House of Representatives
31 October 1913

5th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2826

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported : -

Excise Tariff (Sugar) Bill. Sugar Bounty Bill. Supply Bill (No. 4).

page 2826

QUESTION

SEARCHING OF MEMBERS

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP; UAP from 1931

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement in this morning’s paper, that the Government at the last sitting of the House was met with armed resistance, has come under his notice, and, if so, whether he will order that the members of the House shall be searched to see whether they are carrying firearms.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Such questions, founded on irresponsible newspaper paragraphs, are not in order.

page 2826

QUESTION

CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has anything to communigate to the House, and to the country, regarding the change of leadership on the Government side?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is not in order. I ask honorable members to refrain from frivolous or ironical ques tions. I have pointed out on several previous occasions what questions are allowable and what are not allowable under .our Standing Orders and by the parliamentary practice laid down in May.

Mr WEBSTER:

– On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No point of order can arise upon my decision.

Mr Webster:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not do that upon the disallowance of an irregular question.

Mr Webster:

– As a matter of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no question of privilege involved.

Mr WEBSTER:

– No rights at all I

page 2826

MELBOURNE CUP.

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

– I desire to visit my electorate this week-end, and I wish, therefore, to know whether the Prime Minister intends that the House should adjourn from this afternoon until Wednesday next. I shall probably have to sleep on deck through my inability to procure a berth on board the Tasmanian steamer, because I have had to defer application for one pending an announcement by the honorable gentleman.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for Home Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– If my honorable friends opposite will allow us to deal with the matter at once, and without debate, I am prepared to do so. Can we deal with it in a formal way?

Mr Webster:

– Go on; we shall treat you kindly.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then I move-

That the House at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next, at 3 o’clock p.m.

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I have no objection to an adjournment over Tuesday, but I point out that in a matter of this kind a lead is expected from the head of the Government. It is strange in these times to see him come begging to the Opposition, though it is like him to lean on some one else when there is a delicate situation. I ask my honorable friends not .to oppose the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2826

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– The Prime Minister stated a week ago to-day that it was his intention to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into electoral matters. Has he done anything, and, if not, when is the Commission to be appointed?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– Nothing is being done yet, the matter being under consideration, but a Commission will be appointed.

page 2827

IMMIGRATION

Mr P P ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister taken any steps to discuss with the High Commissioner during his stay in Australia the action that should be taken by the Commonwealth in regard to immigration 7

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– We hope, before the return of the High Commissioner to England, to discuss with him that and many other questions. This first-hand discussion will be of the greatest possible advantage. I hope to take advantage of the earliest opportunity to consult the High Commissioner on immigration and other important public matters.

page 2827

QUESTION

SMALL-POX OUTBREAK

Mr WEBSTER:

– Has the Minister of Trade and Customs read in the newspapers the alteration of the quarantine regulation allowing passengers from Sydney to Victoria to travel to Wangaratta instead of to Wodonga as formerly, without hindrance. Does not that alteration increase the risk of spreading small-pox in Victoria ? Will he see that the regulations that he has stood by so long are enforced in an absolute and practicable manner ?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Trade and Customs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There has been no alteration whatever in the regulation referred to-. It stands as framed.

page 2827

QUESTION

POLICE PAY FOR ELECTIONS

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I ask the Honorary Minister whether any allowance has been, or is to be, paid to the Victorian police for the work they did at the last Federal election. An allowance was given to them in connexion with the previous election.

Mr KELLY:
Minister (without portfolio) · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall have inquiries made, and give my honorable friend the fullest information.

page 2827

QUESTION

QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE

Mr WEBSTER:

– In view of your ruling a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I understand that if you declare a question to be frivolous I must subside. But does such a ruling deprive me of the right to rise on a question of privilege? Are the rights of honorable members to be frittered away? Is no member to be permitted to raise questions of privilege concerning matters of public importance ? Is the right to raise a question of privilege a dead letter? You have never refused any one else the right to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope that the honorable member will not repeat his last re-‘ mark. I .think the House generally will admit that I try to be fair to every honorable member. In reply to his questions, let me point out that, apart from the decisions recorded by recognised works of reference, it has been laid down by Mr. Speaker McDonald and other occupants of the Chair in this House, that it is disorderly and not in keeping with the dignity of the House to ask frivolous questions, and that such questions should not be answered. It is also laid down that the Speaker, until the House otherwise decides, is the sole judge as to what questions should be put, and that a question of privilege cannot arise on the decision of the Speaker disallowing or otherwise dealing with a question or motion which, in his opinion, should not be asked or moved.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I think that you misunderstood me, Mr. Speaker. You inferred that I wished to discuss, by raising a question of privilege, something pertaining to the ruling which you had given. I had no such thing in my mind.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If that be the case, I express regret if I have unintentionally done the honorable member an injustice. But he did not at the time state that his question of privilege related to another matter.

page 2827

QUESTION

WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral if it is a fact, as rumoured, that he has lifted the embargo as to tendering for supplies for the Commonwealth imposed on the Western Electric Company by his predecessor ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
Postmaster-General · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The matter mentioned by the honorable member for Barrier is one upon which I believe I may be privileged to ask a question. When the Western Electric Company were dealing with the Commonwealth they deliberately swindled the Commonwealth out of £5,900. Having taken action and recovered that amount from this company, I submitted a communication to

Cabinet, in which I claimed that the Fisher Government should not have dealings with a set of swindlers, and I got the approval of that Government to the recommendation, which is minuted on the papers, that the Western Electric Company should not be allowed to tender for any Commonwealth requirements during . my term of office as PostmasterGeneral.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must ask a question.

