View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
25 September 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GE NERAL’ S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT HOUSE, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON
QUESTION
- SUGAR INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- NAVAL COLLEGE: SUPPLY OF HARDWOOD
QUESTION
- EMPIRE DEFENCE
QUESTION
- FITZROY DOCK: CONSTRUCTION OF WARSHIPS
ELECTORAL LAW
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- MIDDLETON REEF
QUESTION
- JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT
QUESTION
- MEAT COMBINE
PAPER
MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3405

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GE NERAL’ S DEPARTMENT

City Telephone Areas - Postage, Railway Letter-boxes - Norwood Post Office - Day Labour - South Australian Employees.

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Will the PostmasterGeneral take into consideration the advisability of amending the telephone regulations so as to place towns on the sea-board, which have a stretch of 10 miles of country in one direction only over which to speak by telephone without incurring extra charges, on the same footing as towns that have 20 miles of country in every direction to speak over ?

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to have time to look into the matter before expressing an opinion.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral taken into consideration the regulation under which late fees are now charged on letters posted in boxes on the railway stations of Victoria? Previously such letters were charged at ordinary rates.

Mr FRAZER:

– As I stated some time ago, the alteration in the practice was made to bring Victoria into conformity with the other States in this matter. Areturn is now being prepared in all the States, which I hope will be ready in a few days, which will show the distance of the railway stations from the post-offices in all the railway townships, and it may be that where this distance is considerable public convenience may be served by providing additional facilities at the railway stations.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs if it is intended to carry out any further work at Norwood Post-office.. If so, is it to be done by day labour, and at what cost?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– We called for tenders for the construction of the Norwood Post-office, and the lowest price named was £999. The departmental estimate of the cost of the work was £750, and we carried it out with day labour for£7893s,3d, a saving of , £209 16s. 9d. on the lowest price asked by a tenderer.

Mr Groom:

– Was it carried out on the plans on which tenders were asked for?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes.

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will inform this House, in the event of the Post and Telegraph Association of South Australia obtaining a favorable award in respect to their claims - (1) emoluments, (2) increments, (3) . age of retirement - if it is in the power of the Arbitration Court to make that award date back from July, 1904?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The question is hypothetical, and cannot be fully answered without knowing the terms of the award. But I am not aware of anything in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act to prevent the Court dealing with claims in relation to past services.

page 3405

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, SYDNEY

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs what it has cost to keep Government House, Sydney, in order, and whether the cost has been incurred by this Government or by the Government of New South Wales ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– I shall reply to the questions to-morrow.

page 3405

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Day Labour - Rates of Wages - Preference to Unionists - Australian Material

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Has the Government adopted the plans prepared by the London architects for the Commonwealth offices in London? if so, is it intended to call for tenders for the construction of the work, or will the building be erected with day labour?

Mr THOMAS:
Minister for External Affairs · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We received plans from the London architects, and, after looking into them carefully, suggested some minor alterations. The architects . were good enough to meet us in nearly every instance, and new plans have since been sent out. There are still a few alterations which’ we should like to have made, and Mr. Murdoch, the architect of the Department of Home Affairs, will leave for England very shortly to put before the London architects our wishes in this matter. As for the construction of the building, we received a communication from the High Commissioner some time ago stating that a federation of the English unions had asked that the Commonwealth Government should agree to the insertion in the tenders of the conditions that union rates, of wages must be paid, that all the stones. used must be cut in London or in the metropolis, and that absolute preference must be given to unionists. We replied that we were not prepared without more information to say that all the stones must be cut in London, or in the metropolis, but that, of course, there would be a condition requiring the payment of union rates of wages, and that regarding preference to unionists we. were prepared to go as far as we go in Australia, that is, to give preference to unionists, other things being equal. We have since received a communication from the High Commissioner, stating that he has put our views before the master builders and contractors of London, and that they say that in their opinion if this were insisted on none of the leading contractors or builders would tender for the work. We have therefore asked Mr. Murdoch to bring together a staff when he gets to England, so that the building may be done with day labour.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I wish to know whether the Minister has considered the suggestion made more than once that a portion, at any rate, of the building should be constructed with Australian stone. Does he not think that the front, or at least some portion of the outer walls, might be constructed with stone prepared in Australia? Such stone would make a very good display.

Mr THOMAS:

– We have taken into consideration the possibility of using both Australian stone and wood, and shall be very glad if it is found practicable to use such material in a prominent part of the building.

page 3404

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Abolition of Excise and Bounty

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, since the passing of the Sugar Bounty Bill, at least two or three meetings of canegrowers have been held in the Bundaberg district, and that the cane-growers there have decided by a majority of S3 to 17 in favour of the abolition of the bounty and Excise? Further, whether he is aware that the sugar-growers in the Childers district have unanimously decided in favour of the abolition of the bounty and Excise; and whether the right honorable gentleman makes it a condition precedent to the repeal of our bounty and Excise legislation that the Queensland Government shall secure the passing of legislation prohibiting the employment of aliens in the sugar industry? Finally, I desire to ask the PrimeMinister whether he proposes to request the Queensland Government to pass legislation which will have the effect of protecting the interests of the workers engaged in the sugar industry?

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I can only make the general statement that the matter is receiving consideration, and that a communication will be made to the House as early as. possible.

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will obtain from the Attorney-General an opinion as to whether section 51, sub-section xxvi., of the Constitution does not give us power to legislate in relation to the payment of special rates ? Under that provision we have power tomake laws with reference to the people of any race other than the aboriginal race in any State, and I invite the Prime Minister to obtain from the Attorney-General art opinion as to whether that does not givethe Parliament power to pass legislation declaring that coloured labour shall not be employed in connexion with the industry.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall submit the matter to the Attorney-General.

page 3404

QUESTION

NAVAL COLLEGE: SUPPLY OF HARDWOOD

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire -to ask the Minister of Home Affairs a question relating to an advertisement whichappears in the Commonwealth Gazette of 14th September, inviting tenders for the supply of Tasmanian hardwood lining for the Naval College at Jervis Bay. I wishto know whether there is any reason whythe timbers of other States should be excluded? Is it considered that New SouthWales hardwood, which, is regarded asamongst the best, is not suitable for the purpose? If not, why have the timbers of all States save Tasmania been excluded?”

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

-O’MALLEY.- We do not exclude the timbers of any State.

Mr John Thomson:

– Timbers of alb the States save one are excluded in this instance.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– No. TheDirector of Works is especially anxious, in connexion with this work, to intermix Tasmanian hardwood with that of other States. He can obtain on the spot otherhardwoods, and the desire is to have a. general mixing up of the whole so as to* strengthen the superstructure.

page 3405

QUESTION

EMPIRE DEFENCE

Views of the New Zealand Minister of. Defence.

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-‘ I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has read in to-day’s Argus a report, appearing under the heading “ Empire Defence,” of a speech made by the Minister of Defence of New Zealand, Mr. Allen, and, if so, whether he has any information to give with respect to that report?

Mr-. FISHER.- I was delighted to read the report of the speech made by the New Zealand Minister of Defence, for it seems to indicate on the part of the sister Dominion a policy that is closely in touch with the naval defence policy of Aus-‘ tralia. It appears to show on the part of New Zealand a desire for whole-hearted co-operation in the South Pacific, and that, I believe, embraces almost entirely the public mind of Australia.

Mr Glynn:

– I believe that it is also the view of the Imperial Government.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– Although I know something of the policy of the Imperial Government, I am not in a position to express it. I know, however, that the opinion expressed by Mr. Allen embodies the view held by a large number of the leading advisers of the British Government in the matter of naval policy. They are desirous of a strong naval force being established in this part of the world, so as to make it secure, while the British Fleet is attending to matters nearer Home and dear to us all.

page 3405

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK: CONSTRUCTION OF WARSHIPS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence whether it is a fact that a number of men employed at the Fitzroy Dock, Sydney, were recently discharged, and, if so, whether this putting off of men will in any way interfere with the due fulfilment of the contract for the completion of Commonwealth ships to be built there?

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not aware that any men have been put off, but if they have been, that fact certainly will not interfere with the completion of the work in hand for the Commonwealth Government.

page 3405

ELECTORAL LAW

Absent Voters Provisions. Mr. CHANTER. - Has the attention of the Minister of Home Affairs been directed to the report of a speech delivered by the

Leader of the Opposition at Ballarat which appears in yesterday’s Age? The honorable member is alleged to have said that the electoral system permits an elector to make a mark on a card without voting, and that, therefore, there is nothing to prevent any one from putting a mark on half-a-dozen cards. Is that statement in accordance with fact?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– I saw the press report, and it was obvious to me that the honorable member was labouring under a multiplicity of delusions in this matter. The new system of voting is a great improvement on the “ Q Form “ system, under which a man who could not sign his name made his mark, and the ballot-paper was put into the ballot-box. Now an elector has to make a written declaration, which is witnessed., The voting paper is put into an envelope bearing the declaration, and sent to the Returning Officer. If more than one person has voted under the same name, . the signature on the declaration can be compared with that on the elector’s claim card at the Central Office of the “State and the vote of the bond fide elector only admitted. Even Paul the Apostle would only be able to give one vote under this system. If the paper is properly marked, if the elector’s name is on the roll for the division in which he wishes to vote, and if the declaration is in order, the vote is counted, but otherwise it is disallowed. The voting papers are treated very much as letters of credit on foreign banks are treated.

