House of Representatives
22 April 1914

5^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
PARLIAMENTARY STATIONERY
QUESTION
- THE HAGUE PALACE OF PEACE
HOUR OF MEETING : DAYS OF SITTING
PAPERS
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
PAPER
- Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway -
ADJOURNMENT
- Naval Conference : Tobacco Monopoly : Holiday Pay
- London

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

page 190

QUESTION

PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Prime Minister say when the official report of the proceedings of the recent Premiers’ Conference will be available to honorable members ?

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

– I do not know when it will be available. Probably the convener of the Conference, the Premier of New South Wales, has charge of the matter. As soon as the report is received it will be laid on the table.

page 191

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Have copies of all the papers relating to the Teesdale Smith contract been laid on the table, or are any of them missing?

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

– I shall be glad to let the right honorable member, or his secretary, look through the official file. There may be one or two papers which, in view of possible legal complications, it is not considered advisable to make public, but I shall be only too glad to show him the office file.

page 191

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr KELLY:
LP

– Glancing hurriedly through the proofs of the official report of my speech of yesterday, I find that I omitted to inform honorable members of a matter which I should like to take the earliest opportunity to mention. What I am about to say has no direct bearing on my blameworthiness, or the contrary, in giving approval to the contract; but I should like to say that I found out afterwards that it was not correct that Mr. Teesdale Smith had the full requisite plant ready at hand to carry out the work.

Mr FISHER:

– As the Minister has made a personal explanation, I am constrained to wonder whether he or the Prime Minister saw in the reports of all my meetings that have been referred to that, in every instance, when replying to an interjection or misapprehension, I stated that there was no corrupt motive imputed by my remarks.

Mr KELLY:

– I did not see the statement in the reports in the daily press, but I am only too happy to accept the right honorable member’s assurance that he did not impute corrupt motives.

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The following passage occurs in to-day’s Age: -

Mr. Webster was told, tohis intense indignation, that he was the last man in the world who should voice suspicions as to contracts.

I strongly object to the report as it stands, because it does not set out what occurred. If either the Age or the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs can prove one dishonorable act against me, in either my public or my private capacity, I shall resign my seat in this House.

Mr KELLY:

– We all recognise that, in the heat of the moment, things are said which are regretted as soon as they are uttered. I thought yesterday that the honorable member was, by his interjections, continuing to voice insinuations which I keenly resented, and after he had made several interjections I made a remark which, at your direction, Mr. Speaker, I withdrew, and which now, without any direction whatsoever from the Chair, I withdraw unreservedly.

page 191

PARLIAMENTARY STATIONERY

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Several times during my period of service in this House I have complained about the quality of the stationery, which seems to be going from bad to worse, and at present is hardly fit to wrap sausages in, almost every sheet being imperfect in some way or other. It is time that we had stationery of a quality which we need not be ashamed to send out.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I shall make inquiries, with a view to ascertaining whether a better class of stationery can be secured.

page 191

QUESTION

THE HAGUE PALACE OF PEACE

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I shall be glad to know from the Minister of External Affairs whether the writing desk and inkstand that the Commonwealth is presenting to The Hague Palace of Peace are yet finished, and whether they will be exhibited in the Queen’s Hall, so that we may have an opportunity to see them?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The table is finished. I saw it at Robertson and Moffat’s about a fortnight ago, when it was arranged that it might be exhibited in the Queen’s Hall, so that honorable members could see it.

page 191

HOUR OF MEETING : DAYS OF SITTING

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow, at half-past 2 o’clock p.m.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

. -I again ask the Prime Minister if he has taken into consideration the desirability of reducing our sitting days to three a week; if not immediately, at a later period of the session.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– Next session.

Mr McDONALD:

– No; this session. I have always entered my protest, both here and in State politics, against too frequent sittings, and if I could have done so would have prevented last session the arrangement under which we sit four days a week. I do not wish to discuss the matter now, but I should like to obtain some expression of opinion on the subject.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I support the honorable member for Kennedy in this matter, and the Prime Minister can set his mind at rest if he has any fear that the proposal will not be supported on this side. Because of the statements in certain morning dailies, the general public has the idea that members have nothing to do but make a few speeches and listen to the debates. I wish that that was all we had to do. We have a great deal of correspondence to which to attend.

Mr Boyd:

– And departmental work.

Mr HIGGS:

– On Monday last ^ I answered twenty-five letters.

Mr McDonald:

– I wrote twenty-three letters to-day.

Dr Maloney:

– I sent . away 10,000 letters in three years.

Mr HIGGS:

– In addition to replying to correspondence, we have to attend Caucus meetings, which are necessary for the carrying on of the business of the country as it should be carried on. When one attends a Caucus meeting in the building at 10 in the morning, and leaves after the House has risen at 11 at night, he has done, not one day’s work, but two. I hope that the Prime Minister will not pay any attention whatever to the criticisms of some of our critics in the press gallery, who would like to run this country, and are endeavouring to mould public opinion to permit of the press running the country, and to do away with Parliament. I ask the honorable gentleman not to be afraid to move a resolution in favour of this Parliament sitting three days a week. I have no doubt such a motion would be carried, and we shall be quite prepared, and well able, to explain the situation to our constituents.

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

– In order to show that the feeling expressed by the last two speakers is not confined to the opposite side of the House,

I have only to say that last session I endeavoured to induce the Government to bring about this reform. The impression is becoming general with the public that members of this House have nothing else in life to do but to attend to their parliamentary duties in this chamber. It is an easy matter for men who are Ministers to be prepared to sit four days a week, for their official duties demand their presence here ; but it is different with private members who come from the other States, and who have some profession or business to follow. Last session, after being engaged for two months in preparing for the election, we had strenuous sittings here for six months, so that eight months of the year were occupied. We have now met at an unprecedently early date in this year,, with a prospect of going on for many months. If the intention be to drive men of substance out of this House - and by that I do not mean men of wealth, but men having some other occupation in addition to their duties in this House - the best means to adopt is to require them to be here every day in the week except Saturday. Honorable members residing in other States have to leave on the Monday - some early in the morning - to b& here in time for the Tuesday sitting; and by leaving Melbourne on the Friday they do not return to their homesuntil the Saturday. It is absolutely impossible for any man who has any respect for the interests of his family, or has a business or a profession, to continue that for any great length of time. I recognise that the arrangement of the business of the House is a matter for the Government; but, in view of the fact that it is the wish of the whole of the Opposition, I do think that the Government might devise some means of putting thisParliament upon a level with all the State Parliaments of Australia in this matter, especially in view of the fact that our functions are much more limited than are those of the State Parliaments.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– On the subject of the correspondence which honorable members have to undertake, I may inform the House that during the three years prior to 1913, I filed over 10,000 documents, representing answers to correspondents and persons making claims for old-age pensions. The documents referring to old-age pensions numbered 1,320 in the three years. Correspondence represents a very big item in the work of a member of Parliament.

Mr BOYD:
Henty

.- I think that I voice the opinion held on both sides of the House when I say that a considerable number of members would favour three days’ sitting in each week. When every State Parliament in Australia can get through its business sitting three days in each week, this Parliament should be able to do so if honorable members make up their minds. If we sit for five days in each week we shall do no more work than if we sat for only three days a week.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- I think that some honorable members consider that in this matter I am the culprit for having endeavoured to compel them to sit for long hours and many days in each week, but the last Government were very desirous of getting business through, and they did get some through. While agreeing to some extent with those who favour three sitting days in each week, I think that if that course be followed we should be prepared to sit in the daytime. There is no earthly reason why a man’s days and nights should be taken up sitting in this or in any other Parliament. If the Government view with favour the proposal that we should sit only on three clays in each week, I hope they will agree to commence each sitting early in the morning and finish, if possible, before dinner time.

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

– We never did that.

Mr FISHER:

– The Attorney-General says that that has never been done, but that is not an insuperable objection to commencing to do a sensible thing.

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

– We tried it.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes, we tried it, but because, unfortunately, honorable members now on the Government side wanted to talk, we had to find them an opportunity to do so, as we did not apply the closure. If we are to have only three sitting days in each week, honorable members should be prepared to devote themselves to the work during the daytime, on at least one or two days, with the under- standing that the sitting shall not extend over the dinner hour.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– There ought to be no question about the adoption of this reform. If we axe notgoing to follow the suggestion which has been made, we should have some room here in which we can keep a few coffins and shrouds, so that as each man drops off we shall be ready to bury him without any trouble. Some men are jagging around only to save funeral expenses. There is no question that many men have gone to their graves because of the atmosphere of this chamber. I have tumbled over several times myself, but I am not prepared to die, because I am not yet prepared to pay the expenses ofmy funeral. I shall vote with all the other Christians for three sitting days in each week.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we should endeavour to sit in the daytime. I think that we should sit four days a week and shorten the period of the session. I think that honorable members should be given an opportunity to go beyond the State in which they live. One of the difficulties in connexion with this Parliament is that honorable members generally know nothing about any portion of Australia but that which is close to their own homes. I think it would be better if they had opportunities to do a little travelling in the various States. If ray suggestion were followed, Ministers during the recess would be able to give more attention to their respective Departments. Many mistakes made by the Departments are due to the fact that under existing conditions Ministers have not sufficient time to devote to their departmental duties. We have had some evidence of this in the few days since this Parliament met. Ministers should have the time to give more attention to the Departments for which they are responsible. It is of no use to put the blame on officers of a Department if the Minister does not view seriously enough his Ministerial responsibilities. If they had more time to give to the work of their Departments, errors of administration would be avoided and the country would benefit largely. I am in favour of sitting four days a week and in the daytime. I would make the parliamentary session shorter, and so give honorable members a better opportunity than they now have to know what Australia really is.

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

.- I do not know that it is now an opportune time to have only three days of sitting in each week in view of the flood of eloquence with which we are threatened from the Opposition, but I hope that eventually this Parliament will sit only three days in each week. Unless this is done, no country representative can continue to attend this Parliament.

Mr Webster:

– What would you do if you had a home in another State?

Mr Boyd:

– He lias !

Mr FALKINER:

– During Inst session we practically could not .get home to attend to our business fit all. Besides reducing the days of sitting, 1 think that we might also shorten the period of time for which an honorable member may speak. After five or six honorable members have spoken from each side of the House the sort of stuff that we have to listen to is merely repetition and reiteration ; there is nothing fresh or new that is said. I feel sure that wo would have better speeches delivered if honorable members knew that they had to condense their remarks, and to say a thing once. We have a complaint from honorable members who deal with thousands of letters. I represent a fairly large electorate in which a lot of development is going on, and I get five or six letters a day, and I can easily answer them all in the day. Those honorable members who spend so much time in corresponding must be engaged in electioneering.

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

.- At the risk of being attacked by the honorable member for Riverina, I wish to enter a protest.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How long is this discussion going to last? This is not encouraging, you know, for shortening the number of sittings.