Mr FRAZER:

– I shall ask a question. The present Postmaster-General has now lifted that embargo from a company that for five years deliberately swindled the Commonwealth, and I ask whether the Postmaster-General has had the approval of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in removing that embargo ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– I did not consult the Prime Minister or Cabinet in connexion with this matter. Prior to the passing of the Customs Act this company was under contract supplying certain material to the Postal Department. The Customs Act provided that if there was an increase in duties on certain articles the purchaser of the articles should pay the increase, and that if there was a decrease in the duties the seller, if called upon by the purchaser to do so, must refund any extra duties paid; but owing to an oversight in the Postal Department, no claim was made in this way upon the Western Electric Company. I admit that it was sharp practice on the part of the company to retain the money, but technically and legally they were entitled to hold it until it was claimed by the Postal Department.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Were they morally entitled to hold it ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– No. But neither the Postal Department nor the Auditor-General’s Department had discovered that this money was being retained ;*and it was only when an exemploye of the company, in search of reward, disclosed what had happened, that the Department became aware of it.

Mr Frazer:

– He proved his case.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– Certainly; and the company refunded the money.

Mr Tudor:

– After they were found out?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– That is so; but if the Department had called on the company at any time, they were liable to make the refund, as might happen in the case of any merchant throughout the country. As soon as this embargo was placed on the Western Electric Company, there was a lock-out among other people, and it cost the Department more than £5,000 or £6,000 in the interval, until I had removed the embargo. Now that these people have been allowed to tender again, prices have come down more than that amount.

Mr FRAZER:

– Following upon the explanation that has been made, I would like to ask the Prime Minister’ whether he thinks that a Government which has demonstrated to the public that it is dealing with a company which deliberately,, for five years, swindled the Postal Department

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Kalgoorlie to put his question, and not make a speech.

Mr FRAZER:

– I am personally interested in this matter, and I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Certainly; but the honorable member must not make a speech beyond what is necessary to explain himself.

Mr FRAZER:

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves of the action of the Postmaster-General in releasing the embargo placed upon a deliberately swindling company that defrauded the public revenue, and intended to keep the money. They put it into a suspense account for five years, and then when it was not claimed by the muddling maladministration of the previous Administration it was claimed by the Fisher Administration.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– You did not find it out yourselves ? Some one disclosed it to you.

Mr FRAZER:

– I am sorry to have to ask this question of any other than the Postmaster-General, but I feel it my duty to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves of allowing a swindling company to be placed back among people who may be expected to deal reasonably with the Commonwealth ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I am not in favour of swindling in connexion with any public contract. I do not know whether swindling has occurred. I know nothing about this matter.

Mr Frazer:

– I assure the Prime Minister that what I have said here I am prepared to say elsewhere.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– What does the honorable member wish me to do ?

Mr Frazer:

– I wish you to dissociate yourselves from thieves.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I shall do it at once.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I would like to ask the Postmaster-General a question without notice. Did the Postmaster-General act on the principle that those who have robbed the public, and have been convicted, and have returned the plunder, are entitled to be restored to their former position ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! We are now developing an irregular debate. This is distinctly out of order. I allowed the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, whose own action when a Minister was involved, more latitude than was strictly allowable; but it has been laid down over and over again, both in this House and in the practice of the House of Commons, that questions arising out of an answer given by a Minister to a previous question are distinctly out of order, and cannot be permitted, as they must inevitably lead to an irregular debate. The question of the honorable member is not in order.

Mr Webster:

– I am sorry I cannot get the information for the benefit of the public. The public should know it is impossible for members to do their duty.

Later :

Mr THOMAS:

– Will the PostmasterGeneral lay on the table of the House or the Library all the papers in connexion with the case of the Western Electric Company 1

Mr Agar Wynne:

– Certainly.

page 2829

QUESTION

POST OFFICE BALANCE-SHEET

Mr WEBSTER:

– Will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House when we are to get the promised balance-sheet of the finances of the Postal Department?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– The balancesheet is just about ready. Honorable members will get it probably next week.

page 2829

QUESTION

LATE SITTINGS

Mr HIGGS:

– I should like to make a little personal explanation, and conclude with a question, if I may. It is a matter of regret to me that I was not present during the proceedings last night. I apprehended that the debate would be ad journed after at least two or three speakers had spoken. I did not think that it would last until after 11 o’clock.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member cannot make a statement of that nature under the cover of a personal explanation. A personal explanation may be made in connexion with something in which the honorable member has been misunderstood or misrepresented in connexion with the proceedings of the House. The honorable member is now simply stating why he was not in the chamber last night.