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I wis! . task the Minister of Home Affairs ‘ E he will kindly direct me to his a c g ‘ for the statement he has just mad. ,§ 3 explain why no reference to the ft.? payment he has mentioned appears on the electoral card which has to be filled in by each applicant for a vote? The application is only witnessed by “an elector or person qualified to be an elector of the Commonwealth “ in Victoria, but voted on in Queensland. It is further stated on the card that -

The signature of the claimant must be his natonal signature. If unable to sign his name in his own handwriting he may make his mark as his signature ; but such signature must be made in the presence of the person who signs as witness.

I would recall to the mind of the Minister the statement that he has made again and again in this House that the check he relies upon consists of a comparison of signatures.

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : QUEENSLAND

Mr GROOM:

– Will the Minister of Home Affairs say when he is likely to proceed with the motion relative to the elec«toral divisions in Queensland?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– As soon as the Maternity Allowance Bill and one or. two other essential measures are out of the way.

page 3407

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister of External Affairs been drawn to the following statement, made by the chief immigration agent for New South Wales in London : -

Australia is losing this year tens of thousands of the most desirable settlers through lack of steamer berths. Shipping agents get disgusted, and say, “ Oh, it is no use talking about Australia, you must go somewhere else 1”

In view of these and several similar statements, is the Minister taking any steps to relieve the congestion in London by providing further shipping accommodation, in order that more desirable settlers may come to Australia ?

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

– No.

page 3407

QUESTION

MIDDLETON REEF

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. W. Elliot Johnson

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Can he say whether there is any provision made at the present time for storage of food and water at Middleton Reef for shipwrecked people; and, if not, will he look into the matter with a view to such provision being made?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Middleton Reef is situate in the Pacific Ocean, latitude 29.28 S., longitude 159.4 E., nearly midway between Clarence River, New South Wales, and Norfolk Island. It is about 300 miles from the Australian coast, and about 135 miles north of Lord Howe Island. It is from 1 1/2 to 3 miles broad. Its outer edge dries at low water. There is an anchorage on the north-west side, between the north-east and north-west horns of the crescent. There is no provision dep6t there. As the reef is submerged at high water, a large expenditure would be required to establish a provision depot. In view of the more pressing necessities on the Australian coast to be dealt with ar the present time, the question of establishing such a depot must be deferred.

page 3407

QUESTION

JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT

Age of Retirement

Mr RILEY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

At what age do the Justices of the High Court retire from service?

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

– There is no age fixed for the retirement of the Justices.

page 3407

QUESTION

MEAT COMBINE

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the public conviction that a meat combine is seeking to control the meat industry of Australia, will the Minister consider the necessity, in the interest of the public of Australia, of prohibiting the export of meat that has been kept in cold storage for a longer period of time than two months, and so destroy the most dangerous weapon of the American Trust, viz., the indefinite cold storage of meat, butter, and food products?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– I shall be glad to give the suggestion consideration, but I very much doubt if given effect to it would be attended by any beneficial results. The cold storage of the produce in question is not limited to Australia, where alone we may exercise control.

page 3407

PAPER

Mr. KING O’MALLEY laid upon the table the following paper -

Landa Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at -

Fremantle, Western Australia - For Postal purposes.

Pinkenba, Queensland - For Postal purposes.

page 3407

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th September (vide page 3364), on motion by Mr. Fisher -

That this Bill be now read a second time. Mr. OZANNE (Corio) [3.1].- The

Prime Minister, in introducing this measure yesterday, laid emphasis on the fact that it was not a baby bonus Bill, but a measure for a maternity grant. While I recognise that there is a difference between the two, I believe that this Bill will have a very material effect on the population of Australia. We possess a magnificent country of the enormous area of 2,974,581 square miles, and it is remarkable that, on the 31st March last, the white population numbered only 4,602,352, equivalent to 150 people to the 100 square miles. In view of the possibilities of the future, the fact is forced upon us that we must either fill this great continent by means of immigration or pay greater attention to our natural increase. Some of the States have adopted a policy of immigration; but, unfortunately, the system does not commend itself to me. Instead of starting at the foundation of our wealth, and opening the land to our own people, or the people from abroad, a number of artisans and labourers are being introduced. It may be thought by some people that an overcrowded labour market will lead to cheaper labour; but, with our Wages Boards and arbitration laws, I see very little likelihood of such a result. Under the circumstances, if we have great numbers of unemployed, it means extra taxation, because, in Australia, we cannot permit any man, .woman, or child to starve or go homeless. It is for that reason I say that, while the policy of immigration adopted by the States is a good one, the system by which they are proceeding is bad. Our natural increase concerns the medical fraternity more, perhaps, than it does laymen. A very interesting address was delivered in Adelaide by Dr. F. S. Hone, B.A., M.B., B.S., President of the South Australian Branch of the British Medical Association, who said -

But we are so interested in this side of the question (immigration) that we are in danger of forgetting our own natural increase, which, after all, is the true criterion of our future success as a nation builder.

I believe that that utterance strikes the true Australian sentiment - that the success of our nation depends much more on natural increase than it does on immigration. We are all anxious, I am sure, that the population of Australia should be great enough to protect the country from possible invasion. There is no doubt that, if we do not put the country to its best use, some other nation, which can do so, and is strong enough, may take the matter out of our hands. I find that last year the increase in our population totalled 143,624 ; and I cannot think that ny honorable member can be satisfied with such a state of things. If our population does not grow more rapidly we may, as I have already indicated, find some other nation confiscating the acant territory. It is necessary, in considering this matter, to pay regard to the excess of births over deaths, and of immigration over emigration. From 1907 to 1911 the excess of births over deaths was as follows -

ft will be seen that the increase in population by this means has been anything but rapid. The increase of immigration over emigration in the same period was -

This shows remarkable progress during the last five years, culminating in a record last year ; and 1 only wish our natural increase had been as satisfactory. The prosperity of a country is to a great extent denoted by the marriage rate, and last year I am pleased to say the number of marriages registered was 39,482, the largest ever recorded for Australia. Very interesting results are arrived at by comparing the marriage rate of Australia with those of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In the five years to which I have already alluded the marriage rate in Australia slightly increased, as the following figures show. In France, notwithstanding that the birth rate is dreadfully low, we have the rather remarkable fact that the marriage rate is almost as good as that of Australia. In Germany the marriage rate is also good. A comparison is made in the following table: -

Figures not available.

In Scotland and Ireland the marriage rate is not as high as it should be, because, by reason of the conditions of those countries, their best sons and daughters have been driven away. I now come to the birth rates, and have taken out the statistics for the same countries. They are as follows -

In 191 1 the birth rate of Australia constituted a record for this country, no fewer than 122,193 births being registered during that year, another record on which the Prime Minister should be congratulated, as it has occurred during his regime. As might be expected from the high marriage rate and the prosperity of the country, the birth rate in Germany is very good, but that for France is most unsatisfactory. Many nations to-day are much concerned about the growth of their population. In France legislation has been introduced to tax celibacy, and to reward productivity, for sterility must make amends to the nation it hurts, since productivity is essential to national progress. In Berlin, the wages of the municipal employes, who form a. large body, are increased as their families grow. Prescott, in his History of Peru, shows that among peoples who have been looked upon as savages the obligation to reward the performance of family duties was recognised, increases in families being rewarded with grants of land. But in our topsy-turvy society married and single are on the same plane, notwithstanding that it is essential to our welfare that our population should increase. I come now to the figures for infantile mortality. They are these -

Although in 191 1 the death-rate of infants in Australia was the lowest on record, there were many more infantile deaths than should have taken place. Australia’s position, when compared with that of other countries, is very satisfactory, but the death-rate of infants could be materially reduced, and I believe that the Bill will tend to lessen it. Dr. Hone, in his interesting and valuable report, says that only a small number of the infantile deaths are due to causes connected with birth. Most of the deaths are due either to pre-natal causes, or to causes arising out of the subsequent environment of the children. He says that 35 per cent, of the deaths are due to prematurity, debility, and malformation, 25 per cent, to diarrhoea and enteritis, and 5 to J per cent, to bronchitis and pneumonia. Some of these diseases may be inherited, and that, of course, raises the question of the fitness of certain parents for marriage. This is a subject more suitable for discussion by medical men; but I have no doubt that in the near future it will have to be dealt with in the interests of the nation, it being desirable to protect future citizens from diseases transmissible by heredity. Another matter of concern, in addition to the birth and death rates, is the relation between the two. Although the human birth rate is among the smallest in the animal kingdom, man has spread over and occupied a large part of the world. This has been possible because he combines with the lower birth rate the greater gap between his births and deaths. Food, water, air, and light are all essentials to life. The last three are obtainable by all, but food cannot be got without money, and to get money it is necessary to get work. When work is not obtainable, or obtainable only now and again, starvation, or semistarvation, overtakes part of the population. This accelerates disease, and shortens the gap between life and death. Such a condition of things is detrimental to that portion of the community which is unmarried, but it is much more harmful to the married members of society, and the sufferings of the parents are handed down to their children. Consequently, any measure which tends to better the condition of the people should receive the mature consideration and the active support of every section of the House. Australia has richer lands to work, and fairer fruits to pick, than have any of the nations to which I have referred. It is only beginning its national life, and has large empty spaces to fill. Consequently, it is the duty of this National Parliament to study the comfort and welfare of every section of the community, and, so far as it can be done, to make unemployment impossible. In 191 1 about 9,000 children of less than one year of age died. In view of the fact that the registration of stillborn children before burial is not required, and that practices which’ cost thousands of lives are well known to exist, it is obvious that the number of infantile deaths could be considerably decreased. When at the Werribee sewage farm I had undeniable evidence of the destruction of child life which goes on in this city, and could tell tales that would cause a feeling of the greatest repulsion. I do not desire to do that. Although not a medical man, I have seen evidence of the destruction of life, and I believe that it is the duty of not only the State, but the Federal Government, to see if it is not possible to prevent it. In dealing with this phase of the question, Dr. Hone said -

And seeing that the death rate among infants under twelve months of age is at once the source of greatest loss to the nation, the most preventable and the least prevented, and that it has been the last to yield to modern sanitary reform, it seems well for a short time to concentrate our attention on this.

