And the expense of establishing these camps is borne mainly by the people in the towns adjacent to them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then are we te understand that the action taken by the Government results in economy? If the people of a country town say to the authorities, &#34; There is a piece of ground which you are welcome to use for the purposes of a camp,&#34; does the Assistant Minister mean to tell me that the former pay for the cost of its establishment, and that the authorities have only to send instructors and officers there. I do not believe it. It is only because of the agitation which has been fomented in connexion with this matter that the Government have been prevailed upon to distribute our camps. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What is wrong with that? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My complaint is that it is more expensive. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In what way is it more expensive ? The local people pay for the fitting up of the camps. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does the honorable senator seriously contend that they pay the whole of the cost connected with these Camps? He knows perfectly well that that is not so. Why should they pay it, anyway ? Only because they were making something out of it. It is that circumstance which explains why they desire Camps to be established in their midst. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If they have been established in country centres for health reasons, does the honorable senator object to that? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Must there be a dozen Camps established throughout the State for health reasons ? There has been a case of cerebro-meningitis at Broadmeadows, another at the Camp at Royal Park, a third at Seymour, and still another at Ballarat. How many Camps will it be necessary to establish for health reasons ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- As many as the Department deems necessary. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then it is all right. So long as we have money to burn, well and good. But if the Government have money to burn, I wish they would burn it on the cases mentioned by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley</inline> - on the 1,400 families who are in a state of destitution in Ballarat, and upon persons who are lacking food in this State. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is better to burn money than to burn men. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I see. Something is always happening. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It has been happening. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Certainly. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WATSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Watson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is to prevent things happening that additional military Camps have been established. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6467</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then we are to have a Camp at every little wayside place in Victoria. But when the bill comes in we shall want to know the reason of the enormous expense incurred. Nearly every member of the party who read that part of Judge Rich&#39;s report, which was published in the papers on the allegations made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> got a shock. &#39; I admit I did. I thought the charges were idle rumours that had reached <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard,</inline> and that he had brought them forward in the House for party purposes. I thought probably the whole thing would turn out to be a fiasco, but it did not. After reading the report, I consider that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> was fully justified in making the statements he did, in spite of the rebuttals put forward here by members of our own party. How has criticism generally been received even when it has come from members of our own party ? Last year <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> took pretty well half the night to deal with Captain Onslow&#39;s case, with the result that he was regarded simply as a man who wanted to make trouble. Yet he believed he was right, and was perfectly justified in bringing Captain Onslow&#39;s case up here. That officer went back to the old country, and as soon as the British Government wanted a man to put in charge of one of their newest and best ships they selected him, although he was a man for whom we said we had. no use. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That was under <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> administration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not care whose administration it was under. When things like that go on, any member who knows the facts is perfectly justified in stating them from his place in Parliament, if he believes there is no other way of getting redress. When <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> set forth in this Chamber information which reached him in New South Wales the Minister said he believed that the honorable senator had a vendetta against him, and this simply because the honorable senator did his duty as a representative of his State. It will be a bad thing for any party when criticism dies. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anstey,</inline> who has done more work than most of us in connexion with the establishment and growth of the Labour party, obtained information on certain matters and tried to get redress. He was told that he was all wrong, but he stood up in his place in Parliament and brought up the whole matter. Through that criticism, which has been proved to be fully justified, men who would otherwise be behind prison bars are now at home with their wives and families. Any member, even if he belong to the Labour party, is perfectly justified in trying to get justice for others on the floor of Parliament. If criticism is stifled, no party can remain in vigorous existence, but if we do anything of the sort we are told that we are against the party. , A few years ago it was proposed by the Deakin Government in the Special Duties Bill to impose taxes on tea, kerosene, and other things in order to raise funds to pay old-age pensions, and you, sir, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Stewart</inline> and myself, allied ourselves with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> ex-Senator Clemons, and <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Josiah</inline> Symon against it, because we believed the proposal to be wrong , </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There were more than you five in it. I never voted for tea and kerosene duties. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I did not know the honorable senator was here then. Of course others voted against it, because the proposal was dropped ; but you, sir, know the pressure that was sought to be brought to bear on us at that time. If we three had never done anything else but stop legislation of that description, although it was brought forward ostensibly in the interests of the Labour party, we should have fully justified our existence in this Parliament. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Who brought it forward ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Deakin Government, with the Labour party solidly supporting it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6468</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KOS</name.id>
            <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">HENDERSON, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator HENDERSON</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I did not, for one. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That was five or six years ago, and you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> will remember the methods we had to adopt to defeat that legislation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Was it not the Labour party that suggested a means of raising money to pav old-age pensions ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6468</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That was a good while afterwards. That is one of the reasons why I have always believed that fairly free criticism of the actions of any Government should always be allowed. We hear a great many complaints of the press, and it is quite possible that these are justified. The Minister complains that honorable members take notice of what they see in the press; but the policy of the Government nowadays seems to be more and more to give to the press information which ought to be given first to Parliament, and to the press afterwards. Certainly honorable members are indebted to the newspapers for a great deal of information which they cannot get in any other way. The whole tendency seems to be for Ministers to get to the papers as soon as possible with the information they want sent abroad, instead of bringing it to Parliament. Is the object to prevent criticism of their actions in Parliament? Occasionally we are even able to read in the press reports of the Caucus meetings of our own party, and unfortunately find, in too many instances, that the report is not very far from correct, although it may be a little padded. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6469</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- You do not mean to infer that the press has helped  the Labour  party ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6469</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am saying nothing of the sort. Why should we bother about the press? We are here, not because we have had any support from the press, but because we have beaten it every time we have appealed to the country. Then let the press do what they like; it is a matter of indifference to us. A newspaper is simply an institution belonging to a man who runs it in his own interest, and the interests of those connected with it. If it pretends, as many papers do, to be a. public journal, it must be remembered that there is an awful amount of pretence in this world - unfortunately, a great deal more than there is any necessity for. Every man who reads a newspaper does not always have his opinions formed by what he sees in it. If that were so, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley,</inline> for one, would not be on the floor of this chamber, nor would ex-Senator Trenwith have stayed so long in Parliament. When that gentleman was here, the press had him &#34;set&#34; because he had done something which, in their opinion, was against their particular interests. He was a Labour man, and his advertisement was, &#34; You have heard the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> on Trenwith; come and hear Trenwith on the <inline font-style="italic">Age.&#34;</inline> He had an audience of practically 100,000 people. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6469</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No; about 12,000. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6469</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- At any .rate, he had an enormous crowd to address- one Qf the biggest meetings ever held in Melbourne - and, in spite of the opposition of the <inline font-style="italic">Agc,</inline> his name was right at the top of the list when the numbers went up. Why, then, should we bother about newspapers one way or the other ? If the newspapers in Queensland had not abused us, we should not have succeeded half as well as we did. They treated us as a sort of freak ; but all the time they were advertising us in a manner which we could not possibly have afforded to pay for, and in that way they made the growth of the party in Queensland possible. When we get our own newspapers, I am not at all sure that we shall allow gentlemen on the opposite side in politics to run them. We are not likely to go to those gentlemen for our policy, nor are our writers likely to be so extremely careful in their statements as to the facts and figures and policy of the Opposition generally. Our newspapers will hit out just as hard against them as their newspapers have hit out against us; nor do I say that that will be wrong. It is a pity that press statements have so much weight with members of our party as they appear to have. What brought the Labour party here? The policy which it drafted some years ago, which has been amended at different times, was spread over the length and breadth of the country and advocated from platforms, street corners, and every available point of vantage on every possible opportunity, until at last the people began to believe that it was right. Therefore they supported the candidates of the Labour party and sent them into the State Parliaments, and also sent them here with a majority. But was it altogether our policy which was the means of sending us here? Not at all. lt was the blunders of our opponents, which in very many cases gave us an enormous lift along the road. Why? When they blundered, who made more of the blunders than we did ? You, sir, I and others went out to the people and preached to them about the blunders made by our opponents. The policy we advocated was, &#34;Send us into Parliament and then we shall be able to do better than other men have done.&#34; That is the only reason for our being here with a majority. If we cannot do better than our opponents, then our reason for being here has disappeared. Rut 1 believe that we can do better. Our history proves that we have done a long  way better,  and travelled farther along the road of progress than would have been reached had the other party been allowed to remain on the Treasury benches iD the States and the Commonwealth. It is because of that performance that we are here, and it is of no use to squeal at a little criticism from the other side. We expect criticism and misrepresentation; in fact, we expect, everything from our opponents which is likely to prevent us from retaining the position we occupy to-day, or obtaining an accession of strength at any time. It is of no ase to make a noise about the conduct of our opponents. So long as we can prove to the people that we are carrying out the policy on which we were elected, that we are doing things in their interest better than they would be done by the other side, we shall be on pretty safe ground. There is no need to say that members of the party should be altogether tied down in criticism, and should not he able to say whether they think that members of their own Government are doing right or wrong. Freedom ! It is a safety-valve for a Government to allow freedom of criticism on the floor of Parliament, at party meetings, or anywhere else. When a party becomes so hide-bound that its members will not be able to express an opinion outside that which is held by the Ministry, the party will be in a very bad way. All that I ask, all that I have ever asked, is that the Labour party shall be judged by its actions. I believe that our actions in Parliament and in administration will be such that we shall not need to care about criticism in the press. Our own good work will stand to our credit and enable us to retain our position. I am finished, except to put a question to the Minister of Defence, who was not here when I began. Yesterday I asked some questions in connexion with the cass of </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Lieutenant Patterson, and I now ask the Minister whether he will lay on the table of the Library the file of papers bearing on the matter. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6470</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I desire to take this opportunity to refer to a few matters briefly. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turley</inline> made a few remarks about the case of Captain Hughes Onslow and the trouble which ensued between that gentleman and others, members of the Naval Board The honorable senator, perhaps unintentionally, connected the episode with the Administration of which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> was a member. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Turley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I did not connect it with any Administration ; I only said that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> took up the case. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That impression might have been taken from the language which was used. I remember the occasion when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> brought the treatment of Captain Onslow before the Senate. He was justified in what he did, and I was one who, with others, stood by him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turley</inline> was not in the division. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Turley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No; because I had gone to Queensland. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Captain Hughes Onslow criticised very strongly and ably the administration of the Department by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline> It is true that he did not get justice then. He elected to stand by his own words and his own opinions, and went Home. No sooner had he reached the Old Country than, in a time of war, he was appointed to the command of a <inline font-style="italic">sniper-Dreadnought.</inline> That incident showed that the Defence Department of that day, headed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen,</inline> did not know when they had a good man. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turley</inline> referred to another matter which I would like to have cleared up, and that is the attitude which you, sir, he, and others took in connexion with a proposal to tax tea and kerosene. He said that the Deakin Government were i.u power at the time, and that the proposal was solidly supported by the Labour party. I am afraid that he is wrong in his date or his memory. I have been in the Senate since the 21st February, 1907, but I have not yet given a vote or spoken in favour of a tax on tea or kerosene. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8W</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Turley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There was no vote taken on that question. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator said that the proposal was introduced by the Deakin Government, supported by the Labour party, in order to institute old-age pensions. It must have occurred before 1907. The honorable senator said that it occurred five or six years ago. He must be wrong in his recollection, because, so far as my memory serves me, it was the Labour party, under the leadership of the Honorable Andrew Fisher, which brought about the introduction of the invalid and old-age pensions through the medium of the Surplus Revenue Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It was the Labour party under the leadership of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. J.</inline> C. Watson which knocked off the duty on tea. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It was the Labour party, supporting a Deakin Administration, which brought about the scheme of invalid and old-age pensions under the Surplus Revenue Bill, through the instrumentality of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYX</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- As against their proposal to put a tax on tea and kerosene. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6470</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have referred to this matter, so that the atmosphere may be cleared. As regards the report of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Rich on the Liverpool Camp, I do not want to say very much. He has made a report which evidently justifies the allegations or charges made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard.</inline> I was not surprised at the feeling displayed by the Minister of Defence last night. I do not altogether agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turley</inline> when he says that the Minister objected to criticism. I do not think that he does object to fair, honest criticism. I think that, along with others, I am guilty  at times of criticising him and his administration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I never said that I objected. I said that I did not mind criticism. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- So far as I can view the Orchard episode, all that the Minister complained of was that, although he had travelled from Sydney in a railway train with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard,</inline> the latter did not use the opportunity to bring the matter before him as Minister, but chose first to get into the limelight in Parliament, and make a charge there without giving the controlling head of the Department a chance to rectify anything which might have been wrong. That, to my mind, is the mistake which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard</inline> made. I know several members of Parliament - in both branches - who have received complaints about Defence administration in camp and in other ways, but they always had the manliness to go first to the Minister, and if he did not make an attempt to rectify the grievances they were quite justified in ventilating them on the floor of -their chamber. I do not think that the Minister is so far beyond approach that, if asked by an honorable senator from either side, he will not take immediate steps to try to have a legitimate grievance remedied. That is the only thing I have against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Orchard.</inline> He should have given the Minister an opportunity to review the position he had in his mind, without passing him over and getting on to the floor of this House. I believe that all the criticism which the Minister objects to is the criticism of the press. That, I dare say, touches him, but I think that he, like ourselves, ought to realize, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turley</inline> has said, that we are here in spite of the opposition of the press, and that, because of that fact, the press is at times somewhat severe in censure. I have on the notice-paper some questions dealing with the medical aspect of the Defence administration. I do not wish to prejudice the reply, but I suggest that the Minister might see that in the future medical gentlemen who are not members of the medical ring shall get a better deal than they have had in the past. It strikes me very forcibly, after careful inquiry, that the British Medical Association rule the roost at the cost of professional gentlemen as good as any members of that body. A few days ago I asked whether there were any medical men in the Camps in Australia, <inline font-style="italic">en route</inline> to or at the front, who were not members of the British Medical Association, and the Minister&#39;s reply was that there were some, but the full facts were not available. I am under the impression that he has been wrongly informed. I do not think that at present there is a medical man who is not a member of that association in any important position in connexion with our Defence system, either in Camps or at Egypt. A Labour Government ought to be very careful in encouraging such a ring as the British Medical Association. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Preference to unionists. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My honorable friend might as well say, &#34; Give preference to lawyers.&#34; So far as I understand the position, working men combine together to protect themselves, to get higher wages, better hours, and improved conditions of employment; but the object of thi3 particular combine is to protect themselves against a section of their fellow professional men. I have here the names of a number of gentlemen, and I have their permission to give them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Are they members of the doctors&#39; union ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They are not members of the British Medical Association, but they are honorable, reputable men practising their profession in Victoria. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Like a good many non-unionists. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6471</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They are men who are allowed by law to practise their profession here. None of these men has yet received an appointment in the Defence Forces. Let me read their names - <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Arthur</inline> Lynch (Carlton), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Tighe</inline> (South Melbourne), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Young</inline> (Sandringham), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Leger</inline> Erson  (St. Kilda), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. William</inline> Maloney, M.P. (West Melbourne), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Moore</inline> (Kew), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Anderson</inline> (Fitzroy), Drs. Gaunson  and Bett (Prahran), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr.</inline> Hanly  (Brunswick), <inline font-weight="bold">Dr.</inline> Marmaduke  Rose (Melbourne), and <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Barkly</inline> Thompson (Murrumbeena). These men are practising their profession, and I do not see why preference should be given over them to members of the British Medical Association. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6472</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCDOUGALL, Allan</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McDougall</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Preference to unionists. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6472</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not see why this preference should be given in view of the fact that the Medical Staff is being depleted as the result of appointments of prominent- men to the front. The appointment of <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Carty</inline> Salmon is a most remarkable one. I believe he is a member of the British Medical Association, and I am credibly informed that the honorable gentleman has not been in general practice for over twenty years. &#34;We know perfectly . well that he has been a politician more than a doctor during that time, and that he was a  Speaker  of the House of Representatives, and a member of Parliament for many years. I venture to say, therefore, that, the honorable gentleman has not kept pace with the advancement of medical science, and vet he is to be placed in charge of the base hospital in St. Kilda Road, to attend to the returned sick and wounded soldiers. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6472</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But the choice may have been between a gentleman like <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Carty</inline> Salmon and some raw medical students. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6472</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I would impress on the Minister of Defence the fact that there is a wider range for selection from among the young students and doctors who have kept in touch with the advancement of medical science, and  who  to-day are practising their profession in many parts of Australia. I want now to call attention to a matter in connexion with the letter carriers. Recently they went before the Arbitration Court, and during the hearing of that case the representative of the Public Service Commissioner made a statement which I think should not have been made. He charged these men with unfaithfulness in more ways than one, and the matter is of such importance that I intend to read the comments of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers when referring -to that matter. This is a copy of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers&#39; remarks when delivering judgment in the Letter Carriers&#39; case in the Arbitration Court on 8th April - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para> As the award is subject to the disapproval of Parliament, there is one other matter I feel it my unpleasant duty to refer to before 1 read the minutes of my proposed award and to explain why it has not affected my award in any way. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes,</inline>who appeared on behalf of the Commissioner during the hearing of the case, and who, until after- the evidence had closed, conducted his part of the case with fairness and marked ability, at the close of his address on the 26th day of February last made a statement reflecting on letter : carriers generally - as all general charges do - without the slightest justification for it on the evidence before me. The first statement appears on page 1433 of the notes - </para>
          <para>Whilst we have honest, hard-working mon in the ranks of the letter carriers, we have also by far too great a proportion of men whose consciences are fairly elastic, and who do not scruple to rob the Government of valuable time. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">That was a very grave charge to be made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> representing the Public Service Commissioner against a body of - men who were appealing for justice before the Court under the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act. The Judge goes on to say - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>I immediately pointed out that there was no evidence of that.; but <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> persisted in pressing it, adding, &#34; I am expressing the opinion of the Public Service Commissioner as well as my own opinion&#34; (page 1434). </para>
          <para>Later on (page 1435), <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> stated - &#34; We go further than suspect it, because we know it.&#34; </para>
          <para>When <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Dalton</inline> was addressing me (see page 1487) according to the notes <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> said - &#34; I said too great a proportion robbed the Government 5 per cent, to 10 per cent.&#34; </para>
          <para>After full consideration of the charge, I called the parties together on the 3rd of March last, and pointed out that, so far as I could judge, the charge could only have been made to influence me in fixing the hours of labour, stretch of shift, and the salaries to&#39;be paid to letter carriers, and therefore should be withdrawn absolutely or proved or disproved (page 1490 ) . I also asked whether the Honorable the Postmaster -General or the Public Service Commissioner indorsed what <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> had said. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Westhoven</inline> stated the Minister could not agree to the correctness or otherwise of the statement. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes,</inline> on behalf of the Commissioner, said - &#34; The Public Service Commissioner having read the minutes of the proceedings, indorsed the statement made by myself&#34; (page 1491). </para>
          <para>I thereupon adjourned the hearing until the 11th of March to enable the Public Service Commissioner to prove the general charge made, and to allow the letter carriers the opportunity of calling evidence in reply, if necessary. </para>
          <para>On the 11th of March, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> appeared for the Commissioner. I asked what percentage of the letter carriers the Commissioner proposed to prove were guilty of the charge. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> said (page 1494), &#34;I do not propose to prove any percentage, but to prove there was ample justification for the opinion held by the Commissioner.&#34; I then asked whether I was to disregard any of the evidence given on behalf of the letter carriers because the witnesses were included in the dishonest section. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> answered :  - &#34; That as far as the witnesses were concerned, generally speaking, they were the most reputable of mcn whose evidence was given honestly&#34; (page 1406). <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> said that the only reason why he made the statement was because he was hopeful that, having mentioned the matter, I would be able to see my way in framing my judgment to make some reference to the fact that the statement had been made (page 1495). </para>
          <para>He also stated, that when the evidence to be&#34; submitted was given, he intended to ask me to close my eyes to that evidence (when making my award) . </para>
          <para>I declined to shut my eyes to it; and asked for a statement as to the evidence the Commissioner was in a position to prove, putting it at its worst, giving me the full extent of the evidence available (1509). </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline>then informed me that the evidence he intended to produce would prove that (in addition to verbal cautions or admonitions for wasting time) in three years there had been 100 cases in which men had been found guilty of wasting time, and that was sufficient to justify the opinion the Commissioner had expressed (page 1498). <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> admitted that in these 100 cases the men had been cautioned, fined, or otherwise punished. The general particulars of the different charges were stated when I pressed for them (see page 1509), adding, &#34; that includes all cases in which officers have been charged, have given explanations, and have been dealt with under the Act&#34; (page 1510). <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> referred to the 100 cases as about 7 per cent., I suppose in justification of his vague qualified reference to from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., but the 100 cases were in three years. If he had taken thirty years it would, on the same reasoning, have been 70 per cent., if for forty years, over 90 per cent. What it really amounted to was that thirty-three or thirty-four out of 1,709 letter carriers each year had been found guilty &#34;of some of the offences mentioned; that is, slightly less than 2 per cent, each year; whether they were members of the claimant organization or not was not disclosed. Only one offence was serious enough to be sent to a Board of Inquiry, and the 100 offences included - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Coming late; neglecting to &#39; deliver letters at the end of a round, taking longer over a walk than was necessary; claiming overtime the letter carriers were not justified in making; and an unknown percentage of the 2 per cent, were guilty of the more serious offence of - </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Falsifying the attendance books by making false entries as to the time they started and left off work. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Being found in hotels wasting time on their delivery. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Being found drunk while on delivery. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>I could not find out what percentage of the 2 per cent, had been found guilty of any of the more serious offences, or in &#34;fact of any of the offences. All these had been dealt with and punished ( page 1512). </para>
          <para>In conclusion, I asked (page 1513), &#34;I want to know whether you wish to put in this evidence <inline font-style="italic">or any evidence</inline> with a view of influenc ing me in any way in making an award?&#34; Answer, &#34;No, your Honour, &#38;c.&#34; </para>
          <para>If the evidence referred to had been fully proved, the percentage of offences in any case would not have influenced me in deciding what the innocent 98 per cent, should be awarded, and the fact that the supervision is so strict that letter carriers are cautioned, admonished, fined, and otherwise punished for any act that amounts to neglect of duty and for more serious offences, makes it safe for me to ignore the general charge independent of the fact that the Commissioner did not desire to tender any evidence on that charge with a view to influence my award. </para>
          <para>In making my award, I do so as if no such general charge had been made. Not only was the statement not justified in the slightest by the evidence, but I do not personally think it was justified by the facts the Commissioner later on said he was prepared to submit to the Court. </para>
          <para>General charges are easily made, and necessarily include the innocent and the guilty; I personally detest general charges, because they are unjust every time they are made; there is no chance of disproving them; and I trust that no representative of the Commissioner or the Minister will, in future, in this Court, make any general charge against his fellow officers, or make any comment that is not justified by the evidence he has previously submitted to the Court. In this Court, particularly, where all evidence is received, whether legally admissible or not, comments not justified by the evidence are specially objectionable.&#34; </para>
          <para>In spite of the foregoing remarks of  His  Honour <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers, the Commissioner comes along with a statement which attempts to gloss over the foregoing incident. In our opinion, he even makes the position worse against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Skewes</inline> by upholding him. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">I have only quoted that much of the statement to call attention to the fact that officers of the P.ublic Service who submitted their claims before the Court, should not be accused in this manner by the Commissioner or any representative appointed by him. In view of that statement of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers, the least the Public Service Commissioner can do is to withdraw what he said, and apologize to a body of men who are doing good service for the Commonwealth to-day. In connexion with the report of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anderson</inline> on Postal administration, I venture to say that if the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Postal services had been given effect, there would have been no necessity for his appointment. In the first paragraph of his report, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anderson</inline> pays a very high compliment to the work of that Commission. One of his recommendations is that there should be a board of experts appointed in connexion with the management of the </para>
        <para class="block">Department, and I believe the Government have taken some action in that direction. I think they should go further than they have done, and appoint a Board on the lines of the expert Boards that have been appointed to assist the Minister of Defence. The head of the Defence Department has the advantage of the assistance and advice of a Board of military experts, and the Minister for the Navy has the assistance of a Board, the members of which are experts in naval matters. I think that the PostmasterGeneral should be given the assistance of a Board of men expert in the different branches of work carried on by his Department. The Post and Telegraph machine, as we know it to-day, is too huge for any one man to control. I should like the Minister of Defence, when replying to the debate, to give honorable. senators some idea of the cost of construction of the cruiser <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane,</inline> which is to be launched in a few days&#39; time, the length of time she has been on the stocks, and particularly what it will cost to launch her. Some little time ago we debated here the necessity of constructing a coffer dam to assist in the launching of that vessel. I thought then, as I think now, that if the launching ground, in view of the declivity of the ways, had been properly chosen, there would have been no necessity to expend money on the erection of a coffer dam for the launching, of that vessel. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6474</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Grant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is a good permanent job. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6474</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I understand that the coffer dam is intended only for the launching of this one ship. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6474</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Grant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator is mistaken; it will last about . 4,000 years. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6474</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I was not asking <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> for information. Perhaps the Minister of Defence will say what has been the total cost of the <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane,</inline> the time she has been on the stocks and the cost of launching her, and whether arrangements may not be made to avoid the necessity for the construction of coffer dams for the launching of any of our vessels in future. There is another matter which I should like the Minister to take into consideration during the forthcoming adjournment. I refer to the pay of armourers&#39; assistants, which I have mentioned several times before. The honorable senator has seemed to me to confuse armourers&#39; assistants with artificers&#39; labourers. In connexion with this matter I received the following letter dated 4th June, 1915: - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>I am directed by the Honorable the Minister to inform you that the rates paid by this Department to artificers&#39; labourers are from &#163;146 to &#163;1645s. per annum, whereas under a recent Arbitration Court award, which takes effect from the 1st July next, the rates of pay for labourers in the Post and Telegraph Department are from &#163;1.32 to &#163;144 per annum. </para>
