19170822_SENATE_7_82.xml

<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1917-08-22</date>
    <parliament.no>7</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>1249</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <para class="block">Senate. </para>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1917-08-22</day.start>
      <para>The  President <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator the Hon. T. Givens)</inline> took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1249</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SENATOR LONG&#39;S MISSION TO THE EAST</title>
          <page.no>1249</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Article in the &#34; Age.&#34; </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1249</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRX</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LONG, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LONG</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-(By <inline font-style="italic">leave).</inline> - Honorable senators are aware that for many months I have not been in my place in. the Senate, and had I followed the advice  tendered to me by the medical authorities I would still be absent. But in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline>  a day or two ago appeared an article containing such insinuations, and such a reflection upon myself, that I felt that, no matter what the consequences might be, or what risks I might run, I was in duty bound to come here to-day and offer a few words in reply. Honorable senators, I am sure, are well aware of the reasons for my protracted absence. I was absent for quite five months before the recent political turmoil occurred, before the new Parliament was elected. That I wag absent during the Whole of that period is a matter which causes me very sincere regret. But in extenuation of my Absence I can only say that had I been here it would have been quite impossible for me to have taken that part which I should have liked to take, and that part which I felt I was able to take, if in a humble capacity, at all .previous elections during the last fifteen or sixteen years. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>On Friday last the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> published a statement under a heading -which was so unfair, so untrue, and, in my opinion, bo vindictive^ that I would not have been doing justice to myself or to my colleagues had I refrained from appearing here this) afternoon and offering an explanation. The article is headed &#34; <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long&#39;s</inline> Disappearance; The Mystery Unveiled; A Secret Commission.&#34; It begins - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The mystery -which has enveloped the protracted absence of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long,</inline> of Tasmania -an absence which during the parliamentary crisis immediately preceding the elections meant a great&#39; deal to &#39;both political parties -  was explained in the House of Representatives yesterday. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Later, this passage occurs, and this is where, perhaps, the sting of the whole criticism appears - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>It will be remembered that, at the time when the Labour Opposition in the Senate proved an obstacle in the way of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes&#39;</inline> departure for London to Attend the Imperial Conference, the Labour party suddenly found that, through the resignation of ex-Senator Beady and the absence of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long,</inline> both of Tasmania, it was without its much-boasted majority. ^Honorable senators, of course, will see that in this article I have been directly connected with the happenings in the last few days of the life of the previous Parliament, when rumours were afloat that bribery and corruption in respect to cer tain individuals were rampant. I cannot be expected to remember just what happened for a month previous to the dissolution of the last Parliament ;  but, if my memory is right, I think that when I left here on the 7th or 8th  February there was not any mention - I speak subject to correction - of the formation of a Coalition  Government.  It -was never mentioned that there was likely to be an effort made to_ extend the life of Parliament. Certainly I could not be expected to know that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ready</inline> was likely to resign, or that my old colleague <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guy</inline> was likely to be also suffering from a very severe illness. I. left  Australia perfectly   innocent,  if I may put it that way, of any knowledge that there was likely to be a crisis, and I give my honest word that I. knew nothing of an election in Australia until early in April, I believe, on the 6th or 7th. Prom the 8th March to the end of that month I was in Java, where a person never sees a newspaper printed in English, and consequently for whatever information I could get concerning Australia I had to rely upon the newspapers which were sent to me, and  those  newspapers containing a report of the crisis did not reach me&#39; until some time in April, I believe on the 7th or 8th. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>On Sunday last I wrote a letter to the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> with the idea that it would appear in Monday&#39;s issue. It did not appear in that issue, for reasons to which, of course, I cannot take exception. There might have been many reasons which prevented the letter from appearing on that date. But it did appear in Tuesday&#39;s issue, and in a very much mutilated form. It was not a very lengthy letter, and I propose, with the permission of the Senate, to read it. I  need  hardly point out, sir, that, like yourself, I have been for some years a member of the Joint House Committee, and that it was compelled, by constant complaints, from members of Parliament, to remind members of the reporting staffs of thai conditions under which they -were perlmitted to enter Parliament House. As you, sir, pointed out, we never in any  way  curtailed, or desh-ed to curtail, the privileges of members of the press already in existence, and governed by definite regulations. Like yourself, sir, and other members of the Joint House Committee, 1 have been persistently  boycotted  by the <inline font-style="italic">Age.</inline> But I did not worry, because,&#39; like all members of this Parliament, I have the benefit and the  protection  of a very complete parliamentary record. Therefore, I was indifferent concerning the attitude of the press towards me in respect of the performance of what I believed to be my duty. I addressed the following letter to the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> newspaper, expecting to see it published in Monday&#39;s issue; but it did not appear until Tuesday; and, as its full contents were not published, I ask the indulgence of the Senate while I read it - </para>
          <para>To the Editor of the <inline font-style="italic">Age.</inline></para>
          <para>After more than two years&#39; boycott by members of your staff, I find a reference to myself in the columns of Friday&#39;s issue. That such a reference should be couched in vicious terms embodying a contemptible insinuation, was, perhaps to be expected, when it is remembered that I was associated with certain other representatives of the Federal Parliament on the Joint House Committee when that body found it necessary, more than two years ago, to remind members of your staff, as well as the employees of other newspapers, that certain regulations governed their admission to Parliament House. Ever since that time, I; as well as other members of the Joint House Committee, have in your reports been ignored; but, as all members have the benefit and protection of an official report of parliamentary proceedings, I was not in the least concerned as to the attitude of press representatives. I should have continued that indifference to either their silence or attacks; but the reference to myself and my recent absence from Australia appearing in Friday&#39;s <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> is so unfair, untrue, and so obviously malicious, that I am compelled to offer a few words in reply. You describe my absence from Australia as &#34;Mysterious disappearance at a time when my presence meant so much to my party.&#34; In regretting that absence sincerely, may I point out that, in consequence of a most serious illness, from the effects of which I have not yet recovered, I took no part in the deliberations of the Senate for four months prior to leaving for the Dutch East Indies, and no crisis occurred in Parliament until nearly one month after I had left; and, although considerably out of touch with what transpired in Parliament during the past ten months, I venture to say that, prior to my departure, I do not think there was any serious talk of a Coalition Government, and certainly no mention of the prolongation of the life of Parliament. I left Melbourne by steamer so that I might get as long a sea journey as possible - members of my family and friends were there to seeme off. I remained four days in Sydney, leaving that city under similar circumstances; Brisbane the same; and, before leaving Melbourne, I discussed my proposed trip with at least two of my Tasmanian parliamentary colleagues. I also wrote to at least twenty political and personal friends in that State, telling them of my intended tour, and of the fact that, while on that tour, I was undertaking a little official work for the Commonwealth Government. And, when I say that, included among those to whom I wrote was <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Dwyer</inline> Gray, editor <inline font-style="italic">Daily Post,</inline> Labour paper, Hobart; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. B.</inline> Watkins, manager of that paper; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. J.</inline> Mooney, secretary, A.W.U., Northern Tasmania; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. M.</inline> Cunningham, secretary Tasmanian Miners Federation, Zeehan; and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline> Skillern, secretary Miners Association, Gormanston, the public will understand how much shrouded in mystery, was my departure from Australia to the East. They will, I hope, also understand how &#34; justified &#34; was the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> reference to myself in the issue of your paper under consideration - a journal that, for several years, was not fair enough to notice my presence when in my place in Parliament, or interested enough to record my departure, or inquire as to my destination. May I say, in conclusion, that similar criticism to that of the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> appeared simultaneously in other Melbourne newspapers, the language being identical, and thus showing perfect harmony among those who, no doubt, felt it to be their duty to supply their respective papers with &#34;copy&#34; with what they agreed to term &#34; The &#39;mysterious disappearnce of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long.&#34;</inline></para>
          <para>Yours, &#38;c, 19.8.17. j. j. Long. </para>
          <para class="block">As I have already said, that letter appeared in an abbreviated form, though I admit that the real points which I was anxious to have published did appear. </para>
          <para>May I now be allowed to say that my departure from Australia was not enshrouded in mystery, or governed by mystery in any sense of the word. I left&#39; in the most public manner, because I had no reason whatever to hide the fact that I was leaving; though I admit that my departure was, perhaps, somewhat hurried to fit in with the arrangements for a steamer passage to the Dutch East Indies. My departure was not governed by any improper consideration. I deny that absolutely; and I hurl any such insinuation back in the teeth of those who made it. When I mentioned to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> that I proposed going down toNorthf olk Island, or perhaps to Java, on a health trip, and that probably I would be away for some little time, <inline font-style="italic">he</inline> was then good enough to say that the Government had thought of sending some one to Java on a very special and important mission, the nature of which I am unable to tell the Senate. If this is to be made known, the responsibility must rest upon the&#39; Minister for Defence, as the representative of the Government at that time. The Minister told me that, if I thought I could undertake the work required of me, it could be arranged that I should be intrusted with the duties. When I was informed of the nature of the inquiries, I readily consented, and resolved to discharge, as well as I might be able, the obligations that might be imposed upon me. Whether I have done that, time alone can determine. </para>
          <para>I want to emphasize, however, as strongly as I am able, that I. take full responsibility for whatever suspicion - if I may put it that way - may attach to me for having left Australia at that time, and for having been absent during the elections; but I can say, honestly and sincerely, that no attempt, good, bad, or indifferent, was made by the Minister for Defence, as the representative of the Government, to suborn either my vote or my influence. I repeat, that I alone was responsible for my absence at &#39;that time; and I must throw upon the Government the responsibility of making known to Parliament and the public the nature of the special mission upon which I went to the Dutch East Indies. There was never even a suggestion that I- should in any way. hy my presence or absence, assist the Government at that time. He and .other honorable senators know that immediately on my return here I took my place amongst the members of the party to which I have been attached all my political life and that I am still amongst them. In conclusion, I have merely to add that no attempt was ever made to alienate me from them, and no inducement would ever be sufficient to compel my allegiance to any other party, other than that which, in my opinion, ever since it took an active part in the political arena, has done so much to advance the interests of Australia. I thank you, sir, and the members of the Senate, for having afforded me this opportunity of explaining, perhaps somewhat disconnectedly, the reason of my absence from Australia during the past six or seven months. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1252</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Minister for 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>- <inline font-style="italic">(By leave).</inline> - When the previous Government was in office <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> informed me that his medical adviser had instructed him that he was to give up his parliamentary duties for a time, and if possible take an extended tour, preferably a sea trip. At that juncture the Prime Minister and myself were anxious to obtain certain information, particularly from the Dutch East Indies - information which we had been unable to secure through the ordinary channels. When </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline>mentioned that he proposed to leave Australia on a sea trip, and intended visiting Norfolk Island, it occurred to me that it was my duty to place that fact before the Prime Minister and to discuss with him the advisableness  of asking <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> to undertake the inquiries which we wished to have made. I did discuss the matter with the Prime Minister, and after discussion we both agreed that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> was fitted to make those inquiries, and that he was a suitable person to make them. I saw the honorable senator again, and asked him whether he would be willing to extend his trip to Java and the Dutch East Indies, and whether he would make the inquiries which the Government desired to make. He agreed to do so. I informed the Prime Minister of his decision, and afterwards a commission was issued to  him through the Prime Minister&#39;s office and by direction of the Prime Minister. I endorse what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> has said in regard to this matter. So far as my knowledge goes his statement is absolutely accurate. Neither myself nor <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> discussed the political aspect of his trip. No suggestion was made by me of any political motive behind the proposed commission, neither when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Long</inline> first intimated his intention of going abroad, nor when I conveyed to him the Prime Minister&#39;s wish that he should accept the commission, nor has such a suggestion been made since the honorable senator&#39;s return. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1252</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SHEARERS&#39; STRIKE IN QUEENSLAND</title>
          <page.no>1252</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1252</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYR</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FAIRBAIRN, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FAIRBAIRN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the VicePresident of  the  Executive Council whether he observed in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> newspaper of yesterday a telegram from Hughenden, Queensland, stating that the pastoral workers there, who are now on strike against the award of the Arbitration Court, intend to fine the pastoralists on and after the 1st September next a 10 per cent, increase of wages for every month, or part of a month, that shearing is delayed by reason of the pastoralists attempting to enforce the award given by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins? If the Vice-President of the Executive Council has read the paragraph in question will he advise&#39; the pastoralists to obey the Government which is elected by the people, or the Government which is elected by only a section of the people f </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have not seen the most interesting paragraph referred to by the honorable senator. In reply to his request, I can only say that I am not a lawyer, and that even if I were I would be indisposed to offer legal advice gratuitously. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADMISSION FEES TO TRADE UNIONS</title>
        <page.no>1253</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>SenatorPRATTEN. - I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether any information is available regarding the entrance fees that are being charged for admission to some trade unions in New South Wales and Victoria. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1253</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KUL</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I have not that information, and I cannot say whether it is available inthe Government Departments. But I will endeavour to obtain it for the honorable senator. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1253</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NEW SOUTH WALES RAILWAYS STRIKE</title>
          <page.no>1253</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</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>- I ask the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that during the strike in New South Wales the soldiers at Menangle Camp were formed up on parade and an officer addressed them, and requested them to say which side they favoured - that of the Government or that of the men - and that those in favour of the former were ordered to assemble at the railway line when the train was passing, and cheer the &#34; loyal &#34; train officials? If it is a fact, will the Minister inquire into it, and supply us with information concerning it? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</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 shall have the necessary inquiries made, but I trust that the honorable senator has also made inquiries, and satisfied himself as to the justification for giving currency to a statement of that sort. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1253</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>- I have the information in a letter from Menangle. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1253</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CONTROL OF ENEMY SUBJECTS</title>
          <page.no>1253</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On Thursday last I asked the Minister for Defence the following question : - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What are the names&#39;, positions, and Seriods of appointments of officials in New outh Wales, advising, controlling, and deal- ing with the internment, treatment, and de- parture of enemy subjects? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">Is the Minister now in a positionto answer my inquiry? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</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 answer to the honorable senator&#39;s question is as follows : - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Military Commandant, BrigadierGeneral G. Lee, is responsible (subject to instructions from Head-Quarters) for decisions as  to  the internment of enemy subjects in New South Wales, and as to their departure from Australia. It is not considered desirable to publish the names of the officers on his staff who are specially concerned with the internment of enemy subjects. All of them are appointed for temporary home service, and not for any fixed period. The concentration camps in New South Wales are under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Holman, assisted by a staff of officers. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1253</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>HOME RULE FOR IRELAND</title>
          <page.no>1253</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</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 Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Was a resolution which was submitted  to  the Prime Minister in opposition, to the principle of Home Rule for Ireland by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Leeper,</inline> of Trinity College, Melbourne, transmitted  to  Great Britain? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>If so, to whom was it addressed? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Who bore the cost thereof? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Were resolutions which were passed at  a  public meeting held at Perth on 21st August, 1916, in advocacy of Home Rule for Ireland transmitted, as passed, by cablegram to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, by the direction or with the knowledge of the Prime Minister ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>If not, were they transmitted in any form, when, and to whom? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>Was either of the resolutions altered, and, if so, where, and by whose authority ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>Were they not censored and passed by the censorship of Western Australia? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="8.">
              <para>Were they afterwards detained in Melbourne by, or by the direction of, the Prime Minister, or other member of the Government, and, ifso, how long, and why? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="9.">
              <para>When did they reach Melbourne from Western Australia? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1253</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers are - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The Secretary of State for the Colonies. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The Government. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Three resolutions passed at the meeting referred to were submitted to the censor, Perth, and, by direction, were referred by him to the office of the  Deputy  Chief Censor, Melbourne, where it was considered necessary to make two alterations in the text of the second resolution. The censor, Perth, subsequently wrote that these alterations were made in the text by the  President  of the United Irish League of Western Australia, and the messages were then passed by the censor for transmission to Messrs Asquith and Redmond. The instruction from the  Deputy  Chief Censor&#39;s office, Melbourne, was sent by urgent telegram on the evening of the 22nd August, 1916. 5, 6, 7, and 8. See No. 4. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="9.">
              <para>The full text of the three resolutions referred to was subsequently transmitted, at Government expense, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1254</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>INDUSTRIAL CRISIS</title>
          <page.no>1254</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Strike-breakers : Card System. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1254</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>asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that in New South Wales young, able-bodied men, who refused to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force for service abroad, are being placed in camp at the Sydney Cricket Ground for the purpose of &#34; scabbing&#34; on the fathers of our young soldiers at the Front? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is it not a fact that the men on strike in New South Wales are protesting by the only means in their power against the introduction of what is to them an obnoxious system, copied from America, into the industrial life of Australia by State, and not by private, employers? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Will the Government follow the example reported to have been set by the Government of the United States, and see that this system is not followed in any munition or war work carried out by them? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1254</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers are - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Not to my knowledge. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>I am informed that the system referred to is in force in Britain in upwards of twenty munition works, and over 500 controlled works proclaimed since the war. The card system has not been withdrawn in any works using it, and many orders for card machines are now awaiting fulfilment. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>See No. 2. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1254</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>ENEMY SUBJECTS : DENTAL TREATMENT</title>
          <page.no>1254</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1254</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Have any instructions been issued to the Dental Corps, Sydney, in connexion with the dental treatment of internees at Holdsworthy Camp, and their wives and children outside, and, if so, what are such instructions? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Has OttoJohannsen, late German Consul at Newcastle, New South Wales, left Australia, and, if so, when, and under what circumstances ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Is Otto Schulz, a naturalized German, who was fined &#163;5 in Sydney for filthy and disloyal language, still at large, and, if not, when was he. interned? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1254</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</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>The following instructions have been issued to Dental Corps, Sydney, in connexion with dental treatment of prisoners and internees. No treatment is provided for their wives and children outside, and no orders hare been issued regarding them. Dental treatment will only be provided for destitute prisoners of war at the expense of the Defence Department, as under, and subject to the undermentioned conditions: - </para>
              <list type="loweralpha">
                <item label="(a)">
                  <para>Extractions and Stopping. - In cases where the state of his teeth would be actively prejudicial to the health of the prisoner, and the provision of this treatment is certified as absolutely necessary by the medical officer in charge. </para>
                </item>
                <item label="(b)">
                  <para>Artificial Teeth. - In a limited number of special cases, where the loss of masticatory power is interfering positively with nutrition, when certified as essential by the medical officer, after having received a report from the dental officer that the proposed treatment will be. effective. In other cases dental treatment will only be provided at the expense of the prisoner of war. </para>
                </item>
              </list>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Yes, on 15th November, 1916, at the request of the British Government. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The Military Commandant at Sydney has been asked for a report. There are over fifty internees of this surname, many having the Christian name Otto, and it has not been possible, from the list at Head-Quarters, to identifythe person referred to in the question. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1254</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>KING ISLAND WIRELESS STATION</title>