Mr HOWE:

– I arn not aware that the Prime Minister has at any time held himself in check when the necessity arose for him to give expression to such thoughts as he had in his mind. He has never considered the House in any way in that regard, so far as my short experience is concerned . I regret that in this matter I cannot associate myself with the leader of my party. I think that the honorable member for Parkes has put the position in a most pronounced way. T know that only quite recently I, coming out. from a hospital after a month’s illness, had to sit for three days dealing with correspondence. I know, too, that

had to go back every week end. Since I have been a member of this House I have not been out of my home on one Sunday, that is, not once in three and a half or four years. I am tied up with people coming to interview me; I am tied up with correspondence from Sunday afternoon until the evening I leave Sydney, which is usually Monday evening. 1 have nothing else to do than to attend to persons who are imposing on ]1le those obligations which they think they are entitled to ‘impose. I have no fault to find with them, because they are persons who cannot see me at any other time. They simply come to my home when I arn there, but it gives no rest to me, or to any other member of the House who is circumstanced or situated as I am. Therefore I join most heartily with those honorable members who seek for a more limited period, in which the debates shall continue. I am prepared to sit here for as many hours as honorable members may please to allot to the work of the week, or the day, but I think it is most desirable to make a change, and I hope that Ministers, more particularly the Prime Minister, will give very careful attention to our representations, and if he can sec his way clear to such an end, to consider the advisability of inviting the House to sit three days a week rather than four days.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- I only want to say to the honorable member for East Sydney that, if he bad had a longer experience of the Federal Parliament than he has had, he would probably have come to the same opinion as I have, and that is that the more opportunities there are for speaking the more speaking we have. I was one of those who at the outset had the same idea as he now h is, and that, is that if we sat four days a week or more the session would be shorter, and we would get back to our constituencies for a. longer time. I find from experience, however, that such has not been the case, and so I have changed my attitude. I believe that with three sittings a week -we shall get through as much business in the year as we now do, and it will afford honorable members opportunities of doing that portion of their work outside of the House which many of us cannot overtake at the present time. I, for my part, am not able to do, during the week, all the work that I am called upon to do outside of this House. I shall welcome any change that will give me more opportunities in that direction.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I would not have risen to speak but for the remarks that fell from the honorable member for Riverina. He indicated that the work of a country member, according to his experience, is of a very light character, and that he receives on an average five or six letters a day. I do not think that there is another country member who is so fortunate as he is.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I am.

Mr WEBSTER:

– If what the honorable member for Riverina said is a fact it proves that his predecessor must have attended to the electorate in a very thorough and intelligent way, because, evidently, he so far mastered the wants of the electorate as to leave very few requests to be made to his successor, who has paid him a big compliment indeed in indicating that his own correspondence is of so small a character. With regard to the question of holding three sittings a week, I think that honorable members are sent to this House, not to carry on other business, but to attend to the affairs of this country. And, what is more, I maintain that honorable members are paid an allowance sufficient to enable them to act honestly to their constituents, and to keep themselves and their families from the borderland of want. I hold that the primary obligation on a member of Parliament is to attend to the duties he has undertaken, irrespective of whether the work takes three, or four, or five days in the week. I am not quite convinced that if we limit the sittings to three days a week we shall not have to curtail some privileges that will cut into the efficient doing of the work of this Parliament. I fully realize that there are men in a big way of business who want to run this Parliament. I fully understand that my honorable friend, on the other side, will, at a later period, be in favour of sitting perhaps only two days a week. By his remarks he indicated his hope that, later on, the House will be constituted of men like himself, who can depend upon some other source of income than that which they get from the Federal Treasury, and when they come here he will be quite pre pared to make things as easy as possible for them, knowing that no legislation will then be put forward.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– So far as I can gather from the remarks that have fallen from the honorable member for Gwydir, and others, they have practically come to the stage of the unionist. They want as little work as possible between meals; they want the highest pay they can get; they want less to do and something in the way of free drinks to encourage them to stand up to it. The honorable member for Riverina was perfectly correct. I do not believe that the average member of this House receives more than five or six letters a day. But assuming that he gets ten letters a day, how long does it take him to answer them? I know that I receive five or six letters a day, though sometimes I get eight or ten, but it does not take me more than an hour a day to answer them, and I reply straight away.

Mr Howe:

– You are lucky.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I am lucky because, possibly, I get more letters than does the honorable member, and have a lot more to do than he has.

Mr Howe:

– That is your presumption.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– It is of no use to make any alteration unless honorable members are prepared to curtail their privileges and limit the right of speech to twenty minutes. If they will do that, I shall be perfectly agreeable to a curtailment, so that we may sit from 10 o’clock in the morning until 8 or 10 o’clock at night on three days in the week. Sitting three days in the week would be quite sufficient if honorable members would curtail their speeches to a maximum of twenty minutes. Honorable members do not get the number of letters that has been stated, and the Postal Department can prove that. They do not receive on the average; six letters a day on six days of the week, and they know that. Yet they come here with their tongues in their cheeks and make statements which are absolutely incorrect. I am opposed to any reduction of sitting days at the present time, because I consider that such reduction would be absolutely inopportune.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- It is quite in accordance with my view of Parliamentary work to see members on both sides in agreement on this question. My experience is that much more work can be done by sitting three days than can be done by sitting four days in the week. When members have been sitting for long hours ou four days of the week they get tired and cross, and say ugly things which take a long time to explain away. Therefore, I think we are doing the right thing in proposing to curtail the number of sitting days. I do not agree with the honorable member for Riverina in what he said about members’ correspondence. I wish my experience was similar to his, but I get as much correspondence as I can deal with. Any one who represents a large, growing, and progressive district must have a considerable amount of correspondence, and I do not think it is a good sign if he does nob get it. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that to sit through the day three days a week is quite enough. When disagreements occur in the House, they always occur at night, and that only helps bo prove that day sittings are advisable. I hope the Prime Minister will agree to the proposal which has been made. There are some members who, like myself, leave their homes early on Monday morning, reach Melbourne on Tuesday, depart again on Friday, and only regain their homes at 8 o’clock on Saturday night. Like the honorable member for Dalley, I also have a lot of interviews. My house is open to any of the public Who care to come to me for information, and I am only too pleased to see them come. In addition, a member of Parliament has to perform all sorts of civic duties, including those of a magistrate, and his long experience is certainly worth something to his constituents. If the constituents cannot make use of their member’s knowledge and experience, he is not of much use to them. Of course, when we have elective Ministries there will be no fighting, and we shall see smiling faces turned to the Prime Minister, even when he cannot give us what we want. I again express the hope that the Prime Minister will agree to the proposal to sib on only three days.

Mr PIGOTT:
Calare

.- I desire to support the statement of the honorable member for Grampians-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is it not possible to wait until the question comes before Hie Chamber?

Mr PIGOTT:

– Having regard to the fact that both sides are bent on a double dissolution, I think the present would be a most inopportune time to make any alteration in our days and hours of sitting. I am not surprised at members of the Opposition advocating a change, but it is ridiculous for supporters of the Government to hint at any such change at the present time. We should have some limitation of the length of speeches; they are far too long. I think it was Lord Salisbury, who, when asked how long he would require to. prepare his speech if he intended to speak for four hours, replied that such a speech would require no preparation, but if he were to speak for two hours he would require two hours for preparation, and, if he were to speak for twenty minutes, at least two days for preparation. My advice to honorable members is to take two days to prepare their speeches and to deliver them in twenty minutes, and the country will benefit.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

.- The attitude I take up in advocating that we shall not sit on more than three days in the week is not new. For nearly twelve years I have pointed out that, in my opinion, the proper duty of a legislative body is to sit on, perhaps, a couple of alternate days in a week - one day to be spent in discussing the measures, and the next day in reading up the history of other countries, learn- ing what has been done elsewhere, and also trying to mould the measures themselves into shape. Had that been done we would not have had before us the awful fact that every Act which hasbeen passed by this Parliament has required to be considerably amended. It must be remembered that amendmentsare not brought forward until an Act has caused trouble, and, as no Ministry gains by introducing amendments, they are not introduced except in response tostrong pressure. That in itself is proof, if proof were wanted, that this House is sitting much too long. Three days weekly is the most that Parliament should sit, and that is evident from the mere fact that the present Ministers are not able to remain in the chamber any more than were their predecessors. I am surprised at members of the Opposition, who have had Ministerial. experience, not realizing that the House sits too long to enable Ministers to attend to their Departments. We fall into the error of blaming Ministers for not sitting here, when we should know they have their administrative work to do. If Parliament comprised only one House it might be possible to permit Ministers to absent themselves, and attend to their administrative work; but this Parliament, being a dual body, it is perfectly clear that we sit too long. Nearly all the mistakes that have arisen in administration are attributable to that cause, because, too often, Ministers have been unable to pay proper attention to their Departments. If it were contended that Parliament is able to exercise through its Ministers administrative control, there might be something in the argument that we should sit longer. I ask any honorable member if he is prepared to sit here on four days in the week for eight hours on end.

Mr Fenton:

– I am often here for twelve hours.

Mr CONROY:

– We make a pretence of sitting here, but we all. know that we do not, and cannot, do it. It is pointed out that the time is not opportune, but if the thing is right the time is always opportune, and as I believe that this thing is right, I maintain it is an opportune time to bring about the change.

We must remember that the four-days rule was introduced by the first Minister of Customs, who controlled the Ministry of the day, and thought that honorable members’ brains were where they sat, and that the longer honorable members sat the greater would be the display of brains. Since then, Parliament after Parliament, and session after session, the House has continued the same bad rule. But what Parliament are we that we should try to teach a lesson to all the other Parliaments of Australia, who find that they are unable to sit four days a week? Each Ministry has had a chance to deal with the matter, but each has seemed afraid that when the question is raised before the country honorable members would be charged with shirking their work. But we do not get good legislation by keeping a lot of men sitting in this chamber. It is idle for any one to pretend that men can do efficient work sitting eight hours a day four days a week on end, listening to wrangling and discussion, and at the same time attending to their correspondence. Last session, on my return, after an absence of seventeen days, I found I had 274 letters to answer, and I was obliged to employ assistance to deal with them. To-day ‘I have had to write no less than eleven letters. Administrative work continues to increase, as it has done, since the commencement of Federation, and eight or nine Ministers, who should be the cream of the intellect of the House, will, in these circumstances, always be debarred from attending to their legislative work. During this session there have been many important speeches made, but the Ministers have not been able to remain in the House to listen to them. Even the Honorary Minister was not able to remain in his place while the honorable member for Grey was speaking on a subject that particularly concerned his Department. We do not blame Ministers, because we know that it is impossible for them to remain in the House all the time, but I blame the humbug and sham of pretending that we are in the House all the time, when we do nothing of the sort. If Ministers for the time being have not the courage to bring about this change, it is high time honorable members themselves took it in hand. Ministers would be, in reality, thankful from the bottom of their hearts. It will be impossible to sit each morning as suggested. The true test of legislative work is when a man sits in the House, and hears the discussions, and studies each Bill so closely that he is able to see whether any suggested amendment fits in with other clauses of the Bill as brought forward. But no man can do that while we sit as we do. For a month or more past each honorable member has had a copy of the defence regulations, but I have not met one honorable member who has been able to go through them. I have not, although I take a strong interest in the matter. It is time all this sham and humbug passed away, and time we set forth to the public that sound legislation does not mean sitting in seats, or dawdling outside the chamber. The public must learn to judge us by the results of our legislation, and not by the amount of time we sit. If Parliament can achieve all the wonderful results we hear of everywhere by sitting so long, let us have three Parliaments working eight-hour shifts, and then the necessity for all effort, industry, and striving on the part of the people would pass away. I say unhesitatingly that the time has come for honorable members to take the matter into their own hands, and sit only a reasonable number of hours a day, giving to those who have the inclination for study the opportunity for so doing.We cannot do proper legislative work by sitting in the chamber. No man can draft Bills and at the same time attend in the House. The hours of the Courts are from 10 to 1 and 2 to 4, because legal men find that this is the only time they can so occupy each day in order to do really good work; and frequently they take holidays, because they get brain fag. I have pointed out for years past what has been done. An honorable member, who is made a kind of parliamentary agent for a growing locality, cannot spend too much time in the chamber, because he has a lot of outside work to do ; and it is wrong to make him rise to speak with a feeling of irritation that he is not as conversant with his subject as he should be. It also causes a feeling of irritation on the part of some of his listeners when it is known that he has not prepared his subject, and that a few hours’ study would have saved the exposure of his ignorance. In fact, I admire the repression of many sensible men in the House who remain silent because they are conscious that they do not know all about the subject under discussion. It is good, sound sense. Some of the quietest men in the chamber, whose voices are heard the least, have the soundest judgment on many questions. Who would not be glad to prepare speeches, having time to do so, in order to deliver them to a body of men who would remain seated in the House all the time, instead of part of the time, and would try to weigh what fell from the lips of the speaker? There are many honorable members whose remarks would be of advantage to Parliament from the point of view of administration, and clearly equally of advantage from a legislative point of view, and consequently from the point of view of the interests of the whole community.