In emphatic language this medical man has practically denounced the present system. Whilst we are endeavouring on the one hand to increase our population by immigration, we have lamentably failed hitherto to legislate for the protection of our natural increase. I know that many reforms are necessary to secure that protection, and I recognise that this Bill will provide only a moiety of it. I should like to see the Commonwealth Parliament pass legislation which would provide, first of all, for proper nourishment and rest for the expectant mother. It is all very well for some medical gentlemen to tell us that women employed in some of the factories of the Old World work almost up to the day of their confinement, and that the children do not suffer ; but we cannot overlook the fact that they say very little about the health of the mothers themselves. My desire is that consideration shall be shown to the mothers of the community. During my years of farming life, it was my experience that the greatest consideration was shown to live stock when an increase was about to take place. It appears to me that when there is a prospect of material gain to the extent of a few pounds, many men are prepared to show special consideration to our fourfooted friends, but that they are not prepared to listen to a proposal to expend a few pounds to help the mothers -of the country. The question of proper attention at birth and efficient nursing also arises. I know from personal experience that some of the people who undertake these duties are not competent to carry them out. They are prompted in some cases perhaps by the best of motives, but in others the sole object is to make a few shillings. In the interests of our people, those who undertake the duty of nursing should be competent to carry it out. The supply of pure food is also necessary for the health and development of the child. I was very pleased to read the other day a report by Dr. Jeffreys Wood, in which he referred to the very fine result achieved by the Lady Talbot Milk Depot. He showed that that depot since its establishment had been instrumental in reducing the infant mortality in the municipalities in which it is at work from 88 per 1,000 in 1907 - when we had one of the coolest summers for years - to 64 per 1,000 in 1911. In other words, in closely populated centres, where the infant mortality was higher than that recorded for any year for Australia, this pure milk supply brought down the rate of mortality to 64 per 1,000, as against 71 per 1,000, the record for the whole of the Commonwealth. That, I think, is a very fine achievement. If our municipalities would undertake the control of our milk supply, and see that only pure milk was delivered, splendid results would, be achieved. I come now to the question of environment. In the great cities of the Commonwealth houses are piled one against the other. We have miles and miles of streets closely lined with houses,, and with hardly a break save for an occasional cross street. What has become of the breathing spaces - the “ lungs,” se* necessary to the health of the community ? Had it not been for the energetic work done by the late Mr. FitzGibbon, when Town Clerk of Melbourne, even the few parksthat we have here to-day would have been alienated. It was owing to his splendid work that those we have were saved to us. . It is a generally accepted principle that public parks are essential to the health of a city, but, unfortunately, owing perhaps- to want of foresight in some cases, and to greed in others, many open spaces havebeen handed over to a few individuals toenable them to make a few pounds at a. probable sacrifice of thousands of lives. If we desire to be practical in our legislation we should see that the homes of the people are habitable, that adequatebreathing space is provided, and that instead of being packed closely together they are separated by a space wide enough topermit of a small garden being made. between each. In that way we should secure a healthier and more artistic environment than we have. There are honorable members whowill say that all these reforms would cost millions to bring about. No doubt they would ; but we find that these same gentlemen are quite ready to vote tens of millionsfor defence purposes in order to protect Australia against a possible foe from outside, whilst at the same time they are prepared1 to combat a proposal to expend a paltry half -a million to enable us to cope with a foe within our own boundaries. I cannot understand their attitude. I would sooner vote this amount to protect the people already within Australia than vote for the- expenditure of millions to protect us from a possible foe outside. I come now to a phase of the question that has agitated the public mind for some months - the question whether unwedded mothers should participate in the maternity grant. A deputation from the Council of Churches recently waited on the Prime Minister, and leading speakers on that occasion referred to these unmarried mothers as being unworthy of consideration. I find that during 191 1 6,721 of these unfortunate women brought an equal number of innocent children into the world. Are we to sacrifice the children because of the sin of the parents? No. I am confident that the great majority of honorable members will agree with me that we should not do so. One of the arguments advanced by the deputation was that, if the grant were extended to unmarried mothers, it would encourage other Australian women to do what they had done. Words fail to express my indignation at suchl a statement. It is surprising that gentlemen occupying such an onerous position should think so little of our Australian women, f do not fear the result of our consideration in that particular direction. One would think, according to these men, that motherhood was simply a frolic, and that they forgot that, as one writer has so aptly put it, motherhood has been more dangerous to life than war itself. These unfortunate girls have not only to pass through a time of great mental anguish and suffering, extending over months, but by their fall they are ostracised from society. I cannot understand the attitude of these reverend gentlemen who every Sunday preach of charity, love, and kindness, and for the rest of the week forget all about them. I do not think that such women should be eternally punished. The Christianity in which I believe declares that in time of trial we should render them a helping, hand, if not for their own sake, at least for the sake of the unborn babes. I do not fear the result of this form of Christianity. I indorse the statement made by the Rev. E. Culliford, in a very able article on this question, that -

When Christ shows me he is fearful that a kindly act will not be responded to it will then be time for me to become fearful.

I am delighted to find that many of our great churches - the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, and even some sections of the churches supposed to be represented bv the deputation to which I have referred, do not share the sentiments expressed by the members of that deputation.

Mr OZANNE:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– They did not. The Anglican newspaper, the Church Commonwealth, in a recent issue, expressed its gratification at the contemplated introduction of this measure, and congratulated the Government on what it termed a humane piece of legislation. In the course of an article on the subject it made the statement - “ Of course we have the expected outcry against the proposal, as, in some cases, putting a premium on immorality, encouraging fraud by the possible diversion of the bonus money to the purchase of drink, and involving wasteful expenditure. The main point, however, is that a child, however born, is a valuable asset to the country, and every means must be adopted to conserve his and his mother’s life, and to provide for his receiving a good start. Surely the best human instincts would not refuse that.” “ This brilliant piece of legislation does infinite credit to the hearts and minds of those who originated it, and will be welcomed by thousands of women, for whom the time of confinement will be robbed of its terrors, and who will be able to claim the bonus as of right, and not as of charity.”

That is the sentiment of a great church, and it is one that I heartily indorseThen again, Dr. Strong, preaching on this proposal in the Australian Church a little while ago, said -

The question has been asked, “ Should all mothers have the benefit of the endowment?” Those members of the deputation who feared that illegitimacy would be encouraged were, doubtless, quite honest. But often young women who made a false step in life should be as respectfully and as tenderly dealt with as married mothers. They needed all the help they could get to prevent them . from sinking.

I trust that the reverend gentlemen who comprised the deputation to the Prime Minister will read and re-read that last sentence, and that while they preach of their charity from their pulpits every Sunday they will not forget to practise it during the remaining six days in the week. Dr. Strong continued -

The young woman had made a fatal mistake, but it was not for them to judge her. For the child was in danger of being thrown upon the world and made to suffer.

Therein is the true ring of the Christianity which should actuate every honorable member in this House. Day after day in this House we supplicate the Deity to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Surely if honorable members have any sincerity when they make that prayer they should use every) effort to assist the Government in this laudable measure.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then you take up the ground that there is no room for a difference of opinion in a matter like this?

Mr OZANNE:

– There is room for difference of opinion, but, unfortunately, the Opposition feel always anxious to sacrifice humanity as an offering to the golden calf. Now, let us contrast the fine sentiments expressed by the foregoing quotations with those voiced by some of the supporters of the Opposition. Take the Ladies’ Benevolent Society, for example. Its members should know something about distress, because they are supposed to be relieving the distress that unfortunately exists in many of our great cities. If they do not know anything about it, who does? But, listen to their charity. At a meeting held in the Town Hall about a week ago, with Mrs. W. Kerr in the chair, the following resolution was carried -

In voicing the opinion of the majority of ladies’ benevolent societies, this executive committee strongly protests and disapproves of the proposed £5 maternity bonus.