Mr HIGGS:

– Then, I ask a question. I do not think it is in any way frivolous. I would be glad if the Prime Minister, when he proposes to force an important measure through at one sitting, would so inform the House at some convenient time . during the day.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I shall be very happy to do that, if my honorable friends will reciprocate and inform the Government when they are going to take the business out of the hands of the Government.

page 2829

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. The total expenditure to date on the Port Augusta-Kalgoorlie Railway ?
  2. The length of formation at each end of the line?
  3. The length of line laid?
  4. The quantity of rails and quantity of sleepers on hand?
Mr KELLY:
LP

– The answers to- the honorable member’s questions are -

  1. ^831,000.
  2. The length of formation on main line is : - Western Australian division, 60 miles; South Australian division, 40 miles.
  3. Length of main line laid : - Western Australian division, 5 miles 62 chains; South Australian division, 33 miles. This is exclusive of siding and the ballast-pit line, which represent a mileage of : - Western Australian division, 5 miles 17 chains; South Australian division, 12 miles 41 chains.
  4. In addition to the rails and sleepers already laid in the main line, and which amount to the following : -

Western Australian division, 726 tons 80-lb. rails ; 12,012 sleepers.

South Australian division, 4,148 tons 80-lb. rails; 68,640 sleepers.

The undermentioned quantities are on hand : - Western Australian division, 15,770 tons 80-lb. rails - representing 125 miles; 1 go, 1 08 standard sleepers - representing 91 miles.

South Australian division, 15,444 tons 80-lb. rails - representing 123 miles; i44>°97 standard sleepers - representing 69 miles. The above is exclusive of 1,704 tons of lesserweight rails, and 37,665 sleepers, other than standards, laid in sidings and the ballast-pit line, and on hand at the Depot.

page 2830

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. The number of white persons in the Northern Territory?
  2. The number of officials of all classes?
  3. The total cost of official staff, including residence and all allowances?
  4. The total annual cost of administering the Territory ?
Mr GLYNN:
Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are : -

  1. 1,931.
  2. 120 permanent officials, and 361 temporary employes. 3- j6’‘°94- , . .
  3. ^284,351. Total cost of administration of Territory, less interest on loans - which amounts lo £137,500 - but exclusive of new works-

page 2830

PAPER

Mr. AGAR WYNNE laid on the table the following paper: -

Public Service Act - Promotion of E. M. Vere as Clerks 4th Class, Inspection Branch, PostmasterGeneral’s Department, New South Wales.

page 2830

GENERAL ELECTIONS 1913 7 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

Consideration of Senate’s message, transmitting the following request: -

The Senate requests that the House of Representatives will give leave to the Honorable Joseph Cook, the Right Honorable Sir John Forrest, the Honorable King O’Malley, Frank Anstey, Esq., David Charles McGrath, Esq., and Hugh Sinclair, Esq., members of such House, to attend if they think fit and be examined as witnesses before the Select Committee of the Senate on “ General Elections, 1913.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– I propose to move that leave be given to three honorable members, who, I have ascertained, desire to attend and give evidence before this Select Committee, to do so if they think fit. The others named in the Senate’s message do not desire to attend; and, therefore, I shall not ask that leave be given them to attend.

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I suggest to the Prime Minister that he simply move that the Senate’s request be agreed to, leaving it to all the honorable members named in that request to say whether they will or will not attend.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– My understanding of the matter is that, until leave is given to these honorable members who intimate their desire to attend-

Mr Webster:

– r-Honorable members opposite have to take their instructions from their leader.

Mr Fisher:

– Order ! This is an important matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is set forth in the 11th edition of May, pages 426-7 -

If the attendance of a peer should be desired to give evidence before the House, or any Committee of the House of Commons, the House sends. a message “to the Lords, to request that their lordships will give leave to,” the peer in question, “ to attend, in order to his being examined “ before the House or a Committee, as the case may be, and stating the matters in relation to which his attendance is required. If the peer should be in his place when this message is received, and he consents, leave is immediately given for him to be examined, if he thinks fit. If not present, a message is returned on a future day, when the peer has, in his place, consented to go.

Mr McDonald:

– That relates to the practice of the House of Lords. What does May say in regard to the House of Commons’ procedure ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

May states that -

Whenever the attendance of a member of the other House is desired by a Committee, it is advisable to give him private intimation, and to learn that he is willing to attend, before a formal message is sent to request his attendance. But these formalities, though occasionally adopted, are not usual or necessary in the case of private Bills, where the attendance of members of either House as witnesses is voluntary.

The same practice obtains in relation to both Houses, and that is why I propose to single out only those who desire to attend before the Select Committee.