          <page.no>1254</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1254</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Was a warrant officer in the Wireless Department, recently appointed to King Island, unable to obtain house accommodation for himself and family on the island; and, further, is he now compelled to pay &#163;5 5s. per weekfor board, although in receipt of a salary of only &#163;4 10s. per week, approximately? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Was this officer informed before he left for King Island that money had been passed for erection of residence; but has it since been stated that the project, and the plans relating thereto, were abandoned some time ago? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Have the residents of King Island since been informed that the station will be closed, thereby cutting off all telegraphic communication with the mainland, unless they make some effort to provide accommodation for the officer concerned? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Is it the policy of the Government to compel the residents of any place to find accommodation for its officials under penalty of cancellation of any service? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Does the Minister consider the man who issued such instructions (if they were issued) a fit and proper person to administer such an important Department? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>Is it a fact that a number of complaints have been made regarding the radioservice generally; and, if so, will the Ministerhave investigations made into such complaints ? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1255</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</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 Minister for the Navy supplies the following answers :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>He was not so informed. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>No communication has been sent to the residents of King Island. The wireless operator has, however, been informed that such are the views of the Director, who has taken into consideration also that the station is worked at a loss. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>No. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>No such instructions have been issued. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>The Minister will cause investigations to be made into any complaint of which particulars are furnished to him. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>RAILWAYS BILL</title>
        <page.no>1255</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Third Reading</title>
          <page.no>1255</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Standing and Sessional Orders sus pended, and report adopted. </para>
        <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Russell)</inline> proposed - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That this Bill be now read a third time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1255</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>. - As I was not present during the second-reading debate on this Bill, I desire to say one or two words concerning it. I do not know whether I shall be in order at this stage in reminding the Government and the Senate that promises made, and obligations entered into by State Governments, when the proposal to construct the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway was introduced, have not been fulfilled. No attempt has been made to fulfil them, although many honorable senators, including myself, voted for the construction of the line on the strength of those promises. The Government of South Australia has made no attempt to alter the gauges of the State lines linking up the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta rail- way from their existing gauges to . the standard 4-ft. 8&#189;-in. gauge. The. Western Australian Government have so ; far made no attempt to broaden the gauge of the line from Kalgoorlie to Perth. There appears to be no intention on the part of the State Governments concerned to make these necessary alterations of gauge, and if the line to which I refer is to be of any use for strategic and military purposes, the Federal Government should consider the desirability of making the suggested connexion between Tort Augusta and Broken Hill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1255</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ROWELL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Colonel Rowell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The South </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para class="block">Australian Government never made such a promise as the honorable senator has nentioned. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1255</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>- I know that representatives of South Australia in the Senate did make such a promise on behalf of that State, and thus induced me to vote for the construction of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway. The Minister for Works and Railways should clearly intimate that if the Governments of the States concerned do not intend to fulfil the promises made on their behalf the Federal Government will have to consider the necessity of connecting the line with the eastern railway systems in the way I have referred to. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fisher,</inline> when Prime Minister, had surveys of a strategic line carried out by a qualified engineer, and if his ideas in that connexion had been carried out, the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway would be linked up with Broken Hill, in New South Wales, and by that route to Queensland, as it should be, for strategic and military reasons. If the State Governments concerned are unwilling to carry out their promises, we should give effect to the proposal to make the connexion between Port Augusta and Broken Hill, so that, should the necessity arise, men and munitions may be transported between the States more easily than is possible under existing conditions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1255</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3E</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Honorary 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 should like to remind <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> that the Bill deals with the machinery to enable us to manage and control railways already constructed, and under the control of the Commonwealth Government. It is not my purpose to go into the historyof the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, which has been referred to only in general terms during the discussion of the measure, and which may be dealt with by this Parliament at any time. This Bill provides for the appointment of a Railways Commissioner, who is given powers, almost equivalent to those of the Public Service Commissioner, for the control of his staff, and for the fixing of rates and fares. It does not deal in any way with any agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and State Governments. I feel confident that when the war conditions now existing are at an end, and the financial position is easier, the agreements referred to will be carried out by theState Governments concerned. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. . </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PUBLIC SERVICE BILL</title>
        <page.no>1256</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1256</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from l6th. August) <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 1110), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
        <para class="block">MlLLEN - </para>
        <para>That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1256</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>. - I do not think that honorable senators on this side will offer any objection to the passage of this Bill. We welcome its &#39;introduction as a means of making it easier for returned soldiers to secure employment in the Public Service. Whether it is a good thing or not to offer freater facilities for employment in the Public Service to returned soldiers than  to  the ordinary private citizen remains to be seen. The measure will exempt returned soldiers from the time-limit of service applicable under the existing law to temporary employees. I never could understand why that time-limit for temporary employment &#39; was agreed to. I think that it should be abolished, but this Bill does not deal with that matter except in so far as it may affect the employment of returned soldiers. There are men fitted for the positions which they occupy in the Government Service, who, although they are not permanent employees, have occupied similar positions for years. Under the existing law they are given employment in one Department for six months with, a three months&#39; extension, when they go out, and are given nine months&#39; temporary employment in another Department. Then they get back to the Department which they left on the same conditions. Many of these men are good accountants, bookkeepers, and clerks, and are well fitted for permanent positions in which they might do useful work but for the operation of a section of the Public Service Act which should never have been passed if the desire was to consider efficiency rather than patronage. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>One objection I have to the Bill is that returned soldiers are to be permitted to sit for examination for admission to the Public Service only up to fifty years of age. I believe that this provision&#39; will debar some men who have been good soldiers at the Front from an opportunity to enter the Service. They told a lie about their age to get away, and are strong and sturdy and passed all medical tests. I knew an ex-member of this Parliament who lost his life on the battlefield. He celebrated his fifty-second birthday on the troopship going across. I know another man there sixty years of age who walked 300 miles in one of the recruiting tours in New South Wales. I saw him in France when I was there, going good and strong. If that man comes back, he cannot get a job in the Commonwealth Service under this Bill, although he is quite able to perform the duties of any branch of the Clerical Division. Before he left to tramp to Sydney, he held a good position as bookkeeper on a station. He is an experienced accountant. There are plenty of other men of that description whom it would be an injustice to shut out. If a man goes to the war at forty-five years of age, and the war lasts seven years, he may come back competent, strong, and sturdy, yet, under this Bill, he will not be allowed to sit. for examination, which means that he is barred from the Public Service. I hope &#39;that provision will be struck out altogether, so that the reference may be to returned soldiers generally, no matter what their ages. </para>
          <para>The Bill will givethe greater opportunities to those who return earlier in the war. That is one of the effects which I particularly want to point out to the Government as likely to operate harshly. The Government cannot employ all these men. There are about 16,000 employees in the Public Service now. We have already 26,000 returned soldiers, so what are we going to do with the other 300,000 if we get them all back again ? We cannot treat them all alike by giving them positions in the Government Service, and therefore the Bill gives greater opportunities to those who return earlier.I do not know how that difficulty is to be got over, nor do I offer any suggestion to get over it. That will be a matter  for   consideration later, but, of course, the Government cannot entertain the idea  of  giving employment in the Service to the whole of these men. They will have to find other means of providing for them. I have my own ideas in that regard on the question of fostering industries, but I cannot go into details on that subject now. </para>
          <para>I object to the provision regarding examinations, which are to be &#34;by the University or other bodies.&#34; I would strife out the examination altogether, and let a man prove his fitness as he does in any private employment. Let the Commissioner give him an opportunity to prove that he is able . to do the work. Men of fifty or sixty years of age returning from the war cannot sit for an examination like a youth fresh from school. Even if they were able to do so before they went away, it is not fair to ask them to do so when theyreturn, suffering, as I have seen many of them, from shell shock and other injuries. There are plenty of positions in the Service that a man could fill, even if he could not read or write, better than the best Rhodes scholar. My idea is that the qualifications required under this Bill should be that the man has gone and done his duty. We must give returned men every consideration, no matter whether they are able to sit for examinations or not. There is plenty of work, such as that of watchmen, cleaners, and others, for which a man need not sit for examination. Why should cleaners in the Railway Service have to be examined in this way? What is wanted in those jobs is muscle and grit, and not a knowledge of Euclid, although that is a good thing for a mechanic to have. Most of these men will be employed in positions where an examination is absolutely unnecessary. I should like to see the clause struck out, and applicants employed on their merits. </para>
          <para>The Bill will do an injustice to a number of men already in the Service who have sons at the Front, or whose sons have lost their lives there fighting the good fight. If preference is to be given to returned soldiers, these will be denied further employment in the Government Service. The returned soldier does not want that sort of thing. The man who has gone out to battle as he has done wants no advantage over his fellow man, who has done in another way, perhaps, as much as he has. Hardship will be caused to many in the Public Service to-day, and to many who have been in the Service in the past, and are looking for reemployment as temporary hands. I intend to move in Committee the insertion of the following new clause: - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Nothing in this Act shall entitle the Public Service Commissioner to dispense with the services of any employee merely by reason of the fact that he. has not been accepted for active service abroad. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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 goes a great deal further than the fathers of boys fighting at the Front. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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>- It does. It covers those willing and not able to go. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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 men who ought to go and will not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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>- All those little things can be provided for by regulation if the Bill does not cover them. There are plenty of men in the Service, and even in this building, who have done their utmost to get away. Some have been rejected nine times. Surely the Minister does not think it fair for them to be discharged to make room for others, after they have done their best to serve their country? That is the class of man I want to save. I have been in communication with some members of the Returned Soldiers Association in New South Wales, and they say that they would like some provision of this sort inserted. They do not want any advantage over men who have been rejected. They want advantages over the slacker, and ought to get them. They rightly want advantages over those who absolutely refuse to serve their country, but stand back and let others go to the Front. I have no hope ofthe clause I intend to move being put in the Bill, but it is an honest attempt on my part to do something to assist those who would have gone to the Front if they had been allowed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">EARLE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Earle</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does not the honorable senator see that if we carried that clause it would abolish all preference to soldiers? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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>- No ; if I thought it would do that, I would not move it. There are two classes in the community whom I wish to protect. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">EARLE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Earle</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  They should be placed on an equal footing with the soldier. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1257</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>- Yes. I do not wish to delay the passage ofthe measure. I shall do everything I can to assist returned soldiers, but in Committee I intend to move an amendment to safeguard the two classes in question. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1257</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZD</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FOLL, Hattil</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FOLL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- As this is a Bill in which I have been greatly interested I welcome it very much, and congratulate the Government upon its introduction. The league with which I have had the honour to be connected in Queensland, and which consists of a very large number of returned soldiers, has for some time been very dissatisfied with the conditions regarding the employment of returned soldiers in the Public Service. The restriction that returned men were only to be employed as  temporary hands in most cases appeared to us to be a very unfair one indeed. I believe that when it becomes known that %the Government is again proving itself to be a truly national Government this measure will be welcomed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</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>- Again ? When did the Government prove it before? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZD</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOLL, Hattil</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FOLL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think that ever since the Government came into power it has proved itself to be a truly national Government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</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- are waiting for the proof now. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZD</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOLL, Hattil</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FOLL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In my opinion this Bill will do a great deal of good so far as Queensland is concerned. I believe that when it is made public that the. Government intend to give preference to returned, soldiers, and to see that they are properly treated, a very good effect will be produced. I sincerely trust that a great many firms and employers will follow the splendid example set by the Commonwealth. A little while ago a vacancy occurred on the staff of the Toowoomba Municipal Council. Applications were invited in the press to fill the position of, I think, inspector. When the applications were considered&#39; by the council a returned soldier was turned down and another man was given the position. The effect of that decision was to cause a great deal of discontent amongst the returned soldiers in Toowoomba, and I believe among all the members of the Returned Soldiers Association, and &#39; at a meeting held in that town various motions were passed deploring the action which the municipal council had taken. I hope th&#39;at when employers of labour, municipal councils, and so forth see that the Commonwealth Government is giving preference to returned men they will follow that good example. I quite agree with what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> said regarding the holding of an educational examination. I consider that a hardship will be inflicted upon returned men if it is made necessary for them to pass a clerical examination in subjects with which they would not be called upon to deal if employed under the Commonwealth Government. After a man has been away from school for some time he is inclined to get stale on certain subjects, and therefore it is not so easy for him to pass a clerical examination as it would have been when he was quite fresh from school. I sincerely trust that unfair restrictions will not be placed upon returned men by asking&#39; them to pass difficult examinations when they seek to enter the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</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 not overlooked, I hope, the fact that the Bill enables the Public Service Commissioner to set a special examination for returned&#39; soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1258</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZD</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOLL, Hattil</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FOLL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I congratulate the Government upon the inclusion of that provision., I think it demonstrates once more that the Government does intend to do all it possibly can for returned soldiers. Regarding the statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> on the question of preference, my view is that if preference to returned soldiers is to apply generally throughout the Commonwealth Service less hardship will be likely to arise amongst members of that Service than would be the case if certain men were picked out, described as slackers, and dismissed, their places being filled by returned soldiers. It is impossible to point to any  man as a slacker until the full circumstances of his case are known. This provision, I take it, is intended to apply generally. I think that we can leave it to the good sense of. the Commissioner to see that a fair thing is done; but if, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> suggested, certain public officers are to have the finger of scorn pointed at them, and to be described as slackers, a great many acts of injustice will be done. Nobody has less time for what is called a slacker than I have, but from my association with the recruiting movement I realize that it is very hard in some circumstances to define exactly what a slacker is. Without making some inquiry I would not feel justified in describing as a slacker a single man who had not gone to the Front. There are plenty of cases where a married man is as much a slacker as a single man. Some married men have less responsibilities than have single men. In my opinion, if the provision regarding preference to returned soldiers generally is left as it now stands, less hardship is likely to occur than if the amendment of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> is adopted. I again congratulate the Government upon bringing forward the measure, and upon once more showing that it is determined that the men who fight for Australia shall have a fair chance in the Public Service when they return from the Front. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1259</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>. - The principle of doing justice to men who have returned from active service abroad is a good one, and in that regard the Bill ought- to be welcomed. There is just a danger, however, that in giving justice - and well-deserved justice  - to these men we may do injustice to men who are already in the Public Ser-  vice, and it is to that point that I would ask the attention of the Minister for a few moments. Proposed new section 21a reads - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section, any person who has served with satisfactory record in any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1003-1915, and who is eligible for appointment to the Clerical Division, may be appointed to such class and subdivision as the Commissioner determines. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">So far so good, but it has been pointed out to me by those who should know, and I believe it has been pointed out to the Prime Minister by the Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association, that there is a danger of doing injustice to men in other branches of the, Public Service. I am glad to see that an attempt is being made to provide for the returned soldier in this regard, but if this provision  is enacted it has been pointed out to me that many officers, who have been debarred by various reasons from serving in a combatant capacity, have rendered invaluable service to the country in their ordinary avocations. There is no one who can question that. Again, many of the officers who may be affected by the enactment of this provision are already represented at the Front by a son or a brother.  Although they have not gone themselves,  for financial, medical, or other reasons, still their son or other relative is there. There is just a danger of this provision operating unjustly. I am also informed that if it is enacted the avenues of future, advancement of these officers will be complicated by the appointment of returned soldiers to positions carrying high seniority. We know, of course, that a pro-, mise has already been made, and one which I hope will be kept, that the positions of public servants who enlisted would be retained for them, and that their right to seniority would not be impaired. On the return of these men no one can object to their stepping into the positions which they would have held had they not gone to fight the country&#39;s battle. There are other public servants who, although they could not go themselves, have sons at the </para>
          <para class="block">Front, and whose rank and seniority may be interfered with by this clause if &#39; it is passed as proposed. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1259</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZC</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>ALP</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;LOGHLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-Colonel Bolton. - Why? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1259</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 am not dogmatic, but I think that there may be an occasion when the rights of such men may be interfered with. The honorable senator knows perfectly well that my sympathies are with the returned soldiers, but in extending to them the justice which they deserve we ought tq take care not to do an injustice to officers who, through no fault of their own, could nob go to the_ firing line, but who are represented there by a member of their family. There is also&#39; a danger of young officers from eighteen to twenty-one years of age being affected. Many of these young men volunteered, but owing to some defect or other their offers were not accepted. It was to this phase of the measure that I rose to direct attention. To. the Bill generally I shall give support, but in endeavouring to legislate for the class of men who have won distinction and deserve special legislation we must proceed very warily, and see that we do not do an injustice to public officers who, through no fault of their own, could not go to the Front. I should like to hear from the Minister, in his reply, whether or not the positions of any officers in the category I have mentioned will be in any danger from the passing of this measure. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1259</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>. - I notice in the press that certain gentlemen are concerning themselves very much about the question of securing a continuous stream pf immigrants to Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1259</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>- Order ! </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1259</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>- One would think there is a great scarcity of employment in this  country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1259</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>- Order! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1259</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>- This Bill makes it quite clear that there is a great dearth of employment at the- present moment. History informs us that toil 1 was foisted upon humanity in punishment for disobedience; but to-day, apparently, strenuous work is a great blessing, and in the Bill before the Senate it is proposed to make provision for the employment in the Public Service of men who are now fighting their country&#39;s battles. This should be a clear indication that it is extremely difficult to find employment, and as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Needham</inline> pointed out, some branches of the Service are very dubious as to the results of the proposed amendment of the Public Service Act. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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 difficulty today is to find anybody employed in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- No doubt there is a good deal of unemployment at present, mainly owing to the action of those who&#39; are temporarily in a position to harass thei workers of this country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- The Government have hoisted the black flag; that is why men are out of work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- Of course, we may live to see the time when the workers will be more contented and better governed than they are to-day, but just at present we are not entitled to discuss that question, though no doubt we shall have ample opportunity as time goes on. The Bill proposes <inline font-style="italic">to give to</inline> returned soldiers the right to enter the Public Service without submitting themselves to that examination which is required of other candidates, and, personally, I confess I agree with that view of the situation, because hitherto some examinations have been valueless once an - applicant has secured employment. I do not know if it is wis( to allow the Public Service Commissioner to set the examination for the admission of returned soldiers, withoutsubmitting it to Parliament for approval, but that is not a very serious matter, and. I feel that I can trust the Commissioner. I have no objection to the Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1260</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>.- The purpose of the measure is evidently to provide employment for returned soldiers, but certainly it will not increase the efficiency of the Service. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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 purpose is not to find employment, but to give preference to returned soldiers if they desire employment in the Government Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- If its purpose is not to find employment for returned soldiers, of what value is the Bill ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- Do you not think they should get preference? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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 no objection to preference being shown to returned soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Senators Guthrie. - At the expense of the cold-footers. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- Well, the honorable senator appears to know a good deal about cold-footers. As I have said, I have no objection to preference being shown to returned soldiers, provided no serious injustice is done to other civil servants. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> and other honorable senators who have spoken have already pointed out the possibility of an injustice being imposed upon certain individuals already in the Service unless we can insure careful . administration of the measure. Can we absorb very many returned soldiers in the Service without impairing its efficiency or inflicting an injustice upon others? We may, I think, presume that the Service is already fully manned, and, if so, is it intended to &#34;scrap,&#34; in order to make room for others, some of those who have passed the necessary examinations, and have faithfully performed their work? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I agree with the sentiment expressed by some honorable senators this afternoon that not very many returned soldiers will desire that any injustice should be placed upon civil servants merely for the purpose of giving employment. If it is the intention to provide only for vacancies as they arise in the Clerical or General Division, then I am afraid th&#39;e measure will not give employment to very large numbers of returned men. It may be, therefore, that a great deal more is expected of the measure tihan will be achieved. I presume that other honorable senators besides myself have received a circular pointing out that promotion may be denied to men who have already qualified and served their country well by the appointment of returned soldiers in the manner prescribed by this Bill. There is . a possibility, it is thought, that if men come in under a &#34; toned down &#34; examination, they will prevent many of those already in the Service from getting promotion, for which, perhaps, they have been working for a considerable time. </para>
          <para>SenatorFoll.-Do you not think that a man who has fought for his country has rendered a greater service than others? </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1260</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>- But surely a man who has fought for his country does not want to deprive another man of his rights; and I point out that a civil servant with a fairly long record is not, as a rule, so well fitted as others to face the world afresh in some other direction.* If, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Foil</inline> suggested, private employers in ithis country would take the lead given by the Government in this Bill and reinstate men in their old positions, there would not be much necessity for a measure of this description. Hundreds of thousands of men were in some kind of employment before they left, and I take it that the great bulk of them will desire to go back to their former occupations. Unfortunately, many thousands will never come back, so there will be so many more vacancies to &#163;11. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I am in entire agreement with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall&#39;s</inline> references to the set examinations for entrance .to the Civil Service, particularly in the General Division. I have personal knowledge of the case of a man doing outside work in the Telegraph Branch of the Postal Department for eight or nine years..  His  particular duty was to dig post holes, at which he was particularly efficient, but simply because he could not pass a certain educational examination he had to leave the Service, and frequently it took two other men to do the work upon which he had been engaged. Examinations for the General Division ought to be more in the nature of practical tests. I know of another young man who got almost the possible number of marks in examinations for handwriting and arithmetic, but bel cause he could not pass in a certain class of dictation he failed, although he had obtained 200 marks more than the successful candidates. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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 a criticism of the present system, and has nothing to do with returned soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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 acknowledge that the Minister is correct, but I am pointing out that if the old set standard for examinations were retained in the Bill before the Senate the effect would be, to cause inefficiency. I am rather glad that the entrance examinations are likely to be toned down, particularly in the educational test for the General Division. I have known men to continue in the Service for years as temporary hands, and to discharge their duties to the complete satisfaction of their superior officers. But because they could not pass an examination they have been turned adrift, and I have been credibly informed that in some instances it subsequently took two men to do the work which one had previously performed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In regard to temporary officers, the Bill makes it appear that! a returned soldier, having been admitted to the Service as a casual hand, may possibly be retained permanently. I do not like this differentiation. When once a soldier has gained admission to our Public Service,, why should he be granted different conditions from those which govern his fellow employees ? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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 is objecting to the returned soldier being granted a preference. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>- Why make the returned soldier a permanent employee and another man only a temporary employee? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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 the preference. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>- If the returned soldier is able to do superior work there may be some reason for it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>-  He has done something for the preference which is to be granted to him. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>- And the &#34; other &#34; man may have done something - at any rate, as much as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie</inline> or myself. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I repeat that in many cases the examinations for admission to certain branches of the Service are a farce. They involve too much theoretical, and too little practical, work. I wish to give our returned soldiers every reasonable opportunity to enter our Public Service. But I do not believe that they themselves desire to be granted such an unusual preference as will put them upon a pedestal apart from everybody else. By all means let them enter our Public Service so long as they are reasonably qualified to perform the work that will be required of them. But when once they are there, I feel sure that they do not wish special conditions to be extended to them. I do not think that the Bill will find employment for a great number. For the strictly Clerical Branch of the Service it seems to me that an examination is required which&#34; will guarantee the competency of successful candidates. But for admission to the General Division I do not think that an educational test is necessary. There&#34; it is more a matter of practical experience. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>-  Does not the honorable senator think that the men at the Front are getting practical experience now? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1261</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>- Some of them are. I know a young man who was in the Government Service in Melbourne, and who is now at the Front. Upon his return, I feel sure that he will be more qualified than he was when he left Australia, and I hope that he will then be restored to  at least as high a position as that which he relinquished. He has been awarded the D.S.O. for his acts in the field in connexion with fitting up telephone and telegraph wires. Such men will not require any special advantages to be conferred upon them when once they have entered the Service. I hope that officers &#34;who are already in our Commonwealth Service will not be subjected to injustice. in order that others may be put in their places. I trust that men who have faithfully served the Commonwealth for years, and who have wives and families to maintain; will not be turned adrift. Our returned soldiers, I believe, will be quite satisfied to fill vacancies as they occur. Whether or not good results will flow from this Bill will depend largely upon the way in which, it is administered. If it be administered judiciously, with a view to giving our returned soldiers a preference without inflicting injustice upon others, it will, doubtless, do some good. But if men who have loyally served the Commonwealth for years are treated unjustly, the measure will recoil on the heads of those who contribute to that injustice. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Colonel</inline>BOLTON (Victoria) &#91;4.27&#93;. - I think that some honorable senators are unnecessarily alarmed regarding the injustice which may be done to members of our Commonwealth Public Service. The chivalrous character of the men who volunteered to fight, and if need be to die, for their country, is a sufficient answer to the implied accusation that upon their return to Australia they will desire to displace any man in a billet in order that a job may be found for one of them, and particularly will they be averse to displacing men with wives and families dependent upon them. Then I would poinb out that we have a Public Service Commissioner who is responsible for tihe efficiency of the Commonwealth Service. We naturally expect that he will pay due regard to these conditions. I agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> in regard to the age limitation of fifty years that is imposed by tihe Bill. I think there will be many returned soldiers to whom light employment in our Public Service will be a great boon - light employment of the character, perhaps, that they could not obtain outside of it. Keeping in mind the close scrutiny - which will be exercised by the Public Service Commissioner in regard to the work ing of the various Departments, I , think that tihe Government may safely eliminate the provision in the Bill which imposes upon returned soldiers desirous of entering the Commonwealth Service an age limit of fifty years. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1262</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I cannot: refrain from expressing some surprise at the nature of the discussion which has proceeded thus far on the Bill. Every honorable senator who has spoken has expressed a very warm and sympathetic regardfor the principle, of preference to soldiers; bub the moment it is proposed to grant that preference, they take exception to it. They point out that by granting a preference to soldiers, we may be imposing a disability upon somebody else. I wish to say, at once, that we cannot grant a preference to certain persons without placing a handicap on others. Honorable senators, therefore, are called upon to say whether, when they promise a preference to returned soldiers, they really mean it or nob. If that is their attitude upon this question, I wish to make it quite clear that it is not mine. When I spoke of a preference to soldiers, I meant giving them something substantial. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1262</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Even to the exterib of discharging men. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1262</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>- There is no proposition to discharge anybody. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1262</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But that is the point. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1262</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. The ordinary citizen who is employed on the temporary staff of ourPublic Service is not dismissed; his term merely expires. In such cases, it is proposed to say that, no matter how qualified he may be for his position, he shall no longer be retained in the Service. We have to make it quite clear whether we are handing to our returned soldiers an empty phrase or not. I listened to a great deal of discussion upon this Bill, and, amongst other things, I heard <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guy</inline> say that if we grant this preference, we may impair the efficiency of our Public Service. I think it is quite possible that, to some minor degree, the efficiency of the Service may be impaired; but we might have had no Public Service at all but for the action of these men in fighting for this country. If the officers of the various Departments have to work with a little extra energy as the result of what we are now doing, it will do them no harm, and it is only what they owe to the men who have fought for them. We ought to extend a preference to our returned soldiers, because the men who have stayed at home for three years have had the first preference to all the jobs which our soldiers have left. It is only fair, therefore, that we should grant our returned men the first opportunity of entering the door of public employment. Some very hard things, have been said here because private employers have not kept their pledges to those who have enlisted; but we have no right to point the finger of scorn at them unless we set an excellent example ourselves. By giving effect to the provisions of this Bill, weshall be breaking no contract with anybody. We shall merely be doing what we ought to do, namely, setting an example to the private employers, and to public bodies throughout Australia. I hope, therefore, that in its vital principles the Bill will not be impaired during its progress through Committee. </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 l agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Section 2 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection : - </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(2)">
                <para>References  in  this Act  to  persons who have served  in  any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions  of  the Defence Act 1903-1915 shall be deemed  to  include members of the Army , Medical Corps nursing service accepted or appointed by the Director-General  of  Medical Services for service outside Australia, and members of the Naval Forces who have been on active service outside Australia. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the words &#34; or on a ship of war &#34; be added to the clause. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The object of the amendment is to clear up any possible doubt as to whether members of the Naval Force are to be included within the benefits of this Bill. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</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>. - I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is quite sure that the words &#34;on a ship of war &#39;.&#39; will include men engaged upon every auxiliary vessel which has been used in connexion with the war. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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 does the honorable senator mean by an auxiliary vessel ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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>- Such vessels as those which have been used in supplying men-of-war with commodities of different kinds. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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 honorablesenator means to ask whether the amendment will cover men who have been engaged upon mercantile boats, the answer is that it will not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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 about the <inline font-style="italic">Cerberus?</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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>-  She is a war ship, on the establishment.. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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>-  She remains down at Williamstown all the time. What difference is there between service on the <inline font-style="italic">Cerberus</inline> and service ashore? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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>- A great deal has very properly been said about the good and very often dangerous work performed by men engaged in the mercantile marine during the present war. It occurs to me that if the amendment will not cover such men we shall in some cases fail to recognise valuable services that deserve recognition. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 3 (Appointments of returned soldiers to positions in Clerical Division). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - When the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, made a passing reference to this clause, I asked by way of interjection whether it would apply to manual workers, and the honorable senator answered that it would largely apply to them. In the circumstances I propose to move the addition of the following new sub-clause : -  4b. Any such person so employed in the Public Service, shall receive payment at a rate not less than the rate ruling outside the Public Service for work of a similar nature. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</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>-  That would cut out a number of returned, soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1263</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not wish it to be inferred that I charge the Government with any desire to exploit the returned soldiers; but I do say that in some avenues of private employment endeavours; have already been made in that direction. Applications have been called for light jobs such as that of a liftman and the words &#34; returned soldier preferred &#34; have been used in the advertisements. In one case which occurred in  Brisbane,  when  a  returned soldier replied to the advertisement, he was informed- that  the wages to be paid would be from 30s. to 35s. per week, and that this amount, supplemented by his pension, would bring his total emolument up to a living wage of about <inline font-style="italic">&#163;3</inline> per week. If my amendment is accepted it will be made clear that it is the intention of the Government to pay returned soldiers at least the rate of wages ruling outside the Public Service. In view of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> reply to criticisms of the Bill during the secondreading debate my amendment should meet with the concurrence of the Government. With the best intentions it is possible for anomalies to creep in, and a returned soldier may be engaged upon manual work in the Public Service at a rate considerably less than that ruling outside for the same class of work. Some time last year an anomaly of this kind was brought under the notice of some honorable senators. It appears that some men  engaged in laying down cables in conduits for the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department were paid 8s. 3d. per day, while men engaged at the same work of digging up the road, on the other side, by municipal councils and shire councils, received 10s. per day. We endeavoured to rectify that anomaly by making representations to the Postmaster-General. He shielded himself behind the Public Service Commissioner, and the Commissioner in turn shielded himself behind an award of the Court. He said that an award had been given fixing the wages of these men at 8s. 3d. per day, and he took up the view that in the face of that award they could not be given the wages paid by local authorities for the same work. I welcome the intention to employ as many returned soldiers as possible in the &#34;Public Service, because I have grave fears as to the good effects that are likely to follow the repatriation and other schemes for their benefit. I regard the problem of dealing with the returned soldiers .as one of the most serious which will confront the Commonwealth. We shall have to deal with a large number of men, many of whom will be physically disabled and mentally upset. It will take a long time for them to overcome their mental disturbance and physical defects, and we know that men who have had three years&#39; experience of the soldier&#39;s life will find it difficult to again resume a continuous (avocation. I have said that I have grave doubts as to the good effects likely to follow from the repatria-  tion schemes, despite the good intentions of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> and the elaborate preparations he is making, and under this Bill we shall have a number of returned soldiers in the position practically of permanent unclassified men in the Public Service, whose interests we ought to consider. In my view, despite Arbitration Court and Wages Boards awards, there can be no justification or defence for paying returned soldiers engaged in manual occupations at a less rate of pay than that ruling outside the Public Service for similar work. We should in the Public Service set an example to outside employers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</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 honorable senator&#39;s suggestion might have the very opposite effect. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I fail to see that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</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 honorable senator proposes to make the rate paid outside the ruling rate governing pay in the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I say that the rates of pay in the Public Service should not be less than the ruling rates outside for similar work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</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>-t-Is it not better to put it the other way - that the rate outside the Public Service shall be governed by the rate within the Service ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have shown that where the rate nf pay outside the Public Service exceeded that within the Service, the Public Service Commissioner relied upon an award of the Court to continue the payment of men at 8s. 3d. per day for work which local authorities pay for at the rate of 10s. per day. The Government should be the model employer, but in many cases it is not. It requires a lot of prodding in many cases to secure conditions of employment in the Government Service that will be equal to those outside. While I make no general and sweeping charge against private employers concerning their treatment of returned soldiers previously in their employ, I do say that many private employers have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty in this regard. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</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>- Does the honorable senator mean that they pay less than the prescribed wages? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1264</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, and in some cases they refuse to re-employ men who enlisted from their service. I have already described the course which is  taken in securing the services of returned soldiers for light jobs, such as those of liftmen and watchmen. The pay offered is from 30s. to 40s. per week, and it is offered as supplementing any pension which may be received from the Defence Department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1265</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>-  That is against the honorable senator&#39;s amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1265</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not think so. I desire that the Goverment tshall set a good example to outside employers by paying returned soldiers admitted to the Public Service not less than the rates of wages ruling outside. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1265</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 any pension. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1265</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, apart from any pension. Why should a soldier&#39;s pension be considered as supplementing the wages paid to him for services rendered I think the amendment I suggest is sound, and will set an excellent example to employers outside who, be -they many or few, are not now doing the fair thing by returned soldiers, and are not fulfilling the promises they made to men when they enlisted. I find that my amendment should be submitted as an amendment of clause 7, and I shall, therefore, postpone moving it until we come to deal with that clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 4 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 5 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>After section 29 of the principal Act the following section is inserted: - &#34; 29a. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Governor-General may by regulation prescribe that any person who has served with satisfactory record in any Expeditionary Force Taised. under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1915, and who has passed a prescribed examination conducted by a University or other public examining body, notwithstanding that that examination is not competitive, shall be deemed to have passed  a  prescribed examination conducted by examiners appointed under this Act.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Honorable senators will see that this is a proposal to enable the Public Service Commissioner to accept a pass in examinations by certain scholastic bodies as being sufficient, without requiring the applicant for employment to undergo another examination. I wish to insert a few words by way of amendment. T direct attention to the words -  and who has passed a prescribed examination conducted by  a  University or other public examining body. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">I move - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That after the word &#34;body&#34; the words &#34;in any part of the British Dominions&#34; be inserted. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This will remove any doubt which may arise if, for instance, such  a  country  as  America at any time established  a  University of doubtful competence. </para>
          <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 6 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Section 32 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1) thereof the following proviso: - &#34; Provided that any person who has served with satisfactory record in any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1915, and whose age at his last birthday previous to appointment was not more than fifty years, and who has passed, whether before or after the commencement of this proviso, the prescribed examination, may be appointed to the clerical division.&#34; </para>
            <para class="italic">
              <inline font-style="italic">Section proposed to be amended: -</inline>
            </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(1)">
                <para>
                  <inline font-style="italic">No person shall be appointed to the Clerical Division whose aye at his last birthday previous to appointment was less than sixteen years or more than twenty-one years unless such person is at the time of appointment already in the Public Service.</inline>
                </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</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>. - On the second reading of the Bill <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> suggested that the word &#34;fifty&#34; in this clause should be struck out. I agree with this, and if he will not move it, I move: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the word &#34;fifty&#34; be left out. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - If the honorable senator wants to effect that amendment, there is a rather better way of doing it, but I ask the Committee to leave the clause as it stands, because men who enlisted were pre- sumably not more than forty-five at the time, and this age limit gives an ample margin of time from the present until they reach fifty-one. If the war should continue longer, as it unfortunately may, there will be plenty of time for Parliament to review the position. There is another three years to run before that would become necessary, and there is no need to open up another possible trouble by altering the age now. The Bill does not mean that a man must apply immediately he returns. He may apply some years afterwards. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1265</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>-  Itisto be presumed that the enlistment age will be taken in the application of the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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 volunteer who offered his services, having finalized his ideas as to what his age was at that period, will not need to re-adjust them later, but if by a sudden revival of memory he discovers his proper age later on, we cannot very well take notice of it. We have to assume that a majority of the men when enlisting gave their right ages. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall.</inline> - Why should the age be brought in at all! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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 do not want this thing to be running on too long. It should be remembered that the clause allows as long as twenty-six years in which to apply in the case of those who are now twenty-five years of age. If the war continues for another three years, we can review the provision in the light of experience, if we find it necessary. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</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>. - It would perhaps be better to strike out all the words referring to the age limit. I agree that if we are going to give preference to soldiers it should be a genuine preference. A man who went to the war when fifty years of age, or more, may not come back until the fighting is finished, which may not be for a. long number of years yet. He will have to live when he comes back, and will probably prefer work in the service of his country at a fixed salary to having to try to secure employment outside. I am sure that the fact that he made a mistake about his age when enlisting will be overlooked in most cases, but it is best to have no age limit. Some people expected the war to end in three years, but the Germans appear to have taken on war as a permanent national industry. They are determined to fight for expansion, and the Allies are determined to fight them, if necessary, for an indefinite number of years to come. We cannot, therefore, say within measureable distance when the war will terminate, and so cannot tell what age some of these men will be when they return . </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That applies only to a very small minority. &#39; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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>- That does not matter. In the case of some who go abroad, their services will be very quickly forgotten when they return, unless they are buttressed by an Act of Parliament. That has been our previous experience. I hope it will not be our experience this time, but, to make quite sure, the best thing to do is to strike out the whole of the words referring to the age limit. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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>- I now move - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>That the words &#34; and whose age at his last birthday previous to appointment was uot more than fifty years,&#34; be left out. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</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>. -  I support the amendment. I have already pointed out the hardships this provision may inflict. Many men over the age before they started have&#39; done yeoman service at the war. A man who is good enough to fight for his country should not be debarred from preference. The Bill is to give preference to soldiers. Therefore, let us give it to all who have fought for their country, and not to a section. It would be a crying shame if a man of sixty were debarred from taking a position in the Service if he returned well and able to perform the duties. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New SouthWalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  If the amendment is carried there will be no limit to the age at which any one who has served in this war can apply for admission to the Public Service. He will be able to apply even if he is eighty. The application need not be lodged at any particular period after his return, so that a returned soldier in Australia who lives for many years will always be an eligible applicant. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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>-  That is the time he wants a job. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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 amendment would create an anomaly approaching an absurdity, because any man in the Service can be called on to retire at sixty, and must retire at sixty-five without being called on. Would the honorable senator retire one man at sixty-five and tell another man of sixty-six or over that he is eligible to enter the Service ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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>-  That is the way to give preference to returned soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1266</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 simply holding out a vain shadow and delusion, because the honorable senator knows that such a man would not be taken into the Service. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> andSenator Grant do not really mean to take into the Public Service men of seventy or eighty years of age, and, therefore, it is only a placard to say that they do. To dismiss a man at sixty on account of age,  for that is what the provision as to retirement in our Public Service Act really means, and immediately take in another who is ten years his senior, is an absurdity which I ask the Committee not to perpetrate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</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>. - It is about time we faced this question of age in a straight out way.. Apparently it is quite correct to throw  the  manual worker on the scrap heap when he is rendered unfit, through age and strenuous service to his employer, but the civil servant is kept in his employment until he reaches a fixed age. I do not object to that, but the man who has gone abroad to fight, and in some cases been wrecked physically, should be entitled, in addition to his small war pension, to the reward attached to the light positions which are available in some Departments, irrespective of his age. The time may come when he &#39; will be no longer 1 able to follow even some qf the light occupations which the Service is alleged to offer. I do not know many of these socalled light occupations, but there may be a few of them. If we are going to refuse men employment merely because of their age, it is time we commenced at the top of the tree, instead of always working from the bottom. Let us start at the top, and discharge everybody when he reaches a certain age, or refuse .to discharge anybody on account of age. The very time when a man will want to come into the Service is when he has been discharged by a private employer. When his private employer tells him that he is no longer required is the time when the Commonwealth, out of its unlimited resources, can afford, in addition to paying him a pension, to maintain him in some light position. I take the Bill to mean that when the period of employment for any temporary men in the Service expires, then, irrespective of whether they are ill or otherwise, and no matter how competent they may be, their employment shall cease, and the positions they hold be given to returned soldiers. In many cases a great deal of hardship will be inflicted by this provision, but tha* appears to me to be quite inevitable. I hope that the Minister will not persist in opposing the amendment, but will agree to give in this clause, as well as in others, a real preference to returned soldiers, not for a day or two, but for as long &#39;as they may live. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I think that the Minister went rather out of his way in designating this amendment as a placard, because I can assure him that it did not strike me in that light. I have listened very carefully to this discussion. Some statements have been made which I think point clearly to  the  fact that returned men who come back a year or two over fifty years of age will not be on the same plane, and have the same chance as men under that age. The object of striking out the age limit is to give to all returned men an equal chance. The Public Service Commissioner, of course, would have a discretionary power, and I should think tha* it would be used in a common-sense way. If an applicant1 were too old, the Commissioner would have the best reason for refusing to give him preference. To me the amendment does not seem to be in .the nature of a placard, but to be fairly reasonable. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1267</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 you are saying makes it a placard in the sense that) it does not carry any substance with it. You show how, either by the Act or by administration, you would withhold preference. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1267</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. I point out that, unless the amendment is made, there may be a number of returned men - perhaps not many - between the ages of fifty and fifty-five years who would be excluded from any preference simply because they had reached the age limit, but to whom even the Minister would desire to give some preference. I do not believe that there would be many cases of this kind, bub I think it is a certainty that there will be a number of cases where, in the absence of the amendment,  men &#39; would be excluded from the Public Service simply because they happened to be a little over the age of fifty years. If the limitation is struck out, it will leave a discretion to the Commissioner,&#39; who can be trusted to exercise common sense. I do not see any reason for the objection raised by the Minister to the amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2L</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The &#39; amendment necessarily appeals to one&#39;s sympathy. On each side we are anxious to do the best we can for the returned soldiers, but it seems to me that the amendment, if made, would mix up things a bit. Parliament lias enacted that sixty-five years is the age up to which the public officers shall be allowed to remain in the Public Service. It is a provision of which I have never been in favour, because it is a most unjust one. There are thousands of men who are better public servants at sixty-five years of age&#39; than they were previously, owing to the knowledge they have acquired, and the grasp of things they possess. It is a loss to the Commonwealth that these public officers should have to retire, but that is the law. It is proposed now to enact that men may apply for admission at any age because they are returned soldiers. In my opinion, we should allow such men to apply for admission up to the age to which public servants are allowed to work. At the present time there are hundreds of public officers who, when they reach the age of- sixty-five years, have to be turned out, although many of them have sent three, or six, or seven sons to fight the enemy. Such a man when he reaches the age limit, in spite of the sacrifice he has made for the country, is turned out of his position, and perhaps a returned soldier is put in there just as though the Public Service was a charitable institution. We all know that a number of men have gone to the Front whose age is rather doubtful. It seems to me that the amendment, if carried, will complicate the thing, and instead of helping returned soldiers will do them harm. I suggest&#39; to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> that he should proceed on sensible lines to amend the clause. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The discussion forces upon one a realization of the difficulties which will be met with hereafter. The Minister characterized the amendment as an absurdity. He pointed out that a public servant at the age of sixty-five years has to retire, but in spite of that provision in the law, here is an amendment which proposes that a returned soldier shall be engaged in his stead. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Reid</inline> painted the picture of a public servant who, although he had sent five sons to the Front, would have to retire from the Public Service on attaining the age limit of sixty-five years, and a returned soldier would take his place. I have already called attention to the case of a man who had five sons at the Front and five more at home, and who was dismissed from a temporary position in the Government Service, or, to use the Minister&#39;s terms, not re-engaged, in order to make way for a returned soldier. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1268</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He was not a permanent officer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1268</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Whereis the difference in the application of the amendment? To be consistent with the principle of the Bill the Minister should accept it. It would not be wise, I think, to lay down a hard and fast rule that each returned man should be taken into the Public Service. In Queensland it is not compulsory for the State Government to put into operation the provision as to retirement, but it is a very handy power for the Government to possess if, in their opinion, a public officer at the age of sixty-five years is no longer capable of performing the functions of his office. If they consider that a public officer of that age is doing good work it is not compulsory on their part to retire him, so that there is nothing absurd about this amendment. It is not in the nature of a placard, but is in conformity with a provision in the Bill, and will meet cases of injustice that have occurred to my knowledge. To be consistent the Government should accept the amendment, which I intend to support. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</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>. - In my opinion the speech of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> was inconsistent with this Bill. Having regard to the provisions of the Public Service Act the Bill is worth nothing at all. I thought it was a Bill to deal with returned soldiers. The greatest blunder I see in it is the proposal to retire public officers at. the age of sixty or sixty-five years. A man has not lost all his faculties when he attains that age. It is ridiculous to require men who have served the Commonwealth for perhaps forty years to get out when they reach the age limit. In New South Wales I have known some boilermakers and carpenters who have had to retire from the Public Service under this absurd regulation go and get employment with private firms, who were glad to have their services. I have never been in favour of an age limit, as I think it is a scandalous provision. I expected that this Bill would make some alteration in that regard, and that is why I support the amendment. If, however, the amendment is defeated, I shall move for the insertion of the word &#34; fifty-five.&#34; I shall do all I can to assist returned soldiers. &#34;Undoubtedly the Government will not be able to employ all ofthem, and the early comers will receive a preference. I wish to give , a preference to all our returned soldiers, if possible. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out-put. The Committee divided.</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>11</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>17</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . .  . . 6 </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_20_1_1_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_20_1_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        </division>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</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>.- I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the word &#34;fifty&#34; be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words &#34; fifty-five.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5V</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SHANNON, John</name>
              <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I cannot take that amendment now, because the Committee has decided that the word shall stand. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</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 Committee decided to keep the words in. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The  Chairman  put the question so quickly that I think it possible that several honorable senators were misled. I do not think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> desires to shelve any amendment by a side issue, but rather that it should be defeated or carried on its merits. During the discussion on the Bill several honorable senators expressed the opinion that it would be better to bring the Bill as regards the age limit, into conformity with the Public Service Act by fixing the age at sixty-five years, and possibly they inadvertently omitted to look at the amendment, and did not realize that, if they wished to give effect to their intentions, it should have been withdrawn. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</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>- We may move that the Bill be recommitted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</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>- Or defeat this clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is no desire to defeat the clause. Even some of the </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para class="block">Government supporters are agreeable to the age limit being fixed at sixty-five years, in order to bring this measure into conformity with the Public Service Act. If honorable senators are debarred from dealing with the matter at this stage, the Bill may be recommitted, and probably this course will be adopted. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</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>- Neither now nor at any other time would I desire to defeat the will of the Committee on a more technical point; but I take it that the division was an intimation of the view of the Committee in regard to this matter. The subject was thoroughly debated, and, as I understood it, the question was whether we should retain the clause as it stood. I am assuming that the vote just recorded was an indication that . the Committee was prepared to accept the clause. If that is not so, I do not want any technicality to stand in the way of the Committee expressing its judgment, but there is nothing to show that the Committee is otherwise than satisfied with the clause as it stands. If, however, that is not so, there is an easy way out of the difficulty, and it is in conformity with our Standing Orders. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1269</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>- I was under the impression, as I had given notice of the amendment, I would be at liberty to move for the elimination of the words referred to. This has been repeatedly done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 7 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Section 40 of the principal Act is . amended by inserting after sub-section 4 the following sub-section :  - &#34; (4a) The provisions of this section which limit the time for which a person may be temporarily employed in the Public Service shall not apply in the case of a person who has served with satisfactory record in any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1915.&#34; </para>
            <para class="italic">
              <inline font-style="italic">Section proposed to be amended -</inline>
            </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(4)">
                <para>
                  <inline font-style="italic">Upon a report from the Permanent Bead of a Department that for special reasons assigned the continuance beyond the period of six months of the temporary employment of any person who has been temporarily employed in that Department for six months is desirable in the public interest, the Commissioner may authorize such extension, if he is satisfied that no other suitable person is available for the work to be performed.</inline>
                </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That all the words after &#34; The &#34; (first occurring) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words &#34; employment of a person who has served with satisfactory record in any Expeditionary Force raised under the provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1915, and who has been temporarily employed for six months, may, upon a report from the permanent head that he has satisfactorily performed his duties and that temporary assistance is still required, be extended from time to time by the Commissioner for such periods as he thinks fit.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
          <para>As the clause stands, it is open to the construction that, whether a man was suitable for the position or whether work was available or not, he would be able to claim continuity of employment. The amendment provides that if work is available, and if the Commissioner certifies that the employee is doing his work satisfactorily he shall have the benefit of the continued employment contemplated by this Bill. </para>
          <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
          <para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks)</inline> proposed - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That the following new sub-clause be added :  - &#34; 4b. Any such person so employed in the Public Service shall receive payment at a rate not less than the rate ruling outside the Public Service for work of a similar nature.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales Vice</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I suppose the purpose of any amendment is to insure something being done which would nob be done unless the amendment were inserted. We do not move amendments merely for the purpose of putting them in a Bill, and I point out that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> is now seeking to do something that is already . provided for under the Act. Employees in the Public Service are paid rates of wages fixed by the Arbitration Court, and even if there were in office some wickedly disposed Government desirous of sweating a returned soldier, this could not be done, because of the decision of the Arbitration Court, which is the first buttress for Commonwealth; employees. In addition to that, it is provided in the Statutory Rules 1916, No. 309- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Notwithstanding anything contained in this regulation, if the rate of pay prescribed for an office named herein is less in any case than the rate determined by an Arbitration Court or Wages Board to be paid for similar employment in the locality of employment, salary cor responding to the latter rate may be paid in such office, upon approval of the Commissioner, instead of the salary prescribed herein. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>That means that if the schedule rates are lower than outside, the higher rates are to be paid. Under these circumstances it does appear to be unnecessary to seek to put in any special provision for returned soldiers, seeing that they come under the beneficent operation of regulations and the protection of the Court. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I quoted instances to the contrary, but the Minister was engaged at the time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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 understand the honorable senator did not give instances so far as the Public Service was <inline font-style="italic">concerned.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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 senator will pardon we, I think he was misinformed as to his alleged facts, or that the case was presented to him in such a way as to lead him to that belief. I understand the case referred to a private employer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. A Government employee - a conduit worker. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Was he a casual employee ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He was tempo- . rarily employed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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 shall be interested to learn that any man employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth has been paid less than the standard or recognised wage, because I am unable to understand how it could happen. These rates of remuneration are not fixed by the officer who employs the men. They are fixed by a higher tribunal. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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>- I can find the Vice-President of the Executive Council plenty of cases. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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 honorable senator has been somewhat remiss in his duty, seeing that he has not brought them forward. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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>- I have brought them forward hundreds of times, and so has <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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>- Towhat class of employees is the honorable senator referring ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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>- To bricklayers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1270</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 cannot understand how they can be paid less than the rate awarded by the Arbitration Court. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The painters in the Railway Department of Queensland are paid 2s. a day less than the award rate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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 many strange things happen in Queensland that I cannot accept that as an instance. I do not know the local circumstances. But here we have our own Arbitration Court, our own Public Service Act, and we have regulations to deal with these matters. To me it does not seem desirable that we should make a regulation which will apply only to the very small number of persons who will be recruited from the ranks of our returned soldiers. I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> probably has in mind returned soldiers of impaired capacity, who are in receipt of pensions, and who may be asked to accept a salary which, in conjunction with their pensions, would constitute a living wage, but which without them, would not. I do not think that he need have any apprehension on that ground. Where a returned soldier derives an income from a pension, that income will not be affected. The Act prescribes that he shall be paid a certain  rate of wage, and he will be entitled to that wage, irrespective of whether he enjoys a pension or not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1271</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The statement which -I made just now in regard to returned soldiers whose health has been impaired, referred to men in private employ. But an anomaly undoubtedly exists to-day in the Commonwealth Service, because&#39; in the case of work carried out under the daylabour system &#39; by the PostmasterGeneral&#39;s Department, the conduit workers received less than the ruling wage. They were paid only 8s. 3d. per day. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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 wishes us to defy the Arbitration Court! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. I merely desire the Government to pay returned soldiers the ruling rate of wage that is paid by outside bodies. At the time of which I speak, the municipal councils were paying 10s. per day for the same class of work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- Although the honorable senator believes it to be the same class of work, the contention of the other side is that the work was entirely different. It was bricks ancl mortar work, but it was not similar work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was largely pick and shovel work, and while the local authorities were employing men on one side of the street, and paying them 10s. per day, the Commonwealth was employing men on the opposite side of the street upon similar work, and paying them only 8s. 3d. per day. The system which prevails now is a pernicious one, and one which ought not to be allowed to operate in the case of temporary employees. I cannot understand what objection the Vice-President of the Executive Council can entertain to my amendment. If he thinks that its adoption would duplicate safeguards, would not that be a good thing? My proposal would prevent manual labourers in the Government employ from being subjected to injustice. The sooner our returned soldiers are absorbed into civil life after their military discharge, the better it will be for all concerned. The amendment is designed to cure an evil which has arisen in the past. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1271</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>. - I shall support the amendment. I do not think we can lay down too many safeguards so far as those who are engaged in manual labour are concerned. It is apparently a revelation to the VicePresident of the Executive Council that the Commonwealth Government does not observe the awards given by the various State Arbitration Courts. I may tell him that some time ago an instruction was issued to the Director of Public Works in New South Wales to secure a number of bricklayers for Canberra. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- When wasthis? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- About two years ago. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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 asks me to believe that the Government of that time did an injury to bricklayers? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- I am pointing out that the Government of the day - most of the members of which are now on the opposite side of this chamber- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- They had the Honorable senator&#39;s full confidence then. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1271</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>- They had not. As a matter of fact, I was very glad to assist in removing one of them. When I brought this matter under the notice of the Director of Works in Sydney, he refused to pay the train fares of the bricklayers from Sydney to Canberra, although  it was part of the award of the State Arbitration Court that for distances beyond 25 miles from that city such fares should be paid by the employers. It was also part of the award that the men should be paid for the time occupied in travelling to and from their work to Sydney. The same award further made provision for the payment of a nominal sum for tent accommodation. But the Director of Works, acting under instructions from Melbourne, refused to sanction these payments. The claims of the men were brought under the attention of the Minister for Works at the time, but he declined to countenance them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  And he was within the law. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>- Later on, the Minister was displaced from office, as I think he deserved to be. Apparently, it is quite right to pay the expenses of permanent officers, but bricklayers are in an altogether different category. Have not bricklayers to maintain wives and families, just as have permanent officials? To this day the bricklayers of whom I speak have not had the award of the State Arbitration Court observed by the Commonwealth. The amendment seeks to prevent either the present or .any other Government from taking advantage of a position of that kind, and consequently I shall support it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1272</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I was rather anxious to learn of the cases in which the Government have been violating the law, and I am very much obliged to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator. Grant</inline> for the sample case which he has brought forward. If the effect of the amendment would be &#39; what the honorable senator claims, it is well that the Committee should know it. In the particular case championed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant,</inline> these are the facts: There is a Wages Board in Sydney which deals with the bricklaying industry, and which has laid it down that men working within a certain radius of that city shall be paid the standard wage and a travelling allowance to and from their work at the week-end. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>-  Beyond a distance of 25 miles of Sydney. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>- Here was a job at Canberra, which would run into several months, and the men upon whose behalf </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline>has been shedding tears wished to claim travelling allowance back to Sydney every week-end. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>-  Nothing of the kind. I submit that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is not in order in attempting to put into my mouth  words  which I did not utter, which are quite incorrect, and which have no foundation, in fact. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1272</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5V</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What is the point of order? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>-  That the VicePresident of the Executive Council is not speaking the truth. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1272</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">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator is not in order in making a statement of that kind. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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 withdraw altogether any suggestion that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> ever mentioned anything about bricklayers at Canberra. I now mention it myself. I say that there was trouble there two years ago, and I have stated the nature of it. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> was a member of the Senate at the time, and there was in office a party at all times more than careful to consider the interests of unionists. Can honorable senators believe that any injustice would be done to those men under that Government? If there was any injustice done them let <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> go back to his constituents and tell them that, knowing that an injustice was being done by the Government which he supported, he did not say one word about it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>-  I did not remain quiet about it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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 then showed abundant confidence in the Government of the day. He would have cheered me many times when I sat on the bench opposite if he had shown then the want of confidence in that Government which he has expressed now. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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 seems to forget that I brought the whole of the facts in that case before the Senate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1272</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>- One of my failings is that I cannot forget anything. I remember that in a Senate of thirty-six members there were five lone fishermen on $he Opposition side and thirty-one honorable senators associated with&#39; <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> behind the Government. When the honorable senator tells us that thirtyone members of this Chamber, knowing that an injustice was being done, failed  to secure justice for those concerned, he supplies an indictment against his party as weighty as could be put into words. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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 quite correct, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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 unable to believe that thirty-one honorable senators out of a Senate of thirty-six could not have held up the Government of the day if they believed an injustice was being done to those unfortunate bricklayers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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>- The VicePresident of the Executive Council can get honorable) senators supporting the Government of which be is a member to vote against their will. They speak in one way and vote in another. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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 only an admission that so far as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> is concerned he did on the occasion referred to act in that way. Having acted in that way himself it is not unnatural that he should assume that other people will act similarly. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> has shown the Committee what is in his mind and in the minds of those who support the amendment. I have shown in answer to honorable senators opposite that those in the employ of the Commonwealth Government are amply protected by the. Commonwealth Arbitration Court, by our law, and by the schedule of rates I have read. Further, it is the practice of the Government that where awards of the Arbitration Court or Wages Boards and the Commonwealth law does not apply, to adopt the ruling rate of wages in outside employment. These cases are very rare, because I think there is no State in which there is not now some tribunal appointed to deal with the question of wages. I do not think it necessary or desirable to include in this Bill a special provision with regard to the wages paid to the percentage&#34; of returned soldiers who will be employed in the Public Service, and if any provision of the kind be inserted it should apply to the whole of the Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDOUGALL</inline>(New South Wales,) r5.53&#93;.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has put the case in his own way, and he will now allow me to put it in mine. The honorable senator, though perhaps not intentionally, has misled the Committee in his references to the bricklayers employed at Canberra. The fact is that the Commonwealth Government refused to pay those bricklayers the same wages as private employers were paying in New South Wales. They paid them 13s. 6d. instead of 14s. per day. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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 was the award rate? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1273</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>- The award rate was 14s. per day. I brought the matter up here, and saw Minister after. Minister in connexion with it, but there .was always the same stereotyped reply from the Home Affairs Department, and the Government would not rectify the injustice. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that I was lacking in my duty if I did not refer to the matter here. I did refer to the matter, and protested against what was being done. After <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Grant</inline> was returned, the men concerned got hold of him, and he brought the matter up also. But the fact remains that we could never get the Commonwealth Labour &#39;Government of that day to observe the award of the Arbitration Court in New South Wales. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1273</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - One must admire the facility, if not the celerity, with which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> switched on to the brick argument, which has nothing to do with the question before the Committee. The purpose of my amendment is to provide that the Commonwealth Government shall pay to any returned soldier whom they may employ in a temporary capacity wages at a rate not less than the rate ruling for similar work outside. Many instances might be given to show that the Commonwealth and State Governments do not pay wages in accordance with awards of Arbitration Courts and other tribunals. I contend that where the rate of wages ruling for outside employment is higher than that of ,an award under the Public Service Arbitration Act, the Government should be compelled to pay returned soldiers whom they employ at the higher rates ruling outside for similar work. I am not prepared to leave the matter to the Public Service Commissioner, or to any Government or Minister, however well intentioned. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</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 honorable senator leave it to the Arbitration Court? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1273</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the Arbitration Court fixes a rate equal to that ruling outside for similar work. I have already given an instance in which the award of the Court was 8s. 3d. per day for conduit workers, for pick-and-shovel work, whilst the ruling rate paid by local authorities for the same work was 10s. per day. We could not get the PostmasterGeneral to pay the ruling rate to men in the employ of his Department. The question I ask by my amendment is whether the Government will lay it down in this Bill that the rate of wages paid to returned soldiers in the employ of the Government of the Commonwealth shall be not less than the rate ruling outside for similar work? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1274</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYR</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FAIRBAIRN, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FAIRBAIRN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - If I understand the effect of the amendment aright, it would introduce chaos into Commonwealth employment. We may have twenty or thirty ordinary citizens engaged upon a work under a Commonwealth award, whilst men doing the same class of work for a local authority on the other side of the road may be receiving a higher rate of wages. If a returned soldier is put on to the work being done by the Commonwealth employees, it will be necessary, under the amendment, to pay him at the higher rate paid by the local authority. This could only have the effect of creating discontent amongst the other Commonwealth employees. Surely, when we have established an Arbitration Court to fix a fair rate of wages for Commonwealth employees, if they are not satisfied with the wages paid them, their proper course is to have the matter referred to the Court, and so get their grievance rectified, if they have a grievance. To try to rectify it in the round-about way suggested by tbe amendment would only create disturbance and discontent in Commonwealth employment. I do not think it will be found that a returned soldier employed by the Commonwealth will expect to be paid at a rate in excess of that received by other employees in the same Service. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Colonel</inline>O&#39;LOGHLIN (South Australia) &#91;6.0&#93;. - At first, I was inclined to consider that no injustice would be done to returned soldiers admitted to the Public Service if they received the ruling rate of wages in the Service. I was impressed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen&#39;s</inline> argument that their interests would be amply protected under the Public Service Arbitration Act. But, in contradiction to that, several honorable senators have given concrete cases to show that public servants have not been paid a rate of wages equal to that paid in outside em ployment for similar work. In the circumstances, it seems to me that if we desire that returned soldiers employed by the Commonwealth shajl receive the ruling rate of wages for the work they perform, we should make provision for it in the Bill, and I shall therefore vote for the amendment. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1274</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2L</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - There is one phase of the question to which I think no reference has yet been made. A great many of our returned soldiers will be, to a greater or less extent, incapable of an ordinary day&#39;s work, and all provisions such as that suggested by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> will tend only to prevent the employment of these men in the Public Service. I am well aware that if the door were left wide open to pay men at rates of wages in accordance with their capacity, there would be great danger that the position might be abused by Governments and by private employers: but we ought not to forget that employment, even at a rate somewhat less than the ruling rate of wages, may be a perfect God-send to some returned soldiers who may be incapable of a full day&#39;s work. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1274</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That argument was used against the establishment of a minimum wage, and the honorable senator was amongst those who fought it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1274</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Keefe</inline> is quite mistaken as to my views on this question. I have admitted that it would be dangerous to open the door too widely in this direction. But we are not dealing with either a minimum or maximum wage at the present time. We are dealing with the employment of returned soldiers, many of whom will be unable, because their nerves have been shattered, or they have been rendered physically unfit, to do an ordinary day&#39;s work in competition with people who are perfectly sound in health. It is of no use to try to make a rule on the basis of sentiment for the returned soldiers if its application may lead to the result that many of our returned soldiers will be prevented by it from obtaining employment in the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1274</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 will not have to be paid if they are not employed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1274</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- My objection is that the adoption of these hard-and-fast rules will shut them out. I am &#34;not disposed to reduce any man&#39;s wages; but I am pointing out that it will be a great hardship to thousands of returned soldiers who might he debarred by the amendment from employment in the Public Service because they are unable to perform the work in which they were usually employed as efficiently as they could before they went to the Front. It should be remembered, also, that if such men are employed at the rates paid to men who can do efficient work, the latter will be discontented; and the returned soldier himself, knowing that he is unable to do as much work as those with whom he is associated, may feel that he is employed out of charity. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Would you favour the employment of returned soldiers at a wage under the ruling rate ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Many returned soldiers would be unable to do an ordinary day&#39;s work. The honorable senator wants the Government to be compelled to pay them full wages before they are able to render a return for the wages paid. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</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>- Do they not deserve to get it? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is not a matter of deserving. When you come to deserving you come to charity. That is where all this empty sentiment runs away with honorable senators opposite. They must face the facts. Hundreds of returned soldiers are unable to do almost any class of work, and if we find them&#39; some light employment that would give them a return for the services they render, we shall be doing good for them for the time being, and good for the Commonwealth. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>SenatorGuy.- Will this Bill do that as it stands? </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This Bill demands a certain quality of service which many returned men are unable to render. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</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>- Do you propose to move an amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1275</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator REID</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- When these clauses and amendments relating to ruling rates of wages and Arbitration Court awards are being considered, I should like the Committee to consider the men who cannot come up to the standard. The awards that honorable senators are talking about are given with the object that men shall render certain services. Men who are qualified, and can fulfil the conditions the award demands of them, are to get certain wages in return. That is an ordinary business transaction, but we are dealing now with a class of men who are unable to fulfil all the award conditions. I agree with SenatorFerricks that the awards are very good for the ordinary competent person, but I am thinking of the men who are unable to do much, and appeal to the Minister to give them consideration. This is one of the most serious difficulties that we have to contend with, but I do not wish honorable senators opposite to think I want to cut down wages. I only wish we could frame a provision with some safeguards, but I know the dangers. There are the facts, there are the men, and there are the conditions, and it is our duty to provide for them. We should do all we can for the returned men along common-sense practical lines that will be a real benefit to them. If they can fulfil the award conditions, they will get the award rates,but those who cannot fulfil them have to be looked after. If it were only possible, I should like to see cases of that sort provided for by means of permits to work at less than the award rates. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1275</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>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Reid</inline> has raised a very real point, which we cannot afford to ignore. Every one appeared to approve of the repatriation scheme recently introduced, part of which was to train returned disabled men and provide them with employment, but the amendment would completely cut the ground from under that proposal. Men will return in various degrees of disablement, and we want a scheme by which they can be patched up to help them to do some kind of work in the interests of themselves and the country. The most miserable existence to which they could be condemned would be one of perpetual idleness. If they are able to do any kind of work, it is to their interests and the interests of the community to give them preference in Government employment. If we shut them out of the possibility of getting work of that kind, our repatriation scheme must be a failure. We should also bear in mind that this Parliament has very sensibly placed the question of the fixation of wages entirely in the hands of the Arbitration Court. Quite a number ofprominent union officials in the Government Service have assured me that the best thing ever done for the civil servants was to bring them within the scope of the Arbitration Act. Before this was done a great deal of the time of Parliament was taken up in discussing questions relating to the wages of civil servants, and we could never reach finality. Parliament is not at all fitted to deal with questions of wages, yet it is now seriously proposed to revert to that state of affairs. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Nothing ofthe kind - we are not fixing the wages at all. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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 honorable senator is interfering with the work of the Arbitration Court. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I want to prevent the Government from exploiting the returned soldier. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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 honorable senator&#39;s amendment will prevent the returned soldier getting any kind of work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is what the private employer says outside when he wants the returned soldier to work for low wages. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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>- That sort of &#34;guff&#34; is all right on the Yarra bank or in the Sydney Domain, but it will not go down here with sensible men who have had years of experience in trade union affairs. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There are better men than you on the Yarra bank and in the Sydney Domain. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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>- I have been on the Yarra bank many a time and do not want to see the Senate dragged down to that level. We shall be very sorry afterwards if we attempt to interfere with the work of the Arbitration Court. Parliament is . not in the position and has not the machinery to fix wages, but that iswhat we should be doing under the amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1276</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am rather- surprised at the uttei&#39;ances of ithe last two speakers, who have brought in entirely new matter which is not involved in the Bill or in my amendment. I refer to the question of disabled workers. The private employer outside, to my knowledge, has endeavoured to exploit the returned soldier. I have told the Committee what has occurred in those cases, but I did not know until to-day that the Government contemplated a similar policy. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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 does it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am very , pleased to hear the Minister repudiate the utterances of the last two speakers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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 must nob misconstrue what the last two speakers were aiming at. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They were aiming at one of the things that the Labour movement has been fighting in Australia for years past. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I deny that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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 I deny it, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They were asking for a less rate of wage, for what they were pleased to call the aged or infirm worker, and if they had their way three oub of every five men would be characterized as either aged or infirm, and compelled to accept lower wages. Under almost every industrial award repeated representations have been made for a lower scale of wages to be paid to aged and infirm workers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JRW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CRAWFORD, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Crawford</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Our Court cannot fix the wages for infirm workers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator knows that that method was exploited in the sugar industry for a number of years. That industry employed socalled disabled workers, and kept up the advocacy for their retention most actively, and bitterly for years. If the Commonwealth Government wants to provide for disabled or partially disabled soldiers and sailors it will have to take up national works, and pub them there to carry out national undertakings in the way of production and manufacture. It must not put them in a temporary capacity in the Public Service side by side with ablebodied men doing manual labour. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">REID, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Reid</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You have come back to where I was. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But my amendment does not aim at discriminating between able-bodied and aged and infirm workers. I object to that sort of discrimination. If a man is not physically fit, he will not be employed to do an ablebodied man&#39;s work. Other avenues will be found for him. If I am asked what those avenues will be, I say that is the responsibility of whatever Governmeub is in power. The Government will have to launch national industries to employ the disabled or partially disabled returned men at such rates of wage as will give them a fair living, not a living under minimum conditions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</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>- Who is to interpret what is the ruling wage ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1276</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Courts. The Government should give the highest Court awards, but Commonwealth Go-  vernments and Departments have failed to do that in the specific cases I have mentioned. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1277</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  There are provisions in the law which require the Commonwealth Government to pay the properly fixed wage. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is to members of organizations. Suppose some of these returned soldiers are not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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>- Those are the wages fixed for all employees. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline> O&#39;Loghlin said he was satisfiedwhen I pointed that out. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I said I was impressed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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 as much as I ever hope to get from the honorable senator. He is now &#34; unimpressed,&#34; because two other honorable senators have pointed out specific instances where the direction given in , our law is not obeyed. If he accepts those senators&#39; statements as evidence, what proof has he that if we give the direction  a  third time it will be obeyed ? I dispute, altogether, that those honorable senators&#39; statements are correct; but, if they are, it simply means that, although there was a direction in the law that certain wages should be paid, a strong Labour Government refused to pay them. If we put in another clause to the same effect, will it make things any better ? Is it really thought that because it is said again the Government which would not do the thing a year ago, would do it now ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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 not in the Actthen. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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. There has been no alteration in that provision since that time. Is it any good to put it in again ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There is  a  loophole. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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  a  question of stopping a loophole. It is not that the honorable senator wants the Government to pay a judicially fixed wage at all. It is not that he wants the Government to observe the decisions of the Court, because that is being done already. What he wants to say is that where some body of men can, by contract or otherwise, compel an employer in the neighbourhood to pay a higher wage, then, although the Commonwealth Government is paying the wage fixed by the ArbitrationCourt, it shall be quite open  to  discard the wage fixed by its own Court, and to follow the wage which a group of men have compelled a private employer to pay. That is the position. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Fairbairn</inline> brought forward to-day an instance in a question which he submitted to me. I did not quite catch the full significance of the case when he was reading the report  of a  telegram from Hughenden - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The pastoral workers have decided, failing  a  settlement of the dispute before 1st September, that a 10 per cent, increase for every calendar month, or part thereof, on the rates shall take effect, in order to compensate them for the increased production of wool resulting from the delayed shearing- </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I ask honorable &#39;senators to mark these words -  caused by &#34; the pastoralists attempting to enforce <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins&#39; award, which deprived the workers of a 44-hour week and other conditions conceded by the pastoralists during 1916.&#34; </para>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline>Higgins has given a decision, and the pastoralists say that they are going to shear underthat decision, but  a  number of the men there say, &#34; We will not observe the award.&#34; </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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>-  You have  no  evidence that that statement is correct. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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 will not take the responsibility of saying that the statement is not correct, but even if it were not correct, many suchi cases are within the knowledge of everybody. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The employers have been breaking the awards for the last ten years, and now the men are starting to break them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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>- At last we get from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> an admission that because the men hold that the employers have been law breakers in the past they have a right to be law breakers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  You did not- complain before. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1277</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 uttering  no  complaint, but bringing before the Committee the position we shall be in iif we agree to this amendment. We shall have a decision of the Court, and a wage laid down. We will assume that a group  of  workmen compels somebody in the district to pay not the wage fixed by the Court, but 10 per cent, higher per month.  In  these circumstances, if the amendment is adopted, the Commonwealth Government will have to pay not the rate fixed by its own Court, but in that locality the wage  which a group of workmen had succeeded in compelling a private employer to pay. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The case I mentioned applied to every capital in the Commonwealth. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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 cannot get away from the fact that his amendment, if made, will compel the Government to pay any wage paid in that neighbourhood which is the higher. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, the ruling rate of wages for work of a similar nature. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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 had the same thing in dozens of cases here. We had a notable instance the other day, where a coaling battalion was formed in order to load coal. It promised that it would not strike no matter what happened, that its labour would always be available to load the transports. In consideration of an assurance that right through the period of the war their labour would be available to load the boats, the Navy Department paid the battalion a bonus; that is a higher price per ton of thecoal to be handled. But the battalion no sooner got that concession than its members used it as an argument to compel the private owners, to whom they had given no promise as to continuity of labour, to raise the rates which they were paying. The only thing I marvel at is that the battalion did not immediately go round to the Navy Office and say &#34; Now that you have the promise, and the others have not- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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>- They had done that previously. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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 that case I must apologize to them. There might be something to be said for the amendment of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> asking the Government to do that if he could give an assurance that a decision of the Arbitration Court would always be observed. But until he can do that, I say that this amendment ought not to be made. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Keefe</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That only applies to returned soldiers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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 know that, and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Fairbairn,</inline> I think, exposed the absurdity which would be created by a group of nineteen men being under one rate of wages, and the odd man claiming a rate of wage fixed by an independent contract between a number of men and an employer. In view of the protection which the Act affords I submit that the most reasonable thing for the Committee to do is to leave the Bill as it is. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Ferricks&#39; amendment) - put. The Committee divided.</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>10</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . .  . . 6 </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_29_1_3_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_29_1_4_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m.</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 8 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 9 (Amendment of section 70 a). </para>
        </division>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1278</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I want to call the attention of the VicePresident of the Executive Council to the fact that the clause is misleading, because it refers to the amendment of section 70a of the principal Act; and volume 2 of the Statutes, which contains the principal Act, has no reference at all to section 70a. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</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>- 70a was the result of an amendment of the principal Act. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am aware of that, but I desire to direct attention to the confusion that may arise in a matter like this. When we have an amending Bill before us, obviously it is not possible for every member of the Committee to know the effect of all the amendments under consideration, by being able to refer immediately to the principal Act, because only a few copies are available. Some years ago we adopted a practice which proved a very great convenience during the consideration of amending Bills, and </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">I have never heard &#34;why it was discontinued. Honorable senators will remember that when a Bill dealing with an amendment of the principal Act was under consideration, the sections proposed to be amended were shown in bold type, and I would like to know whether it is not. possible to revert to that convenient custom, .so that when we have amending Bills before us we may be able to see exactly how the wording of the clause will affect the principal Act. I am speaking on this clause because it illustrates how &#39; easily confusion may be caused, as not very many honorable senators will remember that when the principal Act was amended section 70 had another section added to it. It would be very convenient if we could revert to the old custom. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1279</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I quite share with the honorable senator his recognition &#39; of the convenience in the form of presenting Bills with which the older members of the Senate, at any rate, are familiar, namely, of showing in bold type the effect of proposed amendments on sections of the principal Act. I do not know, however, that the practice was invariably followed with regard to Acts which were not under what one might call comprehensive revision, and when the purpose of amendments were obvious. It has also to be remembered that a reprint, covering many pages, of sections sought to be amended might unduly load the printing bill. At the same time, I appreciate the simplicity of the method referred to, and in future, when amending Bills are under consideration, I will see how far we may  be  justified in meeting the convenience of honorable senators. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1279</page.no>
              <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>. - It has hardly been the invariable practice of the Senate to receive with amending Bills memoranda showing in bold type the sections of principal Act proposed to be amended. In the early days of Federation this custom was adopted, and it was reverted to more recently. We might adhere to that practice now, because we have been amending our legislation in various particulars very frequently of late, and the consolidated Statutes, which appeared in two volumes and which were published quite recently, are already out of date. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">I dare say 70a, to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Keefe</inline> referred, does not even appear in those volumes. It is desirable, therefore, as far as possible, to follow the procedure indicated by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Keefe.</inline> It is not necessary to overload the printing bill. It will be sufficient if the prints which are circulated for the information of honorable senators are confined entirely and exclusively to those particular sections sought to be amended and if they indicate the deletion, addition, or alterations intended to be provided for in the amending Bill. Once an Act has been amended to any extent, it has been the custom to reprint it, with its amendments appearing as an appendix, in the next subsequent annual volume of the Statutes, but such a reprint is only authorized when the amendments are of a serious character, the degree of seriousness being measured apparently by the law officers of the Crown, as sometimes an i Act . has been amended, but the amended Act has never been reprinted. A few years ago - in 1914 - all our Statutes, together with amending legislation, were printed in two volumes, but, as I have already stated, they are now out of date, because a great deal of our legislation during the last few years has been in the direction of amending Acts or Statutes. As a matter of fact, we have had the experience of a Bill being passed and a further amendment introduced before the original Bill received the assent of the Governor-General. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</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>- Was not the introduction of that amending Bill regarded as irregular! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</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>- I am merely citing that as an instance of the rapidity with which we have been amending our legislation in recent years, and I feel confident that the Minister will appreciate the necessity of indicating the effect of proposed amendments on sections of the principal Acts, especially in cases where an amendment refers to recent amendments of sections in Acts of long standing. I fully appreciate the manner in which the Minister has responded to the remarks of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Keefe,</inline> and I hope that in the future in regard to amending Bills especially those dealing with amendments on amendments recently made, the Senate will be supplied with the fullest possible information. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 10 agreed to.&#39; </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1280</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>.- I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>That the following new clause be added to the Bill : - &#34; 11. Nothing in this Act shall entitle the Public Service Commissioner to dispense with the services of any employee merely by reason of the fact that he has not been accepted for active service abroad.&#34; </para>
          <para class="block">I intimated during my second-reading speech why I should like this new clause added to the Bill. I know I will not be successful, but 1 can at all events make an attempt. My desire is to protect two classes of the community, namely, those who have sons at the Front, and those who may have offered but were not accepted for active service. I know very well that in some cases employees whose services have been dispensed with have been able to get back to the Public Service, but when this Bill becomes law there will be very little chance of such men again obtaining employment. I do not want the clause to apply to anybody else. It might be said that we could provide that this should not apply to those who had not volunteered, but that is not my object at all. I want to insure protection for two sections of the public who may be injured by the operation of this Bill, and I think I shall have the cordial co-operation of the soldiers in this matter. I believe in extending to them every preference that we can without injuring others who have volunteered for service, but have been rejected. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1280</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In the first place, I desire to point out that the new clause proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> would be quite useless. It would confer no protection upon anybody. It would not apply to the permanent officer, and could apply only to the temporary employee. Now the Public Service Commissioner does not dismiss the temporary employee, and will not dismiss him under this Bill. What will happen is that, at the end of his nine months&#39; term, the casual employee will leave the Service automatically by reason of the provisions of the Public Service Act. He will then stand outside the door of our public Departments waiting to be re-employed. But we have said that he shall not be re-employed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</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>- I want to wipe out that provision. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</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 if the new clause were inserted, it would not afford the erstwhile temporary employee an opportunity of re-entering the Service. If the honorable senator desires to provide him with that opportunity, he should move to excise from the principal Act the provision which limits temporary employment to a period of nine months. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> has stated. that he desires to help two classes.  His  proposal, if adopted, would help neither of these classes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</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>- How is it that some casual employees have been retained in the Public Service for five years? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</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 under certain circumstances the Public Service Commissioner has power to extend their term of employment. Only the other day, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes</inline> brought forward the case of a man who had had two and a half years of casual employment, and who considered it a grievance that he was then required to leave it. The position resolves itself into this : Do we desire to give preference to our returned soldiers or do we not ? If we do, let us make it a real preference. My honorable friends opposite take up the position that) they will give the returned soldier preference for a job if nobody else wants it. The insertion of the proposed new clause will not assist matters one way or the other. It is not) even entitled to the dignity of a chip in porridge. It would be idle to insert it if we retain in the principal Act the provision that temporary employees shall not remain in the Service for more than nine months. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</inline>(8.20).-I object to the remark of the Vice-President of the Executive Council that we desire to give the returned soldiers a preference for jobs if nobody else wants them. If there are two persons applying for a position, obviously both want it. In such circumstances, what point can attach to the remark of the Vice-President of the Executive Council? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</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 two men apply for a position - a returned soldier and another man who has had nine months&#39; casual employment in the Commonwealth. Service - ought the latter to get it? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. Where there are two applicants for a job, and one is a returned soldier, the returned soldier should get it. But there is a great difference between that position and discharging a man to make room for a returned soldier. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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 McDougall</inline> stated that he had in mind the&#39; man who bad been temporarily employed in the Service for nine months, and was then required to leave. He wishes to give such a man preference over the returned soldier. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZ9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;KEEFE, David</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;KEEFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He does not. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> has not given the proposed new clause the consideration to which it is entitled. I desire to extend preference to returned soldiers, but I do not wish to see injustice done to worthy officials in our Public Service. All that our returned soldiers ask is that when any officer drops out of the Service they shall be granted a preference in the filling of the vacancy. It is a very fair thing that they should be given that preference. But they do not desire to leave it open to the Public Service Commissioner to discharge officials to. make room for them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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 is not correct in using the word &#34; discharge.&#34; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1281</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYT</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Judging by the reception that has been accorded to Seuator McDougall&#39;s proposal by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, we must regard this Bill as being very nearly perfect. The honorable gentleman has claimed thatevery amendment which has been moved has been quite unnecessary. The VicePresident of the Executive Council also spoke of the difference between the actual discharge of a temporary employee and a refusal to re-engage him. I dealt with that aspect of the matter this afternoon. I then pointed out that, instead of the Public Service Commissioner actually discharging a man, he would refuse to reengage him. But a case has since come under my notice in which a casual employee in one of our Federal Departments has actually been dismissed. At an earlier stage of the debate I made some reference to this man, who is the father of ten children. Five of his sons have gone to the war., and two of them have been killed there. This man, who was employed as a temporary clerk, has had his services dispensed with in order to make room for a returned soldier. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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>- Is that the case of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. C.</inline> H. Yates? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. Has it been before this Chamber previously? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes</inline> brought it up. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> wrote to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hunt,</inline> the head of the Meteorological Bureau in Melbourne, stating - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>In <inline font-style="italic">re</inline> one week&#39;s notice given me by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtain</inline> that my services will not be required so as to employ a returned soldier. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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 the way in which he puts it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He would hardly make a statement of that kind to his &#34; boss &#34; if he had not received notice of dismissal. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> had been in the temporary employ of the Commonwealth for twelve months. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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 two years. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He says- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>I know some of my colleagues have been engaged over two years. It will not be two years until the 4th October, 1917, since I started. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I mention this fact to show how carefully this discretionary power will have to be applied. I am sure that there is no soldier who would hanker after the position formerly occupied by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> if he knew the circumstances of the case. That gentleman wrote - 96 Gatehouse-street, Parkville, 18th June, 1917. </para>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. A.</inline>H. Hunt, </para>
          <para>Meteorological Bureau, Melbourne. </para>
          <para class="block">Dear <inline font-weight="bold">Sir,</inline></para>
          <para>In <inline font-style="italic">re</inline> one week&#39;s notice given me by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtain</inline> that my services will not be required so as to employ a returned soldier. </para>
          <para>I respectfully submit the following statements, and ask for further consideration of the matter, before a final decision is made. </para>
          <para>In the &#34; Win-the-war &#34; policy adopted by the Government, I am not aware what you and the Public Service Commissioner, officers holding high rank in the Service, have done towards that end. I feel persuaded that my family contribution will compare favorably with either or any officer in your Department. </para>
          <para>I have four sons at the front, two of them &#34; Anzac Heroes,&#34; who have made the full sacrifice, a third son wounded in action, and is now in an English hospital, a fourth somewhere in France, a fifth son in England,, conscripted, but exempted up to the last time of hearing;  a  total of five sons already involved; in addition, there is a further liability of haying five other sons taken under conscription, which now appears imminent, and which is apparently the only way. </para>
          <para>As this is the first engagement I have had under the Commonwealth since I registered for employment on the 15th September, 1908, allowing for transfer from the Census Bureau, having more than once applied in writing on personal grounds to the Commissioner for employment without receiving an acknowledgment, although I have been employed by the State Government for five and a half years, during that time giving effective service, for which I hold first-class references from the different Departments. </para>
          <para>My sons, in fighting for King and country, and home and freedom, had reasonable expectations that their father would have granted to him the usual privileges allowed temporary officers, including length of service. I know some of my colleagues have been engaged over two years. It will not be two years until the 4th October, 1017,&#34; since Istarted. </para>
          <para>I appeal to you, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, as</inline> representing the powers that be, on behalf of my loyal soldier &#34; true heroes,&#34; who will never return, not to be a party in doing this injustice, which, if done, I shall consider my sons have died in vain, and it will be a glaring illustration of what happens to reputable citizens under military law. </para>
          <para>Yours faithfully, (Signed) C. H. YATES. </para>
          <para class="block">That communication illustrates the fact that we must expect anomalies to crop up, no matter how impartially this policy of preference may be applied. I shall support the amendment. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The case of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> is now for the third time to be embalmed in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline> It was first brought up in another place. It was then referred to here by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes,</inline> and now, lest it should have gone astray on the other two occasions, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ferricks</inline> brings it forward. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Because it is so pertinent to the occasion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</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 most pertinent, as showing the &#39;utter absurdity of the amendment. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> was employed, as are hundreds of other temporary employees, under a law which lays it down that after nine months&#39; temporary service the employee should be required to leave. I ask honorable senators to recollect why that provision was inserted in the law. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</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 after six months, really, but an extension of three months is allowed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</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>- There was a reason for the provision, and if the reason was not sufficient there is a proper way for those opposed to the provision to proceed for its repeal. The reason for the provision was brought very prominently before public notice by the fact thait people seeking casual employment remained in the Public Service month after month, and year after year, until they became out of touch with outside employment. It was considered that they had practically acquired a vested interest, and in hundreds of cases it was urged that, they had become so used to the routine of the Public Service that it would be a. positive hardship to turn them adrift upon the world when they were practically unfitted for anything else than the job which they had learned in the Service. Parliament, therefore, decided, in the interests alike of ithe Public Service, the community, and the casual employees themselves, that there should be a limit of time within which their temporary employment would terminate. I am not saying whether that provision was right or wrong, as that is immaterial to my argument. There it is, and I have given the reasons why Parliament adopted it. I said just now, by way of interjection, that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Yates</inline> had been employed for over two years in the Public Service. I may have been wrong in saying so, but he was employed, at auy rate, for over eighteen months, which is much longer than the period allowed by the law. According to his letters, it would appear that he was given notice to quit. He was given nothing of the kind. The period during which he might continue in his -temporary employment had ceased under the operation of tihe law, but it had been extended in every possible way in order to help him. When the period for which he was last appointed was approaching an. end, in accordance with the usual practice of the Departments, he received an intimation that at the end of the week his services would be no longer required. The period of employment to which, he was en-titled terminated without that notice, but, according to his letter, he was given the notice, and turned adrift in order to make room for a returned soldier. That is an absolute distortion of the facts.He left the Service because the law required him to leave, and having left it, an opportunity was afforded to give preference in employment to a returned soldier, and a returned soldier was appointed to the position. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ferricks</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is a very fine distinction that is drawn between the dismissal of temporary men and their leaving at the end of their period of temporary employment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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 distinction that it is necessary to maintain if we intend to apply the principle of preference to returned soldiers. Otherwise what my honorable friends opposite would mean by preference to a returned soldier would be that the thousands of casual employees who are now in the Public Service should remain there for ever. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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>- Why should they not, if they are qualified ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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 they are qualified to remain they should be made permanent employees. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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>- The soldier should be told that another man is fired to make room for him, aud then he would not take the job. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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 there was not a single man in khaki to-day hundreds of these temporary employees would have to leave the Service under the terms of the law. What has happened is that we have been dodging the law in the past, and not infrequently, under the influence of political pressure. All that is asked is that the law shall operate, and that returned soldiers shall be given the opportunity to obtain these positions which, by the operation of the law, become vacant, but which, if our honorable friends opposite had their way, would become the perquisite of the men already in possession of them. If honorable senators desire that returned soldiers shall have preference only for future positions, and no right to a look in for positions already existing, let them say so.For my part, I hold that, according to the creed of the present Government, and I believe of the people of the Commonwealth, the returned soldier should have a preferential right to all casual jobs which are going. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>Question - That the proposed new clause be added to the Bill - put. The Committee divided.</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>10</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>19</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . .  . .. 9 </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_34_1_7_P.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_34_1_5_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_34_1_6_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para class="block">Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para class="block">Proposed new clause negatived. </para>