As a piece of political flypaper, it might be considered one of the most profitable articles put on the market. It was not a dream altogether; it was an inspiration. (Laughter.) But how ought they to receive a proposition of this kind? He said they ought absolutely to oppose it by every means in their power. If they were to pay always increasing old-age pensions, invalid pensions, and unemployment pensions, why not extend the principle in other directions? There was no end and no stopping place to this kind of thing. Why not provide for young couples who wanted to furnish?

If the honorable member looks upon this proposal as political fly-paper, I look upon him as a political blotter, because both in the State and this Parliament he has shown that all sentiments of love towards humanity have been dried out of his heart. On every occasion he preaches in the interests of one class alone. He advocates always the worship of the golden calf. It would be far better if the honorable member had a little more sympathy, and a heart full of love, instead of a heart like a piece of lead, as it is at the present time. These latter quotations I have given are from the gentlemen that are asking the electors to hand back the reins of government to them at the next election. God save the women and children of Australia if those gentlemen ever get the reins again ! Let us contrast with those remarks the sentiments expressed by the women who know - the working women of Australia. Although they are doing their duty to Australia by bringing the unclothed immigrant into the world, they do not know from week to week how they are going to meet their ordinary expenses, much less maternity expenses. What do those women say, those women who are quite willing to nurse a baby instead of a poodle? It is recorded that, at a meeting of the Women’s Organizing Committee, representing the women workers of Victoria, the following resolution was unanimously carried -

That this committee, on behalf of the workingclass women of Victoria, expresses its utter detestation of and resentment at the foul slanders levelled at our class by the members of the deputation which waited on the Prime Minister on the 4th inst. in regard to the maternity bonus, namely, that the moral nature of poor women is so low that £5 would be an inducement to a girl to sell her honour, and even enough to buy a mother’s consent to her daughter’s shame. We further express our warm appreciation of the noble and wise act of the Prime Minister and his party in conferring the instalment of the mother’s maternal rights, and we hope when the finances permit to also have a child pension.

And so do I. I trust that we shall be able to see our way to help the family obligations in that way in the near future. Another meeting of women workers of Australia - these women do not belong to a Labour organization - was that of the

Women’s Political Association. They passed this resolution -

That this association deeply regrets that the Council of Churches, or any body of men or women, should say that the payment of the proposed maternity grant of £5 to the mothers of illegitimate children would offer a bonus to vice. Apart from the hideous slur cast on the whole of womanhood by such a statement, those making it prove they have no real knowledge of the social and economic causes that contribute to a woman’s downfall, or they would be amongst the first to compel society to’ make some compensation to the woman for the sins society commits against her.

Mr GORDON:

– I am quoting it with approval of the statistics, and some of the inferences drawn, because I regard them as informing ; and I have yet to learn that there is anything objectionable in reading a quotation from a public address available to all other honorable members, if, in my opinion, it bears on the subjectmatter under discussion. Dr. Hone went on to say -

One knows that this proposal is made with the best motives in the world; but it is a most striking illustration of the utterly wrong perspective in which the general public views this vital national problem; and the remedy proposed is only adding a waste of money to the waste of life that is already one of the most distressing aspects of the question. In no other department of public life would any one be listened to who proposed to distribute ^500,000 without the slightest attempt at control of how the money should be spent. It might be worth while to spend half a million pounds to save the lives of half the 9,000 babies who annually die in Australia in their first year of life, but it becomes a very different matter when there is no assurance that even 1,000 of these 9,000 will be saved, when no steps are taken to see that the money is put to the best purpose, and when it is clear that the expenditure of a much smaller sum on lines suggested later in this paper would bring about much greater results.

For as far as this Commonwealth is concerned only a very small amount of infantile deaths are due to circumstances connected with the time of birth. Most of these children are doomed to die either by pre-natal causes or from their subsequent environment. In the former case a subsidy at birth is ineffectual because it is too late ; in the latter case because it is too little - unless the environment is alcoholic, when it is too much. What would .be said to a proposal to bestow on shipping companies a bonus of £s a. head for all immigrants leaving England, if it were known that one in every ten of those immigrants would die within la months of their arrival here, and there were no stipulations with the companies as to selection in England, or conditions of life on the voyage? Yet this is on all fours with the present proposal.

Mr Higgs:

– As a matter of fact, that is the case to-day in regard to immigration - the medical supervision is very scanty.

Mr Roberts:

– There is practically none.

Mr GORDON:

– I am not answerable for all the arguments used here ; I merely quote them on the ground that, on a proposal of this kind, we are entitled to bring before honorable members all the information we possibly can in order to ascertain whether this proposed expenditure is in the right direction, or whether it is not possible that this sum, or even a larger sum, might not be made available in other directions, and thus rendered more effective. The infantile death rate in the Commonwealth is hot only low, almost the lowest in the world, but it has. been steadily falling for years without any monetary gift, such as that proposed in this Bill. In South Australia, according to Dr. Hone, the death rate for the last five years has been the lowest in the world, averaging 68.5 deaths under one year per 1,000 births. I ask, as I asked at the beginning, how has that been brought about? It has been brought about by a recognition on the part of the State, of the municipality, various philanthropic and friendly societies and other institutions of their national obligation to do what they possibly can to reduce the waste of child lite.

Mr Webster:

– And on the part of parents.

Mr GORDON:

– And on the part of parents. I may mention that in Adelaide another institution has recently been started in the shape of a school for mothers. All this shows that a great deal of activity is being displayed already in the direction proposed by this Bill.

Mr Roberts:

– Most of it is due to better industrial and economic conditions.

Mr GORDON:

– Yes. I do not intend to argue that it is not possible, nay, desirable, that this 68 per cent, should be reduced, but contend, with the authority of medical men and statistics to support me, that the State, the medical profession, municipal bodies, public and private institutions, and the public spirit of the community are alive to their obligations and responsibilities; and I believe that thosebodies, with a little assistance, possibly, from the Federal Government, would be in a better position to deal with this complex question, and produce better results, than the mere granting of a sum of money on the part of Federation without following up that money and ascertaining whether it is effective or not. The mere statement made by the Attorney-General last night that the administration ,of this measure wilt not cost more than 1 per cent, shows very clearly that little supervision is going 10 be exercised. °Dr. Hone then proceeded to emphasize a point of special importance in respect to our efforts to reduce the death rate of infants. He said -

Turning to an analysis of the chief causes ot infantile mortality, we find that by far the greatest proportion of deaths are “ comprised under two heads - and that these two alone give- 55 per cent, of the deaths, 30 per cent, being, constantly due to prematurity, congenital debility and malformation, and 25 per cent, todiarrhoea and enteritis. Bronchitis and pneumonia, so fruitful a source of death in colder climates, only account for 5 to 7 per cent., and here again we are reminded of the favorable natural conditions we enjoy.

We have to remember that this proposed grant of money can have no possible effect on the pre-natal influences referred to by Dr. Hone, and that, therefore, it cannot be contended that the mere grant is likely to have an effect on the death rate of infants throughout Australia. The Prime Minister, not by a direct statement so much as by inference, suggested yesterday that those efforts to which I have referred were not in the direction that would be helpful to the motherhood of this country. I find, however, that Dr. Hone points out that, according to Dr. Borthwick, in his last annual report for the city of Adelaide, a systematic effort is being made in the metropolitan area for nurses to visit the homes, to give instruction and information required by the mothers, and to do all that is possible within the limitations by which they are bound. He points out that the supplying of pure milk is not sufficient, and mentions that medical men find it difficult to induce mothers to carry out their advice. I make these quotations to show on the authority of at least one medical man, that there is room for doubting that the proposed monetary grant would be asconducive to good as honorable members desire that it shall be ; but I met with a storm of interjections by Ministerialists, suggesting that I support this contention for party reasons. That being so, I shall quote the opinion of a Minister in the Labour Government of New South Wales which proposes a maternity and endowment scheme covering the whole State. That scheme was being prepared by Mr. Flowers, and he says -

The essence of the scheme, the cost of which is estimated at about ^60,000 a y».ar, is free medical and skilled attendance in maternity cases. The project is altogether independent of the maternity bonus proposals of the Federal Government.

We are told that Mr. Flowers regards the ^5 grant by the Commonwealth as pinmoney. Had I said as much, I should have encountered a storm df indignation. He says -

The State of New South Wales is in a better position than the Federal Government to take a systematic plan of maternity assistance in hand, having already at its disposal subsidized public hospitals, a system of local government, medical officers in country districts, and a bush nursing institution. Under the scheme the Government will pay medical and nursing fees, and so far as possible, the public hospitals will be utilized. Medical and nursing treatment will be made compulsory, and since the State will undertake the responsibility of paying, the beads of families will be obliged to secure such treatment under penalty.