Mr. MATHEWS (Melbourne Ports) words of wisdom to this very interesting debate. I sincerely hope that the sitting days will not be altered from four to three days a week. Of course, I am charged at once with selfishness, but allow me to retort that they are equally selfish who seek to bring about a change. The easiest time of my life is when the House is sitting, and it is my desire to keep the House going. The seats in my home are not nearly so soft as they are in the House, or in the rooms outside the chamber. I have often chuckled with delight when I have read in the newspapers that the only work members of Parliament do is while the House is sitting, and with the honorable member for West Sydney I say, “ O Lord, keep it so ! “ What are the actual facts? We all know that when the House is sitting we have opportunities to reach Ministers that we cannot get when the House is not sitting.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Ministers cannot get away !

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– Exactly. I am rather surprised to hear the honorable member for Riverina speak of the small correspondence he receives. The exmember for Riverina had an enormous correspondence, and he attended to it; but the circumstances are so peculiar that the present representative of that constituency may not be compelled to follow in his footsteps. I rose mainly to reply to the honorable member for Werriwa, who says that if we sat on fewer days a week honorable members would remain about Parliament House to consider what they should say in their speeches. All I can say is that if some honorable members who address the House consider what they intend to talk about their consideration boxes must be of a peculiar composition. At any rate, I object to be compelled to sit here and listen to the honorable member for Werriwa on the subjects of small-pox and Free Trade. As to allday sittings, I disagree, and, perhaps, not for the first time, with my respected leader. How could we possibly do Departmental work if the House met in the morning? I may be an exceptional worry to Ministers and Departmental heads, but I know that ifwe were to meet in the forenoon it would be a matter of impossibility for me to attend to my correspondence and visit the Departments. These communications with the Departments cannot be made over the telephone, but the business must be attended to personally. I am gratified to observe that this is not being made a party question. Notwithstanding the statements of the newspapers, we have shown to the world that it is not only in the House that the work of members is done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 199

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Contract Immigrants Act - Return for 1913, respecting contract immigrants admitted or refused admission into the Commonwealth, &c.

Immigration Restriction Act - Return for 1913 showing - (a) persons refused admission to the Commonwealth; (b) persons who passed the dictation test; (c) persons admitted without being asked to pass the dictation test; (d) departures of coloured persons from the Commonwealth.

Public Service Act -

Promotion of A. B. Smith as clerk, 4th class, Tasmania.

page 199

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Debate resumed from 21st April(vide page 189), on motion by Mr. Kendell -

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to by this House : -

May it please your Excellency -

We, the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, beg to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Upon which Mr. Fisher had moved -

That the following words be added to the proposed address: - “but regret to have to inform you that your Advisers deserve censure for having failed to safeguard the interests of the people of the Commonwealth.”

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

– What other interpretation could be placed upon the honorable member’s remarks? Why did he liken the Labour party, when in power, to Tammany, and talk about our adoption of the policy of “ spoils to the victors”? When we were in power- there was nothing of the kind. But any public servant who has even a semblance of Labour feeling must keep very quiet under the present regime. Returning to the action of the Honorary Minister in giving Mr. Teesdale Smith this contract without calling for tenders, I appeal to honorable members opposite to say whether they think that he has made out a good case. His contention was that he gave Mr. Smith the work in order to save time in constructing a section of the line, but the departmental correspondence proves that there is no guarantee that the work will be carried out within the time specified. The honorable member for Wakefield is most emphatic in his approval of the contract system, and I should like to ask him, as a practical man, whether he agrees with what the Honorary Minister has done. Is this the kind of contract system of which he approves ? Does he believe in a system under which the Minister, or an engineer of his Department, may ask a gentleman to carry out work at a certain price, and let that work to him without calling for tenders? Is that the kind of contract system which the practical men in the party opposite favour?

Mr Livingston:

– No.

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

Mr Thomas:

– The Minister has already abandoned the contract system himself.

Mr BAMFORD:

– This contract is one of those evils from which good must come. I venture to say that, after this experience, the Minister will hesitate before he enters into any fresh contract, no matter what the prices tendered may be, and he will take care that if he lets work on the butty-gang principle he will let it at fair and reasonable rates, and will not allow any one to “get at” him. I should like to know whether the Minister is aware that the agreement under which this contract is being carried out states that it is to commence on the9 th February. That being so, the contractor has now only seventeen days, which includes two Sundays, and has, therefore, only fifteen working days in which to complete the contract before the three months within which he has undertaken to complete it will expire. How is he getting on? Seventeen days from now the penalties under the contract will be payable. I wish to know if they are to be enforced. There is one clause in the agreement which, so far as I know, has not yet been tabled. It is not in the papers handed to me by the Leader of the

Opposition, which, I understand, are from official sources.

Mr BAMFORD:

– He has fifteen working days in which to complete the contract, if that be so. But there is a proviso to the contract. I quote clause 6a of the agreement -

That no claim of any kind whatsoever for extras will be entertained or paid by the Minister unless such instructions shall have been ordered in writing by the Minister, or said Engineer-in- Chief, nor shall the Contractor have any legal claim for any delay, howsoever arisen, during the carrying out, performance, and completion under this agreement : Provided, however, that should any delay be proven to the satisfaction of the Minister to have been caused by any act or default on the part of the Minister or the said EngineerinChief, the Minister will grant to the Contractor extra time for the carrying out, performance, and completion of the work to be carried out, performed, and completed, under this agreement equivalent to the loss of time caused through such delay.

Mr BAMFORD:

Mr BAMFORD:

– There should not be much supervision required for 14 miles of work. In fact, after the surveys are made, and level pegs put in, one engineer with, say, two inspectors, should be sufficient. I am also informed that Mr. Teesdale Smith has a large staff. He has two engineers, two timekeepers, paymasters, &c., &c. However, that is his affair, not ours. I suppose that he imagined he would get another contract. I come now to an estimate I have had prepared as to what this line would cost based upon Mr. Teesdale Smith’s price -

KALGOORLIE- PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY.

Actual quantities of earthworks, according to Schedule of Quantities accompanying the specification issued by the Home Affairs Department in the event of tenders being invited for the construction of the railway : -

Item -

1,709,341 cubic yards, excavation from cutting to embankment.

331,977 cubic yards, excavation from cutting to spoil.

638,992 cubic yards, excavation from side cutting to embankment.

Note. - Excavation from side ditches, inlets and outlets to culverts and waterways, road approaches, and station yards, not included in above.

Teesdale Smith’s Contract Prices.

Excavations in cuttings, 4s. 6d. per cubic yard.

Excavations from cuttings into banks after the first 1½ chains is reached from mouth of cutting, 4s. 6d., plus 2s. 6d. extra for banks - 7s. per cubic yard.

Actual cost of excavation in rock in West Australia, including making banks - 4s. per cubic yard.

Actual cost of excavation in centre cuttings in West Australia, including making banks -1s.11d. per cubic yard.

These prices include carting water, explosives, shifting camp, walking time for men, &c., &c.

What earthworks would cost for the whole length of line if done by day labour as per actual cost of work already executed-

What the cuttings and banks would cost for the whole length of railway if the work be carried out at the prices already contracted for with Teesdale Smith -

So that by allowing the actual cost of cuttings to be for rock and hard material all through at prices for work already executed by day labour, the cost would be £450,862, whilst if the work be carried out at the prices given to Teesdale Smith the cost would be £699,416, a sum equal to £248,554 in excess of what it is now being executed for; whereas if a fair proportion of the material is classified as hard and soft, which it is, the cost by day labour would be £354,873 less than if carried out at Teesdale Smith’s prices.

– If a single dissolution take place, with the result that the elections for the Senate and House of Representatives do not synchronize, the cost of our elections will run into something like £200,000. We take credit to ourselves for being sensible men, and, as sensible men, we should review the whole position calmly and dispas sionately, and endeavour to find some means of bridging over the difficulty that has arisen in regard to the two trumpery issues raised by the Government.

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

– One of my reasons for rising to speak is because, apparently, the AttorneyGeneral’s supply of acid was not sufficient to go round on our side. I should like to reply to certain things said by honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Bourke made some statements about the financial position with which we were faced, remarking that it would be judicious to allow us to remain on these benches to grapple with it. He spoke as if it were something fresh; but I should like to tell him that the financial position was foreseen. Personally, it was the subject upon which I practically got into Parliament, for I pointed out that the Labour Administration had sent up the Commonwealth expenditure at a tremendous rate, and made absolutely no provision to meet it. The increase of expenditure in public works, naval and land defence, and the Postal Department has been enormous; while in their purely domestic policy, such as the maternity bonus and the extension of old-age pensions, the expenditure was largely increased without any business-like proposition being laid before the House as to where the money was to come from. I should like to say a word or two about the Teesdale Smith contract, and about the profits that contractors make when they take Government work. If it shows anything, it shows the incompetency of certain Government officials when they know they have a perpetual lease of their jobs. The defects in the specifications and in the brains of these men whowould control the expenditure of millions of money would never be shown up but for occurrences of this kind. If it had not been for the Teesdale Smith contract, we should never have learnt the manner of man that Mr. Deane is. We do not object to day work. Personally, I have nearly all my work - and I do a good deal of improvement work - done by day labour; but I have an efficient supervisor, or I think so. I do not put a Government official, who is interested only to the extent of his salary, in command of it. We object to day work, as we understand it, in the Government service, because the supervision is not adequate, and the men who do the work practically control, by means of their votes, any Labour Minister who may be in power.

Mr.Higgs. - According to you, the Government official has no honour, because he is a Government official.