        <para>I have also to state that, in addition to their pay, artificers&#39; labourers arc paid a uniform allowance of &#163;5 per annum, and receive free medical attendance and medicine. </para>
        <para>Yours faithfully, </para>
        <list type="upperalpha-dotted">
          <item label="T.">
            <para>Trumble, Acting Secretary. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">The armourers&#39; assistants to whom I have referred are engaged in the armoury at Perth, but I speak not for them alone, but in the interests of all armourers&#39; assistants employed in the Commonwealth. The award to which I have referred in connexion with this matter, is the award of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the case of the Postal Electricians Union, the members of which were awarded payment as follows by the Court : - </para>
        <para class="block">The minimum wages to be paid per annum to employees of the mechanical sections of the telegraph and telephone branches of the Postal Department, if they are members of the claimant organization, shall be as follows: - </para>
        <para class="block">Mechanics (telegraph or telephone), &#163;168. </para>
        <para class="block">Senior mechanics, &#163;198. </para>
        <para class="block">Foremen mechanics, including foremen mechanics, electric light and power, &#163;228. and so on. The Minister of Defence will see at once from the letter which I have read from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Trumble</inline> that there is some confusion in the Department about the pay of armourers&#39; assistants, and I thinkhe will recognise that an injustice has been done to these men by the Department, though no doubt it has been done unintentionally. These men are practically all-round mechanical engineers. They are able to work any milling machine or lathe, and are required to be able to temper all materials, including bayonets. I do not think that it would be possible to get any man in the Postal Officials Union who could temper a bayonet. I am not saying that the postal electricians receive too much money, but that the armourers&#39; assistants receive too little for the work they are called upon to perform. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6474</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does the honorable senator say that they have to temper bayonets ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6475</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yea, I have seen them doing that work in the armoury at Perth, and it is very skilled work indeed. I venture to say that there are many blacksmiths who would not be able to temper steel of the quality used in bayonets. I wish now to say a word about a contract let to Hudson and Ritchie, of North Fremantle. I find that this firm was given a contract for the construction of locomotive bogies, and they have not been paying the wages which they should pay to their tradesmen, and have not, as they ought to have done, employed boilermakers in connexion with the contract. The State implement works had a similar contract, and they paid the recognised wages to boilermakers who were employed in the construction of these bogies. This private firm next door did not employ boilermakers on their contract at all. When I complained of this to the Minister of Home &#39;Affairs in a letter, I received a reply through him from the Chief Engineer of Commonwealth Railways, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bell,</inline> stating that the firm in question employed at this work a foreman blacksmith, draughtsman, and foreman fitter. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist in connexion with future contracts let by the Commonwealth. We cannot expect a fitter to do a boilermaker^ work, nor can a blacksmith do a boilermaker&#39;s work. The making of the frame above the wheels of the bogie&#34; is boilermaker&#39;s work, and it requires the employment of two boilermakers to knock down the rivets and what is called a &#34; holder on.&#34; This firm had a foreman fitter doing this work, and a draughtsman who should have been engaged in their office instead of <inline font-style="italic">bond fide</inline> boilermakers. I understand that this contract is about completed, but I hope that the Minister of Home Affairs will in future contracts of the same kind stipulate that properlyqualified tradesmen shall be employed upon the work. I may mention that qualified boilermakers apply to this firm in vain for work, because the work at which they should have been employed was being done by the mon I have mentioned. I have to  bring  under the notice of the Department concerned a matter relating to the administration of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. I asked some time ago that there should be laid on the table of the Library the file of papers dealing with the complaint of the  Deputy  Commissioner for Old-age Pensions in Perth against Police-constable Campbell. It appears that this constable was asked to report upon the cases of <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Mary</inline> Ann Paul, Levi Green, and Eli T. Lethbridge. The constable made the necessary inquiries, and in sending in his report for the third time to the  Deputy  Commissioner of Pensions he used these words - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>It is no use following the man up- as you are doing, for the simple reason that, so far as I know, he lias nothing. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Twice the constable reported to the Deputy Commissioner that the man in question had nothing. He told him that, as a constable, he had already tried to execute a warrant of distress against the man, but could get nothing. Still, for the third time, the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions insisted that the constable should follow up this man, and because in his report he used the words I have quoted, the Deputy Commissioner made a complaint against him to the Treasurer as head of the Old-age Pensions Department. On perusing the file I found an extract from the <inline font-style="italic">Sunday Times,</inline> of Western Australia, condemning Constable Campbell because in the exercise of his rights as a man he had tried to secure better treatment from the Police Department of Western Australia. I found also that the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions attempted to buttress his charge against the constable by quoting from the <inline font-style="italic">Sunday Times</inline> matter concerning the constable which had nothing at all to do with the case in which he was himself concerned. I may mention that not only were pensions eventually paid to the three persons to whom I have referred, but as a result of the representations made by Constable Campbell the allowance paid to them per week has been increased. </para>
        <para>I remember one occasion on which the present Minister of Defence, when he was a private member of this Chamber, made a somewhat similar complaint in reference to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Green.</inline> He practically affirmed that that gentleman was not a proper person to fill the office of Public Service Inspector in Western Australia. If this is the way in which he discharges his duty, I most certainly agree that ho is not the right man in the right place. I trust that the Minister will institute an inquiry into this matter, with a view to seeing that in future a constable, after sending in his report, shall not be followed and persecuted in the way that Constable Campbell has been. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6476</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Minister of Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I am. sure that honorable senators will be very glad to learn that the subscription for the first instalment of our war loan has been a pronounced success. The number of applications received is 16,747, and the total amount subscribed is &#163;12,932,410 -a shade less than &#163;13,000,000. It is evident that the banks have supported the loan in the proportion of &#163;5,000,000 to &#163;20,000,000 and have applied for one quarter of the amounts they were prepared to take up. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6476</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Are all the applications in yet? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6476</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The applications from places which are more than one day&#39;s postal distance from the capital centres have yet to come to hand. Later on these will be added to the total. When they are received, the aggregate amount subscribed will be in excess of &#163;13,000,000. In order to show honorable senators the proportion of the total which has been subscribed by the various States, I quote the following figures : - From New South Wales there are 4,750 applications, and the amount subscribed is &#163;5,383,710; from Victoria there are 8,072 applications, and the amount subscribed  is  &#163;5,137,560; from Queensland there are 1,523 applications, and the amount subscribed is &#163;1,007,720; from South Australia there are 1,347 applications, and the amount subscribed is &#163;844,120; from Western Australia there are 456 applications, and the amount subscribed is &#163;206,560; whilst from Tasmania there are 599 applications, and the amount subscribed is &#163;352,740. The island State has certainly covered itself with glory. The public have responded generously, although the launching of an Australian war loan of &#163;5,000,000 was a new experiment, and the Government wish to acknowledge the very great service which the press has rendered in keeping to the front the necessity for applications being made for it. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank has also supplied us with particulars of the principal subscriptions, which shows that the Mutual </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">Life and Citizens&#39; Assurance Company Limited heads the list with a total subscription of &#163;1,000,000. All the banks have subscribed very largely, the Commonwealth Bank itself having subscribed &#163;500,000. I think we can congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the loan has been such a thorough success. I wish now to say a few words in regard to the discussion which has taken place upon this Bill. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Needham</inline> will let me have a proof copy of his speech, I will have inquiry made into the different questions to which he has addressed himself. In regard to my own Department, he has raised a question relating to medical men. I have not yet been able to get an answer to it; but I may tell him that, so far as all appointments to the Expeditionary Forces are concerned, we do not recognise associations any more than we recognise unions. I would not be a party to allowing any association to shut out any person who did not happen to be a member of it, provided, of course, that he was otherwise suitable. I believe it is a fact that some doctors have been appointed to our Expeditionary Forces who are not members of the British Medical Association. But we have to recollect that the overwhelming majority of the doctors in Australia are members of that organization. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Needham</inline> has ventilated the matter relating to armourers&#39; assistants on quite a number of occasions, and I have nothing to add to what I have previously said in that connexion, viz., that, in proportion to the way in which other classes of labour are paid in the Commonwealth Service, those men are not unfairly treated. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6476</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Considering what they do ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6476</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable  senator has a very high opinion of what they are called upon to do ; but I frankly confess that I do not share his view. They have practically to effect little repairs to rifles after they have been issued. When some small thing goes wrong with a rifle, an armourer is called upon to put it right. But in the greater number of cases in which the defect is a serious one,, a new part is put in. Our rifles are made interchangeable. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6476</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Do not  these armourers  have to temper the bayonets t </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6477</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The bayonets are tempered in the factory before they are sent out. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6477</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But if a bayonet gets out of order has it not to be retempered ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6477</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It may be. But no very great amount of skill is required to do that. In regard to the general debate upon the Bill, I have no regret for having adopted the attitude which I did respecting the general criticism which has been directed against the Department and against myself. I do not resent criticism in respect of which I am afforded a fair opportunity of reply, or of rectifying mistakes, which must occur in such a huge Department. Upon the whole, the debate has served to show that the great majority of honorable senators are prepared to extend consideration to the Department in the difficulties with which it is contending. I have to acknowledge that, taken as a whole, the members of this Parliament have extended to me every consideration. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bakhap,</inline> for example, has time after time approached me privately in respect of matters which, if he had followed the example of some other honorable senators, he might have ventilated on the floor of this chamber. But he has first afforded me an opportunity of rectifying any trouble which existed. I know that other honorable senators have, from time to time, had correspondence forwarded to them the mere reading of which would have created a sensation, and would have insured for it a front page in most of the newspapers throughout Australia. But they have preferred to come to me first to ascertain If there was any substance in those statements. After they have heard the departmental explanation they have recognised the other side of the question, and have not thought it necessary to pursue it. The trouble arises from the fact that when allegations are made concerning an occurrence, it may be in a distant State - an occurrence of which the central administration has no knowledge - those allegations go out to the world without being accompanied by any explanation. By the time an explanation is forthcoming the impression has become rooted in the public mind that every statement embodied in the allegations is absolutely correct. I am glad to say that the great majority of the members of this Parliament have first afforded me an op portunity of ascertaining whether there was any substance in the complaints which have reached them. After they have heard the departmental reply - if they have not been satisfied with it - they have brought the matter in which they were interested before Parliament, and criticised the Department for its laxity. But there is a vast difference between that class of criticism and criticism which seems chiefly concerned with scoring political points, and with showing that everything is rotten in the state of Denmark. If this debate leads to a better state of things in the future it will have accomplished some good. My purpose was not to stifle criticism, but to insure that the Department shall be subjected to only that healthy form of criticism which is aimed at assisting the Minister rather than at scoring political points off him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">Bill read a first time. </para>
      </speech>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6477</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6477</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In moving </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">That this Bill be now read a second time, </para>
          <para>I wish to say that it covers the grant of Supply up to the 31st December of the present year. The expenditure provided for in it is the ordinary departmental expenditure which is based upon last year&#39;s Estimates. It contains only two items in the nature of additions to the ordinary expenditure, the first of which is item 20, &#34; War Pensions, &#163;150,000,&#34; whilst the second &#34;relates; to the increased expenditure under th&#39;e various items necessitated by the war. This second increase refers particularly to our Naval Force. Honorable senators will see, therefore, that the Bill, so far as its general principles are concerned, is in accordance with what Parliament has already agreed to. As honorable senators have already assented to the War Pensions Act, I think they will give a ready assent to the vote for the payment of those pensions. The Defence expenditure for war purposes must necessarily show an increase over that of last year, because the number of men we have to clothe and equip is greater, the number of men we have to transport overseas is increasing, and the transport arrangements are becoming more costly. Those facts explain the increase of the votes for those purposes over similar items in last year&#39;s . Estimates. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6478</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The fact that the Bill provides Supply only up to the 31st December means that we shall be called upon to re-assemble in November or December to pass Supply for the new year. The convenience of honorable members has not been consulted in this matter as well as it might have been.  </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6478</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Tlie question of the suspension of the sittings of Parliament is not raised by this Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6478</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I was making only a passing &#39;reference to the matter, but, in deference to your ruling, will proceed no further with it. It is about time we altered our policy radically in regard to the causes which will produce the necessity for paying large sums in war pensions. The Act, as passed, will involve the payment of about &#163;500,000 per annum for the purpose, and the bulk of this will necessarily be paid to dependants of married men. We ought to face the position, and ask ourselves whether we are going to burden this small population with such a heavy pensions bill. About 12,000 of the -men of the Expeditionary Forces are married, which means that to-day about 12,000 homes in the Commonwealth are fatherless, and the dependants of these men will number, roughly, about 60,000. All these will have to be provided for. We have gone in for a liberal system of pensions, as we should, because we are a young, prosperous, and resourceful nation, but even at this eleventh hour we ought to ask ourselves whether we are going to wed ourselves to a stupid mediaeval system such as we appear to be adopting. Any one who stands up in this Chamber to advocate conscription appears to be regarded as an advocate of a policy which is inimical to the best interests of the Commonwealth; but we should not send married men to the front while we have, as the statistics show, about 500,000 single men capable of bearing arms, whose enlistment would mean a tremendous lessening of the pensions bill, and, therefore, of the burden which will rest on the shoulders of the taxpayers. We ought <inline font-style="italic">in</inline> talia heed in time of where we are drifting, and mark out a totally different course from that which we have pursued up to date. In future Supply Bills we shall be called on again and again to vote money for the support of the helpless dependants of .married men who have gone to the front, but who should still be in this country and in their own homes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6478</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator will not be in order in anticipating the debate on a motion which has been already partially discussed and is still on the notice-paper. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6478</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This Bill includes an item of &#163;150,000 for war pensions, and my remarks were particularly directed to the foolish policy so far adopted in that regard. The Government should alter their policy in order to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6478</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARKER, Stephen</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Barker</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Do you object to paying pensions to widows? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6478</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I object to the policy which produces such an extraordinary burden, when, under a saner policy, single men would be sent first. I trust the Government will see that the men to be placed in charge of the arrangements for the transport of our wheat overseas have a thorough knowledge of the business. Their salaries will, of course, be paid out of this Supply, and I see it is stipulated that they are to get a percentage of 5 per cent, for their services. I am hopeful that the Government will select for the purpose men who know their work thoroughly, and will carry it out conscientiously. We shall have an enormous quantity of surplus wheat to dispose of, and the responsibility which will devolve upon those persons will be no child&#39;s play. I trust these words of warning will be taken to heart by the Government, and that they will see that only the best type of men are selected to discharge the duties I have indicated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6478</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7D</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to impress on the Government and the Senate the necessity for economy. So far, I have seen no evidence on the part of the Government of any desire to economize. Our ordinary Estimates are swelling every year. Each Department seems to grow like Jonah &#39;.s gourd, and if the war continues we shall find ourselves in such a financial  position  that we might just as well hand the country over to the Germans for all the good it will be to us. An immense war debt is being piled up, and, side by side with it, we have new enterprises, some useful and some the opposite, being engaged in all over the Commonwealth. The keynote of administration at this juncture must be economy. If we do not economize now, we shall hunger in the here- after, even if we emerge successfully from the war.Young countries, of course, recover very speedily from troubles of this kind; but we in Australia are faced with a trouble which is likely to be more serious than any that has ever happened in the history of any country. The German soldier gets nothing but his sustenance; the French and Italian soldiers are practically in the same position; and the English soldier is very little better off; so that the war costs those countries a very small amount in proportion to what it is going to cost us. Each of our soldiers costs a very large sum, and our war debt is being piled up at such a rate that if the war lasts <inline font-style="italic">two</inline> or three years we shall find ourselves in such a quagmire of debt that the country will be of no use to us. I may have another opportunity of speaking on the subject of the interest that is being paid on the war loan, but at this stage I warn the people that there is ahead of us, if care is not taken, such a time as will impose an unheard-of burden, not only of debt, but of hardship and hunger, on those who will live in Australia in the future. No country, so far as I have been able to read in history, has ever been subjected to the same strain as Australia is to-day. No other country has spent such huge sums upon war. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K22</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Blakey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What about Great Britain ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course, Great Britain has spent very much greater sums on war than Australia has, but has never spent the same sum per head of the population in the same time as we are doing. No other country that I have ever read of has spent in like fashion. I am not advocating that the men who go out to defend our country should do so at the price of the English, German, French, Italian, or Russian soldier. I am merely pointing out the rock ahead, and asking the Government and the Senate to be as careful in the matter of expenditure as possible. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Where is the economy to be made under the present system ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If it is not made now voluntarily, it will have to be made later under compulsion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The system on which we are waging war is excessively expensive. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6479</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Everybody knows that. The Government will say that people must be kept employed, and I quite admit it. I wish to point out to the Senate that if the Government had taken my advice in the past, and broken up land monopoly and established industries by means of Protection, the need for the assistance at the present hour would not be anything like what it is. It will be seen that we are now suffering, much earlier, probably, than many persons ever imagined, for our sins. We are suffering because we did not do the correct thing at the right time, and will suffer more as the days go by. So far as I can see this will never be the same Australia to many of us in our life-time as it has been. I am very doubtful whether even the coming generation and the generation following will see anything like the prosperity, the comfort, and the happiness which have hitherto existed here, and all on account of this unfortunate war and the deplorable want of foresight on the part of the Government of the Commonwealth in not taking measures to establish industries in the towns and to break up land monopoly in the country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">InCommittee:</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 postponed. </para>
          <para>Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Abstract postponed. </para>
          <para>Papuan Oil-fields - Advertising the: Resources of the Commonwealth : Land Settlement - Panama Exposition Commission : <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward</inline> - Defence Administration : Catering Contract - Nurses&#39; Outfit : David Jones Ltd. - Expeditionary Forces . Musketry Training: National Rifle Association : Treatment of Recruits. </para>
          <para>Schedule. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6479</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7D</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - With regard to the vote for the Department of External Affairs, can the&#39; Minister give the Committee some information as to the development of the oilfields in Papua? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6479</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I may state in a general way that the information from Papua is particularly encouraging. We have received a sample of oil in a bottle. It is the real article, and arrangements are now being made for its early use in the Commonwealth by the Federal Government, and afterwards we hope that the supplies will be such as will meet the most sanguine anticipations of those who* for a considerable period have been looking forward to the time when the oil wells in Papua would be reproductive. After the sitting is suspended I shall be pleased to exhibit to any honorable senator a sample of the oil. Every possible effort is being made to produce a marketable commodity at the earliest possible moment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6480</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7D</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Under the head of &#34; Miscellaneous,&#34; I see an item of &#163;1,250 for advertising tlie resources of the Commonwealth, I would not object, as I have said before, to the expenditure of ten times that amount for that purpose if the resources of the Commonwealth were available, but unfortunately for the people of Australia, and probably for the people of GreatBritain and European countries, they are not available. The lands of the country are not available. It is almost impossible to get land anywhere in Australia to-day at anything like a decent price. I take it that the principal object of advertising the resources of the Commonwealth in Europe is to encourage people who will settle on the land to come out here. If that is the case, I ask the Minister to point out where land is to be obtained. My information is that of about 20,000 persons who came out to Victoria recently to settle on the land only about 200 did so. Why? Simply because the great majority of those persons were poor ; they were not capitalists. A man has to be a capitalist who can take up land in Victoria. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Or anywhere else. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Not so much anywhere else. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Even though you gave the land to a man for nothing, if he had no money he would have no chance of success. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have known dozens of persons who took up land without a penny in their pockets, and who to-day are independent. That was not in Victoria, though, nor in New South Wales, but in Queensland, and the only reason they were able to do that was because they got the land for next to nothing. Land cannot be got on the same terms in Victoria. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On what did they live during the time they were waiting for the land to produce a crop ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the honorable senator wants to know the history of those persons I can tell him a little of it. I have known workers to save a little money, take up a piece of country, go and spend their savings on the land, and when the money was exhausted go out and work for a neighbouring squatter or farmer, earn a bit, save a bit, go back to their land, put on more improvements, and so on in that way until they became independent men. That is how it was done in Queensland. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They worked long hours, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6480</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What does it matter whether a man works long hours or short hours, so long as he is working out his own independence ? I have known men who slept during the day and worked in the moonlight. Some honorable senators who sit on cushioned benches here seem to think that life should be nothing but a flower garden. Let me tell them that if they wish to become independent on the land they will have to work late and early, wet and dry, hot and cold, night and day, and all the more in places like Victoria, where land is scarce, and the price is extortionate. I do not by any means defend the system which I have just recounted; I am merely giving the facts, in regard to a large number of men who have settled on the land, in Queensland. Such hardships should not have been imposed on those persons, and would not have been imposed on them but for the folly and the avarice of those who at that period governed the country. I refer to the squatters who, of course, seized all the best country ana drove the unfortunate selector on to the poorest land in almost every district in Queensland. The consequence was, that if he was a man of grit he did what I have said ; otherwise he simply gave the thing up in disgust and became an ordinary labourer or something of that kind. I do not suppose, sir, that I shall be in order in saying very much about land value taxation, or the breaking up of land monopoly, but that it seems to mo is the key of the whole situation. My objection to the voting of this money is that it is asking persons to come out from the Old Country under false representations. The advertisements are nothing but lies from beginning to end. It is a fact, of course, that in Australia we have splendid resources, but what is the good of those resources if they are locked up, and are not available except at the price of a ransom ? What good are they to people who are likely to be induced to come out here from Great Britain under these representations? If the Government will persist in advertising the resources of Australia, their duty is to see that those resources are made available. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The advertising of our resources was stopped long ago. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Why is this item here? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is probably to meet a contract which was entered into. It does not refer to advertising in the future- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is always a reason for anything. In any case, why do not the Government take such steps as will make the resources of Australia available? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is another matter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator STEWART</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- As the Minister tells me that the advertising has been stopped I only desire to say that it is more necessary now than ever it was that the Government should take such steps as will make every acre of land available to the people of the country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6481</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Hitherto I have been a very warm advocate of the reasonable advertising of Australia&#39;s resources, and it does seem to me, situated as we are to-day, with not only the war to face, but at present the unknown consequences of it, that this is one direction in which the Government might fairly stay their hand. The amount of the vote is not large, I admit, but does any one anticipate that if we spent this or a larger sum there would be any result to Australia for the expenditure? Will the purpose be to attract more people here ? That seems unthinkable. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The policy has been stopped by the Department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I was going to ask whether this rate was not set down in order to clear up- accounts of last year, or whether it was intended to continue the policy of advertising our resources. I do think that, in the circumstances -in which we find ourselves, the whole question might require further consideration. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I can assure the honorable senator that advertising has been stopped. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That being the case, I have nothing more to say on the subject. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6481</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Regarding the item under discussion, I want to say that there is a good deal of information that it seems desirable we should have concerning an officer at the head of this particular work of advertising. Notwithstanding the fact that the advertising is a thing of the past for the time being, this officer has received a very substantial increase of salary. I think the amount was &#163;85 a year. I would not like to be positive as to the amount, but I am certain that he did get an increase. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What other duties does that officer discharge? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- As far as I can ascertain, he has not very much to do, and that he is now hunting round for work. I believe he is taking <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Atlee</inline> Hunt&#39;s place. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I can assure . the honorable senator that that is not correct. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If it is only work that the officer wants, I think I can help him out of the difficulty. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is second in charge at the present time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, I understand he is filling <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Atlee</inline> Hunt&#39;s chair, but I do not know what he will do when <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Atlee</inline> Hunt comes back. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Quinlan</inline> is acting for <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hunt,</inline> andthis man is acting for <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Quinlan.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6481</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Seeing that we are supposed to be economizing, and that the work of advertising the resources of. the Commonwealth has been suspended for the time &#39; being, I cannot understand &#34; why this officer should receive an increase in his salary.&#39; This is not the first time that I have brought up a matter in which this particular officer has figured, but, up to the present, I have not received any satisfaction. In fact, I have&#39; had scant courtesy, but that will not prevent me from referring to it again. I do not care about &#34; keelhauling &#34; any particular officer, but when I find that in the Department there are things going &#39; on that require . exposure, </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">I do not intend to remain silent about them. I brought this matter up some time ago in connexion with the External Affairs Department, when I asked a question about the Panama Exposition, and wanted the report from the Commissioner. I also gave some circumstances detailing the unsatisfactory position of the Commission, including the dispute that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> had with the Minister. I indicated on another occasion that this officer was responsible for the whole of that dispute, and misunderstanding. I said that - I bad it on good authority that this officer withheld correspondence from the Commissioner, who really reported to the Minister in ignorance of the fact that certain correspondence had been received. Afterwards, when <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> found out that a mistake had been made, he was manly enough to take the responsibility on his own shoulders. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This recommendation for an increase was made six months before by the Public Service Commissioner. It began on 1st July, 1914. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But it will be interesting to know whether <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie&#39;s statement is correct. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I really cannot speak about that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But before the increase was passed by Parliament, it had to be approved by the Minister, and I say that any officer who could act as that particular officer &#39; did&#39; would have been well treated if he had received a reprimand, and have been allowed to retain his position without getting an increase in salary which placed him over other officers who  previously  were his seniors in the Department. The Government need not think that they are going to cover this matter up, and hide themselves behind any shuffling excuse about <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> sending his report to the Prime Minister instead of the Ministerial head of the External Affairs Department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The increase would not be in the Estimates unless the Minister approved of it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is about time that we got to the bottom of this matter. I asked for the report of the Commissioner to see if there was any reference in it. to the manner in which he was misled by this officer. If we are going to allow a thing of this sort to be done, and then reward the responsible officer with an increase of salary, every man in the Department will be encour aged to do as he likes, and defy Parliament or anybody else. I can assure the Government that I am not going to allow this matter to drop, but I will keep at it until I get the report. The man was determined he would have his trip to America, and, by concealing correspondence that he ought to have reported, he not only got it, but he also received 25s. as travelling expenses. The report by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Niel</inline> Nielsen, declaring that the Exposition was only going to be an ordinary American show, without any international significance whatever, and that Australia could very well stand out, was suppressed by this individual until it was too late to stop the project. The Committee will see. therefore, that I have some ground for taking exception to this item, and I can assure the Government that if I do not get the information I want now, J shall return to the matter on some other occasion . </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6482</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The only reason, in my opinion, that would justify the Government in spending money in advertising the Commonwealth would be the offering of inducements to people to settle here. If they were advertising the resources of Papua, or the Northern Territory, or Norfolk Island, there might not be so much exception to the expenditure, but I have yet to learn that the Commonwealth are in a position to offer even one square yard of land to any one who may choose to come out to settle in this country in response to their advertisements. I have seen a good number of these advertisements at various times and in different places, and, in my opinion, not one of them puts the position properly before the people they seek to bring here. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This is the External Affairs Department. Do you mean to say that they have no land to offer in the Northern Territory or Papua? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If this expenditure were applied to advertising the resources of the Northern Territory or. Papua, there might be some reason for it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is not limited to that, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Russell</inline> knows. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes; but the honorable senator said that the Department had no land in Australia. That is hardly correct. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6482</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Apart from the Northern Territory or Papua, I do not  know where there is any land that the Commonwealth can offer to prospective settlers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  We have some at Canberra. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But that should not require advertising so far as British people are concerned. I am entirely opposed to any expenditure for this purpose, and, if I am iu order, I intend to move that it be a request that the item be disallowed. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the Minister, I will take that course. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6483</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I simply rise to say that, as far as the Advertising Branch of the External Affairs Department is concerned, the Government for the time being intend to let that matter stand over. Owing to the lateness of the hour at which this subject was brought up, I have not had time to get the full facts from the Department, but I am perfectly satisfied, from the general knowledge I have of what is taking place, that this item refers to expenditure incurred in finishing up the work that has been carried on for a considerable period. If, as a representative of the Government, I say it is not the policy to continue advertising, and that we are not asking for money on that account, I think that should satisfy honorable senators. I do say that now. With regard to the matter mentioned by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie I feel somewhat at a disadvantage. Probably the Committee will say that I ought not to be at a disadvantage, but I think, from the way <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie spoke, that he must know considerably more about <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward</inline> than any one else. When I interjected that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward,</inline> had work to do here, I happened to know that, because of the public statement made by the Minister. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward</inline> was brought back from America because the Department had become shorthanded on account pf one or two enlistments. That was the reason that he was brought back. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JU7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