The State and municipal Governments, having existing institutions and machinery under their control, are in a better position to deal with this matter than the Commonwealth Government, and I am sure that the desire of the Prime Minister to benefit the mothers of Australia would be realized to. a greater extent if the Commonwealth, instead of giving £5 to each mother applying for relief, subsidized the State and municipal machinery. One of the finest and most active philanthropic institutions of Australia is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, whose members devote a large part of their time to understanding and meeting the requirements of the people. As further evidence that doubt exists as to the wisdom of the proposal under consideration, I shall quote what has been said of this Bill by the president of the Adelaide branch. I regret that honorable members opposite are so impatient of criticism. A measure involving a new principle should be discussed from every point of view. It should not be thrown on the table, and Parliament told to take it as it is, the Government saying, “ We shall not permit you to dot an ‘ i ‘ nor to cross a ‘ t ‘ ; we do not desire discussion, because we do not wish for information, nor do we want to hear the opinions that have been expressed by those opposing this measure. This is the last word on the subject; we have a majority behind us, and are determined to pass the Bill into law.” Ministerialists resent any expression of opinion that does not exactly coincide with their own views. The statement which I wish to read is this -

The maternity bonus proposed by the Prime Minister does not commend itself to the members of the W.C.T.U. It seems patronising, degrading to motherhood, and savours too much of petty politics and too little of broad statesmanship. . . . Far better spend the money -

Mr Page:

– Read the whole passage. Mr. GORDON. - I have no objection to doing so -

In its application to the mothers of illegitimate children it can do little good. and may do definite harm by encouraging an evil that is already too prevalent. It is almost a premium to crime.

That is a view that I do not share.

Far better spend the money on subsidizing institutes that quietly provide succour for those who really need help, and, better still, for the prevention of illegitimacy by more careful moral education, more healthful surroundings, better housing.

Mr West:

– The allowance will be paid only to those who ask for it.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It should not be paid to those who are not in need of assistance. Shakspeare makes King John say -

How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done, and we should not give opportunity to any person to take from the public Treasury money to which he is not entitled by his need for assistance. But, apart from the merits of the proposal, I hold the view that it is not within our constitutional powers to pass legislation of this kind, and, judging by their speeches, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are of that opinion, too. The Attorney-General said that we can spend the money that we obtain from the people as we like, but I take exception to that contention, and do not think that it would be upheld by the High Court. The Commonwealth Parliament can exercise only those powers which have been delegated to it by the States, and are set out in the Constitution; the State Legislatures have all other powers. The object of a measure may be benevolent, but if it is not within our powers to pass it, we have no right to attempt to do so. This measure, being humanitarian in its object, appeals, of course, to a great many persons, and the bringing of it forward on the eve of the general election may not be a bad electioneering move. The Labour party will, no doubt, use it for all it is worth, holding up to opprobrium, as destitute of humanity and regardless of the poor, those who oppose it. Sympathy with the poor is, of course, always a good electioneering cry. Honorable members opposite must know that it is not within our constitutional powers to pass the Bill, or that, at least, our right to do so is very doubtful,” but for the sake of a good electioneering cry, they mean to risk it. The Prime Minister, speaking at Hobart in January or February, upon a proposal akin to this, is reported to have said -

The Commonwealth Government had no power at all to deal with medical men, and hospitals, and chemists.

In regard to a proposal that pensions should be provided for widows and orphans, he asked under what power of the Constitution they could be granted. Senator Needham, who was present at the Conference, replied that “ he hoped the CommonwealthsParliament would get the power,” but the Prime Minister replied -

No one would be readier than he to exercise a power of this kind, but he was afraid it was not within the Constitution. An amendment of the Constitution would have to be brought forward to meet this end, and it should not be limited to widows and orphans. He did not know that any good purpose could be served by putting this on the platform, if there was no constitutional power to carry it into effect. He believed in the principle, but he must vote against it.

If there is no power in the Constitution to provide for the granting of pensions to widows and orphans, there is certainly no power to provide for the granting of a maternity allowance. Have we power to pass legislation to provide for the payment of funeral expenses, or for the granting of an allowance to start him in life to every youth on reaching the age of twenty-one years, or for the making of a gift to every man and woman on their marrying? The State Parliaments, being sovereign bodies, may do what they like with their revenue, so long as they do not infringe the powers which they have delegated to the Commonwealth Parliament; but we, possessing only these delegated powers, cannot make such dispositions of revenue. That was admitted by the Prime Minister at Hobart. He knows very well that, if this measure were brought before the proper tribunal, it would be held that we have not power to make a maternity, allowance. The honorable member for Angas gave it as his opinion, based on cases which he cited, that this Parliament may have power to appropriate money for what is termed an “ ungranted “ purpose, but not to follow it by administrative regulations, that is, we might make a grant of £5, or £$0, or £100, but could not attach conditions and penalties for the .non-observance of them. Some other gentlemen learned in the law with whom I have conversed doubt that there is this power of appropriation, which is my own view. Tucker, in his United States Constitution, says that it has been asserted that there might be power to appropriate, but not to administer, and adds that -

It is inconceivable how a Government can appropriate money to aid the exercise of an ungranted power by any other authority than itself without a breach of trust.

The Bill before us provides for the exercise of an ungranted power, the Constitution giving us no power to make provision for a maternity allowance. Tucker goes on to say -

To use the public money as a means to the exercise of an ungranted power, by controlling its use, would be in reality to exercise a power which has been denied to it by the Constitution.

That is the very proposal which is being made in this case. We are asked to pass a law exercising an “ungranted” power, a power that has been denied to us. It is also proposed that, after we have made the appropriation, we shall control and manage it. That is absolutely forbidden, even in the case of the Federation of the United States; but our position in this regard is very different from that of the United States of America. Professor Harrison Moore, in his excellent work on The Commonwealth of Australia, says, at page 524-

There is, moreover, what appears a vital distinction between the United States and the Commonwealth Constitutions in that in the United States the proceeds of taxation are the unqualified property of the Federal Government, subject to no claim by any one else. The result is that no one, neither State nor citizen, has that definite legal interest in the subject-matter which upon settled principles is essential to any party seeking to impugn the validity of a leg’islative Act.

The proceeds of taxation are not subject to any claim by a State authority ; but, under «ur Constitution, we ate not unqualified possessors of the proceeds of taxation. Professor Harrison Moore points out that-

In the Commonwealth the proceeds of taxation are not the unqualified property of the Commonwealth Government - they are subject to the provision of the Constitution whereby “ surplus revenue” belongs to the several States.

This right of the States at once suggests a limitation upon the objects of appropriation, and gives the States a locus standi for challenging appropriations which may appear ultra vires.

It will thus be seen that our position is very different from that of the United States of America. The proceeds of our taxation are not our unqualified property. The States have an interest in them. Section 94 of the Constitution declares that -

The Parliament may provide, on such basis as it deems fair, for the monthly payment to the several States of all surplus revenues of the Commonwealth.

– I have read the Bill with care. The Bill also provides that if a child does not live twelve hours there shall be no payment to the mother. Where is the humanitarian consideration for the mother in such a case?

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is impossible for the honorable member for Parkes to proceed in the face of these continuous interjections. I appeal to honorable members not to interject.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is a fair sample of the treatment which anybody gets who has the courage to confront the Labour party, and tell them what he thinks of their legislation. We are told that this Bill is going to have an economic effect in helping us to people Australia, ls it not a fact that this Government have systematically objected to contribute money in any form, or to use their influence, to assist immigration to this country? Is it not a fact that, when the High Commissioner proposed to spend ^100,000 a year in advertising Australia they cut down the expenditure to one-fifth?

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr PALMER:

– The Bill provides for a reward which is to be paid to those guilty of an unlawful act. Much as we may sympathize with the unfortunate woman who has been deceived - and, to the disgrace of our sex, women have been deceived - the fact remains that this provides for a reward for an unlawful act. The deception to which women have been subjected is one of the most regrettable reflections on humanity, but by throwing a cloak over these women - by giving to these persons the same recognition as is given to persons who do a righteous thing under lawful conditions - we are establishing a very dangerous precedent. The fact is that this Bill is, as the honorable member for Parkes said, a political placard. The incidence of the Bill shows that it is not designed to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. It matters not to the Government who gets the allowance, so long as it is paid to some one who, in return, will reward them. It is, unfortunately, true that the legislation of the present day is in the direction of taking from people, from the cradle to the grave, their sense of personal responsibility. Most men and women glory in their parentage, and are proud to know that they are responsible for, and able to look after, their children. They glory in their sense of responsibility. Here, however, is a Bill which proposes to give to every woman who is delivered of a child a dole of £5. We have in the community a considerable number of women to whom the allowance will be a blessing. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Bill is constitutional - and the point is one that I am not prepared to discuss - I say that it would be judicious for us to legislate in the direction of providing something more than £5 each for those who are in really necessitous conditions. I do not think that ,£5 is anything like sufficient for the purpose. It does not go far enough. If the children born in our land are the best type of- citizens we can get, they are Worth more than ,£5 each to the State; and if their lives are to be sacrificed for want of £5, they will be sacrificed even if their mothers receive £5 each. A £5- note will not save them. Instead of proposing to give £5 to every prospective mother in the Commonwealth, it would be far better to increase the amount, and to provide that it shall be paid to those whose conditions are such that they really require assistance. It would be better to give to worthy citizens of the Commonwealth doing a noble service - prepared to fulfil their part nobly and well - not only an allowance of ,£5 in respect of every child born,’ but continuous assistance, until the child lias arrived at an age at which it can properly look after itself.

Mr Mathews:

– We shall do that some clay.