Mr Bamford:

– After reading some of the evidence, may not some of the others desire to attend before the Committee ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If they do there will be nothing to stop them from attending. Honorable members may attend’ if they are summoned and think fit to go.

Mr Mathews:

– The Prime Minister is “gagging” the Government supporters who are asked to attend.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am afraid I shall have to leave this matter if I am to be obstructed in this way. I merely wish to consult the convenience of honorable members opposite. The matter does not affect honorable members on this side of the House. Those on this side who are mentioned in this request do not propose to attend before the Select Committee, but if honorable members of the Opposition wish to do so, let me obtain for them the leave of the House. I, therefore, formally move -

That the House authorizes the Honorable King O’Malley, Frank Anstey, Esq., and David Charles McGrath, Esq., members of the House of Representatives, to attend accordingly if they think fit.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- It is quite evident that the Prime Minister, who treats this as a farce-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I ask that that insulting observation be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The right honorable member will withdraw the remark.

Mr FISHER:

– The use of the word “farce” is not insulting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is laid down very clearly that it is disorderly to say that an honorable member treats a matter before the House as a farce.

Mr FISHER:

– Then I shall withdraw the remark, and say that the Prime Minister does not treat this question seriously. The Senate is elected on the same franchise as the House of Representatives and represents the people as fully, although not in the same capacity, as we do. Every citizen of Australia is represented in that House, as he is represented here, and it has sent to us a courteous request that leave be given to certain honorable members to appear before a Select Committee appointed by it, and to give evidence if they think fit to do so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And I am doing what the authorities say I should do in the matter.

Mr FISHER:

– The Prime Minister has moved in effect that the request be not agreed to except with certain alterations, although no hurt could come to these honorable members if leave were given all of them to attend. I would point out that the traditions of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in this regard are very different from those of the Parliaments of this democratic country. The House of Lords is not an elective chamber, whereas both Houses of this Legislature are elected on the same basis, and both enjoy the same privileges, rights, and immunities. The practice of the House of Lords prevails in the House of Commons, that no doubt being due to the desire of the Commons to preserve their privileges on an equality with those of the Upper House. The Prime Minister now, in effect, amends the request sent to us by another place, because he learns that certain honorable members mentioned in the message do not desire to give evidence. He has omitted the names-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Of Sir John Forrest, Mr. Sinclair, and myself.

Mr FISHER:

– In other words, the honorable gentleman is omitting from the leave requested by “the Senate on behalf of certain members the names of every honorable member on the Government side. In these circumstances, I say that the Prime Minister obviously, wilfully, and intentionally is trying to thwart and to prevent the Senate Committee from obtaining information from both sides of the chamber.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is this in order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in imputing improper motives.

Mr FISHER:

-I did not do so. I said, sir, that by omitting from the request for leave to attend before the Select Committee the names of all the representatives of the Government side of the House the Prime Minister would limit and thwart the purpose of the Committee.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member said I was wilfully trying to thwart the purpose of this Committee.

Mr FISHER:

– I said wilfully. Is that out of order ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is.

Mr FISHER:

– Then I shall say that the Prime Minister is innocently, unintentionally, and without knowledge doing that which will not reflect credit upon him or the party behind him. I cannot support the motion as proposed. Mr. HIGGS (Capricornia) [11.15].- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is. this going to be debated?

Mr Fisher:

– I do not know.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question - That the House authorizes Mr. King O’Malley, Mr. Anstey, and Mr. McGrath to attend before a Select Committee of the Senate - put. The House divided. .

AYES: 32

NOES: 26

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2832

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion by (Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Notices of Motion Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You won’t even let us arrange our business.

Mr FISHER:

– The Prime Minister is everlastingly complaining about being insulted and interfered with, and asking whether he is to be allowed to speak at all, but I hardly ever rise without him putting in more words than I Ho, as every honorable member knows.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Has the honorable member ever known a case in which the Government has not been allowed to transpose its business without debate ?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes. It is the common practice and usage in every Parliament that this should never be done without notice. Some honorable members have private and necessary duties to perform outside the House, and the notice-paper is sent out to. them to show them the order in which the business will be taken.

Mr Groom:

– It is only a notice.

Mr FISHER:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs tells me that it is only a little thing, but a principle is involved, and the order on the notice-paper should never be interfered with except for good and sufficient reasons. I am sure the Prime Minister and the Ministry had no idea of making this alteration until they came into this House. It is a breach of faith with every man who saw this notice-paper in his own home.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That statement is not correct.

Mr FISHER:

– I withdraw it if it is not correct. I do not wish to make incorrect statements, but I have been in more than one Parliament, and all the time I have been in the Commonwealth and State Parliaments a serious protest has always been made against the changing of the notice-paper, and with good reason. I know of no reason why this transposition should take place. It shows either gross carelessness on the part of the Government, or the head of the Government, in not arranging the notice-paper in accordance with their desires, or, what would be worse, a scheme to mislead members as to the business that is coming on.

