Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 157
RIFLE CLUBS
Mr CANN: NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I wish to know from the Minister representing the Minister of Defence if he has any further information regarding the facilities afforded to rifle clubs, particularly at Granville, Auburn, and that part of my electorate.
Mr FRAZER: Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP
– In consequence of what was said during the discussion of the Supply Bill on Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Defence to inform me as to what has been done for the encouragement of rifle shooting. He has supplied me with a return which shows that the grants for rifle ranges amounted in 1907-8 to £10,452 ; in 1908-9, to , £20,191; and in 1909-10, to £25,562. For the year 1910-11 the appropriation was £47,866 ; the figures as to expenditure are not available. The grants to rifle clubs, at 5s. per efficient, amounted in the years I have named, to £6,474, £7,530. £8,446, and £9,200, respectively.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– This has nothing to do with the question.
Mr FRAZER:
– The statement was made that it is the policy of the Government to discourage rifle clubs, but the figures show that it is not. For the encouragement of rifle shooting, in addition to the grants I have named, and not including free ammunition, there was appropriated in 1908-9, £8,305 ; and in 1909-10, as well as in 1910-11, £8,875. The expenditure on rifle clubs has Increased from £10,795in 1908-9 to £23,058 in 1910-11, and this latter amount does not include a special appropriation of £15,718 for a site and range in the metropolitan area of Brisbane.
page 157
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN CADETS IN LONDON
Mr RILEY: SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister of Defence been drawn to the allegation of discourteous treatment to the Australian Cadets who visited London during the Coronation? If so, has he any information to give the House on the subject?
Mr FRAZER: ALP
– The matter was referred to the other day in debate, and I subsequently asked the Minister of Defence to let me know the position of affairs. Without going into an historical account
Mr Joseph Cook:
– I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister is not abusing the right to answer questions? Instead of replying to the question put to him, he expressly states that he is answering something said in a debate. The opportunity to reply to any allegation such as he wishes to meet is afforded by the debate on the Address-in-Reply.
Mr SPEAKER:
– I was waiting to see how the Minister would continue. He commenced as if he intended to reply to something said an evening or two ago. If he confines his answer to the question of the honorable member for South Sydney, he will be in order.
Mr FRAZER:
– Major Wynne applied in the early part of 1910 for permission to take a contingent of cadets to the Old Country, and suggested that the Government should give £1 for £1 raised by public subscription. This the Minister declined to do, but subsequently it was arranged to grant leave of absence to selected officers, non-commissioned officers, and cadets. The issue on loan of arms and equipment, the issue of camp equipment during camp before embarkation, and the services of two noncommissioned officers to assist at the preliminary camp were also arranged. Major Wynne was informed that the Government would accept no financial responsibility in connexion with the visit. Before the embarkation, the Acting Minister had a cable sent to the High Commissioner asking him to bring the matter of barrack accommodation under the notice of Senator Pearce on his arrival in London. Senator Pearce, whilst in England, asked the High Commissioner’s military adviser, Major Buckley, to see that accommodation was provided, and he was informed that it was provided. He wrote a personal letter to Lord Haldane. the Secretary of State for War, asking that the cadets should be given a place on the line of the procession, and it was promised that this should be done, and that other facilities would be arranged for. Senator Pearce went to meet the cadets on their arrival in London. But when Major Wvnne cabled to the War Office direct as Officer Commanding Commonwealth Coronation Contingent, and the War Office 158 Postmaster-General’s [REPRESENTATIVES.] Department. asked Senator Pearce if it had been decided to alter the previous decision regarding the sending of Australian troops to England, he replied “ No.”
Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
– Why did Senator Pearce refuse to use the cadets as a bodyguard in London?
Mr FRAZER:
– I am not aware that he did.
Mr Mathews:
– Is Major Wynne a son of the manager of the Sydney Daily Telegraph? Is that why there is all this trouble ?
page 158
PAPERS
MINISTERS laid on the table the fol lowing papers : -
Tariff Revision - Form of Application forwarded by the Minister for Trade and Customs to be filled in by manufacturers.
Public Service Act - Papers relative to the promotions, in the Postmaster-General’s Department, of -
page 158
QUESTION
POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
Wireless Telegraphy : King Island - Port Davey Telephone Communication - Manufacture of Telephones - Special Telephone Commissioner
Mr ATKINSON: WILMOT, TASMANIA
asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
Have any steps been taken to establish a system of wireless telegraphy between King Island and the mainland?
If no such steps have been taken are any contemplated by the Government?
What arrangement (if any) has been come to with the Tasmanian Government to establish telephone communication with Port Davey?
Mr THOMAS: Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -
The establishment of a Commonwealth wireless station at King Island is awaiting consideration in connexion with the general question of wireless stations in the Commonwealth, which will be dealt with on the arrival of the new wireless telegraphy expert, who has just reached Fremantle.
See answer to No. 1.
A verbal agreement in this matter was come to by the Premier of Tasmania and myself. I obtained the report I promised as to the route, and am prepared to carry out my part of the arrangement. The absence of the Premier of Tasmania in England is understood to have delayed definite action by the Tasmanian Government, which is being communicated with on the subject.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
Whether any steps have been taken with a view to the manufacture of telephones by the Federal Government in Australia?
Will it be practicable to make telephones, or parts thereof, at the Small Arms Factory ?
Mr THOMAS:
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -
. No ; but efforts have been made without success to obtain tenders for suitable locallymade telephones.
The Defence Department advises that the machines and plant of the Small Arms Factory are altogether different from those required for making teelphones, and that any such work would necessarily have to be quite distinct from makingrifles.
Mr JOSEPH COOK: for Mr. Ryrie
asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
Has he received from any of his officers in New South Wales an official reply to the report of the Special Commissioner, Mr. H. W. Ramsay Sharp, relative to the telephone service in Sydney and suburbs; if so, will he lay the same on the table of the House?
Mr THOMAS:
– Reports have been received, and when I have dealt with them I shall be glad to lay them on the table of the House.
page 158
QUESTION
NORTHERN TERRITORY
Chief Protector of Aborigines
Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -
Is it a fact that Dr. Basedow has resigned the office of Chief Protector of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory?
Has he given any reasons for his resignation which throw light on the question of appointing a successor ?
Has the Government taken any steps to fill Dr. Basedow’s position?
Has the Government considered the necessity for making the next appointment in such a way as to make the Protector independent of any control but that of the Minister?
Mr BATCHELOR: Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -
Yes.
The reasons put forward for the resignation throw no light on the question of appointing a successor.
Not yet.
No. All officers in the Territory must be responsible in the first place to the Administrator.
Dr CARTY SALMON: LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA
asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -
Whether he is in a position to state the policy of the Government regarding the native population in the Northern Territory ; and, if not, when may the House expect it to be disclosed?
Mr BATCHELOR:
– The answer to the honorable member’s question is -
The general aim of the policy of the Government will be to promote the interests of the aboriginal natives of the Territory in every possible way ; but I shall not be in a position to indicate definitely what action will be taken until reports have been received from the four inspectors, two medical and two civil, who are now in the Territory, making inquiries into the numbers, locations, and general conditions of the natives.
page 159
IMMIGRATION
Motion (by Dr. Carty Salmon) agreed to -
That a return be laid upon the table showing the amounts expended in connexion with immigration during each of the last three years ended 30th June, 1911, and the names of the newspapers in which advertisements were inserted, and the amounts paid to each.
page 159
QUESTION
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
Debate resumed from 6th September (vide page 155), on motion by Mr. Brennan -
That the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech, as read by the Clerk, be agreed to by the ‘House.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– One has to be prepared for many surprises in approaching this session after our long recess. Adequate mention has been made during this debate of the gloom cast over the House by the passing away of two comrades whom we all esteemed. We have had full proof that those gentlemen have been replaced by very vigorous members. The striking feature of the debate so far as it has gone has been the method of attack adopted by the Opposition. I received a great surprise when listening yesterday, as I always do with a certain amount of pleasure, to the able painting of word pictures by the Leader of the Opposition. When the honorable member set up a nice straw bogy and christened it “ disloyalty,” I wondered for some time what he was getting at. It seemed to me that the long recess had been leading the honorable member into indulgence in bad dreams or jim-jams, and that he had come to the House without the effects of his nightmares being quite cleared from his mind, but when the honorable member for North Sydney followed in a similar strain, bombarding the House for two and a half hours on the same subject, I began to see a little daylight through the position of the Opposition. It seems that the administration of the present Government has been sufficiently good to obviate anything like severe criticism from the Opposition. There has been nothing outrageous in the conduct of the Government, nothing to’ which the direct attention of the people, or with which to awake the enthusiasm of the anti-Labour daily press. Why, the Labour Government have actually got through as well as past Governments have done. We are still here, Australia is actually solvent, there is no ruination, everything is jogging along beautifully, and all this in face of the fact that those horrible Labour people are sitting on the Government benches.
Mr Atkinson:
– Australia is so prosperous now that the Labour party could not destroy it if they tried.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Just imagine a country being prosperous under Labour government ! That is really the most startling admission yet made by an OppositionWe have been led to believe ever since the Labour party came into existence that, once it got on to the Government benches, there would be nothing but “ blue ruin “ for the country. We were further given to understand that ordinary “ common or garden “ representatives of the working classes could not possibly successfully carry the honours of office at an Imperial Conference. All the same, we have had a delegation consisting of a Labour Prime Minister with his colleagues representing us at such a Conference, and accurately* carefully, and without a spice of Jingoism, placing before those who direct the affairs of the Empire the views of the Australian people on defence. And our Ministers have come back with the informationthat the proposals submitted by them ort a previous occasion have been adopted by the Admiralty as the basis of the Australian Navy. I have no desire to detract from the proposals or efforts of honorable gentlemen opposite, but I think we may claim that we have approached this question in a solid common-sense way, without any frothing at the mouth. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday beat round the bush, and, by innuendo, supported the allegation that there is a certain spirit of disloyalty within a section of this Parliament. Such an attitude is unworthy of the honorable gentleman.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– The Leader of the Opposition expressly said that he conveyed no such innuendo.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I challenge the honorable member for Parramatta to look at the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition, and say that they were not full of this innuendo, “ Let the galled jade wince,” and so forth. I am pleased, of course,- that the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for North Sydney have given the cue to the attitude of the Opposition. We now have a distinct pledge from a party-, the members of which are prepared to ‘ Mafeking ‘ ‘ the whole time - to protest and protest again their great loyalty. We know what Shakespeare says -
Methinks the lady cloth protest too much, and we have all heard the advice that when a man brags of his honesty it is time to keep our hands in our pockets. Who can doubt for one instant the loyalty of any man who realizes the benefit conferred on us by our present political system? I challenge any honorable member opposite to say that, in any shape or form, the Government have been disloyal. As the discussion proceeded yesterday we very soon found the kernel of the matter. It was put to us that we are behind the movement of men who desire to meet force with force if occasion requires. I am well aware that there is a number of our comrades^ followers and fellow-workers - and we are always proud to acknowledge them as fellow-workers, notwithstanding the attitude of the honorable member for North Sydney and others - who hold the opinion that militarism in no shape or form should not be allowed to take any hold in Australia. We are quite prepared to accept the honorable member’s quotations as facts ; but we have had all these protestations before. During the whole of the time that the defence proposals have been in drafting, there has been this crossfiring from- sections of the community ; and I am rather pleased that the replies of Senator McGregor, and the resolutions on the subject, have emphasized the fact that a nation armed is a nation that can guard itself either internally or externally. If we put a rifle into every man’s hands we cannot anticipate a repetition of history - we cannot think of the military being called out to, in brutal fashion, to shoot down unarmed citizens. There is every reason why we, as liberty-loving citizens, should wish to see every man carrying his rifle, because when the day comes to make a demonstration the citizens will be able to come out on parade and make it peaceably.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– That is not what takes place in conscription countries.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– This is not a conscription country, and I do not believe that the honorable member infers that it is. There is tremendous difference between conscription, under which men are taken for years from their ordinary walks of life, and such a system as is proposed here.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– If we put a rifle into the hand of every man, how can we shoot down the unarmed?
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I said that if there were a rifle in every man’s hand the unarmed could not be shot down, simply because there would be no unarmed. I have no desire for a repetition in Australia of the shooting down by a hired military of unarmed citizens.
Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– What the honorable member means is that we could not shoot down the unarmed citizens because the unarmed citizens would be armed !
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Apparently we are being overwhelmed with advice on military matters from the other side. Yesterday we listened to a speech for two hours and a half from the honorable member for North Sydney, and now we are being told more of the same kind of nonsense. I may say, with all modesty, however, that I am quite prepared to uphold my own ideas on the question without advice from the other side. The honorable member for North Sydney, who was so lavish with his advice, was so sure on the question that he was not satisfied with present-day history. Neither the Lithgow nor the Liverpool strike, nor any trouble of that kind, was of any use to him. He had to go to far-off India, and to declare that one Keir Hardie, a member of the Labour movement, and of the British House of Commons, had preached sedition there, with the result that there was likely to be trouble in that land. Despite what may be said to the contrary by the Press, I wish “to give that statement an emphatic denial. I am in a position to do so since I asked Mr. Keir Hardie to give me all particulars in regard to this very matter. In his reply he told me that, as we all know, an agitation has been going on in India for many years. The natives are becoming educated, and many of them wince under British rule. Rightly or wrongly, they feel that British rule in India is irksome, and who will say that the administration there is perfect? I am not going to say that it is. At the same time I recognise that the British Government have a very difficult problem to face in India, and in retaining possession of it, and I am prepared to admit that many items of administration which would appear very harsh in a country like Australia may be quite unavoidable in India. The peoples of that country - and they are many - have their own papers, printed in their own dialects, circulating in every direction, and those who have read the history of those peoples know ‘that they have a very great reverence for any man who poses as a prophet. Consequently when it was announced in the native Press that Mr. Keir Hardie was about to visit ; India, that he was practically a saviour of the people, that he advocated the cause of the down-trodden, the helpless, the weak, the invalid, and the poor, the people, given as they are to hero-worship, rushed the railway station at which Mr. Keir Hardie was to take train for the country districts. The news of his coming went in advance of him. For some time prior to his arrival a great drought had prevailed, and there was a famine in the land. Just as he reached India, however, the drought commenced to break, and, strange to say, as he travelled from district to district, the welcome rain seemed to travel with him. The natives in this way came to entertain the idea that he was a prophet, and had something to do with the downpour. Here, indeed, was a saviour of the people come from Great Britain to India, and with his coming there was a glorious downfall of the welcome rain ! Naturally the people were worked up to a high pitch of excitement, and they nocked in tens of thousands to the railway stations through which his train passed. Indeed, so great were the crowds that Mr. Keir Hardie had at last to keep his movements secret. He did not address the natives except to say a few words. He made no special tour of India, and yet the honorable member has told us that Mr. Keir Hardie, a member of the British Parliament) preached sedition in India. I have entered into these details only to show how ridiculous is the foundation on which honorable members opposite build up straw bogies simply to knock them down again. It was not enough that the Leader of the Opposition should build up the bogy of probable disloyalty; the honorable member felt that he must go one better. He suggested a principle which I am ashamed to find any Australian advocating. He told us that this Parliament ought not to have the right of determining whether or not the Australian Army should be placed at the disposal of the British Government. Our Parliament, according to him, is not to be trusted with the control of either the army or the navy. Such a thing is so unthinkable, so inconceivable, from the Australian stand-point that I can hardly understand an honorable member in his full senses giving expression to it. Not only have we always taken up the stand to which the honorable member objects, but some honorable members opposite have also done so. This Parliament, as a Parliament, has stood up for this right, and I trust that the day will never come when we shall relinquish that attitude with regard to either the army or the navy of the Commonwealth. Jingoism run mad may seem a very excellent thing, but the representatives of those who have to pay the taxes to provide the cost of our naval and military system and to do the fighting should at least have a voice in determining where the expenditure shall be made and as to what generally ought to be done. Another laughable statement made by the honorable member for North Sydney was that the Labour party had been dragooned into the acceptance of compulsory military training. The honorable member said he was astonished that we had adopted it, and expressed the opinion that we had probably been dragooned into it by the Attorney-General. His statement serves only to show his ignorance of the procedure of our party. I can forgive - in fact, I can sympathize with - him, since I understand that he disowns the principle of the caucus, and upholds the right of the Leader of the Opposition to lay down a policy and to dragoon every member of his party into supporting it. Such a thing has never happened in the history of our party, and I should like to know what member of the Labour Government would dare to try to dragoon the Labour party into supporting a policy of which they did not approve. Such a thing has never happened, and I hope it never will. Every honorable member on this side of the House has a voice in determining the policy of the Government, so that when we go to the constituencies we are able to say that we have all shared in the making of the laws passed while our Administration was in power. We are not in the painful position of honorable members of the Opposition, who have to accept the administration of this man or that and to stand or fall by it regardless of whether or not they 162 Governor-General’s Speech: [REPRESENTATIVES.] Address-in-Reply. have had a hand in determining it. The whole of our party has a voice in the work of building up the system of laws that we wish to see placed on the statute-book. At the same time, it is only fair to say that the Labour Government are “ oysters “ as far as Cabinet secrets, which they have no right to disclose, are concerned. I do not think a member of our party would even dream of asking a Minister to disclose secrets that ought not to be divulged. We fully recognise that in every Administration there must be secrets known only to the Cabinet, and not one of us would insult a Minister by asking him to divulge any of them. If any of us did so, we know what the reply would be. I was rather surprised to hear certain allusions made to the cost of sending the delegation of honorable members to England to take part in the Coronation celebrations. We were told first of all that members of the Labour party were the meanest people on earth, because they declined to plunge into the heavy expenditure that would have been involved in sending to England a contingent of cadets, and also a contingent of soldiery, and then we were criticised because the Prime Minister and two of his colleagues went Home at the public cost. Surely that is not playing the game fairly. Has not a similar procedure been adopted by other Ministries? Have not members of other Administrations gone Home and stayed as long as it was necessary for them to remain there? Investigation shows that the first delegate sent to England by the Australian Parliament - Sir Edmund Barton - required £1,850 to defray his expenses. We did not demur at that expenditure. I am not advocating for a moment that unnecessary expenditure should be incurred; but I hold that when it is necessary for public men to go and represent Australia at these conferences we should not take up a mean attitude.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– The Minister who went with Sir Edmund Barton spent £450.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Was it only £450 ? I do not wish to labour this matter at all, but I want to state in passing that this sort of criticism is extremely mean. It is a very unfair attitude for any one to take up.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– Is it unfair to inquire into the cost of things?
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Not at all. What I refer to is not an inquiry but a sneering declaration made by the honorable member for North Sydney. Just a few more words in regard to his speech and 1 shall have done with him.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– Can the honorable member tell us what the cost really was?
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I have not the exact figures, but I do know that the expenses of the Minister of Defence amounted to about £700. The honorable member no doubt will be able to get the figures if he asks for them. I have no objection to their production.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– That is £200 more than Colonel Foxton got last year.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I do expect that in these matters members of the Opposition will be fair, and always take into consideration the necessities of the position, because having had the administration of affairs in their hands, they know right well what these visits cost.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– The honorable member considers himself fair in defending a proposition which he evidently does not understand. He has told us so.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– What is the proposition ?
Mr Joseph Cook:
– The honorable member is defending the actions of Ministers, and yet says he does not know what they were, or how much they cost.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am not defending their actions at all, but I am contending that honorable members on the other side having had the administration of affairs in their hands, and their necessary expenditure not having been criticised, are rather mean in endeavouring to make capital by criticising necessary expenditure at the present moment. That is the attitude I take up.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– Again the honorable member is assuming that it was necessary expenditure. Yet he says he does not know.
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I know the men who went.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– Oh, is that it?
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I know that they are not so very fond of luxuries that they would rush into unnecessary expenditure.
Mr Joseph Cook:
– Like a good party man, the honorable member is backing his men right or wrong, eh?
Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Is that the honorable member’s stand as a party man?
*Governor-General's Speech :* [7 September, 1911.] *Address-in -Reply.* 163
If so, I am rather pleased to hear it. Before passing away from the honorable member for North Sydney, whom I am pleased to see here - I did not wish to be severe upon him in his absence - there is one point on which I desire to say a few words.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- Let me tell the honorable member that he has misrepresented me.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I am very sorry indeed if I have done that.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- I did not advocate giving the Imperial Government power to deal with our Army; I referred to the Navy, and not to the Army.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I am not aware that I used the word " Army."
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- The honorable member did so three times.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I meant the Navy.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- The honorable member said distinctly " Army and Navy."
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- It is amusing to hear honorable members on the other side trying to get out of a situation by separating the Army and the Navy. Does the honorable member say that he would refuse to put our Army at the disposal of the British Empire?
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- Only in Australia - we would not send them out of the country.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Would the honorable member refuse to put them at the disposal of the British Empire?