Mr PALMER:

Mr HOWE:

– And perfect also in soul., I have no doubt that when to-morrow comes, we shall find him with wings. There is one other point to which I desire to refer in connexion with the honorable member, whom I find expressing an opinion in opposition to that held by his Leader.

He emphasized with much intensity tonight the fact that we as a party were fighting for our own class. During the debate on the censure motion, I happened to say that we were a class within a nation, and the Leader of the Opposition replied that such a thing could not possibly be. He asserted that there was no class here. We were, he said, a body of people with common ends, common purposes, and common interests. I had occasion to reprove the honorable member, and to show that we were a class within the nation, and I am very glad to have the recognition, on the part cf the honorable member for Parkes, that we are a class, and a working class. We intend to be a working class with working class ideals and principles; we intend to redeem the working class and to make it. if possible, an Australian nation. That is all I have to say to the honorable member. Coming to the maternity allowance itself, I may say that I never read H. G. Wells without feeling that he gives me new ideas and helps me to higher mental attainments, and to a higher conception of life. In a book entitled, The Great State, which he has just written, Mr. Wells makes the statement -

We have indeed to work out an entire new system of relations between men and women, that will be free from servitude, aggression, provocation, or parasitism. The public endowment of motherhood as such may perhaps be the first broad suggestion of the granting of this new status.

I can view this matter from that standpoint - as a conception of the higher state of to-morrow, of the higher development of society, of a new and larger status in which there shall be a larger aggregation of common human purpose; in which motherhood’ and the nationalization of health will be a great national objective; in which the child shall be born not alone as related to its father and. mother, but as an asset of the State, related to the State, a child of the State, a member of the community. What are you doing to-day? You are telling the world that every child that comes into this country is a possible asset. It is born to the. race, born of past time, born of all that has been, that has made our nation what it is to-day. It is a possible asset that ‘ will have its effect, fulfil its purpose in the world, and transmit to future generations the result of its work, and the same force that gave it life. Are we to take it, then, that this most important and valuable asset to the community is to be left merely in the hands of the father and mother, who may know little of what is necessary for its development and its training, so that it may not become a derelict or burden to the community, but an effective fighting force? Most unfortunately, I find, because I thought it would be otherwise, that so capable a gentleman as the honorable member for Angas seems to think that this measure is not desirable. He is afraid that we are going too far in taking care of the childlife of the nation, and assisting the parents by a grant of this sort. In attempting to socialize or nationalize the health of the community, he appears to believe that we are going to do something that ‘is fraught with evil for the community. The honorable member said the question of granting bonuses was not a matter to be played with, for Parliament could not interfere with the operations of nature without paying the penalty somehow or other. I wish to differentiate between the honorable member for Angas arid the honorable member for Parkes, but I am afraid in this respect they have made perhaps the same mistake. The honorable member for Angas has the laws of political economy at his finger tips, but he seems to know just as much of the laws of nature as the honorable member for Parkes knows of the laws of political economy. When he warned us last night against interfering with the laws of nature, I had to ask him by interjection if he distinguished between the laws of nature, and art, or the operations of our social life, and the efforts of the human brain. One man wrote in the sixteenth century these words -

Yet nature is made better by no mean, But nature makes that mean : So, over that art,

Which, you say, adds to nature, is an art That nature makes. . . .

. . This is an art

Which does mend nature - change it rather ; but

The ‘ art itself is nature.

I find myself in conflict with the honorable member for Angas when he attempts to distinguish between nature and human effort. Surely the laws of nature are best expressed and embodied in the brain effort of the community. We have come up through the ages, breeding out, as it were, the ape and the tiger, and relying more and more on intellectuality to direct us into such paths as we think essential to the progress of humanity. There is no contradiction between the art we have and nature. The question is whether our art, or artifice, as it may be called, is perhaps the highest expression of nature. It is not always successful, not always beneficial, possibly full of mistakes, but it is still the only method we can adopt to attain that fullest development which we are seeking. That applies to the introduction of such a Bill as this is. I confess that I listened with much interest and pleasure to the honorable member for Angas, as I always do. I pay the highest deference to him for the care, study, and ability that he always puts into his utterances, and it is a delight to me to sit arid listen to him. On this occasion, however, the honorable member went further, and practically asserted that the introduction of a Bill such as this was going to sap the public spirit of the community. In’ proof of that assertion, he took us back to the days of ancient Rome. He spoke of the giving of wheat or bread to the populace of Rome as the cause of the disaster that befell the Roman Empire, inferring that if we give this bonus we are going to fall also. If he did not mean that, his illustration meant nothing. But! was the honorable member not a little too anxious to prove his case? Did he not fail to recognise what the actual facts were in connexion with that great event in history ? The honorable member for Bendigo took up precisely the same attitude, and the honorable member for Illawarra, by interjection, also suggested that we are sapping the vitals of the community. They inferred that the moment we attempt to assist those who are in need, the result will be disastrous to the public spirit, the temper, arid the morale of the whole community. Is the statement of the honorable member for Angas true, that the granting of doles to the people of Rome resulted in the disaster that fell upon the Empire? Surely not. Any man with the most commonplace knowledge of the history of Rome knows that the Roman Empire fell by virtue of the outside forces of the Germanic people seeking an outlet for their teeming millions. Rome had extended her dominion throughout the length and breadth of Europe. Corruption had come into her midst, and she had even taken the barbarian within her gates, and given him place and power. There was internecine warfare at the same time; the army was unpaid, large estates were growing, and riot arid debauchery were rampant on every side. It was not the mere giving of a little corn to the people in the streets of Rome, but the great European upheaval, with the consequent change of situation and circumstances, that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire. The same thing may take place to-morrow in connexion with the British Empire, although I hope it will never come. That an honorable member with the ability and knowledge of the honorable member for Angas should stand up in his place, and magnify one tiny aspect of the history of those times into the cause of the breakdown of a great Empire, only shows how far the members on the Opposition side of the House are driven for arguments to justify the opposition they are putting up against this Bill. If the honorable member’s contention is correct, if the granting of a bonus for maternity purposes is a parallel to the condition of the Roman Empire in its latter days, if the honorable member for Bendigo holds, as he did last night, that the parallel is correct, and if the honorable member for Illawarra arid the Leader of the Opposition, take up the same attitude, then I say there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to oppose this Bill, and vote it out. It is of no use for. the honorable member for Bendigo to tell us that he will vote for the second reading of the Bill, and seek to make it better in Committee. If it is bad in principle, if it means disaster to the Australian people, if it means that our public spirit is going to be sapped, if the taking of this £5 will bring degradation upon our race, it is the duty of every honorable member on the Opposition side of the House to say, as a patriot and a man of public spirit, “ You do what you please ; damn this country if you please, but we shall stand for its defence and vote against this Bill right along our benches.” If they do not do that, they simply mark themselves as political trimmers. The Bill is either right or wrong in principle. There may be room for amendment, and I agree with the honorable member for Gwydir that there is. I shall be pleased to associate myself with any member of the House in making amendments that will, if possible, insure the money being put into the hands of the woman who bears the child, and the spending of it by her. If she fails in her duty to her child, we cannot help it. We may regret it, but we shall have done the best we can. If she fails us, then we simply stand helpless to mend matters. We cannot follow every living soul into the home, and direct every detail of daily life.

– There would not; but I think the Leader of the Opposition had an idea that, if his suggestion were carried out, there would be some political value. That was the idea of the deputation of the Council of the Churches. At that deputation

Professor Adam said -

– Why all the taunts that have been flung across the chamber? Why are we told, “You are not game to vote against the Bill “ ? Why are we asked, “ Why do not you vote against it ?” What does all this challenging mean ? Do Government supporters wish honorable members on this side to vote against the Bill?-‘ If honorable members opposite are anxious to get this proposal through, they ought to try to persuade honorable members on this side to treat the measure in a reasonable way, and come over to the views of the Government.

Mr West:

– Is that not impossible?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Does the honorable member suggest that it is impossible ? The honorable member and his party are doing their very best to provoke honorable members on this side to statements regarding the Bill which they can use on the platform outside. That has been the whole tenor of the debate as conducted by honorable members opposite up to the present; in other words, this is a party question, so far as the Government are concerned. Nothing would give honorable members greater chagrin than for the Opposition to vote for the Bill. That, of all things in the world, is what honorable members opposite do not desire, and what they fear ; and so, with one exception, every speech has been a provocative one.

The Attorney-General began his speech with a scathing indictment of something that was said weeks ago, but nothing said on this Bill did the honorable gentleman attempt to controvert in any shape or form.

Why has this proposal been so late in putting in an appearance? Two years and a half this Government have been in power, and in that time over 1,000 mothers have died, 238,000 children have been born, and the Government have had £2 ,000,000 of surplus. The Government have had so much money that they did not know what to do with it, and they have been putting it into Trust Funds. It is only now, with the shadow of the approaching elections upon them, that they find that a measure of this kind is needed. Whoever may be callous-hearted, honorable members opposite must bear this responsibility, that, although for two and a half years they have had surpluses to boast of and play with, they have done nothing in this matter. When the Liberals were in office they were without surplus resources, but the Labour party has had the money, and yet only at the eleventh hour brings forward this proposal. The Bill itself is proof positive, if that were needed, that it is only a political placard.

