House of Representatives
15 May 1914

5th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 5th Parliament
  3. 1914

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

page 1037

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yesterday, accompanied by honorable members, I waited upon His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, and presented to him the AddressinReply to His Excellency’s Speech on the opening of Parliament, agreed to by the House on the 6th inst. His Excellency was pleased to express his thanks therefor.

page 1037

PAPERS

The following papers were presented -

Arbitration [Public Service) Act - Award by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on a plaint submitted by the Australian Telegraph and Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union; together with statement, by the President, of the Laws and Regulations of the Commonwealth with which in his opinion the Award is not or may not be in accord.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Memorandum by the Public Service Commissioner showing the effect of the Award by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on the plaint lodged by the Australian Telegraph and Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1038

NORTHERN TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I have not yet had a reply to statements about mismanagement in the administration of the Northern Territory, which I brought before the House recently on a motion for adjournment.

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

– I regret that I was not present at the time, having another engagement to keep, but if the honorable member will bring the facts under my notice, I shall look into them.

Mr West:

– They are set out in the Hansard report.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not always read it.

Mr West:

– I shall send the Minister a copy.

page 1038

QUESTION

PAPUAN LABOUR

Mr FINLAYSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

– Various disturbing reports are in circulation regarding the conditions which have obtained lately in the territory of Papua. Will the Minister of External Affairs favour the House with a statement on the subject?

Mr GLYNN:
LP

– Speaking from memory, in November last I was informed in an official despatch by the LieutenantGovernor of Papua that certain charges had been laid regarding the irregular recruiting of natives, and were to be the subject of investigation. 1 went into the evidence that had been collected up to date, and communicated with the LieutenantGovernor on the subject. An inquiry commenced, I think on the 3rd December, and a number of witnesses were examined, but as the evidence on some points was incomplete, the inquiry was adjourned, the investigation being protracted and delayed because the party against whom the charges had been brought was absent from the Territory on leave, granted, I think, because of ill-health. In the end certain charges were found by the Executive Council to be established. The magistrate charged was in effect found guilty of misconduct and negligence in connexion with the recruiting of natives, and was removed from the service, though the necessary Order in Council was not drawn up and passed until this month. I assure the House and the public that every effort will be made; when the smallest suspicion of harsh treatment of the natives reaches the ears of the Administration, to investigate it, with a view to preventing any abuse.

Mr GLYNN:
LP

– With the permission of the House I should like to supplement the answer which I gave a few minutes ago to the honorable member for Brisbane in regard to Papuan labor.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Orders of the Day not having been called on, the honorable member may do so.

Mr GLYNN:

– When the question was asked I could not remember the actual number of natives that were connected with the charge of illegal recruiting. I asked that the papers might be lookedup, but owing to the fact that the natives cannot count beyond the number of their own fingers - that when dealing with any larger number they use such general words as “plenty boy” - the exact number is not shown. It may, however, be stated with some accuracy, I believe, that the total number of natives concerned is something like forty, though charges were laid in respect of about 100. The moment the suspicion arose that anything improper existed in connexion with the recruiting an order was given that the natives might go back if they chose, but I think that only three or four left. The total in relation to which the charge was sustained was about thirty. Inquiries are still being made as to whether it will be necessary to deal with the cancellation of tha agreement.

Mr Fisher:

– Will . the honorable gentleman lay all the papers on the table immediately ?

Mr GLYNN:

– If necessary I shall do so, but not immediately.

page 1038

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr BOYD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member’s conduct requires one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I expect our proceedings to be conducted in an orderly manner, and take this early opportunity to notify honorable members that unless they obey the call of the Chair to come to order, I shall not hesitate to take the necessary steps to enforce the preservation of order and decorum in the chamber. At the commencement of the sitting an honorable member, before he has had time to utter more than two or three words, is assailed with interjections. A stop must be put to this sort of thing.

Mr Page:

– Put half of us out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable mem- ber for Maranoa is out of order.

Mr BOYD:

– I direct the attention of honorable members to the following statement appearing in this morning’s Age, in its report of the proceedings of this House -

Mr. Boyd, who had tried unsuccessfully to get the press excluded from the galleries - with the idea, presumably, of keeping the actions of members of Parliamenta secret - was comfortably coiled up on the front Ministerial bench with a pillow under his head.

When I drew attention to the presence of strangers, there was not a representative of the Age in the press gallery, and the motives attributed to me in this report are as wrong and false as the allusions of this newspaper to my conduct in this House generally are. My object in calling attention to the presence of strangers was to give the Hansard reporters relief, they having been continuously at work for nearly fifteen hours. To be the victim of an absolutely dishonest report by a newspaper which had not a reporter in the gallery to see what occurred, is all that I can expect from this journal.

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I, too, wish to make a personal explanation in regard to a report concerning something that happened during our last sitting. This is what the Argus says regarding a certain episode that then occurred. After making certain allegations concerning the honorable members for Richmond and Bourke, the report continues -

After the matter had proceeded a little further Mr. Bennett, who had been sleeping on theMinisterial side, rushed across, and Mr. Penton intercepted him. They immediately became locked in n close embrace, in which Mr. Bennett appeared to secure an irregular kind of half-nelson hold on the member for Maribyrnong.

By this time other members crowded round Mr. Anstey and Mr. Greene, who were struggling fiercely, and were dragged apart with difficulty. Mr. Penton and Mr. Bennett were also separated. These efforts at peace, however, nearly provoked a general melee, but the Acting Speaker (Mr. Fowler) managed to restore order.

Every honorable member who was in the chamber at the time, will agree that that is a grossly exaggerated account of what took place; I might even characterize it as a lying statement. The journal in which it appears was convicted, on the unanimous resolution of a State House, of wilful and profligate lying. It has little or no influence in the district which I represent, and I believe that the more it abuses me the greater the number of votes that I shall get. Therefore, it is not considerations of personal interest that move me to make this statement. I made it to draw attention to the extreme lengths to which a journal with party bias will go to inflict injury on the members of this Parliament. This class of report does more to degrade the House than anything else I know of. There was a certain amount of amusement in regard to pillows, all, or nearly all that took place, being conducted with the utmost good humour. I have not taken part in any previous all-night sitting in which there was so much good humour as prevailed on Wednesday night.

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

– Or so much bad.

Mr.FENTON. - I am certain that the honorable members for Gippsland, Richmond, and Bourke, as well as others, will admit the accuracy of the statement that I am now making. If anything sensible or reasonable takes place in this chamber, the most limited report is given to it in the daily newspapers; but, should anything of a trivial nature occur, it is exalted and a mountain made of it. I enter my protest against this reporting of political party papers, and the attempts to damage, not so much the personal honour and standing of any particular member, as the reputation of the House.

Mr BENNETT:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Since my name has been openly mentioned, I think it well to state what took place, so that the facts may be put on record. The honorable member for Richmond did not violently remove a pillow from under the head of the honorable member for Dalley. I crossed the chamber in defence of the honorable member for Richmond, to prevent other honorable members from doing him an injury. I saw him forced back on to the bench, and a blow struck at him, without hitting him. I had no hold on the honorable member for Maribyrnong, and no desire to assault him. Both of us were bent on the same mission, that of preventing the disturbance which would probably have occurred otherwise.

Later :

Mr BOYD:

– I wish to make another personal explanation following upon that which I made a little while ago. I have received a note from the Age representative assuring me he was in the gallery when the episode occurred yesterday. That statement is supported by another representative of the press, who was also present. I do not wish to do this gentleman an injustice if he was attending to his work. I can only say that, when I glanced at the gallery, I saw only one man there. I am not prepared, however, to say that the Age representative was not there; and, as he has assured me that he was in the gallery at the time, I accept that assurance.

Mr Page:

– I saw them sitting on the back seat.

Mr BOYD:

– I think it only fair to the Age reporter to make this explanation.

page 1040

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Mr HIGGS:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral be good enough, when making his second-reading speech on the Government Prohibition Bill, to explain what is meant by the word “ Commonwealth “ in clause 2, and also tell us what are the punishments that he contemplates-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! It has been ruled in the House of Commons and elsewhere that it is not in order to anticipate the discussion upon any measure. At the proper time the Minister in charge of the Bill will, no doubt, explain its provisions.

Mr Higgs:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Higgs:

– But I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member cannot do so at this stage since he has not been misrepresented by any one. A personal explanation cannot be made a cover for debating a ruling of the Chair.

Mr Higgs:

– I hope that my mild manner will not be taken as showing that I allow myself to be suppressed-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Higgs:

– In a matter of public duty.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is out of order.

page 1040

QUESTION

WOODLARK ISLAND: RADIOTELEGRAPH STATION

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– At the commencement of the session I presented a petition from certain residents of Woodlark Island asking that a radiotelegraph station be established there. I desire to ask tho Postmaster-General whether he has yet arrived at any determination in the matter?

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

– The matter is under consideration.

page 1040

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE:

Order of Business

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

– I wish to say that I do not think it fair that questions, without notice, should be asked when there are on the business-paper no less than fifty-nine questions that the Opposition will not permit to be answered. Until those questions are answered Ministers will not reply to any more questions without notice.

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister of External Affairs a question without notice?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister has just announced that no further questions without notice will be answered.

Mr Thomas:

– Does that prevent any honorable member asking a question without notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Certainly.

Mr Thomas:

– Under what standing order ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is nothing in our Standing Orders providing for the asking of questions without notice. The Standing Orders deal with notices of motion. Questions, without notice, are permitted as a matter of courtesy, and not of right by the House, but should at once cease when the Ministry have intimated that no further questions will be answered. Questions, without notice, should relate only to matters of urgent public importance, and it is entirely within the discretion of Ministers as to whether or not they shall be answered. When the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, has announced that it is not intended to answer questions without notice, no public purpose can be served by persisting in putting them. Such questions, when not answered, are not reported in Hansard, and the putting of them, after it has been announced that they will not be answered, can only delay public business.

Mr Fisher:

– As the ruling you have just given, Mr. Speaker, is a most important one, I desire, on a point of order, to ask you what standing order, authority, or practice lays it down that the Prime Minister can speak for all Ministers as he has just done ? I desire also to ask you whether your ruling will apply to all parties who have an appointed leader. If the leader of any party announces that no member of that party will answer questions, may no questions be put to the members of that party? The point I wish to make is that Ministers must individually decline to answer such questions.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– On the point of order, I desire to say that I do not know whether the right honorable member is doing now what has been quite obvious in the House for a long time-

Mr McDonald:

– Why this insinuation?

Mr Fisher:

– What does the honorable member mean ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Wasting time.

Mr Fisher:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is already a point of order before the Chair.

Mr Fisher:

– The Prime Minister has said that I am deliberately wasting time in asking such a question.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I have not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister says that he made no such accusation.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I spoke of the general practice, but I will withdraw the remark.

Mr Tudor:

– Be a man for once !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this insolent observation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the remark.

Mr Tudor:

– I shall be pleased to withdraw it; he cannot be.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the remark without qualification.

Mr Tudor:

– I do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask that there be no further interruption.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– On the point of order I desire to say that the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that when the Leader of a Government makes an announcement in the House he generally does so with the concurrence of his colleagues.