Mr FALKINER:

– I do not say that at all. I say he has not the keen personal interest that a man has who has to stand or fall by results. The honorable member for West Sydney told us that the phrase, “We have done those things which we ought not to have done, and we have left undone those things whichwe ought to have done” came from the Litany. I always understood that it came from the General Confession. He also told us that he was in favour of law- that he was an evolutionary Socialist, and did not believe in Syndicalism. As a matter of fact, the very union that put him into Parliament adopted Syndicalism. They had to be whipped up by the Judge of the Arbitration Court to go to work, or he would not judge their case.

Mr Finlayson:

– The opposite is the truth. They whipped up the Judge of the Arbitration Court to hear their case.

Mr FALKINER:

– Another thing that throws some light on this matter is the resolutions which the Political Labour Conference adopted as regards the Defence Forces. Lest it might be thought that I am prejudiced, I shall read what the Age newspaper said about them. I think it was the Age that, about three years ago, really put the Labour party into power. One of the resolutions was - “ That no State Government be allowed to raise, arm, or use any force against the workers in the time of an industrial dispute” The Age comments -

If authority were as numb and helpless as the Labour Conference would provide, then we might as well abolish all restraint and let the criminal and the larrikin indulge their mad humour unhindered as long as they can shelter themselves under the plea that they are engaged in a strike demonstration. The whole report is significant of the crude, ill-balanced judgment brought by ignorant minds to the consideration or vast and far-reaching issues. It is a pity that a body of men, some of whom are actual legislators, and the rest members in ambition, are not inspired by the lessons of human natureand the dictates of common sense. What ideals of national eminence may be cultivated in a narrow, cramped environment such as that existing in the Political

Labour Council, where all the lessons of history are disregarded and passion and prejudice and quack nostrums take the place of gravely pondered counsel and serious thought.

Mr FALKINER:

– Yes, if necessary. Some honorable members cannot realize that a man may advocate a course which may appear to be opposed to his own interests. I have been twitted in this Chamber about the land tax, butwhen a candidate for election I said that I heartily believed in the principle of limitingthe size of estates. I do not wish to speak of my own affairs, but I may say that I believe in the land tax, although it costs my firm £10,500 a year. We could not afford to pay that if we were not breeding sheep which we sell for guineas when other people are selling sheep for shillings. If we were not putting our land to the best use, we could not pay the tax upon it. The Attorney-General has told the House that this Parliament can control and regulate the export of meat, and that is the only way in which we can deal with any meat trust in Australia. I anticipate that the trust could hit us far harder inthe London marketthan in Australia, and if the position should arise, we shall have to seek the co-operation and aid of the Imperial Government to save ourselves. The present high price of cattle and sheep in Victoria is not duetothe operations of a meattrust. Until cattle and sheep got so scarce, the only ring here was the ring of exporters to keep prices down. I sold some bullocks in this market on 16th April, and have taken the troubleto find out who bought them. I naturally expectedthat the meat trust, or a representative, would be among the buyers; but one brought £16 15s., being sold to a local country butcher. A lot of eight, which brought £15 7s. 6d., was bought bythe same man. Then came a lot of ten, of which two were bought for £16 15s. each by a gentleman named Ginger. Then came nine, which were bought by a man named Morris. Twenty of the best bullocks were bought by local butchers. Some of the cattle were bought by Angliss and Company, local butchers and exporters. The price of cattle and sheep has gone up because the supplies have decreased to an extent of which those who are not in the business have no idea. In 1891, when I was a boy, and commenced to look after a station, there were 100,000,000 sheep in Australia, and sheep were then practically unsaleable; the more you had, the harder up you were. We sold 14,000 or 15,000 in that year for 4s. 6d. each on a twelve-months’ bill, and gave the wool firm that bought them a clip of wool for sale. Now, according to the latest figures, there are only 83,263,000 sheep in the Commonwealth, a falling off of about 20,000,000, although the population has greatly increased since 1891, and the purchasing power of the people has much improved. We have to-day, roughly, only 100,000 more cattle than we had in 1895.

Mr Finlayson:

– Is not that accounted for bythe fact that they are now killing cattle and sheep younger than used to be the case?

Mr FALKINER:

– That would prove the scarcity of supplies. If stock were not scarce, the animals would be allowed to mature. An article which appeared in the Age recently, after giving figures for different countries, says -

The returns for South American countries are more encouraging, but, on the whole, a survey of the figures provided -

Mr McDONALD:

– They were sent throughout Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria as well. They are in existence, and we can produce them to-day. When the honorable member for Riverina talks about the organizations, let me tell him that before they were started the conditions under which men were asked to work in the western parts of Queensland, and in pastoral districts generally, were such as were not fit for swine. They were accommodated in places that were simply damnable. In such circumstances, how can honorable members wonder that the men were discontented ? It is well known how the men were treated until their organizations became so powerful that they were able to enforce their demands for better conditions from the pastoralists.

Mr Fleming:

– In some places.

Mr McDONALD:

Mr McDONALD:

– If the honorable member has so much influence there, why did the Liberals not win the seat at the last State election. They made every endeavour to do so, but failed. So what is the use of him telling us of his influence? It is nil.

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

– You are of a very generous type.

Mr McDONALD:

– I have not received generosity from my opponents. I have been hounded from one end of the country to the other, and libelled and slandered in every possible way that the human mind could conceive, and by the same class of people who support the honorable member to-day. It will be seen that, so far as I am personally concerned, I have nothing to be thankful for to honorable members opposite or their party.I was speaking of preference to unionists, and saying that unionists had done more, not only in this country, but in every other civilized country in the world, for the working classes than had my other section of the community I know.

– I should not have thought that a gentleman who, when he addresses the electors, says he hopes there are a few Labour supporters present, would make a statement like that under the circumstances. The whole efforts of honorable members opposite are directed to breaking down trade organizations; and if they were honest they would tell us that that is their object. But we shall never get back to the conditions of twenty or thirty years ago, when, so far as Australia is concerned, at all events, trade unions started to take political action. It was realized that the old form of unionism, good as it had been in the past, and however great the benefit it had conferred on the working classes, had outgrown its usefulness, and that some other action should be taken. From that time onward trade unionists have sought to make their organizations political ; and I do not hesitate to say that to-day they are political, because it is felt that by no other means can the aims of the working classes be given concrete form. It is this political action by trade unions that has led to all the trouble to-day. While unionists remained impotent, unable to enforce their demands, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister were quite at one with them ; but to-day, when they have taken political action on the advice given by Sir Thomas McIlwraith and others in 1890, to redress their grievances by constitutional means, it is sought to destroy their organization. I have not the slightest doubt that those organizations, in their political aspect, are going to grow bigger. The latest movement is in the direction of the amalgamation of unions; and to-day some of the organizations in Australia are nearly 100,000 strong. This is the only effective way in which the unionists can hope to cope with the com bined organizations of capital against them, and it is idle to suppose for a moment that there is any prospect of our going back to former conditions.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to7.45 p.m.

Mr McDONALD:

– On the question of preference to unionists the AttorneyGeneral is perfectly candid. He never misses an opportunity of telling us frankly and distinctly that he is opposed to all forms of preference to unionists. I should like to know how he reconciles that attitude of mind with the action of the Government in letting a contract to Mr. Teesdale Smith without calling for tenders or making any such inquiries as were necessary to protect the interests of the country? While the Government are opposed to preference to unionists, they are quite prepared to give every possible preference to contractors. Mr. Blackwood, who was a prominent member of the Employers Federation - one of the organizations supporting the Ministerial party - delivered a speech in London, in which he described the method adopted by our opponents to break clown, if possible, the old trade union organizations. In the course of this speech he said -

It must be borne in mind that this movement is in no way a strike-breaking machine. It is simply a bonâ fide attempt to establish true trade unions such as existed before the Socialists captured the old one. . . . The respectable men’s names are entered in the register, and employment found for them as soon as possible; but before taking up a job they must become members of “ The Independent Workers “ by paying1s. down, and agreeing to pay the subscription of 6d. per man per week.

He was referring to the Independent Workers Union, one of the organizations established for the express purpose of breaking down Labour unions, and ho pointed out that preference was given to the members of it. But, while that is done, preference is denied to the members of the organizations that were formed to better the conditions of the working classes. This Independent Workers Union, which has the support of honorable members opposite - and, I understand that the Prime Minister, once a strong trade unionist, delivered an address in support of that organization-

Mr Joseph Cook:

-What!

Mr McDONALD:

– I understand that the Prime Minister has addressed meetings in connexion with Mr. Packer’s union.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Liberal Workers Union.

Mr McDONALD:

– I care not by what nameit is called; the fact remains that Mr. Packer is the organizer of the union. Mr. Blackwood explained that it was called at first “The Free Workers Union,” but that it was found that with such a name men were not prepared to join it. At the last conference, therefore, the name of the organization was changed to that of “ The Independent Workers.” Behind honorable members opposite is the organized capital of Australia; behind them are the Federated Employers Association, the Federated Manufacturers Association, the landed proprietors of Australia, and the financial institutions of the country. These are the people who found the money at the last election to fight the referenda, and they are now behind our opponents on the Treasury bench. Let us consider for a moment what they would do if they had the power. I do not hesitate to say that if they had complete power trade unionism would have very little opportunity to demand better conditions, or even to maintain the conditions which they at present enjoy. I make that statement emphatically, so far as the AttorneyGeneral is concerned, and in support of my contention I propose to quote from a document coming from South Africa. It may be said that it can have no application here, but my reply to such a contention is that the men behind the Government in South Africa to-day belong to the same class as do those supporting the present Government of the Commonwealth. The document is as follows: -

SouthAfrican Police.

Office of the Sub-Inspector.

Benoni, 31st January, 1914.

Re meeting Engine-drivers and Firemen’s Association. Permission is hereby granted to the Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Association to hold a meeting at 4 p.m., 3rd February, 1914, in the Inglis Buildings, Benoni, for the purpose of electing two delegates for the annual council of the said association. The said meeting to be conducted under the supervision of the police.

Again, on Tuesday, 10th February, 1914.

This document serves to show how far our opponents would go if they had the power. I do not hesitate to say that the very influences which prompted this action in South Africa would cause the present Commonwealth Government to do likewise if it were able to do so.

Mr Thomas:

– But even that is not so bad as the Victorian Coercion Bill.

Mr McDONALD:

– Quite so. When the present Attorney-General was in power in the State he introduced one of the worst Coercion Bills of which we have ever heard. He embodied in it the worst sections of the Irish Coercion Act, and sought to apply them to Australia.

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

– It served the purpose.

Mr McDONALD:

– Honorable members opposite would do the same thing to-day, if the trade and labour organizations were not as strong as they are. May I pit against the views expressed by the Attorney-General the opinions of another mind quite as great as his own. May I quote from the famous pamphlet entitled Wealth and Want, which was published by the present Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Samuel Griffith -

The sweating system, which is only a following out of the principle of industrial competition to its natural and logical conclusion, shows that sometimes the price charged to the producer for his food is so high that he cannot pay for enough to keep him alive - and so he dies, and the weakest goto the wall. … Is such competition really free? Is it any more free than any other competition of the weak against the strong? True, it is not a direct competition of the weak against the strong, but it is the competition of the weak among themselves for what the strong will of their pleasure give them. … In what essentia) particulars does the so-called “ free “ competition differ from slavery? So far from being free it is the complete domination of the weak by the strong. . . . No wonder then that the producers have, for their own protection, established the system of trades unions, which are daily assuming greater importance in our social and political system. But they cannot do all that has to be done. The struggle is severe, unequal, and often disastrous.