Mr Jensen:

– Does the honorable member think that the women of Australia will sell themselves to the Labour party for a £5 note?

Mr Fairbairn:

– You are trying to buy them for that.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is the price you are putting on them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is not possible to carry on the debate with these conversations across the chamber.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– So far from entertaining that opinion of the women of Australia, I say that they will be able to see through this proposal, and to arrive at the intentions and motives of those who make it. They will estimate this proposal at its true value. Therefore, the honorable member’s remark is idle. It is only on the eve of a general election that humanitarian sentiment throbs in the breasts of honorable members opposite, and they join in this chorus of praise of motherhood. The Attorney-General, who alone has made any pretence of defending the Bill, commenced with a tirade against an honorable member on this side, which had nothing to do with the question before the House, and went on to lay down the principles on which the measure is founded. It is worth while to study his remarks, if only because they give the recent opinions of the Labour party’s professor of political economy. The honorable gentleman was most anxious to show how much he knows of that science, and how little any one over here knows of it. He insisted that we should pay attention to economic principles, and base our opposition on them. The principle on which, according to him, the Bill is founded may be stated in a sentence. The honorable member said, “ This principle of kindly humanitarianism is one to which the whole world has set its hand.” That is a mere bald statement which he did not attempt to support with argument, and, so far as he was concerned, settled the matter. If that is all that he can find to say in defence of the measure, it is a poor lookout for it. It is true that a wave of humanitarianism is sweeping over the world to-day, but that makes it the more needful that a proposition of this kind should be discussed with the utmost care and calm. When sentiment is uppermost, there is least likelihood of cool judgment, and it is necessary that we should coolly and calmly examine the provisions which seek to crystallize this sentiment in a measure on the statute-book.

Mr Thomas:

– The honorable member says that the Bill is merely a political dodge.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have not used that word, but something like it, and have stated the evidence which supports it; the public will be the judge between us.

So far as I can ascertain, the experts who to-day are engaged in uplifting the fallen, and in bringing some ray of comfort, hope, and inspiration to the submerged, those who are giving their lives to the task of helping humanity, are opposed to the measure. I can find scarcely any who have anything good to say of it.

The Attorney-General gave us a dissertation on the value of immigration to the Commonwealth, and spoke of its progress since this Government took office. Seeing that it has not done a hand’s turn to assist immigration, but that Ministers have spoken against it on every conceivable occasion outside, and played up to the sentiments of the Trades Halls, who all oppose it, to take credit for the increase in the number of immigrants is a piece of political effrontery that I have not seen equalled. The honorable gentleman said that the birth rate has also increased under this Government, and he laid it down as an axiom that where prosperity is greatest, there marriages are most frequent, and most children are born. Speaking generally, the contrary is the case. The fact is that most children are born in the poorer countries of the world. The population is increasing most rapidly in countries like Russia and Japan, where the economic conditions are lowest, and most slowly in France, where millions of persons are settled on the land, and the country is so rich that it is competing to become the banker of Europe. The low birth rate of France is a shocking example to all other countries. Therefore, the statement of the honorable member is opposed to fact, and shows how little he has thought about this matter. Immediately after making the statement he gave it a contradiction. He went on to deal with the subject of race suicide, and drew a very sad picture about it which is all too true. But what was the statement that he made immediately after that uttered by him, that prosperity tended to an increase in marriage and in the production of children? He said, “As civilization increases, so race suicide increases.” In that we have an answer to the statement that he made but a few moments before. The honorable member said that if we relieved the economic strain on society, and developed our prosperity, the result would be a greater number of marriages, and an increase in the birth rate. I do not desire to follow the honorable member further, but the outstanding fact is that the poorer people to-day are bringing the most children into the world.

Mr Higgs:

– Was not that always so?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes; and therefore there is no necessary connexion between the well-to-do condition of the people and the increase in the birth rate. The sad fact is that as the economic condition of the people is eased, so does the production of children ease. That is a notorious fact with which we have to deal in this twentieth century.

– But the average for Great Britain is 124 per 1,000. Our death rate is also the lowest in the world. The United Kingdom comes next, then Germany, France, and Japan, in the order named. These figures, when one comes to study them, make one feel proud of one’s race. With the exception of Australia, Great Britain, notwithstanding all its overcrowded conditions, has the lowest infantile mortality rate, and the lowest death rate in the world. We must keep these facts in mind when we address ourselves to a problem of this kind. We must not approach the consideration of a Bill of this character with any idea that Australia furnishes a shocking example in this respect’. Quite the contrary is the case.

What is the underlying principle of this Bill ? We are told distinctly by the Prime Minister that it provides not for a baby bonus, but for a maternity allowance, although how he distinguishes between the two I do not pretend to understand. It is a proposal to care for and help and guard the mothers of Australia. It is a very important proposal to come before any Chamber, because it drives us back to the fundamentals. The first question that arises is whether this guardianship of the women of the land by the State is a premiss to be assumed, or a fundamental question to be seriously discussed. It marks a grave and great departure from the existing order of things. I believe profoundly that the State ought to help and guard the weak of the community who have no one else to protect and care and look after them. But, ordinarily, this guardianship has been hitherto left to the husband of the woman - to the menfolk of the community. It is a pertinent question, and I hope that it will not be considered that I am making an outrageous suggestion, if I say that we ought seriously to consider how far we axe going to relieve the husband of the guardianship and protection and support of his wife.

Mr Riley:

– To the extent of £5.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is so at present, but we are told that this is only a beginning. Should we not have some definite objective in view ? Above all else we want to find out how far we are going to interfere in the guardianship of the home and the family by the husband, who hitherto has had that responsibility thrown upon him by every civilized country. In other words, what is the ultimate State objective to be aimed at in connexion withproposals of this kind ?

– I hope and believe they are. I am only pointing to these figures for what they are worth. All these are very grave and serious questions that we have to look straight in the face when we come to deal with the whole social problem as it is here.

May I be forgiven also if I suggest that others have considered this question from the point of view of the effect of such legislation upon the fibre, the morale, and the tone of the community - upon that something in the- community which spells national inefficiency, economically, and in every other sense. Here I propose to quote an authority to which my honorable friends opposite will pay a good deal of attention. I refer to a volume by Mr. Jethro Brown, who has just been appointed by the Government to act as Chairman of the Sugar Commission. He has written a very interesting work on The Underlying Principles of Modern “Legislation. This is what he says of proposals of this kind, showing the need for careful consideration of all these matters, apart from political sentiment or party feeling of any kind. After speaking of the native qualities of perseverance, moderation, individuality, and other outstanding characteristics of the English race, he goes on to say -

The suggestion that the conception of governmental maternalism has a merely academic value overlooks two important facts. In the first place, the humanitarian movement of our time, admirable though it is, has its attendent dangers. In the second place, instances may be found, even in the past, of misguided philanthropy on the part of the legislator. The working of the old Poor Law as it existed in the earlier part of the nineteenth century is a classical example. In view of recent tendencies as displayed in the “ Reports of the Poor Law Commission of 1909, a reference to the “Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1834” might seem belated. I do not think it would be so regarded by competent judges. While the recommendations of the earlier commission, even if they had been carried into effect, would have proved inadequate to solve the many and changing problems of poor law administration, the evidence accumulated by that Commission has an induring value. It shows how a misguided philanthropy may tend to degrade the national character. The system of indiscriminate outdoor relief, the admission of an absolute right in the pauper to maintenance by the State, and the State endowment of motherhood -

That is the very thing with which we are now dealing - such conditions had sapped the habits of industry and imperilled the family life of whole classes of the community.

That is a strong statement to be made by a careful investigator who is sympathetic towards all reasonable humanitarian legislation. He asks us to consider calmly the way we are going in connexion with legislation of this kind. But it seems impossible for any man to discuss such questions here. The moment he does so, he is asked, “ Are you going to vote against the Bill ? “ He is told, “ You are not game to vote against the Bill.” “ Why do not you vote against the Bill ?” These taunts are flung at him. That is all the argument we get if we attempt to reason about this proposal. Professor Jethro Brown adds -

The policy of the State gave a direct and official sanction to the refrain - “ Then drive away sorrow and banish all care,

For the State it is bound to maintain us.” Multitudes grew careless and apathetic as workers, shamelessly dependent as citizens and callous as parents.

But there is another authority nearer home than Professor Jethro Brown, who has told us how cautious we ought to be in connexion with legislation of this kind. That authority is none other than the right honorable the Prime Minister himself. At the., recent Hobart Conference, speaking of the various proposals that came up for consideration in favour of a contributory, compulsory scheme of State insurance - and at that Conference three States out of the group brought forward for consideration proposals for compulsory insurance - the Prime Minister said that the schemes had much to commend them. The scheme of Germany, he added, was good in itself, but not suitable for our purposes. The Prime Minister was not against a national insurance scheme; he thought that Lloyd-George’s work would in future years be acknowledged to be the best thing done for the workers during the century. He expressed his firm well-founded belief in the efficacy of a well-reasoned scheme of national insurance. At present, he said, there was a feeling against it, but when the benefits were experienced it would be appreciated. Later on in the same argument he said, regarding old-age pensions, that there were no difficulties, but that with regard to invalid pensions there was a great danger aheadSociety would have to organize itself and see that where pensions were paid to invalids they did not do a serious injustice to society and endanger its very existence.