Mr Higgs:

– You did not-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. I intimate now that the next honorable member who interjects and prevents the honorable member who is addressing the Chair from being heard in silence will be named.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I was about to say that it has been my very happy experience, so far, that the Leader of the Government in making an announcement to the House does so with the concurrence of his colleagues. I can only conclude that the Leader of the Opposition has had some less happy experience, and that this prompted him to make the statement that he did just now. In any event, I think that the matter does not come within the purview of the Standing Orders. It is one of the established practices of Parliament. It is older than any standing order, and, indeed, comes down to us from the night of time. I do not know why the right honorable gentleman should have raised such a question ; it is sufficient for me to say now that the Government will not answer any more questions without notice until those on the businesspaper have been answered. That, I think, is a fair position to take up. It is only a consideration for the value of the time of the country and the necessity for conducting public business that prompts me now to make this announcement.

Mr McDonald:

– On the point of order I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is provided that on matters concerning which our Standing Orders are silent we shall have recourse to the practice of the House of Commons. A little while ago in the House of Commons, while there were no less than 100 questions to Mr. Asquith on the notice-paper, and after he had refused to reply to these questions, over 200 without notice were asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

– With regard to the first point raised by the honorable member for Wide Bay, under the Standing Orders questions are not asked of private members except in certain specified circumstances. This question has already been settled under our own practice, and exception should have been taken to the first decision given if there was any objection to it. Last session Ministers refused to answer questions without notice, and I then pointed out that it would be futile to continue to ask questions without notice when the Prime Minister had intimated, on behalf of his colleagues, that no such questions would be answered. An intimation of that kind, as I explained a few days ago, when I again ruled on the matter, was really an announcement that if honorable members desired any more information they must place their questions on the notice-paper. I would remind the House that, in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker has intervened in certain cases, and has disallowed questions on his own responsibility where he has thought that an unfair number was being put. He has even stopped the asking of questions on notice when he has thought that they were so long or so numerous as to be calculated to obstruct the course of business. I have extracts before me on the subject from the House of Commons’ debates, and Speakers’ decisions on the point, but one I think will serve as a sufficient illustration. In this case Mr. Redmond desired to ask a question. He said -

As this is a matter of some importance, might I ask yon, sir, whether the UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs will clearly define the nature of the questions which he does not wish to be asked?

These were not only questions without notice, but questions put on the noticepaper. Questions without notice are rarely asked in the House of Commons. They must concern some matter of urgency, and I am informed notice of intention to ask questions is given to the Speaker. In the case I quote, Mr. Speaker said -

That is not a question of order at all. Ministers have a right to refuse to answer questions when put, and if they clearly classify certain questions, and state that they will not answer any questions of that description, it would be perfectly futile to continue putting such questions down.

Here is the ruling which I gave in September last -

Questions without notice have been asked from the commencement of the sitting at halfpast ten until the present moment - ten minutes past twelve - and the Prime Minister has intimated that no more such questions will be answered this morning. If Ministers will not answer questions without notice, the further asking of them is obviously a waste of the time of the House, and the honorable member will not be in order in proceeding with his question.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In accordance with your decision, as just laid down,. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that, having appealed to Cæsar, to Cæsar we will go in future.

Mr Higgs:

– I wish to raise a point of order having reference to your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorablemember cannot raise a point of order on my ruling as proposed by him. The ruling is established by practice, and it therefore stands.

Mr Higgs:

– Will you not hear what my point of order is?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can be nopoint of order on a ruling from the Chair. Such a ruling cannot be debated, except, upon specific motion.

Mr Higgs:

– But you would not see me,. Mr. Speaker, when I rose.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorablemember is out of order in arguing with the Chair.

Mr Higgs:

– May not an honorablemember ask a Minister a question regarding a Bill or other business on the noticepaper ? You, sir, said I was anticipatingdiscussion ; and I ask whether you are not aware that last year the Ministry, underthe Standing Orders, put a similar Bill through all its stages without permittingme an opportunity to ask the questions I desire to ask this morning? If the sameprocedure is now to be adopted, what possible chance shall I have of asking the Attorney-General the questions I desire about the meaning of the word “ Commonwealth,” about the punishments heproposes to inflict under the Bill, and whether he proposes to include lawyers and other professional classes in the measure, the second reading of which he is tomove to-day?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Anticipatory questions of that kind relating to details of a Bill are not in order. They can be debated on the Bill itself, and. amendments, if necessary, moved dealing with them at the proper time. I have here some extracts which I havetaken from May, which clearly lay down what questions may be asked, and this morning I have ruled in accordance with not only our own practice, but with the practice of the House of Commons. I do not -wish, however, to take up the time of the House by quoting the extracts relating to similar positions that have arisen in the House of Commons; it will suffice to say that I have abundant authority for my decision.

Mr Thomas:

– Will you be good enough, sir, to have the quotations from May, of which you speak, printed, so that, while your time is not taken up in reading them to the House, honorable members may have an opportunity to make themselves acquainted with their nature? It is a very interesting point that has been raised.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think it is necessary that the quotations shall be printed. I have no power, myself, to order the printing of documents, and can only do so by authority of the House. Honorable members have access to the same Parliamentary authorities in the Library, the Chamber, and other parts of the House, and they can, if they so desire, inform themselves on the subject, and get extracts for themselves, as I have done, for my own information.

Mr J H Catts:

– Am I right in assuming that the notice-paper is made up by the Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– ‘No ; the arrangement of the business-paper is not made by the Speaker, but by the Government, except where the House or the Standing Orders determine that certain business shall be specifically placed on the paper.

Mr McDonald:

– Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that the businesspaper is entirely in the hands of the Government? Surely you have control in the case of questions, and even of motions, notice of which is given; at any rate, you must have control over any questions or business appertaining to your own particular action or actions, and may place such business anywhere you think proper on the paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No one should know better than the honorable member for Kennedy what is the practice. The arrangement of the business-paper - except as I have already stated - is certainly in the hands of the Government, and that arrangement cannot be taken out of their hands by the Speaker. The House can do it. If the House does take the arrangement of the business out of the hands of the Government, we know what that means - it means a crisis. In the case of a motion to dissent from a ruling, it is customary to place it before the Government business of the day, with the concurrence of the Government ; but there is nothing in the Standings Orders requiring that to be done. That was done with the first such notice, but the House decided to proceed with another matter on an adjournment motion which occupied the time until Orders of the Day had to be called on under standing order 119. The House itself, however, on Wednesday last, directed that Government business should, until otherwise ordered, have precedence; and the notice-paper has, no doubt, now been arranged under the authority given by that order. Personally, I should much prefer that motions relating to my rulings were disposed of at once, and I intimated that desire; but, as I say, the matter does not rest in my hands. The House has directed that Government business shall take precedence, and, therefore, under any circumstance, the leave of the House would have to be obtained in order to alter that arrangement. Whether that is so or not, it is entirely for the Prime Minister or the Government to decide whether they are prepared to set aside the time necessary, before Government business is called on, to deal with any question of the kind. The Government, apparently, have not thought fit to do so, and the Speaker has no power himself to direct that it shall be done, especially in the face of the decision of the House already referred to.

Mr McDonald:

– I point out that a couple of sessions ago the honorable member for Capricornia moved a motion dissenting from a ruling-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order. I feel that I must interpose in the interests of public business. Although, at the beginning of the sitting, I stated that I should refuse to answer any questions without notice, we have now been engaged forty minutes with such questions; and I should like to know whether it is in order for honorable members to all day keep asking questions which require answers?

Mr Fisher:

– I rise to order, and-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask all honorable members to be seated. I point out that the whole of these proceedings are absolutely irregular, and

I shall not allow them to go further. I have already answered a question, and further questions arising out of my answer cannot he asked. I absolutely decline to allow my decisions and answers to be made the subject of further questions or irregular debate.

Mr McDonald:

– I do not desire-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have not called on the honorable member for Kennedy; and, as I have said, I shall not hear any more questions on the subject.

Mr McDonald:

– I was not going to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, but to put a question to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already ruled that no further questions to the Prime Minister without notice can be asked.

Mr McDonald:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in interrupting the Speaker. The Prime Minister has indicated that neither he nor his Ministers will answer any questions without notice; yet the honorable member for Kennedy, after the Speaker has intimated that such questions are disorderly, and not allowed - although the honorable member himself promised, at the beginning of this Parliament, that he would uphold the Speaker’s authority - is, apparently,. . encouraging that authority to be set at nought in persevering with such questions after my decision. I wish to intimate that I .shall not allow any further questions to be put without notice.

Mr Fisher:

– Perhaps, under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you have used words-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Prime Minister not to make my already very difficult position more difficult, but to resume his seat.

Mr McDonald:

– I object to any intervention on my behalf, because I can attend to my own affairs - to any reflection that may be made upon me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have no desire ;to reflect on the honorable member.

Mr McDonald:

– I require no apology.

Mr J H Catts:

– I should like to know, in order that I may understand the position, whether Mr. Speaker is not in charge of the business?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not in charge of the business; the Government are in charge of the business. The Speaker is in charge of the conduct of business in the House - not the order of business on the paper, except as already stated.

Mr J H Catts:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You have already ruled twice, sir, that you will not permit honorable members to ask questions.

Mr McDonald:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Kennedy is out of order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Notwithstanding that you, sir, have refused to permit usto ask questions, the honorable member for Cook’ is proceeding to. ask another. Is that in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the Prime Minister that he is now himself reopening a closed matter. It is, however, for the Speaker to determine whether a question addressed to himself is in order. If I find that a question is one that should not be asked or answered, I shall myself intervene. I further remind the Prime Minister that, whereas honorable members may by notice place on the business-paper questions addressed to members of the Ministry, such a practice is not followed in the case of questions to the Speaker. At the same time, I draw the attention of the House generally to the fact that it is grossly disorderly to attempt to heckle the Speaker by a series of questions. Unless the questions are of some moment - necessary, and of serious import - I shall certainly not allow them to continue.

Mr McDonald:

– A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, you would not allow me to raisea point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member, I think, is not quite correct.

Mr McDonald:

– But immediately afterwards the Prime Minister was allowed to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Kennedy should know - I do not know whether he does, but he certainly should - that what I said was that it would not be in order to ask Ministers questions without notice, when the Prime Minister, on their behalf, had intimated that no such questions would be answered.

Mr McDonald:

– I asked you a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I gave no ruling about questions addressed to myself.

Mr J H Catts:

– I do not wish to. ask any question that may be out of order, but 1 should like to know as to the position of some business of mine on the notice-paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already pointed out that, except in cases mentioned, the arrangement of the businesspaper is in the hands of the Government.

Mr Fenton:

– Mr. Speaker, would you mind reading, for the edification of the House, your ruling as reported on page 112 of Hansard of last session?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honorable members to discontinue questions of this character. To do what the honorable member requests would be absolutely out of order. I should not be justified in taking up the time of the House in doing what the honorable member asks.

Mr Fisher:

– I give notice that I shall move that the motion on the businesspaper in the name of the honorable member for Cook take precedence of other business.

page 1045

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT

Marriage of Women to Foreigners

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the woman citizen is not placed upon an equal basis with the man citizen, in that by marriage with a foreigner she loses her right of voting, whereas the man citizen in a similar case retains his right of voting, will the Government bring in a small amending electoral Bill to remedy this wrong?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The Government will seriously consider this matter.

page 1045

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION ACT

Marriageof Women

Dr MALONEY:

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

Will the Government bring in a Bill to amend the Naturalization Act, so that the woman citizen of Australia will not lose her nationality by marriage with a foreigner?