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- I would leave that to Parliament to deal with.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I wish to be fair to the honorable member. I would not desire for one moment to misrepresent him. I protest most emphatically against either the Army or the Navy being removed from the control of this Parliament. One of the most remarkable utterances of the honorable member was that he would not think of fighting tyrants at Home - that he would not think of going out and defending the people against armies, and that he was astounded at the continual cry of this side for the worker, the worker, the worker. He suggested that we could see nobody else, and had no other sentiment. Now, whom do we class as the worker? Who are the people whom we are fighting for, and putting legislation through for? I have stated scores of times on platforms that we look upon the workers as the wealth-producers of the country. I refer to the miners, the farmers, the wageearners, the civil servants, and the legiti mate business men. But outside those persons there is a class of men who are trying to live on the workers the whole time, and who have been frequently referred to by writers as " the criminal rich." Although we may only have them here to a small degree, they have grown very numerous in the United States of America and we fear that when we do become as large a people they may grow as strong here as there. A great writer - Lloyd - in referring to this question, makes these remarks, which I think are worthy of some thought : -
>The criminal rich - those who appropriate the labour of others in one age by brute strength, and in another by brute wealth - are to-day degrading competition into a rivalry of adulteration. The control of machinery of the exchanges is the control of prices, and control of prices is control of property.
If you control the property of the people you control their lives. These are the kind of men whom we sought to bring to book at the referendum. We asked the people of Australia to take to themselves further powers, so that they might protect themselves from the brutal rich. We have no objection to any man becoming wealthy by his own labours; we have no objection to any man who succeeds by legitimate industry; but we have an objection to the brutality of those who, through the medium of their wealth and power, seek to rob others of what is justly theirs. Honorable members on the other side will live to rue the day when they went from pillar to post throughout the Commonwealth and threw dust in the eyes of the people, asking them not to give themselves the power to protect themselves. That is practically what honorable members did, although they did not put their appeal in that way. They tried to make out that some foreign party, as it were, was seeking power. By the time the questions are again submitted, the people will know that it is they themselves who are to get the power to protect themselves through the Federal Parliament.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- And who is to give them the power?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- The referendum.
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- Will it give them more power than they have now?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Rather !
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Will the ballotpaper itself give them the power?
{: #subdebate-6-0-s1 .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I like to hear honorable members opposite shuffling on this question. They are still wild at the thought that, no matter what Government 164 *Governor-General's Speech:* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Address-in-Reply.* might occupy the Treasury bench, if our proposals were carried at a referendum, it would have the power to operate.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- Bring them on again.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- They are not game.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Honorable members on this side feel very much like myself, that we must have justice for the people, the wealth-creators in this country, and that if there is no means of getting that justice except by amending the Constitution to give this Parliament the necessary powers we must pursue that course ; but we hope that, by the time the questions are again submitted, the people will have realized the fact that their enemies were those who prevented them before from getting this power to' assist themselves to the legislation which they require. I blush for shame when I think - and I say it with regret - that it was assistance from our ranks which enabled honorable gentlemen opposite to defeat our proposals at the last referendum. Although five of the Labour parties in five of the States remained loyal, there were men in the party in another State who were not loyal.
{: .speaker-JUV}
##### Mr McWILLIAMS: FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928
-- What State was that ?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- How innocent the honorable member is ! Does he not know that every newspaper throughout the Commonwealth raised the cry that **Mr. Holman** was against the referenda ? Why was he against them ? Because he was disloyal to Labour? No. He was against them because he had joined honorable members opposite in the cry of " State Rights." I am prepared to believe that the good sense of **Mr. Holman** and other members of his party will lead them to see that it is necessary to give to the Federal Parliament extended powers, because the State Parliaments cannot effectually exercise the powers that we desire to possess. How can representatives of the people in the State Parliaments do what is required when, as soon as they attempt to touch the sacred rights of entrenched property the dear old Upper Houses will be there to protect them ? The Upper Houses in the State Parliaments are so Tory that any advance whatever towards an alteration of the present system, or towards clipping the wings of the trusts, is blocked by them. That is why I wonder why Labour men who profess to believe in our great policy should appear to hesitate, as thousands of them did at the referenda, because of **Mr. Holman's** attitude.
{: .speaker-JUV}
##### Mr McWilliams:
-- **Mr. Holman** did not influence other States than his own.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Why, then, was he quoted in every newspaper throughout the Commonwealth?
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- He was quoted in the *Age* every day.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I wish to put it to the people who desire to see Democracy triumphant in Australia that those who oppose the proposal to give greater powers to the Federal Parliament must know that what they aim at cannot be secured by the State Parliaments, because there the Upper Houses block every advance. Indeed, even if the Upper Houses could be wiped out, the State Parliaments could only legislate within their own territories. Their laws would only run to their own boundaries, whereas Commonwealth law runs through the whole of Australia. It would be useless from the point of view of the people of Australia, as a whole, to clip the wings of an Upper House of any one State, and God forbid that that spirit should ever prevail in our movement ! I trust that the Labour movement will be. as wide as the confines of Australia, that its principles will extend throughout the British Empire, and that they will ultimately permeate the world. Wherever there are brother human beings - wherever there are men fighting for a cause that is right - I trust that our party will assist them to the extent of their power. It is a most contemptible, mean, petty, and parochial attitude to take up for any one to say, " I am all right, let the rest go hang." The matters affected by the referenda were of such serious importance that I believe that when the people of this country come to a full realization of the trick that was played upon them, when they know of the amount of wealth that was poured out against us in that campaign, when they learn that those who were concerned in trusts, pools, and combines rallied their forces behind our opponents, they will avenge themselves once for all by wiping out our political enemies. That is what I think must happen. We are quite safe in trusting the people as a whole. The Jingoistic spirit to which the previous speaker appealed belongs, let me tell him, to the dead past. It no longer has any effect upon the people of this country. Indeed, if the honorable member were to attempt to incite Britishers in their own land by talk of that kind he would get even shorter shrift than awaits him in Australia. The people have got beyond that kind of thing. Nowadays we look to realities. And let us not forget that while in connexion with an event like the Coronation there may be a display of enormous wealth - of wealth so great, in fact, as to have a tremendous effect upon the people, and to be followed by terrific strikes - there are nevertheless millions in this Empire who require justice, and demand it, and look forward to the realization of their demands. I refer to the workers whose claims must be considered, lt is their cause that we, on our side, are proud to be fighting for. An honorable member near me interjects that they will soon assert themselves. God forbid that they should ever assert themselves by revolution in any direction ! We want them to assert themselves through the ballot-box.. We do not want to have such revolution as the honorable member for Parkes preached. He said that if the voting at the referenda had been favorable to the Labour party there would have been revolution in Australia. We even pictured the honorable member himself riding through the streets, as a revolutionary leader, in a comic uniform and waving a flag. Passing from these considerations I wish to thank the honorable member for North Sydney for laying his ideas on defence before us so frankly. We certainly know what his attitude is. We perceive that there is a direct cleavage. We understand that while we stand for all that is solid and straightforward there are other people in the community who stand for ail that is frothy and high sounding. I would urge the honorable member not to be too modest. Let us have his ideas on other subjects. He must have a great fund of knowledge on other political matters, and if he will only be as frank concerning them as he was on the question of defence we shall appreciate his speeches. T wish to get back to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition on the Tariff. I know that honorable members will give me credit for being an enthusiastic Protectionist, and I wish to say that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter at the present time strikes me as rather peculiar,- in view of his knowledge of the whole history of the Tariff, and the promises which he has made in this House from time to time in regard to new Protection. How could a Labour Minister face the people of Australia with a proposal for increased Protection in view of the result of the referenda, and the refusal to grant to the workers their fair share of the benefits of Protection? The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the Minister of Trade and Customs should at once re-open the Tariff. That would be a grand thing to do at the present juncture when there is so much else to do. The Minister of Trade and Customs has in this matter taken up a rational attitude. He has told the manufacturers of Australia the information he requires, and they refuse to tell him what lie wishes to know. He issued to them a list of questions, which we are told are utterly outrageous and inquisitorial. I am very pleased that the Minister has laid these questions before honorable members, and in glancing through them I must say that I have noticed none which might not be fairly answered by any straightforward business man. Manufacturers are guaranteed by letter that information supplied in the replies to the questions will be kept in the strictest confidence, and treated in the same way as confidential information acquired in the ordinary administration of the Customs Department is treated. We know well that in the preparation of a Tariff confidential officers of the Customs Department are in the way of obtaining information which it would be very profitable to them to divulge. But we have no record that these officers have ever divulged such information at any time. It is then pure subterfuge to say, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that manufacturers refuse to have their business secrets exposed in the way proposed by the Minister of Trade and Customs. Manufacturers who come to the Government begging favours in the way of increased Protection for the industries in which they are engaged should be prepared to state the facts connected with those industries. I must admit that there may be some little difference in the stand-point from which the questions submitted to the manufacturers are viewed. For instance, they are asked to say what capital is invested in their industry. Surely, from their point of view that is an outrage? Then they are asked to state the total value of the output of their factories. That is an awful question. Then they are asked what wages they are paying, and the total amount paid in wages. 166 *Governor-General's Speech.:* [REPRESENTATIVES] *Address-in-Reply.*
If such questions were correctly answered, it is possible that, after going through the replies, the Minister would have a shrewd idea as to whether a manufacturing establishment was making a little fortune for the proprietor or not. He might be able to say whether we are justified in, maintaining so high a rate of Protection for the benefit of that industry. What a horrible thing it would be from the stand-point of those carrying on protected industries if the country were to get to know which industries were worth protecting and which were not. Viewing the matter from our stand-point we recognise that the public of Australia have to bear the burden of taxation. We are willing to justify the expenditure of a certain amount of capital in industries through encouragement afforded by a Tariff, but we claim that the public should share in the benefits derived from that encouragement, that the workers in the various industries should receive decent wages, and the consumers obtain the articles manufactured at reasonable prices. I should, for my part, like to see the proposals submitted at the referenda extended. I say that the day will come in Australia, and I hope it will be before very long, when a further power will be demanded for the Federal Parliament, and that is the power to nationalize distribution. Every day we live the fact is being forced upon us that if we raise wages, and better the conditions of workers, we have those in our midst who, by charging higher prices and higher rents, do away with the benefits we hoped would follow from the increase of wages. The increases in rents and the cost of living are crying questions to-day. Rents' are going up by leaps and bounds. It is scandalous the way in which landlords in Sydney tell the people that rents are going up because of the land tax. Landlords who do not pay a farthing in land tax are making it the excuse for raising the rent of four-roomed cottages from10s. to 15s. a week. I feel so strongly upon this matter that I would support a resolution to nationalize all distribution in order that we might wipe out for ever the middleman, who is always so ready to take the earnings from the people, whether they are producers or wage-earners.
{: .speaker-K5D}
##### Mr King O'Malley:
-- We want a fairrent court.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- We want more than that, and we should not be afraid to go straight to the point. In America to-day rents are so high, and the cost of living so great, that the American people are on the verge of a revolution. We have only to go amongst the poor in Melbourne and Sydney, and other large cities of Australia, to hear very deep rumblings of discontent from the same cause. Are we to sit idle and inept, unable to do anything to relieve the people from these burdens ? We tried our best in submitting the referenda proposals to take a step in the right direction, by securing the power to deal with monopolies, and those opposed to our proposals refused us the power to assist the people.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Will the honorable member say what there is in the Government programme to help the people?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I shall do so with pleasure. I heartily congratulate the Government on proposing to strike the first blow at high rents by coming down with a national banking proposal. The first blow will be struck at high rents when we find cheap money for the people who wish to have their own homes, and to pay no rent. My idea is that every man should have his own home, and should not be obliged to pay rent.
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- Is that the idea underlying the State bank ?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Yes; it will provide money at a cheap rate of interest.
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- Do the Government propose to fix low rates of interest by law?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I am told that we propose to do this with the people's money. But I would ask who it is who finds the money to pay dividends to the shareholders of private banks? These dividends are paid all the time with the people's money. Who have built all the noble institutions in which private banking operations are carried on ? It is the people - the workers and producers. I am aware that I should infringe the rules of debate by dealing in detail with the proposal for the establishment of a National Bank.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Then I understand from the honorable member that the National Bank will strike a blow at high rents ?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Certainly. It will strike a blow at high rates of interest, which are the basis of high rents. If the people can obtain money at a low rate of interest and with easy repayments of the principal they will be able to husband their resources, and thus to establish
*Governor- General's Speech:* [7 September, 1911.] *Address-in-Reply.* 167 little homes for themselves without being exploited by filibusters on every occasion that they receive an increase in wages.
{: .speaker-L1R}
##### Mr Agar Wynne:
-- Where will the
National Bank get the money to lend to the people?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- From the people themselves. My honorable friend is facetious. He knows as well as I do that the whole of the money used in banking operations is provided by the people. He is also aware that the private banks do not lend money only - they merely allow credit - and it is for that credit that the people pay interest. He knows, too, that a bank can have nothing better than a constant stream of interest flowing into it, whilst its security is daily becoming enhanced because of the instalments which are being paid off the principal.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Then the CommonwealthBank will be a bank of deposit and issue in the ordinary sense?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- No Government which I am supporting will make itself ridiculous by bringing down any scheme for the establishment of a Commonwealth Bank which does not enter into all legitimate channels of business - which does not cover everything except risky speculation. 1 wish specially to leave risky speculation to the private banks. When the Banking Bill is brought forward I shall have an opportunity of discussing it in detail, and therefore I shall not examine the proposal minutely now. But I feel sure that the creation of such an institution as a Commonwealth Bank will mark one of the great departures which is needed to secure to those who earn wealth in Australia their fair proportion of that wealth. No doubt as the years roll on everybody will be advantaged by the scheme. Even the man who preens himself that he is a capitalist will not be injured by it, because the National Bank will be open to him just as it will be open to everybody else. Ever since banking operations were initiated the curse of the system has been the high rates of interest and compound interest which have been charged. In fact, one great writer has said that of all the imps that Satan ever used to defeat mankind in their attempt to set up anything like a heaven upon earth the most powerful was interest. I do not intend to dilate upon the other proposals which are contained in the Government programme. I trust that we shall push through this session with all expedition. I was rather pleased to hear the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government are determined to press forward to their completion the measures which are outlined in the GovernorGeneral's Speech.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- If that be so, we shall be here till this time next year.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Then let us stay here, if it be necessary to adopt that course. The honorable member knows that it will be the fault of the party with which he is associated if the measures in question do not become law within a few months. If each Bill be subjected only to reasonable criticism the entire programme can be disposed of within the period I have indicated. To me it is a pleasure to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in such a genial frame of mind.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Would the honorable member mind telling us what is " reasonable ' ' criticism ?
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- I hold in my hand a little leaflet which just answers the honorable member's question. It contains samples of the " reasonable " criticism which was offered to the Government proposals during the recent referenda campaign. It is headed, " Three reasons why farmers should vote ' No ' at the referendum," and. it reads -
{: type="1" start="1"}
0. To retain present local independence in State and municipal affairs.
As if we ever wanted to take away that independence -
{: type="1" start="2"}
0. To guard against the threatened export duties on primary products.
Was such a course ever suggested?
{: type="1" start="3"}
0. To prevent the nationalization of land.
Let honorable members think of that last glorious criticism, seeing that there was no proposal in the referenda to nationalize land or even to touch it.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- The honorable member himself said to-day that he would nationalize all distribution.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- Does distribution include land?
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Necessarily.
{: .speaker-KFN}
##### Mr FRANK FOSTER: NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-- What I said was that I would nationalize commercial; distribution. But I would be pleased to see the. trafficker in land also disappear. Those gentlemen who condemn land nationalization are only too frequently delighted to sell a piece of land to a widow arid then to foreclose upon her because of a little mortgage. I warn honorable members not to say too much of land trafficking in Australia, because, if they do, they will hear something so unsavoury that they will wish they had not spoken. I do not desire to enter into this matter exhaustively, because honorable members opposite knew perfectly well when the leaflet which I have quoted was issued, that the States retained the right absolutely to deal with the lands of this country. But I wish to thank them for this class of literature because, if there is one thing more than another which educates the public to an appreciation of the true position, it is the lies which are circulated broadcast, and the dust which is thrown into their eyes during a political campaign. When they come to realize, in their quiet moments, now they have been tricked, betrayed, and mocked, I feel sure that they will, at ":he earliest opportunity, mete out condign punishment to those who so egregiously misled them.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s2 .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN: Angas
.- In his vigorous speech, the honorable member for New England said, with great truth, that England has a very difficult problem to face in India. I only wish that we were always fully conscious of the difficulties and responsibilities which beset the Mother Country in connexion with that portion of the Empire and with the races of the East. A few days ago a deputation to the Minister of External Affairs requested that the wife of a Chinaman should be permitted to remain in Australia, although she is a prohibited immigrant. The Minister very properly replied that he was compelled by the Act to refuse admittance to all prohibited immigrants. I think that compliance with the provisions of the Act is obligatory upon him, though, in my view, the measure is scarcely worthy of this Parliament. In 1901 we passed legislation which recognised that details of the kind under discussion did not touch the principle which we have all at heart - the preservation of a white race in Australia - and allowed married women and children under eighteen to accompany their husbands and fathers. All ethnologists tell us that a pure race is the best, if inspiration, efficiency, and a sense of nationality are desired. I have the highest respect for the Eastern races; but by reason of biological laws, it is impossible for European and Eastern races to acquire the same degree of efficiency by intermixture that each can acquire separately. For that reason I helped to put on the statute-book the legislation to which I have referred. We should not forget, however, that the civilization of China is much older than our own, and that her standards of education are high, and in these days of keen competition, we should do nothing to irritate and anger nations with whom we and the Empire at large have such important trade relations. The Eastern races in India, China, and Japan number something like 670,000,000, and I hope that the Government, with a sense of statesmanship and fairness, will consider whether it is not possible to regard their *amour* *propre* by providing, in accordance with the law which was in force up to 1905, that men married before that year can have their wives here. Such legislation would in no way prejudice the maintenance of a White Australia. If we irritate nations with which the Mother Country has so often to negotiate, and whose positions she must consider, we do not act on what, I hope, is the growing sense of our Imperial obligations. I am glad that the Prime Minister has returned in vigorous health, just as he expressed pleasure at finding the Leader of the Opposition in the same state. He told us that we are to have another officer interposed between this responsible Parliament and the Public Service. I regret this growing taste for the placing of services under Commissioners, and under the control of men. who, from their official position, are of bureaucratic temper and irresponsibility.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- A Court cannot be termed bureaucratic.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I was taking occasion to reprehend a marked growth of the time. If Parliament surrenders its right to control the public services, which it is paid to govern, it weakens the principle of responsible government.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- The honorable member would abolish the Public Service Commissioner.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I was laid up at the time of the provision for his appointment, and would have opposed it, though I have nothing to say against the present occupant of the office, who is a man of exceptional ability. We should not yield to the temptation to put services under Commissioners except under the stress of necessity, and should always be cautious about setting up barriers between us and those whom, we should govern.
What is now proposed is that we shall not say what our public servants shall be paid. We have fixed the rates of pay for certain -grades, and have left it to the Public Service Commissioner to make the classification. That opens up possibilities of dispute as to whether the classification is right or wrong, and it is proposed that the determination shall be left to a Court. We shall have to obey the findings of that Court, although the Judge may be no better able than the Commissioner to come to a correct decision. Indeed, the Commissioner is an expert, whose business it is to ascertain what is being done in the Departments, and what the work is worth; while the other, although he may be legally trained, and have a well-balanced mind, is not an expert.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- But the honorable member would allow such a man to determine what the wages of the rest of the community should be !
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- Parliament cannot well legislate directly to fix the wages of private employes, but it is bound to say what its own servants shall get.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- Not in individual cases.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- We determine that certain rates shall be paid, with automatic increases, according to classification, leaving transfers from one class to another to the Commissioner. The Prime Minister yesterday threw out what seemed to be an invitation to New Zealand to join the Federation ; but are we likely, when asking for the extension of powers which the people rejected by 259,000 votes, to induce the Dominion to join us ? What ground of expediency or common sense could induce it to enter a Federation in which the local industries would be controlled and regulated from an Australian centre? When one examines these shibboleths, these generalities, and tests them in the cold light of common sense, one sees there is really nothing in them. If I were a New Zealander, and were asked to come to-morrow into a Federation, the Parliament of which had the powers that were foreshadowed under the rejected amendments, I should certainly think, with a growing school of Americans, that the principle of autonomy was much dearer to me than that, and that whatever closer relations were felt to be required in regard to the larger external affairs should be obtained by treaties and co-ordination of powers, by individual and general co-operation, and reciprocity. With regard to the recent referenda, my impression is that the people gave a very common-sense judgment upon the proposals submitted to them.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- I think they were misled by a lot of catch phrases.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- There was a good deal of misapprehension even by advocates on both sides as to the scope of the proposals, and the people did not always get the best light, but they acted on sound impressions. I should like to know how they are to get the best light on these questions in the future, if what I read about the attitude of the Labour party is correct. I can understand a party - and I have respected the Labour party for it - having almost a rigid bond as regards certain essentials of their policy. It is reasonable to argue that if a man is returned to Parliament pledged to certain things, he ought to obey the mandate given by the people, and carry out those pledges. I have, therefore, never raised my voice in condemnation of what is called the caucus principle. It has its merits,- and may have its faults, but, without being an advocate of the extent to which it is applied, or said to be applied, by the Labour party, let me deal with what has been published on the question of the attitude of its members towards future referenda. I can understand that a man ought to be kept to the promises that he gave on the hustings, but the principle of representative government would certainly be far more respected by simply taking the general lines of a man's political leanings and trusting him with some discretion as to how he is to apply them in legislation. On 22nd August there was a meeting in Sydney called by twenty-two branches of the Labour organizations, and attended by four or five Ministers. According to the papers, **Mr. Holman** was there asked for an explanation of why, believing in a certain line of policy as being best for the State, he did not advocate the opposite in the referenda campaign. I understand it was then agreed that, for the future, all candidates must obey the majority decision on these vital matters of constitutional amendment. If there is one way more calculated than another to mislead the judgment of electors in a case where it is not in any way essential, although it- maybe to some extent desirable, to obey a party mandate, it is by the adoption of", such an attitude in connexion with referenda. The reason for binding- a mem-! ber is that you cannot touch him for three years. During that time, he ought to stick to his promises, and obey some majority decision as to the best method of carrying out the principles affirmed on the hustings. But how can that apply to the taking of referenda? There you go back at once to the men from whom, if you were standing for Parliament, you would get your instructions, and you are asked not to render an account of your stewardship, but to tell them what they are to do. In such cases, we ought to speak the absolute personal conviction of each of us when advising the electors. We cannot do that if it is rendered obligatory upon a member, no matter what his private opinions are, to obey the decisions of any Conference, however dignified.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- There is no obligation at all.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I am referring only to what I read in the newspapers. I hope that the indications thrown out by that report cannot be assigned to the intended actions of the Labour party.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- If a man is not satisfied he can easily get out by resigning his position.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- Why put him in the position of having to mislead the electors? There is no reason for it. He is simply asked by the electors to tell them what the truth is on this or that measure passed by Parliament, and it is making a travesty of all representative principles if you do not allow individual discretion in these matters, to the largest extent possible consistent with the solidarity of a party. The mistake which the Labour party made in the recent referenda was that they attempted to emulate certain advertising doctors, by applying heroic remedies to petty indispositions caused chiefly by straining a naturally sound Constitution. They asked for 95 per cent, more than they wanted. There were only one or two matters of pressing necessity, which they could easily have got if they had accepted bur amendments, but they failed by asking too much. Although it is now after the Imperial Conference, I suppose there is no harm in referring to what was done there. I think it was Lord Salisbury who, in 1887, presiding over the first Imperial Conference, mentioned that it was a great pity, in Imperial matters, to precipitate a decision upon questions before opinion was ripe. He actually ruled out the question of Imperial Federation, and confined the then discussion to defence. I am afraid that during the last fifteen or twenty years we have forgotten that very wholesome suggestion of his. One proposal, which was happily rejected by the Imperial. Conference, was the somewhat extraordinary one of the Prime Minister of New Zealand to set up another Parliament, with two hundred and ninetyseven members in one House, and fourteen in another, based upon popular representation as regards one Chamber, and I donot know upon what as regards the other,, to deal with defence and some external matters for the next ten years, and with nodirect responsibilities. It was actually to be given the power to apportion revenue raised by other Parliaments, lt struck me that if there is one line which is chiefly administrative it is defence. There is very little legislation required for that, and, as regards foreign affairs, surely a body like the Imperial Parliament, that already deals with them, is the most competent and proper, under our theory of government, to continue to manage them. The reflection occurred to me that in any sphere except the political, such a proposalwould have simply wrecked the reputation it was possibly intended to enhance. I am pleased to say that it was rejected, but there have been other suggestions of a similar kind. The *Times,* in 1907, and again in 191 1, just prior to theConference, put with extraordinary directness what it considered to be the alternative for the Dominions. It suggested that we must either separate, or join in somepolitical consolidation.
{: .speaker-JOC}
##### Mr Batchelor:
-- There is a good body of public opinion which takes that view.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I regret it, because I believe that one of two of the statementsthat have been made as regards neutrality in other matters were induced by this foolish attempt to re-organize, on stereotyped lines, that elastic system to which hitherto the Empire has owed its greatness. I find the *Times* writing -
>The whole position is impossible and cannot last. Some solution of the difficulty must befound. The one is separation ; the other Imperial partnership. The Colonies must either become absolutely independent States, conducting the whole of their internal affairs without interference and without help, or else they mustbecome equal partners in a united Empire based upon the principle of mutual support and*, joint responsibility.
I prefer to follow as conducing to what ought to be the aspiration of every oneof us - integrity, perfect co-ordination, and' mutual support - the sounder lines of present relations. I prefer to trust in this matter the more deliberate utterances of the *Quarterly Review,* for instance, and *The Nation.* I remember that in one of the summaries of the Imperial Conference of 1907, the *Quarterly Review* said that it must regard the principle of the Federation of the Empire as having receded far from the high-water mark of hope. *The Nation* is a great Liberal organ, and, perhaps, the most brilliant English weekly published. It is, through its policy, the organ of Lloyd-George; and it gave him the most strenuous support in his land tax proposals. There must be something wrong with the attitude of our Colonial Premiers when we find these newspapers, week after week, calling them to account. Reference is made, for instance, to the question of retaining our control of the Fleet ; and *The Nation* says -
>Not the integration, but the disintegration of Imperial aims is the actual issue of the new movement, by which the daughter nations are furnishing the instruments of defence.
I read the memorandum, and it did not strike me as true Imperialism for Canada, which I do not think has contributed *£1* directly to the maintenance of the Imperial Navy, to say that it could only place the control of its local Navy, when it had one, tinder the Imperial Admiralty if Canada, forsooth, approved of the war. Is that Imperial loyalty? I dislike dwelling too much on such expressions, for a man's loyalty ought to be asserted by acts. We get too much lip loyalty; and the policy of shoving loyalty down people's throats has been, for instance, the cause of a great deal of the trouble in Ireland. There must, however, be something wrong, some grudging spirit displayed, when we find the very newspapers which ought to stand up for the Colonial Premiers, condemning their attitude on so many matters. I admire the view that is taken by *The Nation, The Economist,* and other great newspapers in which we find matured thought. What they ask is that the bond shall be one of sentiment and autonomy under the Crown with a reserve power in the central government to be used for the benefit of the whole Empire, and of any of the parts at the request of the parts. That is the principle they adopt. On the 27th April, *The Nation* said -
>There never has been anything like the Empire of the Five Nations, and if it must subsist, it must obey the particular laws of its being. Its bonds are spiritual and sentimental, mot governmental.
In regard to the attitude of Canada, I very much question whether we have the temper to render any form of political union workable - whether we would really subordinate our local interests to the coercive powers of the majority. I believe that if the Empire were in danger, we would be willing to sacrifice our local views in order to attain the great end we Iia ve in common. In connexion with the Canadian position, however, we found, about ten years ago, that, although there was much talk of loyalty, the moment local interests were touched, there was an outcry. For instance, when the Alaska boundary report was published, and Lord Alverstone, the representative of the United Kingdom, took the view of the Americans, as he had a right to do, if the Americans were correct, Canada immediately contended that her interests were being subordinated to Imperial necessity; and there was much talk, bordering on disaffection, at some banquets in the subsequent six months. As to neutrality, of course, that is a thing that a man who knows anything of International law will contemn. It is an act of sovereignty; we cannot declare neutrality. The whole Empire might make such a declaration, because it is sovereign. For many years, the right of Switzerland to neutrality as between Austria and France was questioned; and it was only in 1815, owing to the interlacing of the interests of Switzerland with those of some of the other Powers, that neutrality was recognised ; and it was not until 1870 that it was finally affirmed. What on earth is the good of talking about neutrality when its recognition depends on other nations rather than on ourselves? If I chose to detain the House, I could show that there has been much talk of neutrality by some Canadian statesmen in connexion with the Defence scheme to which I have referred. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday why the Colonial representatives did not accept the friendly proposals of the Board of Trade representatives to use the Imperial Labour Bureau in connexion with immigration. All that was suggested was that this Bureau, established in 1909, had done very good work locally, and might prove useful to the Dominions. Some 12,000 to 15,000 men are, every week, placed in employment through this agency ; and we are informed that there is a surplus of skilled men. This Bureau is not established to aid the distressed class-that class which- **Mr. Coghlan,** a few years ago, told us was likely to he sent out, and which was condemned in a report by the Agents-General. We are told that 89 per cent, of the engineering class which passed through the Bureau are skilled mechanics, and that only 15 per cent, of the available men in the building trade are pure labourers. These men are seeking homes across the seas ; and the Imperial Government asked the Dominion representatives to accept its view on one point, at any rate. Yet they refused. No wonder we find the Liberal press again condemning this attitude. Hear what the great Liberal weekly, *The Nation,* says -
>It is difficult to read the reports of some of the recent sittings of the Imperial Conference without an uncomfortable suspicion that something of the arrogance of youth is creeping into the relations of the Colonies with the Mother Country.
It referred in particular to this refusal to accept the co-operation of the Imperial Labour Exchange in connexion with the supply of labour.
{: .speaker-KZA}
##### Mr West:
-- They were advised not to accept it.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- All that was asked was that the Board should be notified if persons of the class dealt with were wanted in the Colonies. The State Governments would advise their Agents- General, who in turn would inform the Board of Trade, which would use its machinery to send out the men.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- Does the honorable member approve of the use of the word " arrogance" as to an opinion entertained by an Australian?
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- No. I am afraid that some of these newspapers - even *The Economist* in one or two cases - condemned rather too strongly the points of view of the representatives of the Colonies. In certain cases, however, there was displayed a good deal of what one might call juvenile arrogance. I regret that our representatives did not take a more statesmanlike view of Imperial responsibilities - for instance, in connexion with the Navigation Bill. For the last five or six years the British Government has been asking by correspondence that by means of the Navigation Bill it should be relieved of some of the difficulties which beset it in connexion with the negotiations with various countries for uniform rules. The Merchant Shipping Act was amended in 1906 in a way that has enabled Great Britain to have with foreign countries uniform rules on many difficult questions relating to standard food, measurement, loadlines, and so forth. But the British Government has been hampered very largely in this work by the absence of a similar spirit on the part of some of the Dominions, and those who are now in officehave every opportunity to study the documents. It was only this morning that I had an opportunity of reading some of the discussions, apart from the rather meagre reports that I had read inthe *Times,* and I regret that there was not displayed in connexion with some of these suggestions a more statesmanlike view of Imperial responsibilities than seems to have been displayed by some of the men who at banquets spoke rather loudly upon the growth of Imperial nationality, and so on. To come to a more abstruse question, let us see what is the position as regards the Declaration of London. I think that there has been a good deal of misapprehension as to the issue raised. It is a very difficult question whether the Declaration of London in the interests of the Empire should or should not have been adopted. . Some Dominions may take a different view from that of others, just as one belligerent will take a different view from that of another belligerent. The position of England, for example, is not the position of Russia. We are an Empire upon which, it has been said, thesun never sets - a power whose morning drum-beat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of martial airs, and have a sense of all that that means in connexion with the diffusion of the elements which compose that magnificent organization. Russia is a great Empire, if that term may rightly be applied to it. with no Colonies, and with ice-bound ports ; whereas England, on the other hand, practically lives uponthe sea. Their points of view, therefore,, are altogether different. Up to 1905 or 1906 lawyers - those men who in the opinion of some of our friends never can do any good - had been trying-
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- They are always doing harm.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- To the wrong side, of course. There are two sides to every, question, and the lawyer has to be on the one side or the other. In 1875 ani International Commission, consisting of lawyers - I forget for the moment the title of the Commission - was appointed to draw a code of international law on, among others, the eight questions that form the basis of the Declaration of London. After twelve or fifteen months' work the Commission presented its report ; but - as is historically the case always - until trouble arose, nothing was done. Action was precipitated only by trouble that arose in 1901, in connexion with the South African war, and in 1904 on the occasion of the RussoJapanese war. In connexion with the South African war I think a German vessel was seized, but not sunk, by one of the British cruisers. England seized the vessel under what at the time was, according to the average opinion, her rightfully exercised power, yet acting on those moral principles which, I believe, have been growing in England, and have always characterized the relations of England with other nations in international matters, she gave way in the matter, notwithstanding that according to a good many lawyers her position was right. In 1904, when Russia had attempted to make food and coal absolute contrabrand of war, and had also sunk some neutral prizes, the question of the consideration of a code was precipitated by the diplomatic interchanges which then took place. We find that when the last Hague Conference met in 1907 it was suggested that, instead of each belligerent taking its captured prizes, to be condemned according to its municipal law, in its own prize courts, it would be better to ascertain whether some consensus upon nine or ten of these larger matters of difference might not be come to and form the basis of an international code to be administered *by* the Hague Tribunal. That led to what is known as the Declaration of London. Although that Declaration on some points appeared opposed to British interests there was imposed upon those who had advocated its rejection a very great responsibility since the lead in the matter was taken by England, through **Sir Edward** Grey. He sent out an invitation to the various Governments who were represented at the Hague Conference to express in memoranda their views upon eight points, and having taken in that way such a very large and reponsible part in the initiation of the Declaration of London it was incumbent upon him to consider very carefully whether the absence of perfection in three or four lines would justify the rejection of the Declaration. That Declaration was sent out to us. I do not know how long it was here, but it fell to my lot, as AttorneyGeneral, to go through the papers and to see what ought to be the Australian point of view. That was expressed in a memorandum, on the whole, approving of the principles of the Declaration, but objecting to three or four provisions to which I shall make a short reference. I do not think they are quite as vital to our interests as some people believe. I may say that very eminent men who objected on these very grounds to the ratification or, at all events, to the immediate ratification of the Declaration of London have, on the whole, praised it very highly. We find, for instance, **Mr. Arthur** Cohen, K.C., in the *Law Quarterly Review,* describing the Declaration as an instrument containing two complete and admirable codes on the law of blockade and contraband. He says -
>Whatever may be determined as to the ratification of the Declaration of London the International Naval Conference of London will be, I venture to assert, ever memorable in the annals of international law as having framed two complete and admirable codes of the law of blockade and contraband, and as having established on sound principles the important rules relating to compensation and the resistance to search.
Lord Lindley, in a letter to the *Times* on the 9th June, said that on the whole the Declaration ought to be ratified, although there were three formidable objections, such as those relating to food supply, the destruction of neutral ships, and the conversion of merchant ships into war vessels after they had left the ports pf their country. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that one part of the British Dominions might take a different view from that of the others. As regards food supply, for instance, the position might be more serious to us than to Great Britain. Whether food supply was absolute contraband or not has for many years been a moot point., England in 1763 regarded food as absolute contraband when it suited its purpose. The rule of might on the whole is the rule of right when war is proceeding, and it took a great deal of persuasion by other nations in 1856 to get England to surrender the tremendous power which its great navy then gave it in connexion with the rights of neutrals; but it did so. In the beginning of the last century also, I believe England did declare food as absolute contraband in connexion with some of the wars with France. Divergent views have existed, and as a matter of fact the advantage to a strong belligerent would be practically as great if we never had the Declaration as some persons think it is by its adoption in connexion with this very question of food supply, because it was within its right to say in any particular war that food was absolute contraband. What has been done, then, as regards food is that it has been made conditional contraband, and the weakness of the provision as drawn up consists in the fact that it is uncertain whether the mere consignment of food to any British port would make it contraband of war within the terms of the definition. That was one of the points to which in the memorandum the attention of the Imperial Government was directed.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Any base of supply ?
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I have the whole of the terms.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- I should think that that would include every inch of Great Britain.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- It is doubtful- that is all I can say. Perhaps I had better refer honorable members to the provisions on this point. It is purely a question of the burden of proof. Before, when a vessel was seized for carrying contraband, the burden of proving innocence was on the part of her owner. But the burden of proof is now shifted on to the captor, and that is decreed in article 33, which reads -
>Conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in progress.
The latter exception does not apply to a consignment coming under article 24, which refers to gold and such matters. It does not touch the point I am dealing with. The clause I have quoted declares the principle that for the future the burden of proof is on the captor. But then there are presumptions which are somewhat vaguely expressed, and may be dangerous, in article 34, which is to be read with the other, and which says -
>The destination referred to in Article 33 -
That is the destination of the armed forces of a Government.
The destination referred to in Article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities or to a contractor established in the enemy country who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy.
A similar presumption arises if the goods are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy.
I shall not read any further than that. As regards the latter expression, it has been suggested that even Liverpool or London, as a place of consignment, would fall within that definition, and, if so, the Declaration, not as against the old system without it, but as against the comparative immunity given to continental nations who had no seaboard, and to whom this law of continuous voyage could not consequently apply - was disadvantageous . to us, while it might be helpful to them.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- I suppose that any other base of supply would be something distinct from a fortified place.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I should think so, because the one is mentioned.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- It is something plus that.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- All sorts of suggestions - I shall not weary honorable members by going into them - were made as to what ought to be done in connexion with that clause. I have cited Lord Lindley. I could cite two or three admirable articles on this question in the *Quarterly Review.* They do not advocate the rejection. They advocate ratification, with a reservation in relation to these matters. **Sir Edward** Grey, I understand, has undertaken that these definitions, to some extent, at all events, will be cleared up - that the doubt as to whether Liverpool, for instance, would be a place of consignment for the purposes of the armed forces of the enemy within the meaning of these presumptions, will be cleared up by a minute attached to the acceptance of the memorandum by the Empire. So far, of course, so good. As regards the destruction of neutral prizes, there is no doubt that the position is not worse than it was without the Declaration.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Does the honorable member think not?
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I have given an instance. In 1904 Russia destroyed prizes. I believe that, after agreeing to regard food as contraband only when it was consigned to the armed forces of the enemy - that is, within the meaning of the provisions of the Declaration of London - it did sink a vessel.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Is not the honorable member considering the question of the right to sink with the right to search?
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- One is part ofthe other.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- You bindyourself to take the word of the neutral.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- That has nothing to do with my point. I am simply dealing with the captor of neutral vessels supposed to carry contraband of war.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- But their word must be taken.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- That need not necessarily be done. The enemy may take the risk of sinking, but if the vessel is sunk the captor has to show before his own prize Court - subject to appeal to The Hague tribunal - that the sinking was the result of inevitable necessity.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- The Declaration says that the enemy must not search if the captain of the vessel says that he has nothing contraband on board.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- I think that the honorable member is wrong on that point, because one of the provisions of the Declaration is that the belligerent vessel must not sink, unless, after search, it is found that the contraband amounts to more than half the total value of the cargo; and, of course, he is entitled to test that. However, what I say is this : that this is a weak point, and that objection was taken by the last Government to it. It was one of the three matters to which the attention of the Imperial Government was drawn, as being - not necessarily from our point of view only - objectionable, and it should not, therefore, without some modification, be adopted. Passing over one or two points on which I have made some notes, another feature that strikes me is this. On the whole, the importance of the question is not so great as some may think. England's interest, from the point of view of neutral carriage, is rather that of a neutral trader than of a belligerent. How is that? I have taken some figures from the Board of Trade returns. They show that, between 1855 and 1859, 84 per cent. of the carrying trade between the United Kingdom and British Possessions was British. All the vessels conducting that 84 per cent. of trade would be belligerent vessels, and this Declaration of London would not touch them at all. Between 1905 and 1908, I find that 92 per cent. of the carrying trade was in British vessels, and only 8 per cent. in foreign vessels ; and those foreign vessels in some cases included belligerent vessels, which, of course, would not be affected by the Declaration of London. We see, therefore, that, as a matter of substance - dealing now with the trade of the Empire, and not purely with Australian trade - the area of the inconvenience of this Declaration is not very great. Take, now, the tonnage of sailing and steam vessels entered and cleared in the trade of Australia with the principal maritime countries - that is to say, our external trade with the principal maritime countries. In 1908, 8,581,000 was the amount of the total tonnage, and of this 6,318,000 was British, leaving only 2,263,000 tons for foreign vessels - and those would include belligerent vessels. If you take the total Australian trade, external and Inter-State, British and Colonial, you find that it comprises in round numbers 24,000,000 tons, of which the foreign trade would be only 4,000,000. It would not, therefore, be a matter of such very great, or at all events of vital, importance if these particular points were not qualified at the instance of the Imperial Government.