                <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  And something else. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not know what the &#34; something else &#34; ref erred to is. I know the reason which was given by the Minister of External Affairs in another place, and I say that this officer was brought back from America because his services were required here. There may be something in what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie has said about the suppression of information. I would not take upon myself the responsibility, without being perfectly sure of my ground, of contradicting any statement made by an honorable senator. Immediately the statement to which I have referred was made, I endeavoured to get into touch with the Minister of External Affairs, but was unable to do so. I have no reason to doubt that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie has what he considers good ground for the statement he has made, but I cannot accept it as true merely because it has been made. The explanation must rest with the Minister who has charge of the Department concerned. That is all that I can say on the matter at this stage. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6483</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I suggest that, for the credit of the Government and the Minister of External Affairs, as well as in fairness to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward, Mr. Deakin,</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie, this matter should not be allowed to rest where it is. I know nothing about the proposal to increase the salary of the officer. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There is no increase this year; the increase was. given last year. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6483</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In any case, I know of nothing which would justify me in adversely criticising that increase. Ministers invariably find that they have officers whose services are not quite sufficiently remunerated. They are under constant restraint to suppress a tendency in their minds to increase the salaries of the higher paid officers of their Department. I am disposed to think that an officer recommended for an increase has generally, by special capacity or hard work, justified the action of his Minister. But <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie has made a statement which is full of gravity. He lias charged a member of the Public Service with having suppressed correspondence which ought to have been brought under the notice of his chief. As a result of that suppression, a misunderstanding which had some public notoriety arose. A public officer who suppresses information, and allows his chief to take a course of action which might have been modified or altered if he had had the knowledge which was suppressed, has laid himself open to a very serious charge indeed. I do not hesitate to say that an officer who would .do that is not entitled to remain in the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6484</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Russell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Not for five minutes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6484</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie having made the statement, I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council must go further than he proposes to go. The honorable senator proposes to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister of External Affairs, and to leave to him the duty of replying to the charge. But the Senate is entitled to a reply delivered in this Chamber. It is the duty of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, as the representative in the Senate of the Minister of External Affairs, to obtain a reply to the statement made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie, and bring it to the Senate. It is understood that the Senate will adjourn to-morrow, and I suggest that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gardiner</inline> should undertake to make a statement on the subject on the motion for the adjournment, or at some other convenient opportunity, which will afford the Senate the information it is entitled to have. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6484</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the  Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I recognise that I did not make myself sufficiently clear, and that there is very much in what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Charges having been made in the Senate, a reply to them should be given here. That is a perfectly sound and logical position for the honorable senator to take up. I tried to make it clear that, knowing <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie as I do, I recognised that he would not make the statement he did unless upon what he regarded as good grounds. I am prepared to bring the debate in connexion with the matter under the notice of the Minister of External Affairs, .and personally I am anxious only that&#39; I shall not fall short in my duty to the Senate. I have no wish to be relieved of the obligation to answer the charge in this Chamber. I am willing to accept <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> suggestion, a.nd I add to my promise to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie that if I have the necessary information in time I shall give the explanation of the Minister of External Affairs to honorable senators before the Senate rises for the proposed adjournment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6484</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In view of the statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council that the vote for advertising the Commonwealth is the closing vote in connexion with the business, I shall not submit the request I proposed to move. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6484</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In connexion withe the Department of Defence, I wish to direct attention to a trifling vote of &#163;12,000,000 for the Expeditionary Forces. My object is to refer to some of the methods by which this money is being expended. At an earlier stage of the Bill we had some discussion as to whether business methods were being adopted by the Defence Department. Some examples were brought forward to illustrate what a keen businesslike Department it is. I want to show that some of this money is, in my judgment, scandalously wasted. I take the case of the Crichton contract. It was alleged that this affords evidence of great business capacity, and of the money-saving appliances of the Department. It has been said that the contract was cancelled because it was carried out in an unsatisfactory way. What are the facts of the case? I do not want to raise the question of a contract as against direct dealing by the Department, but it is worthy of note that in this case tenders were never invited. A letter was addressed to five firms inviting them to submit quotations. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6484</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- By whom? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6484</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- By <inline font-weight="bold">Major Dowse.</inline> I am reminded of an interjection which the Minister made yesterday, the purpose of which, I venture to suggest, was to convey the idea that a good deal of the business of the Department is being done, not by military men, but by men who, .although they may have military titles, are not soldiers, or by some Board of outside people. I mention this in order to say that this matter of the Crichton contract was initiated and carried through solely by military men, of whom <inline font-weight="bold">Major Dowse</inline> was one. Acting, of course, upon a general order from his superior officers, he wrote a letter to five different firms. The Department seemed to think that they would get the best results by allowing three days to intervene from the time the letter was sent out to the time they received the quotations. I take no exception to the fact that there  was in this case no advertisement calling for tenders, because in these times of urgency it is not possible to follow the ordinary advertising methods. I refer to the matter to say that this is not a fair case to take to show the failure of Hip contract system, because in connexion with it the ordinary methods of the contract -system could not be observed. The Department wrote their letter on the 11th of the month, and gave the people to whom they wrote only until the 13th to submit their quotations. It- is extremely doubtful that the firms in question received the letter on the day on which it was posted, but even if they did that gave them only three days in which to prepare their estimates and submit their quotations. There was not in the letter a single word &#60;as to any agreement existing between the Defence Department and the Caterers Union. Nothing was said about that, nor was there a word said about the -amount of money the Department was required to find, in order to furnish a plant. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley</inline> has endeavoured to make it appear that the Defence Department derived some financial advantage from it, but he should remember that some allowance should be made for the fact that the Department had to find the money necessary to provide a plant. The officers, in putting their recommendations before the Minister, estimated the cost of the plant at &#163;100. The Minister no sooner signed the document than they found that they <inline font-style="italic">hai.</inline> overlooked the most important item, and that was a stove, which was to cost &#163;45. They had, therefore, to seek supplementary authority for the purchase of that article, so that the Department had to find &#163;145 before it could start business on its own account. Passing from that incident, what I wish to emphasize is, that in spite of the statement which was made here to-day that this contract was being carried out in a way that failed to give satisfaction to the authorities,  the official documents show that the contractor was performing his work efficiently. Colonel Tivey, the principal instructor at this school of instruction, evidently felt that something was wrong, because he took the quite unusual course - after the Min- ister had decided to cancel the contract - of forwarding to the Department the following minute, under date 18th January of the present year - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Attention is invited to the fact that the catering for both No. 1 and 2 schools has been entirely satisfactory, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> Crichton&#39;s  charges are lower than any previous tenders for many years. A thoroughly efficient staff and plant is provided, and it is suggested that the question of terminating this contract be given a second consideration. </para>
          <para class="block">To-day we were told that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> was carrying out his contract unsatisfactorily, and that that was the principal reason for its determination. Let us see what  Colonel &#34;Wallace,  under date 10th March last, had to say about the matter - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There has been no complaint whatever against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> from the Department in regard to the manner in which he carried out his contract, and the inference taken from the Minister&#39;s memorandum, dated 8th December, 1914, was that he was desirous of having the contract terminated, and the work carried out by the Department itself, in order that members of the union above referred to could be engaged direct by the Department. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">If I can read plain language, that means that the Commandant had formed the opinion that the Minister desired to cancel the contract in order that the work might be given to members of the union which had made representations to him. I cannot help thinking that in this matter the Commandant himself was a little to blame, for it appears to me that he made his recommendation to the Minister because he thought that the Minister desired to cancel the contract. Apart from inference, however, it is clear that the State Commandant alleges that there was no fault to find with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> for the way in which he was carrying out his contract. But evidently the Commandant had formed the opinion that the Minister wished to terminate the contract in order that the work might be given to members of the Hotel and Caterers&#39; Union. With a view of showing that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> was regarded by the Department itself as a satisfactory contractor, I propose to read the following letter, which was forwarded to him by the Department, under date 12th February of this year - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>With reference to your letter of the 4th inst., I have to inform you that inquiries have been made, but no tenders for catering are likely to be invited at present. Instructions have been issued, however, that you are to be afforded an opportunity of tendering when quotations arc being called for. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Now, if he had been carrying out his contract in an unsatisfactory way, the Department would surely never have told him that in connexion with future tenders he would be given an opportunity of tendering. The only person who appears to have been dissatisfied with the manner in which he carried out his contract was the Minister himself, and he, in turn, appears to have been  influenced  by the  members of the union. Subsequently, this matter reached the hands of Crichton&#39;s solicitors, who referred it to the Department. The Department then sent it on to the Crown Solicitor, who wrote, under date 16th April, 1915- </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Such contract having been terminated by the Department without any default on the part of the contractor, he is, in my opinion, legally entitled to such damages as would compensate him for any loss he has thereby sustained. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It is quite clear that there is a complete chain of evidence that Crichton was in no way to blame. The Crown Solicitor, following up the reports of the officers whom I have quoted, stated that the Department had terminated the contract without any default on the part of the contractor, who was therefore entitled to be paid compensation. Having arrived at this pass, the Minister of Defence, with a desire to wash his hands of the whole business, wrote the following minute to the secretary of his Department, under date 24th April last- </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Request that Attorney-General&#39;s Department take this  matter  up  to  arrange  best  terms possible. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Here  i3  an evidence of the business incapacity of which I complained this morning. In order to suit his own party, or the members of a union, the Minister came along, without any legal justification, and cancelled the contract which he himself had accepted.- </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6486</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is not correct. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6486</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the honorable gentleman did not accept it, who did? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6486</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Produce my approval of the contract. I said this morning that the Commandant accepted the contract under the general authority that he possessed to accept contracts without reference to the Minister. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6486</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Minister cancelled the contract without first looking into his legal position. After having cancelled it, he handed it over to the Crown Solicitor for the latter to make the best terms possible in the circumstances. The Crown Solicitor in dealing with it said, under date 5t&#39;h July last - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>In the absence of any evidence to show that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton&#39;s</inline> claim is excessive, I think it would be unwise to allow the matter to <inline font-style="italic">he</inline> taken  to Court, and I therefore recommend t&#39;-at the claim bo settled by payment of &#163;f.lO 10s. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Honorable senators with any knowledge of legal gentlemen will know what the odd ten guineas represent. The Minister of Defence accepted the recommendation of the Crown Solicitor. Then <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher,</inline> the Prime Minister, summed  up  his opinion of this transaction in  the  following minute - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>This should not have occurred; but there is now nothing better to do than to approve the Crown Solicitor&#39;s recommendation. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I venture to say that the transaction does not reflect very great credit upon the business capacity of the Defence Department. The Minister has stated that  he  did not accept the tender of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton.</inline> As a matter of fact, I believe that  no  contract was actually signed. But the contract having been made, without looking into the legal position at all, and merely urged on by the members of the Hotel and Caterers&#39; Union, the Minister cancelled it, although it would have terminated in three more months, and then found that he was called upon to ask the public to pay &#163;500 to make good the  default  for which he himself was responsible. I can understand the desire of my honorable friends opposite to see the daylabour system adopted in preference  to  the contract system. But seeing that this contract had only three months  to  run, and that it was being satisfactorily carried out, the wise course would have been to allow it to expire, and then to have introduced a new system. But the Minister was not prepared to do that. He cancelled the contract, found himself in a difficulty, threw that difficulty  on  to the Attorney-General&#39;s Department  to  make the best terms possible in the circumstances, and then had placed upon record a condemnatory minute by his chief that this thing ought not to have occurred. No &#39; explanation can wipe away that minute - a minute written by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher,</inline> his chief, and his old political associate. If the Prime Minister had any bias in the matter at  all  it would most naturally be in favour of his colleague, the Minister of Defence. Yet he was compelled by the outrageous character of this transaction to place  on  record the fact that it ought not to have occurred. Of course, the Minister of Defence may urge that the contractor was not paying the scale of wages approved by agreement between the Department and the Caterers&#39; Union. Whether that be so or not, he had still  to  stand by the terms of the contract. If when that contract was made it was not stipulated that the wages paid should be in accordance with the scale to which I have referred, the fault was that of the officers, and not of the contractor. Before cancelling the contract, it was incumbent upon the Minister to ascertain what was his legal position. All the papers, I repeat, show conclusively that the contractor was faithfully discharging his duty. But because the Minister failed to ascertain his legal position before determining this contract, the country has been called upon to pay quite unnecessarily the sum of  &#163;500.  I have brought up this matter because particular reference was made to it to-day for the purpose of indicating the contrast which exists between the business methods which prevail in the Department now and those which existed whilst  I wa3  at the head of  it.  There is the position, and  I  am content to leave it at that.  I  want nothing more than <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher&#39;s</inline> minute as a justification for the strong condemnation in which  I  have indulged regarding this transaction. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6487</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I  wish to say a few words in reference to this Crichton contract. In the first place, it was a contract made under the general authority issued to Commandants in the mobilization orders at the time <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> was in office. They were then empowered to accept contracts without reference to the Contracts Branch  of  the central administration, or to the Minister. Under that authority the District Head-Quarters in Victoria called for quotations for the catering at this Camp, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> being the lowest tenderer, was given the contract without any reference to me. After he had obtained the contract, a series of complaints was made by the union representing the men employed in this industry, to the effect that he was not paying the rate which the Department had, in a written agreement with that union, consented to pay for labour employed at the Camp. These representations were made not once, but many times. Associated with them was a number of other complaints as to the way in which Crichton engaged hia labour, and as to the class of labour that he employed. Now, it is the policy  of  the Government to insure that proper labour conditions are observed in the carrying out of its contracts as well as in connexion with labour directly employed by it. When these complaints were made the contract was  first  brought under my notice. I then found that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> held that he was only obliged to pay the rates which were laid down by the Wages Board in connexion with restaurants in the city. Now, it must be remembered that these military camps are located outside the. city, and that men employed at them have to travel from . their bornes some distance to their work. They have to be there very early in the morning, and to remain late at night. Consequently what might be a fair wage in a restaurant in the city would probably be an unfair wage at a military camp some distance outside of the city. Recognising that fact, the Department had agreed with the union that a higher rate of wages should be paid to the cooks employed in the Camp than is paid under the Wages Board to employees in a city restaurant. I was faced with the position that I would have to allow the contract to continue, with this unfair rate of wages, side by side with a system under which the Department was carrying on the same work itself, for we had at that time commenced a system of doing our own catering direct, without any contractor. We should thus have had two classes of men, one employed by the Department getting a higher rate of wages, and the other getting a lower rate from the contractor. That being the case, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> not agreeing to pay the rate of waged that the Department was paying, I decided, if at all possible, to do with that contract what we had done generally - that is, to do the catering ourselves, and the Commandant rightly interpreted my state of mind. The honorable senator speaks of the inference the Commandant drew, as if there was something mysterious about it; but I am glad to know the Commandant had no difficulty in finding out what was in my mind in that regard. There was no mystery about it. It was a declared policy on my part, not once, but many times, that when we could do things to the best advantage ourselves we should do them. There was, therefore, no clairvoyance necessary on the part of the Commandant. When the Commandant replied to my memorandum to the Secretary for Defence, he recommended that a fortnight&#39;s notice be given to cancel the contract. I naturally assumed, when I saw the Commandant&#39;s  recommendation, that under the conditions of contract it was possible to terminate it by giving a fortnight&#39;s notice, because the Commandant had the papers. I acted on the recommendation, naturally thinking that the Commandant would have turned up the conditions of contract to see whether it was possible, and had satisfied himself that it was. A fortnight&#39;s notice was given. It was only subsequent to that, when the conditions of the contract were submitted to me, that I found it was not possible to cancel it by giving that notice. The honorable senator will see that this was so if he will refer to the file, which he has evidently been -studying so assiduously. I dare say he was quite aware of it all the time, although, with that innocent manner of his, he never referred to it. He will find that it was only after the contract had actually been cancelled that I became aware of the fact that the quotation had been in arbitrary terms for the duration of the camp, or up to a given date, and that, therefore, the Commandant was in error in making the recommendation, because if he had done his duty he would have pointed out to me that it was not possible to terminate the contract because of the terms under which it had been made. I admit that I cancelled the contract, and that the Crown Law officer, when he got the whole of the papers before him, said it could not, and ought not, to have been cancelled, because there was no power to cancel it unless the contractor broke some of the conditions. Those aTe the facts. The effects also are very instructive. The &#163;500 compensation was assessed on the basis of what <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> said he was making out of the contract. I would remind honorable senators that that catering is still going on, and, according to our information, we are carrying it on for &#163;100 per month less than we were paying him, while, according to his own statement, he was making &#163;60 a month cleaT profit, although carrying it out for &#163;235 less than any previous contractor had carried out a similar contract for a given number of men. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton&#39;s</inline> contract had to run on for three months after that, and, on his own showing, he would have made in that time a profit of at least &#163;60 a month, and, according to our experience, probably nearer &#163;160 a month. Yet when it did expire, if the honorable senator&#39;s policy had been continued, there would have been another contract, and probably we should have had a still higher price to pay for provisions, owing to the rise in prices. I venture to say,, therefore, that the country has benefited by the cancellation of the contract, even though it cost &#163;500 to cancel. I admit that a blunder was made in that the Commandant did not draw my attention tothe fact, the papers being in his office, that it could not be cancelled at a fortnight&#39;s notice, but must run for the term. I am, however, quite prepared, apart from that, to bear the responsibility of the cancellation. The honorable senator drew attention to the incident as one of the bad business moves of the Government or the Department, but he himself was a member of a Government which made a present of &#163;5,000 to the Marconi Wireless Company for the cancellation of rights which they were legally advised did&#39; not exist. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Swinburne,</inline> the highest wireless expert in the world, gave a considered opinion - being brought out herefor the purpose - that the Balsillie process did not infringe the Marconi patent, or any other existing system, and, in addition, the Marconi patents expired&#34; shortly after the demand was made. That is what the last Government did just before they went out of office, yet thehonorable senator has the audacity to challenge me with want of business capacity. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6488</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You know you arenot stating the full facts of the case. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6488</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am, and I defy the honorable senator to disprove any oneof them. The late Government gave- &#163;5,000 for rights which would not hold water in any Court. Of course their doing wrong would not justify our doing wrong. I do not plead that as an excuse; but the cancellation of the Crichton contract did no injury to the Commonwealth; in fact, it had good effects, in that we are now carrying out our owncatering much cheaper than <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Crichton</inline> was doing it for us, and axe doing it as well, if not better, than he was doing it, while the men employed are getting a decent rate of wages and proper labour conditions! They do not have <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> par labour registry sharks for the privilege of getting a job. They get the job through the secretary of their union, and do not have to pay him anything for it. That is the advantage that- the country has gained from the cancellation of the contract. I am prepared to put the &#163;500 compensation on one side, and the effects on the other, and. let the country judge which is right. I am now in possession of the following information on the matter of the alleged contract with David Jones Ltd., of Sydney, for nurses&#39; uniforms and equipment : - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In regard to the statement of Messrs. David Jones Limited, that they had had a contract for ten years under Government seal, the managing director of the firm was asked by letter on the 25th ultimo to furnish particulars as to which Government the contract mentioned was entered into with, and the duration of same. </para>
          <para>A reply has not yet boon received from the firm; but the following report has been furnished by the Commandant, 2nd Military District : - </para>
          <para>David Jones have no contract with any Government. They allege arrangement made by them with Matron Gould ten years ago, when they presumed she acted officially. No writing produced. No record this office. Practice appears to have grown up whereby matron directed nurses to David Jones, though no evidence she either derived benefit or had official authority to do so. Gould at the front. Matron  Creal  states she was under the impression that David Jones held a contract, and believes her predecessor, Matron Gould, was under same impression. Ground for this was alleged representation that David Jones had the sealed pattern. Thought this to have meant they had a contract. </para>
          <para>Thus it appears that- the matrons told the nurses to go to the firm, believing that they had a contract, and it seems that some ten years ago there had been something in the nature of a contract or arrangement. As regards the use of riflemen to instruct members of the Australian Infantry Force in musketry, the Com:mandant of the 2nd Military Districtsends the following memorandum: - </para>
          <para>In connexion with my telegram of the 21st inst. to the Minister, in reply to his of the 19th, I have to state that fifteen members of the National Rifle Association were some time ago employed instructing in shooting on the rifle ranges in Sydney, and at the present moment Lieutenant &#93;?. L. Clay, who is a member of the Association, is at Liverpool Camp assisting in Musketry Instruction under <inline font-weight="bold">Major Heritage.</inline> The difficulty I have met with in availing myself of the services of the members of the Association is, that few, if any, can give the necessary instruction as laid down in Musketry Regulations and Circular No. 323 of 2nd August. </para>
          <para>I am now asking the Association if they can supply instructors who are possessed of the necessary qualifications; in addition, the S.O. of Rifle Clubs is ascertaining if any of the members can undertake tire work. </para>
          <para class="block">My authority for saying that the business arrangements of the Defence Department have been largely taken out of the. hands of the military authorities is that, since the removal or cancellation of the mobilization order, all the main expenditure has to be authorized by the Minister, and there is a Contracts Branch in the Department which calls for, receives, and inquires into tenders, and makes recommendations to the Minister. None of the officers of that branch are military men. None of them have been military men. They happen to have military titles, because they are what are called military staff clerks. They have all had a long training in connexion with contracts, and are doing very good work. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Anderson&#39;s</inline> recommendation for the establishment of a Supply and Tender Board is also under consideration. The reason for deferring it has been the splitting up of the Defence Department into two, which would have necessitated, in any case, a re-arrangement of any such Board if it had been constituted previously. As that had been the contemplated system, it was decided to hold over the question of creating a Supply and Tender Board until the division of the two Departments had taken place. I hope, at an early date, to establish a Supply and Tender Board. From the time that that order was cancelled, the letting of contracts, the arranging for contracts, and the recommendations as to contracts have&#39; been practically taken out of the hands of the military, and placed in the hands of civilians associated with the Department. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6489</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South &#34;Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I heard with a great deal of pleasure the announcement which the Minister has just made indicating a tendency in the Department to give effect to a suggestion which is not a new one, and which I ventured to repeat last night, and that is to draw, as far as possible, the business side of the Department away from the military side. I welcome the innovation, because I believe that it is only the first step to that fuller scheme which I feel satisfied circumstances will force the Government, sooner or later, to adopt. With regard to the matter of nurses&#39; uniforms, I take this opportunity of reminding honorable senators of the statement made here last night by the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Vice-President of the Executive Council, who laboured very hard - I do not know whether he was successful or not - in trying to make out that, so far as I was concerned, some imputation had been made against the firm of David Jones and Company. Not a single word which I said in this chamber can bear a construction of that kind. I had no quarrel with David Jones and Company. The point which I brought up, and wanted elucidated, was whether the Government had given to that firm a monopoly. I was in no sense concerned with the fact that the firm had acquired a monopoly, but I was concerned with the Government giving it to them. There was evidence, and it is proved by the statement which the Minister of Defence has just read, that nurses who were selected to join the Expeditionary Forces did receive a circular which had all the appearance of being an official document. It is not denied that a circular was issued, and that it instructed the nurses to go to that firm for their uniforms, although many of them were quite capable of making their own uniforms. The discussion has elicited the fact that the nurses who hitherto acted on the circular, on the assumption that it was official, did go to the firm and buy the uniforms which they were competent to make. In bringing the matter forward here, there was no imputation against the firm, so far as I am concerned, and, what is more, a public service has been rendered inasmuch as nurses know now that they can make their uniforms if they please, or buy them to the best advantage they can. I challenge any honorable senator to find a single word in what I said reflecting on one of the most reputable firms in Sydney. No firm has a right to a monopoly at the hands of this or any other Government. The effect of bringing up this matter here has been to destroy what practically was a monopoly, because, whether there was authority behind the circular or not, it had the effect of driving nach nurse to David Jones and Company to buy her uniform. The Minister of Defence has referred to the matter of the National Rifle Association. What he has read here to-day confirms what I said last night, namely, that, after a good deal of difficulty and trouble, and only after he had re-issued his original in-  structions  - I assume in a more peremptory fashion - the officers in New South Wales attempted to give effect to them. They did not report to the Minister that they had stopped utilizing the services of the members of the National Rifle Association, but directly he re-issued his instructions they proceeded to give effect to them. I ask the Minister to again look into the matter and see whether the conditions that hedge round the communication are equal to or the same as those which apply here. I said last night that the military officer in New South Wales who is pretending to give effect to the Minister&#39;s instructions has surrounded his communication to the Association with such conditions that it is almost impossible for a number of the ordinary men to meet them .. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have looked into that matter and find that the military order regarding musketry, which the honorable senator referred to, has been sent to all the States, and is the same as the one which is being acted on here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I refuse to believe that the riflemen of New South Wales are not able to show the same qualifications as the riflemen of Victoria. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He does not say that, he says that the men who are capable are not offering. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have it from the principal executive officer of the National Rifle Association that if the conditions are adhered to there is no member of the rifle clubs in New South Wales who can meet them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Here they are doing it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is why I wish the Minister to look into the matter again and see whether, in view of the hostility shown to his decision, the officers in New South Wales are not trying to side-track him by surrounding the communication with conditions which are not regarded as essential here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have read the military order which sets out the nature of the instructions given, and I cannot see why a well-trained rifleman should not be able to meet it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6490</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I happen to be unfortunately placed at this moment. I have not brought with me a communication I received from a member cf the </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">National Rifle Association, giving me all the details, but I will take an early opportunity of putting it in the hands of the Minister, and trust that he will make further inquiry and see if there is an attempt to load the conditions unfairly with the view to defeat his own decision. I have brought up here, once or twice, the unsatisfactory nature of the arrangements for recruiting at Sydney. The Minister has referred to my remarks as pinpricks, and has not received them as I had hoped he would do. I cannot stand hers and not speak about things which 1 know are having a deterring effect on recruiting. I want the Minister, in spite of all the official denials he has received, to call for further information. I received to-day the following declaration from a man, over his own signature, which is attested by another person- 24th August, 1015. </para>