Mr GLYNN:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The matter of amending the Naturalization Act will be dealt with later when the British Parliament has passed the measure now before it on the subject’ of Imperial naturalization. At that stage the suggestion of the honorable member will receive careful consideration.

page 1045

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

City and Country Borrowers

Mr PATTEN:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Whether he is yet in a position to inform the House why the Commonwealth Bank dis criminates in its interest charges as between city and country borrowers, to the detriment of the country borrower by 2 per cent.?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am informed by the Governor that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia does not discriminate in its interest charges as between city and country borrowers.

page 1045

QUESTION

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce a Billto provide that the maternity allowance shall be “ limited to proper provision for necessitous cases” (see statement of Ministerial policy, dated 12th August, 1913)?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during this present session; if not, on what date does he propose to introduce the said Bill?
Sir JOHN FORREST:
LP

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

  1. This will depend upon circumstances. The policy of the Government is as stated.
  2. Answered by 1.

page 1045

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Dismissal of Officers

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Will he be good enough to give(a) a detailed list of the officers employed in the Northern Territory whose services have been dispensed with during the past six months, or who have been transferred to other parts of the Commonwealth; (b) the positions held by said officers at the time of their removal; (c) the salaries paid to said officers; (d) the reasons for their suspension, removal, or transfer?
  2. Was Mr. George Ryland, the Director of Lands in the Northern Territory, given the offer of employment in any other capacity in the Commonwealth Service?
Mr GLYNN:
LP

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

Name of Officers. Position. Salary. Reason for Transfer or Dismissal

George Ryland, Director of Lands, £800 per annum, office abolished with a view to rearrangement of duties for purpose of effecting more economical working.

  1. H. Clarke, Director of Agriculture, £630 per annum, applied for and obtained position in Department of Trade and Customs, Central Administration.
  2. C. Stretton, Chief Protector of Aborigines, £650 per annum, position temporary, engagement having been for twelve months only.
  3. L. Rossiter, Inspector and Superior Teacher, £500 per annum, demand for superior school teaching too small to justify retention of officer, whose position has been abolished.
  4. V. Francis, Superintendent and Resident Engineer, £650 per annum, office abolished with a view to re-arrangement of duties for purpose of effecting more economical working.

No. 2. No.

page 1046

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it proposed to introduce a Government Preference to Unionists Prohibition Bill during the present session?
  2. Is it intended by the Government that the Bill shall apply only to men engaged in the building trade?
  3. Is it intended by the Government that the Bill shall apply to all classes of employes in the Commonwealth Public Service or to the industrial classes only?
  4. Is it intended that the Bill shall apply to clerical and professional assistants temporarily employed in the service of the Commonwealth of Australia?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The answer is that the Bill is before honorable members.

page 1046

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Was he correctly reported by the daily press on the 4th of April, 1913, as having announced as part of the Liberal policy - “ The redistribution of seats to be removed from parliamentary manipulation”?
  2. If so, when does he propose to introduce legislation having reference to this matter?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The answers are -

  1. The words used were that the redistribution would be removed from parliamentary - and party - manipulation.
  2. When opportunity offers.

page 1046

QUESTION

LIFE AND FIRE INSURANCE

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce the Bill dealing with Life and Fire Insurance, promised in the statement of Ministerial policy, dated 12th August, 1913?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session; if not, on what date docs the Prime Minister expect to introduce the said measure?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– When opportunity offers.

page 1046

QUESTION

POST OFFICE MANAGEMENT

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Do the Government propose to introduce “ a measure for the appointment of three Commissioners to manage the Post Office,” as promised in the statement of Ministerial policy of 12th August, 1913?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session; if not, when?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– When opportunity offers.

page 1046

QUESTION

SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER : LEGISLATION

Mr SPEAKER:

– As question No. 30, of which notice has been given by the honorable member for Capricornia, is founded on a newspaper statement, I must ask the honorable member if he takes responsibility for the accuracy of the. report?

Mr HIGGS:

– I do. I ask the Prime Minister -

Is Parliament to understand from the following speeches by the Prime Minister that he does not intend to place on the statute-book the many proposed laws mentioned in the statement of Ministerial policy dated 12th August, viz.: - “ Why should the people always be crying out for legislation? Had there not been 83 Acts in the last three years placed on the statute-book? What more could the people want? Those who were continually asking for more legislation were really worse than Oliver Twist in his demands.” (See Melbourne Argus, 8th August, 1913). “ Whether Parliament would do any business remained to be seen. It had been at work for some weeks without any result, but he was not sure whether the country did not want a rest from legislative enactments. There had been 83 enactments during the period in which the Labour party was in office, but he did not know whether the country was any the better for it. The present administration was certainly not going to be responsible for a record in that direction, and he for one would not be sorry for that fact.” (See Melbourne Argus, 23rd September, 1913).

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– No.

page 1046

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce a “ scheme of superannuation for the Civil Service,” pro- wised in the statement of Ministerial policy of the 12th August last year?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session ; if not, when does the Government propose to introduce the said scheme?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The whole matter is under consideration.

page 1047

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS AS MUNICIPAL COUNCILLORS

Mr BURNS:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. The number of Commonwealth public servants who occupy positions as municipal and shire councillors?
  2. The positions held in the service by the said councillors?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

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

  1. Thirteen.
  2. Trade and Customs Department. - Customs assistant, Excise Branch, Sydney. PostmasterGeneral’s Department. - New South Wales - Assistant, West Maitland; sorter, Mail Branch; junior mechanic, Electrical Engineer’s Branch; mail officer, Mail Branch. Victoria - Senior assistant, Telegraph Branch; senior mechanic, Canterbury. South Australia - Sorter, Mail Branch. Western Australia - Supervisor, Mail Branch; sorter, Mail Branch; clerk, Correspondence and Records Branch; telegraphist, Telegraph Branch; storeman, Stores Branch.

page 1047

QUESTION

INTER-STATE INDUSTRIAL. DISPUTES

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. When does he propose to introduce legislation to provide for the settlement of InterState industrial disputes by industrial boards, as promised by him when he outlined the Liberal policy at Parramatta on the 3rd of April, 1913?
  2. When does the Prime Minister propose to introduce legislation providing for “ elementary co-operation in production and distribution,” as promised by him when he outlined the Liberal policy before mentioned?
  3. If a Bill has not yet been prepared, will the Prime Minister describe what is meant by “ elementary co-operation in distribution and production,” and to what extent the same is possible under section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The answers are -

  1. When opportunity offers. 2 and 3. I did not use the word “ elementary,” but the word “voluntary.” The operation of the system does not necessarily require a Bill.

page 1047

QUESTION

NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES: RETIRING ALLOWANCES

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce a “ scheme to secure retiring allowances to those serving in the Naval and Military Forces,” promised in the statement of Ministerial policy dated 12th August, 1913?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a scheme during the present session of Parliament; if not, on what date does the Prime Minister propose to introduce the said scheme?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– When opportunity offers.

page 1047

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRADING DEPARTMENTS: BALANCE-SHEETS

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government direct that all the trading Departments of the Commonwealth Government shall, as early as possible in each financial year, publish a full and complete balance-sheet similar to that demanded from all public trading companies under the Companies Act of Victoria?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– Yes; as far as possible.

page 1047

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway : Charwomen : Increase in Wages : Construction : Expenditure : Pro gressof Work : Contracts : Clearing and Earthworks: Cost of Engines - Electoral Registrars : Remuneration : Appointment of Mr. Frank Sowton - Illawarra and Riverina Electoral Divisions: Objections to Names on Rolls.

Mr FENTON:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will place on the table of the House the papers pertaining to the applications for an increase of 5s. per week by three (3) charwomen at Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta, and Lithgow (N.S.W.), in connexion with the supply of material and the construction of the Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta railway?

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

– Inquiries have been made, and it has been ascertained that no such applications have been received.

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. What has been the total expenditure up to the present on the transcontinental railway?
  2. When was the work of construction first started ?
  3. How many miles of earthworks are completed?
  4. How many miles of rails are now laid?
  5. How many miles are ballasted and completed?
  6. What ballast has been used?
  7. Is it a fact that no financial provision was made forstone ballast on this line?
  8. What is the present value of the rollingstock now on hand?
  9. What is the approximate value of rails, fastenings, and sleepers not yet laid in track?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. £1,395,754 (including £20,375 for surveys, &c, during the years 1907 and 1910).
  2. The first sod was turned by His Excellency the Governor-General on the 14th September, 1912. The tracklayers were available, and commenced work, in July, 1913, with second-hand ballast engines, prior to which date 11¾ miles of track had been laid and 16 miles of sidings.
  3. The completed earthworks are - Port Augusta, 85½ miles; Kalgoorlie, 96 miles 8 chains.
  4. Port Augusta, 78½. miles; Kalgoorlie, 82 miles 40 chains, exclusive of sidings, in each case.
  5. About 13 miles at Port Augusta.
  6. Gravel.
  7. Very little financial provision was made; but some time ago I directed that provision should be made to ballast the line throughout, in order to guarantee express service.
  8. £180,000.
  9. £427,684, delivered, but not yet laid in track.
Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has a contract, or have contracts, been let for portion of the clearing and earthworks on the Western Australian section of the transcontinental railway?
  2. To whom was the contract, or were the contracts, if any, let, and what are the terms and prices paid?
  3. If a contract was let, how much of it has been completed, and what payments have been made to the contractors in respect of such contract ?
  4. Were tenders publicly invited forsuch contract or contracts, and in what newspapers, and for what length of time, and how many insertions ?
  5. Will the Minister lay all the papers relating to the contracts on the table of the House?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. Not as usually known as a contract. In July. 1913, I approved a recommendation of the Engineer-in-Chief that he should have authority to let piece-work where it was considered that the work could be carried out to better advantage and more economically by doing so, also of the rates being authorized by the Engineer-in-Chief. The EngineerinChief fixed a scale of rates, and several small portions of piece-work were let by the Acting Supervising Engineer, Kalgoorlie.
  2. Several small sections were let by the Acting Supervising Engineer to Messrs. William Morris, J. Lysacht, J. Sheridan, J. O’Con- nell, P. Fahey, J. Richardson, and J. Alexander. Mr. William Morris is the only person engaged in connexion with clearing, and the earthworks being done by him are from 71 miles 52 chains to 71 miles 63 chains, and from 72 miles 66 chains onwards; and the work terminates in the event of contracts being arranged for the construction of the whole line, or in the event of Morris’ work being overtaken by the plate- laying gang, or in the event of any other cause deemed by the Acting Supervising Engineer sufficient to terminate it. The rates paid are - Clearing, £25 per mile; centre cutting, ls. 6d. per cubic yard; side cutting, ls. per cubic yard; surface formation, 30s. per chain.
  3. A sum of about £3,642 has been paid altogether to various tenderers, the bulk of it to William Morris. Some of the men threw up the work they had undertaken, as they found they had not the plant necessary.
  4. The Engineer-in-Chief reports that the piece-work was let after quotations had been obtained from several men. For the clearing work the offer of William Morris was the lowest of the six received. I do not think that advertisements were placed in newspapers; it is hardly usual in connexion with piece-work. I am having inquiry made.
  5. As previously explained, there is no contract. I will lay upon the table copies of the recommendation of the Engineer-in-Chief and the letter sent to William Morris.
Mr TUDOR:

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many engines have been ordered from the Baldwin Engineering Company, United States of America, by the present Government to be used in connexion with the construction of the transcontinental railway?
  2. What is the cost per engine delivered (a) at Kalgoorlie, and (b) at Port Augusta?
  3. On what date should the locomotives have been delivered at (a) Kalgoorlie, and (b) Port Augusta?
  4. How many have been delivered up to date?
Mr KELLY:

– The answers are-

  1. Twelve, in two contracts of four engines and eight engines respectively.
  2. For the four engines -

For the eight engines - 3 and 4. With regard to the four engines, they were due -

  1. at Fremantle on 28th April, 1914;
  2. at Port Augusta, on 12th May, 1914.

All have been delivered.

With regard to the eight engines, they are due -

  1. at Kalgoorlie, on 6th August, 1914;
  2. at Port Augusta, on 6th August, 1914.

None have been delivered, but all have been shipped, and are expected to arrive within the next three or four weeks.

Mr BAMFORD:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the suggestion of the Powellising Commission, under date 3rd February, 1914, to use sleepers 8 ft. 6 in. in length instead of the 9-ft. sleeper now being used?

Mr KELLY:

– The matter is now under consideration, and a decision will be arrived at very shortly.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

How many electoral registrars have been appointed throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, and what rates of remuneration are said electoral registrars to receive?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The number of Electoral Registrars appointed is 1,051. The rates of remuneration are set out in the attached document: -

REMUNERATION TO REGISTRARS.

(1.) In all States, excepting Tasmania -

Each Registrar keeping one or more rolls containing in the aggregate 1,000 names or under, as at the 31st December in any year, will receive payment at the rate of £6 per annum.

Each Registrar keeping one or more rolls containing 1,001 names or over, as at the 31st December in any year, will receive payment at the rate of £6 per annum for 1,000 names, and in addition -

for each 100 names, or part thereof, being in excess of 1,000 and not exceeding 6,000 names, 5s. per annum; and

for each 100 names, or part thereof, in excess of 6,000 names, 2s. 6d. per annum.

The annual remuneration to the Registrar, as provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b), will cover all services, including the maintenance of a copy of the roll or rolls kept by him in the form of “ copy “ for the Government Printer.

Each Registrar holding office as at the 31st December in any year must, with the least delay, render an account through the Divisional Returning Officer up to and inclusive of that date for the period during which he has served.

Each Registrar ceasing duty on any date other than the 31st December in any year must at once render an account through the Divisional Returning Officer for the portion of the year during which he has served.

In the State of Tasmania, where the State and the Commonwealth are acting in co- operation in electoral matters -

Each Registrar keeping one or more rolls containing in the aggregate 1,000 names or under, as at the 31st December in any year, will receive payment at the rate of £8 per annum.

Each Registrar keeping one or more rolls containing 1,001 names or over as at the 31st December in any year, will receive payment at the rate of £8 per annum for 1,000 names, and in addition -

for each 100 names, or part thereof, being in excess of 1,000 and not exceeding 6,000 names, 6s. per annum; and

for each 100 names, or part thereof, in excess of 6,000 names, 3s. per annum.

The annual remuneration to the Registrar, as provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b), will cover all services, including the maintenance of a copy of the roll or rolls kept by him in the form of “ copy “ for the Government Printer.

Each Registrar holding office as at the 31st December in any year must, with the least delay, render an account through the Returning Officer up to and inclusive of that date for the period during which he has served.

each Registrar ceasing duty on any date other than the 31st December in any year must at once render an account through the Returning Officer for the portion of the year during which he has served.

For Form of Agreement to act as Registrar, See Appendix I. (2.) Travelling Expenses, on duty when necessary, such as attendance at Courts of Appeal. - If in the service of the Commonwealth or of the State, according to the Public Service Regulations; but if not in either, then 10s. per diem.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. Prior to his appointment as Divisional Returning Officer for Hindmarsh, in what capacity was Mr. Frank Sowton employed in the Commonwealth Service, and what salary did he receive ?
  2. How long has Mr. Frank Sowton been employed in the Commonwealth Service, and what increases in salary has he received during that period ?
Mr KELLY:

– The answers are -

  1. Employed as clerk, Postmaster-General’s Department, Adelaide, at salary of £260 per annum.
  2. Employed in Commonwealth Service since 1st March, 1901, the date of the transfer of the Postmaster-General’s Department to the Commonwealth. At the date mentioned Mr. Sowton was in receipt of salary of £190 per annum, and has since received the following increases : - To £200 per annum, from 1st July, 1901; £210 per annum, from 1st July, 1902; £235 per annum, from 1st July, 1904; £260 per annum, from 17th February, 1912.
Mr BURNS:

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will he at once obtain a return showing (a) the names of the organizations, or persons authorized by such organizations, who have forwarded to the Federal Electoral Registrars, in the Illawarra Division, lists of electors whose names are upon the roll, asking that such mimes be removed therefrom; and (b) the number of names on such lists at each Registrar’s office?
  2. Will he provide that all such lists be copied, and copies placed on exhibition ax every post-office in the Division, with the names of the organizations, or persons attached, who are responsible for sending them to the Electoral Registrars?
Mr KELLY:

– The answers are -

  1. Name of Person submitting Lists, Subdivision, Number of Names on Lists. - Archdale Parkhill, general secretary Liberal Association of New South Wales : Albion Park, 15 ; Appin, 39; Bulli, 6; Dapto, 22; Helensburgh, 130; Kiama, 77; Robertson, 4. Montague Fox, secretary Labour League, Sutherland : Sutherland, 30.
  2. In view of the fact that lists of names of persons objected to may be inspected at the Electoral Registrar’s office, and a notice of objection is posted to each person objected to, it is not considered necessary to post lists at every post-office in the Division.’

All representations by political organizations or others with regard to enrolments are made the subject of independent inquiry before any action is taken.

Mr BURNS:

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will be at once obtain a return showing (a) the names of the organizations, or persons authorized by such organizations, who have forwarded to the Federal Electoral Registrars, in the Riverina Division, lists of electors whose names are upon the roll, asking that such names be removed therefrom; and (b) the number of names on such lists at each Registrar’s office?
  2. Will he provide that all such lists be copied, and copies placed on exhibition at every post-office fn the Division, with the names of the organizations, or persons attached, who are responsible for sending them to the Electoral Registrars?
Mr KELLY:

– The answers are -

  1. Name of Person submitting Lists, Subdivision, Number of Names on Lists. - Archdale Parkhill, general secretary Liberal Association of New South Wales; Barmedman, 25; Berrigan, 224; Booligal, 24; Carrathool, 27; Coolamon, 54; Cudgellico, 8; Eauabalong, 21; Hay, 8; Hillston, 13; Jerilderie, 15; Junee, 112; Mulwala, 64; Narrandera, 464; North Wagga Wagga, 19; Temora, 93; Urana, 247; West Wyalong, 31; Whitton, 35. Stace, Lloyd, Liberal Organizer; Berrigan, 165; Coolamon, 153. John Wise, secretary Liberal Association; Urana, 200. W. V. Bartram : West Wyalong, 4.
  2. In view of the fact that lists of names of persons objected to may be inspected at the Electoral Registrar’s office, and a notice of objection is posted to each person objected to, it is not considered necessary to post lists at every post-office in the Division.

All representations by political organizations or others with regard to enrolments are made the subject of independent inquiry before any action is taken.

page 1050

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEYGENERAL

Export Charges by Sydney Harbor Trust - Bankruptcy Bill - Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill - Offences against the. Commonwealth - State Tax on Commonwealth Bank Cheques - PatentOffice : Appointment of Teacher of Chemistry - Public Service Act : Appointments .

Mr BENNETT:
for Mr. Pigott

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

Whether, in his opinion, the State Government of New South Wales was acting legally indirecting the Sydney Harbor Trust to make the following extra charge on the export of wheat at sixpence (6d.) per ton; wool, at sixpence (6d.) per bale; merchandise, at tenpence (10d.) per ton; and, in passing this Act, has not the State Government encroached upon the sovereign rights of the Commonwealth Government and violated the Federal Constitution?

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

– I am afraid that I must give to the honorable member the same answer that I have given tohonorable members before. It is not part of my function to answer questions relating to purely legal opinions. I may add, however, for the information of the honorable member, that even if it were the practice for the Attorney-General of the Federal Government to express opinions as to the validity or invalidity of Acts passed by a State, it would be a highly undesirable one, and we should strongly resent the Attorneys- General of the States offering similar opinions as to whether Federal Acts are invalid. Those affected by them can challenge their validity in the ordinary way.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce the Bankruptcy Bill, promised in the statement of Ministerial policy, dated 12th August, 1913?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session ; if not, when ?
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A general outline of the legislative measures which the Government intend to introduce this session was included in the GovernorGeneral’s speech, which, no doubt, the honorable member has seen. Any further measures to be introduced will be notified in due course. As to the further legislative policy of the Government, the Prime Minister will, no doubt, take his own time to make an announcement.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Does he propose to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Conciliation and Arbitration in such a way as to prohibit preference being granted by the Court to members of any organization, and to exempt rural workers from the operation of the Arbitration Act (see statement of Ministerial policy, dated 12th August, 1913) ?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session; if not, when?
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– My answer must be the same as the answer to the question regarding the Bankruptcy Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice-

  1. Does he propose to introduce a Bill having reference to “ Offences against the Commonwealth,” promised in the statement of Ministerial policy of 12th August last year?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session; if not, on what date does the Attorney-General hope to be able to introduce the said measure?
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I must again refer the honorable member to my answer in regard to the Bankruptcy Bill.

Mr RILEY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government of New South Wales the power to enforce a tax on the cheques of the Commonwealth Bank used by persons doing business with that institution ?
  2. If not, will the Attorney-General take steps to restrain the Government of New South Wales from enforcing the tax on persons doing business with the Commonwealth Bank ?
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In one sense the honorable member asks for an opinion, but in this case it is with regard to a matter which is very important to an instrumentality of the Commonwealth. As soon as I received the honorable member’s question, I started to have inquiries made to ascertain the exact facts, and I would ask the honorable member to postpone his question for a week or for a fortnight.

Mr WATKINS:
for Mr. Webster

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it true that it is proposed to immediately appoint a teacher of chemistry, without previous Patent Office or Public Service experience, to the position of Senior Deputy Examiner of Patents at the maximum salary of the class, viz., £312 per annum?
  2. How many Deputy Examiners and Assistant Examiners are at present employed in the Patent Office, and what are their names, status, and present salaries, and how long has each been employed in the Patent Office?
  3. Will the Minister ask the Commissioner to defer the appointment until full investigation has been made into the claims of the applicants and the rights of the officers in the Patent Department ?
Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The answers are -

  1. A recommendation to that effect has been made, and is now under consideration.
  2. Eleven deputy examiners in Class E of the Professional Division, none of whom is at present receiving more than £288; and six Assistant Examiners in Class A.