{: .speaker-KEV}
##### Mr Fenton:
-- But ours, of course, is an ever increasing trade.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- But not the proportion of our trade that is carried by foreign vessels. I have given the figures of the proportion of trade so carried. In fact, I have other figures which go to show with quite as great force the comparative insignificance of some of these points when examined in relation to our actual trade. I could take, for instance, the trade from 1849, and show that there has been a great increase in the carriage by British vessels. There is another point of view. I have mentioned navigation. We ought to consider, as **Mr. Buxton** stated at the Imperial Conference, the difficulties of Great Britain in connexion with our amendment of the navigation laws ; for instance, the provision that, at the instance of **Sir Joseph** Ward, was passed as regards Lascars and the employment of foreign seamen. It was pointed out that within the last four or five years there has been, happily, an increase in the proportion of British seamen engaged on British vessels.
{: .speaker-K5D}
##### Mr King O'Malley:
-- They ought to get better wages.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr GLYNN:
-- There has been a remarkable betterment of the condition of seamen. It is the case that the condition of men on many vessels was formerly most deplorable. But the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 is acknowledged to have brought about an improvement; and since then the reports are that men are tempted by the better conditions to join the mercantile marine, and so strengthen what is really a main source of our naval supremacy - the great body of hardy seamen upon whom the Navy was able to draw of old. If we, by our pettifogging policy, in matters of no real substance, of not recognising our Imperial responsibilities, irritate foreign nations that are vulnerable in that way, England may seriously suffer. England is the great carrying country of the world. For instance, 36 per cent, of the vessels entering French ports are British. I believe that the proportion entering German ports is in excess of that figure. In the United States, 29 per cent, of the vessels are British. **Mr. Sydney** Buxton stated at the Imperial Conference that 164,000,000 out of 285,000,000 tons of shipping going to foreign ports is British. That shows, therefore, that if we ask England to give a protection which we really do not want, and which very often will simply mean the protection of the capitalists, who are so much condemned by honorable members opposite, we may be exposing to serious reprisals the Mother Country, whose interest in this respect we need to have at heart. I am not going to trespass upon the time of the House by dealing at length with other matters, such as the dengerous right under the Declaration of conversion of vessels at sea, but will deal now with the question of the establishment of an Imperial Court of Appeal. I regard what has been done recently as one of those half sincere propositions about which so much is made, but which involves so little. The Privy Council and the House of Lords have been practically manned by the same Judges for many years. They sat in different places, and were, theoretically, differently instituted. The Privy Council was nominally appointed as its committee by the Crown, and reported to the Crown ; and the Crown dealing directly with British Possessions, the Privy Council was a final Court of Appeal for them. But the Judges who sat in the House of Lords have been the same as those who sat in the Privy Council, and there has been practically no material difference between the judgments delivered by a particular Judge in one place, and those delivered in the other. What is now done is to give statutory expression to what has been the actual practice for the last few years. It is now agreed that there is to be one Court, instead of two. But, as I have said, the two were the same in substance, and, practically, the manning was the same. That is to say, the regular Judges were the same. Practically the Privy Council had the right of calling, among others, one Australian Judge to itscounsels ; though I believe he attended only once since he was appointed in 1897. In a similar manner, the House of Lords occasionally has the Chief Justice of England and the Chief Justice of Ireland sitting in the Court of Appeal. But the same class of Judges sit on both tribunalsalternately, and the business is, I think, apportioned by the Lord Chancellor. What has now been done is to declare that there is to be one Court of Appeal in two divisions for the future, and to strengthen it by the addition of two other Judges. If there is anything in the arrangement, I am glad that we have it; but I cannot see that it will help us verymuch. I think that last year we sent three appeals Home from the High Court - one appeal from the New South Wales State Court, and an appeal from an Admiralty Court. The year before there were three appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council, and one appeal onlyfrom an Australian State Court direct, and that was in Western Australia. We have been looking largely to our own tribunal - the Australian High Court. However, if honorable members think that a great stroke has been done by the establishment of this Court of Appeal, I have no desire to discount any praise that may be given for its adoption. In conclusion, all I can say isthat I hope that if there is to be a reorganization of our relations, we shall follow rather the advice given by *The Nation* and the *Quarterly Review,* than the somewhat formidable alternative suggested by the *Times.* When the question of Empire on the principle not yet fully recognised of independent growth and combined strength is considered freely, without the bias of personal ambitions, the haste, and, at times, insincerity, of Conferences called to discuss difficulties and problems that arise because something must be mooted or done, it may be found that cohesion and strength, unity in external and independence in local relations, and perfect coordination of the parts with stability of the whole, depend .less upon the creation of political machinery, complicated, coercive, and disproportionate, it may be, to the ends in view, than upon the maintenance, and without the limits of clear necessity, the modification, of the elastic system to which the Empire and its elements owe their concordance and vitality, and will again turn, without misgivings, for an assurance of continued integrity and freedom.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s3 .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE: Maranoa
-- - I did not intend to speak on the AddressinReply, because if there is one matter with which I can agree with the Melbourne *Age,* it is in the advantage to be gained by doing away with so useless a debate. After the leaders on both sides have spoken in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, all that can be said with advantage has been said, and the rest of the talk is only so much beating the air. But following the good old traditions of Parliament, I shall myself be a transgressor on this particular occasion. I wish particularly to refer to the references made by the Leader of the Opposition to industrial matters. Later on I shall deal with the caustic remarks which have been made about the loyalty of the Labour party in connexion with their omission to despatch a contingent of Australian soldiers to take part in the ceremonies connected with the Coronation of the late King Edward, and recently of King George. .1' suppose this is a free country, and, as members of a free Parliament, we have as much right to our opinion on this side as has the gallant colonel.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s4 .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- The honorable member must refer to another honorable member by the name of his constituency.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- Perhaps you, sir, will say to whom I was referring? I may have been referring to colonels on the retired list, and not to those on active service. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday afternoon tried to make great capital out of the fact that the strike in the sugar industry was commenced at a time when the cane was ripe for harvesting. Does the honorable gentleman think that we ought to tell the enemy what we propose to do? I look upon the employers as the enemy when we are fighting them in a strike. It is our wits against their wits and their money. They have the money and the work, and we have nothing but our wits and our labour. I can tell honorable members that these struggles sharpen our wits. The honorable gentleman said that the strike took place at a particular time when the cessation of work would do most damage. I can ask any one who has read history to say whether Napoleon told the enemy when and where he was going to strike. We follow the example of the great military men in these matters, and have often been successful on that account.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- So Napoleon is the ideal of the Labour party.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- I will admit that Napoleon is my ideal, and the honorable gentleman will agree that he had not many compeers in his time.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- As a military strategist, no doubt.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- I am quoting him as such, and no one knows better than does the honorable member for Parramatta, that it is on a military basis we conduct these strikes. There must be something good and grand in the Labour movement when it has .survived the vilification and misrepresentation of every newspaper in the Commonwealth, and its supporters have achieved the position they are in to-day. It is only since 1890 that the Labour party really came into existence in Australia. Our present Speaker was amongst the men who did the pick and shovel work in the movement at that time, and he knows the way in which the men engaged in it were insulted by their opponents. When the first Labour men were returned to the Queensland Legislative Assembly, their opponents declined to sit in the same room with them, and refused even to hang their hats or their coats on the same pegs. That was the treatment Labour members received in those days. We were called "gin-case orators." That makes the honorable member for Parramatta smile, but he was himself one of the gin-case orators about that time.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- I never spoke from a gin-case.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- The honorable gentleman spoke from a box at the corner of the street, and he slipped. At that time we were called " gin-case orators," " shedburners," and " bank-bursters." At that time men who now occupy important public positions, including the present Prime Minister, the present Speaker of this House, and the President of the Senate, were subjected to every possible form of vilification. They were, as I have said, then doing the pick and shovel work of the movement, and sowing the seeds that are bearing fruit to-day. In 1890 and 1891 there was a rude awakening on the part of the worker. Our opponents, including the honorable member for Fawkner, who was on a committee in Central Queensland for the Pastoralists Union, said, " Why do you men strike? Why do you go in for this lawlessness? Why do you not do as we do, and put your representatives into Parliament to fight your battles in the Legislative Assemblies of the different States, where they might redress the wrongs you say you suffer from?"
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- The organization to which the honorable member belongs has done that, and yet its members strike.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- We have done it, and we intend to do more. That is my ambition. I am never satisfied. There is no halfway house about me. I am a wholehogger. If there is anything of which I am proud in the whole of my existence, it is that I am a representative of Labour. I am not a Democrat from force of circumstances, but from conviction. Further, I have stood the test. I have been through the mill. I have been through a strike, and consequently I know what it means. My heart goes out to the men who do strike and to their wives and children. I suppose that if I said what I think of free labourers, it would be ruled out of order as unparliamentary. But I look upon the free labourer as the meanest creature on the face of the earth. He cannot compete in the open market and secure employment - as does the ordinary workman - he has to come in at the master's heel. And what do the employers do when the strike is over? They give him the royal order of the boot quick and lively. Instead of giving him the order of the boot, they ought to drown him. We accepted the advice which was tendered to us by the honorable member for Fawkner, and others, and resolved to return our own representatives to Parliament. Directly we did so those in authority altered the electoral laws so as to prevent the nomadic population of the western district of Queensland from being enrolled. They made enrolment so difficult that many men who had never seen a ship afloat could not get their names upon the roll because they had no fixed place of abode. Then that great organization of which I am so proud, and which has proved such a big factor in returning Labour members to Parliament - I refer to the Australian Workers Union - sprang into existence. I say, without fear of contradiction, that were it not for that organization, many men sitting in this Parliament, and in the State Parliaments of Australia, would not be there. The other side taught is how to organize, and we have followed in their footsteps, so that now we have become a power in the land. The attempts to " down " the Labour party remind me of the attempts which are made to suppress secret societies. When once a secret society has been established, and an effort is made to suppress it, the masses at once come together, and desire to join it with a view to getting the good things which are going. Yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition stated that if things go on as they have been going, the Commonwealth will be captured by the Labour party. It was the first occasion upon which I have seen him work himself into a fury, and he did so by raising the bogie of militant Socialism. I hope that the day has not arrived - even now that we are in possession of the Treasury benches - when our force is going to cease to be a militant one. If I thought that the Labour party was going to rest upon its political haunches contentedly, I would get out of it quick and lively. The position which we occupy today is due to the fact that the party has been a militant one. Ever since it was formed we have had to fight our way against serious odds, against capitalism in all its worst forms, against bribery and corruption. We have had to fight the press single-handed. In Queensland, the only Labour newspaper that we had was a little rag called the *Worker.* But it did its work, and it was deadly work, too. Although it was only a small journal, it set the people thinking. With what result? To-day we command a majority in both branches of the National Parliament. I venture to say that no matter how honorable members opposite- may dress their bogies, or alter the names of their political parties, the Labour party will still remain the national party - the same old party which sprang into existence in 3890 and 1891. We have no need to change its name. We have no need to address meetings of old tabbies - of disappointed and disgruntled old maids. We have right on our side. Since the inception of this great Labour party in the different States of Australia each of the other political parties has changed its name after every election. It is said that when the police wish to ram a charge home to an individual they always give him his *aliases.* Well, honorable members opposite have a lot of *aliases,* and their character politically is not too good. The honorable member for North Sydney worked himself into a terrible passion last night over the actions of **Mr. Keir** Hardie in India. He declared that **Mr. Keir** Hardie went about that country making seditious speeches. As a matter of fact, that gentleman never delivered a single speech in India, although he managed toget a lot of matter inserted in the native press. The honorable member for Grampians declared that the authorities ought to have killed him - that they ought to have crucified him. But if honorable members opposite had their way to-day every man sitting upon these benches would be crucified. They have tried to do that sort of thing before. After the 1891 strike, when it was declared that bygones were to be bygones, what happened ? The employers picked out the leaders of that particular strike, and said, " If we get rid of these fellows, who have the brains of the organization, we shall be able to work the other men quietly so that in the future things will go on swimmingly as they have done hitherto." The result was that every time a man applied for a shearing shed, before he was given employment the black list was consulted to see if his name appeared upon it. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was under consideration in this House I produced one of those black lists. Those lists contained the names of some of the most noble men that Australia has produced. Many of them were native-born Australians, and honest, hardworking men But they struck for their rights, and because they strove hard to get them, and were beaten, they were to be hounded out of existence and out of the country.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- By some employers who are called Christians.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- They profess to be Chris tians. I am pleased to say that many of the men who suffered as the result of the 189 1 strike are to-day occupying proud and honorable positions in the different States of the Commonwealth. When the honorable member for North Sydney was in the height of his oratory last evening the honorable member for Wakefield interjected something about a strike in Adelaide. He stated that the carters in that city had to obtain permits from the Trades Hall because a weak-kneed Government was in power. That Government was a weak-kneed one, I suppose, because it would not do just what he and his party wanted it to do, namely, to putthe strikers in gaol or to shoot them. We have been afforded an illustration of what militarism and military caste will do by the cables which have appeared in the newspapers during the past two or three weeks. God forbid that such a state of things should ever exist in this fair land of ours ! When the 1891 strike was in progress in Queensland **Sir Horace** Tozer said, in effect, " If you men do not return to work, and obey our laws, we will send our police andour soldiers to arrest you. We will try you by our Judges, and we will put you in our prisons." In less than twenty years what has happened? The position has been completely reversed, and we are now able to say to the other side, " If you do not obey *our* laws we will send *our* police and *our* soldiers to arrest you ; we will try you by *our* Judges, and we will put you in *our* prisons." What a wonderful change has occurred in this brief space of time! History is being made so quickly that one hardly realizes how greatly things have changed in a short time. The Leader of the Opposition said that the sugar strike was brought about just as the cane was ready for harvesting, but, as a matter of fact, the Australian Workers' Association asked for a conference with the Growers' and the Producers' Associations early in the year. **Mr. Knox,** of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, acted in a gentlemanly way about the matter. He replied that, if the employés of the company were dissatisfied, he was prepared to meet them, but that he could not treat with an outside organization. The request for a conference was made in February, so that the strikedid not occur without notice.
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- There was trouble four months before the cane cutting season.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- Yes. Notwithstanding the vilification of honorable members opposite, of manufacturers' associations, and of kindred societies, I say, " Thank God, we have a Billy Hughes." " What's the matter with Billy ? He's all right!" The other side would be only too pleased if they had a few like him in their ranks. The honorable member for North Sydney flogged the Labour party for its disloyalty in not sending a contingent to the Coronation. I have heard that you should mistrust the woman who stands at the street corner proclaiming her virtue, and should button up your pockets when a man commences to talk about his honesty. Lip loyalty may be all very well, but there are members of the Labour party who have shown their loyalty in other ways. Not one member of the party, so far as I know, has ever said anything in public or private to which the ordinary citizen could take exception. When gold rushes were common all over Australia, we heard a great deal of the lucky digger, but nothing of the unlucky ones. The honorable member for North Sydney picked a few cases out of *Hansard* to disparage the Labour party, but did not refer to the speeches which would have rebutted his statements. He went back to the first session, when many of us were new to the game of politics, and said .things that we wish now were forgotten. If I had my way, I would burn the *Hansard* record after every session. The honorable member, had he wished to be fair, would not have been content with resurrecting half-a-dozen ghosts to fit his purpose.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member for Maranoa is the only member of the Labour party who, on a certain occasion, voted for the ,£200,000 contribution to the Imperial Navy.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- That shows how free the members of the party are. No one ever tried to dragoon my vote. As for the reduction of the military Estimates by ^750,000, moved by **Mr. J.** C. Watson, it must be admitted, even by the honorable member for Parkes, that we were getting very little value for our expenditure on Defence at that time. The Department was in a chaotic state. Indeed, nothing was done to provide properly for Defence until the honorable member for Parramatta came into office. He originated a system of Defence for the Commonwealth. The honorable member for North Sydney accuses us of having stolen the Liberal programme. This is the first time that I have heard this party accused of stealing the programme of the Liberal party. On 3rd July last the honorable member for Parkes wrote a letter to the Sydney *Daily Telegraph,* in which he " flogged his own Joss." When I read his letter I smiled, and said, " The honorable member for Parkes is nothing if he is not thorough." I look upon him as one of the straightest men in this Parliament. He says what he thinks in a most fearless manner. He goes right to the kernel of the question in one up. He does not fence nor circle, but gets straight to it, and in this letter he proved his Conservatism up to the hilt. It put me in mind of the Chinese who, when they want rain, gave their rain joss an awful doing, and when they want fine weather flog their fineweather joss. The honorable member for Parkes flogged the Liberal joss in Sydney on this occasion, because he said the Liberal party were putting on the pace too much, and would overtake the Labour party if they were not careful.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member is putting his own interpretation on the letter ; he ought to read it.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- I have read it, but it is too long to read to the House.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- I found fault with the Liberal party for trying to outdo the Labour party.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- The honorable member says he is a Liberal, and he is flogging his own joss.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- I am a Liberal when they are Liberal.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- I am very pleased to hear the honorable member's explanation of the Liberal programme.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- That was not the Liberal programme. It was a Liberal organization, and I found fault with it for advocating Socialistic measures, which I thought belonged more properly to the Labour party. It was a conference, and as some unimportant persons were there, I thought I would strike the tuning fork for them.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- I am very pleased to hear it. The position is this : How can we steal these Liberal gentlemen's clothes when they have none ? The Leader of the Opposition was engaged last night in cutting a suit of clothes for them, and to-night he is going to fit them on. They do not know until to-night whether the clothes will fit or not. All these Liberal organizations are to be amalgamated. Some of them have peculiar names, but they are all to come down to bedrock, and be called the People's party - the P . P . L. - meaning, in my judgment, the " People's Political Legpullers." That is the position in a nutshell, and then they have the cheek to announce through the *Age* and the *Argus* that this is going to be a grand realization of all their aspirations. Politically speaking, there is **Mr. Watt** with his banjo and **Mr. Deakin** with his tambourine, with all the hallelujah lasses on the platform behind them. It does not matter how they organize, or what they call themselves - they are the same old crowd. As the Employers Federation told them one day last week, " Those that are not with us are against us." There are only two political camps in this country now. I do not know how the honorable member for Parramatta will get on when the carpet-baggers are done away with. He is the Ishmael in the party opposite. He is the only one among them who has no business there. I do not know how he is going to get on in the future with these Tory Conservatives and crusted Liberals. God knows where they are going to find him a place to lay his weary head ; 1 do not. Last night the honorable member for North Sydney made great capital about industry, organization, and commercialism, but it appears to me that his whole and sole thought in living is militarism. To speak the honest truth, if there is one thing more than another that I quake at and baulk at every time, it is the fact that we are rearing a military caste for which some day we may be sorry.
{: .speaker-KEV}
##### Mr Fenton:
-- We must watch it. that is all.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr PAGE:
-- We know the teachings of history. I am not one of those who say that there should be no universal training. *j* say, and have said repeatedly, that the country that gives me my living, and is worth living in, has the right to call on me to defend it. If the day should come before I " shuffle off this mortal coil," although I may not be able to take my place in the fighting and firing line, I will do my best for those who do. It hurts me when *i* hear men accuse us of being disloyal. There are in our movement to-day, particularly in Queensland, many men, and no one knows them better than yourself, **Mr. Speaker,** who have risked their lives in order to give us the constitutional government and free institutions under which we live to-day. Why vilify those men? Surely they are worthy of some consideration, even if some of the representatives in this House do not see eye to eye with them in everything. There are old men, whom we honour every year with a dinner, who kept the banner flying during the Indian Mutiny, and the majority of them are supporters of the Labour party. They are looking to us in the declining days of their lives to make the conditions better for them. Our only ambition is to see that the masses have better conditions than hitherto. If the Labour party were swept out of existence tomorrow, no one would be "game" enough to propose to wipe out the legislation which that party, with the assistance of honorable members here and in other Parliaments, have passed in that direction. We may sometimes say strong things about one another on the platform, though, as a rule I do not indulge in personalities, either within this chamber or outside, but give my political opponents the same fair and square treatment that many of them give to me. You, **Mr. Speaker,** know that amongst our political opponents in Queensland are some of our nearest and dearest friends. Under all the circumstances, I do not see why honorable members should accuse the Labour party of disloyalty. God forbid that an enemy should invade this fair country of ours; but if that came to pass, who would be the men to take up arms? The members of the Labour part)' - the rank and file outside. No matter what the red-rag Socialists may say, blood is thicker than water; and we all spring from a good old fighting stock. One honorable member, speaking yesterday of the referenda, asked why we on this side, having been beaten, did not give in. I can only say that Napoleon once asked why Wellington's forces, when they appeared to be beaten, did not retire; and, as a matter of fact, it is when Britishers are in the tightest corner that they fight the hardest. As I said before, our party is a militant party ; and when the clouds are darkest we show our fighting power. I hope that the Labour party will never cease to be militant, not only in Australia, but throughout the world.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s5 .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER: Echuca
.- I have listened with attention to the honorable member for Maranoa, and, whatever may be said as to the value or otherwise of this debate on the Address-in-Reply, it has certainly been given a value on the present occasion. The honorable member, at an early stage, gave us to understand clearly that, no matter how far the Labour party may have gone in the past, they intend to go a great deal further in the future. It is well that the country should know and understand clearly what the intentions are of both the great parties. I do not quite understand, however, the position of the honorable member for Maranoa in one particular. He rejoices in the fact that this is a free Parliament, by which I understand he means a Parliament in which every man is free to express his views and act according to his convictions and the pledges to his constituents. At a later stage of his remarks, however, although he had spoken of men being free to fight their life's battles according to their own judgment, he expressed the opinion that a free labourer is the meanest thing on earth..