I make this quotation - just as I propose to make another - to show the AttorneyGeneral that a man of Sir Samuel Griffith’s great intellectualability was not ashamed to express his opinions in relation to industrial matters. Speaking on the Queensland Eight Hours Bill of 1890, he said-

Some people affect to think that there is nothing in this after all, and what is called the great social movement of the age - it is called by various names, some people call it Socialism -is only the noise of a few agitators here and there, and that there is nothing beyond. They never made a greater mistake. It is a most serious question that the world has to face at the present time. We hear about strikes, and trades unions, and disturbances in trade, as if they were the end that was being aimed at. Trades unions, strikes, and these disturbances, Mr. Speaker, are, in my mind, nothing more than the breaking of the crests of the waves of the great tide that is flowing.

Dear Sir,

Prior to the departure of Mr. John Reid, on holidays, he instructed me to furnish you with particulars of the total amount that has been contributed towards the Federal campaign that is now upon us, exclusive of the sum recently received from you; and I have now to advise you that the amount of subscriptions paid into the Liberal fund, and donated to the various branches and sections of the People’s Progressive League throughout the State, reaches the sum of £930 13s. 2d., since 23rd November, 1912, to date.

Mr.Reid instructed me to ask that you would be good enough to arrange for subsidy on that amount to be placed at the disposal of the above funds.

The letter is signed “ Osborn J. Fenwick, Secretary to the Trustees.” Across it is written -

– Do the Government propose to take the course which was followed by the Attorney-General when he was a member of the Victorian Parliament ? That honorable gentleman is the leading man in the Federal Ministry to-day. He is the man who is guiding the party opposite. I admit that the party is split up into factions. Sir John Forrest leads one faction, the AttorneyGeneral another, and the honorable member for Parramatta a third. The three are fighting for leadership, and, if they can only get the honorable member for Parramatta out of the road, and the honorable member for Swan away as High Commissioner when Sir George Reid retires, the road will be clear for our friend, Mr. Irvine. When the AttorneyGeneral was in office in the State Parliament of Victoria, and desired to make revenue and expenditure meet, one of his proposals was to reduce the old-age pension from 10s. to 8s.

Mr Chapman:

– Who proposed that?

Mr McDONALD:

– The present AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth.

– They entered into a contract with the Powell- Wood Process Companywithout giving anybody a chance of competing with any other process, and now they turn round with a new-found virtue and say, “ This Government are really not considering the interests of the people at all, because they have accepted a contract without calling for tenders, and thereby lost a percentage of 2½, which they might have made if they had only resorted to day labour.” The logic of this situation seems to me particularly shallow. If the Labour party will look to their own record they will find that they have a perfect category of occasions on which they have done the very same thing. Their charge should not have been,” You have accepted a contract without calling for tenders”; for they themselves are guilty. It should have been one of inconsistency. They might well have pointed to the Liberal party’s traditions and said, “ The Liberal party have hitherto called for tenders, and done their business in the open. But here is a case at last in which they have come round to our way of thinking.” They might have based upon that a charge of inconsistency; but they knew very well that if they went on the principle of inconsistency we could turn round and simply occupy a night in enumerating instances. Can you have any greater occasion of inconsistency than the vulgar abuse that has been heaped upon well-to-do people in this country for years? Yet, we find a very large number of the Labour party doing their utmost to grow rich and to entitle themselves to this vulgar abuse. Do we not know that the Labour party are constantly complaining of combinations? Yet the biggest combination in this country is that of the Trades Hall and the trade unionism of Australia. Have not the Labour party, again and again, charged combinations with producing the effect of raising the prices of food and the necessaries of life ? Have not their unions, by their combination, which they always leave out of the calculation, had the effect of raising the rents of the people, the prices of food of the people, the prices of clothes of the people? Yet, there is this new-found virtue by which they say the effect of the present Government letting a contract instead of calling for tenders is to involve the public in some extra expenditure.

I pass now from that to the question of the contract. I am perfectly prepared to admit that it was an administrative blunder. I think it was quite contrary to Liberal traditions.

Mr Riley:

– That is worse than anything that has been said.

Mr Finlayson:

– That is the biggest joke yet.

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

– When the laugh is over, I should like to say that,

As long as I have been connected with the Liberal party, either in the States or in the Commonwealth - and it covers a period of thirty-two years - it has always been the practice to do business of this kind in the open. That is the principle of Liberalism. It is the principle of the Equity Court with trustees. We treat a Minister as a trustee who is dealing with trust funds and trust properties. We say that a Minister must do everything in the open; that there must be no “ side doors,” as it has been called in this debate; that all must come in by the front door; and that, whatever is to be done in exchange for money, must be submitted to public tender, so that all the world may be able, not only to compete, but to see what the competition is, and to be assured that the best value is being got for the people. That has been the tradition of the Liberal party; there has been no side door in the Liberal party; and, therefore, I join with the Labour party, only in less violent terms, in speaking of this act of the Assistant Minister as a great error of judgment. I think that one wants to remember clearly that that honorable gentleman has not had much business experience. He was evidently attracted by what he thought to be a good bargain, but he made the error of mistaking administrative functions for professional functions. It is quite regular for a Minister to accept the advice of his officers on professional and technical matters ; but, when it comes to a question of policy, to a question of administration, it is right for him to turn round to an officer and say, “ You may advise me on your professional matters, for I am not an engineer; you may advise me on technical matters, for I do not understand them. I look to you for technical advice; but I reserve to myself, as a Minister of the Crown, the right to administer this Department according to the traditions of the party to which I belong.”

Mr West:

– He did not know the difference between the two.

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

– That may be, and I do not know whether the honorable member would be much wiser if he were in that position.

I desire now to say a few words about the Western Australian contract. As a member of the Liberal party, I think that a great error was committed in attempting to cancel that contract. I do not know whether all honorable members are aware of it, but I know that the contract contained a clause which enabled the Government to buy an unlimited number of jarrah sleepers where they liked, and at market prices as they pleased. In that way they could have debited the Western Australian Government with the whole cost consequent on their failure to fulfil their contract, and there was, therefore, no possible use in cancelling it.

Mr Riley:

– Another blunder.

Mr Tudor:

– What does the Treasurer say?

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

– I am not proposing to answer for the Treasurer, or any one else. As an independent member of the Liberal party, I think it was a very great administrative mistake to cancel the contract, having regard to the clause it contained, which gave the Government all the remedies they needed. I shall be candid enough to say that I believe that it will do our party a good deal of injury in Western Australia. It has already done so, and I do not think that our position will be recovered by the attempt to patch up another contract in order to salve the sore which has resulted from the feeling that the Commonwealth Government have done an. injustice to that State. I want to now say a word about the despatch which was sent by Senator Millen to the Imperial Government. In my opinion, that was an ill-advised paper. As an electioneering piece of writing it was admirable, but the honorable gentleman seemed to forget that the movements of the Imperial Navy are not a matter for the man in the street. We know very well that Great Britain has lately passed through trying times in preparing herself for a possible attack by on p of the biggest European powers; and we know, further, that every two or three months the situation has been so changing that the Imperial Government never knew, from week to week, or month to month, exactly what the disposition of the Navy would be. Therefore, it was quite possible, quite feasible, quite allowable, and quite forgiveable that the Imperial Government may have entered into a certain arrangement at the Conferences in 1909 and 1911, and found it necessary at a later date to change their tactics.

Mr Atkinson:

– Then why did they not let the Minister of Defence know?

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

– The honorable member cannot say that the Minister did not knew. These despatches are confidential, and are not for the man in the street.

Mr Atkinson:

– There is nothing to show that the Minister knew. .

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

– The honorable member knows very well that these communications are not of a public nature, nor is it desirable that they should be so. If there were a gang of bushrangers in the neighbourhood it would be absurd to allow the public, and through the public the bushrangers, to know exactly how the police were being disposed. That information would be kept perfectly secret. Therefore, I think it was a crude and unstatesmanlike act on the part of the Minister to publish that despatch, in order to try to expose what he regarded as an unforgiveable inconsistency in the attitude of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The despatch I agree with in some respects, although it might have been couched in less truculent terms and treated diplomatically. Another feature of the despatch, from which I desire to dissociate myself, is that portion which spoke in disparaging terms of the Japanese people, who, whatever some members may think of them, are the international friends of Great Britain, walk arm in arm with the Mother Country, and, with her, are the guarantors of the peace of the East. For a Minister of the Crown to send out this philippic, so as to hurt the feelings of the Japanese people, if they think the Australian Minister important enough to take notice of, was very illadvised, and I wish to say that I dissociate myself from the spirit of that despatch and the attempt to belittle

Japan as a factor in assuring our safety in the Pacific.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not think the honorable member can find anything im the despatch to substantiate that statement.

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

– I read terms in the document, which, I think, are distinctly disparaging to Japan.

There is another matter I wish to touch upon. The Attorney-General yesterday, and on many other occasions, elaborated his own ideas upon the subject of constitutional reform, and he has also elaborated his ideas upon the reform of the constitution of the Senate. Of course, each one of us has a perfect right to form what opinion he likes. The Attorney-General, as the honorable member for Flinders, has a. perfect right to form his opinion, but I in no way hold myself bound by the opinion he expresses, and I want to say, as a member of the Liberal party, that the honorable member’s opinions are no» part of the Liberal policy, and they should have no place in an ex cathedra utterance by the Attorney-General. I have no objection at present to the views of the honorable member. He is a constitutional! authority, and is at liberty to form what ideas he likes for the future as to the way this difficulty is to be overcome. It is a matter of great consequence, but te so talk of altering the representation of the different States in the Senate, simply means to talk of cutting at the very taproot of the tree of Federation. For my part, whilst I have every respect for the honorable member’s opinion, I think that any scheme, which has for its primary purpose, or as a necessity of effecting its purpose, interference with the equal representation of the States - that being the condition upon which the States entered into Federation - would be utterly futile, and no Government who attempted such a scheme could last after the fact came to the knowledge of the different States that such a result was sought to be effected.

I des’ire to refer just briefly to the subject of trusts. The Labour party have been, for years past, bringing this subject before the public and endeavouring to frighten the people, and I notice that, whenever the price of a commodity rises, they immediately attribute the rise, not to the fluctuation of the market, but to those- dreadful trusts. We were told years ago - and the then Government acted as if they believed what they told the public - that sugar was one of the commodities upon which the trust machinery was being exercised; and. the Government, having a majority of twelve, with the assistance of Sir William Lyne and Mr. Wise, passed a Bill which appointed a Royal Commission to thoroughly investigate this question. I will, not go into the details, because everybody knows what happened. The Royal Commission found that there was no combine at all, that the sugar company was producing sugar at a cheaper price than it could be produced by the State, and that nothing whatever was to be gained by nationalization. Then during the next three years the Government moved on to another bogy with regard to coal. There was a great combination between the coal-owners and the shipowners, we were told; the coal people were drawing so much heart’s blood, in the shape of extra price, from the people, and an investigation would have the effect of exposing this great abuse. What was. the result? An action, costing scores of thousands of pounds, was entered upon by the Government, and it resulted in the coal companies being held blameless, and being allowed all their costs, whilst the money which had been deposited by them in some instances, on the supposition that they had lost the case, was handed back to them.