Further particulars will be furnished to the honorable member if he will move for a return, or he may obtain them by applying to the head of the Department. I have not given the figures themselves, ‘ because they are very lengthy, and I< think the honorable member’s purpose will be served if he obtains them from the head of the Department.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member will have some trouble in getting information from the head of that Department.

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

– The honorable member will have no difficulty in getting information. If he has difficulty, I shall see that he does obtain the information.

  1. The question of appointment will receive full consideration.
Mr ARCHIBALD:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

What provisions in the Public Service Act debar public servants who are retained by means of an annual subsidy from appointments to the permanent service?

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

– I take it that the honorable member refers to such persons as contract postal officers?

Mr Archibald:

– I refer to returning officers.

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

– Except in certain cases that are specially provided for, there is nothing to prevent any person applying for appointment to the Public Service, providing he complies with the Public Service regulations and passes the prescribed examination. Sections 26, 33, 34, and 35a of the Public Service Act, so far as I know, contain the only conditions to be complied with, and I know of no reasons why the gentleman referred to should be prevented from applying.

page 1052

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND CUSTOMS

Motor Cars : Value of Importations - Tariff Revision - Margarine : Colouring Matter - Explosives Testing Station - Re- survey of Moreton Bay: Light on Smith’s Rock - Small- pox Outbreak in New South Wales - Trawling Ships : Importations.

Mr BURNS:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will he lay upon the table a return showing the number and value of motor ears imported into the Commonwealth for each of the years 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913?

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

– The reply is somewhat in the nature of a return, which I hand in -

Prior to 1912 this heading read “Bodies for Motor Cars, Lorries, and Waggons, and parts thereof, n.e.i.”

In the statistics of the Department no separate record of the importations of pleasure cars is made, neither is any record kept of the number of cars imported. Bodies and chassis are dealt with separately, in some cases the chassis only being imported, the body being made in the Commonwealth. (Motor bodies and motor chassis are the subjects of separate Tariff items.)

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. On what date is it proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with anomalies in the Tariff?
  2. Is it proposed to introduce such a Bill during the present session?
Mr GROOM:

– The answer is-

A return of anomalies is in course of preparation by the Tariff staff of the Department. The Bill will be introduced as soon as it is ready for submission to this House.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Customs invited or instructed the

Inter-State Commission to make recommendations for the adjustment and revision of the Tariff ?

  1. Is it the intention of the Inter-State Commission to make any progress report as tothe amendment of the Tariff?
  2. Is it the intention of the Inter-State Commission to wait until it has completed the taking of evidence on all requests and in all States before making any recommendations to Parliament with respect to Tariff amendment or revision?
  3. On what date, if at all, was the InterState Commission asked to make an interim or progress report with respect to the Tariff?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

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

  1. Yes, under date 8th September, 1913.

The Inter-State Commission advises that - 2 and 3. Pending the hearing of evidence in all the States interested, the Commission is unable to arrive at any definite conclusions which would enable it to submit a progress report in connexion with the Tariff. If, however, as the investigation proceeds, such a course is found by the Commission to be expedient, it will be taken.

  1. No special request has been made for an interim report. (See reply to 2 and 3.)
Mr FENTON:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What action he intends to take, in the interest of the producer and consumer of butter alike, in reference to the decision of the Federal Pure Foods Committee in allowing colouring matter to be mixed with margarine ?

Mr GROOM:

– A joint conference of Federal and State officers met, and made certain recommendations upon this subject, among others. We are in communication with the State Governments on the question, but replies have not yet been received from all of them, and no decision has, therefore, been reached as to Federal action.

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether a decision has been arrived at in. regard to establishing a testing station for explosives within the Commonwealth ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

No decision has been arrived at; but in view of the fact that a new testing station has recently been erectedatRotherham, in England, arrangements have been made for an officer of the Defence Department now in England to obtain full particulars on the subject from. His Majesty’s Explosive Department and furnish a report as to the estimated cost of erecting, equipping, and maintaining a testingstation in Australia.

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether he has received any communication from the Queensland Government urging the need for a re-survey and re-charting of Moreton Bay?
  2. If so, what reply has the Prime Minister made, and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– A communication on the subject has been received, and is now under the consideration of the Naval authorities.

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is correct that the Commonwealth Government has requested the Queensland State Government to accept the responsibility of attending to the coastal lights till 30th June, 1915?
  2. If so, what is the reason for such request?
  3. Does the Government propose to delay action in regard to taking over the coastal lights till that date?
  4. Is he aware of the decision of the Queensland State Government to place a light on Smith’s Rock, in Moreton Bay, the scene of the recent unfortunate wreck?
  5. Is this light being erected at the request, or with the consent, of the Commonwealth. Government ?
Mr GROOM:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. No. The Queensland State Government, in common with other State Governments, was only requested to renew the contracts for the supply of stores, &c, for lighthouses during that period, so that when the lights are taken over these services will be provided for.

  1. No.
  2. Yes; a temporary lighted buoy will be placed by the State on Smith’s Rock until a re-survey of the vicinity shall have been made.
  3. The State Government this week requested us to sanction this step, and the temporary action has been approved.
Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether any action is being taken by the Federal Quarantine Department to prevent the extension of the unfortunate recurrence of small-pox in New South Wales to other States?
  2. Whether the Minister will favorably consider the appointment of a Federal officer to act in co-operation with the New South Wales health authorities in regard to this matter ?
Mr GROOM:

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

  1. On 4th May the State Premiers were asked to consent to a conference between the Federal Quarantine and State Health authorities upon the subject, and it has now been arranged for Monday next.
  2. The Department is willing to accede to any reasonable request made by the State Health authorities to assist them, consistent with its Federal obligations, in relation to oversea contingencies.
Mr BENNETT:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the trawling company recently formed has asked the Minister to allow the importation of four trawling ships from Europe?
  2. What has been done in the matter?
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to provide a bounty on fish trawled by the said company in such a manner as to exclude the local and coastal fishermen?
Mr GROOM:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow - 1.A company asked that the first four trawlers might be imported free of duty.

  1. The request was refused.
  2. No; a subsidy was asked for and refused.

page 1053

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Military College: Address by General Sir Ian Hamilton - Naval Bases, Western Australia ; Sub-Naval Base, Hobart - Military Camp, Liverpool - Rifle Ranges - Gunners in Charge of Forts - Cadets: Free Railway Travelling - Naval Cadet Competition - Infantry Battalions - MilitaryVeterans : Funeral Expenses.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it true, as stated in the daily press, that when taking leave of the cadets at the Military College, Duntroon, General Sir Ian Hamilton said: “Good-bye, boys; I wish you good luck, rapid promotion, and plenty of wars “ ?
  2. Was the Defence Act passed in the interests of the defence of Australia, or for purposes of aggression?
Mr KELLY:
LP

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

  1. The Defence Department has no information regarding the matter other than that published in the press. It will be remembered that the explanation of Sir Ian Hamilton was also published a few days after.
  2. The preamble to the Defence Act describes it as “ An Act to provide for the Naval and Military Defence and Protection of the Commonwealth and of the several States.”
Mr BURCHELL:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. What is the object of sinking a shaft at Henderson Naval Base, Jervoise Bay?
  2. On whose recommendation is theshaft being sunk?
  3. What is the estimated cost of sinking the shaft?
  4. What date is it estimated work of sinking shaft will be completed?
  5. Is it proposed to sink similar shafts at the other suggested sites for the Naval Base in Cockburn Sound, viz., Mangles Bay, Careening Bay, and Case Point?
  6. If not, why not?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. To ascertain the nature and suitability of the strata in connexion with the construction of a graving dock.
  2. On the recommendation of Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice.
  3. £2,500.
  4. About the end of April, or early in May.
  5. No.
  6. SirMaurice Fitzmaurice has not recommended this.
Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether the work in connexion with the establishment of the Sub-Naval Base on the Derwent River, Hobart, has been commenced ?
  2. If not, will the Minister kindly say when the work is to be proceeded with?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. No; but a site has been acquired.
  2. No date can yet be fixed. This work is included in the third stage of Admiral Henderson’s recommendations.
Mr CHARLTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether an inquiry has been held in respect to complaints made in connexion with the military camp held at Liverpool (New South Wales) in November last?
  2. If so, will the fullest information be made available to members?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. A Court of Inquiry was assembled to investigate and submit a report regarding this matter. The Court has completed the taking of evidence, and the report will be available in a few days.
  2. Yes.
Mr HIGGS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. The number of rifle ranges in Australia, and the location of each?
  2. The number of miniature rifle ranges in Australia, and the location of each ?
  3. What is the average, or approximate, cost of a miniature rifle range?
Mr KELLY:

– As the information asked for will comprise a large return, it is suggested that it be asked for in that form; meantime the particulars, which have to come from the various States, are being obtained.

Mr MATHEWS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Why is a 3rd-class master gunner in charge at Queenscliff while smaller forts have 1st- class men in the same position?

Mr KELLY:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

There are at Queenscliff two master gunners, i.e.; one lst-class master gunner, who acts as armament clerk, garrison artillery, and is in charge of the district.

One 3rd-class master gunner, who acts as assistant to the lst-class master gunner.

In smaller forts, where lst-class master gunners are stationed, they have, in addition to their duties as master gunners, also to act as armament clerks to both field and garrison artillery, and are not provided with an assistant.

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Has the Minister made any arrangements with the State Governments . for the free carriage of cadets while travelling to and from military training?

Mr KELLY:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The several State Governments were asked by the Commonwealth Government in 1912 to approve of the free conveyance of cadets to and from military training. Replies were, however, received that they were unable to comply with the request.

Since that time negotiations have been entered into by the military authorities with the Railways Commissioners of the several States, with the result that in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania arrangements have been made by which cadets, when journeying to and from parade, are permitted to travel by rail at reduced rates.

The South Australian railway authorities did not see their way to grant a similar concession to the cadets in South Australia.

No decision with regard to the payment of reduced fares has yet been received from the Victorian Railways Commissioners.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. What was the reason that the Inter-State naval cadet competition, which was to have been held in Melbourne, was abandoned?
  2. Why are the naval cadets treated differently to the military cadets?
  3. Will the Minister of Defence give instructions for the holding of the naval cadet competition in Melbourne?
Mr KELLY:

– The answers are -

  1. It was originally proposed last August that these competitions should be held, if possible, at one centre. It has since been ascertained, however, that the cost of doing so would amount to, approximately, £600; whereas, if the competitions were held in each State only, the total expense would be limited to about £50. The Naval Board, therefore, regretted that it could not see its way to approve of thu original intention to hold the competitions at one centre being given effect to this financial year.
  2. The strength of the military cadets is, approximately, 87,000, and of the naval cadets about 3,000. Having regard to the large number of military cadets concerned, and to the undoubted advantages of holding the competitions at one centre, when such is possible, it was decided not to interfere with the arrangements hitherto in force in their case.
  3. It is regretted that the decision cannot now be reviewed in respect of this year’s competitions, the arrangements for which are complete. The question, however, will be reconsidered when the arrangements for next year’s competitions are being decided.
Mr TUDOR:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whatwere the actual strengths, respectively, of the 55th, 56th, 63rd, and 64th Infantry Battalions in the years 1912-13 and 1913-14?
  2. What numbers attended the annual camps of continuous training for each of these years from each of these corps?
  3. What total amount, and amount per head of actual strength, did each corps receive in each of these years for corps funds?
  4. Why are these different corps differently paid?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. – Actual strength of corps - 55th Infantry. - 1912-13, not formed; 1913-14, 659. 56th Infantry.- 1912-13, 781; 1913-14, 635. 63rd Infantry- 1912-13, 522; 1913-14, 614. 64th Infantry.- 1912-13, 446; 1913-14, 520.
  2. – Numbers attended annual camp of continuous training - 55th Infantry. - 1912-13, not formed; 1913-14, 541. 56th Infantry.- 1912-13,625; 1913-14, 558. 63rd Infantry.- 1912-13, 385; 1913-14, 470. 64th Infantry.- 1912-13, 371; 1913-14, 385.
  3. – Total amount received by each of these corps from corps funds is as follows: - 55th Infantry. - 1912-13, not formed; 1913-14, £247 17s. 6d. 56th Infantry.- 1912-13, £276 7s. 6d.; 1913-14, £247 17s. fid. 63rd Infantry.- 1912-13, £219 15s.; 1913-14, £307 17s. 6d. 64 th Infantry.- 1912-13, £219 15s.; 1913-14, £307 7s.6d.

The payments are not made on the basis of “ actual strength,” but are in all cases at the rate of 7s. 6d. per head of the approved full “ establishment,” for the year in which such payments accrued. This is in accordance with the practice which has obtained for a number of years, and is as provided by the regulations.

The establishments of the corps for the years named were as follow: - 55th Infantry. - 1912-13, not formed; 1913-14, 661. 56th Infantry.- 1912-13, 737; 1913-14, 661. 63rd Infantry.- 1912-13, 586; 1913-14, 821. 64th Infantry.- 1912-13, 586; 1913-14, 821.

  1. As stated in the reply to 3, they were all paid at the rate of 7s. 6d. per head of the approved establishment.

Mr. MATHEWS (for Mr. Watkins) asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Has the Defence Department decided that, in the event of the death of any military veteran in the Commonwealth, it will pay £10 for expenses of burial?
  2. Has it been decided to grant military funerals to the veterans when death occurs?
Mr KELLY:

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

  1. No; unless the veteran was a member of the Permanent Forces at the time of his death. The departmental regulations authorize the payment of £10 for the funeral expenses of a member of the Permanent Forces.
  2. Yes, provided no expense to the Defence Department is incurred. The departmental instructions issued in June and October, 1908, provide that, whenever possible, the funeral at a Navy or Army veteran is to be attended by at least an officer to represent the Naval or Military Forces, and also permit the voluntary attendance of members of the Military Forces, including a firing party and band.

page 1055

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF POSTMASTERGENERAL

Deputy-Postmasters-General, Queensland - Costof Conduits at Ballarat - Flinders Island: Telephone Service - Brisbane Telegraphists : Accumulated Leave.

Mr HIGGS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In view of the enormous area of and the growth of settlement in the State of Queensland, will the Minister take into consideration the advisablenessjustify of appointing a Deputy PostmasterGeneral in Central Queensland, and also a Deputy Postmaster-General in Northern Queensland?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -

This matter will be given consideration to when the Bill providing for control of the Department by Commissioners is dealt with.

Mr McGRATH:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House what was the contractor’s price for laying conduits at Ballarat?
  2. What did it cost the Department to do the work tendered for by day labour?
Mr AGAR WYNNE:

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

  1. The lowest tender for laying conduits at Ballarat was £2,428 10s. 5d.
  2. The cost to the Department of carrying out the work by day labour was £1,716 9s. lid.
Mr JENSEN:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether correspondence has taken place between his Department and the residents of Flinders Island relating to the necessity for the immediate erection of a telephone service?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General assist those pioneer residents of the Commonwealth by giving them a facility which is enjoyed by residents of the cities - the telephone?
Mr AGAR WYNNE:

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

  1. Yos; and an officer was sent to Flinders Island to make inquiries.
  2. It was ascertained that three lines were involved, and that these were eligible for erection in terms of the regulations which apply generally throughout the Commonwealth. The residents have, however, put forward proposals not covered by those regulations, and they are now under consideration.
Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether the Minister is aware of the correspondence, public and private, that has been proceeding between the telegraphists in the Brisbane General Post Office and the Deputy Postmaster-General in regard to the reduction of accumulated days in lieu? What action, if any, is being taken to remedy the alleged existing grievance in this matter, and to prevent further accumulations?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -

Having read certain statements in a newspaper, I am having inquiries made into this matter, as indicated in my reply to the honorable member’s question, without notice, on the ‘ 7th instant. ‘

page 1056

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr SPEAKER:

– It has been laid down upon many occasions by occupants of this Chair that points of order cannot be raised or rulings given regarding purely hypothetical matters, or in anticipation of some occurrence. Points of order can be taken only in regard to matters as -they arise, and must have relation to business before the House.

Mr Fisher:

– Can I move -

That the Orders of the Day be postponed until-

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

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is a growing practice, when an honorable member raises a point of order, for others to seek to interpose with other points of order on that point and even to attempt to decide the point that is being raised before the Speaker has had an opportunity to hear it. This conduct does not assist the Speaker, but on the contrary leads to much confusion.

Mr Fisher:

– I wish to know whether I shall be in order in moving -

That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the consideration of the notice of motion in the name of the honorable member for Cook.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House has decided that Government business shall take precedence, and therefore the right honorable member would not be in order in making that motion without leave of the House. It is the duty of the occupant of the Chair to see that effect is given to the determinations of the House, unless they are altered by subsequent resolutions. In this case that has not happened.

Mr Fisher:

– We cannot ‘otherwise reach the motion which I wish to have discussed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The position of the Orders of the Day could, of course, be changed by a resolution of the House by leave.Dut that leave must first be obtained. As to the practice generally, I draw attention to standing order 149, which says -

Unless the House otherwise directs -

That has not been done -

Orders of the Bay shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand on the noticepaper.

May lays it down, on page 261 of the 11th edition, that -

When an Order of the Day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged. The Speaker, therefore, calls upon the member in charge thereof, no other member being allowed to interpose unless with his consent.

The procedure is clear. I must call on the Minister in charge of the first Order of the Day to proceed - unless the House otherwise directs - when the Orders of the Day are called on,

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Before the Minister , proceeds will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question. I ask you, very seriously and earnestly, if you can show me any way of expediting the business of this country. It is now noon, and we have not commenced the business of the day. I am making an appeal. I ask if you know of any standing order, or any way whatever, whereby we can control the business of the House. I cannot control it; it is entirely a matter between you and members of the Opposition.

Mr Burns:

– That is a reflection on Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his remark, which, whether so intended or not, implies a distinct reflection on the Chair.

Mr Burns:

– The Prime Minister is holding the Speaker up to ridicule.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member must not interject.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nothing is further from my mind than to make any reflection on any one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am glad to know that, but the honorable gentleman’s remarks certainly did reflect on the Chair.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nothing was further from my mind than to do that. I think that I am justified - a Prime Minister does it in any other part of the world - in inviting the Speaker’s attention to the absolute paralysis of business in this House.

Mr Fisher:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is a point of order, and a most serious one.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Prime Minister has not withdrawn his remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will honorable members cease from interjecting?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is part of the Speaker’s functions to facilitate the business of the House, and as I can do nothing, as I am helpless, I am appealing to you, sir.

Mr Page:

– Resign.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members must not interject.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I ask you, sir, whether you know of any method of expediting the business of the country. The morning has gone, and no business has been done.

Mr McDonald:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not desire to hear anything more on this point, and have no wish that an irregular debate shall ensue. I remind the Prime Minister that it is not the function of the Speaker to specially expedite the business of one side of the House or of the other. It would be a usurpation of functions which do not belong to the Speaker’s office. It is my duty to give effect to the Standing Orders. If these are inadequate to give the Government control of the business in certain circumstances, that fact may be a very good reason for amending the Standing Orders, but it would nob be a justification for the Speaker to override them. The rights of an Opposition as well as of the Government side have to be equally observed by the occupant of the Chair. The Government is in charge of the business of the House. The Speaker is concerned only with seeing that the Standing Orders are carried out, and the proceedings of the House conducted in conformity with them. Beyond seeing that the Standing Orders are observed, he has no right to attempt to facilitate proceedings in the special interests of any party. So far as I can facilitate the transaction of business by enforcing the Standing Orders I have endeavoured to do so. I had already called on the Orders of the Day when the Prime Minister rose to this point of order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am powerless to do more than the Standing Orders allow me to do. In this position I have to hold the balance justly between one side and the other. It would be a straining of my functions as Speaker to endeavour to find means for assisting either side to get an advantage over the other. The Speaker’s position is to a large extent judicial.

Mr Fisher:

– I ask for the withdrawal of the statement by the Prime Minister that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Opposition were to blame for what was taking place.

Mr Joseph Cook:

-By way of personal explanation I say that I withdrew anything that I had to withdraw.

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member did not.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then I withdraw now, and apologise most humbly to the honorable member for Cook. Nothing was further from my mind than a desire to cast a reflection upon any one. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that between your reading of the Standing Orders-

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. Will honorable members allow the Prime Minister to proceed ? It is for me to determine whether or not he is out of order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rose merely to point out the obvious fact that between the asking of questions and the reading of Standing Orders the bulk of our time had been taken up, notwithstanding that Ministers themselves declined to answer questions without notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Prime Minister suggest that I have intentionally permitted something irregular in connexion with the business of the House ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No. I am pointing out that even in a regular way and under the Standing Orders the time of the House can be effectually consumed, and that no business can be done.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am here to see that the Standing Orders are observed. The Prime Minister himself has contributed to the consumption of time by raisingpoints of order even after I had told the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day. If the Standing Orders are inconvenient to either the Government or any section of the House, then it is for the House to say whether they shall or shall not be amended, but I can deal only with the Standing Orders as they are.

page 1058

QUESTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr J H CATTS:

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Orders of the Day are the property of the House, and that any honorable member may move that one Order of the Day be postponed until another is dealt with.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question having already been raised and decided, I cannot consider it again.

page 1058

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Second Reading

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

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I feel that since this is the second time that I have introduced it in this House no lengthy speech will be required of me. The subject matter of the Bill has been debated ad nauseam.

Mr Burns:

– Not by the Government side of the House.

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

– It has been worn threadbare by both sides of the House. The question at issue is extremely simple, and must appeal to the common sense of not only honorable members, but the whole of the citizens of Australia. I therefore shall not occupy, on this occasion, more than a few minutes of the time of the House. The purpose of this Bill is to crush at its very inception the introduction of the spoils system into the clean political life of Australia. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that no Government shall use, behind the back of Parliament, the power of public employment as a means of giving preference to its own political supporters. It is to ensure that so far as the administration of the public funds and the public departments of the Government is concerned, all citizens of Australia, whether they bear or do not bear the union brand shall stand in the same rank. What is the position of honorable members on the other side? They find themselves compelled to uphold a principle which they cannot justifv either in this House or before the country, but which they dare not abandon. Like Sinbad they carry on their shoulders an Old Man of the Sea whose weight is continually increasing, and yet they cannot get rid of him. I have only the ordinary man’s knowledge of whatgoes on at those meetings which govern the Labour members of this House - I refer not to their own meetings, but to the meetings of their masters outside, but I think I am right in saying that the principle of preference to unionists in Government employment was never made a plank of the Labour party’s platform. I think I am right in saying that, before 1911, the year in which the principle was adopted by the Labour Government, no conference of the Labour party had ever gone to the extreme length of demanding this concession from their political agents. I shall go further, and tell honorable members opposite that from the whole of their conduct and actions in connexion with this matter it is plain that they would be only too delighted, if they could, to get rid of the whole thing. The loud laughter of honorable members opposite convinces me of the truth of what I am saying. It is that kind of uneasy laugh that we hear from a man when he is told the truth about something concerning himself and does not like to hear it. They remind me of the story of the man who was convicted of stealing ducks, and who, after his sworn testimony that he was in complete ignorance of them, and after he had produced the evidence of a large number of his friends to support an alibi, had forced from him, when an unusually severe sentence had been passed upon him, the pious ejaculation, “ I wish to God I had never seen the blessed ducks.” That is the position of the Opposition. They would give anything if the honorable member for Darwin, Mr. King O’Malley, had never issued the unfortunate proclamation in regard to preference. They would gladly give a great deal if that proclamation, once issued, had not received the somewhat reluctant consent of the Leader of their party.

Mr Fenton:

– This will consolidate the unionists.

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

– It is quite natural that the honorable member and others should take up the position that this Bill affects the legitimate purposes and objects of unionists - that they should endeavour to cloud the whole issue in that way - because there is no other ground that they may take up. They dare not say, “ We claim to use the instruments of government as a means of rewarding our own supporters.”

Mr Riley:

– Because they do not do it. Mr. W. H. IRVINE.- They do, but dare not confess it. We have heard the silly cry as to “ all things being equal,” as if there was some special charm about that talisman which deprived this iniquity of all the odium that attached to it. It is time such hypocrisy was exposed. We judge honorable members opposite by their acts, not by their words. Was there ever at any time a single inquiry by them as to the equality or inequality of the merits of those who came before their Government for employment?

Mr Hughes:

– Always.

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

– “Always,” says the honorable member. Was the honorable member for Barrier, Mr. Thomas, a member of that Government?

Mr Hughes:

– I suppose that he was.

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

– Do we not all know the form of contract into which he entered with those who wanted to obtain work in his Department? Do we not all know that he insisted that, even those who were not unionists, should go unless they became unionists in a very short time? Will the honorable member deny that? He will not. Then how can he possibly maintain that there is, in the principle of preference to unionists in Government employment, anything except an attempt to use the power of government in giving employment, and in making contracts, as a means of increasing the ranks of their own political supporters? The terms of the contract have often been made public, but the people have sometimes short memories, and I shall therefore read them again. In the form of contract made by a leading member of the late Government it was stated that approval to employment was given on the understanding that the applicant was “ a member of a recognised union,” and that if he were not it would be necessary for him to join at once, or “ otherwise the agreement lapses.” Is that in accordance with the idea of honorable members opposite of preference, “other tilings being equal”? Is it not a direct statement that they would enter into contracts only on condition that the men employed would join recognised unions whose political funds supported the Labour party in Parliament - whose funds were used to return the members of the party to Parliament?

Mr Hughes:

– The last statement of the honorable gentleman is not in accordance with fact.

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

– I have often heard the statement denied, but evidence of its truth has been brought before the House. The honorable member for Darling is, perhaps, one of the greatest’, and certainly the most authoritative, exponent in Australia of the principles of unionism, and he is a man for many actions and opinions of whom 1 have the greatest respect. He has always been a straightforward exponent and successful organizer of unionism in Australia ; and he has brought forward figures which show that, in the case of some of the more important unions, and, at all events, in the case of one, a very considerable portion of the funds is used for other than benefit purposes, presumably for furthering the political objects of the party.

Mr Hughes:

– That is one organization.

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

– Well, that one organization, the Australian Workers Union, is, perhaps, the most powerful in Australia.

Mr Hughes:

– It does not represent one-twentieth of the totality of unionism in Australia.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I remind honorable members that the Speaker’ this morning expressed his determination to put an end to the continuous interruption and interjections that meet honorable members in possession of the Chair. I am obliged, when I am in temporary occupancy of the chair, to carry out Mr. Speaker’s intentions. During the speech of the Attorney-General there has been a constant effort on the part of honorable members behind to assist him, while at the same time there has been a considerable chorus of interruptions from the other side. That cannot he allowed under the Standing Orders;, and I again request honorable members to assist the Chair to preserve decorum.

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

– If any other evidence be necessary, honorable members will, no doubt, remember the circular issued by the ex-Minister of Home Affairs, in which he directed that absolute preference should be given to unionists. Will that be denied.? What does it mean? Is it consistent with preference, “ other things being equal “ ?

Mr Hughes:

– It is denied that that was done with the sanction of the Labour Government.

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

– As soon as I cite an instance of what trade unionism does, the honorable member for West Sydney points out that it refers to only one union - that it does not affect unionism as a whole - and when I referred to the circular issued by a responsible member of the Labour Government, a circular that has never been repudiated by the honorable member or by the ex-Prime Minister

Mr Hughes:

– Yes, it was repudiated by the ex-Prime Minister.

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

– When ?

Mr Hughes:

– In a statement made by him in the House.

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

– I remember the statement by the ex-Prime Minister that preference would be given, “ other things being equal.” But I am endeavouring to prove the absolute insincerity of that statement, not by words, protests, or promises of the late Government, but by their acts. I am showing what those acts were - that in carrying out this policy the exMinister of Home Affairs, who was by no means one of the least important members of the Government, directed that absolute preference should be given; and, further, directed, in a departmental circular, that in the event of any future dismissals, nonunionists were to go. Will that be denied? If it is not denied, will the honorable member for West Sydney now repudiate the responsibility of his Government for those acts? Let us face the matter fairly. “ Let honorable members opposite put aside the pretence with which they attempt to cloak their acts - let them have the courage of their opinions. Let them say plainly, unless they are afraid to do so, that they used their power for the purpose of rewarding those who gave them that power, and that they intend to use it again, if they get the opportunity.

Mr Hughes:

– Why, that is the honorable gentleman’s own creed!

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

– I am not much concerned whether the honorable member for West Sydney has any creed, and I am less concerned with the articles of that creed if he has one ; but whatever was the creed of the late Government, its practice was to use its power to reward its own political supporters.

Mr Hughes:

– That is not true.

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

– More than once I have seen letters with regard to Government employment at Westernport, in my own constituency, intimating, on behalf of trade unions, that those men who had had the courage to remain outside, would have their conduct reported to the Government if they did not at once join. We see, therefore, not only that the Government issued circulars and directions imposing the condition that all men employed should join unions, but that active assistance was rendered by the unions themselves in carrying out the policy. The argument has been used that this Bill is intended, not to abolish preference to unionists, but to give preference to non-unionists. What tittle of evidence can be brought forward in support of that argument? If honorable members, as they say, know that that is the object of the Bill, then they know it as a matter of faith - on evidence of things not seen. If we judge the late Government by their acts, we of the present Government are entitled to be judged by our acts; and I ask. if any member of the Opposition can bring forward a tittle of evidence that, in abolishing preference, as we did by administrative act, we have ever given preference to non-unionists. The arguments of honorable members opposite kill one another. They have said more than once that the result of the abolition of preference by administrative act was not to cause one more non-unionist to be employed, or to in any way decrease the number of unionists. That is the argument used when the endeavour is to show that the Bill is unnecessary - a sham and a trifle. That argument kills the other argument, on which the honorable member for West Sydney relies, namely, that the object is to give preference to nonunionists. Have we dismissed any men because they are unionists?

Mr Hughes:

– I do not know.

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

– Of course not; it is because honorable members do not know that the statement is so freely made. I say here, on behalf of the Government, that it is an absolute and scandalous libel to say that any man employed by this Government, since it came into power, has lost his billet through being a unionist. I repudiate such a statement as false, scandalous, and contemptible.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I remind honorable members that they will have opportunities to speak on the question.

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

– I am not at all surprised at the heat which my statements and arguments cause on the other side of the House. I am not even surprised by the fact - which I cannot refer to now in detail - that my introduction of this measure has brought a perfect torrent of abuse on my head. However, I do not mind that much; I do not even think that it is very unnatural, and I shall tell the House why. Honorable members opposite are fully conscious that they are approaching an appeal to the people, with a hateful and irremovable clog around their necks; and the loud and uneasy laughter on the Opposition benches is the best evidence of the fact. We know why honorable members opposite are using every parliamentary method they can to delay, even by a week or two, the jump into the water. I challenge them to take the plunge - to be prepared to take the plunge. Some of them can swim, even if others sink; and the more fortunate amongst them need not be afraid. I suppose that during last session and this session, and especially during the present session, there has been more ingenuity displayed, more searching of the Standing Orders, than ever before; and with what object? With the object of delaying, if only for a week of two, or a day or two, this horrible appeal to the people, which honorable members opposite will have to make with this creature, of which they cannot get rid, clinging around their necks. The nonparliamentary section of the Labour party, as already admitted by the silence of honorable members opposite when I challenged them, never went so far as to demand that this claim for preference should be made on their behalf, or that the Government should turn themselves into a recruiting agency for a political party. The non-parliamentary body had still some common-sense. There was still some common-sense and some regard for British fair play amongst those who sent the Labour members here. But, once done, it could not be undone; now that the leaders of the Labour Government have taken the matter into their own hands, and, behind the back of Parliament, have given this unfair advantage to their own supporters, they will never be allowed by their own party to withdraw; in fact, they dare not withdraw.

Mr Howe:

– Next week will show the honorable gentleman something different !

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

– If the honorable member for Dalley says that the Labour Conference will withdraw from the position, nothing will give me greater pleasure.

Mr Howe:

– I do not say that; but the Attorney-General ought not to be so cocksure !

Mr Charlton:

– If both test Bills are given to you within a week will you pledge the Government to go to the country within two months ?

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

– If both these Bills are passed we cannot go to the country.

Mr Charlton:

– Suppose they are rejected by the Senate?

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

– If the Bill before us is rejected the honorable member will have as early an opportunity of going before the country as we can possibly obtain. If honorable members wish to test the sincerity of the Government, let them see that these Bills go through this House and then let them be rejected in another place. The last time I spoke on this subject I ventured to refer to the meeting of the Opposition party, which was held just prior to this Bill being brought on, and which was prolonged into the night, and I said that I wished I had been present at that meeting, but that I had drawn my own inference. The conclusion I came to - I think it will not be denied - was that there was a very strenuous fight between those who wished to come out in the open, and accept our challenge and those who said, “No, let us talk about the measure; let us walk round it; let us do anything but accept it;” and it was the latter who won; for since the Bill has been brought on, honorable members opposite have been talking about it, walking round it, shuddering at it, and raising all sorts of objections to it. If they intend to do anything else, I now throw down the challenge, as I have done on many occasions, in the House and outside, that if honorable members wish to test the sincerity of the Government let them reject this Bill, or let them pass it through this House and have it rejected on the first occasion it goes to the Senate. They will then have the opportunity of testing the sincerity of the Government.

Mr Hughes:

– Yes, but what will follow?