Here the Prime Minister recognised that there were dangers inherent in an invalidity scheme of pensions, which, unless they were watched, might endanger the very existence of society. No man over here has used language stronger than that -

That was undoubtedly a question that men and women and representative men must face in the interests of the people generally.

Later on, the Prime Minister said -

He trusted that the Commonwealth would be able to work in co-operation with the States in all matters connected with hospitals and similar institutions so as to be able to lessen the difficulties and trials of the unfortunates of society.

I do not indorse these statements, but quote them as interesting utterances on the general question from high authorities.

Has the Prime Minister made any proposals or overtures to the States in connexion with the working of this scheme ? If he has, what replies has he received? Is he going to put this Bill through as he did the Bank Bill, and then approach the States? That is not the way to work. No machinery is provided in the Bill by which to operate this allowance. The provisions of the Constitution do not permit the Government to bring such machinery into existence. I think all sides are pretty well agreed* upon that matter. Therefore, the Government can only make a proposal for an allowance without the machinery at their disposal to follow the thing through to see that it attains the very object for which the proposal is made. Has the Prime Minister asked the States to help him in the matter? He said at the Hobart Conference that he desired to work in cooperation with them in every way, so as to make any of these proposals of the utmost benefit to all concerned. He pointed out that there was the greatest need for watchfulness in all matters relating to invalidity, because if they were not watched the very existence of society might be endangered. No man on this side has used words of sterner caution than the Prime Minister himself has done. Honorable members, therefore, should be prepared to listen to argument on this question, even if it be opposed totheir own view, and they should make the most of any suggestion for carrying through their policy.

The more I see of these proposals in other parts of the world the more I recognise the necessity for getting close to your objective. That is the outstanding feature of all such schemesthat are doing any good in the world to-day. The local authority provides the machinery through which they all act. In this connexion, John Burns has done a great deal in the very direction in which this Government are now seeking to move. He has quoted figures which, in themselves, demonstrate the triumph of his administration. No man has devoted himself with greater assiduity, ability, and sympathy to this very problem, and he hasachieved some wonderful results. For instance, he has pointed out that -

At the Foundling Hospital in London a century ago 14,934 children were received in fouryears, of whom 10,389, or just over 70 per cent,, died. At -present the death rate at the same institution was less than that among the children of rich families in Mayfair, and less than half the rate for the whole of the country. The improved conditions had been brought about, first, by the doctor; secondly, by the nurse and the midwife; and then by benevolent people, who had been slowly achieving their object. Not only were they reducing the general average of mortality, but they were knocking off the high peaks of exceptional mortality in certain areas. They no longer had the death rate of 250 or 500 per 1,000 in special areas which they had ten or twenty years ago. In no country had greater progress been made than in Great Britain and Ireland during the last four years. The decline was not due to any one special reason, but to many causes, experiments and ideas converging on the question of how to protect the mother, preserve the infant, guard the child, and reinvigorate the race. Other causes which contributed to the present satisfactory position were the increasing number of appointments of health visitors by local authorities, better feeding, the establishment of schools for mothers, and the improved character and quantity of the literature issued by the various associations and by the local authorities.

In every case, the local authority is the unit of all their remedial schemes and agencies. Here all that the Government propose to do is to centralize the matter and merely make a grant. They do not even know yet how it is to reach the mother. They cannot guarantee that it will reach her. There is no machinery of any kind in the Bill to “ that effect. There is a simple announcement that a commissioner is to be appointed, to be under the control of the Minister; and, there, so far as we know, the machinery ends. I ask honorable members if they think there is any proposal in the Bill for affording speedy relief to cases which are most urgently in need? As I read this Bill clause by clause, I had to keep asking myself, “ When is this benefit to get to the mother and to get to the child?” For instance, in clause 7, we are told that, in respect of any birth, unless a claim for payment of the allowance has been made to the proper officer within three months of the date of the birth, the money cannot be obtained at all. Here the woman has to make the claim. Nobody can do it for her, except with her written authority. A woman who has had a bad case of confinement may be for weeks unable to write or do anything. The very time that she is most urgently in need is the time when it seems to be most difficult for her to get any relief of this kind. It is said by the Prime Minister that she will have this credit to draw upon. Maybe she will. It all depends upon where she is living, and what are her circumstances.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– How will she know whether the child will be alive?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am speaking of a time subsequent to the birth of the child.. She may not be able to get credit then. She may have a lot of creditors around her already, and there is no guarantee that she will be able to get past them. I say that there is no machinery in this Bill to provide for difficult cases, and for conveying the benefit directly to the mother. All this means that this kind of thing can be infinitely better done by local authorities who are on the spot, and who have facile means of giving the relief and making it of most effect. Here we are hundreds of miles away, thousands of miles away in some cases, affecting to deal with this matter, with no constitutional machinery to do so. The bald proposal of the Bill has ineffectiveness stamped over its very face.

If we are going to do anything effective at all in a proposal of this kind, it ought to be, at this time of day, in the direction of a large, wise, contributory scheme of insurance. It is time that the Labour party obviated the need for these eleemosynary doles. We ought to be beyond it in these days, surely. I say this with no bitterness ; but it does seem1 to me that my honorable friends opposite have not very much to be proud of in connexion with a Bill of this kind. After two and a half years of administration, with unlimited power, rolling seasons, and absolute political strength, they are still telling the country that there is an immense amount of suffering in the community which all their ability and sympathy have not yet been able to assuage. If there is one thing more than another that the Labour party came in to do, it was to go down to the root cause of these troubles, to get to the bedrock in regard to the economic settling of this question, in order to remove causes; and here they are dealing with symptoms, and making no attempt to deal with causes at all.

Mr Howe:

– What are you here for?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I should not like to say what the honorable member’s opinion is of our being here. Of course, he thinks we are a poor benighted crowd. He has already said so. He has charged us to-night with all sorts of narrowness of view, and incompetence. But what is the record of the party of all the talents and all the sympathy, and’ all the power into the bargain? Is this Bill all they have to offer us after three years of un- disputed rule, with no opposition to hurt them? The result of their three years’ administration, crystallized, is that they still say that there is an almost untold amount of suffering in the community. I think the expression used by the honorable member for Calare was that there was still a great amount of suffering and deprivation. The slums are still there, and rents are still high; so that these poor people cannot get habitable dwellings. Food is dearer than ever, so that these mothers can get less of it. All that the party have done to remove causes is very little indeed.

Mr Jensen:

– Has this party power over rents?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not think so. What did he say?

Mr.- ROBERTS.- Nothing could be more keen than the remarks of the honorable gentleman, and he refrained, even after we attempted to correct him, from apologizing for the statement he made to the effect that certain provisions were not in the Bill, when, as a matter of fact, they were.

Sir John Forrest:

– That is rather farfetched. What was it he said?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order 1 The honorable member must cease making these interjections.

Mr ROBERTS:

Debate (on motion by Mr. Kelly) adjourned.

page 3456

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– In moving the adjournment, I wish to intimate to honorable members that we shall have to sit later to-morrow night, as we wish to get on with the business in hand. I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The Honorary Minister a few moments ago made a personal reflection upon me because of an interjection I made. He was referring from his place at the table, or, rather, from that of the Prime Minister, to the pride he felt in being associated with the Labour movement, and in speaking before his colleagues of the Labour party. I interjected, “Hear, hear!” The interjection was intended to convey, and was accepted by the Minister as conveying, my belief that he really was proud of the position he occupied in the party, to which he has attained by virtue of certain methods inside the organization and inside this

.- I desire to say that I accept the honorable member’s explanation of his assumption, and also his apology.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 September 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19120925_reps_4_66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives25 September 1912

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GE NERAL’ S DEPARTMENT

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr FRAZER:Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Dr CARTY SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr FRAZER:

Mr ARCHIBALD:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr Groom:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr GORDON:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, SYDNEY

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Mr LAIRD SMITH:DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr THOMAS:Minister for External Affairs · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Dr CARTY SALMON:

Mr THOMAS:

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FISHER:

QUESTION

NAVAL COLLEGE: SUPPLY OF HARDWOOD

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr John Thomson:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

QUESTION

EMPIRE DEFENCE

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr Glynn:

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK: CONSTRUCTION OF WARSHIPS

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ROBERTS:Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

ELECTORAL LAW

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

Mr DEAKIN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr Deakin:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr GROOM:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr ATKINSON:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : QUEENSLAND

Mr GROOM:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr SAMPSON:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr THOMAS:ALP

QUESTION

MIDDLETON REEF

Mr JOHN THOMSON:for Mr. W. Elliot Johnson

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT

Mr RILEY:

Mr HUGHES:ALP

QUESTION

MEAT COMBINE

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr TUDOR:ALP

PAPER

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL

House of Representatives
25 September 1912

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIBALD:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr THOMAS:
Minister for External Affairs · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. W. Elliot Johnson

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

Mr OZANNE:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan