View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
30 April 1914

5^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

HOUR OF MEETING
PAPERS
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 456

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) pro posed -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at half-past 10 o’clock a.m.

page 456

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act - Military Forces - Financial and Allowance Regulations Amended (Provisional) Statutory Rules 1914, Nos. 83-37.

Tasmanian Mail Service - Agreement between the Postmaster-General and the Union Steam-ship Company of New Zealand Limited, and Huddart Parker Limited, for the conveyance of mails between Melbourne and Launceston and Melbourne and Burnie.

page 456

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

Debate resumed from 29th April (vide page 455), 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: -

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. Fishes 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 P P- ABBOTT:
New England

– During the last fortnight honorable members have listened to a considerable number of speeches. This side of the House, it seems to me, has been called on simply to answer the charge contained in the few general words that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to add to the Address by way of amendment. He asks the House to declare that it regrets to have to inform His Excellency that his Advisors “ deserve censure for having failed to safeguard the interests of the people of the Commonwealth.” The charge levelled by that amendment is based mainly, if not solely, on the statements made in the Speech delivered by the GovernorGeneral to Parliament. If we refer to this Speech we find that it states that a considerable number of public works have been carried out by the present Ministry, and a considerable number of Bills brought before Parliament. Amongst other things, the Government managed last session to put through this Chamber a Bill to prohibit the giving of preference to unionists in Government employment, and a Bill to restore the postal vote provisions of the Electoral Act. The Liberal party, when before the country, told the electors that those Bills formed part of their policy, and a majority of the electors supported that policy by placing the present Administration in power.

Mr Mathews:

– The main charge against the Labour party was extravagance.

Mr P P ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– That charge has been dealt with, and I think that when another opportunity presents itself, the people will reaffirm their decision of twelve months ago, and return the Liberal party to power with a larger majority than it has now.

As to what has been done by this Government, as outlined in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, let me mention first the arrangements for the transfer of the debts of the States to the Commonwealth. Every one who views our politics from the national point of view must admit that this is not a party matter, but one that concerns the whole people, and that the proposed transfer would benefit the whole community. An agreement has also been made for the abolition of dual control in connexion with the Savings Banks of the people, for the floating of new loans, and for the strengthening of the Commonwealth Bank. Surely our honorable friends opposite must applaud what has been done in this direction. Then the unification of railway gauges, which has been dangled before the people for so many years, seems now to be on the point of being arranged for. For that, this side is entitled to some credit, and I think that the people of Australia will give us that credit. With regard to the waters of the Murray, there has been on the part of this Government one of the finest acts of statesmanship that has taken place in Australia; I speak of the agreement with the States for the conservation and impounding of the Murray waters for the improvement of irrigation and navigation. Should the present Government have to hand over the reins of power to its opponents, it would be entitled to great credit for having brought about an agreement in regard to a matter of so much moment. What has been done will lead to an improvement of the land3 of the interior and greatly assist settlement. Do honorable members say that the Government’s proposals regarding immigration are not worthy of consideration ? Will any one affirm that we have now sufficient population in Australia? Is it not well that immigration should be dealt with by the National Parliament on national lines? We ought not, like dogs in the manger, to say, as honorable members opposite say, that the country must be kept for those who are here now. We should keep this country for Australians, and for persons of our own. flesh and blood who may be willing to come here from the other end of the world to help us to build up a great nation. We have room here for millions more than our present population, and it is only by systematic immigration, encouraged and controlled by the National Parliament, that we can build up the nation that we hope for.

The Governor-General’s Speech promises a Bill for the control of combines affecting trade, and if our honorable friends opposite give us the opportunity, it will be introduced.

Mr Mathews:

– By-and-by.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– The Labour party was in power for three years and did nothing. Its motto was not “ byandby,” but “never-never.” Have the Opposition any fault to find with proposals for dealing properly with defence? The report of Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice on Westernport and the Naval Bases should lead to the saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds. If it is followed the money spent on defence will be expended in the right direction and not wasted, and everything done under our defence schemes will be on practical lines. There will not be the frittering away of thousands of pounds that we see taking place in other countries.

The development of the Northern Territory is also touched on in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, and if we are given the opportunity, there will be reproductive works there to enable the people whom we are enticing there, and those who are there, to have a better chance of making progress.

The mention of the transcontinental railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta shows that the Government are sincere in continuing that great national undertaking. I understand that there are 150 miles of line already completed.

The main line of attack on the Government is in regard to the Teesdale Smith contract, and when the whole of th’e speeches delivered on the censure amendment are boiled down the sum total of the charges made is that, because, possibly, the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs has made a small error - which is questionable - in regard to administration, the Government should. hand over control to the other side. I ask honorable members opposite whether the exMinister of Home Affairs - the honorable member for Darwin - had he been in charge of the Home Affairs Department, would he not have acted in a similar way, had reports and information been furnished to him in the same manner as they were furnished by Mr. . Deane, the EngineerinChief of Commonwealth Railways, and Captain Saunders to the honorable member for Wentworth? What would have been the attitude of the people of Australia and our friends opposite if the honorable member for Darwin had said, “ Although my advisers advised that we should give this contract for this intermediate portion so as to construct the line at once, because time was the essence of the work, and that, if this particular piece was not carried out, other great national works on the route would be held up, I did not accept their advice ? “ As a matter of fact, in the circumstances, they would have applauded him for adopting the same attitude as the honorable member for Wentworth adopted.

Although we have had this flood of oratory from the opposite benches it has only had the tendency of delaying the business of the country. If honorable members are sincere when they say that they wish to get on with the business so that we may go to the electors, the censure amendment should not have been tabled. Seeing the peculiar constitution of this House, it is only right and proper that, instead of delaying business by tabling a censure amendment, honorable members should be prepared to go to the electors, who are our masters, and give them the opportunity of saying whether they desire a continuance of the present rule or not. I am afraid the people will say that it is a case of -

I am the King of the castle,

And you’re the dirty rascal, and that whoever gets into office, others wish to pull him down. They will regard it in the light of a few individuals trying to get back to an exalted position where they had made themselves very comfortable, who were very surprised at being turned out, and would like a further period of office.

Mr West:

– It was love of country.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I think it was a case of love of office. No doubt the honorablemember, if he had the opportunity, would be an aspirant for one of the seats on the front bench.

Mr West:

– Why not? I have done more for the country than you have done.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– Assuredly the honorable member would rule the country and control the whole of the public works with satisfaction to himself - if he had the chance.

Let me deal with some of the administrative works of the present Government. First of all, in regard to the Northern Territory, they are not erecting freezing works, but are negotiating with private enterprise; they have abandoned the idea of a Government laundry; they have reduced the number of officials, and have abolished the offices of Director of Agriculture £650, Director of Lands £800, Inspector of Schools £500, and Chief Protector of Aborigines £600.

Mr Brennan:

– They got rid of everybody they suspected of having Labour tendencies.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Were all those Labour sympathizers?

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I cannot say whether they were all Labour sympathizers. I leave honorable members opposite to answer that question. The Government have called for tenders for rails and sleepers for the Pine

Creek to Katherine River railway. The only appointments made, so far asI can ascertain, are the appointment of a mining engineer, and the appointment of an officer in connexion with developmental works. I have had conversations with the Minister and with officials of the Department, and I find that a scheme proposed for the development of the Territory is one that commends itself to me, and I think it should to honorable members. The Government have initiated a scheme of cross country railways to connect with the western Queensland system - a national undertaking - and are dealing with the question of opening up stock routes, putting down bores to make the country trafficable, and providing a battery, to cost several thousand pounds, to aid the mining industry. By these means we shall probably find population attracted to the Territory, instead of being kept away as it was during the term of the Labour Government. The money expended in the Territory is directed to the development and opening up of the country; and we shall find probably the miner and the grazier as the pioneers, with the farmer to follow. Under the scheme initiated by the Labour Government, farmers were attracted in small numbers, but while they could obtain certain lands, and were able to raise produce, they found no market available.

In Papua, Mr. Keele, of the Sydney Harbor Trust, has reported on wharf extension, and his report is under consideration, while the railway from Port Moresby to Astrolabe is being surveyed.

As to the Panama Exposition, our friends opposite should be gratified to know that the Commonwealth is to be represented, with Mr. Deakin as chairman of the Commission.

In the Home Affairs Department, which the Opposition, during the last few weeks, have attempted to drag in the mire, we found one of the first administrative acts of the present Government to be the abolition of preference to unionists in Government employ - a determination to give equal opportunity to all and special privileges to none. We are told by honorable members that there must be preference to unionists for two reasons, namely, to prevent sweating, and to keep up the rates of wages. But sweating does not occur in the Government service, because the hours are fixed, and, as to wages, the Government, who have no competitors to placate, fix their own rates. This disposes of the two objections to the abolition of preference to unionists, and the only reason remaining for its maintenance must be a political reason, and for political purposes, and nothing else.

Mr West:

– The man who does not look after his friends ought to be kicked !

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– The honorable member for East Sydney evidently believes iu the old policy of “ spoils to the victor,” a policy which he would be prepared to perpetuate.

The Government have also substituted contract for day labour, and have marked the departure by accepting an offer for work on the transcontinental railway. Our friends opposite have not much to say in this connexion now; but it seems to me that, whether the Honorary Minister made a mistake or not, he did precisely what any other person would do in a similar position with expert advisers to guide him. We now find the contract principle adopted wherever practicable in preference to day labour in Government works. As to the TeesdaleSmith contract, it has been asserted that it does not contain the ordinary business provisions in regard to breaches. Honorable members will see, however, that although the contract amounts to only £30,000 or £40,000 the Government hold £1,000 deposited by the contractor, that only 90 per cent, of the actual money earned is paid over to the contractor, and that a fine of £5 a day is exacted for any excess of the contract time. Assuming that the work amounts to £40,000, there will be £4,000, or 10 per cent., retained by the Government, and if the work is not finished until six months after the specified time, the contractor will have to pay £750 in fines. These sums are in addition to the £1,000 deposited.

Mr Poynton:

– The £1,000 is not’ a penalty at all.

Mr Kelly:

– The Crown Solicitor says it is, but the “ bush lawyers “ opposite say it is not.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– It was an honorable member opposite who gave the estimate of £750 in fines; and assuming that to be correct, the Government will have in hand £5,750 on this contract of £40,000.

Mr Webster:

– It could not be impounded.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– No doubt the honorable member for Gwydir, who is a “ bush lawyer “ - very “ bush “ - would be prepared to dictate to this House, and to the Attorney-General, as to the law on the subject.

Mr Webster:

– I have beaten better men than the Attorney-General in the Law Courts.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– Evidently the honorable member for Gwydir is getting “ out of his cage “ again, but I ask to be allowed, to proceed.

– No doubt these home truths are not quite palatable to our honorable friends opposite. Truth is stranger than fiction, and when we quote these figures, which cannot be disputed,the Opposition feel the pinch.

I come now to the question of oldage pensions, which must appeal to every right-thinking man, whether he be on the Liberal or the Labour side of the House. The payment of old-age pensions is one of those acts of true Socialism, in the proper acceptation <of the term, which tend to uplift us as a nation, and the proposal by the Treasurer, now, if possible, or at a later date if our honorable friends will allow us, to introduce a Bill to increase the pensions commensurate with the increase in the cost of living - must commend itself to all parties.

Mr Webster:

– The honorable member’s leader says that the cost of living has gone down.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– The honorable member for Gwydir no doubt would like to have the honour of being with the party introducing an amending Bill to provide for the payment of higher pensions. We are honest in regard to this proposal, but the Opposition would like to throw dust in the eyes of the people. They would have them believe that we are not sincere. The people, however, know that the Liberals have always worked to uplift their fellow men, and, when the opportunity offers, we shall show our sincerity In a practical way.

I have no desire to monopolize more time than is absolutely necessary, and I shall, therefore, turn now to the question of defence. This Government, soon after taking office, obtained the services of Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, and, as the result of his report in regard to the Naval Bases at Westernport and Cockburn Sound, it has effected a saving of expenditure to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Defence works will now proceed along proper lines, without any of that frittering away of money that was taking place when the present Administration assumed office. Then, also, we find that Senator Pearce, as Minister of Defence, made provision for the erection of residences at the Naval College at Jervis Bay at a cost of as much as £10,000 each. The present Administration has decided, however, to erect less expensive residences - residences which, while being on a less sumptuous scale, will still be quite sufficient for the purpose. Better treatment is being meted out to the future defenders of this country - the cadets who have to attend drill under our universal training system. In parts of my electorate, where we have frost and snow, boys of tender years, in common with others living in country districts throughout Australia, are compelled, in some cases, to travel a distance of 5 miles in order to attend night parades. Those boys were provided with only an ordinary pair of trousers and a woollen shirt, by the late Administration. In many cases, their parents could not afford to buy overcoats or macintoshes for them, with the result that they were often drenched through to the skin while attending parades and drills, and had to walk home 4 or 5 miles in that condition. I am pleased to say that the Minister of Defence has now authorized the issue of a cape to each of these boys. Our cadets have always worked loyally; they will now carry out their duties with far more comfort than was previously possible.

A step in the right direction has also been taken by the Minister with regard to the Light Horse Regiments - a line of defence of which we are justly proud. Whilst the Labour Government were in office, these men received a horse allowance of only £1 a year. Each man has to find his own horse and shoe it, and, in many instances, provides his own saddle; yet all that these men received under the late Administration was £1 a year in excess of the amount paid to the Infantry. A new regulation has been issued by the present Minister of Defence, under which they are to receive £4 per annum, instead of £1 per annum as heretofore, for horse allowance.

In the Governor-General’s Speech we are also promised that a comprehensive naval and military pension scheme will be introduced by the Government as soon as the tactics of the Opposition will permit. Honorable members opposite are our detractors, but I suppose that they will, at least, give us credit for carrying out the Defence Act, and the regulations under it, in a proper spirit. In spite of a certain amount of opposition, the system is being maintained. The taxpayers have to find the necessary funds; they have to nurse the baby, so to speak, and to a considerable extent they are feeling the pinch ; but they know that they are getting something in return. I may be pardoned for quoting the eloquent words of Sir John Colomb, who wrote, in 1906-

Resolute and persistent purpose, necessitating sacrifices during long years of peace, preserves empires in war, which can be neither prevented nor prosecuted with success by child-like trust in thu last man turning uput the last moment with a shilling in his pocket.

And so the system of defence is being grappled with by the present Administration. The people are looking to us to carry it out effectively, and, if the present Government remain in office, they will soon see that we have no intention of doing anything that is calculated to make the service less effective.

Coming to the Post and Telegraph Department, I learn that it is proposed to introduce a Bill to place the Department under Commissioners; and that the re-organization of the telephone system throughout New South Wales, which is very badly needed, is to be expedited. So far as the country constituencies of Australia are concerned, there is no stronger cry than that for the provision of improved telephonic facilities. Many and many a life would have been spared in up-country districts had there been a prompt means of summoning a medical man. The people are prepared to pay for what is not a luxury but a necessity, and, that being so, the Department, as the purveyors of these different systems, must encourage the construction of telephone lines throughout the country. Four additional central telephone exchanges and nine automatic exchanges are to be installed in Sydney, and these, when completed, will give us one of the best systems in the world. The Ministry have liberalized the conditions under which telephone lines can be provided in country districts. They have agreed to be.ar a considerable part of the loss, and the Department is pushing out these lines to the farmers and settlers. Long may they continue to do so.

Mr Sharpe:

– New South Wales is not-

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I shall deal with the Beef Trust later on. I did not hear what the honorable member said, but I presume he was referring to the Beef Trust. I did not catch his remark, but I am sure that he is quite right.

Mr Sharpe:

– That is more than the honorable member is.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I am prepared to admit when I am not right, but my honorable friend opposite, although often not right, has not enough brains to recognise that fact.

We find that the work of the telephone branch in New South Wales is two years behind, the Department having been unable to obtain experts. I do hope that some extra effort will be made to put that Department on a proper commercial basis. Although I do not advocate the private control of telephones, it is a fact that in the United States of America, when an application is lodged for the erection of a telephone line - even in the rural areas - the work is commenced within a week, and is carried out with expedition. I am glad to say that a good many of these lines in the Commonwealth are now being erected by contract, and that under that system we are getting better results than my honorable friends secured under the system of day labour. If local residents will undertake the erection of country telephone lines according to Government specifications the Government will now defray the cost of the works. It has occurred to me that it would be a good scheme to advocate that shire councils and other local bodies in the different centres should carry out these works, and that the Government should pay for them. That is all I have to say in regard to matters of administration.

During this debate quite a number of speeches have been delivered in regard to trusts and combines. Now the first combine with which I intend to deal is the Tobacco Combine. We know that during the past twelve months the tobacco growers in Australia have been much agitated because they have been unable to obtain a market for their produce. In the Tamworth district in my electorate, I have attended meetings of different associations with a view to discovering why the Tobacco Trust will not purchase the Australian-grown leaf. I am satisfied that one reason is, that while we are undoubtedly able to produce leaf of the requisite quality, the process of harvesting and drying that is adopted here is not all that it should be. I have seen leaf that had been dried in an ordinary open barn, almost worthless for manufacturing purposes. Our people require to be educated to the fact that the leaf must be properly harvested and cured. But is there any other reason why the locally produced leaf is not purchased by the Tobacco Trust? I find that in the Tamworth district during 1904 there were 153,476 lbs. of leaf grown, whilst last year, in the same district, the production amounted to 776,192 lbs. The Tobacco Combine affirms that the quality of the leaf is bad. It we overcome that defect, and if we then find that the combine is not prepared to give the growers a fair deal, the matter is one which will merit the serious consideration of this House, and I hope that in such circumstances we shall get the support of the Opposition. It will then become necessary for us to decide whether it is not advisable to reduce the Excise on the home grown leaf and to increase the duty on the imported leaf. If we wish to keep the industry going that is a question which will have to be grappled with. I trust that ere long this promising industry will be placed upon a proper footing, so that the growers will obtain a reasonable return for their labours.

Mr Webster:

– Not now, O Lord, but by-and-by.

Mr P P, ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– No doubt my honorable friend would like to monopolize the whole of the time of this Chamber, but, fortunately, the rules governing our debates prevent that.

Some of us know a good deal about the Beef Trust, and I wish to place before the House some figures which will provide us with food for thought, and will, perhaps, enable us to deal with this difficult question better than we have dealt with it hitherto. I quite admit that foreign trusts are operating in Australia. Since they have commenced to operate here I am free to confess that the price of meat has increased considerably, and that there is a likelihood for some time to come of the prices of stock being greater than they have been. But up to the present moment nobody can justly affirm that the operations of these trusts have been harmful to any person or any body of persons in the community. Indeed, they have in every instance been of benefit to the people of Australia. I admit that the prices of meat for home consumption have increased. The honorable member for Oxley said the other night that owing to the operations of the Beef Trust twenty butchers’ shops had been closed in South Australia. He also stated that in Western Australia, where the meat trade is controlled by the Government, meat was being sold cheaper than it was in South Australia.

Mr SHARPE:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I did not say that.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– In regard to the shops which have been closed in South Australia, I find that recently the municipal council there took over the control of the abattoirs. The butchers who formerly killed in their own abattoirs are now under municipal control, and as a result several of the smaller men who had not the capital necessary to pay for this treatment have been forced out of the business. Upon every beast that is now slaughtered in Adelaide there is a charge of about 25s. for killing. I admit that the prices of stock have been abnormally high, and that the little men who were not possessed of the requisite capital have been obliged to go out of the butchering business.

In regard to the price of meat, I find, from the Commonwealth Statistician’s publication, that between July and September of last year, sirloin of beef sold at 7d. per lb. in Sydney, 6½d. per lb. in Melbourne, 4½d. per lb. in Brisbane, and 6d. per lb. in Adelaide, whereas in Perth, where the trade is under Government control, its price was 7d. per lb. In other words, the price of beef in the Western Australian capital was the highest in the Commonwealth. For rump steak during the same period the prices were as follows: - Sydney, 9½d. per lb.; Melbourne, 9d. per lb.; Brisbane, 6¼d. per lb. ; Adelaide, 8½d per lb. ; and Perth,11½d. per lb. So that the price of rump steak in Perth was 3d. per lb. higher than it was in Adelaide. The corned round-

Mr Poynton:

– That would mean cheaper meat to the consumer. By their operations, and with the £6,000,000 they have at their command in South America, apart from other capital which we know nothing about, they would be able to flood the London meat market. But that is not a matter over which we have any control. If by their operations they arc able to reduce the price of meat in London, I quite admit that they will be able to stamp out the small fry and other competition. If they corner the London meat supply, they can then get cattle at whatever price they like in the Argentine and in Australia. So far as we are concerned, if the price is lowered in that way, I fail to see how we can deal with it by any amendment of our Constitution. If the operations of a trust in

Australia are in restraint of trade, we have the machinery at hand to deal with the trust. We have the power under the Constitution to deal with it, since, as I have said, we control the means of transport, export duties, and other things. But we have to look further afield than Australia for the ultimate trouble, should any arise, from the operations of the trust. If they ever do get to work, their field of operations will be the London meat market, and, if they force prices down there, our producers must suffer, and no legislative Act of ours can prevent that. But we should, in that case, do what the authorities of the Argentine Republic are to-day proposing to do. They propose to confer with the British Government. They are proposing a conference between representatives of the Governments of the two countries, in order to see how the meat trade of London may be regulated. By adopting the same course, I have no doubt we shall find that the English Parliament, having the power, will control the operations of the trust should trouble arise. In furtherance of that, I quote the following from the Times of 19th June, 1913, which in my opinion sums the position up to a nicety. It is an authoritative report dealing with the Meat Trust and its operations.

Mr Thomas:

– Which Meat Trust?

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I shall not be drawn.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member is alluding to what the honorable member for Ballarat was not allowed to refer to.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Yarra to withdraw that imputation upon the impartiality of the Chair.

Mr Tudor:

– I withdraw it, sir.

Mr Higgs:

– The Prime Minister said the same thing a few minutes ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– The London Times, of the 19th June last, published this report -

The three American companies engaged in the River Plate meat trade are engaged primarily in the United States trade, and we need do no more than cite the plain fact that Armour and Co., Swift and Co., and Morris and Co., possess financial resources immensely greater than those of their competitors in the Argentine business. The Americans have only to continue their present policy of shipping meat in excess of market requirements here, and, as a sequel, to sell that meat at a loss to bring the other companies to the end of their resources, for those companies have only the Argentine business to subsist on. If this were accomplished, the Argentine meat trade would become a monopoly in the bands of the American houses. The natural result - all the more natural after a period of trading at a loss - would bc a fall in the cost of cattle in the Argentine,

– Give the honorable member a free hand.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I cannot allow the honorable member for New England to do what I would not allow other honorable members to do.

Mr Fenton:

– We are at a disadvantage. The honorable member is giving us some valuable information.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I cannot help that.

Mr Sharpe:

– Does the report deal with the losses sustained by the trust on its importations from Argentine to the London market?

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I will let *he honorable member have these papers afterwards. I have not seen a reference of that kind.

Mr Sharpe:

– It is made in the report in the Times.

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– It is such a lengthy report that I will let my honorable friend see it by-and-by. I will now quote another passage in the Times -

In the course of evidence recently given before the Empire Trade Commission, sitting at Melbourne, it was stated to be “ well known “ that the same American interests were securing sites and plant in Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will now perceive that he is distinctly anticipating the debate on the notice of motion. I ask him to eliminate from his speech all reference to the operations of the American Beef Trust in Australia.

Mr Fenton:

– Put in “ blank “ whereever ‘ ‘ Australia ‘ ‘ occurs.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr P P ABBOTT:

– I shall not quote further from this publication. We recognise that honorable members on the other side knew, or could have known, during the three years they occupied the Treasury bench that there was a meat combine operating in Australia. Th«y knew that certain works were being carried out on the Brisbane River two years ago and over, and although our honorable friends had the opportunity they did not take one step to combat that proceeding. They asked for certain amendments, of the Constitution. It seems, to me that the amendments were absolutely unnecessary, and that we shall have no further powers if we do amend the Constitution. Seeing that I cannot touch any further on this trade, I wish to say, speaking on behalf of the occupants of this side, that directly it is seen that the people of Australia, apart from paying a little extra for their beef, are being squeezed, we shall be prepared to do our duty to the pastoralist as well as to the consumer. But that state of affairs has not arisen yet to cause us to take action. The producer to-day is getting a benefit; he is getting a bigger price for his commodity, as the grower of wool is doing. Surely our honorable friends do not want to rob the producer of that extra price by levying an export duty on beef !

After the lapse of three weeks in this National Parliament it is about time, I think, that we got on to national affairs. “We’ should be here to deal with national “ matters. We should not be here to have party bickerings and party disputes, individualism being stamped on practically everything that is said. We should remember that we are here to legislate for the people, our masters. Under the present constitution of the House, and having regard to the way in which the other House is constituted, it seems to be a matter of impossibility to pass measures which appeal to us and to a majority of the people. Seeing that our hands are tied, are we not adopting a right and proper course by seeking the very first opportunity to go before the people, our masters, and ask them to say whether the present state of affairs shall be allowed to continue or not ? For my part, and speaking, I think, for the Liberal party as a whole, that is a duty which we are prepared to face. The sooner we go to the people and give them the opportunity of repeating the dose they gave our honorable friends twelve months ago the better for all concerned, and when we come back, let us hope that we shall have this House and another place so constituted that measures dealing, not with one section of tha community, but with the whole community - good, broad national measures - will be passed with the applause of not only the honorable members on this side,, but our friends on the Opposition benches.

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

Mr Kelly:

– Yes; in the Loan Bill. They suggested an amendment, and that was practically the same thing.

Mr THOMAS:

- Mr. Glynn’s remarks on that occasion continued -

Mr. O’Connor would not give the Upper House co-ordinate powers, and in that I differ from him. The Senate as a body is distinct from the Upper House in a consolidated form of government. … I say, further, that if a dead-lock occurs in connexion with a money matter in the Appropriation Bill, and if the Upper House insists upon interference, and a dead-look ensues, it will open up the way to a revolution. The fear of such a thing occurring will operate as a sanction to prevent it. As regards other matters referred to by Mr. O’Connor, and with reference to dead-locks, it is simply to postpone public opinion on that point for the time being. Should there be a temporary dead-lock, I do not think there would be much evil resulting from that, and I shall trust to the good sense of the people to rectify matters.

I am prepared to admit that we have to deal with the Constitution as it is, not with the opinions of those who framed the Constitution, nor the speeches delivered at the Convention, nor the reasons which influenced the delegates. We have to deal with the Constitution as it exists.

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

– That sounds very serious ; what does it mean ?

Mr THOMAS:

– It is unthinkable that this attempt will succeed. The eminent and distinguished individuals who have been sent from the Motherland to govern us have been men who have always stood high above our party warfare. It is unthinkable that a double dissolution is to be secured from the GovernorGeneral merely for party purposes. I wish now to refer to a speech delivered in Sydney by the honorable member for Lang. The Prime Minister has stated -

I think rightly - that you, Sir, have rights and privileges as the Speaker of this House, and rights and privileges as the member for Lang. I do not differ from him on that point. I have no desire to take from you your rights and privileges, though I am anxious that you should not have more than you ought to have. Parenthetically, I may point out that, at St. Kilda, the Prime Minister took exception to something that had been said at Rockhampton by the President of the Senate, “ who,” he said, “ was supposed to be impartial, and to divest himself of party feelings”; but I take it that the President of the Senate is also a member of the Senate, and has the privileges of a senator as well as the responsibilities of the office he holds. At a meeting in Sydney the honorable member for Lang said -

The only thing wc can hope for is that circumstances may work in the direction of bringing about a double dissolution.

– The Liberal party has no organ.

Mr THOMAS:

– Then they take dictation from the newspapers without having an official organ among them. On the 5th February, the Argus had a very interesting article dealing with New South Wales politics. The Labour Conference in that State had passed a resolution in favour of doing away with the Legislative Council, and asking the Government to bring about its abolition, and in the Argus there appeared an article in which the following occurs: -

A Parliament without a Chamber of review, a Chamber to insure time for cooler thought and calmer reason, is still less a Parliament in the true sense of the expression.

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

– Surely -that does not apply to the Senate.

Mr THOMAS:

– That is the trouble - the Senate is a Democratic Chamber.

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

– The extract does not appeal to one exactly as an accurate description.

Mr THOMAS:

– However that may be, the Argus went on to say -

The only possible safeguard against mob tyranny in a responsible system is the existence of a strong Chamber, free from the influences which make and unmake the Executive of the hour.

On 6th February, it was announced that the Commonwealth Parliament were to be called together early in April, and the Argus expressed itself as delighted that there was a Government with backbone enough to force a double dissolution. Why? The Argus said - 0

Responsible government cannot be carried on with a majority of one in the dominant House, and a large adverse majority in the Senate.

The “boot is on the other foot” how. There ought to be a Legislative Council in. New South Wales, because there the Upper House is a Conservative Chamber ! To ask for a double dissolution on the two test measures is, in my opinion, to ask for a straining of the Constitution. What are those Bills? One of them - that relating to postal voting - originally formed part of the Electoral Bill, which the Prime Minister last session appealed to us to pass, as it was merely a Committee measure. I interjected, “What! A double dissolution on a Committee Bill?” The Prime Minister replied, “You do not believe it will bring about a double dissolution.” I answered that I thought it would not, and the Prime Minister’s rejoinder was, “ There is my answer to you.” The Electoral Bill, which provided for a great deal more than the restoration of the postal vote, was then declared by the Prime Minister to be merely a Committee measure, and he also said at Prahran that the Bill for the abolition of Government preference to unionists was not a very serious one.

It is time that we had from the honorable gentleman a definite statement as to the reason for his opposition to preference to unionists. In the New South Wales. Parliament, at a time when he was a member of not the Labour, but the Liberal party, he said that it should be not optional but mandatory that the Judge of the Arbitration Court should grant preference to unionists. The honorable gentleman gave as one reason for this belief the fact that unionists objected to work with non-unionists, because, they realized that non-unionists were reaping where they had not sown. Another reason put forward by him was the victimization of unionists. At that time he represented Lithgow, and he told of six local miners who a little while before had been dismissed from their employment. He stated that whilst he could not say that they were dismissed because they were unionists, the fact remained that they had played an active part in an effort which had been successful to secure better wages for the miners, and that it was a remarkable coincidence that they were dismissed. Another ieason why, he declared, preference to unionists should be given was that employers in Australia did not treat their men as well as did employers in England. These were then, in his opinion, sound and strong reasons in support of preference to unionists, but the Prime Minister to-day, although still a member of the Liberal party, is opposed to the principle, and would ask for a double dissolution, because of the rejection of a Bill to do away with preference to unionists.

Mr Poynton:

– In order that unionists may be victimized.

Mr THOMAS:

– Exactly. Where in the annals of political profligacy is there to be found an instance of more barefaced apostacy than that which is exhibited in the career of the honorable member for Parramatta? I am inclined to question the statement made by the AttorneyGeneral that he is opposed to preference to unionists. I think that he is against preference to unionists so far as carpenters, miners, and shearers are concerned, but that he believes in preference to unionists where the lawyers are involved. In the absence of the Attorney-General, the Minister of Trade and Customs, who is also a lawyer, will correct me if I am wrong in the statement that I am about to make. I understand that the AttorneyGeneral would decline to appear with hiscolleague the Minister of External Affairs in any case other than a Constitutional case before the High Court. Thereason for this is that the Minister of External Affairs is what the lawyers term, in polite phraseology, an “ amalgam,” or what we, in the mining camp, or theshearing shed, would describe as a “ scab “ lawyer. I understand that neither the Attorney-General, nor any other member of his profession practising only as a barrister in Victoria, will appear in a case with a man who is practising as a barrister and solicitor. That being so, if I were so unfortunate as to be involved in a case in the High Court or in theVictorian Supreme Court, I should not be able to secure the joint services of the Attorney-General and the Minister of External Affairs. If I were in such a situation I should be glad to have the distinguished services of the AttorneyGeneral, and I believe that he would prosecute my suit as ably as he would that of his greatest friend. But if I told him that I also desired to retain his colleague the Minister of External Affairs, he would say, “ No, you can have either of us, but not both of us. I will appear with Friend Arthur or Mr. Hughes, since they practice only as barristers, but I will not appear with a man who is practising both as barrister and solicitor.” If that be correct, can hypocrisy sound a falser note than is sounded when the Attorney-General declares (Eat he is opposed to preference to unionists, but is prepared to do what I have stated. In a speech which the honorable gentleman delivered a little time ago, he said -

That is the basis of what was known as the law of conspiracy, and every individual had a right to say whether he would work or not. But it was a very different thing when a number of persons came together, saying that they would combine together and enforce their demands by inflicting injury on others.

If that be so, what is the difference between a man who, by the force of his intellect, does an injury to a colleague, and the individual who inflicts an injury upon his fellow men merely by brute force? If the Attorney-General, by the force of his intellect, prevents his1 brother Glynn, under certain circumstances, from earning a livelihood, what is the difference between him and the shearer who refuses to work with a non-unionist ? Let us suppose that the Government Preference Prohibition Bill becomes the law of the land, and that the Ministry are defeated at the polls, what will there be to prevent the granting of preference to unionists ? Whilst the present Government would undoubtedly prefer to grant preference to non-unionists, they have not the courage to say so. What they say is, “ Let each man be dealt with on his merits.” In such circumstances, what will there be to prevent the successors of the present Ministry from saying that the unionist is the best man every time?

Mr Arthur:

– No penalty is contained in the Bill, and there is no machinery to enforce its provisions.

Mr THOMAS:

– Exactly. Yet, upon that Bill, and upon the Postal Voting Restoration Bill, the Governor-General is to be asked to grant a double dissolution. I come now to a matter of administration. Ever since the Government took office there has been a pathetic cry on their part that a wicked Senate will not allow them to legislate, but that, so far as matters of administration are concerned, they are supreme. At Mount Gambier, the Prime Minister made a rather celebrated speech, in which he said -

Ministers have not been idle.

I believe that they have not. They have been dealing with Teesdale Smith.

They had taken some important steps in administration. Ministers were endeavouring to get a little business element into the conduct of important undertakings.

One cannot help smiling at these words -

Ministers were endeavouring to get a little business element into the conduct of important undertakings.

– But all the Labour men up there voted against it, did they not? 1

Mr THOMAS:

– How could it have’ been carried if they had done so? Has the honorable member been to school? We were told in the press the other day that the Government cannot carry on, because an adjournment for two weeks was moved in another place, and that a hostile Opposition increased the period to three weeks. One of the Ministers of the Crown voted for a three- weeks’ adjournment. Yet nien will go on to a platform and say that we are stopping the Government doing their work. Look again at the Bureau of Agriculture Bill, under which two blades of grass were to be made to grow instead of one. We were told the other day at a meeting in Sydney by the Prime Minister, that the Government tried very hard to carry the Bill. But is it not known to every one. in the House that towards the end of last session the Bill was purposely held up by Government supporters making long speeches in favour of it, waiting in order that some business might be done in another Chamber? Yet we are told that the Labour Opposition obstructed the measure from being passed, when members of the Ministerial party, put up by the Government Whip and Ministers, made long speeches in its favour to delay its course through the House. As a people, we cannot get the Liberal policy from the Prime Minister. As a party man I do not object to that, although I do think it is a little unfortunate for the country. When the policy is asked for, we are told that it will be forthcoming at some other time. There are reasons why, in my opinion, a party do not announce their policy. The first reason is that the party have no policy to give. I suppose every honorable member knows that once upon a time a king was travelling through his country, and the mayor of a place did not ring the bells. The mayor was summoned before the king, who said, “Why did you not ring the bells?” The mayor said, “ There are twenty-two reasons why we did not. The first reason is that we have no bells.” The king replied, “ We will dispense, for the sake of time, with the other twenty-one reasons.” There is another reason why the Liberal party are not prepared to give their policy, and that is because they want a blank cheque. f Chey want to come back with power to I carry out a policy. They are afraid that their policy will not appeal to the Democracy, because it is in favour of the classes, and not of the masses. When we ask the Prime Minister for a policy he turns round and gives us a dissertation on the generalities of the age, the necessity of freedom, and all that kind of thing. We ask the Prime Minister for a policy, and he replies with a lecture. He was good enough at St. Kilda to refer to Mr. Holman, and to say that he was caucus-driven. He went on to say that any man who received dictation from a Labour Council or from a caucus of Labour men “was deserving of the utter execration of a free people.” He said -

It was ordering him to perpetuate the will of the Political Labour League, and to cease to act for himself; to subordinate his own powers, and cease to think for himself; to sacrifice all personal judgment. Any man who did that was deserving of the utter execration of a free people.

When I read that statement in the press I was rather surprised, because the career of the honorable member for Parramatta was a complete denial of it. Rather have I thought of the honorable member that, instead of having such views, his views were that the people have their passions, and that it is the duty of public men to adopt sentiments with which they do not sympathize, because the people must have leaders. When we ask the Leader of the Government for a policy, we are told to wait. But the policy of the Liberal party has been enunciated. A little while ago Mrs. Moss, of the Women’s National League - a lady of whom I speak in the highest terms, for a most charming lady she is, and one who, I think, presents her case as fairly as it is possible for any person belonging to that league to do - made this statement -

The Prime Minister said to her, “If we men want to succeed, and to remain in Parliament, we must be up-sides with the women of the National League.”

That is the policy of the Liberal Government.

Mr McDonald:

– What did he mean by that phrase?

Mr THOMAS:

-“ To be up-sides,” I take it, is to mouth their sentiments, and to express their views, because no political party are prepared to support you unless you do voice their sentiments. So to be the servants of the women of th»

National League is patriotism ; to do their bidding is the policy of the Liberal party; to look after their poodle-dogs is worthy of the Prime Minister of Australia; but to accept any dictation from or to voice the sentiments of humanity as expressed at a Labour Conference or a Labour League, deserves “the utter execration of a free people.” Leaving aside mere party views, I rather regret that in the interests of Australia we have not heard less about going on our knees to the Senate, and about men of principle and character not being prepared to accept any dictation from a House that has been elected upon a free franchise, the same as we have been. If we had heard a little less about that, and there had been submitted to this House legislation which was good, wise, and beneficial, I venture to say that it would have received the support of the Opposition. However, that is a question for the Liberal party to decide. An appeal may come very shortly. If it comes, I do not fear the result, for I cannot imagine that the propaganda of mendacity which served the Liberal party so well at the last elections will play the same part again, and I cannot but think that an outraged public will dismiss from office a Government who have subordinated the national welfare to the interests of party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call upon the honorable member for East Sydney, perhaps the House will grant me indulgence to again deny the accuracy of a newspaper report, which was quoted by the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, of a speech which I . made some time ago. I assume that the honorable member was not aware that the report was incorrect, and I take this opportunity of saying that I have more than once previously denied the accuracy of the report, which, being very much condensed, did not correctly convey my meaning.

Mr Thomas:

– May I say, sir, that I had not seen or heard your denial, or I would not have made use of the report.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I rise with the greatest pleasure to support the amendment moved by my worthy chief, and I do not know of any duty in my life which I have been more pleased to perform. Unfortunately for the people of Australia, they made a blunder at the last elections, and from the day the poll was declared up to the present time the present Government have proved themselves to be nothing more or less than a Ministry of blunderers. In my first address after the. elections, I christened them the “Blundering Ministry,” and I think that name will go down to history, and will be appreciated by future generations. When we heard His Excellency’s Speech to Parliament, the party to which I belong had no hesitation in deciding to launch this amendment. Indeed, I think it would have been a pity, and virtually a great crime, if an opportunity had not been afforded to Parliament to discuss the amendment which has been moved. Let me remove some of the cobwebs surrounding the Ministry by dealing firstly witu the Teesdale Smith contract. It matters not whether we try to save the reputation of the young Honorary Minister or not; he has certainly by his action shown to the people of Australia that any Government in the future will be very chary about placing him in charge of a Department. I am quite satisfied that if the same circumstances had surrounded a Labour Minister, the press of this country would not have been able to find type large enough with which to condemn the Minister’s action. The present Ministry have to rely upon the press of Australia. If it were not for the press, this Conservative Ministry would not be in power, nor would they have held office as long as they have done after the exposure of their conduct in connexion with the Teesdale Smith contract. When I entered this National Parliament, and took my seat on the Government cross benches, I had to suffer the insinuations made by honorable members, who were then in Opposition, that I had no education, and was lacking in business capacity. The same charges were levelled against other members of this party, and I often thought how pleased I would be to have an opportunity of returning those vile insinuations. Since the present Government have come into office, their administrative incapacity has been so exposed, that, in my opinion, it will be a long time before the people of Australia will suffer the likes of them to come into office again.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am just leaving the chamber to look at a statement made by Mr. Verran in regard to the Teesdale Smith contract. .

Mr WEST:

– This is nice treatment to receive from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately for the Government, members on this side of the House have business capacity, and have a greater knowledge of how to administer a Department than has ever been displayed by members on the Ministerial side., When the Leader of the Opposition went north from Sydney to explain this contract, he did a good thing for the people. The honorable gentleman ferreted out the fact that the contract had been accepted without public tender at a price never previously heard of in Australia. As one who has had transactions with Government Departments, both as an employer of labour, and as one in charge of work for others, I say that the price paid to Mr. Teesdale Smith has never been heard of previously in connexion with similar work in Australia. The payment of 4s. 6d. for the cuttings and 2s. 6d. for the banks, having regard to the fact that the material taken solid from the cutting measures 33 per cent, greater when it is placed on the’ banks, really means that Mr. Teesdale Smith is receiving 7s. lOd. a yard. I am not relying upon my own experience, or on hearsay evidence. I took it upon “myself to ascertain the price paid in connexion with railway construction in New South Wales, where, in various parts of the State, they have to deal with sand, loam, and rock. I find that the Government have fixed a minimum, and a maximum price, and not even for falls or breakaways - that is for the removal of soil beyond what is mentioned in the specifications - do they pay more than from 2s. 3d. to 3s. a yard. I asked a high departmental officer whether that price included payment for the formation of the earth that had to be removed, and his reply was that the Department never paid more than 3s. ^ and in one case only 2s. 3d. I then inquired about the wages paid, and he told me that the price he had quoted was based on a wage of lis. per day. Can members like myself be asked not to call the Government to account for letting this contract, when the Department, which was so derided during the reign of the last Government, carried out similar work by day labour at prices that were much less than 2s. 3d. or 3s. ? Then a contract has been let to another contractor for the making of a tank which I understand is to be 23 feet deep, but although the soil in that, instance has to be raised over 20 feet, and carted away, the price to be paid is only 2s. 5d. a yard. The Prime Minister, according to a report which appeared in yesterday’s Age of some remarks that he made at a meeting of ladies, appears to be trying to dull the public eye. He puts me in mind of a man who, having told one lie, has to tell twenty others to get out of the consequences. I do not know whether he has sent a letter thanking the editor of the Age for the headlines and large type which preceded the report, but no doubt the ladies were very much impressed with what he said. He told them, in the first place, that Mr. Teesdale Smith is to receive only 90 per cent, of the amount due to him for work performed, until the whole contract has been finished. Those who have built houses know that it is the universal practice, with both private and public contracts, to pay not more than 75 per cent, on work done, until a job has been finished. The Prime Minister told his audience, too, that Mr. Teesdale Smith had paid a deposit of £1,000. He seemed to wish it to be thought that that was a sort of fine. But every contractor has to pay a deposit. I do not suppose that Mr. Teesdale Smith has actually paid any money out of pocket. What a contractor Usually does is to give a bank cheque as security for the deposit, and to lodge with the bank deeds, mortgages given by other people, scrip, and other securities which bear interest. The making of the deposit costs nothing to the contractor. There is .this excuse to be made for the Prime Minister, that he has no capacity for business, and there has never been at the head of any Australian Government a man with less knowledge of business. A deposit is always asked for to insure the bona fides of the contractor, but it is paid only when the contract is not carried out and a new contract has to be made. The Prime Minister next dwelt on the fact that a penalty of £5 a day can be demanded for delay in completing this contract, and he has said that Labour members have declared that this meant a possible payment of £750. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the contract is virtually safeguarded by no penalties at all is absolutely true. It was signed on the 5th February, and terminates on the 5th June, covering a period of eighty-eight days, of which thirteen are Sundays, and only seventy-five working days. If Mr. Teesdale Smith had to pay £750 in fines, he would be 140 days in arrears with his. work; that is, the performance of the contract would have taken 190 per cent, longer than the period stipulated for. Virtually, if Mr. Teesdale Smith had to pay £750, he would be nine months on the contract. A Ministry making a contract of this kind should not be given another opportunity to commit the country in this way. I cannot say anything stronger than that. The Prime Minister pointed out that 10 per cent, held back would amount to £4,000 on a sum of £40,000. As I have shown, 2n per cent, is the usual amount to hold back. Mr. Teesdale Smith, as a business man, will make arrangements with his bank under which this provision will cost him nothing. The attempt of the Prime Minister to deceive the people of Australia in this matter is not creditable to him, and the electors will express their opinion of his conduct by wiping his party out of existence at the first opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition in exposing this contract deserves the praise of the people. It shows that, though in Opposition, the honorable member is keenly alive to the best interests of Australia. I have christened Ministers “ a Government of blunderers,” and at every opportunity I shall not be slow in making it known to the public. Their first blunder was in regard to sugar. The Minister of Trade and Customs can have no business capacity, must be very thoughtless, or can not give the attention requisite to administer a Department; otherwise before issuing the proclamation repealing the sugar Excise he would have assured himself that the payment of Excise on sugar in bond at the time would be secured to the Treasury. It is of the utmost importance to any country that a Government should see that the revenue is not depleted, and that a Government should be so careless and disregardful of the revenue as present Ministers were in this connexion is a serious matter. Ministers afterwards brought down an Indemnity Bill for the purpose of getting the money from the sugar companies, and, fortunately for them, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, who are their friends, complied with their request, but I doubt whether the Government could have enforced their de- mand had the matter been tested in the Courts. The Government made another blunder in regard to the proclamation of Sydney as a quarantine area. This was a most unjustifiable and unnecessary step. I cannot understand how the Minister of Trade and Customs could have taken such an action. I was told that something serious, so far as Sydney was concerned, was about to happen in Melbourne, and I informed the honorable member for South Sydney that he and I had better be in Melbourne, and that, seeing that Ministers in power were incompetent, we should be alive to the interests of our constituents. Within half-an-hour we were on the train for Melbourne, and, on our arrival here, we pointed out to the Minister the mistake he was making. But he was led away; he had no backbone. Dr. Cumpston was not the real moving spirit in the matter. The mischief was being done by the Health Board in Melbourne, who got the ear of the Minister in connexion with that unfortunate and uncalled for act of administration, the stigma of which was cast, not on the people of Sydney, but on the whole of Australia. It showed that in this climate, and in a country with the opportunities of Australia, a city of the size of Sydney was not fit for people to live in. It went forth that Ministers had no* regard for the fair name of Australia, or to the injury likely to be done to the trade and commerce of Sydney, and of every one affected, by the totally unnecessary application of the quarantine laws. The next blunder was that of the Minister of Defence. I do not know what actuated him to let it go out that the boilers at the dock on Cockatoo Island were liable to explode when they were no more dangerous than they are to-day. Notwithstanding what our previous views of the Government were, they are more justified now that Ministers have been in office without making a single attempt to deal with the national questions for which this Parliament was established. When I think of the midnight oil I burned, and the streets I tramped at night, and the tar barrels from which I spoke, in order to bring about this great National Parliament, I am ashamed to see what is contained in the Speech from the Crown. What can men, who have spent their lives in trying to bring about the Federation of Australia, and the creation of a National Parliament to deal with national questions affecting the vital interests of the people, say when they see a programme like this so soon after a general election attended by its huge expenditure of public funds? However, the cost of a general election is nothing when put against the effect an election has on all the ramifications of the productive and industrial resources of Australia, when the people are all aquiver to know what the result will be. The Attorney-General seeks to have another election for the benefit of Australia, when it is really all for party purposes. The honorable member, however, is merely an ornament in the great evolution that is taking place throughout Australia. His ideas of Democracy do not affect me. I know the honorable member too well to expect any great improvement in him in the future; and, indeed, we cannot expect improvement on the part of any honorable members on that side of the House. What was the attitude of honorable members on the Government benches when we were trying to get an efficient electoral law, and secure the secrecy of the ballot? As a matter of fact, they have ever done their best to secure that land and bricks and mortar shall have more political power than human beings; and the people of Australia cannot expect them to bring forth an electoral law satisfactory to the intelligent Democracy of the country. The Government had not been in possession of power more than a few minutes, so to speak, when they introduced an electoral measure providing that the electors should be numbered like convicts in a prison, and should sign their names on the butts of the ballot-papers; and this, despite the knowledge they must have that our fathers, and, indeed, many members of this Parliament, have in the past fought so hard for the secrecy of the ballot. That a democratic electoral law should be introduced by the present Government is as unthinkable as an elephant playing a Jew’s harp. An honorable member opposite has stated in this House that, in 1911, there were 144,000 persons convicted in the Police Courts of Australia, and that they were those who voted for the Labour party. It is not possible, with such a belief in their minds, for the Government and their supporters to introduce an electoral law acceptable to the community at large. Further, the members of the

Liberal party have always been the* strongest opponents of the representation of the Democracy; and we may be sure that any alterations they make in the electoral law will be to remove those rights and privileges which are so dear to the people, and . for which we have fought in the past, namely, adult suffrage and the secrecy of the ballot. The other nations of the world view with admiration the work and legislation of the Labour party, and envy us our system of election, as is proved by the eulogistic articles that appear in this connexion in so many journals and reviews. We who are returned to this Parliament in the Labour interest are determined to use every legitimate means at our disposal to defeat those who desire to amend, in a retrograde manner, a law which is admired by the whole world,’ and which we regard with pride. I cannot understand why there is such an anxiety on the part of the Federal Government to rush into a Premiers’ Conference. I call it a “Conference “ out of respect, but it was really a picnic and a smoke concert, as the Bulletin very neatly pictured it in a cartoon. By whom, and with what authority, is this Premiers’ Conference constituted? Whence arises its right to interfere with measures that are the business of the National Parliament? I can see neither authority nor right, and, personally, elected as I am by the people of Australia, I do not feel myself in any way answerable to the State Premiers; in any case, I do not see that the Conference can enforce its resolutions in any effective way. What is the moving spirit in the Premiers’ Conference ? It is certainly not to be found in the Democracy of Australia; and, considering that any agreement it may come to is not worth the paper on which it is written, the position is ridiculous enough to be the theme of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Any resolutions of the Conference have to pass twelve Houses of Parliament in the States, and then be decided by this Parliament. We have further to -remember that six of the State Houses of Parliament are Legislative Councils; and we may look in vain for any democratic legislation from this source. To me, it is a sad sight to see representatives of the Commonwealth Parliament “kow-towing” to the Premiers in Conference. But there is some consolation in the fact that at least one man, in the person of Mr. Scaddan, Premier of

Western Australia, rose to the occasion and refused to be influenced by the parish pump brand of politics, and told the assembled Ministers what the people of Australia really desire and expect from the National Parliament. The Governor-General’s Speech contains several paragraphs relating to the Premiers’ Conference, which proved a godsend to the Ministry. Without it I do not know how they would have filled up His Excellency’s Speech, and it is difficult to know what the people of Australia would have thought of those who are in charge of the National Parliament. As to the two test measures, it is idle, in my opinion, for the Government to think for one moment that they will obtain a double dissolution. Neither is of national importance, and I am satisfied, from my personal acquaintance with such men as Sir Edmund Barton, and the late Sir Patrick Jennings, and Mr. R. E. O’Connor, that the framers of the Constitution never contemplated that the provision for a double dissolution should apply to the rejection of such trivial measures. Last session this House, on the casting vote of Mr. Speaker, carried the Postal Voting Bill. Another place amended it, and no one can deny that it was quite within its rights in doing so. It was also within the province of this House to reject the amendments made by another place ; but a dissolution would not be granted upon the failure to pass such a Bill until the possibilities of this Parliament had been completely exhausted. The Cook-Irvine Government are now in power, but the Opposition has not yet had an opportunity to conduct the business of the present Parliament. There is no case in the history of the State Parliaments where a dissolution was granted until the possibilities of Parliament had been exhausted. Whoever is called upon to deal with this question must be guided by precedent, and there is abundant precedent to support the views which I have just enunciated. If I remember rightly, during the Parkes-Robertson trouble, it was declared that the House must first be exhausted before a dissolution could be granted. As to the Bill for the abolition of Government preference to unionists, a double dissolution in connexion with it is not within. the realm of reason. I do not suppose that” the Attorney-General will look beyond the law for guidance in this matter; but sometimes even a lawyer may obtain from outside a lead as to the course he should follow. I would commend to the honorable gentleman two articles in the Melbourne Age dealing with the question of the dissolution, for they are well worthy of his consideration. Coming to the Premiers’ Conference, I am at a loss to account for the love existing between Mr. Holman and the Prime Minister. The professions of friendship seem to be a little too strong to be genuine. The Prime Minister has gone out of his way to eulogize Mr. Holman. Why, I cannot say; but the alliance is one which I view with some suspicion. I do not hold with the proposal in regard to the Commonwealth Bank which was put- before the Conference by the Treasurer. I still adhere to the view that I expressed many years ago, that banking should be wholly and solely under the control of the Commonwealth. The preservation of the credit of a country is one of the most important matters with which its Parliament can deal ; and the best way of insuring sound credit for the Commonwealth is to have the whole banking system under Commonwealth control. That would lead to economy in regard to both administration and distribution. I would not be averse to the Commonwealth handing back to the States the savings effected in order to enable them to - conduct their State functions ; but it is absolutely essential, if the credit of Australia is to be maintained, that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have complete control, lt was urged by the advocates of Federation that the range of climatic influence in Australia was such that, while one State might be affected by drought, which would tend to bring about depression, the remaining States might be enjoying good seasons, and that with the whole of the banking business of the country under the control of the Commonwealth, any State suffering from such a visitation would secure the assistance of the rest of Australia in maintaining its credit. I put this forward as one sound reason why the National Government should control the banking of the Commonwealth. During the Federal campaign, I pointed out that it would mean that the security of the Commonwealth would be behind every piece of paper money issued. Who can dispute that the first duty of this National Parliament is to see that the depositors in our banks are absolutely secured, so that we shall not experience a repetition of the financial disaster which overtook us in 1893? These are the sort of questions that we ought to be threshing out - questions involving the economic and social welfare of the people. To me it is heartrending to be obliged to sit here with men who cannot rise to a higher conception of their responsibilities, and who are content to wrangle over such comparatively trivial questions as the granting of preference to unionists. We all know that at the recent Premiers’ Conference the subject of the transfer of the State debts was brought up for consideration. I am sorry that the members of this Parliament do not possess sufficient backbone to enable them to boldly face this complex problem. So far we have not been told what are the intentions of the Ministry in regard to it. Personally, I think that this Parliament ought to take over the whole of the State debts, and all future loan transactions on behalf of the States should be undertaken through its agency. If we have the courage to express our opinions on this question, I am satisfied that the people will stand behind us. They are always prepared to support sound and honest administration.

Mr Arthur:

– Do you suggest the New South Wales gauge?

Mr WEST:

Mr King O’Malley:

– He may yet come back -

And while the lamp holds out to burn

The vilest sinner may return.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Every pensioner has not to do it to-day. That is the difference between the present Act and that which was in operation at the time I have referred to. But the proposal which has emanated from the present Government is to have the effect of putting our womenfolk back to the same system as operated when the present Attorney-General was Premier of Victoria. When all is said and done, I do not think the Government would have the courage to bring such a proposal before this House. They have certainly shelved it for the time being. After all their tales to the farmers, they have not had the courage this session to proceed with the proposal to strike out that portion of the Arbitration Act which gives the rural workers the right to approach the Court. They have” not the courage to proceed with the striking out of the section which gives the Court power to give preference to unionists. But they come forward with a proposal which the honorable member for West Sydney rightly referred to as “ the shadow of a sham,” a proposal to abolish the principle of giving preference to unionists in the Government service. They know that the abolition of preference to unionists in the Government service would not affect 3,000 people. In regard to the other question of postal voting, they know that the abolition of that system does not affect a great number of women in the community to-day. After the criticism I had to undergo when fighting the last election, I naturally believed that the Liberal party, to which the press of Victoria was giving whole-hearted support, would introduce as their first measure a Bill for the revision of the Tariff. Every morning the press told the electors that the only hope of a revision of the Tariff was the return of the Liberals to power; but the question of Tariff revision, so far as the Liberals are concerned, is to-day as dead as Caesar’s cat. An attempt is being made to hand our responsibilities in regard to the Tariff to the Inter-State Commission. So far as I, and, indeed, the majority on this side, are concerned, we shall not be bound by the recommendations of that body in regard to the Tariff. We shall recognise the claims of those who are desirous of fostering and encouraging Australian industries, and shall accord them the assistance that they deserve.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– An eminent Persian doctor once said, “ If you want to avoid indigestion, shun the man who is always telling bad news.” When I hear those on one side swear that we are .going to ruin, and those on the other side saying that we have already got there, I do not know what hope there is for me. I notice in reading the newspapers that the fighting blood of the Prime Minister rises to its highest temperature when he is addressing a Sisters’ meeting and Brother Fisher is far away. I object to my friends on this side continually pulverizing the AttorneyGeneral. They say that he is the brains of the party opposite. Then they praise the Prime Minister for having by sheer, indomitable pluck and determination risen to his present position from the estate of a coal miner.

Mr Bennett:

– It is to his credit.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– To his eternal credit. The great grandfather of His Majesty the present King hanged in Belfast the great-grandfather of McKinley, the ex-President of the United States, which shows how things are changing. In my opinion the Attorney-General does not represent the brains of the Ministry.

Mr Finlayson:

– Who does?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I think that they are a fair average lot. I do not know why my honorable friends on this side are making the Attorney-General the Napoleon of Australia. Let me tell you that it is dangerous to have a Napoleon in a Democracy. It does not take long before these “ roosters “ get control. I have no such desire. What about the Minister of External Affairs, one of the leading lawyers of Australia? That great American, Bret Harte, said that “ for ways that are dark and tricks that are vain,” nobody can beat the Chinaman. So far as the games of politicians are concerned, the Prime Minister could give the Chinese 40 yards, and then beat them home. This is a wonderful game that

Ave are playing, and until Ave reach that high state of civilization in which we shall recognise that this great Commonwealth is not to be run purely for the directors, without the shareholders receiving any dividends, we shall go on battling as Ave have been doing, one-half of the House trying to pull down the other half. There is in America an animal called the woodchuck. This animal is about the size of a cat, but once he gets into a hollow log, with his head to the front, all the dogs in the universe cannot get him out. We have got the Prime Minister into a hollow log, and Ave are trying to get him out.

Mr Bennett:

-Howis the honorable member going to vote ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Against the Govern ment. But I am trying to show the folly of the business. We can fight each other as much as we like outside, rousing the country to vote for us. Butwhen Ave get here, we ought to be like the directors of a big corporation. Weshould form committees and get towork. Ifwe do not, Australia will rise in her indignation, and hunt us some day like wild dogs. I can see her coming. I have got tired of quarrelling. During the few years that we have on this earth,we should get together and try to do something. I believe in team work; in collective energy. The other day I saw that one of our honorable friends opposite had said that some proposition that I had made was twentyfour days behind April Fool’s Day. I have been sixteen years in the parliamentary life” of Australia, and I have never known a day thatwas not a fool’s day. In fact, to mo, as a business man, every day is a fool’s day. We race over thewhole of Australia; Ave battle against each other, and we tell all sorts of stories. Do not forget that the cheerful liar never attracts such universal attention as the vicious slanderer. Then we come here and fight for three years as towho is going to run the House. The directors of a great corporation do not do this. We are the directors of the Australian corporation. We could get towork here for the next two years, and could take up the Tariff. We could put a great rural credit into Australia connected with the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How dare you speak of the bank in that way. I shall tell Andrew.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr Boyd:

– This is infinitely better than listening to Harry Lauder !

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The trouble is that you have to pay to hear Harry Lauder. I should like our ships to show the world that we are a producing nation, and that we have a higher mission in life than that of studying how to kill Christians. The rest of the world to-day is looking to Australia, walled in as she is by mighty seas, self-contained and distant from other lands, for a lead in the great movement for national disarmament. In building warships we shall mortgage ourselves for all time, because money so expended is unproductive. I am strongly opposed to anything of the kind. Onefourth of the money that we are now devoting to economic military waste might well be expended on extending postal and telephonic facilities throughout Australia. Some of it could be used in giving better payment to the men and women in charge of small post-offices in the back-blocks. By extending the telephone system and increasing mail facilities we should help to bring the people of Australia together. The people of the cities have their beautiful theatres, their libraries, their bands of *music, and their “ stagger-juice “ establishments; but the farmers in the back-blocks have to gather for a talk at the little store, just as Abraham Lincoln and his friends used to do. If we had courage, these are some of the things that we would take in hand. As to the spending of money on the Navy, I would remind honorable members that most of the vessels of the American Fleet which visited Australia about seven years ago are now obsolete. In the list of the fifty-two ships that have sailed for

– I suppose that the voting power would be the same as it is in a Cabinet. Each director would have a vote, and the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank would also have a casting vote, which he would very rarely be called upon to exercise. I venture to say that the Prime Minister has not used his casting vote once during the past ten months. I know that the late Prime Minister very rarely used his casting vote, because the Cabinet is a wonderful place in which to argue matters out. If I, as a private individual, had £20.000 to-morrow, and commenced to loan money upon property in Bourkestreet, so soon as I had loaned the full amount of my capital I would have to stop operations. But if 1 complied with the banking laws of Victoria, organized a banking corporation, and exercised banking functions, I might loan out £1,000,000, arid still have more than my £20,000 left in the bank every afternoon. One can pick up the balance-sheet of banks in Australia with a capital of only £1,000,000, and see that they have £20,000,000 on loan. The principle involved is one which is recognised by all safe bankers, and it will be admitted that there are a few bankers in America. For instance, there is Morgan, and Forgan, and Stillman. They aTe all bankers, and, indeed, the biggest bank in the world is the National City Bank in New York. It is bigger than is the Bank of England or the Bank of France, although it is only a private bank. If a private bank had £5,000,000 by way of a balance every afternoon, and that balance had a tendency to increase, it could loan £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 on credit, because it must always be remembered that banks do not lend cash, but only lend credit. London is the chief exchange city of the world, and England is the banker of the world. But does anybody suggest that England has the capital of the “United States? The whole paid-up capital of all the joint stock banks of Britain, including the Bank of England, is only about £75,000,000. The gold reserves of .England are about £120,000,000. They may go up to £150,000,000. It is possible to run a bank in Australia today without having any gold whatever, so long as another bank will act as a bank of exchange for it. If the Commonwealth had the whole of its financial organizations centred in this one banking corporation, and if the States and municipalities, and the various trusts, did their business through that bank, it could organize a system of rural credits in this country, and it could utilize the

Post Offices, and various other institutions in the country for the purpose of lending farmers credit. The whole system of overdraft in Australia is of no use except to a rich man. When one has an overdraft, it is always at call. If we turn up the balance-sheets of the entire Australian banks, we shall find that they have millions of pounds at call in London. That means stock exchange collateral security, which is not in the nature of liquid assets. The reason we have to utilize the Stock Exchanges of London, Paris, and Berlin is that we have no rediscounting bank in Australia, and never have had one. But, if all these financial institutions were brought together, and if the Commonwealth Bank had £50,000,000 or £80,000,000 on deposit, it could become a great re-discounting bank. Then all the other banking corporations and financial institutions would know that they could go there, at any time, hypothecate their securities, and transform them into liquid assets to meet their obligations. They could take the securities of their customers, which they guaranteed, to the Commonwealth Bank. But the Commonwealth Bank is operating without capital. It is wonderful that in the circumstances it has shown a profit in its second or third balance-sheet. In all my experience, I have never known of any other banking corporation starting without capital, and reaching such a splendid position as the Commonwealth Bank has done in so short a time. We ought all to encourage it. I hate to hear Australians abuse their own country. If an American abused America, he would be lynched. The danger of the present short-call system is that it is not of much use to the small farmer. A farmer’s overdraft ought to be for five years.

Mr Boyd:

– But the English alternative system is worse, because if you ask for an overdraft to-day, you have to pay interest on it from to-day, whether you use it or not.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– That is bad. The overdraft in Australia is good only for the well-to-do farmer. Our object should be to encourage men to settle on the land, but how can we do it if immediately a farmer has a bad crop, the banker calls in his money ?

Mr Bennett:

– And the trade union fights him?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I can assure the honorable member that he is labouring under a multiplicity of hallucinations, because the trade unions do not fight the farmers. No people have better hearts for the cause of the farmers than the Labour men have. We Labour directors tell our people never to aspire to the exercise of tyrannical powers. We never demand one law for the employe and another for the employer, nor do we ever try to palm off less than a full day’s work for a full day’s wage. We do not want a rigid governmental mastery of capital, if we are not willing to submit labour to it also. We ask for no laws against capital with which we are not willing that labour should comply. Here and there., I admit that you will find a man who will not do a good day’s work, but you will also find another man who will charge more than the legal rate of interest. He gets out of it by saying, “ I do not lend on interest, but if you make out your promissory note for £100, I will give you £70 for it.” A farmer’s wife in Tasmania told me that she got two other farmers to guarantee a promissory note for six months at 6 per cent, for one of the big men of the Liberal party in Tasmania - one of those calamity howlers that howled against me - and that he charged them 20 per cent, discount. If I did that, I should be lynched. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 508

ADJOURNMENT

Old-age Pensions.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EdenMonaro

. -I desire to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. I have on the notice-paper a motion for an increase in old-age pensions. It appears next in order, and I understand that there is practically no opposition to it. In the circumstances is there no possibility of having it put as formal business before the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Address-in-Reply, so as to give these deserving people relief?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that that does not lie in the discretion of the Speaker.

Question resolved in the affirm ative.

House adjourned at 10.44 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 April 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1914/19140430_reps_5_73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 April 1914

HOUR OF MEETING

PAPERS

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

Mr P P- ABBOTT:New England

Mr Mathews:

Mr P P ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Mathews:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr West:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr West:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Brennan:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr West:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Poynton:

Mr Kelly:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Webster:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Webster:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Higgs:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Higgs:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Thomas:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr Thomas:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Tudor:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Tudor:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Thomas:

Mr Groom:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Webster:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Sharpe:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Sharpe:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Webster:

Mr P P, ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SHARPE:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Poynton:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Fenton:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Poynton:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Higgs:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Falkiner:

Mr McGrath:

Mr Kelly:

Mr McGrath:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Sharpe:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Sharpe:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr Sharpe:

Mr P P ABBOTT:

Mr McGrath:

House of Representatives
30 April 1914

Mr P P- ABBOTT:
New England

Mr P P ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr P P, ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SHARPE:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

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 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 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 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