Mr Groom:

– That is not a fair remark.

Mr FISHER:

– I simply say it was done either inadvertently or purposely, and the Prime Minister never said he made a mistake or had not time, and that if he had had the time and opportunity he would have put this business on the top. He uttered not one word or suggestion of apology or explanation, but simply moved that the orders be trans: posed. That is bringing in a bad precedent, which cannot be justified, and will always be protested against. I have known a Speaker to prevent that being done without notice. Mr. Cowley, when Speaker in the Queensland Assembly, said it was likely to mislead members and do an injury, and gave a decision that Ministers, as they had the opportunity to arrange the business from night to night as they pleased, ought to know exactly what was to be brought forward. He used the very same words that I am using now, that members are entitled to know with reasonable notice what business is coming on first, so that they can arrange their own affairs as far as practicable to suit their own convenience, consistent with the carrying out of their public duties. That is the reason why these motions should not be moved so frequently as they have been moved recently. I protest against the proposal, which is not necessary and nob urgent.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I know that the Government have a right to place business before the

House in the way they desire, and, as an individual, I can stand a good deal, but on this occasion they may be charged with a political move. The first we heard of these two questions was yesterday, the Prime Minister giving notice of one, and the Attorney-General of the other. We have on the notice-paper Bills that have been under the consideration of the House, and any one might reasonably suppose that those were the ones which had to be considered immediately. They have been partly dealt with, but they are now to be put on one side, and the Government, because they consider that a certain position has been created in the House, take advantage of what looks like a majority to force these two questions on. There must be some reason for it.

Sir John Forrest:

– Let us see the Bills.

Mr MATHEWS:

– This is no laughing matter. The proposal puts members in an unfair position. Does the Prime Minister think that if the members on this side of the House had any idea that these two questions were to be considered today, we should not have had a full roll ? Of course we should. I am not apologizing for those who are absent, but it is a political move on the part of the Government to go on with these two questions, because they know that we are shorthanded to-day. It is despicable for a Government or party to do that -sort of thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member to withdraw the word “ despicable.” It is unparliamentary.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I withdraw it, but I know from the peculiar looks on the faces of the members of the Government

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Government have no intention of discussing these mea- sures to-day.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If the Prime Minister thinks I am going to trust him after what he has done in these matters he is mistaken.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We do not want you to trust him. We want you to -see the Bills; there will be no discussion today.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The AttorneyGeneral knows that no Government at this stage on a Friday, when it is generally known that we have not a full House, would resort to the practice of postponing business in order to bring such matters on, unless they had some particular intention to carry out. I raise strong objection to this course, and am determined that if the Government intend to do anything to-day there shall be a little more trouble in the Chamber than there has been for some time. As a party man, I do not intend to let the Government ride roughshod over us. If we knew the matter was to come on to-day we could not growl.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I tell the honorable member again that I simply want to get the Bills before the Chamber, and that they are not to be considered to-day.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I will accept that assurance from the Prime Minister.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 25

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That intervening business be postponed - put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 25

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2834

POSTAL VOTING RESTORATION BILL

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– In introducing these two measures the Government do not intend to take any advantage whatever, or to do anything more than put them before the House for consideration.

Mr Fisher:

– You can do as you please.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am about to do exactly as I please. I wish that to be distinctly understood.

Mr Higgs:

– Under standing order C, I move -

That the honorable member for Parramatta be not further heard.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No question has been put yet.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no motion before the House yet.

Mr Higgs:

– But the honorable member for Parramatta is speaking, and the standing order says that-

A motion without notice may be made, that a member who is speaking “ be not further heard,” and such question shall be put forthwith.

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 2

NOES: 53

Majority

51

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Motion negatived.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to restore the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1909 with respect to voting by post.

Bill presented, and read a first time. Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the second reading be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

I am in some doubt whether the measure is really in order, as it apparently covers the same ground as is covered by another Bill now before the House. I wish to know whether this Bill is not out of order 1

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2835

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Motion (by Mr. W. H. Irvine) proposed^

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to prohibit, in relation to Commonwealth employment, preferences and discriminations on account of membership or non-membership of an association.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to withdraw that expression. It has already been ruled out of order.

Mr Webster:

– I withdraw the expression. The Attorney-General is now fathering a measure which is not in accordance with the promises made by the Government to the people of Australia. It is a piece of legislation-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in discussing the provisions of the Bill. I understood him to rise to a point of order.

Mr Webster:

– I ask, sir, whether this Bill is in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The point of order raised by the honorable member has already been raised by the honorable member for Wide Bay. I have no knowledge of the information to which the honorable member refers, and, as I have already ruled, it is quite permissible to have two Bills on the business-paper relating to the one matter.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- This is a proposal which might reasonably have been expected to come from the present Administration, but which I think is foreign to the policy accepted by the people of this country. The Treasurer in his Budget statement indicated that the introduction of such a measure was quite possible, and we now have it brought forward by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is obviously indicating to the public of Australia his appreciation of unions and his relationship with them. He gave us a notable evidence of his appreciation in connexion with the Victorian railway strike. The honorable gentleman knows that the Government are now proposing to reverse the policy which has been accepted by the Parliament and the people of Australia.

Mr Sampson:

– Nothing of the kind. Mr. FRAZER. - Has not this Parliament decided by passing a Conciliation and Arbitration Act-

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member for Wimmera should be the last to object to preference to unionists. His own father was boycotted because he was a unionist.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Mr. Poynton. - The honorable member’s own father was boycotted because he was a unionist.

Mr Sampson:

– Can you not keep clear of personalities, you miserable creature?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I appeal to honorable members once’ more to cease these interchanges.

Mr Webster:

– On a point of order, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the remark made by the honorable member for Wimmera, that the honorable member for Grey was a miserable creature. Is such an expression in order?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– On a point of order, sir I wish to say that there was a most insulting reference by the honorable member for Grey, and I think it should be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall ask both honorable members to withdraw the expressions complained of. I ask the honorable member for Wimmera in the first case to do so.

Mr Sampson:

– I withdraw the remark. Mr. SPEAKER. - I ask the honorable member for Grey also to withdraw the remark to which exception has been taken.

Mr Poynton:

– What is it that I am asked to withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am informed that the honorable member used an unbecoming expression. If he did, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Poynton:

– All that I said was that the honorable member for Wimmera should be the last to speak against preference to unionists, seeing that his own father was boycotted in the Creswick district because he was a trade unionist. That is an absolute fact, and I refuse to withdraw it.

Mr Sampson:

– Is the honorable member in order in taking advantage of his position to repeat the expression complained of?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I was unable to detect any insult in the interjection of the honorable member for Grey; but if the honorable member takes exception to the remark as reflecting on himself, it should be withdrawn.

Mr Poynton:

– I decline to withdraw the statement, because it is an absolute fact.

Mr Sampson:

– I think that the honorable member has shown very bad taste in introducing into a discussion in this House a reference to a relation whose memory should be sacred. I am prepared, however, to leave the matter at that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member press for a withdrawal ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In the circumstances, there seems to have been a misapprehension in this matter, but I shall again appeal to honorable members to cease these personal interchanges, which, besides being disorderly, cause the Chair a great deal of trouble in the proper conduct of proceedings.

Mr FRAZER:

– May I be permitted to proceed once more ? We have heard to-day a rather extraordinary resolution on the part of the Prime Minister.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member propose to debate this motion ?

Mr FRAZER:

– I do. Mr. W. H. IRVINE.- Then I move-

That the question be now put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 27

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That leave be given to bring in the Government Preference Prohibition Bill - put.

The House divided.

31 27

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented.

Motion (by Mr. W. H. Irvine) put -

That the Bill be now read a first time. The House divided. Ayes … … … 31

Bill read a first time. Motion (by Mr. W. H. Irvine) proposed -

AYES: 0

NOES: 27

Majority

AYES

NOES

That the second reading be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- I might allow another opportunity on this motion to the Government that do not allow the truth to be spoken in this House to gag me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member to withdraw that expression, which is a reflection on the Ministry.

Mr GROOM:
LP

– I move-

That the question be now put. Mr. SPEAKER. - Before I can accept that motion, the honorable member must withdraw the expression to which I have referred.

Mr FRAZER:

-The standing order provides -

The following motions are not open to debate, shall be moved without argument or opinion offered, and shall be forthwith put from the Chair without amendment, and a vote taken : - Motion for first reading of a Bill ;

Motion that this debate be now adjourned ; Motion in Committee that the Chairman report progress ; Motion in Committee that the Chairman leave the chair ; Motion to re-instate business.

The Minister of Trade and Customs has taken away from me my right to make a statement in this House on a motion which is not covered by that standing order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That has nothing to do with what happened. I ask the honorable member to withdraw the reflection that he made upon the Government in his opening remarks.

Mr Fisher:

– How can he do so when the closure has been moved ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The AttorneyGeneral moved that the second reading be made an Order of the Day for Wednesday next, upon which the honorable member for Kalgoorlie rose and addressed himself to the question, and in his opening remarks made a reflection upon the Government, which I asked him to withdraw. While I was asking him to withdraw it, another member of the Ministry rose and moved that the question be now put, before the words were withdrawn. The words having been requested to be withdrawn as offensive should be withdrawn.

Mr Frazer:

– I shall do so to get over the difficulty. I wish to state as a personal explanation that for the second time in one day, in connexion with a matter of which I might be expected to have some knowledge, on account of my previous experience in the Department concerned, I am “ gagged,” first by the AttorneyGeneral and then by the Minister of Trade and Customs, apparently with the approval of the Prime Minister.

Motion (by Mr.- Groom) proposed -

That the question bc now put.

Mr McDonald:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask your ruling as to whether the question before the Chair can be debated. If it cannot be, there is no need for the closure motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question itself can be debated. This point was decided some considerable time ago.

Mr Higgs:

– On a point of order, under the Standing Orders, I am entitled to ask that the question be read; I did not hear it owing to the hubbub in the chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question as moved by the Attorney-General was that the second reading of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for Wednesday next.

Question put. The House divided. Ayes … … … 31

AYES: 0

NOES: 27

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the second reading be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting - put. The House divided.

31 27

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative,

Sitting suspended from 1.5 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2839

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL

Motion (by Sir John Forrest) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I am very pleased that the Treasurer has set an example in the manner of introducing measures into this House. It is refreshing to find that there is a man in the Ministry who has some sense of decorum, and some respect for members on this side. The difference between him and the other men, who have been misleading the Government during the past twenty-four hours, is highly creditable to him. I do not think that the measure will be introduced one day too soon. It has been a weakness of the Federation that there have been no lines of guidance in regard to the Commonwealth finances. Every member of this House, or of former Houses, must have felt at times in a fog when endeavouring, in the performance of his duties to his constituents, to solve the financial problem by means of the statistics available. The way in which the measure has been introduced by the Treasurer is a happy augury. It indicates that the Bill is likely to get a different passage through the House from the passage of the measures introduced by other Ministers, who have assumed Bulgarian tactics. The Treasurer is likely to get the treatment to which decent men are entitled from those who are equally decently inclined.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then let him introduce the Bill.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I am not speaking to the honorable member.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I move-

That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided.

31 28

In division:

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has used an offensive expression. I order him to withdraw it.

Mr Webster:

– Do I understand that you object to it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– As the expression is unparliamentary, I have ordered that it be withdrawn.

Mr Webster:

– I withdraw it, but only because it is unparliamentary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented and read a first time. Motion (by Sir John Forrest) proposed -

That the second reading be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I believe that the Opposition are in accord with me in giving the Treasurer the right to move the second reading of this Bill on the next sitting day. In agreeing to this we are showing to the Treasurer respect that cannot be shown to any other member of the Government, because the right honorable .gentleman has our sincere sympathy and respect for the manly way in which he conducts business as against the savage manner of the Bashi-bazouks on the front Ministerial bench.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw those remarks.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I withdraw them, and apologize to the Bashi-bazouks

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the remarks without qualification.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I withdraw the comparison. I am sorry for having libelled the section I have mentioned by announcing them in connexion with honorable members on the front bench opposite. We should discuss the Bill at the next sitting, when a better feeling may prevail in the Government ranks, and give the Opposition an opportunity to discuss important measures such as this. It is sad and sickening to me to think that members of the Government party, by their brutal majority, prevent our doing our duty to the people who send us here. I hope the interval will enable honorable members to reflect upon the conduct for which they have been -responsible, and I hope that when we meet again the Treasurer will be able to explain in his usual courteous and civil way why this Bill should be agreed to, no matter what the fate of other Bills may be. The Treasurer has my sympathy as being a man worthy of leading any Government, who treats honorable members as they should be treated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2840

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the intervening Government business be postponed until after notice of motion No. 4.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- We are doing business in such a hurried fashion that one can hardly keep pace with it. I think it is within our rights to say a few words. It is perfectly legitimate to avail oneself of every constitutional privilege and liberty.

Mr Webster:

– We have none left. Mr. HIGGS.- I had forgotten the fact that apparently there is hardly a vestige of our powers, privileges, and immunities left to us on account of the extraordinary action taken to-day by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. There is quite a quantity of private members’ business on the notice-paper.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I wish to make a statement about it if you will let me do so.

Mr HIGGS:

– Very well, then; I shall sit down.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I shall make a statement when this motion is out of the way, so that I can get to notice of motion No. 4, where I propose to move that Government business shall take precedence of general business.

Mr HIGGS:

– I would like to move an amendment to strike out the word “ after the consideration of notice of motion No. 4,” and insert in lieu the words “the lapse of six months.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is not an amendment, I submit.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has only indicated that he would like to move an amendment. I cannot interrupt the honorable member’s speech.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I move-

That the question be now put. Mr. Higgs. - That will never do. It is making a travesty of parliamentary proceedings.

Mr Webster:

– Whom the gods seek to destroy, they first make mad.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The House divided.

30 26

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2841

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– Motion No. 4 upon the notice-paper is the customary motion moved every session.

Mr Fenton:

– It is very early this session.

Mr Page:

– It is a real good sign anyhow.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is not being moved earlier this time. It is moved later than it has been for. several years.

Mr HIGGS:

– I think we have heard enough from you. I move -

That the .honorable member be not further heard.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I move -

That the question be now put. Mr. SPEAKER.- There is no question yet before the Chair.

Mr Higgs:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr. JOSEPH COOK.- I move-

That on each sitting day, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of general business.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no question before the Chair.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I moved the motion on the notice-paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 called upon the honorable member for Capricornia, who rose to a point of order at the same time that the Prime Minister rose. The Prime Minister did not resume his seat when I called upon the honorable member for Capricornia.

Mr Higgs:

– Under the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, it is within the privilege of any honorable member to rise whilst another honorable member is speaking, and to move “that the honorable member be not further heard.” The Prime Minister was speaking when, believing that he ought to have a dose of his own medicine, I rose and moved that he be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member for Capricornia rose while the Prime Minister was speaking and said something-

Mr Anstey:

– And you heard it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order I Will the honorable member allow me to address the House*

Mr Anstey:

– Sometimes. If we have a square deal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is now reflecting on the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– I am.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call upon the honorable member to withdraw the expression.

Mr Anstey:

– Go on; I will have to do it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will rise in his place and withdraw the remark.

Mr Anstey:

– Very well; I pull out. I beg your pardon, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A point of order has been raised by the honorable member for Capricornia who, I understand, as soon as the Prime Minister rose to speak, moved that he be not further heard. In order that there may be no further misunderstanding as to the position, I shall read the standing order bearing on this question. It provides that -

After any question has been proposed, either la the House or in any Committee of the Whole, a motion may be made by any member, rising in his place, and without notice, and whether any other member is addressing the Chair or not, “ That the question be now put,” and the motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

When the honorable member for Capricornia submitted his motion, however, no question had been proposed. Paragraph “ C “ of the Closure Standing Orders provides that -

A motion without notice mav be made that a member who is speaking “ be not further heard,” and such question shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.

The honorable member speaking must be addressing himself to some question before the Chair, or some business properly before the House, but when the honorable member for Capricornia rose there was no question or business before the House. A question is not before the House until it has been stated from the Chair, and therefore the motion proposed by the honorable member for Capricornia could not be made at this stage. The Prime Minister will submit his motion.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I move-

That on each sitting day, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of general business.

I was pointing out, when interrupted, that I am submitting this motion later than usual in the session-

Mr Higgs:

– I move -

That the honorable member be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In the din of loud interchanges taking place at the moment, I cannot clearly hear the Prime Minister’s remarks. Has the Prime Minister submitted his motion?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I had done so, and was proceeding to speak to it when the honorable member for Capricornia interrupted me. The motion, however, has’ not yet been stated from the Chair.

Mr Hughes:

– When the honorable member for Capricornia rose the Prime Minister was in the middle of his motion, and I submit that under the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, you must take the motion submitted by the honorable member for Capricornia.

Mr McDonald:

– I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is correct in the position he takes up regarding the stating of the question from the Chair, and I trust that the House will uphold him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before a motion that an honorable member be not further heard, or “ that the question be now put,” can be moved, the question must be stated from the Chair. That had not been done in the present case. The honorable member for Capricornia must wait until the motion has been stated from the Chair.

Mr Higgs:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is very irregular. The question has not been stated by the Chair.

Mr Higgs:

– Will you allow me, sir, on a point of order, to say that you have given an important ruling, and that if your ruling be correct-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in traversing my ruling. If he .objects to it he must give notice in writing of his dissent.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Without further controversy, as it appears impossible to put a question before the House, I shall formally submit the motion I have moved, and resume my seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is “ That the motion be agreed to.” Mr. JOSEPH COOK.- I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr HIGGS:

Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet when the Prime Minister rose.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order I

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Prime Minister set apart a day for private members’ business?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Honorable members opposite would not allow me to speak. That was the very matter I wished to explain.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2843

QUESTION

CASE OP MR. H. CHINN

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from the Senate asking the House to give leave to Mr. Joseph Cook and Mr. King O’Malley to attend, if they thought fit, and be examined before the Select Committee of the Senate on the case of Mr. Chinn.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– I should like to ask the honorable member for Darwin whether he desires to attend and give evidence!

Mr King O’Malley:

– I have no objection; I will do anything. Mr. JOSEPH COOK. - I move-

That the House’ authorizes the Honorable King O’Malley to attend accordingly if he think fit.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2843

ADJOURNMENT,

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta-

Prime Minister and Minister of Home

Affairs) [3.3].- I move-

That the House do now adjourn.

In submitting the motion I should like to say a word or two-

Opposition Members. - No, no.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) agreed to- .

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the House do now adjourn.

Mr FISHER:

– The motion “That the question be now put” was not put from the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is mistaken. I distinctly put the question, “ That the question he now put,” and called for the “Ayes” and called for the “ Noes,” and there were no “Noes.” . .

Mr Fisher:

– Prior to my rising, there was no question put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is out of order to interrupt the Speaker.

Mr Higgs:

– I also was on my feet.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I not only put the question, but declared the result. Honorable members were, as so often unfortunately happens, engaged with interjections, or in discussions with one another, and it was their fault, and not mine, that they did not hear me, as they would have done bad they obeyed my call for order. However, in order to set at rest any misunderstanding, I shall put the question again; but I insist upon a reasonable measure of quiet.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 28

Majority

3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 3.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 1913, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1913/19131031_reps_5_71/>.