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- Hear, hear 1
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I donot understand the logic of that position. If it is good to be free in Parliament, it is good for every man and woman in the community to be free. We have prided ourselves on the great measure of freedom which our Constitution has conferred on us. But a man ceases to be free, when others, who speak in the name of freedom-
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- Why not call these men by their proper name - scabs? I loathe a scab !
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- Order !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Turning to the Ad dress-in-Reply, I have first to compliment the Prime Minister on the fact that he has seen appointed to the Privy Council ; and is, therefore, entitled to the prefix of "Right Honorable." This, although I understand the honorable gentleman belongs to a Socialistic party, elevates him considerably above every other person in the ranks of that party. I have also to compliment the Prime Minister on his safe return, vigorous and able to discharge the duties of his office. It is, however, a cause of regret to me that the honorable gentleman yesterday gave us so very little information about what was done at the Imperial Conference. The country is entitled to know much more than the Prime Minister deigned to tell us ; and I feel there is justification for complaint on this score. It would, perhaps, be improper for a private member to take up the time of the House in dealing with such a subject, and with what information has filtered to us through the press regarding it. If the press has misrepresented the Prime Minister, the fact that he, yesterday, failed to put the right construction on the news, entitles us to regard what has been stated as fact. I understand that a very important deputation waited on the Prime Minister when he was in London attending the Imperial Conference, and according to a newspaper report, it represented practically£50,000,000. In other words, it was representative of the gentlemen who are contributing very largely to the great powers of development that we possess, since they provide us with the capital necessary to carry out our works. The first of the two matters regarding this deputation to which I wish to refer is that, in the course of the discussion which took place the Prime Minister chose to regard British investors as absentees. A good deal has been said as to loyalty and lip loyalty, but if we form an integral part of the British Empire, something more than lip loyalty is expected of us. We need to strengthen every tie that binds us to the different parts of the Empire; and I venture to suggest that the action of the present Government in requiring British investors to pay double rates under the Federal Land Tax Act, passed at their instance, shows that they do not recognise the true principles of loyalty. It is all very well for us to proclaim our loyalty; but if we impose additional charges upon men who are Britishers, just as we are, then, whatever we may say to the contrary, we show in effect that we are not true to them as brother Britishers.
{: .speaker-JW6}
##### Mr Cann:
-- The Federal Land Tax Act does not impose a double tax on absentee British investors in Australia.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- It imposes, at all events, a higher rate than is imposed on resident land-owners. The Prime Minister more thanonce, during the course of the interview to which I have referred, proclaimed the fact that he regarded these British investors as absentees, and that, in his opinion, they were justly entitled to pay higher rates under our progressive land tax because they did not reside in Australia. He was told that it was an abuse of the English language to describe these British investors as absentees.
{: .speaker-F4Q}
##### Mr Scullin:
-- They are absentees.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- But they are living within the Empire, and are, so to speak, really part of the Empire. If they chose to take up their residence on the Continent, or in America, I would freely admit that they had ceased to be part and parcel of the Empire ; but inasmuch as they are residents of Great Britain, and provide us with the capital necessary to carry on many of our developmental works, we are entitled to treat them as fellow Britishers. We ought to give them every advantage that should be extended to those who are prepared to render us the essential assistance which capital really means to Australia. The other point to which I desire to refer, as arising out of this deputation, relates to the statement made by the Prime Minister that there never was a time when there were fewer strikes and industrial troubles in Australia than there were then. When the right honorable gentleman was speaking yesterday, he said that strikes had not interfered with production very much.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- Quite right.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Quite wrong.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- I am simply relying upon the statement of a firm of stockbrokers in Sydney, who say that practically strikes have not interfered with production very much.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- It is true that we are passing through a period of very great prosperity, and that we have had a succession of exceptionally good years.
{: .speaker-KZA}
##### Mr West:
-- And a good Government.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- -I believe that, in these circumstances, we should have enjoyed prosperity under almost any Government; but it is undoubtedly true that there is not an investor of capital who is prepared to put the money at his command into large labour-giving concerns while strikes continue to occur so frequently, and the present industrial unrest exists. When the accuracy of the Prime Minister's statement was questioned by the deputation, he replied, " Well, I thought I knew something of Australian affairs." But what is the actual position ? I was so tickled with his statement as to there being fewer strikes in Australia at the present time than there has ever been before, that I determined to take a note of the number of strikes reported from day to day in the press. In the very issue of the newspaper in which the report of the deputation appeared, I read of a strike of ironmoulders at Perth. In its next issue - 13th July - there was a report of a strike of coal wheelers at Newcastle, and of a miners' strike at Powlett North; on the 14th a strike of glass.bevellers, and an eight-weeks' strike of colliers at Teralba. On the 15th no less than four strikes were reported, whilst on the 1 8th reports of two other strikes appeared.
{: .speaker-JW6}
##### Mr Cann:
-- Would the honorable member have them all occur together?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No; but what I do deplore is that the Prime Minister should have sought to deceive the people of Great Britain regarding an important matter of this kind. He made the statement that there never was a time when there were fewer strikes in Australia ; yet the newspapers of the day report strike after strike. Notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Parliament, from its inception, has been legislating with a view to obviating their occurrence, it is found impossible to prevent them. In connexion with the Imperial Conference there was published in the press a statement, which was denied by the Prime Minister, and that is the statement which was published at the instance of **Mr. Stead.** It appeared in an interview with the Prime Minister, in which, he used expressions of disloyalty to the Empire. I was very glad indeed to read his denial of the statement.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- Would the honorable member have been more pleased for party purposes if the statement had been true?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I am not fighting for party purposes, but for the best interests of this great country. In view of that denial of the right honorable gentleman, I regret very much indeed the statement which he made here yesterday, and that was that if Great Britain went to war it would not be a question of our navy cooperating with the British Navy, but rather a question of whether the Government and the Parliament of the day would permit our navy to co-operate with Great Britain. That is his position, and I assert that it is as much a position of disloyalty to Great Britain as was the statement published by **Mr. Stead.**
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- That, is a statement which was indorsed at the last election.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- It is tantamount to saying " We will think about the matter when the time comes."
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The Prime Minister denied the truth of **Mr. Stead's** allegation. Before it was understood that he would contradict the report, the *Labour Call* referred to the Empire in this disloyal way -
>The report of the interview with Andy Fisher just before leaving the Fog City, wherein he stated a few straightout facts *re* the Empire, has staggered the spineless boodleistic press that is at present attempting by lies and corruption to run Australia. This is how Andy puts it - " We recognise that our territory is subject to attack by England's enemy, and if we were threatened we should have to decide whether to defend ourselves, or, if we thought that the war was unjust and England's enemy in the right, we should haul down the Union Jack, hoist our own flag, and start on our own." No doubt the Labour Leader had the episode of the infamous Boer War in his mind's eye.
That is the attitude of a very considerable section of the community upon whom the Prime Minister and the party opposite depend for political support. No matter how loud they may be in their proclamations of loyalty, the fact remains that a considerable section, bolstered up by a section of the press which honorable members opposite recognise, is prepared to give utterance to these disloyal sentiments.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Probably with a circulation of 20,000.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I do not know what the circulation of this journal is, but that is the attitude which it has taken up.
{: .speaker-KFP}
##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER: WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925
-- That is not a solitary instance.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No. Only yesterday I heard a disloyal expression uttered in this chamber. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the opening Speech refer to what is being done with regard to our Naval and Military Forces -
{: type="1" start="7"}
0. Steady progress is being made in the construction of the ships for the Australian Navy.
That is satisfactory.
{: type="1" start="8"}
0. During the recess the system of universal training under the Defence Act has been successfully inaugurated, and the patriotic response by the youth of Australia to the call to prepare themselves for the defence of their country is very gratifying.
That reads well, but in his speech yesterday the honorable member for North Sydney quoted a resolution carried by 700 men, showing how utterly opposed they are to the defence policy, because, in their opinion, the forces might be used to tyrannize over Labour. I .wish to give an illustration of what is being done in another important part represented by the PostmasterGeneral, because we are entitled to know what is the attitude of those who support the Labour party outside Parliament. At a meeting of the Amalgamated Miners Association, which was held two or three days ago, the following resolution in connexion with the Lithgow strike was carried -
>That this association is appalled at and disgusted with the action of the New South Wales Ministry in sanctioning the transference of a large body of paid assassins to Lithgow for the purpose of bludgeoning the workers into submission in the cause of the capitalists ; and we repudiate any action taken by **Mr. Griffith,** as representative of this district, and call upon him to immediately show cause why he should not either resign from the Ministry or his seat as a representative of Sturt; and we further call upon the B.D.A.P.L.L. to call upon MrGriffith for his personal explanation regarding the matter.
At the instance of the present Government We committed ourselves to a measure of compulsory training which was largely in excess of any proposal made by a previous Government, yet that is the attitude of those persons outside who are supporting Ministers. They are really prepared to take up a position of antagonism to the military, because they might be used to enforce law.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- To shoot the men who cause strikes.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The military force always goes to defend the law, and goes at the instance of those who make the law.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- 'It did not do that in Portugal the other day.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- According to the position .which these men took up at their meeting, we are not to have the force which the Government state is desirable and necessary lest it might be used against them.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- That was the case of a local military force turned against the law of the land.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No, it is turned tcsupport the law of the land. Does the honorable member forget the happenings at Lithgow?
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- I am speaking of Portugal.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I am in possession of the Chair, and the honorable member has no right to speak at all.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- Order !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- That is the position taken up by those who are supporting this Government j and I fail to see how Ministers can, with any hope of success, carry out the defence scheme they claim to have inaugurated whilst those who are supporting them outside are so bitterly opposed to it. The facts which I have quoted show how deeply rooted is the aversion of these men to the policy that is considered necessary for the preservation of law and order.-
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Mr Thomas:
-- Is the honorable member in favour of sending the military to help to suppress a strike?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I am in favour of the Government enforcing law and order, and if a ' Government ceases to discharge its duty in that respect it ought to be supplanted. In reference to naval defence I wish to quote an extract from the *Pastoralists' Review* of 15th July, 1911. That journal makes a most important statement with regard to our naval affairs. The determination and desire of this Parliament were that we should have an Australian Navy manned by Australian sailors ; that, in fact, it should be essentially Australian in its characteristics. I should like to hear the explanation of the Minister of Defence in regard to the allegations made in this extract -
>As a matter of fact, from the moment of the arrival of the, new boats in Australian waters the locally enrolled men have been steadily leaving, and it now appears that of the sixtyfour men who went to Europe to bring out the boats only twenty remain. The ostensible reason given by the men for this defection is that instead of receiving the wages they expected, these are being cut down by deductions of various kinds, and an example quoted is that of a stoker petty officer, whose pay is supposed to be 6s. 6d. a day, but who only receives actually 5s ad. Another point raised is that preference is being given to Imperial naval pensioners who are being given special conditions, but, as a matter of fact, when it was found that Australians would not keep the billets, it became imperative to find others to take their places, and the only trained men available were old naval men.
The article concludes as follows : -
>In short, the attempt to man Australian menofwar with Australian men is a ghastly failure, and we should recognise it before it is too late.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- Does the honorable member know whether a reply has been made to those statements?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No, I do not. They may be satisfactorily answered, but if the facts are as reported we are faced with a bad lookout for the Australian Navy. Speaking on Tuesday on the Supply Bill I raised a question relating to cadets. I say again that it is a great mistake, indeed, to disband the existing cadets until the Government are prepared to proceed with their complete scheme. A number of lads were receiving, under the cadet system, a good and effective training. They were proud of their uniforms. To drop them and deprive them of their uniforms, as has been the case in numberless country towns, is, in my opinion, a very great mistake.
{: .speaker-F4Q}
##### Mr Scullin:
-- Was it only the uniforms of which they were proud?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- When one speaks of a soldier being proud of his uniform one means that he is proud of the part he is taking in defending his country. I also think that it would be well if the Government would take into consideration the increased cost of living in this country. There should have been a reference to the subject in the Governor- General's Speech. It is a good thing to give workmen good pay, and to increase the purchasing power of the money which they earn. Unfortunately the increased cost of living appears to be world-wide, though it is attended with greater gravity in Australia than elsewhere. This is one of the problems which we shall have to consider, and I am surprised that the Government have not intimated their intention to deal with it. I intend to quote an instance which kas come to light in connexion with contracts for the military service, and which shows the increased cost of articles which the Government have to purchase. This fact illustrates what is going on generally in the community. Every housewife in Australia knows that she cannot to-day finance her household with anything like the money that was sufficient five or *six* years agc. The extract which I desire te* bring under notice of the House is as follows : -
>The Acting Minister for Defence recently called for tenders for supplying 1,800 sets of harness for the completion of the war equipment of the existing Defence Force. Only twotenders were submitted, and in regard to these the Minister expressed astonishment on finding that the prices, on the average, were about j£a per set higher than last year's contract, and *£5* higher than English prices. He stated that every facility had been given to the tenderers, so that tradesmen in a small way of business could tender for any part of the whole requirements. The result, as above stated, was only two tenders, and the prices so upset the Minister that he has threatened to place the order in England.
What is the principal factor in the cost of every article which we consume?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- The profits of the rings.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- That is not so. The principal item in the cost of production is the cost of labour.
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- It does not average 20 per cent, over the whole range of production.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The greatest cost in everything that we consume is labour. Capital itself is the outcome of labour.
{: .speaker-F4Q}
##### Mr Scullin:
-- I am glad that the honorable member admits that.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Who would deny such a proposition? I venture to say that the subject is one which this House ought very seriously to consider. By successive strikes and incessant strife in the Labour world the cost of production has been inordinately increased, and that increase of cost is having its effect upon prices. Wages Boards and Arbitration Court decisions have increased wages. Nevertheless, the people concerned find that they are in no better position. The honorable member for Maranoa said, a few minutes ago, that it was the poor men who were striking. Such is not the case. The legislation affecting labour is in the interests of the workers who are best able to defend themselves. The working men who are enjoying increased wages are those who are affected by the decisions of various Courts; but the persons who, by reason of that legislation, are unqualified to take work in the protected trades have been placed in a much worse position. The obvious effect of this policy is to drive the condition of those workers down, and down, and down.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- They are the persons whom we wanted to benefit by the proposals made at the referenda.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-That is not so. So far from benefiting those who are unable to protect themselves, honorable mem.beres opposite are pursuing a line of action which is mar ing their condition worse than it was before. I now come to a very important question. It is : Can a union or labour-controlled Government really govern? In my view, the true functions of government are, first of all, the carrying into effect of certain legislative Acts, and then to see that those Acts of Parliament are duly given effect and observed. What do we find at the present time? We have a Labour Government in power in this Parliament, in New South Wales, and in South Australia. Is it not right and proper, upon occasions such as this, to consider some of the things which are coming to pass? I was in Adelaide at the time of the great carriers' strike there, and to my dismay I discovered that we had arrived at a stage in Australian history when a Government had ceased to govern. I say it is a sad and sorry condition of things that in any portion of our great island continent there should be a Government that has become effete. Why was it effete? For the simple reason that the men on strike were unionists, and were the back-bone and support of the Government. How could a Government supported by that section of the community enforce the law when those men placed themselves in opposition to it?
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- They did not try.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- They did not try, as the honorable member says. I had in my possession, and I wish I had it now, a copy of one of the actual permits which were issued by labour unions on that occasion, giving a man a right, while he held the permit, to do certain carting.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- Did the honorable member really lose so valuable a document?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- It can be procured if necessary. It does not matter whether it is in my possession at the present time or not; the startling fact remains that drivers in Adelaide who were the subjects of the Crown, and ought to have been free, were required to go, not to the Government of the country for a permit to earn their living, but to an outside organization that had -superseded the ordinary administrators of the government.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The Premier of' South Australia referred men to the Trades Hall for permits to work.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The statement made by the honorable member for Parkes is a most important addition to, and corroboration of, what I have said.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- It is a distinctly incorrect statement.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- It is absolutely true. He referred people to the Trades Hall.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- It is not true.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- If the honorable member for Parkes and other honorable members continue to converse across the chamber it will be impossible for the honorable member for Echuca to proceed.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- I think we ought to ask **Mr. Asquith** for a copy of the permit which Ben Tillett gave him to get food for the Army recently.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- Order ! I have just called the honorable member to order.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I desire only to state facts, and have no wish to misrepresent or malign the party opposite. 1 am taking up a strong position when I say that a labour union controlled Government cannot enforce the laws of the country, if the men responsible for their return to power are opposed to those laws.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- Suppose we admit that, what then?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- We should be in a position of anarchy when those ruling would not be representative of the people, but a section of the community controlled by Labour unions and bosses. Let me refer honorable members to some remarkable circumstances attending the strike of fruit-gatherers at Renmark. That strike affected one of our rural industries, and had very important consequences. Though the unionists said they would not gather the Renmark fruit, at the last harvest the fruit-growers succeeded in having it gathered without their assistance. I say, all honour to them. Free men proved themselves a valuable asset to the community on that occasion. The unionists were, of course, opposed to them, and sought to enforce their opinions and views in a way contrary to the law. as established in South Australia. The law was defied, and acting under instructions from his union, a driver in the employment of one of the largest carrying firms in Adelaide declined to put on his waggon some cases of Renmark fruit. For refusing to obey lawful orders the man was prosecuted and fined. Time was given him in which to pay the fine, and he was committed to gaol on refusal to pay it. So far the action taken is against my argument, because, up to that stage, the Government had succeeded in governing and in enforcing the law. But what was the position later, because we must look to the future?
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Mr Thomas:
-- " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The PostmasterGeneral interjects, " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Mr Thomas:
-- Is not that good theology ?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- It may be good theology, but it is bad politics. We have to look to the future. A **Mr. Spellman** expressed the hope that the vine-growers in the Renmark district would have their vines spoiled by unskilful pruning. That is a nice proposal to destroy the assets of the country. Now, let me show what was the attitude of the unions who are responsible for the existence of the Verran Government. I should like to ask honorable members opposite if they know what it was? It is certainly as well that they should know. It is defined in the following statement : -
>The workers are exceedingly disappointed with the Labour Government, and consider that Ministers were not adhering to true Labour principles in taking the action they did in connexion with the trouble. The fining of the driver should not be possible in any State, especially where a Labour Government has control.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- That is what they call justice.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Just so.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- The honorable member first says that the Government has no control, and then that the unionists are displeased with the Government because it has control. What in the name of heaven does he want?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I have admitted all that is' against my argument. I have said that, up to a certain point, the Government were firm, and had a man prosecuted and fined but I am dealing with the attitude of the unions, at large which was one of antagonism to the Government. The facts go to show that, with a Labourcontrolled Government,, when the unionists who are their backbone choose to take up a position of antagonism, the authorities are unable to enforce the law.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- The same thing might be said of the British Government! and they are not a Labour Government.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- As a result of the Renmark strike a very important deputation of fruit-growers waited on the Chief Secretary of South Australia. I wish to show just how weak that Government was under the circumstances. Honorable members will recollect what occurred on the occasion in question. They will remember that certain houses were fired, that a number of draught horses were poisoned, and that one man was shot. These acts were the outcome of the lawlessness which prevailed because unionists were not allowed to tyrannize over free labourers. Yet this is the attitude which the Chief Secretary of South Australia adopted towards these terrible crimes. He said -
>The Government had done its best, and he hoped that the culprit would be discovered. Until they knew who fired the shot they could not cast suspicion on any particular body of men.
There were a great many evidences as to who was the culprit in that case, but no sufficient action was taken by the Government to determine his guilt. The Chief Secretary said -
>The Government was not desirous that anything of this sort should go on. The Government could only do its best in the circumstances to meet the emergency.
Is not that a lamentably weak position for a Ministry to take up - a Ministry whose function it is to give effect to the legislation which has been enacted. I shall not pursue this matter further. I might have referred to the strike which is now in progress in the sugar industry in Queensland. How great and important its results may be it is impossible to foretell. I believe that honorable members opposite are very much divided as to what is the best thing to be done in the circumstances. But the fact! remains that a large industry which the people of this country have subsidized heavily, and which has been granted a large measure of Protection - apart from the bonus which is paid for the production of sugar grown by white labour - is suffering keenly as the result of a strike. Its effect will doubtless be a diminution in the production of sugar, and a very considerable financial loss to many persons in the community. If these things are good for the community, very well, but I maintain that they are not. I hold that the position which we have now reached is largely due to the fact that at the present time Australia is governed by a faction who have come into power on a wave which, under more sane circumstances, will recede. Indeed, it is already receding. We have evidence of that. I might quote with great satisfaction the splendid result of the recent referenda. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, honorable members upon this side of the House represent a majority of 250,000 people.
{: .speaker-JW6}
##### Mr Cann:
-- Yet we are still in possession of the Treasury benches.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- And honorable members will remain there on sufferance.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Until an outraged Democracy can get hold of them.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- There is other evidence that a great change of thought has come over the community. Only the other day, one honorable member said that a great change had come over the public mind during the past twelve months. In the Legislative Council of South Australia, the city of Adelaide has, for years past, been represented by a Labour man. But, unfortunately, the other day an opportunity arose for testing the will of that con- stituency. What was the result ? After a fiercely contested fight, the Liberal candidate was returned by a large majority.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- On a property qualification. Does the honorable member gloat over that?
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- Does the honorable member for Wakefield indorse the statement of the honorable member for Echuca ?
{: .speaker-KFP}
##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER: WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925
-- I do.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- It was only the case of a Liberal securing a Liberal seat.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- What occurred at the recent by-elections in New South Wales?
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- The honorable member admits that he was incorrect in his statement concerning the election for the Legislative Council in South Australia.
{: .speaker-KFP}
##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER: WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925
-- He was not.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Recently two important by-elections were held in New South Wales. In one case, the Liberal candidate was returned, and in the other the Labour candidate was elected. But in both constituencies the votes cast for Labour showed a marked decrease.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- That was not Labour support.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No matter what admissions honorable members opposite may make, I venture to say that they do not feel anything like so secure in their positions to-day as they did six months ago.
{: .speaker-JW6}
##### Mr Cann:
-- The honorable member's position is not very satisfactory. He was elected on a minority vote.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Before the dinner adjournment I made a statement that was slightly inaccurate. I said that a Liberal member had been returned in place of a Labour member to represent Adelaide in the Legislative Council of South Australia.. But the real facts strengthen my argument still more. At the general elections three Labour members were returned to the Legislative Council to represent Adelaide, and at a subsequent by-election, occasioned by the death of a Councillor who had been a Liberal, another Liberal was returned by a solid majority, notwithstanding a great fight put up by the Labour party. Another occurrence not calculated to cheer the hearts of Government supporters took place at Renmark recently. The hotel there is conducted on the Gothenburg system, the committee of management being elected annually by those on the Assembly rolls. Last year all .the committeemen were Labourites, but this year every one of them is a Liberal. That shows in a practical fashion the result of the Renmark strike, and how the people of the country view such disturbances. To show how impossible it is that a union or labourcontrolled Government can govern, let me bring under notice the position occupied by the Attorney-General during the Queensland sugar strike. That strike, although harmful to the capitalist, has been still more harmful to the men employed in the industry and those dependent on them. It was effected and encouraged very largely by reason of the fact that the AttorneyGeneral is also President of the Waterside Workers Union. It is well known that the unions work one with another, like so many wheels within wheels.
{: .speaker-K5D}
##### Mr King O'Malley:
-- Thank the Lord !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Yes, if you wish to bring about disaster. How is it possible for the Attorney-General to rightly hold the dual position of president of the union and administrator of the laws of the country? It is true that he said that if the unions went beyond a certain length he would have to consider his position, and he was good enough to declare that he would retain office. He is the chief law adviser of the Crown, bound by his oath to maintain and uphold the law.
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- He has done so. He has as much right to be president of an employes union as the honorable member for Fawkner has to be president of the Employers Union.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- The honorable member for Fawkner has never taken up a position antagonistic to the law, and has never been Attorney-General. A Government controlled by the labour unions - and the Australian Workers Union is the force behind the throne in this case - cannot enforce the law against the members of those unions when they are determined to defy it, as they do day after day, and year after year. The Labour party, or, to use its right name, the Socialist party, has boasted that it is united and solid.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- I wish we were, but we were not solid on the referenda.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No. that was the first evidence of disintegration, and we shall have further evidence of the same kind.
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- We have closed up our ranks since.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- When the Constitution Alteration Monopolies Bill was before the House, the honorable member for Franklin asked the honorable member for South Sydney, who was speaking, what he would do if the railway men did not accept an award of the Federal Court. To that the honorable member for South Sydney replied -
>I believe that occasions must arise when neither an Arbitration Court nor a Wages Board will give satisfaction, and I hope that the time will never come when the workers will give up their final right to strike.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- I stand by that.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Even though strikes mean the misery and humiliation of the workers, and the destruction of industries. The Premier of South Australia, when asked, What about the right to strike? said -
>There will be no right to strike recognised. When a Labour Government is in power it is just as necessary to have law and order observed as at any other time, and if a majority of the people say through Parliament that the interests of the community demand a cessation of strikes, then they must cease.
Here he was upon absolutely sound ground, but unfortunately, as his Government holds office by the favour of the unionists, if it takes a stand contrary to their demands it must go. It is impossible for a Labour Government, if it continues under the domination of the hi bour unions, to govern a country. We find that these Labour men are not a happy family. Perhaps, I should refer to them as Socialists, for I believe they have gained largely by taking a name to which they are not entitled. We, on this side, are as much " labour " men as they are. Let me refer also to the position taken up in regard to **Mr. Holman.** He asserted the same rights in regard to the New South Wales Parliament as the honorable member for Maranoa asserted today, when he claimed that this was a free Parliament. Yet that man's right to private judgment, and liberty, and freedom of thought was seriously interfered with by these individuals. He will undoubtedlybe hounded out of the ranks of the Labour party, because he is not content to be subservient to their rule. That is another illustration of the fact that it is impossible for a Government to represent a section and still uphold the laws of the land. The position occupied by the Attorney-General is a most peculiar one. I suppose there is no man in this House who would figure publicly upon the platform as more opposed to the evils of landlordism than the present Attorney-General, yet he is not only a landlord, but a landlord of the worst type.
{: .speaker-L6Z}
##### Mr Hall:
-- It is a good job for the honorable member that the AttorneyGeneral is at home sick.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I wish he was here. I did not know he was sick, and if I could discontinue this argument after having started it, I should be glad to do so. The Attorney-General is on all fours with the Minister of Home Affairs. Certainly, he does not make those absurd and stupid references to the officers of his Department that the Minister of Home Affairs does, but so far as landlordism is concerned he stands in practically the same position, except that he is rather worse. The AttorneyGeneral is a landlord, and owns a fine farm near Sydney.
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Mr Thomas:
-- He does not, now !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Then .he must have found a way of getting out of an untenable position. He leased that farm under conditions which apparently were not satisfactory to him, for he sought to eject his tenant. We must remember that he is the chief law adviser of the Crown, and is supposed to be intelligently acquainted with the operations and necessities of law, but what does he do? He attempts to enforce summary jurisdiction ; in other words, he is a democratic autocrat. If his tenant's position was not sound in law, the AttorneyGeneral should have resorted to the proper processes of law to secure his ejection. Instead of that he went with a force of relatives and friends and sought to put the man off by force. He did not succeed on the first occasion, but he went again with reinforcements and succeeded in forcibly putting that man upon the public road. My honorable friends may laugh, but I do not think it strengthens their position in the country. The tenant felt aggrieved, and took action against the AttorneyGeneral in the Courts, gaining a verdict for £250 damages and costs. The Attorney-General, who is supposed to have some knowledge of law and ought to know what law costs, was not satisfied.
{: .speaker-L6Z}
##### Mr Hall:
-- He is now !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I hope he is not only satisfied but happy, because he appealed to the Full Court, which unanimously upheld the finding of the lower Court. The result of that case does not say much for the knowledge of law possessed by the AttorneyGeneral, upon whomI apprehend the Prime Minister has to depend for legal instruction and guidance. I am sorry the Ministerial benches are almost empty, and should be very glad if the Minister of Trade and Customs could be induced to enter the chamber to hear what I am about to say. Shortly before His Excellency the State Governor, **Sir Thomas** Gibson Carmichael, left Victoria he paid an official visit to the Denton Hat Mills. He was received by **Mr. Beazley,** the Chairman of Directors of that extensive company, who in the course of his remarks said -
>Owing to inability to obtain the requisite labour, trade which ought to be done here was being forced into foreign channels.
A statement of this kind, coming from a man connected with one of the large industries of the Commonwealth, is most important. It shows that the want of labour is preventing the development of an industry which might be more profitably conducted in the interests of the community generally, as well as of the shareholders. In the same newspaper there is a speech by **Mr. Swinburne,** which I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister of Trade and Customs, who disapproves of anything in the form of destructive monopolies. **Mr. Swinburne** is thus reported - " Preference to unionists means unionist monopoly," said **Mr. Swinburne,** M.L.A., last evening at a largely attended referendum meeting at the Kev Recreation Hall. He pointed out that the proposals of the Labour party embodied the purpose of preference to unionists, which woulddo away with the common rule laid down by the Wages Boards. What unionist monopoly meant might be gathered from recent events. There was here a union of employés in the making of felt hats.It had within its ranks every man working in the industry, and forbade chances of employment to non-unionists. A few months ago a number of hatters came from England. They had clearances from the organization to which they belonged in England, but they were kept nut of the union here. That union wanted employment to be restricted to its existing members. However, as the result of exposure, and in shame and sheer disgrace, the union ultimately admitted the men from England, but laid it down that in future men should not be admitted until they had resided in Victoria for several months, and had paid an entrance fee of £20. **Mr. Tudor** (the Minister of Customs) was a member of that union.
The honorable member for Yarra, as I have said, is against anything in the form of destructive monopolies, and yet he is a member of a union which prohibits others joining ; and I say that that is a most invidious position, such as no Minister of the Crown ought to occupy.
{: .speaker-L6Z}
##### Mr Hall:
-- How much does the honorable member think it costs to join the lawyers' union?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- This is a case which ought to be judged on its own merits ; and I contend that it is not a tenable position for a member of this House to express his opposition to combinations restrictive of trade, and yet to belong to a union with rules and conditions having the effect of preventing men from joining it, and of providing that none but unionists shall be employed. At the same time, as I have already pointed out, an industry is being stifled owing to the absence of necessary labour. A case of this kind must appeal to the commonsense of the community. I am assuming, of course, that the statements I have read are true, inasmuch as they have never been challenged ; but if they are not true, the Minister of Trade and Customs will have an opportunity to lay the facts before us.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- Where did that report appear ?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- In an issue of the
*Argus,* in April, of this year, and it is a speech made by **Mr. Swinburne.** Honorable members opposite may say what they like as to their general desire for an increased population; but, as a matter of fact, every time a practical suggestion is made to that end they are against it. I was astounded yesterday afternoon to hear the Prime Minister say that the present Government were responsible for filling the ships with the emigrants now on their way to this country. That is a claim which cannot for one moment be substantiated, seeing that everything done to promote immigration has been done by the State Governments - and that no practical step has been taken by the Federal Labour party to introduce the labour necessary for this country.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- The honorable member was the one man who said in this House that nine immigrants could not get employment in the country, and who asked this Parliament to give them tucker!
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- That is not correct. There is not an industry in the land today that is not suffering from a dearth of labour. It is impossible for practical farmers to get the men they require, and there is not the grain production there ought to be. In the case of manufacturing industries, people are afraid to venture on new undertakings, owing to the lack of labour.
{: .speaker-K5D}
##### Mr King O'Malley:
-- It shows how the
Labour party have generated prosperity !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- And when the general prosperity ceases there will be a slump, and, I am afraid, a crying for bread in the streets.
{: .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr Fisher:
-- That will be when the honorable member's party are in office again !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- No doubt the Prime Minister is content to hold the reins of office in a time of prosperity, and leave the conduct of affairs to others when the change comes. Now let me read the following statement of facts in regard to the Victorian Labour Bureau -
>An advertisement was inserted by the bureau stating that carpenters were required. The bureau had on its books the names of several contractors who wanted men, and who were offering is. 5½d. per hour, or11s. 8d. per day, for a working week of 44 hours. Thirty-one carpenters answered the advertisement, and applied personally at the bureau. No fewer than 17 of them refused the work that was offering, two were unsuitable, and 12 were engaged, one contractor securing nine men, a second one, and a third two. The 17 refusals were on the following grounds : - Two said the work was too far from their homes; one said it was too high a building ; one said he was already in employment, and thought the job was under the Government ; one said that he could get work much nearer home; two considered the jobs unsuitable; one did not like the district; one did not want that kind of work; three, when they heard while waiting where the work was, went away and refused work because it was in the suburbs. The contractor on whose behalf nine men were engaged subsequently reported that one of the men did not report himself; that he would not allow two to start; and that two others would not have been retained had it not been for the urgency of the. work. Out of the batch of nine he had secured four men with whom he was satisfied.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- That is a healthy sign !
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- It is a sign that there is not a sufficiency of labour to carry on the work of the country.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr Mathews:
-- Would the honorable member like to see numbers of men out of work begging for jobs ?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Every man who comes to this country is not only a competitor for work, but a consumer of the result of the work of others ; and the general prosperity of the country is best served by filling it with people. So far as female employment is concerned, it is a serious consideration that it is not possible now, in our homes, to get that assistance which is necessary to maintain the proper conditions and' relationships in domestic life.
{: .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr Fisher:
-- Are there not 12, 000 more women than men in Victoria?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I am no advocate for sweating. I believe in the workers receiving the best payment that we can possibly give them. That is only a fair proposition, which every right-thinking person must indorse. But the Little Australian policy, which would exclude every one from Australia on the ground that we had a good thing for ourselves, and ought to stick to it, must be conducive to our ultimate failure. If we are to retain our White Australia policy, it is absolutely necessary that we should fill the Commonwealth with white people. Ruin must stare us in the face unless we make strenuous efforts to do so. I adjure the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps, in defiance of his party, if he wishes to secure the confidence of the people.
Mr.Joseph Cook. - What ! Defyhis party? Does the honorable member wish the Prime Minister to lose his job?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Let him come over and lead us. Concerning the question of good wages, I wish to refer to a matter which recently occupied the attention of **Mr. Justice** Higgins at the sittings of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court in Sydney. The question before the Court related to the wages paid to shearers' cooks.
{: .speaker-L6Z}
##### Mr Hall:
-- The case is still under consideration. Does the honorable member think it fair to refer to it?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I intend to refer, not to its legal aspects, but to certain facts. I wish only to point out that a shearers' cook gave evidence in the Court that his weekly earnings were£7. That is very good pay.
Mr.Joseph Cook. - What ! £7 per week for a cook?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Yes. I will read the evidence. The report before me states that-
>Arthur Judge, shearers' cook, said that at one station he earned ^35 for five weeks and four days' work-
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- Order ! I think the honorable member is now going beyond a fair discussion of the matter.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Although he is discussing a speech in which reference is made to an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Aci?
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- Whilst I wish to allow the greatest latitude possible, the case to which the honorable member was referring when I interrupted him is still before the Court, and if honorable members were permitted to discuss it, an attempt might be made later on to discuss some case of far greater importance whilst it was still *sub judice.* I can only say that if 1 permitted this to be done, evil results would ultimately follow. I do not wish to prevent the honorable member referring to the matter-
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- There is no standing order against his doing so.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### Mr SPEAKER:
-- I merely mention the position to the honorable member, and, whilst I shall certainly allow him fair latitude, T think that he ought to refer as little as possible to a case that is now before the Court.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I defer, sir, to your ruling ; but I should like to point out that the date of the newspaper from which I was quoting is 17th June, 1911. The only point that I wish to make is that the cook to whom I was referring justified his claim for an increase of wages on the ground that shearers, who work eight hours a day, earn as much as *£2* per day. This goes to show that the position is not altogether unsatisfactory from the workers' point of view. I certainly do not grudge them their pay. So far as the shearers are concerned. I think that they are entitled to more than ordinary consideration, since they have to travel from one station to another.
{: .speaker-KZG}
##### Mr Roberts:
-- And they are shortening their lives by the work they are doing. What is the honorable member complaining about ?
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- I am not complaining. I am simply putting before the House the statement, which ought to be advertised in the Old Country, that men employed as shearers' cooks receive as much as *j£j* per week, and that expert shearers can earn as much as *£2* per day. There is only one other matter to which I desire to allude. I have before me a copy of a series of resolutions adopted by the South Australian Post arid Telegraph Association, and presented in due form to the Postmaster: General on the 17 th February last. One phase of these resolutions has already been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition ; but I wish to deal with *a* totally different aspect. Most honorable members opposite who support the Government are Socialistic. They believe in bringing every industry under the operation of the Crown ; they believe that all monopolies and, indeed, all the means of production, should be brought under the State.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Their desire is that the community should be one huge civil service.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- That is so. I wish to put this view for their serious consideration : Is it not a fact that, in regard to every public Department, both State and Federal, there is the utmost dissatisfaction on the part of the people? Is it not a fact that the results anticipated are not produced ? If one has business at the Lands Office one has to wait sometimes for months to obtain information which, if the Department were under private control, would be forthcoming in a week. All sorts of disabilities adversely affecting the interests of the people also exist in connexion with the Postmaster-General's Department. Things which ought to be done rapidly are left un. done. Untenable positions are taken up: Yet the public are powerless to obtain redress j and even members of Parliament, although using all the influence that they are able to bring to bear, find it impossible to do so. That being so, seeing that in connexion with all public Departments, State and Federal, there is great dissatisfaction, and a condition of things which is not of the best, should we be justified in enlarging the Government's sphere of opera' tions, and giving them control of all industries? My honorable friends opposite will say that, although that might not be in the interests of the public, it would; nevertheless, be in the interests of those to be employed. Every member of Parliament knows, however, that every Public Department is reeking with dissatisfaction.
{: .speaker-KYV}
##### Mr Riley:
-- I do not.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr PALMER:
-- Then let me enlighten the honorable member by reading the resolutions adopted by the large section of Go- vernment employés to whom I have referred, and presented by them to the PostmasterGeneral. The first resolution reads -
>That drastic action he taken to secure for the postmasters some recompense for being, under the classification of 1904, robbed of the allowances which, under the State, were officially declared to be part of their salary ; also to secure payment of the increments due under State law and withheld under the same scheme.
That is pretty strong. It goes to show what the honorable member for South Sydney professes not to know - that there is dissatisfaction in the Public Service. This pamphlet, it should be noted, was issued in July last. The second resolution reads -
>That, in the matter of promotion and transfer, the notoriously unfair treatment of telegraphists in South Australia, as compared with clerks in other branches of the Department, ami
Also as compared with their fellow telegraphists in the Eastern States, be strongly resented, anil a demand be made that they be put on an equal footing with the clerks and telegraphists referred to.
I venture to say that you can go through any of the Departments under the control of the Government, and find evidences of great dissatisfaction on the part of the employes. If under Government control the administration of the existing Departments is unsatisfactory to the public on the one hand, and mast unsatisfactory to the employes on the other, wherein lies the strength of the argument of my honorable friends opposite who would bring every industry in the land under Government control? There is a condition of chaos existing, and when my honorable friends reach the Eldorado which they are seeking they will realize the weakness of their position. I have occupied the attention of the House for considerably over an hour. I have submitted some facts which I venture to say are pregnant with truth. I leave them to the consideration of the House and of the people, so far as they are pleased to read my speech. I believe that ultimately their common sense will assert itself, and that those who are going in for wild-cat schemes, and indulging in visionary hopes, are bound to fail.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s6 .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS: Melbourne Ports
.- I feel certain that after the scathing remarks of the honorable member for Echuca, Ministers and their supporters must be shaking in their knees. He took the Ministry and also the party to book for much of the legislation which has been placed on the statute-book - for what they have not done, and for what they should have done. At the beginning of his address he objected to the Labour Government taxing absentees more than the citizens of Australia. I feel certain that ninety-nine and a half per cent, of its people will admit that it is quite justifiable to charge persons in other lands, who derive large fortunes from Australia, for its defence, seeing that they can give only money, not their blood, if war should take place.
{: .speaker-JMG}
##### Mr Atkinson:
-- Most of them are not getting large fortunes; they are not getting interest on their money.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Of course, I expected that the absentees would find plenty of defenders among the Opposition; in fact, it is part of the duty of honorable members on that side to represent the absentees from Australia.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- The Prime Minister assured them in London that no vested interest would be attacked.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The question narrows itself down to this, whether it was right or wrong to make the men who get large profits from Australia pay for its defence in money when they do not contribute in any other way. I consider that we were justified in doing what we did.
{: .speaker-KFP}
##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER: WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925
-- What about the losses ?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Talk about the losses, why money is coming to Australia in spite of a Labour Government being in power, just as fast as ever it did in the past.
{: .speaker-JMG}
##### Mr Atkinson:
-- And it is being withdrawn fast, too.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- While those who represent the absentees here may try to make it appear that they are not getting large dividends from their investments, it is well known that they are doing so, and are willing to make more investments in Australia, in spite of its Labour Government, and the high wages paid to workers, as they describe them. Much has been said here about loyalty to Great Britain. The honorable member for Echuca is one of those who feel strongly that they are loyalists in every sense of the word.
{: .speaker-KXP}
##### Mr Palmer:
-- I did not say so.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Not content with claiming to be a loyalist himself, the honorable member wished to parade his loyalty by endeavouring to cast reflections on the loyalty of others. Not alone, but in common with honorable members on his side, he endeavoured to make out that those on this side are so disloyal that they would throw over the Old Country at any time it suited them. In spite of the fact that it may not be popular to say so, I do not believe that there is anything commendable in saying, " My country, right or wrong." I do not think that that is a fair stand for any man to take. If you were to carry out that idea to its natural conclusion, it would mean that you would have to commit perjury, because, if it is to be your country, right or wrong, it must be your home, right or wrong; and, irrespective of any injury which you may do to others, you must take a stand and swear that it is in the right. I am one of those who will not believe that that is a proper attitude to take. Then, again, honorable members on the other side talk of loyalty to the Old Country, if we differ in any sense from British legislation, in the making of which we have not a word. I, as the representative of a division in Australia, claim the right to criticise the action of the British Government in just the same way as a member of the British Parliament criticises them.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- Who is disputing that?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The Opposition ; because every dissentient note which is uttered by anybody in Australia against the action of the British Government is called disloyalty. We hear so much of this talk from honorable members on the other side, that one would almost think that they represented the British Crown, instead of their constituencies in Australia. I do not want to parade my loyalty. I was reared in just as loyal surroundings as was any man in this House, and have preserved my loyalty; but when I hear honorable members laughing and jubilating over the fact that a spook-raiser in England charged the Prime Minister of Australia with being disloyal - and they believed it - I must enter a strong protest. There was only one Conservative paper in Australia which did not jubilate over the accusation - it had too much sense to do so - and that was the *Age.*
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- The *Worker* said that he was quite right.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Why do we hear so much about this disloyalty? As a citizen of a Dominion in the British Empire, I say - and you can charge me with disloyalty if you like - that if the British Government were to enter upon another opium war with China, I would not side with them, and I dare any honorable member in this chamber to say that he would.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member is giving the whole case away he is discriminating.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I should like to know whether any honorable member in this House would not reserve to himself the right to criticise - and criticise severely - a war of that character. If he would not, he would be something short of humane. When a man feels inclined to criticise any action of the British Government, it is to make a play of the word " loyalty " to charge him with being disloyal. We have heard a great deal about strikes. The honorable member for Echuca has been trying to show that if the ideals of Socialism entertained by some of us were carried into effect the turmoil and strife that are sometimes witnessed in the industrial world today would be imported into the Public Service. The honorable member says that there has been dissatisfaction in the Public Service. Of course. I do not blame those men who were dissatisfied. The honorable member should bear in mind that what has caused all the trouble is the fact that Governments in the past have starved the Public Service. It was not a Labour Government that did that.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- The Labour party kept the previous Governments in office.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- My honorable friend now has sitting with him the members of those Governments, or as many of them as areleft; and I trust that he will be able to handle them better than we did. The honorable member for Echuca referred to the enormous number of strikes in connexion with private employment, and contended that there would be more if the whole of the industries and utilities affected were carried on under a state of Socialism. After arguing that the Prime Minister was in error in saying that there were fewer strikes in Australia now than ever there were, the honorable member enumerated a list of strikes which have occurred, and then compared them with the trouble which has existed in the Public Service. He knows very well that it is the right of man to be dissatisfied with his position, and to strive to improve it if he can. No one can fairly find fault with any one who does so. My honorable friends opposite always charge the wage-earner with being responsible for strikes. They never attribute any of the responsibility to those whom they themselves represent here - the employing section of the community, those who have vested interests, and whose methods often bring about the strikes that occur. Honorable members opposite lament the fact that to-day the military cannot be called out by a Capitalistic Government to shoot down people. They say that we are jubilant because such a thing cannot now take place. Let me say that if a Labour Government were to call out troops to shoot down men who often cause strikes, namely, the Capitalistic class, such action would not be a bit more condemnable than was the conduct of Capitalist Governments in the past, when they called out troops to shoot down the workers. But what is good for the workers evidently is not good for the Capitalistic section of the community, who are wild because they have lost the power they once had. We quite understand, however, that when every man in the community is trained to the use of arms, there is not so much possibility of calling out soldiers to shoot people down as there was in the past.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Men have been shot down in countries where every man is trained to arms.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- When every one is trained, every one recognises that if he takes part in shooting down his fellow men he may himself be placed in a position of being shot down on another occasion. Consequently, any Government would think twice, under these circumstances, before they called out one section of the workers to shoot down another. Even in European countries, Governments may find a difficulty in future in calling out their troops to shoot down other men belonging to the same class.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- The troops were called out for that purpose in France the other day.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I know that.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- And we have never had any troops called out to shoot down people j never at any time, as the honorable member is well aware.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member for Kooyong, like myself, is a Victorian, and he remembers the trouble that occurred in 1890 as- well as I do.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- Very well indeed, and that is my distinct recollection of what occurred.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member recollects the charge against a man who died lately. I do not wish to revive old sores, but I do know that, in the position that I filled at one time in the Labour movement, I was well acquainted with the fact that we were preparing for an occasion when members of the Military Service would resist the troops who were brought out at that time to keep the workers in order.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- Should they not be kept in order?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Disorder was caused by the Government of the day, and it behoves all Governments--
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- Does the honorable member believe in law and order?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Of course I believe in law and order j but I do not believe in the kind of law and order that is supposed fo be enforced in Lithgow to-day, where the man Hoskins is goading men to resistance so that he can call for the military to shoot them down. It is he who is bringing about disorder where there ought to be law and order, as honorable members opposite know very well.
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member must be hard up for something to say.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- We experienced in the past the fear of certain things that might be done, but which cannot be done now. Members of the Opposition do not like the change. They are ready enough with their condemnation when they think the wage-earners are to blame, but when they know that the other side is equally, if not more, to blame, we do not find them so ready to condemn. Since this Parliament met last year, our party have endeavoured to carry into effect that which was promised on the hustings at the last election, namely, that we would endeavour to alter the Constitution in order to bring about a proper system whereby the workers of Australia could appeal to the Courts and get satisfaction of their claims, instead of resorting to the old method of strikes ; and also whereby trusts and combines, such as exist in connexion with many utilities in Australia to-day, might be controlled. I admit candidly that I was hurt when I saw the result of the referenda on the 27th April .
{: .speaker-JMG}
##### Mr Atkinson:
-- The honorable member is the first of his party to admit that he was hurt.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I know this much, however, that our defeat was not obtained by measures that are commendable. Of course, the Opposition in this Parliament did their best as an Opposition, but there were other factors that brought about the defeat which ought to be condemned. I admit at once that there was a split in our party. The so-called Labour Government in New South Wales did more to injure-
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- "So-called"? Hear, hear ! Well done !
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The so-called Labour Government in New South Wales did more to injure the Labour movement, and bring about our defeat, than any other factor in the whole campaign, bar one. I am content to leave those gentlemen in New South Wales to their electors, who, I feel certain, will deal very effectively with them in the near future. The second factor was that champion amongst gutter journals, the *Age* newspaper. What were the methods adopted by those in charge of that newspaper to defeat the referenda campaign? Twelve months ago, when the Bills providing for the taking of the referenda were under consideration in this House the *Age* jeered and laughed at the efforts of the Opposition in opposing them. But, blowing hot one day and cold the next, before the session was finished it was trimming its sails for the right-about-face that took place afterwards. This newspaper controlled by, I suppose, the ablest journalists in Australia, prostituted itself for a passing gain, and in order to defeat the Labour party. It was conducted in such :i way as to reflect discredit upon those controlling it, and, I believe, to bring about, before very long, what they will thoroughly deserve, namely, the lowering of the circulation of the newspaper by about 75 per cent.
{: .speaker-KFP}
##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER: WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925
-- That will take a long time.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- We shall see. lt needs only a new newspaper to secure the subscribers and the advertisers will follow. I agree that a newspaper may be justified in very severe criticism of a political party. The *Argus* has criticised us severely. It has upbraided the Labour party and ridiculed our policy, but it has, at least, been consistent. The other journal to which I refer, which with its wide circulation should be a source of, great good to the people of Victoria and Australia generally, for some passing whim or anticipated gain, turned completely round and circulated throughout this State articles supporting contentions entirely opposed to those 'which it had submitted a few months previously. It is to this I attribute, in a large measure, the defeat of the referenda proposals, assisted by the money subscribed to the Liberal party by the monopolists of Australia.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Things have changed since the Attorney-General said that he turned to the *Age* like the needle to the pole.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member for Parramatta has always jeered at me on the ground that I am here by the assistance of the *Age* newspaper. I never received the assistance of the *Age* at any time. I admit that during the last election my speeches were reported in its columns, though that was not done before, but the *Age* never asked any one to vote for me, and had nothing to do with my return to this Parliament.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Perhaps that is the sore point.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Not at all. I represent constituents who do things in spite of the *Age* newspaper. It could not turn any votes in my constituency during the referenda campaign. The Labour proposals were carried there by a majority of two and a half to one. It is clear, therefore, that the *Age* exercises very little influence in my electorate when it plays the game fairly, and none at all when it acts crookedly as it did in the referenda campaign. I have no objection to severe criticism such as we get from the *Argus,* which is an avowed Conservative journal. But I do protest when I find the *Age,* which pretends to be Liberal, and the leader of Liberal thought in the community in an effort to put down the only Liberal party in Australia to-day, namely, the Labour party, resorting to methods that reflect no credit on those responsible for it.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member is digging his own grave.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I do not think that the honorable member for Parkes would care very much if I were. Let me give an example of the methods adopted by the *Age.* After giving every assistance to the Labour party when the referenda proposals were under consideration in this House the *Age,* as I have said, turned completely round, and we then found that side by side with brilliant articles by some of the ablest press writers in Australia there would be a column headed in black letters> " The Fisher Jaunt." When **Mr. Murray** departed for the Coronation there were no reflections passed upon him.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- How many people did **Mr. Murray** take with him?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-I am not to be drawn aside in that way, but I will say that had honorable members opposite been in power they would have found it necessary to take with them the officers who attended the members of the present Government.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- No.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I have said that, alongside an ably written article, there would be an article headed " The Fisher Jaunt." You, sir, know the Prime Minister better than I do, and he had associated with him on his visit to the Old Country the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of Defence. It is difficult to imagine any three men less likely to go on a jaunt. A good dinner would be lost on all three. Yet the *Age* newspaper published articles suggesting that these men were going on a jaunt to Europe merely for their own enjoyment, while the fact that Ministers were going to attend the Imperial Conference was purposely concealed. It would be asserted that they were going to attend the Coronation to disport themselves in knee breeches and cocked hats, and to show off their beauty to the people of Great Britain. The *Age* writers charged Ministers with leaving Australia before it was necessary to attend the Coronation, and had not the manliness to explain that it was necessary that they should leave early to attend the Imperial Conference which preceded the Coronation festivities. It was no doubt felt that during the referenda campaign people who would be prepared to vote for the Labour proposals might be prevented from doing so by the publication of unfair statements suggesting that Ministers were going to the Old Country on a jaunt instead of to attend the Imperial Conference.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Does the honorable member really think that such tactics would induce the electors to vote against the referenda proposals ?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member knows just as much as I do about the tricks to which newspapers will resort. After an interval of a few days the same journal published another article which was headed in big letters, " The Labour Government's policy.£82,000,000 in defence."
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-£82,000,000?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Yes, that is how the *Age* newspaper paraded the matter. Had it been truthful it would have pointed out that that expenditure did not represent the Labour Government's policy in reference to defence, but the complete scheme suggested by Admiral Henderson. However, any stick was good enough to beat the Labour party with at the referenda. The *Age* knew perfectly well that the Conservative element was not opposed to the expenditure of money upon defence, but it was also aware that£82,000,000 would be regarded by the Democrats of Victoria as an enormous sum for a Labour Government to spend in that way. These were the electors which that journal persuaded to vote against the Ministerial proposals in many of the constituencies. We all know that a newspaper which day after day hammers at one phase of a question must exert more influence with its readers than any speaker - no matter how able he may be - can do during the course of a campaign.
{: .speaker-L0I}
##### Mr Ryrie:
-- Nothing unfair ever appears in the columns of the *Worker?*
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member, I may say without any disrespect, is new to this House, and I do not think that he understands the position which is occupied by the *Age* newspaper. These were big questions. But that journal was not satisfied to deal with big questions - it resorted to petty, contemptible methods to induce the electors to vote against the referenda proposals. For instance, it harped continually upon the waste of public money which was involved in the visit of a parliamentary party to Papua. That visit was the outcome of a belief in this House that honorable members ought to be possessed of more knowledge of Papuan affairs than they were. Consequently, the Minister of External Affairs stated that he would give them an opportunity of visiting that dependency. When the project was first mooted there were fifty members of this Parliament who were willing to undertake the trip. Of course, we all know that any honorable member, if he feels so inclined, can visit any portion of Australia at any time, and have his fare paid by the Commonwealth. But the idea underlying the trip to Papua was that during the recent recess honorable members should be afforded an opportunity of gaining a fuller knowledge of that Territory than they previously possessed. Only four days before polling-day the *Age* published an article upbraiding those who were about to visit Papua, . and. declaring that the trip was a form of political corruption. The very next day the Leader of the Opposition walked 'into the" Department of External Affairs and withdrew his name from the list of those who intended tei make it. 1 wonder if he thought that the visit was a form of political corruption. I do not think that he did. But so strong was the *Age* article that the party which visited Papua did not include a single member of the Opposition. They were afraid of the *Age.* The idea of a newspaper with such a large circulation as that journal enjoys, lowering itself to score a point during the referenda campaign by charging the Ministry with corruption merely because they had made arrangements by which honorable members might visit Papua to obtain first-hand information about that dependency !
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- What would the honorable member do with that terrible journal ?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member will make me believe presently that he has' been whitewashed. The *Age* has swallowed a lot during its career, and it may even swallow the honorable member, but it will require a good many digestive pills to enable, it to accomplish the feat.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- What gave the members of the Opposition the blue funk?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I think it was the *Age* which did it. It endeavoured to frighten the members of the Labour party from taking the trip, but it was unsuccessful. I might mention many other articles which were published in that journal with a view to persuading the electors to vote against the referenda proposals. It painted the Government in such terrible colours that it achieved its object. It was this sort of tactics, combined with the large amount of money which was expended by the Liberal leagues, that resulted in the defeat of the Government proposals. In Victoria alone the Liberal League must have spent £60,000 or £70,000. I have heard, too, that in New South Wales men in high positions had £750 placed to their credit to cover their expenses during that campaign. I know that in my own electorate money flowed very freely, and that money did not come from members of the Opposition.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- I never saw any of it.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I am satisfied that nothing less than £50,000 paid the expenses incurred by the Liberal League in Victoria.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- Now the honorable member is coming down in his estimate. The Attorney-General said that the expenditure was £250,000.
{: .speaker-KZA}
##### Mr West:
-- It was £100,000 in New South Wales alone.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I admitted at the outset of my remarks that I felt very sore over the defeat of the referenda proposals. Recent events have shown the power of monopolies, like the sugar monopoly, and when a vote is taken again, the people will not allow themselves to be led away by arguments like those which appeared in the *Age.* We had not the means of educating our people sufficiently, and could not successfully combat the influence of that journal. We were told that if we had ' asked merely for the power to restrain monopolies, we should have got it. But, however much the legislative powers were mixed together, the power to nationalize was submitted separately. Nationalization ' is the only effective way of dealing with monopolies, and at the present time the *Age* is trying, ineffectively, to prove that the Government should start a national sugar refinery to put an end to the sugar monopoly. Although they were against us when we asked for power to deal with trusts, they say now that legislation of a drastic character is necessary to break up the Sugar Combine. In support ot their contention that the Government could establish a sugar refinery, they quote an American decision which was accepted by Justices Isaacs and Higgins in the Harvester Excise case, but overruled by the majority of the High Court. Of course, the only object of the *Age* is to' make the people believe that the Labour party could do something which it does not want to do. . The *Age* has also published a series of articles upon the laziness of honorable members. No doubt, they really attack the Opposition; but do not care to do so openly. In the last article, they spoke of the poor tired members of this House starting work after nine months of luxurious ease, and referred to the Ministers as if they had done nothing during the recess. I know that flesh and blood could not have done more than the Ministers did during the recess, and that a Labour member is more fully employed when the House is not sitting than when it is sitting. The *Age* writers know it, too. While the Opposition members can afford to treat their constituents with contempt, we cannot do so, and we do not wish to do so. Articles such as I refer to will eventually bring the *Age* into contempt, and have already greatly reduced its influence.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- Does not the honorable member know the cure?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The establishment of a. Labour newspaper.
{: .speaker-KXO}
##### Mr Page:
-- The removal of the Parliament to the Federal Capital.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member is mistaken if he thinks that I am in a hurry to get to Canberra. The *Age* is threatening the members of this House with terrible punishment if they do not carry out its demands for the revision of the Tariff. I represent what I believe to be the largest manufacturing electorate in Australia. I have been almost a prohibitionist, and would keep out of the country every article that could be manufactured in it ; but until we are able to protect the men who sent me here, I shall' not vote for any further protection to the manufacturers. During the referenda campaign, the *Age* said that the workers already enjoy new Protection. I deny it. It declared that new Protection was given by means of the Victorian Wages Boards and similar tribunals in other States. I deny that the Wages Boards, as they exist, give Protection to the workers in anything like the same sense that the manufacturers are protected by the Customs duties. When, at the end of last year, the Victorian Council and the Assembly were fighting over the appointment of Wages Boards for certain trades, the *Age* warned the former that by refusing to appoint such Boards it was playing into the hands of the Labour party. The Council, nevertheless, persisted. We have many callings in which the wages and conditions of labour are not affected in any way by legislation. Yet they say that we have the new Protection ; they write articles, and get the manufacturers to clamour for more Protection. The honorable member for Echuca quoted what was said about the dearth of hatters. Another hat manufacturer, not' connected with the Denton Hat Mills, stated, in replying to a toast, that more Protection was wanted' in Australia on hats, as the importations were enormous, and finished up by saying, " And we cannot get workmen enough to perform the work we have now." These gentlemen, while they clamour for more Protection, want to import more workers to perform the work they have now. It must mean one of two things. Do they want workers brought here in larger numbers, to bring down the wages of those who are here already? If their trade Kas gone off for the want of more Protection, why do they clamour for more workers to do it? We hear the manufacturers of Australia say that they cannot get workmen, and yet in all the strikes, such as those mentioned by the honorable member for Echuca, they say they can get black-legs enough to fill the vacancies twice over. They can never get labour in the ordinary market, but when there are thousands of men out of work, apparently, they can get all the labour they want from the black scum of Australia. They ought to be consistent in their statements, or keep silent.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- They do not make hats by black labour here, do they?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I mean the black "scabs" - those individuals to whom you have to apply zambuk. No man can say that the present Minister of Trade and Customs is not a Protectionist of the highest order. He is just as greedy" as myself for Protection. In his Ministerial capacity he told the manufacturers who were asking for more Protection, " If you fill in a form to show that your industry needs more Protection. I am willing to give it to you."
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- When the late Government were in office, and the honorable member for Yarra was clamouring for Protection for those 145 articles, he did not make that condition.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I am talking about the present position. The manufacturers object to filling in the form, and they will not say what they object to. The honorable member for Parramatta knows that when the last Tariff was before this House T fought for as high duties as I could get. I worked night and day for Protection, and no one in this House will doubt that, in spite of the *Age* newspaper. If the manufacturers of Australia are really in earnest in their demand for more Protection, there is nothing in the form put before them that can do them any injury.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The. Minister wants them to s.h.ow their profits.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Exactly ; andI know the honorable member would do the same, if he were asked to give more Protection. The greatest contention put forward is that, because higher wages are paid in Australia than in other places, it is necessary to impose high duties as a compensation. But the peculiarity, and I speak as a Protectionist, is that there is no industry in Australia that pays as high a percentage of wages as is represented by the duty protecting that industry.
{: .speaker-JUV}
##### Mr McWilliams:
-- We wanted McKay to show his profits when the party opposite gave him a protective duty ; but they would not support us.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member is quite right. At that time I expected fair dealing from the manufacturers of Victoria, and trusted them; but I shall not trust them and the *Age* newspaper any more, so far as that matter is concerned. I know we shall be taunted with deserting our principles, and honorable members will very shortly see me quoted by the *Age* as a Free Trader. If there was oneaction more than another that ruined the chances of higher Protection being granted to any commodity, it was that of the agricultural implement makers in refusing to give what they promised, after being granted higher Protection by this Parliament. In 1906, when the fixed duty of £12 per machine was imposed, they promised that they would give fair wages; but when they obtained the duty, and secured the increased work, they broke their promise. McKay almost lived in the House during that time, and he and his company have amassed enormous dividends out of the increased work they have obtained ; but they refused to give the workers what they promised. When they took the matter to the High Court, and it was proved that the conditions we made were unconstitutional, it sounded the death-knell of new Protection in Australia.The Victorian manufacturers who suffered because of the action of the agricultural implement makers, swarmed round them like alot of bees when the agricultural implement makers' employés strike took place in Melbourne this year.
{: .speaker-JUV}
##### Mr McWilliams:
-- Was that strike for wages ?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Yes.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- It was over the question of the employment of nonunionists,
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member knows what the fight was over. These were the facts : The Wages Board had been sitting for seven months, and had come to no decision. The union, knowing it was useless to strike while their ranks were not half filled, issued an order that there would be a strike if the members did not come in by a certain date. They all came in, with the exception of about fifty. The union were getting them into the ranks, in order to bring about the raising of wages, because they felt that unless they took action the Wages Board would never come to a decision. That is the worst of a Wages Board. Until the chairman gives a casting vote, you may never get a decision. The day after the strike was declared, and not before, the chairman came to a decision; and as to whether it was a question of wages or of unionism, I can only say that the desire was to bring the men into the union in order that they might obtain the wages which were subsequently admitted to be fair. The Prime Minister, with a view of terminating the strike, communicated with the agricultural implement makers, and offered at that stage conditions which were not as good for the workers as the conditions eventually obtained. But the Chamber of Manufactures would not allow the agricultural implement makers to give way on the point; and a letter was received from that body saying in effect that the men must "eat dirt" - that they must come back unconditionally. The manufacturers, instead of condemning the men who ruined Protection in Australia, gathered around them, and we know for what reason ; they knew that the referendum was approaching. These men, through the newspaper which represents them, are clamouring to us - who have been sold over and over again - for more Protection, although we have no chance of Protection for those we represent. As an individual, and a representative in this House, I intend to support the Minister of Trade and Customs and the Government in the stand they have taken.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- What stand is that?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The stand that until manufacturers show that their industries require more Protection, and that they are paying sufficient wages to warrant more Protection, they shall not have it.
{: .speaker-JUV}
##### Mr McWilliams:
-- The honorable member will have a good many with him, too!
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- Not in regard to Protection, at any rate.I shall have the pleasure both inside and outside this House of fighting for Protection, which I regard as the only thing for Australia.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Build a wall !
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I would do that; I would stop the importation of any article that can be manufactured here.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Shut out literature, too?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I do not say that, butI think the honorable member will agree with me that much of the imported literature might be excluded with advantage. I feel just as keenly now as ever that we must make Australia a manufacturing country as well as an agricultural and mineral producer. But that must be done under the new order, and not under the old order; and I say to those who believe with the *Age* newspaper that we have not now new Protection. Experience has taught that where we have two sets of men, one representing the wage-earners and the other representing the employers, and a chairman who must have *a* leaning towards the employers, because of the. class from whom he is usually selected, the results are not satisfactory.I admit that many broad-minded men have occupied the position; but the result is not new Protection. We ought to have the same class of tribunal as in our Arbitration Court, where all details are considered from a disinterested stand-point. Such a tribunal ought to consider the cost of production and the wages conditions, and give judgment accordingly.
{: .speaker-JMG}
##### Mr Atkinson:
-- The individual members of the Board do that.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member knows that the man usually selected as chairman has not the necessary practical knowledge.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Sir Robert Best:
-- Has a Judge the practical knowledge referred to?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I admit at once that members of the legal profession apply a judicial mind to details of the kind.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- And yet legal men are shut out of the Arbitration Court.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- AllI am asking for is that there shall be a Judge.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Does the honorable member mean that there ought to be profit sharing?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- I do not, though I have heard it contended that wages is profit sharing.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- Will the honorable member say what is his standard of wages if the new Protection is brought to bear - is it a living wage or something more?
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- My idea is that a man working in any industry ought to receive wages that will keep him and his family decently, and allow him to provide for later days, and not any wages that the employer thinks sufficient.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- That is a living wage.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- If a manufacturer tells me that an industry will not pay such wages, then I say that that industry is not worth protecting, and I shall give it no Protection.
{: .speaker-KTT}
##### Mr BRUCE SMITH: PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917
-- The honorable member seems to desire to double-bank the Arbitration Court, seeing that he does not propose anything further than a living wage.
{: .speaker-KNH}
##### Mr MATHEWS:
-- The honorable member I know is accustomed to crossexamine, and I am rather fortunate in never having had to undergo the process. I can assure him, however, that I know enough not to play into the hands of my political opponents by answering him in a hurried manner. I desire to say to all manufacturers that I am as good a Protectionist as ever I was, butI do not intend to vote for any more Protection until I am assured by the men employed, through their organizations, that the wages paid is sufficient to keep them in a civilized state.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s7 .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER: Perth
.- We have listened to a very interesting speech from the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, in which he has given us an idea of the wonderful power and ability exercised by the Melbourne *Age* in relation to the affairs of the Commonwealth as regarded by the' people of Victoria. I have not the least doubt that such an excellent advertisement for the *Age* will be remembered with gratitude by that newspaper when the honorable member's election comes along. We want, however, to discuss in this House matters other than the particular policy of a newspaper, whether it be that of the Melbourne *Age.* or any other. Since we have been in recess for a very long period, we may well be excused for giving a little time to the consideration of matters that have transpired, which are not only of interest to Australia, but of some significance to the whole world. I am very glad that we have got to work at last. I must confess that I waited with considerable impatience for the long recess to come to an end. Indeed, it sometimes occurred to me that perhaps the people of Australia might come to the conclusion that, after all, since no great harm had come to the country while Parliament was not sitting, it might be dispensed with for an even longer period. I feel sure, however, that we are all of one mind as regards the sittings of this Parliament being for the benefit of Australia. One matter which attracted the attention of the people of the Commonwealth during the recess was the representation of Australia at the Conference which met at the centre of the Empire, and was also associated with the Coronation of our King. The people of Australia undoubtedly watched the development of the proceedings and the work and the sayings of our representatives there with a good deal of interest. That interest was in many cases, I believe, not unmingled with a certain amount of apprehension, which grew to positive consternation on the part of many in view of what took place at the Conference. Even members of the Labour party - supporters of the Ministry throughout Australia - felt very grave concern regarding those Ministers who had gone Home to represent them. They saw in the newspapers wonderful statements of their amazing retinue, and ofthe curious and unusual company into which they had entered at Home. When they discovered that these stern and uncompromising Democrats had yielded to the allurements of the Court of London, and were appearing amongst other representatives of the Empire in the unusual garments prescribed by Court etiquette, many of them,I have no doubt wondered whether they were not being betrayed by men who had so rapidly forgotten those who had sent them to the centre of the Empire. While these, perhaps, were only trifles, they indicated to many what undoubtedly took place - they indicated a complacency, brought about by the environment of Ministers, which had a rather unfortunate effect on any reputation that they might have sought to achieve at the Conference. I was rather surprised to find it stated in London, and reported here within a week of the arrival of Ministers in that city, that they were prepared to put aside their opposition to the Declaration of London.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- In one week?
{: .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER:
-- Yes. In view of the fact that those honorable gentlemen went away, as we were given to understand, determined to oppose the ratification of that agreement by the Conference, I have been waiting very anxiously to hear from them the reasons, which must have been sound and substantial, I presume, that caused them to waive any opposition to the ratification of that agreement.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- About what was infinitely the most important matter dealt with by the Conference we have not heard a word.
{: .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER:
-- It is one of the most important matters that have been discussed at any Conference of this kind for many years - a matter affecting, in my opinion, one of the most vital interests of the Empire, arid affecting the interests of Australia even more than those of the Mother Country. I am surprised, therefore, that no word has been uttered by the Prime Minister, or by either of those Ministers who accompanied him, as to the reasons which animated them in withdrawing their opposition to the ratification of that very important agreement.
{: .speaker-F4S}
##### Mr Joseph Cook:
-- We ought to know why. The Australian representatives alone abstained from voting on the question.
{: .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER:
-- The people of Australia are entitled to hear the reason for this *volte-face* on the part of Ministers. We have not yet heard it, and I take it that it is due to the people of Australia that the Prime Minister should avail himself of an early opportunity to enlighten them in that respect. Reference has been made once or twice to one episode to which I find it necessary to allude again very briefly, in view of a statement made in connexion with it in another place by the Minister of Defence. The people of Australia, I believe, read with a great deal of surprise and disgust that the Prime Minister had been in a manner lost in the Coronation procession in London. He was discovered, by, of course, the enterprising pressman, riding in a carriage with the Prime Minister of Canada, and surrounded by Canadian horsemen. The Minister of Defence in another place gave as a reason why the Prime Minister appeared in London without a representation of our Military Forces, such as the Prime Minister of Canada had, that the object of the Ministry was not to lead the people of Great Britain to think of the Australians merely as a military nation. Just imagine for a moment how the people of Great Britain, and the crowds in London On 1 hat occasion in particular, would have jumped unhesitatingly to the conclusion that Australia was a great military nation if: they had happened to see its Prime Minister surrounded with a squadron of Australian horsemen. It indicates, to my mind, that the Minister of Defence - a man who previously had no inclination towards military matters at " all - has become so obsessed by his office that he is actually under the delusion that Australia is at the present time a great military nation, and that it was necessary to refrain from sending a handful of troops to London lest the people of Great Britain might become apprehensive of the great military domination which might be exercised by Australia in regard to our interests in the Empire. Surely that is about the poorest excuse that could have been given for a feature of that procession which most Australians deplore.
Then the Prime Minister has congratulated himself and the people of Australia upon the fact that he, for the first time, as we are given to understand, in the history of the Empire, was taken into the confidences of the imperial Government. I want to know whether these confidences were of a personal nature; whether they were conveyed to the Prime Minister, not by virtue of his office, but for some other reason. If they were of an official nature, do I understand that they are shared with his Ministers? If they are shared with his Ministers, I want to know, also, if they are shared with his party. If they are not shared with his party, then a very singular position has been created in connexion with the Labour movement. The Prime Minister, and his colleagues I presume, have secrets from their party, and these, we are given to understand, are of very grave importance indeed. They are fraught with much significance to the Empire, and naturally to Australia, and yet the Labour party, the Labour organizations, the people who sent these gentlemen here, and made them the leaders of this Parliament at the present time, are in entire ignorance of their subject-matter. If that is the position, I apprehend that in the near future there will be some difficulty in the Labour movement. The result, I apprehend, will be that the people who constitute this party will insist that there shall be no secrets held from them by their Ministers ; that, at any rate, the members of the parliamentary party shall know them. If that is so, I arn very much afraid that the confidences bestowed on the Prime Minister by the Imperial authorities will be somewhat: regretted, in view of such a development.
There is one feature of the Conference on which I believe we can all congratulate ourselves and the Prime Minister for his efforts in that direction, and that is the conviction which is growing upon the minds of our statesmen in the Old Land - a conviction which has been present in the minds of most of us, I believe, in the outlying parts of the Empire - that the time has arrived when we must close up our ranks and present as united a force as possible to whatever danger we may be likely to meet in the near future. There is no doubt whatever of the urgency of these steps. We cannot shut our eyes to the growing danger of a war taking place that will throw into the shade anything which has occurred in the history of the civilized world ; and it behoves Australia - and I think that we are all keenly realizing this of late - to wake up and take her share of the responsibility. That Australia is rousing herself in serious fashion to take up the work which devolves upon her by reason of her position I have no doubt- whatever. But there are some features in the attitude of some of our people which I, for one, very much deplore, and I wish to refer to them now, because I think it is a fitting opportunity. Throughout the civilized world we observe a considerable amount of restraint exercised by one nation in its criticism of another. There is a kind of law of courtesy in regard to international dealings, which I think it is wise should always be observed. For some time we in Australia have felt reason to regard with apprehension danger from a certain direction of the Orient, namely, Japan, and we are pleased, I think, that the alliance which existed between Great Britain and Japan for some years has been renewed. I think it is very well indeed for us that the Japanese people should be our allies rather than our possible assailants. But throughout the years we have been allied, through the agreement of the Imperial authorities with the Japanese, I have observed in certain sections of the press the most cruel and uncalled-for writings and caricatures of that people. I. believe that in no other part of the world would these things have been tolerated to the extent - they' have been in Australia. I believe that in many other countries that kind of thing, carried to the extent to which it has been carried in Australia, would have brought about international complications.
{: .speaker-KXN}
##### Mr Ozanne:
-- What about the newspapers of America - of San Francisco, for instance?
{: .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER:
-- I am not concerned with America at present. I am speaking of Australia, and of things that I know. So far as I arn aware, I. have not seen in any American magazines or newspapers anything of the degrading and unnecessarily provocative character which I have seen in some Australian journals.
{: .speaker-KXN}
##### Mr Ozanne:
-- Look up some of the San Francisco papers.
{: .speaker-JWG}
##### Mr FOWLER:
-- That may be so, and it will probably be the duty of the American authorities to put an end to that kind of thing. I am calling the attention of the Government to these matters, because I believe it is their duty to use their influence to put an end to anything of that provocative character towards a people with whom we are in friendly alliance.
It is somewhat amusing to notice the only reference in the Governor-General's Speech to the important matter of immigration. The subject is not altogether omitted, but the reference is of a character which makes it almost farcical. We are told that the policy of the Government in connexion with land taxation has had the effect of bringing immigration to our shores. A statement of that kind will be regarded with a smile, even in the Labour ranks. There is no doubt whatever that this Government has so far failed lamentably in encouraging immigration. The work that has been done has been carried out by the State authorities. I am very much afraid that as long as this Government is in office we shall not see that energetic action in regard to immigration that the country has a right to expect, and that is of such vital importance to Australia. The Minister of Defence admitted, in the course of a speech in another place, to which I have already alluded, that, in the past, the Labour party had not been favorable to immigration ; but he gave those who listened to him to understand that that was all changed. I challenge the Minister of Defence, or any member of this Government, or any member of the Labour party, to show in what respect the policy of the party has altered from the time when the Minister admitted that they were opposed to immigration. They carry out the pretence of encouraging immigration, but they know that they dare not actively encourage it - not even that kind of immigration that we want so badly above all other forms, namely, immigration with the object of settling our waste places with those who are prepared to cultivate the soil. Even when that is proposed the Government and Parliament are reminded from certain quarters that there is a possibility of a trickle of such immigrants into the cities, and1 that, therefore, it is dangerous. As long as the trade unions control the policy of the Labour party, as they do at the present time, no active steps will be taken in connexion with immigration by this Labour Government, nor by any other Labour Government; and I, for one, regret very deeply indeed the short-sighted policy that makes them put a mere present interest of their own, of the narrowest kind, against a policy that is of the very nature of life itself to Australia. We want immigration. We want an active policy in this connexion by the Commonwealth Parliament and Government; and I believe that any Government that plays with the subject will not be tolerated very long by the people of Australia, who keenly realize the necessity for filling up our country with that human element without which we cannot expect to hold our own, faced, as we are, by countless numbers of Asiatics so near to our shores.
The attitude of this Government in connexion with the Tariff is somewhat amusing. We are now told that Ministers want certain information from the manufacturers as regards the cost of production and the proportion of labour in the value of their products. I wish to remind those who, like the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, make that a condition of increasing the Tariff, that four years ago the Free Trade section of the Tariff Commission put all those facts and figures before Parliament. They pointed out what the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has been saying to-night, that in the majority of cases, if it came to be a consideration of the exact amount of labour which entered into the production of commodities, there would practically be no Protection at all - that the proportion of labour in a given product in these days of labour-saving machinery was so insignificant that, in the majority of Australian industries of any consequence, the freights on imported goods were more than equal to the difference in the value of the labour, even taking the extreme difference between Australian rates of wages 'and the lowest paid labour that competes with us. The facts for which the present Government are asking the manufacturers are, 1 repeat, contained in the volume of reports presented by theFree Trade section of the Tariff Commission ; and 1 wish to warn the Protectionists that, if they insist on entering into this particular phase of Protection,, they will disclose a very weak point in the position indeed. I think it will be better, for them to proceed on the general question, because, undoubtedly, if it is merely a matter of protecting the labour employed in connexion with Australian production, they will find the ground sliding rapidly from under them.
I am very pleased to learn that the Government intend to introduce legislation dealing with banking. I have had occasion to bring before this Parliament, and other Parliaments, the great necessity for legislation on that subject. I hope that this will be one of the measures that the Government will carry through curing the present session. There is another matter, **Mr. Speaker,** of very grave importance, in my opinion, in connexion with the welfare of the people of this country, that I have been waiting anxiously for some time to have dealt with, and regarding which there is no reference in the Governor-General's Speech. We have had, time and again, and particularly of late, a recrudescence of certain abominable and immoral offences on the part of aliens amongst us, and many people are crying out for a law which will enable us to send such people out of our country when they are convicted of such offences.' At the present time we can only deport alien criminals for crimes of violence. But there are other crimes, not classified as crimes of violence, to which these people have been particularly prone - crimes against the welfare of our girls and women, which they perpetrate, and for which they may be punished. But they are allowed, when their period of imprisonment is over, to . remain in the country and perhaps to perpetrate such offences again. I say that since we are determined to keep even the best of such aliens out of Australia, we should take measures to deport the worst of them wherever we find it desirable.
I introduced a measure last session having that for its object, and if the Government do not intend to deal with the subject, I shall introduce it again, and ask the assistance of honorable members to carry it into law.
The intention expressed by the Government to carry out the transcontinental railway is one I am very glad to be able to compliment them upon. I hope they will lose no time in this important national undertaking. In view of the wonderful success which has attended the opening up of Canada by the construction of similar railways, I feel sure that the pessimistic predictions of some people, especially in this part of the Commonwealth, will be absolutely falsified by the results from that railway in a very few years after its construction. I hope that no time will be lost in carrying out the work, which, as a matter of fact, the people of Western Australia anticipated, when they agreed to enter the Federation, would be well nigh completed by this time.
There is another matter, also, in which the people of that State are interested, and concerning which no mention is made in the Governor- General's Speech. Following on the report presented by Admiral Henderson, we were given to understand that the Government intended to proceed with the construction of two important naval bases for the Commonwealth. One of these was to be at Port Stephen, on the New South Wales coast, and the other at Cockburn's Sound, near Fremantle. 1 hope that the omission from the Speech of any reference to these two important naval .works does not mean that they are to be shelved indefinitely. Surely the establishment of these naval bases ought to be taken 'in hand and proceeded with side by side with the development of our general naval policy. We cannot have an effective Navy without these naval bases, and common-sense would suggest that they should be ready, as soon as the men-of-war and various naval fighting machines are available to make use of them. I shall not detain the House any longer. I hope that we shall be able to get through a considerable part of the work put .before us in the Governor-General's Speech, and will be in a position to go into recess at about the usual time for the close of a session of this Parliament.
Debate (on motion by **Mr. Parker** Moloney) adjourned.
{: .page-start }
page 206
{:#debate-7}
### ADJOURNMENT
{:#subdebate-7-0}
#### Colonial Sugar Refining Company - Price of Sugar
{: #subdebate-7-0-s0 .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr FISHER: Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP
-- I move -
>That the House do now adjourn.
In submitting the motion, I should like to say that yesterday, in answer to a question by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, I stated that the price paid to sugar-growers for cane was increased proportionately with an increase in the price of sugar. I find that that statement is not accurate, since only a portion of the sugar-growers receive an increased price for their cane when the price of sugar is raised.
{: .speaker-KCO}
##### Mr Glynn:
-- They profess that they give it.
{: .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr FISHER:
-- I am advised that only a portion of the sugar-growers benefit in the way stated by an increase in the price of sugar. Sugar-growers who are partners in central mills erected by the State Government do receive an increased price for cane when the price of sugar is raised. I am unable to say what proportion of the total number of sugar-growers they represent.
{: .speaker-KWL}
##### Mr Tudor:
-- Less than half the growers benefit from an increased price of sugar.
{: .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr FISHER:
-- Then the greater pro portion do not derive any advantage from an increased price.
{: .speaker-KNF}
##### Mr MASSY-GREENE: RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
-- I hardly think that the proportion of growers benefiting would' be as high as suggested, because the Colonial Sugar Refining Company manufactures about one-fourth of the Queensland crop and the whole of the New South Wales crop, which would be considerably less than half of the total crop.
{: .speaker-F4N}
##### Mr FISHER:
-- However, I was inaccurate in conveying to honorable members and the public that all sugar-growers benefited in the way stated as the result of an increase in the selling price of sugar.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
Cite as:Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 September 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19110907_reps_4_60/>.