          <para class="block">Title agreed to. </para>
          <para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen)</inline> proposed - </para>
          <para>That the Bill be reported, with amendments. </para>
        </division>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1283</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>. - I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>That clause 6 be reconsidered. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1283</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I remind the Committee that we have already discussed clause 6 at considerable length. I assume that honorable senators arrived at their decision regarding <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall&#39;s</inline> amendment on the clause after due consideration. There was no snatch vote taken upon it, and the honorable senator is scarcely entitled to ask for its reconsideration, in order that we may go over the whole ground again. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1283</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>.- In reply to the VicePresident of the Executive Council I may say that I have moved for the reconsideration of clause 6 in compliance with the wish of some honorable senators who did not vote with me when it was last under&#39; consideration, but who desire that the age should be fixed at fifty-five instead of fifty years. I feel that they should be given an opportunity to see whether they cannot carry their desire into effect. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Colonel</inline>O&#39;LOGHLIN (South Australia) &#91;8.44&#93;. - I am one of those who, when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall&#39;s</inline> amendment was put, voted with a view to extending the age by five or ten years later on. You, sir, very properly ruled that that could not be done after the Committee had decided that the word &#34; fifty &#34; should remain as part of the clause.. I hope that the Government will give those who voted against the amendment, with the intention of extending the time beyond fifty years, an opportunity to have the matter reconsidered. </para>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>Question - That clause 6 be reconsidered - puti. The Committee divided.</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>13</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . .  . . 3 </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_35_2_1_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="082332191708222_35_2_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para class="block">Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para class="block">Bill reported with amendments. </para>
          <para class="block">Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted. </para>
          <para class="block">Bill read a third time. </para>
        </division>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>DEFENCE BILL</title>
        <page.no>1284</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Debate resumed from 8th August <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 819), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> - </para>
      <para class="block">That this Bill be now read a second time, </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1284</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>. - Always when an amending Defence Bill is brought before Parliament it is thought that some danger to our civil lives and occupations lurks behind its provisions, however simple. I did not hear the Minister&#39;s secondreading speech, but I read it in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard,</inline> and have gone carefully through the Bill. 1 have found no hidden danger lurking be-&#39; hind it. Many of its provisions ought to have been incorporated in the Defence Act years ago. The clause embodying&#39; the principle of the Military Decorations Bill that had such a stormy passage in this Senate some years ago has my hearty accord, as it had at that time. I was behind the Minister then, believing that it was an evil that anybody should Be allowed to traffic in military decorations. The opponents of that Bill argued that if a man become hard up he. had a right to sell his decoration for anything it would fetch; and the Minister offered to put in an amendment to provide that the Government should purchase the decoration at its face value. That did not satisfy the opponents of the Bill, and it was dropped. It is degrading to see military decorations in pawn-shop windows as one goes along the street; and I shall give my hearty support to the &#39; provision dealing with that question. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The provision for the promotion of officers simply allows a man who has returned from the Front, after gaining rank by merit, to get that rank in our Citizen Forces without further examination. Such , men have proved on the battle-field that they are worthy of promotion in the Citizen Forces. </para>
        <para>Another clause provides for morning drills for senior cadets. During the last election, one of the points I made on the platform everywhere was that if returned we should try to do something to make the training as simple and easy for the lads as possible, giving them the recreation that they should have. A number of drills have been held on Saturday mornings. Many private employers have responded to the call of the Military Department by paying the lads for the time lost. Others have not done so. This Bill provides that, whenever apprentices, leave their work on a Saturday morning to prepare themselves for the defence of their country, their employer must be patriotic enough to pay <inline font-style="italic">them</inline> for the time lost. It will not amount to much in each case. The Minister said it would be impossible for the Government to take it upon themselves to reimburse the lads because of the great difficulties in the way, and I believe it. &#39; The employers should be patriotic enough to do it, and according to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Knibbs</inline> they are doing very well in this country. No business is suffering a loss in its transactions, and  invested capital is showing a good profit everywhere. The employers who do pay the lads&#39; wages should not be penalized on account of those who will not pay. The Bill in that respect has my hearty cooperation and support. </para>
        <para>The only other alteration I see makes provision for the imposition of the death penalty. According to the Minister-, the death penalty is not in our Defence Act for any offences, but is in the Army Act. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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 is a misapprehension there. The death penalty is in our Defence Act for certain classes of offences. I am sorry to say that on that point I did not finish my sentence, as I noticed when I came to look over my proofs. This Bill does not alter the position as it is in the Defence Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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>- I took it, from reading the Minister&#39;s speech, that it did. If we are working under the Army Act, we must abide by its conditions. They may be harsh in some cases; but war is war, and to carry it to a successful issue there must be certain penalties for offences. I see nothing in this Bill that will injure anybody. All its provisions are for the good of the military service, and for the good of the country. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;LOGHLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria)&#91;8. 54&#93;. -There are certain other aspects of the principal Act upon which I should like to speak. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1285</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KLS</name.id>
            <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GIVENS, Thomas</name>
            <name role="display">The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- The honorable senator will not be in order in discussing the provisions of the principal Act generally. The rule is that when an amending Bill is brought forward, the principal Act can be discussed only in so far as it is proposed to be amended. The honorable senator will not be out of order in indicating that he thinks certain amendments should be made, but he will not be in order in discussing them. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;LOGHLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-Colonel BOLTON.- I realize that Ministers charged with the control of affairs of State have at present a very strenuous and anxious time, and are entitled to support and encouragement in carrying out their grave and responsible public duties; but it does not follow that a blind support of all their proposals is the best means of assisting them. I should like to make clear my attitude to the Government in general, and this Bill in particular. As a Ministerial supporter during the recent election, I emphasized on all occasions the importance of the first plank - win the war- in the policy of the party, because if we did not carry out our duty in that regard the other part of the political platform would not be considered by loyal Britishers. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1285</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 general policy submitted at the elections is not under discussion in connexion with this Bill. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;LOGHLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">-Colonel BOLTON.-</inline>I am trying to lead up to the subject of the Bill. The win-the-war policy laid it down as the duty of the Government to use the whole of the resources of Australia in men, money and material to assist the British Empire and our Allies to win the war. There was no ambiguity about that statement. It was clear, definite and decisive, implying the organization of national effort for that purpose, and carrying with it the maximum military energy and activity that this country was capable of producing. But under the Defence&#39; Act and this amending Bill we are not applying the maximum of our military activity towards the purpose of winning the war, for which the Ministry are pledged to the people. I shall endeavour to show that that is so, and why it is so, and how in considering the Bill it can be made possible to a very large extent to increase very considerably the measure of our military activityfor war purposes. I presume that that is the desire of the Government. I understand that the estimated national expenditure for 1917-18 is something like &#163;97,000,000, or over &#163;30,000,000 more than the expenditure of the last financial year. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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>- Order ! The honorable senator is now transgressing another standing order. There is already on the notice-paper a line relating to the Estimates and the Budget-papers, and the honorable senator is not in order in anticipating the discussion on them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I desired to point out that the Defence Department controls the larger portion of that expenditure, which is probably affected by these amendments of the Defence Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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 is referring to two separate matters.. The Defence Department would still control its share of the expenditure if there were no amending Bill at all. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Were the Government much exercised in its mind at the present time in order to produce revenue in various ways the Minister for Defence might, with a stroke of the pen, save &#163;2,000, 000 of expenditure on Defence matters per annum. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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>- Order ! What the honorable senator is saying may be very important; it may be very cognate to something else, but it is not relevant to this Bill. I must ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the discussion of its provisions. If he can show me that &#163;2,000,000 could be saved by altering the amendments in the Bill he would be quite in order, but not otherwise. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I understand, sir, that the amendments in this Bill deal with certain acts of the Defence Department governing the conditions of its members and those employed on training work. I believe that at the termination of the war our ideas on the fundamental principles of naval and military defence will need to be readjusted. In that readjustment, which I feel sure is bound to take place, by reason of our experience gained in this dreadful war, I sincerely hope that the first fundamental change will be to place the military burden for the safety of this country upon the nation&#39;s manhood, and not upon the fragile bodies of our children. Again, we are spending enormous sums of money on matters which may be absolutely useless at the termination of the war. We may find that the hundreds of thousands of pounds which we are spending to-day and providing for in the expenditure for this year will be so many goldensovereigns thrown away on the mud banks of our extensive coast-line. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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>- Order ! The honorable senator is distinctly transgressing my ruling. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I beg your pardon, sir. I, of course, must bow to your ruling, but what I am saying is cognate to the subject-matter under discussion, and that is the proposed amendments. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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>- If the honorable senator can show me where expenditure will be affected by the proposed amend; ments he will be quite in order, but not otherwise. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I will point to the amendment of section 125 of the principal Act, where I propose to save half a million in the expenditure under that section. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 point out to the honorable senator that in this Bill there is no proposed amendment of that character. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I beg your pardon, sir; there is a proposed amendment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 have already ruled that it is only amendments contained in the Bill which can foe discussed. That rule has been laid down by the Senate time after time-. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I gather that there is a proposed amendment of section 125. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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>- That is not contained in the Bill, and a discussion on it would not be in order. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Government propose an amendment of the section. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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>- What I understand the honorable senator is now discussing is an amendment which he himself proposes to submit. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- No, sir; I am discussing an amendment which the Government propose in this Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 cannot find it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- In Part XII. of the Act, sir, you will find that the Government propose amendments. In that part it is proposed toamend the Act from section 125 to section 141. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Maughan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What are you quoting from ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I am quoting from a print of the principal Act with the proposed amendments shown therein. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 the Bill before the Senate. It is a reprint of the Act which was only circulated for the convenience of honorable senators. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Clause 47 of the Bill proposes to amend section 134 of the principal Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 cannot find in the Bill any reference to an amendment of section 125 of the Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-Clause 47 amends section 134 by inserting a new sub-section providing that a senior cadet shall be paid by his employer for any time he is absent from employment for the purpose of training. There is a question of expenditure under the amendment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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 disputing my ruling unless he does so formally. I have looked carefully at the Bill, and can find no reference in it to section 125 of the Act. I would point out to the honorable senator, too, that he is trying to connect public expenditure with a provision that employers must pay their employees for the time which they have spent on training. That is not public expenditure at all. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The part of the Act which is affected by clause 47 of the Bill deals with the training of our Citizen Forces. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</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 amended by the Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Does not the proposed amendment of section 134 amend it? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</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>- Yes; but not as to public expenditure. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- An amendment of section 148 of the Act will be found in the Bill on page 15. In introducing these amendments the other day the Minister said he was sure that the Senate would give him power to reward the services of men by promoting them to commissioned rank in the Permanent Forces. That is a very right and very proper proposal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</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; in the Citizen Forces. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The proposed amendment of section 148 reads - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">Provided also that members of the Permanent and Citizen Forces,&#39;&#39;who are not graduates of the Military College, may, subject to such conditions as arc prescribed, be appointed or promoted to be officers in the non-combatant branches of the Permanent Forces, including the Medical, Veterinary, Ordnance, Survey, and Clerical Brandies. </para>
        </quote>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</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 noncombatant branches, yes. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I do not know whether honorable senators understand the position. But to me it seems an extraordinary thing that members of the Forces who, on active service, have usually a very safe and very soft job. - that is, the non-combatants - should be rewarded with appointments to positions in the Permanent Forces of this country, and that the men who are doing- all the work and taking all the risks in the trenches - that is, the combatant members of the Forces - should not be entitled to receive that privilege. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</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 proposed amendment does not sav that. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Why should we abrogate the rule that was laid down by Lord Kitchener&#39;s report for non- combatants - that is, ordnance people, clerks, veterinary officers, and horse doctors? It is monstrous that the men who take all the risks, do the most work, and give the best results should get no reward, and that the men who have the soft jobs, as they apparently always have in this country, should get the best of things. Honorable senators apparently do not quite understand the situation. There are quite a number of warrant and noncommissioned officers of the Permanent Forces of Australia who have gone to the Front on active service, and who, by their courage, intelligence, and personality have won high promotion and distinction. These men are to return to Australia and to revert to the rank of sergeant-major. Yet the non-combatants, who have done nothing of that nature, can -come back and be made permanent officers in the Permanent Forces. I do not see how the Minister can justify such a proposal. Here are a few names on a long list of warrant and non-commissioned officers who have distinguished themselves at the front: - <inline font-weight="bold">Major Treacey,</inline> who was a sergeantmajor; <inline font-weight="bold">Major Marsden,</inline> D.S.O. ; and Lt.-Colonel Paul, D.S.O. These men went from here as honorary officers - lieutenants. It shows how fortunate this country was in the class of men it had as warrant and; non-commissioned officers when these sergeant-majors can, on all fours with the most highly trained Forces in Europe, gain great distinction and honour. I think that the country ought to be very proud of them. It is an old British saying that the non-commissioned officer is the backbone of the British Army. It looks to me as if the noncommissioned officer of the Australian Forces is not only the backbone, but the brain, of the Australian Army. Yet these men are not to have the privilege of obtaining a permanent commission in the Australian Forces when they come back from the Front. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pratten</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is not following up the principle of preference to returned soldiers. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- It does not look like it, and in Committee I shall ask honorable senators to support me in an amendment, to strike out the word &#34; non-combatant so as to make provision for the men I have referred to as a reward for their magnificent services, and <inline font-style="italic">in</inline> order that the Military Forces of Australia may receive the benefit of their experiences. I do not know if I will be permitted to bring this up as an amendment of section 148. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</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. I have already pointed out that he would put himself in order if he would move the amendment as an instruction to the Committee, and have leave to make the amendment at the Committee stage. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- When may I do that? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</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>- It may be done at any time before the second reading is carried, or just on the second reading being carried. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1288</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role>Minister for 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>. - There is not a great deal in the way of criticism to reply to, but I want to assure <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Colonel</inline> Bolton, who seems to be under a misapprehension, that the Government do not regard this Bill as a party measure at all. It has been introduced in good faith by the Government to improve the Defence Act by making it more in consonance with requirements shown to be necessary by the present war. We welcome the fullest criticism from both sides of the Senate in order to make the Act what it should be I hope, therefore, that the honorable senator will accept my assurance that no criticism will be regarded as unfriendly or that it has been offered in any other spirit than a desire to improve the measure. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Now I want to point out that when dealing with clause 49 <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton,</inline> to my mind, misread the clause. If he will peruse it again he will see that it is not capable of the interpretation which he has put upon it. The clause reads - </para>
        <para>Section 148 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso: - &#34; Provided also that members of the Permanent and Citizen Forces, who are not graduates of the Military College, may, subject to such conditions as are prescribed, be appointed or promoted to be officers in the non-combatant branches of the Permanent Forces, including the Medical, Veterinary, Ordnance, Survey, and Clerical branches.&#34; </para>
        <para class="block">The honorable senator seemed to think that because the words &#34;Australian Im-  perial Force &#39; &#39; are not there the members of the Australian Imperial Force are necessarily debarred from those positions, but that is not the case at all, because another clause makes provision for the appointment of officers who have served in the Australian Imperial Force to positions in the Citizen Forces. Having been appointed to the Australian Imperial Force they would, under this clause, be eligible for appointment to the noncombatant branch of the Permanent Forces. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But not the combatant branch? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</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; bo the noncombatant branch. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Bolton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Why not to the combatant branch? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</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 will give the reasons. The honorable senator has misread the clause if he thinks that it debars any officer who is suitable from receiving an appointment because he is not now a member of the non-combatant branch either of the Citizen Forces or the Australian Imperial Force. There are many men serving as combatant officers in the Australian Imperial Force who in civil life are medical practitioners. One case well known to me is that of a gentleman who elected to serve, not as a medical officer, but as a combatant. Under this clause he would be eligible for appointment to the non-combatant branch of the medical service, but the clause does not mean that only persons who have served as non-combatantsin the present war would be eligible for appointment to noncombatant positions in the Permanent Forces. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;LOGHLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">-Colonel O&#39;Loghlin.</inline>- What about a man who has distinguished himself ? Will he be eligible for appointment as a combatant officer in the Permanent Forces? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</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 will explain that in general terms now, and in greater detail when the Bill is in Committee. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>If honorable senators will take their minds back to the groundwork of our Defence Act, and if they will read Lord Kitchener&#39;s report, supplemented later by the report from General Ian Hamilton, they will know that the scheme for supplying officers for the permanent branch of the Defence Forces comprehended the establishment of a Military College for the training of permanent combatant officers. Now it is obvious that, if we are going to staff our Permanent Forces with officers from that college, we must know how many are likely to be required each year, and I recommend honorable senators to read Lord Kitchener&#39;s report concerning the Military College before they come to a decision concerning this matter. If they will do that, they will see the need for a certain establishment of permanent combatant officers, and will realize also that the Military College is based on the principle of taking in so many students each year, in order to supply the requisite numbers. If now we vitiate the principle laid down in that report, and which led up to the establishment of the Military College, iby introducing another method for the supply of permanent officers - that isto say, if officers who have served in the present war are to be eligible for appointment to the permanent branch of the Defence- Force -there will then be two sources of supply. From one we will know exactly how many officers may be obtained each year; but the other will be practically without limit, because thousands ofofficers have served - and, I am proud to say, have distinguished themselves - in this war. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Which system gives the best training - active service Or the college? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</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 shall be obliged if thehonorable senator will allow me to proceed in my own way. He has had his own opportunity. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Not on this Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</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>- As I have said, there will then be two sources of supply. In one the Minister, as political head of the Department, will have no opportunity of interfering, because it is regulated by competitive examination. Every candidate stands on his own footing, he graduates on his merits, or, as the case may be, he goes out if he has not the capacity to pass. The other source of supply, if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton&#39;s</inline> idea is carried out, will include officers who have served in the present war; and in this case the Minister, as political head of the Department, will be responsible for their appointment to the Permanent Forces. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Maughan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Why not? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</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>- Do not honorable senators realize that we have a Public Service Act to prevent political and social influence being introduced in the making of appointments ? In this case there would be no examination, and the Minister would have the selection of officers from this source of supply. Would these officers go in on the same level as Military College graduates, as lieutenants, and work their way up, or would they go in with the rank they now hold in the Australian Imperial Force? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Bolton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</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>- Well, what would be the result? I remind the honorable senator that permanent officers have also served in this war, and, I am glad to say, manyhave distinguished themselves. Some have won rank in the Australian Imperial Force far above the Tank they held in the Permanent Forces. Are they to retain that rank, or go back to the rank they held in the Permanent Forces? We have men who were majors in the Permanent Forces, but now&#39; hold the rank of brigadier-general in the Australian Imperial Force. One, who went as colonel in the Permanent Forces, now holds the rank of major-general in the Australian Imperial Force. Will that officer retain his Australian Imperial Force rank? Ifso, I point out that we will be creating this position in the Permanent Forces. Practically the whole of our permanent officers asked, and, indeed, begged, to be allowed to go to the war, but many were retained in Australia against their wishes, in order to carry on the Work of preparing and training our soldiers. They have done their part, and, because the Government of the day did not allow them to go to the Front, they are stillholding the rank they previouslyheld in the Permanent Forces; while brother officers, who were allowed to go to the Front, have risen to the rank of brigadier-general, in the Australian Imperial Force. Are such officers to retain their Australian Imperial Force rank in the Permanent Forces ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>I sympathize with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton&#39;s</inline> desire to give officers from the Australian Imperial Force every consideration, and I hope he will accept my assurance that I do not regard his criticism as hostile. I again ask honorable senators to read Lord Kitchener&#39;s report, so that they may appreciate exactly the relation of our Permanent Forces to our Citizen Forces. They will then see that the course suggested by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton</inline> is full of difficulties, and would, create a crop of injustices. It would open the door to political influence, because a very small section of these officers can foe so appointed. The number of our permanent officers is infinitesimal when compared with the number of officers in the Australian Imperial Force who will be available after thewar. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Bolton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does not the Minister propose to use political influence in the case of non-combatants? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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 Minister will have to accept full responsibility in the case of non-combatants. But there are very pertinent reasons why that is so. If the honorable senator will look at these non-combatant positions, he will find that none of them&#39; can be filled by graduates from the Military College. Graduates there do not learn veterinary science, for example. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does not the Minister think that the firing line isthe best college for military officers ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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 think it is for the regimental officers, but I would point out that Australia&#39;s Army is not a permanent Army. It is a citizen force, to be led intime of war by citizen officers. This is what I have had difficulty in getting the public of Australia to appreciate when I have been resisting pressure to send away&#39; permanent officers who are wanted here. The <inline font-style="italic">role</inline> of the permanent officer in Australia is that of an instructor to the citizen officers. That is why we shall have to rely in time of war on citizen officers and a citizen army. The permanent officer has to be an instructor not merely in the duties of a regimental officer, but in staff and administrative duties as well. The training that he gets at the Military College fits him to be not merely a regimental officer for which the training of the citizen officer fits him, but it also qualifies him for staff work and for the administrative work that is associated with it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2C</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BOLTON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Bolton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Where do they get it at Duntroon ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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>- They get the staff training there. The plan laid down is that a certain proportion of the students there each year should go to the staff college in England. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Maughan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What about the staff work that is done on active service ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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 most brilliant staff officer in tihe Australian Citizen Forces to-day is Major-General White, who passed through the Staff College at Camberley, England. I do not know of a single citizen officer who is doing staff work on General Birdwood&#39;s staff to-day. Whenever it became my duty to appoint a citizen officer, almost invariably tihe first request he made to me was that he should be granted a permanent officer as adjutant to do his staff work. That request was made because the citizen officer realized that the permanent officer had an opportunity . to acquire training in administrative and staff work which he himself had not. However I shall deal with this phase of the matter more particularly in Committee. I ask honorable senators not to allow their sympathies to cause them to wreck a fundamental principle underlying our defence scheme, without full consideration of its consequences </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pratten</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What is the proportion of young staff officers of the college to the other officers in our Permanent Forces? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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 may be twenty or thirty who have been to the war, and have come back invalided or wounded. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Pratten</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But what proportion is there of college officers ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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>- Speaking from memory, there are about 150 who have gone to the war. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Splendid fellows they are. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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>- General Birdwood has said that every one of them is worth his weight in gold. The idea of the late Lord Kitchener was that these Staff College graduates would first go out as area officers ; that they would then become brigade-majors; and that subsequently rney would fill the higher positions of staff officers in the various districts. I ask honorable senators to read Lord Kitchener&#39;s report and his recommendations in regard to the Military College. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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>- What is the punishment for desertion ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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 was just coming to that point. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>I find on looking over the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> report - and I am sorry that I do not get time to read my <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> proofs - that during ray second-reading speech I was leading up to a point witfo a view to showing the difference that exists between the Imperial Army Act and our Defence Act in regard to the death penalty, when an interjection led me off the track, and I did not come back and complete what I had intended to say. I take this opportunity of rectifying that omission. The position in regard to the death penalty is that section 98 of the principal Act says - </para>
        <para>No member of the Defence Force shall be sentenced to death by any court martial except for mutiny, desertion to the enemy or traitorously delivering up to the enemy any garrison, fortress, post, guard, or ship, vessel, or boat, or traitorous correspondence with the enemy; and no sentence of death passed by any court martialshall be carried into effect until confirmed by the Governor-General. </para>
        <para>That shows the class of offences for which the death sentence may be passed. Now, the Imperial Army Act goes farther than that. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;LOGHLIN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel O&#39;Loghlin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Very much farther. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</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 imposes the death penalty for certain offences other than those mentioned in our Act. But there is a provision in our Defence Act which says that the Imperial Army Act shall apply &#34; except so far as it is inconsistent with this Act.&#34; As therefore the Imperial Army Act is inconsistent with our Defence Act to the extent that it imposes the death penalty for certain offences which are not included in our Act, obviously it cannot apply to Australian soldiers. This Bill will not alter that position at all. It will apply the Imperial Army Act in certain regards, but it will always be governed by the provision in the principal Act to which I have referred. I wish honorable senators to be quite clear that the death penalty will not be extended by this Bill, and that the position in that regard will remain the same as it is now. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLS</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 (Senator the Hon T Givens</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton</inline> has intimated to me that he desires to move that it be an instruction to the Committee that it have power to consider amendments in certain sections of the principal Act. Our Standing Orders distinctly provide that an instruction may be issued by the Senate to the Committee to consider matters relevant to the Act which it is proposed to amend, but which may not be relevant to the Bill itself. Standing order 333 says - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>An instruction to a Committee of the whole requires notice, and can only be moved before going into Committee on any question. </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bolton,</inline>being a new senator, was not aware of that standing order, and I therefore suggested to him that he should ask leave to move the motion before the Senate goes into Committee upon the Bill. Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the honorable senator have leave to move the motion without the usual notice? </para>
        <para>Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear! </para>
        <para>Leave granted. </para>
        <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Colonel</inline> Bolton) agreed to - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That it be an instruction to the Committee that they hare leave to consider amendments to sections 8 and 125 of the principal Act. </para>
        </quote>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</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 being no dissentient voice, and there being more than a statutory majority of honorable senators present, I declare the motion carried. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-style="italic">In Committee:</inline>
        </para>
        <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
        <para>Progress reported. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>STATES LOAN BILL</title>
        <page.no>1291</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1291</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KUL</name.id>
            <electorate>New SouthWales</electorate>
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
            <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I move- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>That so much of the Standing and Sessional </para>
        <para class="block">Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay. </para>
        <para class="block">In submitting this motion, I ask the indulgence of the Senate to enable me to proceed with the Bill to-night for reasons which are urgent, and which I can state more advantageously when moving its second reading. </para>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill read a first time. </para>
      </speech>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In moving - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>That this Bill be now read a second time, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I appreciate the readiness with which the Senate on very short notice, and very scanty information, has exhibited a willingness to assist the Government in passing this measure, whichis an urgent one in the sense that it proposes to give the Government authority to raise certain sums for purposes which I will indicate a little later. The urgency arises from the fact that the Government have received information from their London advisers that for reasons which are sound and good it is eminently to be desired that this Bill should be proceeded with, if possible, to-night, in order that it may be known within the next few hours that the Bill has passed, so that immediate application may be made for the money in London. No doubt, that advice has been given as the result of knowledge which those at Home possess as to the financial position there, and the Government are accepting that advice as entirely <inline font-style="italic">bona fide.</inline> In the circumstances, we feel justified in asking Parliament to deal with this measure in the shortest possible time. </para>
          <para>The Bill is the result of an agreement arrived at some time ago between the Commonwealth and five of the States. No doubt, honorable senators remember the general purport of that agreement. It was one under which the States concerned agreed that the Commonwealth should be the sole borrower in London, whilst the Commonwealth, on its part, undertook to raise certain sums to enable the States to carry out their public works policy. On the 6th November, 1915, the agreement made was that &#163;7,450,000 should be provided for the calendar year 1917, but at a later period the State Governments agreed that this amount should be reduced to &#163;5,400,000. The calendar year 1917 is already far advanced, and this Bill proposes to give the Commonwealth authority to raise that sum, and &#163;2,600,000 more towards the amount which the Commonwealth Government have agreed to find for the ensuing year. It has undertaken to find a larger amount for the States for 1918, but authority is sought now to raise only &#163;2,600,000 to place the Commonwealth in a position to anticipate its obligations in respect of that year. It will obviously be necessary for the Government to again approach Parliament for f urther authority to raise an additional amount which, if the present agreement with the States Government remains in force, it will be necessary to raise to supply the States Governments during 1918. </para>
          <para>There is one matter in the Bill to which I desire to direct attention. . It will be noticed that by clause 6 authority is given to the Government pending the flotation of the loan, which will follow on the passage of this Bill, to divert certain moneys in the Treasury, being a portion of the amount loaned to the Commonwealth by the Imperial Government, for the purpose of making early payments to the&#39; </para>
          <para>States Governments pending the receipt of the money which the passage of this Bill will place at our disposal. This is merely a bookkeeping transaction, but it is necessary that the Government should have Parliamentary authority for it. </para>
          <para>The next clause asks Parliament to approve of the Bill being assumed to have passed on the 30th May. The reason for this is that the authority soughtby the Bill has already been anticipated in order to keep the State Governments going. It has been necessary to anticipate this authority to make advances to the State Governments from time to time, in conformity with the agreement. In other words, they have already been paid a portion of the amount authorized to be raised under this Bill. Just how much they have already been paid I do not know at the moment, but it is not very material. The urgency of the measure does not arise from this, but from the necessity pressed upon the Government by their London advisers that they should immediately have authority to place upon the London market an application for this loan money. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1292</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>. - Honorable senators on this side do not intend to offer any opposition to the passage of this Bill through all its stages without delay. The explanation of the measure given by the VicePresident of the Executive Council shows that it is absolutely necessary to pass the Bill, and it is one of the proposals which I agree will do some little towards winning the war. Honorable senators on this side will at all times have the greatest pleasure in assisting the Government to pass without delay any measures of this description calculated to help in winning the war. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <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 (Short title and citation). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1292</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>NewSouth Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Am I to understand from the Vice-President of the Executive Council that the object of this Bill is merely to enable the Government to complete a compact made with the State Governmentsconcerned - nothing more and nothing less? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1292</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 admirably expresses its purposes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 5 - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issuedand applied only lor the expenses of borrowing and for the purpose of making loans to the States of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1293</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSU</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MAUGHAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Before the Committee agrees to this clause I should liketo ask the Minister in charge of the Bill what proportion of this loan is likely to gravitate to Queensland. I am quite serious in making the inquiry, because <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest in his Budget speech, delivered recently in another place, made use of the words : &#34; Queensland did not receive any portion of the &#163; 18, 000 , 000 loan.&#34; I have a very vivid recollection that some little time ago certain Ministers told the people of Queensland very emphatically thatthey were to have their proportion of the &#163;18,000,000 loan. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Senatorde Largie. - They did not want any at that time. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MAUGHAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The people of Queensland want their proportion of any loan raised in this way. The honorable senator need make no mistake about that. It was understood that Queensland was to have her proportion of the &#163;18,000,000 loan, and I have yet to learn that the Government of Queensland would, any more than the Government of any of the other States, refuse a loan from the Commonwealth. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</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 astonished the whole world was that at the Conference between the Commonwealth and State representatives the Queensland Premier said he did not want any of the &#163;18,000,000 loan. We did not understand him then, and do not understand him now. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MAUGHAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is a matter which should certainly be inquired into, and I shall have to send a wire to the Queensland Premier to ask whether that statement is correct. I hope that the Vice-Preaident of the Executive Council will be able to enlighten the people of Queensland with regard to what they are likely to get out of this loan, if, as a matter of fact, they got nothing out of the &#163;18,000,000 loan. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1293</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>.- I desire to ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council what amount New South Wales is to get out ofthe loan? I believe that one reason why the Government are anxious that this Bill should go through quickly is that the New South Wales Government have a representative now seeking a loan on the London market, and the Commonwealth Government wish to get in before him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1293</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am endeavouring to secure information which, I hope, will bring peace of mind to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Maughan,</inline> as to the amount of this loan, which is likely to find its way into the coffers of the Queensland Treasury. I can assure the honorable senatorthat in the Conference to which I have referred, for some mysterious reason which no one could understand then or since, except perhaps the Queensland representatives at the Conference, the Premier and Treasurer of that State were apparently in a position to say that they did not want any money. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">EARLE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Earle</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They had made financial arrangements of their own. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</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 doubt thatis so, but they stated that they did not need any money coming through Commonwealth hands. Since then the position has altered, and they are now standing in with other States in an agreement which entitles them to an amount which I expect to be able to disclose in a few minutes. Whilst the Queensland Government on the previous occasion intimated that they did not desire financial assistance from the Commonwealth by way of loan, that State was yet a party to the agreement. New South Wales, on the other hand, declined to be a party to it, and her representatives said they would make their own arrangements. They are doing so. I have nothing to say on that aspect of the matter now. The loan money that will be. raised under this Bill will be raised in accordance with the arrangement between the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments, exclusive of the Government of New South Wales. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McDougall</inline> has suggested, the New South Wales Government have taken their own course, and are making their own arrangements, but that in no sense relieves the Commonwealth Government from their obligations to complete the arrangement entered into with the Governments of the other five States. It is to enable them to do that that this Bill is before honorable, senators. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 6 - (Authority to make advances to States to amount of &#163;8,000,000). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1294</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSU</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MAUGHAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I ask the Minister whether the Treasurer of Queensland is aware of the provisions of this Bill, and whether, in fact, the Treasurers of the various States know anything about it? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1294</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>-  They know all about it in Western Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1294</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAUGHAN, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MAUGHAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am glad to hoar from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator de</inline> Largie that the people of Western Australia know something about it, because I can assure the honorable senator that the appearance of the measure has come like a bombshell to representatives of Queensland. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1294</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>. -  Information has appeared in the public press as to the necessity for the introduction of this measure, and, as a matter of fact, there was quite a scare in Western Australia when the people learned that moneys had been loaned to that State which had to be paid back. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1294</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>-  It was the same in other States. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1294</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>- Through the press the public have been made aware of the necessity for this measure, and I am surprised that any member of the Committee should be so innocent concerning any matter which has appeared in the public press. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1294</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I have some information which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Maughan</inline> very reasonably desired to obtain. The &#163;5,400,000 which the Commonwealth has undertaken to find for the States for the present calendar year is made up of the following items. I trust that the smallness of the amount to go to Victoria will not deter any Victorian representative from supporting the Bill, because the figures are those which were arrived at at the Conference. The amounts are - Victoria, &#163;414,000 ; Queensland, &#163;1,735,000; South Australia, &#163;1,385,000; Western . Australia, &#163;1,466,000; Tasmania, &#163;400,000. These figures make up the total of &#163;5,400,000, and, as I intimated a short time ago, the difference between that sum and the &#163;8,000,000 which this Bill authorizes the Government to raise is the amount which we are seeking authority to obtain to enableus to meet our engagements under a similar agreement for next year. We have added 50 per cent. to the amount of &#163;5,400,000  to enable us to meet those obligations, and Queensland will obtain  &#163;2,602,000  out of the amount covered by this Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed  to. </para>
          <para class="block">Clauses 7  and  8  and title agreed to. </para>
          <para class="block">Bill reported without amendment;  report  adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PAPERS</title>
        <page.no>1294</page.no>
        <type>papers</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The following papers were presented : - </para>
      <para>Customs Act 1901-1916 - . Regulations amended,&#38;c.- Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 178 and 179. </para>
      <para>Defence Act 1903-1915- -Regulations amended, Ac- Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 170, 173, 181. </para>
      <para>Excise Act . 1901 -Regulations amended, &#38;c -Statutory Rules 1917, No. 180. </para>
      <para>Northern Territory. - Memorandum by the  Hon.  P. McM. Glynn, Minister for Home and Territories. </para>
      <para>Northern Territory.-Ordinances of 1917- </para>
      <para>No.  3.  - Marriage. </para>
      <para>No. 4. - Acting Administrator. </para>
      <para>No. 5. - Education. </para>
      <para>War Precautions Act 1914-1916 - Regulations amended,&#38;c. - Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 169, 171,. 174. </para>
      <para class="block">Senate adjourned at 10.1 p.m. </para>
    </debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>