Mr Riley:

– Who started the prosecution ?

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

– It was started by the Liberal party, it is true, but it was continued by the Labour party. If I start an action, and somebody, who comes into office after me, and makes later inquiry, continues it, does he not become equally responsible with me? Therefore, I say that the Labour party, in continuing this prosecution, showed that there was no trust controlling that commodity. We used to hear a great deal too much about tobacco, and I really felt that when so many complaints were made the thing would boil over in some mysterious way. We know that the Tobacco Trust was not prosecuted, and now we hear all sorts of encomiums on that Trust. They pay their people good wages; they give them good and cheap meals, and they are actually distributing a large sum of money among their employes. All the charges of the past went by the board, and after three years of Labour,, being in office and effecting no purpose, exposing nothing with regard to trusts, it is now found that the price of meat has gone up, and we are told that there is a great octopus in our midst which is. producing this effect.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Where are the cheers on the other side now ?

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

– Let us examine this position. The alterations that have taken place in the American Tariff have made great changes in the outlook. American people are beginning to look abroad for some means of satisfying the meat requirements of their great population ; and having discovered a splendid source of supply in Australia, are coming here in the form of large organizations to buy our meat. The other day that authority on stock, Mr. Kidman, called the Cattle King, ridiculed the whole thing.

Mr Riley:

– Of course.

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

Mr Conroy:

– I said that 200 were passed.

Mr YATES:

– I do not know whether all of them are yet operative; but if my honorable friend’s statement is correct, I hope that those Acts will have upon the 12,000,000 on the verge of starvation in Great Britain the same beneficial effect as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act will have, if it is administered as it should be, upon the people of Australia. For the benefit of the honorable member for Robertson, I propose to make a quotation, not from what the honorable member for Parkes has described as newspapers biased in our direction, but from the British Shoe and Leather Record of 7th November, 1913. The quotation is as follows: -

An indication of the trend of things in the industrial world is given by recent happenings in the coal trade. It will be remembered that last year Parliament enacted a law for coal miners, which provided (subject, to local conditions) a statutory minimum wage for all men who worked under ground. This was the expedient which brought the national strike in the coal-fields to an end.

Is the honorable member listening? Has he heard the statement that it was the passing of an arbitration law which brought this strike to an end? In giving up the right to strike, the workers of this country assisted to secure by legislation that industrial peace which honorable members opposite say they desire, but for which they are unwilling to give anything in return. The quotation continues -

But, as we pointed out at the time, the principle thus established in relation to a great industry was sure to have results not to be foretold at the moment, and one of them we now see in the action of the colliery owners of North Staffordshire.

Mr Fenton:

– The Prime Minister came from Staffordshire.

Mr YATES:

– I, too, came from Staffordshire - from a village not far from the birthplace of Sir Edwin Smith, one of the greatest patriots the British Empire has ever known.

Mr Conroy:

– Is that why the honorable member decries British justice?

Mr YATES:

– I am not decrying the British people. The people of Great Britain have never had a chance of making British justice. The honorable member for Robertson coupled his reference to British justice and fair play with equal opportunity at the ballot-box. Is he aware that only about 7,000,000 of the people of Great Britain have equal opportunity at the ballot-box? That is the position in the beautiful British Empire. In speaking thus, I wish it to be understood that I am referring to the Empire only as an industrial world, since we are fighting now a great industrial question, and that I am not comparing it as a nation with other nations. I hope my honorable friends opposite will be quite clear on that point. The quotation continues -

In order to avoid a threatened strike against the employment of non-union labour the coal owners in that field have joined hands with the unions by recognising that “in the interests of employers and men alike, all the workmen shall be members of a trade union.”

This was done in the interests of the coal mine-owners themselves -

This soundsstartling, yet it is the natural consequence of the fixing of wages by Boards of Arbitration whose decisions have the force of law.

All men equal in the eyes of the law -.

There is obviously no business reason - and this appears in black type - why employers should add to their troubles by insisting upon using non-union labour, which has to be paid at the same rate as union labour. It is probably true in industries, where union labour is predominant, that the non-unionists are chiefly those who wish to avoid paying their weekly dues - and at the same time receive trade union wages.

Those, Mr. Prime Minister, are the sneaks of society. Our honorable friends opposite knew full well what the leader of the Opposition meant when he referred to the sneaks of society, and whether it be palatable or not to them, I am going to repeat the statement. Such men are the sneaks of society. They are the camp followers in the industrial war,- who are not game to come into the fighting line to secure better conditions for themselves, but who will come in after the fight is over and gluttonously gobble up everything that has been gained by it. We have no hesitation in hitting these men hard, as they ought to be hit. Although the fight of the workers to obtain their rights in this regard may be long and strenuous, the Labour party will not be found falteringor hesitating to say that every man in the industrial world who takes any advantage that has been gained for him by his fellow workers ought to be prepared to foot the bill and to help to bear the burden.

Mr Conroy:

– It will mean another 2,000,000.

Mr Fenton:

– Keep quiet.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! It is an old parliamentary practice, and, I think, a very good one, that a new member shall be listened to in silence.

Mr YATES:

– The article continues -

How long it will be before the movement to which we have called attention spreads to the trades with which we are especially concerned: no man knoweth. But it can only be a question of time. It is felt to be intolerable that the best employers should have harder conditions imposed on them until the entire industry is brought into line. In other words, the federated manufacturers cannot meet competition in the open market unless all the centres where the trade is carried on are organized and controlled alike, or as nearly alike as local conditions will permit. And so we see the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives and the Federation of Boot Manufacturers working together within the past few months as they have never worked before.

I hope that that statement will sink into the minds of honorable members opposite, who tell us that preference to unionists is not in accordance with British justice and fair play. In that very country in which British justice has been built up the members of the Boot Operatives Union - the employes - are working in conjunction with the masters in the industry, the employers realizing that they have no right to assist the sneaks of society who are not game to fall into the fighting line. The Ministerial party say that we do not control the whole industrial community, because only a proportion of the workers are unionists. We recognise that that is so, but there are many industries in which it is not possible for the men to join a union. If suitable avenues were offering, then, instead of the number of unionists being what it is to-day, nearly every one who votes for us at election time would be a member of a union. Even if every worker is not a paying member of a union, the fact remains that we must have the sympathy and support of every one who votes for us at the ballot-box. The Leader of the Opposition stigmatized as “ the sneaks of society “ the camp followers who take all the advantages of unionism, but are not prepared to do anything for it, and, our opponents now wish to make it appear that he applied that appellation to every individual who does not contribute to the funds of the Labour party. They know they are giving out to the general public something that is not a fact. That is often the way they fight their battles, and when we tell them of it, they say we are impugning their personal honour. It is not their personal honour, but their methods that we impugn, and it is their methods that give them whatever power they may have. Let me finish this quotation -

Each organization sees the need of strengthening the other before much can be done to either raise wages or shorten working hours.

The Trades Boards Act, which regulated wages for certain sweated industries, created a precedent which was followed by the measure enforcing minimum wages in coal mines. The public conscience, having approved of these most revolutionary laws, must now be prepared for others. The principle having been established that wages in certain industries must be settled by combination of masters on one side and the men on the other, the extension of the same principle to other trades can scarcely be resisted. How far this movement will spread it is impossible to say, but it will go much farther before reaction sets in. And on the whole we are disposed to encourage the new movement. When it has spent its course we hope that relations between employers and employed will be on a better footing than they are to-day. But the need of the movement is to prevent industrial strife by providing legal means for settling disputes and regulating - wages and hours or labour.

I assert that preference to unionists does make all men equal under the law. The other side say that our unions are close corporations. They are nothing of the kind, so far as I know them. There may be one or two specific trades in which a man has to serve a certain number of years of apprenticeship. Indeed, it is necessary, to conserve the interests of these trades, to fix a fairly stiff entrance fee. I do not see that that is wrong, because it has, perhaps, taken a good many years to raise a trade to its present level. In the circumstances, I am disposed to support the view that a man who wants to enter a union of that sort should pay the price that the union demands. No one could enter the legal profession without paying the necessary fees, nor can a man become a member of the British Medical Association without paying the prescribed amount. If a man wants to get into the Pelt Hatters Union, he must pay the entrance fee required. If he wants to get into other skilled trades, in which the unions have a fair amount of good work to their credit, and are now beginning to reap the benefits of that work, he is rightly called upon to pay the amount specified as an entrance fee. But no man is prohibited from joining a union, and we have no desire to shut anybody out of the benefits of the legislation that has been brought about by the Labour party in politics. The majority of unions, and I have come into close touch with a large number of them, have their organizers going round. As soon as a man takes a job in the industry covered by an organization, he is waited upon by the organizer and asked to join. If a man goes into a shearing shed, either as a labourer or a shearer, the Australian Workers Union will not ask him to pay a higher subscription than its oldest members pay. Whatever the honorable members opposite say about wool rising in price, it must be remembered that the Australian Workers Union, by the strength of its organization, has brought about greatly improved conditions for these men. Newcomers can enter on the terms I have stated, and after they have been in the union for a certain time, they can get an old-age ticket, which carries with it funeral benefits. I am proud of the great unions, and am confident that the general public will refuse to allow themselves to be blinded with the dust that certain people try to throw into their eyes, but will see that preference to unionists is the right thing. The Liberal organizers, when they go round, will tell a woman who has ‘a promising son that when he becomes old enough to work, if he does not join a union, he will not, no matter how clever he may be, be able to get a job. That is all nonsense, and they know it. If ib was said in ignorance, we could forgive them j but they go round with these stories knowing that they are untrue. During the last referenda campaign, one lady canvasser told one of the constituents of a member of this House that “ If these proposals are carried, they could tell you that you must not grow that tree in your front, and must shift it to the back, and you would have to do so.” That happened at Mitcham, a suburb of Adelaide. It is a positive fact, which shows how the other side will distort things. My honorable friend opposite, who quoted British law and justice, and said that sometimes unions may penalize a man, must admit that the community often has to penalize some of its members because they will not observe the laws. We have laws in our unions, which must be observed, and no one knows that fact better than the Prime Minister. Every effort you make, and every step you take in a trade union, you can see where you are going, and you know what the result is going to be. No one knows better than the Prime Minister the benefits of trade unionism, because he has been in it, and has been elevated by it. I often think, when I hear him reviling us and our methods, that the honorable member for Parramatta has to thank that old unanimity of membership for placing him where he is to-day. As other speakers have said, the Government Preference Prohibition Bill is a mere delusion and a sham. It contains nothing. What is asked for has already been done by the Government as an act of administration, and the real object of the measure is to set the Senate at variance with this House. Honorable members opposite know there is nothing else in it. They know it will not make one unionist less in the whole of the Government service. They know that the spirit of unionism has come to stay, and the party opposite want to cripple it. They know that every day hundreds of youths are reaching the age of twenty-one, and are breaking away from the old Conservative traditions in which their fathers were brought up. Consequently, every day brings fresh recruits to the ranks of the Labour party. We fear no double dissolution. Personally, I do not. I feel that South Australia would do to-morrow the same as it did on the 31st of May. The electors of Adelaide realize all that the Labour party stands for, and have been made to love the party through the efforts of the man to whose seat in this House I have succeeded. Brother Roberts made the electors of that constituency worship him, and he so inspired them with a regard for the principles for which we strive to gain recognition that, out of very honour to his memory, they would not see that seat lost to Labour. I do not mind one whit the result of any election which may take place in the immediate future. Somebody said this afternoon that there was not enough acid ladled out by the Attorney-General to go round. But, so soon as the acid is put upon my honorable friends opposite, they squirm like a snail which has had salt put upon ‘ it. There is not one of them who, if he were transferred to a State Parliament to-morrow, would advocate the application to the Legislative Councils of the same treatment which it is proposed to mete out to the Senate. The Attorney-General has suggested that true Democracy should prevail, but I take it that, if the Liberal party were fortunate enough to secure a majority of seats in both Houses of this Parliament, their very first endeavour would be to throttle the Democracy. They would then go back upon the Federal compact. In South Australia, at the recent general election, we were inundated with literature which accused us of being Unificationists. Our opponents had prepared a map of Australia, containing no State boundary lines, and with only one little spot marked upon it, namely, Canberra. “ Vote for the referenda proposals, and this is what it means,” they proclaimed. I repeat that if, as the result of an appeal to the people, my honorable friends opposite secured a majority in both branches of the National Legislature, they would resort to gerrymandering practices, such as were tried in South Australia, and with very successful results. In that State they gerrymandered so successfully that certain constituencies are practically in the bag, and the “Ikey Mo’s” can do with the Labour party just what they choose. When we come to analyze the arguments advanced by my honorable friends opposite, it will be seen that they are inherently unsound. During this debate a good deal has been said in regard to the slandering of Australia. Personally, I am proud of this country, and I would not wittingly malign it. I believe that Australians know too much about their own welfare to resort to unclean electoral practices. Though there may be a greater number of names on the rolls than there should be, I say, without hesitation, that, no matter what system may be adopted for purging those rolls, within a very few months - owing to migration and deaths - the discrepancies will be as great as ever they were. We have been asked who are the slanderers of Australia. I say unhesitatingly that they are the Fusion party. I do not say that that party is composed exclusively of the Liberal members of this Parliament. But the slanderers of Australia consist of the men who are to be found within its ranks. When it was discovered that the Labour party had been so successful on 31st May last year, the newspapers had most horrible tales to tell about rollstuffing, and about dead people having voted. In this connexion, I propose to make a quotation from the best Liberal organ in South Australia, which flogged the question for all it was worth. It had been stated that we could not regain the Boothby seat, which had been wrested from us by Mr. D. J. Gordon. We put our heads together, and did a little bit of solid organizing. We followed the person who had told a lady elector that, if the referenda proposals were carried, she would be compelled to remove a tree which was growing in front of her house to the rear of her dwelling. The other side did not always remember what they had said, whereas we always told the same tale. As a result of our efforts, the winning of Boothby was a staggering blow to our opponents. The electors had put the acid upon them in no unmistakable manner. We had regained Boothby ; that electorate had returned three Labour senators, and it had also carried the re- ferenda proposals. There is no doubt that by his deeds the present Prime Minister must be judged. He is of the Fusion crowd, and underneath the insinuations which were made of malpractices at .the recent election undoubtedly lies the accusation that our electors were corrupt. The Register, of 15th June last year, said -

Allegations of oft-repeated votes in the name of the same person have come in, not from a” few isolated parts, but from practically all of them. There is no smoke without fire. Scrutineers of long experience have declared that they have never known an election so fraught with suspicion and irregularity as the one which was held last Saturday. People were seen to enter three or four polling booths. Why should Goodwood residents have to go to Wayville and Parkside voters to Hyde Park? What was the meaning of this topsy-turvydom and deliberate inconvenience? The suggestion is that there is a motive.

I can give the reason for that. The reason is that the honorable member for Boothby now sits in this Chamber on the Labour ticket. That is what hurts. The statement was made that a motor car was kept employed from 7 in the morning until 7 at night, carrying persons round to vote as often as they could. Those who said that forgot that the polling booths did not open until 8 a.m. We know that Parkside voters went to Hyde Park, and Goodwood voters to Wayville. I know the individual who took them. But there would have been chaos if he had not done so. The polling booth at Goodwood was crowded, and he took voters to a booth where there were fewer electors attending. Electors were also taken from Prospect to Nailsworth because the Prospect booth was taxed to its utmost. In many of the booths the crowd was so great that, it was difficult for the officers to carry out their duties properly. Our friends on the other side suggested, in regard to this action of taking electors from a crowded booth to one which was not so busy, that where there is smoke there is fire. The fire that burns them is the fact that we won the seat. They are really in opposition, because in this House parties are equal, and in the Senate we have a large majority. A leading article in that august journal, the Register, a very bitter article occupying a column and a quarter, printed on the 13th June last, contains inter alia this statement -

A few days ago numbers of South Australians, perfectly honest in the ordinary affairs of life, made thieves of themselves by stealing votes.

Had persons stolen votes, the Register would have been right in condemning them, but Mr. Harris, the Divisional Returning Officer for Boothby, told the Electoral Commission, during its recent visit to Adelaide, that he did not think that there had been one case of personation in the division, and that the apparent cases of personation were due to clerical errors. The slandering of the electors of Australia started with the Liberals, and there was no limit to those slanders, not only South Australia, but every other State, being maligned, until we had to go to the expense of appointing the Commission which is still sitting. This mountain of slander, after its labour, has not even brought forth a small mouse. There is nothing in the Governor-General’s Speech that indicates that the Government intends to be very vigorous during the session. Apparently when two Bills which have been mentioned have received their despatch in another place, we shall be sent to the country if Ministers have their desire. There is little in the Speech to guide a new member as to the intentions of Ministers. I am not opposed to the Commonwealth supporting the Murray waters scheme by granting £1,000,000 for the development of irrigation, though I hope that when the Bill necessary to sanction this arrangement is introduced, it will be found to contain the proper safeguards to protect the Commonwealth interest, and to insure the proper carrying out of the work. South Australians like myself have heard the Murray waters question discussed from the time they commenced to understand politics. Mr. Simpson Newland is a South Australian patriot who has taken a very active interest in it, as has also our worthy Minister of External Affairs. There have been reams of talk printed about it, but nothing tangible has resulted. To use the quotation of the honorable member for West Sydney, it has been a case of, “ Not now, O Lord, not now,” with one Government after another. To the credit of the Labour party be it said that when Tom Price came to be Premier of South Australia, he took such active steps to develop the navigation and irrigation of the Murray that to-day no Government dare ignore the subject. I do not wish to be regarded as parochial because I support the agreement which has been made between the Commonwealth and the States interested. I feel sure that if the River Murray is used as it can be, great things will be done for the development of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has made this agreement. As to the transfer of the State debts, I shall wait to hear a further statement from the Government before expressing an opinion. T have read various schemes, and am afraid that, like the Murray River question, the State debts question will have to wait years for its settlement. Great prominence has been given to the construction of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway by the action of the Minister of Home Affairs in making a contract with Mr. Teesdale Smith, which he has sought to justify by producing ali the papers, and showing that he acted on the advice of his officers. Being a young member, I shall not criticise what the Minister has done, but if I come back after the dissolution that has been so much spoken of, I hope that on some other occasion I shall be able to subject to criticism Ministerial action of this kind in the way in which this action has been criticised from this side during the debate. Members of this party have shown their anxiety for the interests of Australia, and have amply justified the Leader of the Opposition in proposing to add to the Address-in-Reply the statement that the Administration has not safeguarded those interests. I was in Port Augusta on 2nd February, and took the opportunity to go along the line as far as it was completed, about 68 miles. Mr. Teesdale Smith had been in the neighbourhood a day or two before, and I believe that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Timms were on the spot. It was common knowledge in Port Augusta then that the daylabour system was coming to an end. I was told that all the heads had been along the line, and that they knew it. I shall not criticise the Minister of Home Affairs for the contract that he made. His carefulness in noting the last paragraph, which was Mr. Teesdale Smith’s great move, is to be commended. But I would point out that the negotiations originated in a telegram from Captain Saunders, in which it was stated by Mr. Teesdale Smith that it had come to his knowledge that Mr. Deane would accept the proposal for a contract. When the proposal was made Mr. Deane submitted it. This shows that the acceptance of ‘a contract must have been in Mr. Deane’s mind some weeks before the telegram was despatched. He must have had .the assurance of the Minister that he would be empowered to do so. I feel that when these gentlemen could get the whisper, so to speak, and be out on the railway route spying out the land, it should have been possible for the “Minister of Home Affairs to have called tenders for .the contract prior to that time. T was rather surprised, when we got to the end pf the line, to find that the track-layer had stopped working. There was then a stretch of loose sand, then the lagoon, and from there we started to rise over the hills, and nothing was being done with the track-layer. I watched the men at work, and had some sympathy for them. I hope that preference to unionists in regard to construction work on that railway will be carried out, if only for the sake of those men. No person who is interested in the welfare of his fellow-man would .desire to see men compelled to work under conditions under which he would not care to work himself. I “had my midday meal at the side of the line, with the heat up to 110 degrees in the shade. The water Ave used had been carried, out on the train, and poured from the train into tanks which stood in the open without anything to shelter them from the sun. I do not know what that water was like at 6 o’clock in the evening. Any man -who desired a cool drink from the tanks would have to consider a temperature of from 98 to 100 degrees as cool. If a man could imagine that water to be ice water, then he might be able to refresh himself with it. I sat there with a friend under a mulga bush, and joined in conversation with the men while they were enjoying their crib. We had to be brushing away the flies all the time. The Treasurer knows the conditions, and I suppose he considers it was nice for the men to work under such conditions. If only honorable members saw the flies there, they could imagine what the conditions are like. I had a pannikin of tea, and when a gust of wind came along the sand gritted on one’s teeth after he drank his tea. Those are the conditions under which these men have to work who are asking for 13s. 4d. a day, and I say that they earn every penny of it, es- pecially when it is remembered that they have to send the bulk of their wages to their wives, who -may be in Adelaide, or some1 other city of the Commonwealth. When I got to “the end of the line, ‘I found that no preparation ‘had been made to go further. I do not know who was to blame for that; but it seemed to me that the engineers at both ends of iiic line should have had sufficient foresight ‘to have prevented the track-layer from being allowed to lie idle. The riding ganger said to us, “ We are sorry we cannot show you the tracklayer in operation, but you see we Have come to the end of the ballast, and, consequently, cannot go any further.” ‘I feel sure that the engineers must have known the position as it was then, and the Minister has, I think, been to some extent misled by them as to the necessity of the work, inasmuch as time is the essence of the contract, and it is to be carried out in “three ‘months. I feel satisfied that when the contract is completed the track-layer will be where I saw it, at the 68-miles peg. Even if the contract is completed in three months, we shall not be making the progress with the line that I think we ought to make. T do no’t contend that the Honorary Minister has knowingly done anything which he should not have done, “but I do say that, in connexion with this matter, the Ministry collectively are deserving of the vote- of censure which the Leader of the Opposition has moved. In the opinion of the members of this party, and I think of the country generally, it has been amply demonstrated that day labour is cheaper and more in the interests of the community than is the contract system ; and, on the ground of their departure from the daylabour system alone, I feel that the Government are deserving of censure. I should like to refer now to some of the remarks of the Attorney-General. He is very anxious that he should not be charged with saying what on their face his words do not mean; but I have yet to learn that the honorable gentleman is not adept at scarifying his opponents by innuendoes in the manner which he so much disapproves as applied to himself-. Speaking of the honorable member for West Sydney, and his connexion with Socialists and Syndicalists, the AttorneyGeneral had no hesitation in telling the general public that Mr. Hughes, as Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federa- -tion, was simply, offering the members of the Federation a dog biscuit. The honorable gentleman said, “ Could you not -see the blood in his nostrils?” What does :he wish the general public to infer from that ? Why such lurid language in speaking of a gentleman who was doing his best to better the conditions of Che waterside workers? “The blood in his nostrils.” “ He was driving the mastiff back into the kennel.” In these words, the AttorneyGeneral was comparing the Socialist and the Syndicalist members of the Labour party to a mastiff. Then the honorable gentleman used the old shibboleth about the marriage tie and the sanctity of the home. I repudiate that insinuation, and have often repudiated it before. The members of the Labour party respect their women folk quite as much as do the members of any other section of the community.

Mr Finlayson:

– More so.

Mr YATES:

– Yes, more so. How often, when the father has been stricken down and the mother left almost destitute with her children, do we find the eldest of the family, whether a boy or a girl, taking up the responsibility of the breadwinner? Thousands of such cas:: could be enumerated. If we look at the other side of the picture, we shall find that when the breadwinner is taken, there is generally enough left .to keep the widow and family until the children are old enough to care for themselves, and they usually have servants to wait upon them. I say that it is a base calumny to suggest that we would interfere with the sanctity of the marriage tie or of -home life. The suggestion is the more base, in view of the fact that, speaking of the party collectively, we have risen from the 12,000,000 who are always on the verge of starvation. The first trade unionists in Great Britain were sent out to Van Diemen’s Land for seven years, and the Judge, in sentencing them said, “ It is not for anything you have done, but as an example.” He said that he must, in the interests of the general community, transport those men for seven years. That is what we had to put up with. When I hear this talk about our interference with the marriage tie and the sanctity of the home, I am reminded of the way in which the cormorant bosses used to work the kiddies so that a youngster waking up at 5 o’clock in the morning would say, “Is it time to go to work, daddy?” Who dragged the women out of the mines ? Who claims equal .pay for equal work by women ? Who is -it that ha$ always stood for making the members of the general community better off than when they came into the world ? It is our side. When we are told that we would interfere with the marriage tie and the sanctity of the home, that we have blood in our nostrils, and are shoving the mastiff back -into the kennel, I say that it ill-becomes a gentleman who uses such language to twit honorable members on this side with imputing motives.

Mr Riley:

– And a cultured man, too.

Mr YATES:

– Yes, a man of high mental attainments gained in avenues that are not open to the working man. In the light of his disadvantages in this connexion, the working man should be commiserated upon his shortcomings rather than condemned. Let me say a word now on the question of the referenda. I was rather amused .to hear the Attorney-General on that question. He told us what the referenda proposals were from bis point of view. He took them line by line and item by item, and said that the whole of the “ children,” as he termed them, were misshapen and paralyzed from their birth, would be inoperative, and could achieve .nothing. Had they been carried, he said, we could not have attained the object at which we aimed, and from his point of view, they were not worth much consideration. I am prepared to accept his knowledge as a legal man on that question. If our referenda proposals were not what we thought, they were, at least, an earnest of our desire to give to the Commonwealth Parliament greater power. Even the honorable and learned gentleman himself will admit that, under the Constitution as it is, this Parliament has not the requisite power to deal with a number of circumstances that may arise from time to time. If our referenda proposals were misshapen, or deformed, or inoperative, they still showed that we desired to make the Constitution what it should be - a living thing, and not a thing controlled by the dead hand of the past. We went into the movement whole-heartedly, and, although I accept the Attorney-General’s definition of what he believed our proposals to be, I am not going to say that we shall not resubmit them to the people. No matter how misshapen they may be, or how puerile he may say they are, they will be resubmitted. That is the point I want to make. It was very funny indeed to hear from him that they were misshapen, deformed, paralyzed, inoperative proposals. We have only to turn up the newspapers issued at the time of the last general elections to find how much type was used in fighting our proposals. The people who thought that our proposals were no good very nearly went down on their bended knees to ask the electors to vote “ No.” South Australia was inundated with literature. Money was poured out like water. The organizers for the Liberal Union had money placed to their credit. They did not have to say how it was used or spent. There was the £100 note, and space in every newspaper was filled with big type - space measuring 10 inches by 4 inches - setting out the reasons why the electors should not vote for the referenda proposals. In this space the electors were told how the referenda proposals would cripple the Commonwealth, stop industry, kill individual effort, and result in every industry becoming a State-controlled affair. If our referenda proposals were no good, as the Attorney-General told us, if there was no power in the first, if the second was no good, if the third was no good, if they were not required, why did he not tell his friends on the other side, and the Liberal Unions generally, “ Save your money for. a better purpose. Let the people pass the proposals, as they are no good “ ? He, for his part, dare not go out to the country and fight them in the interests of the party to which I belong. I do not intend to detain the House much longer. I have made an effort to express my views, and I trust that, as time goes by, I shall become more accustomed to the methods of the House. I shall be very keen in watching the course of events, but I do hope that, if we are to have a dissolution, at least the true position will be put before the country.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member for Parkes says that we are not going to have a dissolution.

Mr YATES:

– I was pleased to hear that statement. If the Government remain in power for another month or two, and enact one or two more things which call down upon them his condemnation, I expect that he will come over to this side, and, when the memorable vote is taken, the Government will be found in a minority, and must either resign or be content to remain in their present parlous position, making out to the country that they are doing something when- they are not. But, if there is to be a dissolution., I am quite prepared to face the country, and I hope that the Government will put the position clearly. I trust that they will not go to the country with two sham Bills and say that they are test measures, because they are not. The Government have not altered one iota of the legislation carried out by their predecessors. If it is necessary to test our legislation, to ask the people to speak on some issue, why do not the Government alter the maternity grant? Why do they not do what they would desire to do, and that is to convert the old-age pension system into an insurance scheme? Why do they not repeal the land tax? Why do they not come straight out and say that the note issue is not in the best interests of the people? They have raised the gold reserve in order, I suppose, to damage the note issue in the eyes of the public, and so get them to say that it is no good. Why do not the Government interfere with the Commonwealth Bank? They have admitted that it is going to be a useful institution, and the method by which they propose to attain that aim is to give way to the States. Some one has said that the Prime Minister went to the Premiers’ Conference on his bended knees, hail hardly think that he is going the right way to make the Commonwealth Bank what it should be. I am rather inclined to think, with the honorable member for Hindmarsh,, that there will be no progress made in regard to the Commonwealth Bank until it becomes- a national bank in the proper sense of that term; until it does all the business of the Commonwealth and controls the whole of our finances. I feel positive that when the public have become accustomed to what the power of the Commonwealth Bank is they will put greater force behind honorable members on this side, and that, when we commence to make a move in the direction of expanding its functions, with that power behind us we shall more than justify its utility, and the people will bless us for that enactment. I will not concede that it is possible, constitutionally, to dissolve the two Houses.

When it is a matter of being on the losing side for once, our opponents cannot stand it. They do not like being in the position in which they have had us for years, and that is with the other House against us. Consequently, they must make an appeal to the country, and put the .futile question which was answered ten months ago, when the people said in no unmistakable terms how the Senate should be composed. I feel positive that when an appeal is made to the people we shall get a mandate, not only to manage the affairs of the Commonwealth, but to initiate those reforms for which the country is waiting.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Higgs) adjourned.

page 247

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway -

Correspondence with reference to an offer made by Mr. Joseph Timms in connexion with the construction of portion of the line.

Permanent Working Plan and Section of portion of the line. (Sheets 62-71).

page 247

ADJOURNMENT

Naval Conference : Tobacco Monopoly : Holiday Pay

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- There is a little matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. It may be another error, but still it is right that the public should know about it. The following passage appears in the’ Treasurer’s Budget speech of last year, in the course of a reference to naval matters -

The Commonwealth has been, active in providing its unit on practically the above basis; but, for some reason or other, of which the present Government is unaware, two units of similar strengths on the China and Bast India stations have not as yet been provided. This important matter is now the subject of correspondence with the Imperial Government, and a conference has been requested, with a view of deciding upon a further increase of construction, in conjunction with the Mother Country and the other portions of the Empire.

I presume that is correctly reported, and that the Treasurer believed the statement to be true when he made it.

Sir John Forrest:

– It was absolutely true.

Mr FISHER:

– Yet I find in the Herald of this evening the following cable message : -

Naval Conference : Mr. Cook’s Attitude : White Paper Issued. [Published in the Times this morning.]

Mr Page:

– It has been mentioned.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If that is so, it should not have been discussed on the motion for the adjournment. I call attention to the fact that the honorable member’s remarks are out of order as being opposed to Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The matter has been discussed in general debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It has not been discussed.

Mr Page:

– It was not discussed on the general debate, but we shall get the Minister of Trade and Customs to answer it when he gets on the Darling Downs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 April 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1914/19140422_reps_5_73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives22 April 1914

QUESTION

PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Mr FISHER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr KELLY:LP

Mr FISHER:

Mr KELLY:

Mr WEBSTER:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KELLY:

PARLIAMENTARY STATIONERY

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

THE HAGUE PALACE OF PEACE

Mr THOMAS:BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GLYNN:Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

HOUR OF MEETING : DAYS OF SITTING

Mr McDONALD:Kennedy

Mr HANS IRVINE:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr McDONALD:

Mr HIGGS:Capricornia

Mr Boyd:

Mr HIGGS:

Mr McDonald:

Dr Maloney:

Mr HIGGS:

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

Dr MALONEY:Melbourne

Mr BOYD:Henty

Mr FISHER:Wide Bay

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

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Darwin

Mr WEST:East Sydney

Mr FALKINER:Riverina

Mr Webster:

Mr Boyd:

Mr FALKINER:

Mr HOWE:Dalley

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr HOWE:

Mr FOWLER:Perth

Mr WEBSTER:Gwydir

Mr HANS IRVINE:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr WEBSTER:

Mr HANS IRVINE:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr Howe:

Mr HANS IRVINE:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr Howe:

Mr HANS IRVINE:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr LIVINGSTON:Barker

Mr PIGOTT:Calare

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr PIGOTT:

Mr CONROY:Werriwa

Mr Fenton:

Mr CONROY:

Mr McWilliams:

Mr MATHEWS:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

PAPERS

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

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

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr Joseph Cook:

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

Mr Joseph Cook:

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

Mr Joseph Cook:

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

Mr Riley:

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

House of Representatives
22 April 1914

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr KELLY:
LP

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

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

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

Mr BOYD:
Henty

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

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

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

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

Mr PIGOTT:
Calare

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; 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

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

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

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

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917