          <para>I, Albert Smith, of 05 Albion-street, Annandale, do hereby declare that on Sunday last, the 22nd inst.: I went to Victoria Barracks, Paddington, for the purpose of enlisting, and that, as  there  were no doctors present, I was turned away. </para>
          <para>I further declare that a large number of  others  were also turned away for the same reason, and during the period I was waiting, from 2 o&#39;clock till 2.20, I should estimate that twenty were so treated. </para>
          <para>Recruiting hours distinctly state from 9 till 5, yet I was told that sometimes the doctors are there in the afternoon, and sometimes they are not. </para>
          <para>Albert Smith. </para>
          <para>Witness - Stanley Willmott. </para>
          <para>Once or twice the newspaper paragraphs T have brought forward have made the same declaration, that there were no doctors in attendance, and the  Minister  ref erred to them as coming from unknown Sydney scribes. But here is a declaration from a man, giving dates and hours, and it only confirms what the newspapers have said. I tell the Minister that I bring forward this matter reluctantly, but lie can sea for himself that even the publication of such statements must have a prejudicial influence on recruiting. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6491</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Will you let me have that declaration ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6491</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes; it was sent to me by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gould,</inline> who is unable to be present to-day. I take the view that I am serving recruiting by trying to bring these matters under the notice of the Minister in order that they shall be ramedied  I feel confident thai with the document in his hands he will 3ee that some steps are taken to prevent any cause of complaint in the future. I did not think that the Minister referred to any other matter which excited my special interest. There is another matter connected with Defence, but in view of the hour I will reserve it for a future occasion. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Schedule agreed to. </para>
          <para>Postponed clause 2, abstract, preamble, and title, agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without request; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>OFFICERS&#39; COMPENSATION BILL</title>
        <page.no>6491</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">Assent reported. </para>
      <para class="italic">
        <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 6.2S to S p.ni</inline>
      </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>WAR. CENSUS (POSTAL MATTER) BILL</title>
        <page.no>6491</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6491</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6491</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The measure makes provision for the free postage of war census cards, because it is obvious that the people ought not to be put to the expense of paying postage on them. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATORS&#39; TERM OF SERVICE) BILL</title>
        <page.no>6491</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6491</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6491</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Bill proposes au alteration in section 13 of the Constitution, which deals with the rotation of senators. The term during which senators shall sit is extended from three years to three years and two months as regards the first class of senators, and from six years to six years and four months as regards second-class senators. Senators who were elected during the year 1914 are to be deemed to have commenced their term of service on the 1st October . of that year. Senators elected in 1914 would, therefore, be entitled to sit, as regards the first class, until 1st December, 1917, and, as regards the second class, until 1st February, 1921. A further provision is included in the section by which the term of service of senators elected at the election next after a dissolution of the Senate shall commence from the first day of meeting of the House of Representatives after the dissolution. This Bill has been very much misrepresented before the outside public, and I think a few words of explanation are necessary. The double dissolution left us in the position that, if the Parliament ran its term without a measure of this description being approved of by the people, there would of necessity be two elections - one for the Senate in April or May, and the other for the House of Representatives in October. There was the alternative that we could call upon the House of Representatives to sacrifice six months of their period of &#34; service, in which case, instead of serving three years, as provided for by the Constitution, members of that House would serve for two years and seven months, or for two years and eight months, according to the date of the dissolution. It has been considered wise to extend the term of senators for two months in each period instead of calling upon members of the House of Representatives to sacrifice a large portion of their time, for the simple reason that already they have sacrificed very much by the double dissolution. If the country were put to the expense of two elections instead of one, it would mean an expenditure of about &#163;100,000. I understand that some people are taking exception to this proposal because it is a Referendum Bill, and they say that they are not going to have referenda at a time like the present. The objection to the other referenda Bills is on account of the cost involved, but that objection does not apply to this Bill, because the referendum vote in regard to its proposals will be taken at the same time as that on the other questions which we have taken the responsibility of placing before the people. Therefore no additional expense will be necessary. It is reasonable to ask the people of Australia to avoid, if possible, the expense of two elections. It is not fair to ask members of the House of Representatives to give up 91x month&#39;s of their term in Parliament, and the country generally will approve of the proposal to have the elections for both Houses at the same time. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6492</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- To one remark made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council I take exception, and that is his assertion that the chief objection to the referenda proposals, already assented to by Parliament, was based upon the cost involved. That was not the main objection at all. It was a minor objection. The main&#39; objection was that the proposals will divide the country into two hostile camps. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6492</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That will hardly apply to  this  Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6492</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The main objection taken by the party with which I am associated was not the cost involved in the referenda proposals; we thought the presentation of those questions to the electors at the present time was undesirable, because it would divide the community into two warring camps. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guy</inline> interjected that that objection could hardly be urged against this proposal. I am not speaking about the merits of this Bill at all, but, having objected to the major proposals, dealing with vital matters affecting the Constitution, going to the electors, we would be in an entirely illogical position if we now turned round and said that we thought the present was an opportune time to send to the electors matters which affected our own personal interests. For that reason, I am unable to support this Bill. I would like to say that I do not see any great objection to a proposal to avoid separate elections, for any one who, like myself, has faced several campaigns, must shrink from the prospect of attempting to canvass an enormous State like New South Wales if the Senate elections were held apart from the elections of the House of Representatives. Apart from the fact that the Electoral Act imposes certain financial restrictions upon the expenditure that may be incurred by a candidate, I venture to say that no candidate could do himself justice in a Senate campaign if the interests of the electors were not aroused by the activities consequent upon the election for the other House also. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6492</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYX</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It would cost about four times as much to canvass a State under such circumstances. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6492</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Quite apart from that it would be a heavy undertaking. On one  occasion  I started out with a map and a red pencil, and had a fairly long campaign in front of me. Frequently I spoke at two or three places in a day, and each time I put a red dot on the town that I visited. I thought when I started out that I would have the map pretty .well covered, but when I finished, I was surprised to find how great was the number of places that I was unable to touch at. I venture to say that that is the experience of every honorable senator who has attempted to canvass a big State. Let me now deal with another aspect of the matter. It will be agreed that Senate candidates rely to a great extent upon scrutineers appointed by candidates for the House of Representatives. The polling booths in my own State are numbered by thousands, and if three Senate candidates had to face the responsibility of a campaign in which they would not have the assistance of candidates for the House of Representatives, I think they would be disposed to regard the difficulties in the way as prohibitive. If we take the matter of the renting of halls, I believe that many Senate candidates - and I can certainly speak for myself - avail themselves very frequently of halls secured for addresses by candidates for the House of Representatives. It is a common practice for candidates for both Houses of this Parliament to share halls secured for i heir addresses, and it is followed with advantage to both. I would not protest against separate elections for the two Houses in the interests of candidates alone, because it is in the interests of the electors that the opportunity presented to persons to offer themselves as candidates for Parliament should be as wide as possible. I should view with horror the prospect of having to face a separate election for the Senate. I have, in all the circumstances, no fault to find with a proposal to make the elections for the two Houses synchronize. But this Bill, in trying to cure one evil, seems to me to create another. It is not very long since we altered the Constitution to enable the Federal elections to be held in the autumn. The consensus of opinion of all political parties was that it was desirable in order to meet the convenience of the largest body of electors that they should be held in the autumn rather than in the spring. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the honorable senator will move an amendment to that effect, I will accept it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It could only be done by still further extending the term of this Parliament, or by shortening the term of the House of Representatives. In order to avoid separate elections for each House, we shall, under this Bill, be going back to a period of the year for the holding of our elections which was previously regarded as so objectionable that we went to the length of avoiding it by a constitutional amendment. I think the view is still held by the great majority of electors that the elections should be held in the autumn. We are, in the circumstances, faced with two alternatives. One is to ask the House of Representatives to shorten its term of office in order that the elections may be held as heretofore in the autumn, and the other is to carry the proposal in this Bill to extend the term further than is here proposed, so that the elections would be again held in the autumn. We should, in that case, have to face the prejudice which exists outside against Parliament lengthening its own term of office. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And which the daily newspapers fan. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What I suggest would lengthen the term of one House by twelve months, and of the other by about eight months. Those who support this Bill must do so with their eyes open to the fact that it will take us back to the original position under the Constitution, which was found so objectionable that we appealed to the electors to alter it. Recognising that the holding of the Federal elections in the autumn would meet the convenience of the great body of the electors, and particularly of nomadic workers, the people approved of the proposal. The reason apparent at that time for altering the period of the year during which the elections were held will make itself apparent again under this Bill, and so the passing of this measure may involve a further appeal to the people to bring back the Federal elections again to the autumn. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STORY, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Story</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Why not do that now ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6493</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I suggest to the Government that, as they are determined to put this matter to the people, in order to avoid the possible necessity of a later Bill to amend the Constitution, they should consider the desirability of proposing in this measure a sufficient extension of- the term of both Houses of this </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Parliament to enable us to retain the advantages of the autumn elections, without the disadvantage of having separate elections for each House. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6494</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Let the honorable senator move an amendment to that effect in Committee. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6494</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I doubt verymuch my competency to move an amendment to that effect. Knowing the Constitution and the term for which Parliament is elected, we can understand and appreciate such an amendment; but a person outside would fail to understand it. It is not an easy matter to draft an amendment of the Constitution on the floor of the chamber, and I should hesitate to take the responsibility of doing it. I suggest that, if the Government are disposed to consider my proposal, there is still another day of this session left, and it is possible for them to take this measure to a certain stage, and between to-night and the resumption of business to-morrow they could get their legal advisers to frame an amendment which would give effect to my suggestion. On the previous occasion we did not alter the Constitution to meet the convenience of candidates, but because large bodies of electors were unable, without great inconvenience, to record their vo tea at elections held in the spring. Farmers, farm labourers, and shearers were specially mentioned, and any one with a knowledge of country life must he aware that there were strong reasons for the objection to the period of the year at which Federal elections were previously held. In order to give these classes of electors the opportunity they desired to discharge their electoral duties, we invited the people to alter the Constitution so that the elections might be held in the autumn. Our seasons occur at the same time of the year as before, and the inconvenience to farmers, farm labourers, and shearers of holding elections in the spring will be as great in two or three years&#39; time as it was two or three years ago. Apart from the original objection I have urged against this measure, the difficulty which I have mentioned makes me hesitate to assume that this Bill represents any improvement of the position with which we are now confronted. If the Government are determined to put this matter to the people, I think they should face the whole position, in spite of any little criticism which may be indulged in at the expense of Parliament, which is very often a convenient butt for criticism. If the Government think my view of the matter worthy of consideration, there is no reason why, having carried this measure to a certain stage, they should not consult their legal advisers, and have ah amendment drafted to give effect to the views I have expressed, and which, I believe, are supported by honorable senators generally. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6494</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If we do, will the honorable senator move the amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6494</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- TI lis is a Government measure. The Vice-President of the Executive Council asks the question <inline font-style="italic">aa</inline> though, in some way or another, I would shirk  the  responsibility of moving such an amendment. I have told him that I am not supporting this Bill. If I were supporting it, and it was going to be submitted to the people under other circumstances than those which constitute my chief objection to the measure, I would not shrink from taking the responsibility of moving such an amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6494</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I asked the honorable senator to do only what I have frequently asked other honorable senators to do. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6494</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The remarks which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has made were founded upon common sense.  His  argument is quite strong. If the people, who have the burden of the elections to bear, decided by referendum, as they did some years ago, that they should take place about the month of May, we shall, by agreeing to this Bill as it stands, be ignoring their expressed wish.  I do not think there should be any difficulty in framing an amendment to meet <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> objection to the Bill. If that objection had been expressed by the honorable senator&#39;s colleagues in another place, and if there had been the same frankness displayed there as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has exhibited, I am satisfied that his objection would have been met. We know the extreme difficulty which the electors will find in attending meetings during the months in which the Federal elections will take place under this Bill. The period fixed for the holding of elections under this Bill will play right into the hands of our opponents. I should have thought that the Opposition would accept this measure gladly, because all their hope is in a light poll, and a light poll may be expected if the elections take place in December. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The elections would not take place in December under this Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The term of the House of Representatives will expire on the 8th October, and we think of having the elections in September. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Suppose that they took place in September, I think honorable senators will admit that we should have to face very much graver difficulties than would exist if they took place in May. The chief difficulty with which we should have to contend lies in the fact that the only change which could possibly be made would be an extension of the term of the service for the House of Representatives. What would be the result of that change ? I know what it would be in South Australia. The capitalistic press there would immediately raise a hullabaloo. As a matter of fact, the moment this Bill was mentioned, leading articles were published in one of the daily journals in that State charging the members nf this Parliament with another grab. The extension of the term of service of honorable senators was regarded by that newspaper as an abominable crime, and a considerable quantity of valuable paper and ink was wasted in calling the attention nf the electors to it. Yet I venture to say that the extension for which the Bill provides will prove just as convenient to our political opponents as it will to ourselves. Under its provisions no more will be paid by the people for the period of six years of  parliamentry  service than will be paid under existing conditions. As a matter of fact, there will be no loss whatever, but there will be a decided gain. These same newspapers cannot logically object to the proposed alteration, seeing that the Labour party are not responsible for the muddle which has resulted from the double dissolution. It is difficult to understand upon what valid ground they could be in favour of two separate elections being held - one election for the House of Representatives and another for the Senate - which is the alternative to the proposal that is contained in this Bill. But whilst the measure will confer a modicum of convenience on electors, it is certainly not the convenience for which they asked in regard to the termination of Parliament upon the occasion of the last referenda. There is a good deal of strength, I think, in the contention of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> that sooner or later we shall have to face this problem again. It seems to mc, therefore, that we should take our courage in our hands and give effect to the wish expressed by the electors at the last referenda by making the term of service of the Parliament terminate about the month of April or May. We should thus get back to the  conditions that obtained prior to the double dissolution. Under this Bill we shall be making only a very weak attempt to remedy the evil which was then perpetrated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Under it we shall hold our elections in a different month every three years. They will be like the month of  Ramazan,  in the Mahommedan calendar, which occurs sometimes in the summer and sometimes in the winter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Bill will bring the elections right up against the Christmas festival. We shall not be making a fixture of them. They will be of a movable character. I do not think the electors of Australia expect us to do that sort of thing. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Whatever we do, let us fix the season during which the elections shall be held. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Whilst <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has evaded the question by declaring that he is not prepared to move an amendment to the Bill, he has committed himself to the acceptance of the principle that is embodied in it. That being so, I am pleased to bear witness to the fact that he recognises the common  sense that is contained in the proposal. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is not enough common sense in it. That is all. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is such obvious common sense- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The elections should either be put back or carried forward. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6495</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The matter cannot remain where it is. What we have to ask ourselves is : &#34; Which would best meet the convenience and the expressed will of the people - the adoption of the proposal now before us or the acceptance of the suggestion which has been made by </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen?&#39;&#39;</inline>If I felt that the adoption of an amendment on the lines which he has indicated would constitute a distinct gain to one <inline font-style="italic">set</inline> of senators and a loss  to the people, I should be averse to it. But when I recollect that its acceptance would obviate the necessity for a double election, and at the same time give effect to the will of the people, I am bound to admit that there is much to be said in its favour. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6496</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I have already suggested to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> that if he will take the responsibility of moving an amendment on the lines he has indicated I shall be quite willing to consult the Law Officers, with a view to the proper drafting of it, and afterwards to accept it. I have made that offer conditional upon his consenting to submit the amendment. I have done so for a special reason. I speak as one who is prepared to accept responsibility for the holding of the elections at the best time of the year, and I say without fear of contradiction that the month of April or May is the best time of the year. Before this Bill was drafted I was prepared to extend the term of members of the House of Representatives from October till April. But I am not prepared to deprive the members of the other branch of the Legislature of six months with a view to bringing that about. I do not think it would be fair to do so. It would not be fair to ask seventy-five members who have already sacrificed two years of the term for which they were elected, as the result of the double dissolution, to forego another six months of their term. But I admit that the convenience of the farming, the grazing, and the business community would be best served by holding the elections in the autumn months of the year. Consequently, if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> wishes to give effect to the suggestion which he has made, I am prepared to allow the consideration of the Bill to stand over until an amendment has been drafted to meet his views. Then, when the debate upon it is resumed to-morrow, I shall be quite willing to accept the amendment. Afterwards it will rest with the other Chamber to say whether or not it will agree to that amendment. I have not put forward this suggestion with a view to placing any undue. responsibility on the Leader of the Opposition. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The idea of responsibility would not trouble me, because I have made my views upon this matter perfectly clear. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I agree with the honorable senator that the fall of the year is the best period for holding the elections. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The month of April or of May? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. The reason why I cannot accept the responsibility of moving an amendment in the direction indicated is that the policy of the Government is embodied in this Bill, and, without consulting my colleagues, I cannot undertake to depart from it. But if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> will consent to move an amendment in the direction he has suggested, I am quite prepared to take the Bill into Committee, and then to adjourn its consideration until to-morrow morning. Although the measure will overcome the existing difficulty, it will do so only in an unsatisfactory way. Our next elections will be held in the middle of September, 1917, and under the proposal contained in this Bill the following elections might be held in the month of October or November, or even December. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Under the guise of granting an extended term to honorable senators, the intention is to allow members of the House of Representatives to retain their seats a little longer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not think we should view the matter in that light. The fact that the Constitution provides for the holding of the elections in a clumsy way has compelled us to seek its alteration. It sets out that the term of members of the House of Representatives shall be three years. But even if this Bill be carried, the period of service of members of that branch of the Legislature will be a little less than three years. The passing of this measure will not add a single day to the life of the Parliament. As a matter of fact, under its operation the life of this Parliament will be eight days short of three years. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6496</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It must not be forgotten that if the House of Representatives consented to the elections being held in April - in the absence of an amend- ment of the Constitution - seventeen senators of the first class would not have three years&#39; service, but only a little more than two years and nine months&#39; service. Consequently, they would be sacrificing almost as much as would the members of another place. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6497</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Exactly ; but with this difference: that the term of the House of Representatives would expire immediately upon the dissolution of Parliament, whereas the term of office of senators expires on the 31st July. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6497</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Senators of the first class do not have three years&#39; service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6497</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so. If the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to move an amendment on the lines he has indicated, and to accept full responsibility, for it, I am quite willing to have that amendment drafted, and to accept it. I admit that a movable election, so to speak, will constitute a grave difficulty, inasmuch as it may be held at a time of the year which is unsuitable alike to the electors and to the members of this Parliament. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">In Committee:</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 (Rotation of senators). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6497</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In the course of a parliamentary experience extending over many years, I do not know that I have ever listened to a more extraordinary speech than that just delivered by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who has affirmed that if I will shoulder the responsibility of moving an amendment the advantage of which I have urged, he will consent to adjourn the consideration of this measure until to-morrow. I do not know why he thought that I would shrink from the acceptance of that responsibility. I have made my position upon this measure abundantly clear, and I have yet to learn that I have ever hesitated to give expression to it. If I were a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill I should move the amendment without hesitation; but, on the grounds already stated, I am not prepared to give it my support, and in the circumstances I shall not submit any amendment. The fundamental error made in the Constitution was to put in certain rigid proposals which were all right so long as everything went along in the ordinary normal way ; but the moment we struck the obstacle of the double dissolution we were thrown out of our stride. The next time there is a double dissolution the same thing will occur again. The only satisfactory amendment of the Constitution will&#39; be one that strikes out all these limitations and confines the constitutional provision to a simple declaration that the House of Representatives shall&#39; not last longer than three years, and that a senator shall not hold his seat longer than six years, leaving the rest to be filled in by the electoral law itself. That would be a fundamental change; but I am not going to deal partially with the question, as would be the case if I submitted the amendment I suggested. I shall not accept the responsibility of submitting any amendment, seeing that I am not a supporter of the Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6497</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I do not doubt the honorable senator&#39;s sincerity; but he suggested an amendment which I believed would be an improvement, and I offered to accept it, if he were prepared to move it. As he is not prepared to do so, I shall not go out of my way to alter the measure, because it has come from the other House. The Government have a majority in both Chambers, and had we wanted to do what the honorable senator suggests, we should have introduced the Bill originally in the form suggested by him, because both he and I know that the matter was discussed. If he will not take the responsibility of moving the amendment he has suggested, I can only say I am sorry, because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> and others can testify, and the records of the House show, that it has been my invariable practice to accept suggested improvements in measures of which I have had charge. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Title agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITOR</title>
        <page.no>6497</page.no>
        <type>distinguished visitors</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>
        <inline font-weight="bold">Colonel the</inline>Honorable Cyril St. Clair Cameron, CB. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6497</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>10000</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
            <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I notice in the gallery  Colonel Cameron,  who was for many years an honoured member of this Senate, and who has just returned in rather broken health from the front, where he has been rendering distinguished service to the Empire. I regret to inform honorable senators that he has also had the misfortune, in which he has all our sympathies, to lose a loved son in the service of the country. I propose, with the concurrence of the Senate, to show him a mark of honour by inviting him to occupy a seat on the floor of the Chamber. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-weight="bold">Colonel Cameron</inline>
          <inline font-style="italic">having been received with cheers and given a seat on the right of the</inline>President, </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6498</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I am sura the Senate is proud, and feels a deep senso of honour in being able to welcome so distinguished a soldier of the Empire as  Colonel Cameron,  who was once a mem ber of this Chamber, and who has been, and still is-, playing an important part in the great war that is proceeding. I am but echoing the opinions of honorable senators when I say that we have followed with interest and pleasure the career at the front. of our old friend and erstwhile colleague. This is not the first time that he has done service for the Empire, and we know how valuable were the services that he gave on the former occasion, and how they added lustre to the reputation of Australia. We feel sure that in the present war he is doing equally good service for his King and country. It is indeed an honour, as well as a pleasure, to have him with us, and Ave trust that the spell he is taking will restore him to full health and vigour, so that he may again take his place at the front, which I know to be his ardent wish, and continue to play the solid and useful part that he has played in the past. On behalf of those who sit on this side of the chamber I welcome him back, and wish him a speedy return to the fullest health and strength. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6498</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KUL</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>-  Colonel Cameron,  having been a member of this Chamber, will understand me when I say that I could speak much more freely on this occasion if he were not present. I join with the Minister of Defence in extending to the gallant  Colonel, our  old comrade, a very hearty welcome, not only on his return to Australia, but also on his reappearance in these halls. We who had the pleasure of association with him had never any doubt as to the part he would play when the dogs of war were let loose. He has more than justified the very high estimationwe formed of him, for he has again rendered very distinguished and valuable service to the countryhe loves so well, and by doing so has established a still stronger hold upon our esteem and respect. May I take: this opportunity of expressing my ownsympathy and that of the Senate with him, in that, in addition to the troubles which have fallen upon him by reason of impaired health, he has suffered a bereavement, which I am sure he feels far more than the indisposition from which he is at present suffering? I desire to express the confident hope that the knowledge that his gallant son gave his life for the Empire will at least soften, the blow that has fallen upon him, which I know he feels acutely. I trust that a few months in his own sunny country, amidst surroundings which he loves, will restore his health, and put him in a position to offer his sword once more to his King and country. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6498</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I propose, on behalf of the Senate, to have a number of copies of the official report of the proceedings at this reception of our distinguished visitor printed separately for presentation to him - a compliment which, I am sure, he will very much appreciate. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PAPERS</title>
        <page.no>6498</page.no>
        <type>papers</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The following papers were presented :  - </para>
      <para>Defence Act 1903-1915. - Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 143. </para>
      <para>Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired under, at - </para>
      <para>Broadmeadows, Victoria - For Defencepurposes. </para>
      <para>Kalgoorlie, Western Australia - ForPostal purposes. </para>
      <para>Bight of carriage-way acquired over land at Guildford, Western Australia - ForDefence purposes. </para>
      <para>Royal Commission on Mail Services and Trade Development between Australia and&#39; the New Hebrides: Appendices to Report. </para>
      <para class="italic">
        <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 9 to 10 p.m.</inline>
      </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>INSURANCE BILL</title>
        <page.no>6498</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>
        <inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(Consideration resumed! from 26th August, <inline font-style="italic">vide</inline> page 6145) : </para>
      <para>Clauses 57 to 64 agreed to. </para>
      <para>Clause 65 - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>Every policy shall state the periods for which the reserve value allowed by the company for the purpose will maintain a policy in force after the cessation of premium payments. </para>
      </quote>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6499</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The Minister in charge of the Bill will see that it will be rather difficult for a company to arrive at the reserve value of a policy, because the period for which the policy will be kept in force on the reserve value will increase according to the length of the term of insurance. I cannot see how that value can be stated on a policy which is to remain in force for a long term. There will need to be a series of insertions pointing out that, when the policy has been in force for one year, the surrender value will keep it good for so many years; for two years, for so much longer, and so on during the whole term. It will scarcely be possible for a life insurance company to state on the face or the back of a policy how long the surrender value will keep it in force, because a man&#39;s life is an indeterminable quantity. In the case of a full life policy, how is the company to say, on its face, that it will be kept in force for a certain time, because there can be no stated rule. The surrender value of a policy is an accumulating factor, depending largely on the amount of the premiums already paid. It depends also upon the success .that the company may have in investing the moneys which accrue from the various policies. I do not see how either the Commissioner or the Minister will be able to give a policy-holder a clear statement as to how long his policy is to be kept in force on its surrender value. I do not believe that any insurance office in Australia to-day could give that information. It could tell a man, if he asked, how long its present surrender value would keep a policy in force; but it would be unable to state how long the policy would remain good in time to come. As a case in point, I may mention that I asked an insurance office the other day how long the surrender value of my policy would keep it in force. They told me that it would take some time to get the information, but that they would send it to me by post. I do not know yet. This clause requires an insurance company to give that undertaking on the policy when it is issued. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2D</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Ready</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Do not the reserve values increase every year, tool </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They are accumulating, and that increases the difficulty for a company of stating on a policy how long it will be kept in force. That is de termined entirely by the rate of interest which the company earns, and, of course, the number of payments made by the policy-holder. The surrender value of a policy was not so much a few years ago, when money was cheap, as it is now, when the rate of interest is higher. These things cannot be foreseen. An insurance office would need a sort of financial telescope to tell them what the interest would be in twenty years&#39; time, to say how long a policy would be kept in force; but according to the clause that information must be stated on the policy itself. I do not know whether that is the intention, but it seems to me to be a fair reading of the provision. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6499</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- But for the valuable assistance which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> has given to me in dealing with the measure, I would feel inclined to say that his is a hypothetical question, based on an assumption that would not bear an exhaustive examination. As regards the clause, &#34; he who runs may read.&#34; The intention is that a policy shall not lapse through the non-payment of premiums. It is to be distinctly stated that if a person has held a policy for any number of years, and there has been an accumulation of profits or bonuses, and then, owing to misfortune or otherwise, the policy-holder is unable to meet his payments, the policy shall not lapse in the first year or in the second year, provided that there has been a sufficient accumulation of profits to meet the annual premium falling due. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What about the third year and fourth year ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That will depend  oi&#39;  the amount of the accumulated profits. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU7</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP; NAT from 1917</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What about the fifth year? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6499</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That will depend on the reserve, credit which the holder may have; and that, in its turn, will depend, not only on the amount of the premiums paid, but on the term of the policy. A life company cannot state definitely to-day what will be due to me on a policy ten years hence; b&#34;. from m ortality tables it can work out the value of the whole thing. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2D</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Ready</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If a society has two or three very good years, the reserve value will be much better than if it had lean, years, so that any statement about the value of a policy can be only approximate. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It certainly will not be possible to say what will be the total profits of a company in any one year, but they can be estimated. Upon an actuarial basis it is reasonable to assume that the estimated profits may be calculated to a shilling. When greater profits than could have been foreseen are made, this will probably be reflected in the reserve value of a policy. A policy-holder will be entitled -to know the anticipated or expected profits each year, and how long his policy will be carried on after he ceases to contribute. If the honorable senator has&#39; any amendment to make, I shall be glad to consider it, or if he desires time to consider the amendment I am prepared to postpone the clause. It would be impossible to write on the policy the reserve value allowed by the company to maintain the policy in force. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What is stated on the policy is the contract. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That cannot be stated until the premiums cease. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The surrender value of a policy fluctuates with the. profits of a society. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If honorable senators will turn to the definition clause they will find that - &#34; Reserve value &#34; means the value of a policy &#34;as computed on the basis of the table of mortality, rate of interest, and method of valuation adopted by the company on making its most recent periodical investigation in accordance with this Act. From this it will be seen that the period for which the policy will be carried on may be changed from time to time, as the different estimates of values are arrived at by the company. This question, I think, really concerns a detail which might well be dealt with by the Commissioner. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6500</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The Minister has left me pretty well- where I was before. I take it that the, reserve value placed upon a policy by a company is determined by the number of payments made, the amount paid, and the interest or profits derived by the company from the investment. Let us con sider the case of, say, three senators who might insure their lives. One might be regarded as undesirable from an insurance point of viewand be heavily loaded; another might be considered an average life, and so would pay an entirely different rate of premium ; while a third might be regarded as a first class life, and pay a much lower rate of premium than the others. Each of the proponents would be paying a different premium, yet according to the clause it is proposed that each policy shall statethe period for which its reserve value will keep it in force. I say that it is impossible to do anything of the kind. If the Minister proposes that on the cessation of the payment of premium a company shall be obliged to indorse&#39; on a policy the period during which the reserve value will keep it in force I shall be with him. That would constitute a definite contract between the company, and the policy-holders, and such a provision would be of great value. I made a proposal for a policy to a life insurance company, and it was accepted with a loaded premium, because it was not expected that I would live beyond a certain time. I have lived beyond that time. I made a proposal to a second office, and was rejected as a worthless life, but I am still going strong. I made a proposal to another office, was accepted, the policy has matured, and I have received the amount. On the cessation of my payments the companies with which I was insured might have been asked to state on my policies how long their reserve value would keep them in force, but manifestly they could not have done that at the time they accepted my proposals. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Is not the clause in its present form more in favour of the proponent than of the company? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6500</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Undoubtedly it is; but if a provision is passed giving a distinct advantage to a policy-holder w* may take it for granted that the insurance companies will meet that by giving policy-holders less advantageous terms than they would otherwise be prepared to give them. The clause as it stands would, I think, lead to a good deal of speculation, and to what would amount to gambling upon men&#39;s lives. Provision has been made in another part of the Bill that a policy is not to lapse for a certain length of time after the payment of the first premium, and for a greater  length of time after the payment of the second premium, and if a policy-holder wishes to cease the payment of premiums I want the Bill to declare that the company shall indorse upon his policy how long its reserve value will keep it in force.That is not clearly stated in this clause, and if the Minister is not prepared to postpone the clause he might see his way to accept my suggestion that on the. cessation of the payment of premiums it should be incumbent upon a company to state in writing on the policy how long the reserve value will keep it in force. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6501</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KNN</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- One can appreciate the difficulties which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> discovers in this clause, but I think the honorable senator is overlooking the fact that the Institute of&#39; Actuaries has compiled tables which cover all the varying classes of proponents- to whom he has referred. Similar tables are used by friendly societies. If honorable senators will look at the interpretation clause they will find that &#34; reserve value &#34; means the value of a policy as computed on the basis of the table of mortality, rate of interest, and method of valuation adopted by the company on making its most recent periodical investigation. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  These tables do not last for forty years. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I have seen mortality tables that cover more than forty years. I see no objection to agreeing to the clause as it stands- It is not as precise as if we provided that the computation of the reserve value should be based on the actual amount of interest earned by the funds of a company. I remind the Committee that the Bill provides that it shall be according to the table which was adopted by the company on making its most recent investigation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Would that be at the time that payment of premiums ceased ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  No: at the time when the policy was issued. That table will cover the whole life of the policy. I assume that under this clause we shall have the table that was adopted at the time of the issue of a policy pasted across the policy, so that the reserve value may be seen for every year during the life of the policy. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Mullan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Will not the profits of a company, which will vary from year to . year, determine the value of its policies ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6501</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Not if a particular table is adopted when a policy is issued. That table will be based on the rate of interest likely to be received from the company&#39;s funds, and that in turn will be based on the experience of a number of years. If it be thought desirable, the clause may be postponed for further consideration, but I have no objection to it being agreed to as it stands. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6501</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I thought that it might be as well to postpone this clause, but I have since been able to give it a little more consideration, and the view that I take of it has been strengthened by the arguments submitted by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guy.</inline> The clause provides quite clearly that every policy shall state the periods for which the reserve value allowed by the company will maintain it in force after the cessation of premium payments. In a period of exceptional prosperity, these reserve values will go up by leaps and bounds, but the table adopted by  a  company in issuing a particular policy will show the period for which the reserve value will keep it going. If the reserve value is &#163;10 it will keep a policy going, we will say, for two years. If owing to increased prosperity the reserve value increases to &#163;15, the period during which it will keep the policy in force may be increased to three years, and if the reserve value is increased to &#163;20 tho period may be increased to four years. In a year like the present, when probably a large number of life policies will have to be paid owing to the war, the companies will make very little profit-, but that will in no way affect the guarantee as to the period during which the reserve value of a policy will keep it in force. We might allow the clause to pass in its present form, and later, if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> desires to recommit it, I shall offer no objection. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6501</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
            <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is acting wisely by adhering to the clause as it stands. It is a clause which guarantees that whatever a man&#39;s life insurance policy may be worth shall be clearly stated upon it. We all recognise that the principle underlying all insurance is that everybody will not die on the same day. If the law of averages did not operate, our life insurance companies would go broke. If a  big conflagration occurred in Melbourne similar to that which happened at Chicago, the fire insurance companies here would be summarily bankrupted*. Life insurance companies experience their spells of prosperity and adversity. The people who do business with them must have their interests safeguarded, and it seems to me that this clause will accomplish that end. In strict equity, the clause is more favorable to proponents than it is to insurance companies. For that reason I am inclined to support it, because the companies have every possible means of safeguarding their own interests. They base the premiums which they fix according to the constitution of the proponent. If he be a healthy, strong man, he has to pay only a light premium. On the other hand, if he be not of a robust constitution, he has to pay a heavy premium. We must recollect that insurance companies, like all other commercial concerns, are primarily out for profit. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6502</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Nearly all insurance companies now are mutual companies. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6502</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There are a number of proprietary companies as well. We need to zealously safeguard the interests of those persons who are doing business with proprietary concerns. We know that in the past some persons have been very harshly dealt with by these companies. In the circumstances we need to be specially careful to protect those who have reposed confidence in . insurance companies, and who will continue to do so. I appeal to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> to recall the position of a man who insures his life with a company in any of our capital cities, and afterwards drifts into the interior of the continent to follow a lonely occupation there. He naturally cherishes the belief that that company is bound to treat him equitably. This clause is intended to safeguard his interests. But <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> apparently desires to put the company in a more favorable position. . I would remind him, however, that proponents are always confiding, whilst insurance companies are always watching. I ask him to reconsider his position, and if he does so he will recognise that the clause has been framed with a view to safeguarding the interests of those who have placed so much confidence in our different insurance companies. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator SENIOR,</inline>(South Australia) grip the idea which I have in my mind. I am merely desirous of obtaining something more than the irreducible minimum. In a subsequent clause provision is made that the policy of a man shall not lapse after it has been in force for two years, so long as it possesses a surrender value. But the clause under consideration provides that there must be a clear statement upon the policy of its surrender value. Now, it must be patent <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> all that if a company is obliged to prepare a table of values it will be careful to incur no risks. The proposal which I have foreshadowed is that when the payment of premiums has ceased, a policy-holder should be entitled to receive from the company with which he is insured a statement as to how long the payments he has already made will keep his policy in force. If any policy-holder survives beyond the average period of life his payments naturally increase the surrender value of his policy. We have all read of the cases cited by the Australian Mutual Provident Society, in which the accumulated bonuses represent more than the amount of the premiums paid. Those cases are the result of persons having outlived the average duration of life. Under this clause a policy cannot have indorsed upon it more than its average surrender value. But under my proposal there will be indorsed upon it its actual surrender value. So far from standing by the companies - as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lynch</inline> has alleged - I am endeavouring to secure to policyholders the fullest measure of justice. I would suggest, therefore, that the VicePresident of the Executive Council should take time to reconsider this clause, with a view to accepting the amendment I have outlined, so that when the payments of a man&#39;s premiums cease there shall be indorsed upon his policy the amount of its reserve value, and the period during which that value will keep it in force. I am quite aware that certain statistical tables which have been prepared in England are in use amongst insurance companies here. Anybody who has read the quinquennial reports of life assurance societies in Australia must have noticed that the expectations of mortality have not been realized. According to those tables, so many more persons ought to have died than have died. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6502</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That is nearly  always  the case. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That means that the policies in existence have a correspondingly greater reserve value. The full amount of the reserve value should be credited to the man who has paid his premiums. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- You would have to provide that they make these particular valuations. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They are made in the books of tile insurance office, and the bonus varies according&#39; to the amount paid by the policy-holder. Every premium paid in by a man who goes beyond the average expectation of life is to the company an unexpected payment, and I want the man who has paid more to receive the benefits due to him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guy</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will he not get that from the bonus addition ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In one sense, but the surrender value of a policy or bonus h? much less than its* face value. My proposal would benefit the policy-holder, and deserves sympathetic consideration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6503</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - The honorable senator, for whose arguments on this Bill I. have great respect, admits that the Bill will be an improvement on existing conditions, and I admit that he can probably  improve  the clause itself. If, therefore, he wishes a later opportunity of amending it, I am willing to postpone it. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Clause postponed. </para>
        <para>Clause 66 - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>A policy-holder who desires to discontinue further premium payments on a policy which has been in force for two years or upwards shall, on application to the company, be entitled to receive a paid-up policy of  such  amount as would bo purchasable with the reserve vu lue of his policy at the due date of the next premium payable in respect thereof. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6503</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - A very large proportion of the profits made by companies - considerably more than is generally thought - is made up of payments on policies that have been surrendered or have lapsed, and this provision is a distinct improvement on the practices of the past, as it will give the policy-holder the full benefit of what he has paid in. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6503</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - We may to some extent congratulate ourselves on this provision, and I am glad the honorable senator has called attention to it.  His  speeches in <inline font-style="italic">Ilansard</inline> will show that he has not approached this measure in any cavilling spirit, or with any other desire than to make it even more beneficial than it is at present to the policy-holders and to the companies themselves. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable assistance he has given me in the consideration of the measure. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 67 - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>In the event of any premium due on any policy remaining unpaid for a longer period than thirty days, the company may charge compound interest thereon at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed, and the policy shall not lapse until the  premiums  due and unpaid, together with the interest charged thereon, are equal to the reserve value of the policy. . . &#39;. . </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6503</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - How will the rate of interest mentioned be prescribed ? I suppose it will vary as interest varies, because compound interest is to be charged. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It will be prescribed by regulation. The word &#34;prescribed &#34; has, under the Acts Interpretation Act, only one meaning throughout our legislation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6503</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keating&#39;s</inline> interpretation is perfectly correct. The rate will be prescribed by regulations made in accordance with the Bill. The clause is of distinct advantage to policyholders, and will put all the companies on the same footing. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 68 - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>Where the premiums have not been paid, but the policy has not lapsed, the company shall, during the second year after the cessation of the premium payments, give notice in writing to the insured ......... offering, if the insured so desires, to grant him a paid-up policy to an amount such as the reserve value,- less accumulated unpaid premiums at the commencement of the succeeding&#39; year of insurance, would purchase at the then age of the insured. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6503</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - This is an excellent provision, and marks a distinct advance in the consideration shown to those who are not the wealthiest in the land. By it, if the policy has a value sufficient to retain it in force after the holder wishes to cease paying on it, he can obtain a paid-up policy to the value which his payments would have purchased for him. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6504</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Only the reserve value, not his payments. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6504</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not objecting to it. I am simply pointing out that it is a marked advance on the practice which has obtained in the past, except in the case of a few companies. It will impose this better practice on all the companies, whether proprietary or mutual. It is, I think, one of the best provisions in the Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6504</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KNN</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- There is little doubt about the meaning of the clause. It does not say that the company shall grant a paid-up policy to the man, but that it shall offer to grant. It is possible that if it made an offer the terms of the offer might constitute a contract, but it does not say distinctly that the company shall grant a policy to the man. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6504</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If an offer is accepted it will be a contract. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6504</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNN</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUY, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GUY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have known a somewhat similar term to be used in a measure, but after it had been put into operation it proved to be faulty. I remember a clause being framed to the effect that a person should be entitled to receive. That proved to be faulty because the clause did not enforce on the other party the obligation to pay. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6504</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- That clause is quite clear. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>Clause, agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 69- </para>
        <quote>
          <para>A forfeiture of an industrial policy issued by any company, on which more than thirteen weeks&#39; premiums have been paid, shall not be incurred by any person insured thereunder by reason of any default in payment of any contribution or premium until after - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(a)">
              <para>notice stating the amount due or payable at the date of the notice, and informing him that in default of payment by him within . a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice, and at a place specified in the notice, his policy will be forfeited, has been served upon him by or on behalf of the company, either personally or by being left at his usual or lastknown place of abode or business, or by being sent by post addressed to him by registered letter at his usual or last-known place of abode or business; and </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>default has been made by him in paying his contribution or premium in accordance with that notice, together with any additional contribution or premium which has become due or payable up to the date of payment. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6504</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - We are now dealing with an entirely different class of policies, that is, with industrial policies. In most cases the premium is paid weekly. It is a class of policy which, as the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, it is most costly to work. He pointed out that, according to English statistics, the advantages from this class of policy are not so great proportionately as the advantages from the other classes, because of the excessive cost of collection. I suppose that the service referred to in paragraph <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> of the clause would be at the holder&#39;s last-known address, because the information he is to receive is supposed to be sent there. I wish to be quite clear on that point. &#39; Does the provision mean that, instead of the premium being collected on that occasion, the holder of the policy will have to go to the company&#39;s office to pay it ? 1 wish to know whether, after the cessation of payment, the premium has to be paid at the office or whether it will be received by the collector in the usual way. I do not wish the conditions to be made more difficult for industrial insurers than for ordinary insurers. If we impose additional restrictions, it is just possible that the company may, in many cases, impose difficulties. Suppose, for instance, that a man who has been paying his premium weekly removes from Melbourne to a suburb, and that the company gets no notice of the removal, will he be required to pay in the city during the ordinary office hours? I want the Minister to look carefully through the clause, so as to safeguard the poorer class of insurers. Does he read it to mean that a man will be required to attend at the company&#39;s office to pay the money, or where will it be payable? </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6504</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I think that we can pass the clause without putting in any safeguards. I cannot imagine a case in which a company would not want to take the money anywhere it could get it. One of the worst features of industrial insurance is that for every 20s. paid in only 6s. is employed for the real &#34;benefit of the insurer. That is due to the smallness of the premiums, the frequency with which they are paid, and the number of, not only collectors, but clerks who have to be employed. This makes the cost of managing industrial insurance so great that, to my mind, any intelligent community will adopt a different system as soon as all the methods of insurance are covered by one Act of Parliament. In my opinion, the only successful system will be the institution of a huge Government scheme, which could be run as cheaply as the old-age pensions scheme is managed. Instead of two-thirds of the premium moneys being taken for defraying the cost of business management, we would have a provision under which nearly the whole of the money would be devoted to the purpose for which it was collected, and that is for the benefit of insurers, and not for the costly running of huge societies which compete with each other. In my view, we are within easy distance of the time when this kind of industrial business will, because of the growing intelligence of the community, have to be run oh rea.sonable lines, which will give a very much larger return than is obtained at present. No possible system of industrial assurance could give a much less return, because of the excessive cost of collection and management. A careful analysis of this class of business has shown that extraordinarily few persons continue their payments right through and gain the benefits which they had in view when they insured. I. thank <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Senior</inline> for calling attention to the provision, which, in my own opinion, can be allowed to go as it is. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 70 agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 71 - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>A policy which remains in force at the expiration of three years from the date of its issue shall not be subject to forfeiture for any cause other than fraud or want of insurable interest, unless prior to the expiration of the three years the cause of forfeiture has. been notified in writing by the company to the policy-holder. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6505</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I suppose that, under this provision, no policy, not even a policy which has been in force for two years, will be subject to forfeiture for any cause other than fraud or want of insurable interest. I fail to see what advantage there can be in a clause which deals entirely with a policy of three years&#39; duration. The Minister will surely see that exactly the same conditions must apply to a two years&#39; policy, as to a three years&#39; policy. The latter will not be voidable except from lack of insurable interest. It means that a policy is to be held in suspense for three years. I understood that, under a previous clause, only twelve months was allowed to a company to make sure that a proposal had a just right to be accepted. But this clause hangs up a three years&#39; policy, and says that if a company can find a justifiable cause, it shall have an opportunity to void it. Why is the period fixed at three years any more than at two years, or at four years ? I submit that the provision we made with regard to a previous clause might apply here. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6505</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I am not aware that there is&#39; any special reason for fixing the term at three years. Honorable senators will remember that in an earlier clause we provided that if a society accepted the second year&#39;s premium in respect of a life  policy that acceptance bound the society to admit the age of the proponent. In the clause under discussion some period will have to be fixed, and I think three years is short enough. Let us consider what might happen. In the case of a fraudulent insurance, of course there could be forfeiture, but let us assume that after a policy-holder had taken out a policy something wrong had happened that, perhaps,. was not in the nature of a fraud. The company could then within the period of three years notify the holder of the forfeiture of the policy. A shorter period might be undesirable, because it might be necessary for. a society in the case of a policy suspected to be fraudulent, to go to the ends of the earth before it could get the actual facts which would justify the taking of the necessary steps to deal with a policyholder in accordance with this clause of the Bill. The proof might not be forthcoming within a shorter period than three years. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6505</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- A proponent might develop some trouble or disease. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6505</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes ; and I think three years is a reasonable time to fix in order to safeguard the interests of all concerned. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6505</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KUL</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I admire the heroism with which the gentleman in charge of this Bill has been talking, presumably with his mind on the Bill and his eye on the clock. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">But I would suggest that, instead of proceeding with this measure, which we all know there is no hope of passing before we adjourn for some weeks, the  Chairman  might leave the chair until such time as we receive from the other House the business for which we are waiting. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6506</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There is a Bill from the other House here now. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6506</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then let us get on with it. It is useless in the circumstances to hammer at the Bill now before the Committee. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6506</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - There are  some  clauses iu the Bill now before the Committee which I want to amend. The measure came on rather unexpectedly tonight, and had I known at 10 o&#39;clock that the business from the other House would not be here till nearly 12 o&#39;clock, so far as I am concerned I would have done as the honorable senator suggests. I expect the other measure will be here in a little while. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6506</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Then let us get on with the Bill that has been received from the other House. It is only a farce and a waste of time to talk about finishing the Insurance Bill now. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6506</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not happen to be the Minister in charge of the Bill referred to. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6506</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K5R</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- To test the feeling of the Committee, I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>That the word &#34; three &#34; where first occurring he left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word &#34;two.&#34; </para>
        </quote>
        <para>If a company has one year in which&#39; to determine the age of a proponent, surely two years i3 long enough to hold, in suspense a policy which may be voidable for other causes. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6506</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KUL</name.id>
            <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I wish to say, with regard to the amendment, the clause, and the Bill generally, that when the sitting was suspended it was anticipated that certain business was about to Tse received from another place. It was never expected then, that we should be asked to address ourselves to the consideration of this Bill. We are doing so now only to fill in time. This is a highly technical measure. I suppose that no member of the Comm&#39;ittee professes sufficient knowledge of the subject to enable him to say what ought to be done with each particular clause. I have obtained a good deal of information) . to enable me to decide what course  totake with regard to this and other clauses ; but I had no reason to suppose that theBill would come on for consideration tonight. It is not fair to honorable senators who, like myself, have taken an interest in the Bill, that it should be considered in these circumstances, and that we should be asked to approve or disapprove of this amendment. There could not be so much objection if it were important that the Bill should be finally dealt with before we adjourn to-morrow, but it is common knowledge that we are dealing with it now only to keep the Senate occupied until business is received from another place. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6506</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am prepared to report progress. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>Progress reported. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SUGAR PURCHASE &#39;BILL</title>
        <page.no>6506</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives, and read a first time. </para>
      <para>Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>6506</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K3E</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>ALP</party>
            <role>Assistant Minister</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">That the Bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>The Bill is intended to give power to the Treasurer to borrow money from the Commonwealth Bank for the purchase of sugar, and to pay the Bank moneys received in respect of the sale of the sugar. The indebtedness of the Treasurer to the Bank must not exceed &#163;500,000 at any time. Interest is to be payable at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. An account, called the Commonwealth Treasurer Sugar Account, is to be established in the books of the Bank. When the need for such account has ceased, it is to be closed, and the credit or debit, as the case may be, is to be adjusted by a payment to or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The object of the measure is to enable sugar to be purchased by the Commonwealth Government to meet an anticipated shortage at the close of the sugar season now being entered upon in Queensland. It relates solely to the purchase of sugar overseas, and does not deal with the refining or distribution of that sugar. That will be the subject of an agreement at a later stage. We cannot now anticipate the arrangements that will be made, but we have reached a sufficiently definite stage to enable us to say that we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements for the refining and distribution of the raw sugar imported and purchased under this Bill. When those arrangements have been made an agreement embodying them will be made with the necessary parties, whom I think honorable senators know, and that agreement will be laid on the table.&#34; This Bill is necessary to empower the Government to enter into negotiations and purchase sugar to meet the shortage of the article expected in the Commonwealth early next year. </para>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment. </para>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from. 11.56 p.m. to 12 J/5 a.m. (Thursday).</inline>
        </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC  SERVICE BILL</title>
        <page.no>6507</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6507</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6507</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:46:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That this Bill be now read a second time, </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This measure makes a number of small amendments in the Public&#39; Service Act, which can better be explained when we reach the Committee stage. Its principal object is to safeguard the positions of those public servants who have volunteered for service with our Expeditionary Forces- r-to maintain their rights to leave, and other rights. The Government have not been filling the permanent positions vacated by these officers, and we think that our actions should be validated by legal enactment. This Bill will  accomplish  that, and  those  officers who have passed examinations and have gone to the front will thus have their rights safeguarded. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">In Committee:</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 (Amendment of section 3). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6507</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:47:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The late Attorney-General, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William</inline> Irvine, held that an &#34; officer &#34; is a person who holds an office. But there are a large number of employees in the Commonwealth Service who do not hold offices. This clause extends the definition contained in the principal Act .so as to  make it include employees or any classes of employees. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 3 (Amendment of section 9). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6507</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:48:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Section 9 of the principal Act provides that the Public Service Commissioner shall annually publish particulars relating to the length of service of officers - not merely their service under the Commonwealth, but also their service under a State if they are transferred officers: It is thus obligatory upon him to load his report with a lot of unnecessary material. Obviously this information is not required, and consequently it is proposed to omit it in the future. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 4 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section 2 thereof the words &#34; One hundred and ten pounds per annum,&#34; and inserting in their stead the words &#34; One hundred and twenty-six pounds per annum.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6507</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:49:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Under the principal Act,, the minimum wage of adults in-the Commonwealth Service was originally fixed at &#163;110 per annum, but in 1913, by an Order in Council, it was increased to &#163;126. This clause will give statutory authority to what has been done by the Order in Council to which I have referred.  <inline font-weight="bold">Senator GRANT</inline> (New South Wales) &#91;12.51 a.m.&#93;. - It appears to me that a minimum wage of &#163;126 per annum to adults in our Public Service is altogether too low. The present occasion affords a splendid opportunity of increasing the amount to &#163;138 per annum. The addition will not represent a very great deal. Seeing that we have been prepared at very short notice to vote millions of pounds under another Bill, we surely ought not to object to sanctioning this small increase to our Public Service employees. I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the words &#34;twenty-six&#34; be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words &#34; thirty-eight.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6507</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:52:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I must ask the honorable senator not to press the amendment. I would point out to him that when a Bill of this character is under consideration it is scarcely the time to raise the question of a general increase of the minimum wage which has been adopted for some time. This measure does not represent the last word in the amendment of our Public Service Act. The Government are aware that there are many provisions in that Statute with which honorable senators are not satisfied, and . it is their intention at a later period to introduce a general amending Public Service Bill. If honorable senators will take the trouble to peruse the measure which is now before us, they will see that it is merely intended to validate action , that has already been taken, or that has been necessitated by the circumstances of the war. I can think of quite a dozen amendments which might be brought forward with perfect justice. But this is not the time to submit them. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6508</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mullan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A number of the proposals embodied in this Bill are not necessitated by the war. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6508</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the main, the measure deals with questions arising out of the war. As we had to bring it forward in that connexion we thought it wise to include in it one or two proposals for validating Orders in Council. I appeal to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> not to press his amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6508</page.no>
              <time.stamp>12:54:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K22</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BLAKEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the advice which has been .tendered by the Minister, and I confess that 1 am rather disposed to favour the amendment submitted by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant.</inline> I am not wedded to any particular sum as a minimum wage, but I would point out that &#163;138 per annum represents only about &#163;2 10s. per week. Even admitting the necessity which exists for economy, it cannot be urged that that is an extravagant wage to pay to any adult who is working in a clerical capacity. The Minister of Defence stated that this is merely a validating measure. He told us that in 1U13 an Order in Council was passed, under which the minimum wage in our Public Service was increased from &#163;110 to &#163;126 per annum. But he must recognise that the cost of living to-day is much higher than it was two years ago. It has been laid down by Mr: Justice Higgins that linemen in our Postal Department shall receive &#163;138 per annum. That is the amount of their remuneration, which was fixed by an award of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on the 29th April, 1914. As one who has had experience as a clerk, I say that clerks are just as worthy of receiving a fair remuneration as are the men who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. I hope that the Government will recognise that position. The Minister of Defence has told us that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with this question later on. But if the principle be a right one, why should we not give effect to it now ? If the Bill be permitted to pass in its present form the chances are that men in our Public Service who are not receiving a fair wage will never receive it. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> presses his proposal to a division I shall be found supporting him. I know that many persons outside imagine that the officers engaged in the clerical branch of our Public Service are more or less &#34; curled darlings.&#34; I admit that they have security of tenure, that their salaries aro paid regularly, and that they are employed by a good master. But I desire that they shall get a wage that is proportionate to the excessive cost of living to-day. I hope that the Government will recognise that &#163;2 10s. per week is not too much to pay even to a simple humble clerk. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6508</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTD</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCDOUGALL, Allan</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McDougall</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In my opinion the proposal of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> is out of order. Section 53 of our Constitution provides - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Senate, therefore, has no power to increase by &#163;12 the minimum wage payable to public servants. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6508</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K22</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BLAKEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Let the honorable senator put his  proposal in  the form of a request. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6508</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not think that it is competent for him to do that. We cannot amend this Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6508</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARKER, Stephen</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Barker</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Do you, sir, rule that we cannot request the other Chamber tomake an amendment in this Bill? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6508</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. &#39; </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6508</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Surely we are not in such a state of muddle that we cannot rectify a mistake if a mistake has occurred. If the Bill does not command our approval, by all means let us delete the words to which we take exception. I recognise the difficulty of increasing the minimum wage, but I was under the impression that in a Bill of this character we could request the other Chamber to insert an amendment. If, however, you, sir, rule to the contrary, that settles the matter so far as I am concerned, although I entertain some doubt on the point. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6509</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator is at perfect liberty to appeal to the  President  on the matter. My ruling is that under section 53 of our Constitution, the proposal of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> is not in order. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6509</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We can find other means of dealing with the matter, and I hope <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> will move some other amendment to meet the case. I am in favour of making the minimum wage &#163;138. When the minimum of &#163;110 was increased to &#163;126 by a Labour Government, a very good thing was done for the Service, but the cost of living has since increased, so that an additional &#163;12 per annum cannot be regarded as extravagant. I do not know how a man with a family can exist on &#163;126 per annum. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6509</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He cannot have much of a family at  twenty-one </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6509</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This is a Bill that we can amend, and if the amendment submitted is out of order we can intimate our wishes to the Government by striking out the words &#34; one hundred and twenty-six pounds,&#34; and send the Bill back to another place, by which time the Government will probably have come to their senses. I was told just now by the Minister of Defence that we shall get another opportunity, but the opportunities we get in this  chamber  of dealing with the conditions in the Service are, like angels&#39; visits, few and far between. The time is opportune now, and if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> does not accept my suggestion I shall move myself to create a blank, and I think the majority of the Committee will support me. Some of the men affected are, no doubt, only twenty-one years of age, but they, too, will marry some day, and whether they are married or single the remuneration proposed in the Bill is not sufficient for the services they give. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins fixed a minimum of &#163;138 per annum for the telephone linemen a year or so ago, and that is therefore not too much to give to these men to-day. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6509</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Honorable senators speak as if this were a salary at which men are kept for some time. It is not. It is a salary at which they commence in the first year, and from which they go up automatically to &#163;180. The &#163;126 is only the starting point, and the salary at which they remain for any length of time is &#163;180. The telephone linemen, on the other hand, remain for years at &#163;138, the magnificent salary which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Needham</inline> referred to as having been fixed by the Arbitration Court. The men under this Bill are iri a better position than the linemen under their award, because they do not remain for more than one year at the minimum, and go up by steps to &#163;180. This is, therefore, only a question of the pay which a man of twenty-one shall receive for the first year. The Government intend to review the whole of the Public Service Act in its main essentials as soon as possible, and the question of the minimum wage can then be dealt with. Surely honorable senators can accept the assurance that that will be done. The Bill is brought in. for a special purpose; to validate what has been done by Order in Council, and honorable senators might let it rest at that. If the necessity had not arisen to safeguard the interests of the public servants who have gone to the war, the Bill would not have been introduced at all. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6509</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We might as well take the opportunity to make it just. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6509</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator would probably take any opportunity that he thought would embarrass the Government. The amendment would raise the whole question of increasing the minimum for the Public Service, and as we are simply bringing the Bill forward to validate what has been done, it is embarrassing to the Government to introduce the whole issue of Public Service salaries. We have a huge deficit in our public finances, and a proposal is put forward which we have not contemplated, and of which we do not know the cost. This is not the time to bring forward such a proposal without due consideration. We ought to know what it is likely to cost, and I suggest that it should not be pressed at this juncture. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6510</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:12:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In endeavouring to get his Bill through the Minister might use calmer language. I resent his statement that I would use every opportunity to embarrass the Government. It is remarkable that no man on this side of the chamber can make suggestions of any kind without being at once accused of attempting to embarrass the Government. If anything would goad a man to embarrass them it is language such as has just been used by the Minister, and I throw the accusation back in his teeth. I do not take every opportunity to embarrass the Government, and no man knows it better than the honorable senator himself. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I say that this Bill gives honorable senators an opportunity to embarrass the Government if they wish. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator said I would take every  opportunity  to embarrass the Government, and he should be the last man here to make such a remark. I leave him to revel in his imagination, but I shall not be deterred from going on with this matter. If the Bill was worth bringing forth it is worth considering. We should have regard to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins&#39; judgment in the case of the telephone linemen, even if this rate refers only to the first year df service. It is a question of the minimum or basic wage, and if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> does not move in the matter I shall. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6510</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:14:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Other recent judgments of the Arbitration Court have shown the need for raising wages, the reason being the increase in the cost of living, which is put down at 25 per cent. All that is proposed is to bring the men up to the same level as others in similar circumstances in private or Government employment. When a Public Service Bill is brought forward, why should any particular class of the Service be denied the same just rate of recompense that others are enjoying! </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K22</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Blakey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If in 1913 the Government admitted that these men were entitled to &#163;126 a year, surely they are entitled now, owing to the increased, cost of living, to more than that sum? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-Yes. In my opinion, the proposal to increase the amount to &#163;138 is very reasonable. The latest judgment of the Arbitration Court made &#163;150 the starting point for a person going from the position of a letter carrier to the position of a letter sorter, with an annual increment of &#163;6, so that nothing has been suggested here which is not in keeping with that decision. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A letter carrier has to be in the Service for several years before he can become a letter sorter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes; and presumably a cadet will have to be in the Service for several years before he can get the minimum wage. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He can have been in the Service for two years only, because he cannot enter until he is eighteen years of age. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A lad has to expend a considerable time in qualifying himself, and to pass a fairly stiff examination, before he can get into the Clerical Division, and he will have given three years&#39; service before he attains the age of twenty-one years. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A lad can enter the Service if between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6510</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- fu the latter case, he will enter as an advanced clerk, and his service will be of advantage to the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister to look at the proposal from a kindly point of view, and to bear in mind that the passage of this measure will postpone a revision of the Public Service Act,  which  otherwise would take place at a much earlier date. I have not the slightest doubt that the Bill was passed hurriedly through another place, and that due consideration was not given to this proposal; but surely that ought not to prevent the Senate from doing an act of justice, and placing these men on a similar basis to that of other men in the public Departments. I shall have no hesitation in supporting the proposal. I do not think that the Government can rightly assert that we are striving to embarrass them. It is not a question of the Government having privileges apart from the people. Behind the Government stand the people, who are their supporters right through. Surely the Public Service is not to be victimized in any way because of the dignity of the Government! There is not the slightest desire on the part of any honorable senator, I take it, to embarrass Ministers; and surely we are entitled to express our opinions without a suggestion of that kind being made. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6510</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - There is a number of  occu  pations in which it is difficult to organize the workers, and the clerical occupation is unquestionably one of them. The clerks are quite justified in asking that the National Parliament should come to their assistance. Their modesty amazes me; I cannot understand why they did not ask for a larger increase. Parliament will be well advised to agree to so modest a request. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Have they asked for this, increase? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Some of them certainly have done so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Where? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Amongst others, I have received from the general secretary of the Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association a request, in which he points out various reasons why the minimum salary should be at least &#163;138. It is quite obvious to me that if he had considered the matter at greater length, and obtained the advice of some of the organizers for more militant unions, the request would have been for a much larger increase. It may be that, during the currency of the war, we may have to review even a salary of &#163;138. It may also be that before the war terminates we may have to reduce the whole of the salaries paid by the Government and private employers to one uniform level, and that is the same amount as the men in the trenches are getting. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Including our own ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Including our own, undoubtedly. However, we have not arrived at that stage, but if it does come no doubt honorable senators will face the question in a proper way. I move - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>That the words &#34; One hundred and twentysix per annum,&#34; be left out. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I submit the amendment, not with the intention of causing any inconvenience to the Ministry, but merely to express my own opinion, and, I believe, the opinion of a considerable number of honorable senators, that the request from the association is a most modest and reasonable one, with which we can comply very easily. It is quite possible that, in the rush of business, this measure received only scant consideration in another place, and that the other House would be only too pleased to comply with a request from the Senate. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator GARDINER(New</inline>South Wales - Vice-President of the Executive </para>
          <para class="block">Council) &#91;1.25 a.m.&#93;. - I am surprised at the moderation of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant.</inline> I cannot support his amendment to create a blank. There is no question that we have constitutional power to reduce an amount, but not to increase it. What will happen if we reduce the amount, and it stops at that? The Bill will not come back to the Senate if the other House accepts the amendment, and the last case will be worse than the first. Let us deal with the matter in a reasonable way. There is no honorable senator who will say that we all have not the same desire in this direction. Why should a division be taken to create the opinion that there is a difference on this question amongst the members of the Labour party? If the amendment be made, the minimum rate will be left as it was before. The plain, straightforward course is to deal with the whole of these men in the way in which they should be dealt with, and not in a haphazard way, which will leave them in a worse position. I appeal to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> not to put myself and others in the position of seeming to be unwilling to do as much for one section of the Public Service as they wish to do. If, however, that is his desire, he can do it. It is a very easy and cheap way of scoring off one&#39;s mate3, but it is a way to which I am not accustomed. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6511</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Grant</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Why do you not vote for the amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>SenatorGARDINER. - It is a proposal to strike out the minimum of &#163;126 a year because we have not the constitutional power to increase the amount. It is a case of cutting off one&#39;s nose to spitehis face. The amendment, if carried, will make the position of the clerks worse than it is under the Order in Council. If we were engaged on a general revision of the pay of these men, I would say that a minimum of &#163;126 is altogether too small. I do not think that any good will result from a spasmodic attempt to deal with a small section of the Public Service without considering the position of other sections. I appeal to honorable senators not to do the wrong thing because the Constitution will not allow us to do . the right thing. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6511</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:28:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am inclined to think that the Minister has not stated the facts of the case properly. He said that, because we have not the power to increase this amount, therefore we propose to reduce- it. That statement, on the face of it, is absurd. Seeing that we shall do neither by creating a blank, how can the Minister come to that conclusion? He might, at least, have been fair, and said that we were not trying to do either. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is not &#34; nothing &#34; less than &#163;126 ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If we create a blank, and the other House fills it, will not the Bill have to be returned here for our consideration ? The final say will rest with the Senate, so that the Minister has&#34;, to my mind, misrepresented the whole case. This Chamber has the final right of review, because the. blank will be filled by the other House. Therefore, whatever the Vice-President of the Executive Council might say to the contrary, the object we have in view, that of increasing the minimum salary from &#163;126 to &#163;138 per year, will have been achieved if the other House fills in the blank as we desire. The Minister has asked why we are raising this question, but I would point out that it is the Government themselves who have raised it by coupling it with this measure to protect the rights of the officers under the Act. The Minister says that this is a validating clause, but surely it is not urgent. The position has stood for a couple of years without injury to any one, and surely it would not make any difference if it were extended for another year. The amendment, if carried, will certainly make the position of civil servants no worse than it is at present. I am in favour of &#163;138, and if the amendment is pressed to a division I will vote for it. The conditions under which the Bill has been brought down are not conducive to a proper consideration of a measure of this sort, and I am sure that if honorable senators had a proper opportunity to review it, many other defects would be discovered, justifying the measure being postponed for further consideration. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Bill can be postponed until we meet again. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course it can; there is no urgency at all, and certainly there is no danger that the rights of any officer will be jeopardized in any way. Nobody here or elsewhere would do an injustice to any officers who have temporarily left the Department to do service for their country at the front. The Min ister said that there have been no requestsfrom these people as a body for an amendment of this kind, but it has been pointed out that members of this Chamber have had representations made to them through the proper channels - the unions of these men - to the effect that the salary istotally inadequate. They are the best judges. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Those representations have been made because this Bill wasbrought forward. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. The moment the men got wind that a Bill affecting the minimum salary was to be introduced they realized that it would be very unlikely that there would be any later opportunity of having this matter reviewed,, and so the representations were made. The opportunity to effect that alteration is here, and I hope, therefore, that honorable senators will stand by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant&#39;s</inline> amendment, which, despite the statements made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, seeks to increase the minimum pay of public servants from &#163;126 to &#163;138 per annum. The latter sum represents approximately &#163;2 13s. per week, and I regard even that amount as in sufficient for any man to live on at thepresent time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6512</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:35:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I want honorable senators to remember the speech made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Minister was candid enough to admit that &#163;138 per annum would be too little, but he attempted to persuade the Committee that if we strike out the words as proposed in the amendment we will, in effect, be reducing the salary of public servants instead of doing them a friendly turn. The Vice-President of the Executive Council knows perfectly well, however, that an Order in Council fixes the minimum at &#163;126, and that even if we adopt the amendment the position of the public servants will not be affected. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Not while we are in office, but if another Government came in they would only have to pass another Order in Council. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable gentleman did not say that before. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I thought it was quite obvious to everybody. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6512</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable gentleman pleaded that if we struck out the words we would be reducing the amount, and he knows that we could not do that, because the Order in Council would remain. As regards the statement&#39; that if we pass the amendment we shall kill the Bill, I would remind the Committee that the fate of the measure will be determined in another place, and if it is to be laid aside the officers of the Public Service will be in no worse position than they are in this morning. We are trying to better their position, and this is the only means by which we can do it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 5 (Preference in appointments to members of Expeditionary Forces). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6513</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:39:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This clause provides for preference being given in Government appointments to those persons who, having passed the necessary examination, have served in the Expeditionary Forces. It is in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 6 (Maximum age of appointees to Clerical Division). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6513</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:40:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - At the present time the principal Act provides that persons must enter the Public Service before they are twenty-one years of age. It has been found that in some States there is a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of qualified clerks to fill the positions, and it has been thought advisable to extend the age to twenty-five years. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 7 (Eligibility of officers of Territory for Commonwealth appointments). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6513</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:41:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - When the principal Act was passed we had not control of Territories now being administered by the Commonwealth Government. Since then we have taken over the Northern Territory, where there are a number of servants who were formerly in the employ of the South Australian Service. In addition, there is the Papuan Service, and the Service in the Federal Territory. Possibly there will be other Territory Services. We have got now a number of little .water-tight compart ments, and it is desirable that the public servants in these Territories shall be placed on the same footing as those in the Commonwealth Service elsewhere. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause S&#34; (Temporary employment). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6513</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:42:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Section 40 of the principal Act enables persons to be temporarily employed for a period not exceeding eight months, and at present, if it is found necessary to extend temporary employment beyond that period, the Governor-General in Council has to exempt officers. In connexion with the Postal Electricians&#39; case, the late  Attorney-General expressed the opinion that the law gave no power to exempt. Now it* has been found necessary to carry out certain departmental work, not of a permanent character, with temporary employees retained longer than nine months, and this amendment will enable that class of employees to be retained without recourse to the exemption provisions. Under this amendment the long process now followed in getting the Governor-General&#39;s approval to an exemption will not be necessary, because the Commissioner will have the power to regulate temporary extension, and then to guard against it being too extensively used, provision will be made for a regular review of the temporary employees. There are satisfactory reasons for the continuation of such work to meet the convenience of the Departments without at the same time extending the number of temporary employees where permanent appointments ought to be made. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6513</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:44:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The large number of persons temporarily employed in every Department stands as a barrier against those who may seek permanent employment. Persons temporarily employed have not the experience which is gained by permanently employed public servants, and, therefore, they are not so useful to the Departments. The Government should consider the necessity of doing away as far as possible with the employment of temporary hands. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6513</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator is referring to the permanent Departments. He recognises, of course, that there are Departments which, in themselves, are only temporary. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6514</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I quite recognise that.I am dealing with the employment of temporary hands to do permanent work. The adoption of this policy is the cause of a great deal of discontent. There is a vast number of persons employed in the Service who have not a thorough knowledge of the work they are called upon to perform. A man may be employed for a time in the Post Office, later in the Treasury, and perhaps later again he may return to the Post Office. These temporary hands are not wedded to the Department in which they are employed, and require the services of a highly-paid officer to supervise their work. The better policy would be to increase the number of permanent employees, and reduce the number of temporary employees to a minimum. There is some work, of course, upon which temporary hands must be employed. The taking of the census is an instance in point; but I wish particularly to. deprecate the employment of so many temporary hands in the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 9 (Consequence of conviction of an officer of a criminal offence). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6514</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This clause proposes an amendment of section 66 of the principal Act, under which an officer is deemed to have forfeited his office upon conviction of an offence. We have had some little experience of the operation of the section. There is one notable example which shows that it is practically a dead letter. A man in the Customs Department was convicted of actually defrauding the Commonwealth, and yet it was found impossible to get rid of him. That man is to-day in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, although he has been convicted in the Courts of the land of having defrauded the Commonwealth. The object of clause 9 of this Bill is really to give effect to the plain intention of section 66 of the existing Act. No one will defend the continuance in his employment of a public officer who has been convicted of defrauding the taxpayers, who are his employers. The Government think that they should have the power in such a case to deal with the offender, and at least to put an end to his employment in the Service. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6514</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:50:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Reading section 66, I am somewhat surprised to hear the Minis ter&#39;s statement. Sub-section 1 provides that- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>If an officer is on an indictment or presentment convicted of any offence he shall bc deemed to have forfeited his office, and shall thereupon cease to perform his duties or receive his salary. </para>
          <para>That seems clear enough. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6514</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so; but there are other sections of the Act which give such a man the right to appeal to an Appeal Board. In the case to which I have referred, the offender appealed to the Board, and, although the Cour.t convicted him of the offence, the Appeal Court said he was not guilty, and he had to be retained in the Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6514</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It would seem that the power of the Appeal Board is greater than that of the Law Court. It seems to me that under the section the Court decides that the offender has forfeited his position-. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6514</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No; all that the Court does is to convict him of the offence. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6514</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But in doing so it brings him under the operation of subsection 1 of section 66. If that is not the case, I am certainly in favour of a clause to amend section 66. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 10 - </para>
          <para>Section 72 of the principal Act is amended - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>by omitting from sub-section 5 thereof all words from and including the words&#39; but in that case,&#34; and inserting in their stead the words &#34; but in that case every such officer shall be granted an amount equal to a day&#39;s salary if a full day&#39;s attendance has been required, and a proportionate amount if less than a full day&#39;s attendance has been required, but no payment or other compensation shall be granted for attendance during any holiday or half-holiday observed in pursuance of sub-section 3 of this section unless - </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - &#34; (6) Any officer whoso services and attendance have, prior to the commencement of this sub-section, been required on any day observed as a holiday or half-holiday in pursuance of this section, and who has not been granted leave of absence in lieu thereof, shall, in respect of his attendance on such days as were observed as public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) throughout the State in which he was employed, be entitled to payment at the rate specified in the last preceding sub-section, the rate of salary of the officer for the purposes of that section being taken to be the rate of salary received by him at the time of his attendance; and upon such payment being made the officer shall cease to be entitled to any compensation in respect of his attendance on holidays or half-holidays observed in pursuance of this section prior to the commencement of this sub-section.&#34; </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">Section proposed to be amended - The minister .... may require the attendance and services of any officer .... during any such</inline>
            <inline font-style="italic">holiday</inline>
            <inline font-style="italic">but in that case every such officer shall be granted in lieu thereof a holiday upon such other occasion as shall not interfere with public business.</inline>
          </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6515</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:52:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This clause has been found necessary in connexion with holidays provided for under section 72 of the existing Act. It lays down conditions with regard to payments for holidays. Any holiday in respect of which payment may be claimed must be a holiday throughout the State, and it must be given by direction of the Minister. The provision is made retrospective as regards officers who have not taken leave in lieu of holidays on which they have been required to work. This is in accordance with the representations of tha association representing the officials. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6515</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:53:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - It is proposed by this clause to omit certain words from sub-section 5 of section 72, with a view to insert the words - but in that case every such officer shall bo granted an amount equal to a day&#39;s salary if a full day&#39;s attendance has been required, and a proportionate amount if less than a full day&#39;s attendance has been required. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>This means that if a man is called into an office for an hour, he will receive only an hour&#39;s pay. Honorable senators can realize the harshness of bringing a man into a public office to work for an hour, and- giving him only an hour&#39;s pay. If a man is required to attend at his office, especially on a holiday, the least he should be entitled to receive is half a day&#39;s pay. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARKER, Stephen</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Barker</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is what we claim in our unions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is the principle generally recognised among labour unions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Suppose it was a Saturday, and in the ordinary course he would be working only half a day, why should he receive a full day&#39;s pay if he is called back for an hour in the morning T </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is it a fair thing to ask a man to attend at a public office to be engaged for, perhaps, only one hour, and receive only one hour&#39;s pay ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He will be brought in for a specific period. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He will lose his whole day, and will be paid for&#34; only one hour. I think the Minister might agree to provide for a minimum payment for three and a half hours, or half a day. I do not see how he can raise any objection to that. I should like to hear the Minister&#39;s views on the matter before moving an amendment to that effect. There is another matter connected with this clause with which 1 should like to deal, but I will leave that until the matter I have now raised has been disposed of. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6515</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:56:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I point out to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mullan</inline> that the clause provides for a privilege which members of the Public Service have not hitherto enjoyed, and that is payment for time worked on holidays. If he will look at the principal Act, he will find that it makes provision only for time off in lieu of time worked on holidays. Members of the Public Service get a certain number of holidays in each year for which they receive full pay. This clause provides, in addition, for payment for time served on holidays proclaimed throughout a State in addition to their ordinary leave. Take the case of a postal official brought into the office for an hour to receive a mail. Why should he be paid for three and a half hours? Surely it is sufficient that he should be paid for the hour. It is not fair to the taxpayers to ask that a man should be paid for three and a half hours who has worked for only one hour, especially when he is given eighteen days holiday in each year on full pay. The men in the labour unions do not receive three weeks&#39; holiday in each year on full pay. No man working for a private firm would be given such a concession as this clause proposes, in addition to three weeks&#39; leave on full pay iu each year. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6515</page.no>
              <time.stamp>01:58:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - No private employer would expect a man to lose a whole holiday on the offchance of being paid for only one hour. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6515</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That would not be done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We know the arbitrary way in which some of the chief officials carry out the provisions of an Act. If we provide for payment in proportion to the time worked, we may be sure that if a man is called in on a holiday&#39; and works only one hour, he will receive only one hour&#39;s pay. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This is to meet the case of country post-offices where a mail has to be received. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The clause is of general application. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Theoretically only. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have heard nothing from the Minister to justify me in altering my view that if a man is called into an office he should receive a minimum of half a day&#39;s pay. I move - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>That after the word &#34;required,&#34; line 7, the words &#34; with a minimum of three and a half hours &#34; be inserted. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6516</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - At a time like the present, when economy must be observed, I appeal to the Committee to say whether it is a fair thing that we should still further increase the privileges of public servants. We all know perfectly well what this clause really means. There are towns throughout the country where the mail coach arrives at a particular hour on a local holiday, and when it is necessary that the postal officer should be present for a brief period to receive the mail. He has probably been attending a racecourse, and is obliged to return to the post office. Every honorable senator knows that that is what usually happens on local holidays. Why, then, should we try to humbug ourselves with the belief that any hardship will be imposed upon these men? Although it may be &#34;a holiday, somebody must be present to take the mail bag. Under the principal Act the officer would not be paid for his attendance on that day. But under this Bill he will be paid for t&#62;~ time in which he is officially occupied. Because he is obliged to break away from a Sunday school picnic or a racecourse for an hour or so, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mullan</inline> desires that he should be paid for three and a half hours! </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mullan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is it fair that he should be paid for only one hour? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Surely it is notcontended that our public servants are unfairly treated. The rush to get into the Commonwealth Public Service is the best answer to any such suggestion. It is idle to go on extending the privileges of Commonwealth employees, especially at a time like the present. This country is faced with a position which will strain its financial resources to the utmost, and in these circumstances I ask <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mullan</inline> not to press his amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6516</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Minister .appears to think that this amendment will apply only to a few country post offices. I wish to point out to him that it will apply to the whole Commonwealth service. In the case of our big telegraph offices it will mean that an operator may be ordered in at any hour upon a holiday, and after sacrificing his day, he may be employed and paid for only an hour of it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If a man is ordered in for a day he will get a day&#39;s pay. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Bill merely provides that if a man works a full day he shall receive a full day&#39;s pay, whereas, if he works only portion of a day, he will receive payment for a proportionate period. I am sorry that I cannot comply with the Minister&#39;s request to withdraw the amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6516</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I desire to put before honorable senators a typical case in connexion with this clause. Let us suppose that the English mail is expected, and that lettersorters are called in to sort that mail on a Sunday night. They frequently reside 3 or 4 miles from the post-office. They may be called in at midnight, and their time may be occupied for only three hours. For that period they will be paid only 3s.  They  may have to walk 6 miles to and from their homes, and out of that amount they may have to payfor their supper. The provision will not apply exclusively to country post-offices. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I can assure the honorable senator that it has been introduced mainly for the purpose of dealing with country post-offices. I can site specific cases if necessary. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6516</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But as the provision is a general and not a specific one, it will apply also to central post-offices. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6516</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Here are the cases which have been put forward by the Postal Department in connexion with this matter. The original section of the Act provides that a day or part of a day proclaimed by the State as a public holiday or bank holiday, or half-holiday, in any part of the State shall be observed in the Commonwealth offices, and that when a Department or any part is kept open in the public interest on a holiday the officers who attend are to be granted a holiday on some other occasion in lieu thereof. This obligation is found to be harassing by the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department, especially in connexion with local holidays, which, in some places, are numerous. In the case of a postmaster who claimed twenty days in lieu of holidays worked during 1913 - holidays in addition to his annual leave - it was found that seven had been proclaimed for local - races, and others for local purposes. Other like cases are instanced. In these cases the officer has probably been called in for an hour to take delivery of the mail bag. Why, then, should he be paid for three and a half hours? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6517</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:11:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I should like the Minister to give us an explanation of the full intention of paragraph c of this clause. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6517</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:12:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - It means that on the occasion of local holidays to which I have referred, if an officer is called in for an hour he will receive payment proportionate to the salary that he is paid, and will not be entitled to also claim time off. o </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6517</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:13:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This paragraph, I take it, deals with holidays on which an Officer has worked prior to the period when it will become operative. Under its provisions it is proposed to pay all the arrears which are due. It provides - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Any officer whose services and attendance have, prior to the commencement of this subsection, been required on any day observed as a holiday or half-holiday, in pursuance of this section, and who has not been granted leave of absence in lieu thereof, shall, in respect of his attendance on such days as were observed as public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) throughout the State in which he was employed, be entitled to payment at the rate specified in the last preceding sub-section. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6517</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the meantime he may have received an increase of salary and will consequently be entitled to payment at a proportionately increased rate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6517</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- My point has reference to the words &#34;public holidays or half-holidays (as the case may be) through-&#39; out the State.&#34; In Queensland the practice has been to observe what are called local holidays. A show may be held in a particular town on one day and in another town on a different day. Thus officers receive holidays at different times. The officers get holidays at different times, and they are not State, but local holidays proclaimed under the Act. If the clause is passed in its present form, no officer would get paid for the days in lieu due to him unless they were for holidays that were holidays throughout the State. Very few of these holidays are holidays throughout the State. They are generally local holidays. The practice in Queensland has been for the Department to grant a day in lieu of a day worked, if it was a holiday, whether it was a district holiday or a holiday throughout the State. These days have been accumulating, and have been credited to the officers, and, therefore, the clause in its present- form would mean repudiation. The officers are entitled to either payment or days in lieu. I move - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>That after the word &#34; State,&#34; paragraph c, the words &#34; or part of the State &#34; be inserted. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6517</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:20:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I cannot accept the amendment. Here is the case of a man who, in. addition to three, weeks&#39; leave, had, because he is living by some lucky chance in a district where they seem to have gone racing mad, twenty local holidays. He would be entitled, under the amendment, to twenty days in addition to his annual leave, whereas a man in another place, without any local holidays&#39;, gets only his three weeks&#39; leave. That is not fair or equitable. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6517</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Did he do any work on those twenty days <inline font-style="italic">1</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6517</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Apparently not, because he claims them as holidays, and claims days off in lieu. He is assumed to have turned up for work, and yet the probability is that the post-office was closed on those days. I do not know what the amount of- arrears is, but if that case is a sample the bill will be a pretty big one. We propose to put the officers on a better footing by providing that the holidays to which they shall be entitled shall be the holidays proclaimed throughout the State. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6517</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How would you do with the Saturday half-holiday, which in </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>South Australia is proclaimed in the metropolitan area, and not &#39;outside ? </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Saturday half-holiday is now generally proclaimed, but I do not think that it is what is defined as a public holiday. We propose to put an end to what has been going on, and should not be asked to go back and recognise all these local holidays. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6518</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:23:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - It would be grossly unfair for the Minister not to accept the amendment, because the clause, as it stands, will practically amount to repudiation. The Government, by their own Acts and regulations, have provided that a man was entitled to a day in lieu of a holiday on which he worked. That day was put down to his credit. The Government now propose to pay them for those days, but why draw a distinction between a local holiday and a public holiday, seeing that both kinds have been credited to officers as days in lieu due to them ? It is more economical for the Minister to pay for those days than to give them days in lieu off. If seven days in lieu are due to a man it is probably necessary to send a relieving officer to let him off. That must cost the Department something, but under this arrangement he will get only his ordinary pay, so that the Department, instead of losing, will save in the main and in the long run. The Department entered into a contract with the public servants to give them days in lieu of holidays worked, but now propose an arbitrary arrangement, wiping out with one stroke of the pen the rights of the men to those accumulated davs. In Queensland, through no fault of the men, the days in lieu have amounted to a very considerable number, and, owing to the exigencies of the service and of the Treasury, the officers have not been able to get their leave. It has accumulated to their credit. It is most unfair for the Minister to undertake to pay for only part of this time. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Would the Public Service rather have the law as it is or the proposal in the Bill? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The proposal in the Bill is much better than the present practice ; but if the accumulated days are not paid for an injustice will be done. The service want no more of the humbugging of days in lieu, and I am asking that thev shall be paid for the accumulated leave. To show how acute the position was in Queensland, a deputation from the Post and Telegraph Department waited on the Postmaster-General when he was in Brisbane recently, and told him that up to May, 1914, the days in lieu had accumulated to 17,000 odd. There was a totally inadequate relieving staff, and I am told that the position has become even more acute since. More than half these days will be for local holidays, and the Bill, as it stands, will rob the men of half of their rights. While the clause is a distinct improvement, it will be far from just unless the claims of the men who have accumulated days in lieu are recognised. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para class="block">Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para class="block">Clause 11 (Leave of absence for Defence purposes). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6518</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:29:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia Minister of Defence</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - A number of public servants have gone to the front, and on 14th October, 1914, an Order in Council was passed granting leave of absence for a period not exceeding twelve months without pay, to officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, such leave to take effect from the date of ceasing duty in the Public Service, but to exclude any period granted as annual recreation leave. An amendment of the Act is necessary to allow this leave to be reckoned as part of the officer&#39;s term of service. That is the meaning of this amendment of the Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6518</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:30:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K5R</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Have the Government in view any action for conserving the accrued rights of officers who have gone away to the war? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This clause makes that provision, because if we retain the services of the men we retain their rights. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SENIOR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am in favour of the clause if that is the case. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6518</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Crown Law officers say that the clause was framed for that purpose. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 12 (Personation at examinations). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6518</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:31:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Experience has shown that there is such a thing as a person personating another person in sitting for an examination. That is to say, a person can sit for examination, and another person get into the Service as the result of his pass. No penalty is provided in the principal Act, and the object of this clause is to fix a penalty for that class of offence. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 13 - </para>
          <list type="decimal">
            <item label="(1)">
              <para>Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act or the regulations thereunder, any person who, having successfully passed any prescribed examination to which this section applies, was., on the 4th day of August, 1014, eligible for appointment to the Public Service, shall continue. to be so eligible until nine months after the  termination  of the present state of war. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(2)">
              <para>This section applies to any examination for admission to the Public Service for which the maximum agc fixed for candidates at the date of examination exceeds sixteen years. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6519</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:33:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The object of this clause is to extend the term of eligibility for appointment of any person who has passed a prescribed examination. During the months preceding the war some persons passed such examinations, but no opportunity arrived for their appointment. When the war broke out they enlisted and went to the front. We want to preserve&#39; their right to receive an appointment when they come back. In the other House the words &#34;is at the commencement of this Act&#34; were struck out, and the words, &#34; was on the 4th August, 1914,&#34; were inserted. That amendment was hurriedly made, and really destroys the intention or the clause. I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the words, &#34; was on the 4th day of August, 1014,&#34; bo left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, &#34; is at the commencement of this Act.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6519</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:35:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K22</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BLAKEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am glad that the Minister proposes to restore the words which were deleted hurriedly in another place, but I ask him to go a little further, and in order to make assurance doubly sure, to insert the word &#34;or&#34; after the word &#34; applies &#34; in sub-clause 1. That amendment would provide for the case of those who passed an examination before the 4th August, 1914, for those who may have passed since that date, and also for those who may pass an examination after the Bill comes into operation. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There can be none passing after that event, because no permanent appointments will be made until after the termination of the war. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K22</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BLAKEY, Albert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BLAKEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have been informed by a legal member of the other House that if the word &#34; or &#34; is inserted as I suggest, there can be no  doubt  aboutthe matter. I think that the Minister will recognise that the amendment cannot strike at any vital principle. I understand that it is the wish of several honorable members of the other House who were unable to be present when the clause was rather hurriedly rushed through, that this alteration should be made. It will meet the wish of the Government, and will leave no doubt about the intention of the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6519</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:37:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Is there a provision in the principal Act or the regulations which causes the eligibility resulting from the passing of an examination to lapse within a definite time&#39; </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It lapses after twelve months, I believe. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then the insertion of the word &#34; or &#34; would not meet the case. It would annul the limitation in respect to a number of persons who have not gone to the war. Surely it is not intended that a person who, five years ago, passed an examination, but who, perhaps, for reasons of his own, did not enter the Public Service, and has not gone to the war, should have an expired right revived. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No; and that is why the word &#34; or &#34; should not be inserted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6519</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline> Blakey&#39;s  amendment would do a great deal more than it is the intention of the Government to do. If twelve months is the period in which the effect of passing an examination lapses, I suggest that some amendment of the Minister&#39;s proposal is still necessary. By the time this measure becomes law the war will have been in progress thirteen months. Some person may have passed an examination the day after the war broke out, or a few months previously, recruited, and gone to the front, and, therefore, is not in a position to take advantage of a successful pass, tinder the clause he will not be eligible for appointment now. It ought to be provided not merely that any one who has passed an examination and is eligible for appointment now, but any one who was eligible at any time after the war broke out shall have his rights preserved. I ask the Minister to see whether it is not advisable to maintain, at any rate, the substance of the amendment made elsewhere. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6520</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:41:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The direction given for drafting this clause was that all persons who were eligible and had passed an examination before or since the war, and had subsequently enlisted, should have their right to enter the Public Service preserved. When I interjected that twelve months was the period within which eligibility lapsed, I spoke, of course, from memory. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SENIOR, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Senior</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-It is in the regulations, not in the Act. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is not in the Act. I am informed that there is no such period as twelve months. In some cases there is a period; in other cases there is not. The clause was advisedly worded in this way so as tg cover all classes of cases. There are two requirements. One is that the man must have passed an examination, and the other is that he must be eligible for appointment. I think that the clause will meet every conceivable class of cases. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You have admitted that there is no period in some cases. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The clause will meet such cases, because those concerned will have passed the prescribed examination, and will at the commencement of the Act be eligible for appointment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How can it meet the case, seeing that the war broke out thirteeen months ago? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I ask the Committee to make the amendment, and I promise to have the point looked up. The Crown Law Officers have advised that the words put in by the other House will, if retained, defeat the object of the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6520</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:44:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I fail to see any difficulty in the proposition before the Committee which necessitates a reference to anybody. It is not a legal point, but a mere matter of fact which we have to consider. The Minister states that there are certain cases in which the rights resulting from a successful examination evaporate in twelve months. I will take &#39;the case of a man who passed an examination in June or July of last year. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I find that the term is eighteen months, so that all cases are covered. Sub-section c of section 18 provides for the passing of regulations. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That gets over that difficulty/ but I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to do as this clause proposes, to keep the right of examination open not only in respect of those who have gone to the front, but in respect to everybody else? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In another clause we give preference to those who have gone to the war, so that if there is any competition between those who -have qualified and have not gone to the war, and those who have qualified and gone to the war,, the latter will have the first chance of employment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6520</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That will meet the difficulty. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to </para>
          <para>Title agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL</title>
        <page.no>6520</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6520</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6520</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:51:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">No principle is involved in the measure,, which merely transfers the control of wireless telegraphy from the Department of the Postmaster-General to the Minister for the time being administering the Act. The second clause of the Bill puts thecase quite as clearly as I could. It states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 are amended by omitting the words &#34; the Postmaster-General,&#34; and inserting in their stead the words &#34;the Minister for the time being administering the Act.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">All wireless telegraphy business will be conducted, during the period of the war, in the office of the Minister for the Navy instead of, as at present, in the office of the Postmaster-General. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6520</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:52:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KVH</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULLAN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULLAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I did hope that we would receive some further information concerning the object of the Bill from the Minister than was given. I can understand that there are very many grave reasons why, particularly at a time like the present, the Navy Department should have control of wireless telegraphy ; but we can easily imagine a different set of circumstances being created in the near future, when, as I hope, we will have wireless telegraph stations in various inland towns of the Commonwealth, set up in conjunction with the ordinary postal services1. This will mean dual control, because the Postal Department will control the postal branch, and the Navy Department will be responsible for the wireless branch. In time, this will probably lead to friction. Of course, we have not reached that stage yet, and, therefore, the difficulty is only in the dim and distant future. Nevertheless it will probably arise, and no doubt the Minister had in mind the fact that this is only a temporary expedient. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6521</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:54:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - There is a double difficulty in this matter. A great deal of friction no doubt would exist with the Navy Office controlling its naval stations ind the postal authorities controlling the inland stations. The records of the Department show that serious complaints of interference have been made from time to time by the Navy people against the Postal Department, and <inline font-style="italic">vice</inline><inline font-style="italic">versa.</inline> In order&#39; to get away from that difficulty.it is proposed to place wireless telegraphy under the control of the Navy Department in war time. So far as public services are concerned that is probably the best thing to do in such circumstances. But war is not&#39; a normal condition of affairs, and when we return to peaceful conditions again we will probably find that there will be a considerable volume of commercial business passing through the wireless stations to the shipping, and I am not prepared to believe that the business of the public will be more satisfactorily attended to by officials of the Navy Department than by postal officials. Whatever may be said of postal officials,  I think they consider that they exist for the benefit of the public. I have never found officials of a Navy Department to take that view. With them the public interests are subordinated to the interests of their Department, as they ought to be when the Department is engaged upon a warlike enterprise. When they aTe called upon to deal with commercial business I anticipate a considerable amount of trouble. However, we are &#34; between the devil and the deep sea.&#34; We have to continue the present conflict between the two Departments or run the risk of the danger to which I have referred. I offer no objection to the Bill, because I assume that it does meet the difficulties that exist to-day, and later on, when peace is declared, and the other difficulty which I anticipate presents itself, we shall, as practical men, have to devise a remedy to meet it. I view with some apprehension the possibility of the Navy Department being called upon to handle commercial business on commercial lines. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6521</page.no>
              <time.stamp>02:57:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KKZ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I do not wish to enter upon speculations as to what may happen under this Bill when normal times of peace come round again. I agree with the view expressed that the use of wireless as a means of communication throughout this continent will be largely  exten-  ded. I venture to enter the realms of prophecy and say that we may anticipate a very material development of this means of communication in the course of the next few years. I do not expect that any trouble will arise from the change proposed by this Bill. The Navy Department, as one of the Departments responsible for the conduct of the war, should have control of wireless communication while the war lasts. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6521</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It passes automatically under the control of the Navy Department in time of war. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">In Committee.</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 are amended by omitting the words &#34; the Postmaster-General,&#34; and inserting in their stead the words &#34; the Minister for the time being administering the Act.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6521</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMP</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRANT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GRANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The explanation of the Bill given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council has made this Bill fairly  clear  but I have risen to express a hope that in future when a Bill similarly framed and proposing the amendment of an existing Act is introduced honorable senators will have placed before them at the same time the sections of the Act proposed to be amended, in order that they may be enabled to see clearly the effect of the amendments upon the original text. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Title agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 3.5 to 3.45 a.m. (Thursday).</inline>
          </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL</title>
        <page.no>6522</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>6522</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6522</page.no>
              <time.stamp>03:50:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>I need hardly remind honorable senators of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I would like to interpose at this stage and ask if it is not possible for members to obtain copies of&#39; the Bill. Now that it has been introduced honorable senators should receive copies before being asked to proceed with its discussion. They cannot discuss a Bill that is not before the House. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>An Honorable <inline font-weight="bold">Senator. -</inline> Copies are being distributed now. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The copies that are being distributed are not copies of the Bill before the Senate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6522</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I would like to point out to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> that the Senate has just deliberately suspended the Standing Orders so as to allow this Bill to pass through all its. remaining stages without delay. Therefore I&#34; have no authority in this matter. At the same time, if I were asked for my opinion I should say that before honorable senators proceeded with the discussion they should be supplied with copies of the Bill, &#39;and I would suggest to the Leader of the Senate that he should request me to further postpone this sitting until copies are &#34;available. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- May I point out that on the second-reading debate senators will be asked to discuss only the general principles of the measure. The copies of the Bill, with the amendments, that have been circulated, contain the general principles of the measure, and the Government has no intention of asking the Senate to commence its discussion in Committee until a complete print of the Bill, as amended in the House of Representatives, is avail able. I think the copies circulated contain sufficient information for the secondreading debate, and under the circumstances I ask the Senate to allow it to continue. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This is making a farce of the whole proceedings. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Bill might just as well be circulated in a foreign language as in the state we have got it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6522</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Prior to the interruption I was about to deal with the general principles of the Bill, which are as well known to honorable senators as is the general condition of finance in Australia that has rendered a measure of this sort necessary. I think it is generally recognised that the responsibilities cast upon the Government and people of Australia are not of their own seeking, and undoubtedly they call for more revenue. I need hardly review the causes that have led up to our requiring more money. The war, although not altogether responsible, is to a very large extent responsible for this state of affairs, but the natural development that has taken place in all parts of the Commonwealth has also rendered more revenue necessary. Governments, prior to the present Government; have lived outside their revenue - a clear indication that taxation within the Commonwealth was not sufficient to defray the cost of the ordinary services of the country, and to permit of a reasonable expenditure upon our public works without resorting to borrowing. With the additional burden that has been thrown upon us as the result of the war, and with the necessity which confronts us of meeting the interest charges upon, money that we are compelled to borrow, further taxation is inevitable. After giving the matter the fullest consideration, the Government have determined to adopt this particular form of taxation. We do not regard the Bill as one for the imposition of special war taxation, because, undoubtedly, other expenditure will have to be met out of the revenue which will be collected under it. But when we are considering methods of taxation, certain factors have to be borne in mind. In the first place, we require to ask ourselves &#34; Is this form of taxation necessary?&#34;; secondly, -&#34; Is the measure which authorizes it just or iniquitous? &#34;; and lastly, &#34; Is it a measure which is calculated to injure any of our industries, or to prevent their development?&#34; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Various suggestions have been made as to the taxation methods which we should adopt. After mature consideration, the Government have accepted the principle of &#34;an income tax in the belief that it is far better to tax the surplus income of the people than to levy upon capital which is engaged in industry. It has been urged that, as this is a war measure, the tax should be distributed over the whole of the people, and that none should be permitted to escape it. Having considered that phase of the question, we have decided to grant an exemption of &#163;156 per annum. The tax will, therefore, commence to operate upon the first &#163;1 of any person&#39;s income in excess of &#163;156 per annum. Owing to the war conditions which obtain, and to the increased cost of living, we believe that this amount represents the minimum sum upon which a family can be maintained in a state of reasonably comfort, or indeed of decency. Another reason which has induced us to take that view is that hitherto the man who has received the least income has been obliged to pay more taxation, proportionately, than have the individuals who are possessed of great wealth. Take, for example, our indirect taxation in the form of Customs duties. Under this heading, the average man with a family of five contributes the sum of &#163;10 3s. 6d. annually. It will be seen, therefore, that the worker is already paying at a much higher rate on bis income than is the individual who possesses a much larger income. Under this Bill, we propose to allow an exemption of &#163;156, gradually disappearing in the case of income in excess of that amount at the rate of something like &#163;3 in &#163;10, finally disappearing at &#163;1,200. In regard to income from property, it is intended to grant the same exemption, but that exemption will disappear at about &#163;546. For every &#163;10 in excess of &#163;156 it will disappear at the rate of &#163;2 in &#163;5. It has been said that in some respects this form of taxation is iniquitous. I do not suggest that any taxation measure is harmless. I do not say that, in certain directions, this particular form of taxation might not be restrictive. But ve have to recollect that if we are to develop the resources of this country we must impose substantial taxation. The Government are faced with the task of collecting a certain sum of money within a reasonable time, in order to meet the special circumstances which have arisen in Australia. We believe that this can best be done by levying a graduated income tax which will fall lightly on persons with small incomes, and the burden of which will increase gradually from 3d. in the &#163;1 upon incomes in excess of &#163;156 per annum to 5s. in the &#163;1 upon incomes of &#163;6,700 per annum derived from personal exertion. It will thus be a very substantial impost upon those who in times of peace have participated in the prosperity of this country. We do not envy these persons the possession of their wealth, but we do say that, having enjoyed all the protection which the community has afforded them in times of peace, they should be impelled by a patriotic desire to maintain and defend this country in time of war. Under existing legislation a man in receipt of an income from personal exertion of &#163;156 per annum contributes through the Customs five seventy-eighths of that amount, whilst an individual whose income totals &#163;104 per annum - and who may fairly be said to represent the position of the great majority of the workers of this country - contributes about five fifty-seconds of his income through the Customs. The poor man is, therefore, undoubtedly taxed. I wish now to show how the taxation proposed under this Bill is likely to affect those persons who are already paying income tax because they enjoy the largest incomes. According to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Knibbs,</inline> those who are in receipt of incomes in excess of &#163;200 per annum number 114,000, and their annual incomes approximate &#163;64,000,000. Those incomes rise gradually to &#163;2,000. The same authority shows that 2; 536 persons or companies are in receipt of incomes aggregating &#163;22,000,000. Without having the exact figures before me, it is estimated that about one-half of the capital invested in the industries of Australia is provided by companies. Consequently, we have had to impose special rates in dealing with companies. We have no desire to hinder their development, and, therefore, instead of taxing them by means of a flat rate - as most States do - we have decided to tax the individuals comprising them on the proportion of income which they receive. There is, however, a portion of the income of any company which is not always distributed amongst its shareholders, and on that undistributed portion - in other words upon that proportion of their profits which the companies retain in various funds - we propose to levy a. flat rate of ls. 6d. in the &#163;1. Another point arising out of this has relation to partnerships. While partners are required to send in a collective return practically in the same form as that which is furnished by a company, each partner is taxed on his individual share, which is added to his general income, from whatever source it may come. The joint undistributed income of a partnership is not to be taxed upon the rate prescribed for the undistributed profits of a company. The tax is to be determined by the amount of income earned by each partner in proportion to his respective share. While all may agree that it is a good thing to be exempt from taxation, I do not think that the necessity for this Bill will be denied, or that it will be said that the tax will not be within the means of the people of Australia. The production of the Commonwealth has been as follows: - </para>
          <para class="block">That increase in so short a period has been due partly to volume and partly to difference in price, but Australia stands to-day in the position of&#187; having the highest production per head of any country in the world, with, perhaps, the exception of New Zealand; but those who possess the great bulk of the wealth of the country have hitherto enjoyed comparative freedom in regard to direct taxation, while, through our attempt to build up a Protectionist policy, their poorer brethren have had to bear the bulk of the burden of indirect taxation. In the United Kingdom the direct taxation to indirect is in the proportion of 18 to 11; whereas in New South Wales it is 19 to 20; in Victoria, 3 to 4 ; in Queensland, 1 to 1 ; in South Australia, 77 to 80; in Western Australia, 69 to 80; and in Tasmania, 43 to 80. These figures clearly show that when revenue has been needed the usual practice has been to impose the taxation on commodities in general use in the community. The result has been that the man with the small income has paid a far greater proportion of it towards the maintenance of public services than his better situated fellow-citizen has been required to pay. That the citizen of Australia will not have to pay as heavy an income tax as that paid by the citizen of the United Kingdom is shown by the following table: - </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="078332191509014_82_1.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para class="block">At about &#163;8,000 we exceed the taxation in the United Kingdom. On an income of &#163;10,000 the citizen of Australia will pay &#163;2,083, as against &#163;1,195 paid by the citizen of the United Kingdom; but, taking the tax all round, the Australian citizen will pay from 25 to 33 per cent, less than is paid in the United Kingdom. The following table gives the same comparison in regard to income derived from property : - </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="078332191509014_83_2.jpg" />
          </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6525</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Do those figures include the surcharge in New South Wales? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6525</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- .No. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6525</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Then the comparisons are valueless. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6525</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator RUSSELL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Though we have not the same responsibility or the same liability as rests upon the shoulders of the people of Great Britain in regard to the prosecution of the war, with very few exceptions the people of Australia are determined to see it through - to use the words of the Prime Minister - &#34;to the last shilling and the last man.&#34; Therefore, no one can take exception to the Bill before us, and honorable senators, in their criticism of the measure, should view it, not with any desire to provide the Treasurer with a smaller sum than &#163;4,000,000, but with the desire to see whether a more effective system of raising the money required by the Government can be devised. I have no desire to go into the details of the Bill, but I shall point out one or two of its features. The first assessment will be on the income of the year 1914-15, and the tax will be payable in two half-yearly instalments. Notices to furnish returns will be issued by the Commissioner in the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Gazette.</inline> Income will be taxed from all sources in Australia, including, at the request of the residents, our first little possession, Papua. Where it is inconvenient for a large company to make out their returns on the particular day demanded by the Commissioner, he may for the time being accept the last balance-sheet that he thinks gives all the requisite information. There is no exemption for the absentee, but there is a deduction of &#163;13 for every child under sixteen years of age, that being the amount allowed to the widow for each child under the War Pensions Act. The whole of the deductions from gross income represent the usual business procedure for ascertaining the net income, , which in general terms becomes the taxable income that is graduated. Once the general principle that this taxation shall be imposed has been decided, the matter becomes largely one of perfecting the machinery of the Bill to carry out that object. There is in it nothing extraordinary or new. It is based generally upon the principles of our Land Tax Assessment Act, and nearly all its principles, with one or two exceptions, are quite common  to all the State Income Tax Assessment Acts. It is, therefore, a measure which can be better dealt with clause by clause in Committee. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6526</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:18:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The motion is that this Bill be &#34;now&#34; read a second time. I invite the attention of the Senate to what the adoption of the second reading now means so far as this branch of the Federal Parliament is concerned. We have many times, when a session has been nearing its close, witnessed some speeding up of the business and some&#39; effort to rush through the remaining work at inconvenient and  unbusiness-like  hours. But to-night&#39;s experience marks the limit, not merely in the method of conducting public business, but in the degradation to which the Senate has been subjected. No honorable senator, no matter on which side of the House he sits, can remain unmoved at the spectacle that is being made of this branch of Parliament. The sooner the people know that this Chamber is no longer permitted an opportunity of taking a deliberative part in the passing of the laws placed on the statute-book the sooner will it be recognised that the Senate can be abolished without detriment to anybody. This Bill is full of complex provisions, but it has not yet made its appearance here to-day, and many of its provisions were inserted in another place only a few moments ago.- Not even the Minister has had the opportunity to see and consider these amendments, and we are asked to pass the Bill without an op- portunity of looking at them. The limits of farce can go no further, and it is for honorable senators to say whether they are prepared to continue. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6526</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Nearly forty amendments have been made in the Bill, and are not yet printed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6526</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Nothing could more forcibly illustrate the absurdity and iniquity of this proceeding than the fact that the Minister himself has had no opportunity of reading these amendments. We are invited to deal with a Bill which has not yet been placed in our hands. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6526</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If your  party  in the other Chamber had been less talkative there would have been less ground for complaint. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6526</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator must not make reference to the proceedings of another place. To do so is contrary to the standing order on the sub ject, which is not one of those that have been suspended. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6526</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We have to deal only with what takes place within these walls, and it is within the competency of honorable senators themselves to say whether they will insist on a fair opportunity of considering the provisions of the measure. I have been just as desirous of terminating this session as any other honorable senator, because many circumstances suggest the  unadvisability  of continuing our deliberations here, but it is quite&#34; another thing to say that I will be guilty of such a dereliction of duty as to pretend to take part in any  deliberation  of the  measure  now submitted to us. If the Government are unable to bring measures forward in time to permit honorable senators to make themselves acquainted with their- details, the alternative is not to insist on terminating the proceedings to-morrow. It is of no use to attempt to place the blame for the hurry anywhere else. It rests with the Government, and unless we are prepared to support them in this procedure there is no reason why the House should be denied the opportunity of considering the Bill. Is the Senate prepared now to assent to the second reading or not? If it is, then in common decency to the electors honorable senators should tell the constituencies, &#34;The Second Chamber has become a mere recording agency for the decisions -of the other House, and you might as well abolish it and save the expense of its upkeep.&#34; I was very much surprised at the reception accorded to your suggestion, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> and the fact that you made it is an indication of the gravity of the step taken to-night. It is not often that a presiding officer ventures even by suggestion to express an opinion as to the proceedings of the Chamber, and when you took that step, I venture to say that you did it because you regarded this departure as one which should not pass, unnoticed. Your suggestion was not adopted - :why, I could not say, because it seemed a happy way out of the difficulty into which the Ministry had unfortunately blundered. An alternative suggestion was made by the Minister of Defence, which was as bad as the course we are now following, to the effect that we should hear the Minister&#39;s second-reading speech, and then adjourn to enable the Bill to be printed - a Bill the first reading of which has been passed, and the second reading moved - meet again at some hour of the morning, go straight into Committee, and deal with the Bill hot from the printer, with still no opportunity of studying the original clauses, much less the new clauses which have just been inserted. No more ridiculous position has ever confronted any House of Parliament. It must be remembered that this is the first measure of the kind to be adopted by the Federal Parliament. It is no mere machinery measure to amend defects in an Act on the statutebook. This is an entirely new departure so far as we are concerned. Even if it were a simple measure, this Senate would be entitled to an opportunity of perusing it before being asked to consider or assent to it. In this case, notwithstanding all that can be urged in favour of curtailed consideration, we are asked to deliberate on a Bill we have never seen. I believe that in what I am saying now I am only expressing the opinion entertained by every honorable senator. I have no power to do more than make a protest, and, having made it, I shall decline to be a party to the farce, and shall take no further part in dealing with the measure. To do so would be to make myself a party to the ridiculous proceedings of to-night, and I refuse to take any share in the responsibility. It is Ministers who are responsible for carrying on legislation, and the responsibility must remain with them. I decline to have anything more to do with the matter unless we are given an opportunity to consider the provisions of the measure, and to decide regarding them as a deliberative and sane assembly ought to do. Have honorable senators no regard for the standing that this Chamber ought to occupy in the national life of the country ? Little by little- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator must not proceed too far on those lines. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I was, perhaps, going a little too far, and I can only plead that there is some justification for my referring to the matter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There will be a future occasion on which the honorable senator may do that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I apologize if I have unwittingly transgressed the Standing Orders, but honorable senators cannot shut their eyes to the consequences of the course taken to-night. As I have&#34; already said, I consider that we are reducing our proceedings to a farce; and, having made a protest, I decline to participate in these proceedings any further. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Debate (on motion of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>HOUR OF MEETING</title>
        <page.no>6527</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce)</inline> agreed to- </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 10.30 a.m. to-day. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>6527</page.no>
        <type>adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Income Tax Assessment Bill - Conduct of Business</title>
          <page.no>6527</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6527</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:30:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role>Minister of Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the Senate do now adjourn. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>I understood that it was the desire of the Parliament generally that an attempt should be made to adjourn the present sittings this evening, and, with that end in view, it was necessary that certain measures should be passed. Unfortunately, there is always a rush of business when an attempt is made to close the session, or, as in this case, to have a long adjournment, and messages do not come in their usual orderly manner, but pass rather hurriedly from one House to the other. That has happened to-night, and, owing to circumstances that are well known to honorable senators, it could not be avoided, if an attempt was to be made to bring the sittings temporarily to a close to-night. During yesterday the Government tried to get members of the Opposition to agree to clos9 the business to-day, and I understood that the Opposition had agreed to facilitate the passage of this Bill through both Houses. However, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has now taken strong exception to any attempt being made to push this Bill through. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No - to proceed without the Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6527</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator takes that attitude on the ground that he has not been able to get a clean print of the measure. I wish to point out, however, that the honorable senator had my assurance that, before the Bill was taken into Committee, it would be in the possession of the Chamber.- Everybody knows the main principles of the Bill, and yet the honorable senator has taken exception to the proceedings of the </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Government, and the adjournment of the debate has been carried. I have no right to complain, because the Senate is the master of its own procedure; but the course taken by Ministers was only designed to secure the contemplated adjournment. Ministers have done their best to meet the convenience of honorable senators; but we are not the masters of the situation, seeing that there is another House over which we have no control. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The other House would not dream of putting this Bill through in one sitting ! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Senate was not asked to do so, and, therefore, the interjection of the honorable senator is an exaggeration. An assurance was given by me that honorable senators would not be asked to take the Bill beyond the second reading. Honorable senators who are not inexperienced in these matters, but who know the difficulties that have to be met, might, under the circumstances, have shown some little consideration to Ministers. I refer particularly to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, which I take to mean that he does not intend in any way to assist the Government to carry out any arrangement to bring about an&#34; adjournment to-day. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not use the word &#34; arrangement&#34; at all. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In view of the remarks of the honorable senator, I take  it that  the Government are released from any&#34; arrangement, and are, therefore, not to be held to any promise which the Leader of the Government may have made to the Leader of the Opposition. If the arrangement is not to be binding on both Houses it is not binding on either. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I say that whatever promise he may have given the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the business, the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in this House is a complete release, and, that being so, we start where we commenced, and the Government are now free from any arrangement which may have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister as regards the business before both Houses of Parliament. I take this opportunity to make that clear, because if these arrangements are going to be made, they must be kept in the spirit as well as in the letter, and they are not going to be adhered to in one House, and broken in the other. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Honorable senators know very well that a big measure like the Income Tax Bill cannot be printed in a few minutes. They knew that before it could go through the Senate they would have a clean print and a full, opportunity to follow it clause by clause in Committee. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6528</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:36:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - As the Minister of Defence has chosen to make reference to some arrangement, I propose to say a little about it, having been present when it was made; but first let me say that I made no reference to it in the beginning. When I said that I would take no further part in the proceedings on the Bill, I did not say that I would either obstruct it or prove false to the arrangement which was made. I never made a reference to an arrangement. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course you did not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2D</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ready</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You. criticised it enough. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not criticise the arrangement at all. I am criticising now - and I challenge any honorable senator to defend - the request to the Senate to proceed with a Bill which it has not seen. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What was the arrangement ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not suggested that the Senate should be asked to proceed with a Bill which was not before it. No man in his senses would have ever sanctioned such a proposal. Now what was the arrangement ? It was that certain measures only were to be proceeded with, and I emphasize the word &#34; only &#34; because those measures were then on the notice-paper and were mentioned, and no measures not on the notice-paper were referred to. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Was not this measure on the notice-paper? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Has not the Minister&#39;s colleague brought in another measure since then? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This measure was on the notice-paper. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6528</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If we are going to argue about the keeping of this arrangement, let me tell honorable senators what were the measures which it was agreed should go through. The Minister&#39;s colleague broke the arrangement by introducing another Bill. I have not at hand a notice-paper of the other House, but the measures which it was agreed should be .passed before we adjourned were a measure dealing with wireless telegraphy, a measure dealing with an advance in respect to sugar, a measure dealing with the Public Service Act, and the Income Tax Assessment Bill. In order to enable the arrangement to be carried out, the other House ceased its consideration of the Income Tax Assessment Bill, and put through three small measures in order that they could be sent up here and give the Senate something to do while waiting for that Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What new Bill vas introduced ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A Bill to deal with the issue of a referendum pamphlet. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Leader of the Opposition was  informed  in my presence that that Bill was to be introduced. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not done when I was present. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was done before you came. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister ticked off on a notice-paper of the other House the measures which it was agreed should be passed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In addition to that, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> was told that the Bill just referred to was to be introduced. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not done when I was there. The only arrangement of which I know anything, and for which I can be held responsible, is the one which was mentioned when I was present. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You were not there, and do not know. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I doubt very much, and I take the liberty of saying so, if <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> knew anything about that proposal. Certainly it was not mentioned in my presence.&#39; I repeat that I do &#39;lot believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> understood that such a measure was to be brought in. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then you disbelieve what I say. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am entitled to believe what I know. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I say that that statement was made in <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook&#39;s</inline> presence when you were not there. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It may have been made; but we will ascertain from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher,</inline> later in the morning, what the arrangement was. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> asked me what that particular Bill was about. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not on the list ticked off in my presence. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Because it was not on the notice-paper. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Quite apart from that, I consider that the arrangement never contemplated asking the Senate to proceed Avith the Income Tax Assessment Bill before it had seen it, a tiling unheard-of in the history of this or any other Parliament. If it had been suggested there that I should assent to an arrangement asking the Senate co legislate in such circumstances, I would not have done so. One naturally assumed that we would have before us the Bills to be discussed. It is, to my mind, inconceivable and unthinkable that honorable senators should be asked to believe that I, or any one else, approved of a proposal that the Senate was to express its opinion on a measure not before it. The suggestion is too absurd for serious consideration. I repeat that when I spoke on the motion for the second reading, I made no reference to an arrangement, nor did I intimate  any  intention to oppose the Bill. On the contrary, I said that I proposed to leave it absolutely alone. Therefore the Minister has the responsibility thrown upon him of passing the Bill in the circumstances in which it has been brought here, or failing to pass it and adjourning the Senate. I am not taking any part in that business, and therefore he cannot say that I am breaking an arrangement. The only way in which I could break the arrangement would be by subjecting the Bill to a very long discussion at all stages, so as to force the discussion over the time when we should adjourn. I had no intention to do that, and intimated that I was not going to discuss the Bill in the circumstances in which it is here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- &#34; Actions speak louder than words.&#34; Your actions speak loudly enough. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6529</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I ask honorable senators to notice that the Minister is now resenting the fact that I pointed out that the Senate was being asked to deal with a Bill not here. If that is an offence, I glory in it. I glory in the fact that I. am protesting against a proceeding of that kind. If such actions are offensive to the Minister, I cannot help it. As regards any suggestion that an arrangement has been broken, I did not say that I was going to do anything to prevent the arrangement from being carried out. What I did say -was that I personally would not be a party to the farce which the Minister proposed to ask the Senate to enact here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6530</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:43:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - We heard quite a lot just now about arrangements. The only knowledge I have of any arrangement is that this evening was fixed as the time when this portion of the session should be brought to a close. The parties to that arrangement, I believe, were the Leader of the Ministerial party and the Leader of the Opposition. In my judgment, if any person was responsible for fixing that rigid limit for the consideration of important measures, it was the Leader of the Opposition, who would have most to do with the discussion of them. In view of the fact that they were of such great importance, he should not have fixed a limit so close to hand as this evening; and if any responsibility rests on any shoulders, it must rest on the shoulders of the Opposition and their present leader. I do not know whether <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> was a party to that arrangement. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- With whom was itmat le ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I presume that the co-leader in the other Chamber had something to do with the arrangement. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And who on your side ? There must be two parties to an arrangement. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- lt would not be an arrangement otherwise. If any fault is to be found with the rushing of business through at this hour, it must be found by those who were a party to the arrangement which fixed the time for closing the session so close  as  this evening. As to what caused the discussion a few minutes ago, it has to be remembered that all through the early hours of last evening we were informed that the Income Tax Assessment Bill would be sent up to the Senate by 12 o&#39;clock. I visited the other Chamber frequently during the early hours of last evening, and I mostly found members of the Opposition discussing the measure. So that, if any party was responsible for occupying time in that Chamber, the Opposition must take their fair share of the blame. But <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> comes forward to heap the whole of the blame on the Government, and takes not a particle of it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Because I do not consider that I am entitled to shoulder it. It is not my fault that the Bill is not here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6530</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KRZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the honorable senator wants to be fair, I think he will admit that these Bills received too great a discussion in the other Chamber to keep faith with the arrangement to finish the session this evening. If blame is attachable to anybody, it must be borne equally by both parties to the arrangement, because there was altogether too much talk in the other branch of the. Legislature. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6530</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:45:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>KPE</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - A good deal has been said with regard to the arrangement for terminating this portion of the session at a later hour to-day. The Minister of Defence in referring to this matter said that the arrangement should be kept in the spirit as well as in the letter. I am not familiar with the terms of the arrangement, but I can hardly conceive of anybody entering into an arrangement which the recent proceedings in the Senate in connexion with the Bill last under discussion could be called a performance of, in the spirit, at any rate. We were asked to deal with a measure which practically was not in our hands. We received an Income Tax  Assessment Bill, consisting of sixty clauses, and with it was circulated a series of about forty amendments, and it- was impossible for any honorable senator to read those amendments into the Bill with the idea of properly considering the proposal before us. A few weeks ago we were all well aware that the Government projected the adjournment of Parliament at some definite date. If I am not mistaken, we were to have adjourned a week ago, and I took the occasion on the ordinary ruction for adjournment about a fortnight ago to point out that we were likely to drift into the position in which we find ourselves to-night. Speaking for myself, I considered that the Senate should not be treated in this way, but should be afforded ample opportunity of dealing with those very important measures which we knew would be brought forward for discussion. The Income Tax Assessment Bill was one of those very important measures. So  far as tha federal Parliament is concerned, the financial arrangements arising out of the present condition of things are an entirely new departure, and certainly the Senate should be given an opportunity of doing something more than merely saying &#34; ditto&#34; to what has been done in another place. If it was decided by any of the parties responsible that the Senate and the House of Representatives should rise this afternoon, that arrangement must have included&#39; the opportunity for adequate discussion of the measures to be dealt with by thisChamber. But I cannot say that the opportunity for adequate discussion is being given. I cannot think that any arrangement which had been made was being kept in spirit when the Senate- was asked at such short notice, and in such disadvantageous circumstances, to give assent to a measure of such farreaching importance as the Income Tax Bill. If an arrangement has been made which has not been adhered to in the spirit, it cannot be adhered to literally, and I do not know that any great hardship will be imposed if members of another place have to return to their parliamentary duties next week. Why should the Senate be deprived of the opportunity of doing its plain duty ? A clear duty is cast upon us, and are we to abstain from performing that duty in order to meet the convenience of members of another place, who evidently, in the attention they have given to the Income Tax Bill, have not for one moment considered the Senate or the members who compose it?For my own part, much as I would have liked the adjournment to take place at a later hour to-day, I am nevertheless willing to continue sitting, beyond this week if necessary, in order that adequate attention may be given to the income tax proposals. And if duty demands that the Senate do that, we should, without any spirit of retaliation, apply ourselves to the measure before us, and allow the individual convenience of members of another place to be subordinated to our duty. I do not know what the arrangement is, but I think that senators ought to recognise as the prime consideration their duty as members of this Chamber in regard to this important taxation proposal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>6531</page.no>
              <time.stamp>04:51:00</time.stamp>
              <name.id>K18</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I shall say straightforwardly that this business involves the status of this Chamber, and I am not likely to consent to the proposition that any one outside the Senate has any power or privilege entitling him to make an arrangement binding senators in their actions. The party to which I belong is numerically small in this Chamber, and I would nob lightly set aside any arrangement to which our leader gives his consent. Yet, much as I respect him, I tell him plainly that he would fall very much in my estimation if he made an arrangement which impliedly set aside the constitutional privilege of this Chamber to indulge in the deliberate discussion of such&#39; an important measure as has besn brought before us to-night. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6531</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Keating</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We have a constitutional obligation, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>6531</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K18</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BAKHAP</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We have a constitutional obligation in this regard. I have been returned to this Chamber, in which the States, as States, are supposed to be directly represented, not to lightly acquiesce in any arrangement made by persons who are not members of the Senate. Therefore, I say to honorable senators, to members of the Government, and to my own leader, that all arrangements entered into, even by him, must be made with a clear cognisance and full recognition of what the privileges of the Senate are, and with a further realization of the fact that they must be properly exercised so long as this Chamber is part of the National Legislature. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Senate adjourned at 4.54 a.m. (Thursday). </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>