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

– We shall apply for a double dissolution.

Mr Hughes:

– But suppose you do not get a double dissolution, what will follow?

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

– The honorable member will very soon see what will follow. The honorable member, who is a lawyer, has expressed strong opinions on the duty of the Governor-General in this regard; in fact he has worked himself up to an opinion that a double dissolution will be refused. Other honorable members have expressed the same opinion. Many honorable members have suddenly evolved a very profound knowledge of constitutional law. They have also evolved the habit, very unusual among profound lawyers, of giving their profound conclusions away for nothing. It is my duty to carry out the standard set up by the honorable member for West Sydney, when he was Attorney- General, from which standard he more than any other honorable member has departed widely - the standard of saying nothing to embarrass the King’s Representative in the discharge of his duty. I have my duty towards the Government, and I decline to anticipate at this stage any debate whatever on what ought to be under the Constitution the duty of the GovernorGeneral. I leave that to honorable members opposite. There has never been any answer to the challenge I have thrown out. If the position of Ministers is insincere, if honorable members think that, having reached the conditions under which a double dissolution may be granted or refused, and it has been refused, Ministers would still continue to occupy these benches, let them put the matter to the test. They have their opportunity. But they are afraid to put the matter to the test. If the honorable member for Hunter seeks an answer to his question - not my answer, but the answer of the whole Government - there is no readier way of getting it than by giving up this futile clinging to every parliamentary buttress, this holding to the banisters of the stair, this having to be dragged out of their place, by giving up this wretched parliamentary chicanery and letting the Bill be dealt with in both Houses. In that way honorable members can put Ministers to the test. We have been told the Bill is a shadow of a sham, and can lead to nothing. Honorable members have spent a very long time, they have exhausted every kind of parliamentary method, in order to escape this shadow of a sham. They seem to evince a greater heart-felt terror of this shadow of a sham than of anything else that has happened in Parliament. I promised not to speak at any length, and I shall not do so; but I do say that the claim put forward, looking at the substance of it, by the other side is one that cannot be permitted in any civilized community, and that claim is that a section of the people, voluntarily associating themselves, have the right to demand that the State shall say that those who are members of these voluntary associations should have special privileges out of the State funds. Such a principle cannot be permitted in any civilized community. The Government of the country, representing the whole of the people, would not, under such circumstances, be governing the country. One shaft of light struck me in the whole of the vast, arid waste of talk, mainly consisting of personal abuse addressed to myself. The honorable member for Boothby struck the root of the whole question the people have to consider in this matter, and I may be pardoned for making some reference to it. He pointed out that the real solution of the difficulty was compulsory unionism. I observed at the time that there were no cheers from the other side, and in the whole of the subsequent debate the statement of the honorable member was supported only by the honorable member for Dalley, but that honorable member supported it on grounds as widely distinct from those advanced by the honorable member for Boothby as are the North and South Poles. No other honorable member supported the honorable member for Boothby, and I venture to say that there is no other honorable member opposite who will come forward and say that he is in favour of compulsory unionism. Apart from those two honorable members, there is no one opposite will say that he is in favour of unionism being made compulsory by law.

Mr John Thomson:

– They are silent.

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

– Yes; indeed, they are silent.

Mr J H Catts:

– On a point of order, is it in order for honorable members to answer questions asked by the AttorneyGeneral during the course of his speech, and is it in order for the AttorneyGeneral to ask them?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is no point of order. The honorable member is perfectly well aware that when an honorable member is speaking, questions are simply disorderly interruptions.

Mr Howe:

– I rise to a point of order. A night or two ago, when speaking on the motion for leave to introduce this Bill, I put a question across the Chamber to the Attorney-General, and he replied that the time for asking questions was past, and Mr. Speaker upheld him. Is the Attorney-General now in order in asking questions across the chamber ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has not raised a point of order.

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

– I am not permitted to require an answer to any question I may ask.

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

– You know that by the rules of the House we dare not reply.

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

– I am fully aware that it is against the Standing Orders for honorable members to answer me, but there are questions such as can be answered which are very frequently answered. However, instead of putting a question, I shall put forward a distinct challenge. When honorable members opposite are speaking afterwards, as they may do under the Standing Orders, they will have the opportunity of saying, as the honorable member for Dalley and the honorable member for Boothby have said, whether they are in favour of legal compulsory unionism, and then we shall see what they say. Every one knows why honorable members are not in favour of compulsory unionism. They know perfectly well that, before any civilized community would consent to give public legal recognition and compulsion to any union, it would insist onthe performance of certain conditions. It would insist, in the first place, that the doors of that union should be absolutely open, without any discretion whatever on the part of the managers of that union, to all persons belonging to that particular trade, who knew their business and were not of bad character. They know also that no compulsory unionism could be possibly brought about, as long as there was any discretion in the unions as to the amount of entrance fee to be paid by new members joining.

An Honorable Member.- The fee is £20 in the lawyers’ union.

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

– I don’t think there is any use in taking notice of trivial interjections. The honorable members who make these interjections about lawyers either do so from absolute ignorance, or with a view to deceiving the people outside, because they cannot possibly deceive anybody inside. Another condition which honorable members know the law would require, if it not only recognised unions but made them compulsory, would be the imposition ofa definite law against striking at all, or except under certain definite conditions. There are other conditions which the law would impose before it would recognise compulsory unionism, and, therefore, honorable members opposite, with the exception of one or two, are opposed to compulsory unionism. A further condition would certainly be that the funds of the unions should be under the control of a public trustee, and that the expenditure of those funds should be subject to audit. Honorable members are not prepared to accept these conditions, but they say that the law should give preference to their unions whilst they retain the right to say what shall be done with the funds. They would compel a man to join a union, or be starved to death, whilst they retain the right to expend the money as secretly as they like, and for what purposes they like. Those are the reasons why honorable members opposite dare not advocate compulsory unionism, and why, though the unions would not comply with the conditions which a reasonable law would impose upon them, honorable members insist upon Parliament giving preference to unionists. In fact, honorable members insist that every man who does not bear the union brand shall be liable to be starved off the face of the earth.

Mr Anstey:

– You believe in that principle, and practise it.

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

– Honorable members say that men who do not bear the brand of a trade union should not have the right to live.

Mr Anstey:

– You practise that in your own profession.

Mr.W. H. IRVINE.- Honorable members know that they are talking of things that have no connexion with this Bill. They know that unless a man can get for himself the brand of this irresponsible association, that will not recognise the conditions which a reasonable law would impose, they would deprive him of the right of earning his livelihood, and he and his wife and children might die.

Mr Anstey:

– That is what you do every day.

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

– The honorable member is saying what he knows to be untrue.

Mr Tudor:

– I think the AttorneyGeneral should be compelled to withdraw that remark.

Mr Hughes:

– On a point of order. The honorable the Attorney-General has just stated that honorable members on this side were stating what they knew to be untrue. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

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

– I withdraw the remark, and further say that I regret that, in the heat of argument, I was led to make it.

Opposition Members. - You admit you are heated?

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

– I do. I cannot help it. I cannot touch this subject without feeling every sense of fair play that I have inherited from my ancestors stirring within me. Honorable members may laugh, but if there is one thing which we as British people have inherited from centuries of free government, it is that every citizen is entitled under the law to a free right to sell his services for the best price he can get for them. But honorable members on the other side say they will not allow a man to live his life unless he bears the union label. However, I am not going to allow myself to become overheated in this discussion, nor am I going to take up much longer time with it. I will conclude by a quotation which, no doubt, will be of interest to my honorable friends opposite. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the intervals which you spare from studying the Standing Orders, devote any time to a perusal of the Bible, but, if you do, you will probably be quite familiar with the description of the beast of the Apocalypse. It is described as a beast “ coming out of the earth ; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” That is suggestive of the voice of the Opposition.

Mr Hughes:

– You are thinking about your ostrich.

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

– The ostrich is on the opposite side, but I thought that my honorable friend had agreed with me that we should both desist from references to natural history for the remainder of our parliamentary lives.

Mr Hughes:

– No; I am an advocate of fair play for ostriches.

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

– Well, perhaps we may also claim the same for serpents. However, to continue my quotation, this beast had power to - “ cause that, as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

By a strange coincidence, we are told, the number of the beast was 666.

Mr Hughes:

– That is the number of the Beef Trust.

Mr Fisher:

– I suppose there will be no objection to an adjournment of the debate till next sitting?

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

– Yes, there will be an objection to any adjournment.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- The heat of the Attorney-General, and the wordshe has spoken-

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

– Commence after lunch.

Mr FISHER:

– If the usual privileges of the House are abrogated, I will not ask for particular favours. I say that the heat exhibited by the Attorney-General, so unusual for him, indicates that he considers this a very important matter.

Mr Fleming:

– Why should he not?

Mr FISHER:

– Because he does not believe in it.

Mr Fleming:

– On a point of order. Is the Leader of the Opposition in order in saying that the Attorney-General does not. believe in what he has been saying?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order in that.

Mr Fleming:

– I desire your ruling, sir, as to whether an honorable member in this House may virtually call an honorable member on the other side a liar.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not interrupt the proceedings by stating imaginary points of order.

Mr FISHER:

– The public utterances of the Attorney-General make that fact obvious to every man who will read.

Mr Fleming:

– What fact?

Mr FISHER:

– The fact that he is not in favour of preference to unionists, either when given by the Government or by a judicial Court, or in any circumstances whatever.

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

– Hear, hear!

Mr FISHER:

– And the honorable member is in the position to-day that he can demand that his will be carried out. One man on the Government side of the House can determine the policy of that party.

Mr Falkiner:

– On a point of order. The words of the Leader of the Opposition are such as to suggest that none of us on this side of the House has any opinion or honour. I take exception to that statement, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Standing’ Orders do not apply to reflections of a general character, and, therefore, I am unable to take any action in regard to the point which the honorable member has raised.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr FISHER:

– The Attorney-General, who spoke with so much heat when introducing the Bill, must admit that it goes only a short way in the direction in which he would go. Generally speaking, he leaves us in no doubt as to his views, and he has told us that if he had the power he would deny, not only preference to those seeking Government employment, but even its application by a Court in the. exercise of discretion conferred by Parliament. He would deprive every organization of preference, he says. Yet he belongs to an honorable profession which makes a larger claim for preference than has been granted by any Court.

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

– It has no preference at all.

Mr FISHER:

– Every one who is not a member of it is absolutely excluded from practising law. I am not complaining of this organization, nor of the conditions imposed on those who, having attained certain qualifications, wish to enter the legal profession. I am merely stating the fact to contrast it with the position of the Attorney-General in regard to preference generally.

Mr Pigott:

– There is no analogy.

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

– The right honorable member would not say that cabmen have preference because they must be licensed, nor would he say that chemists, doctors, and others have preference.

Mr FISHER:

– Unless a man conforms to conditions laid down by the organization of which I speak, he cannot enter it. The law permits those possessing certain qualifications to join the legal profession; but there is one condition insisted upon by this organization.

Mr.W.H.Irvine.-What is it?

Mr FISHER:

– Would the AttorneyGeneral practise with every man who has been approved by the Courts as possessing the qualifications necessary for a barrister ? He knows that he would not. He has compared himself with the ex AttorneyGeneral, saying that he did not propose to follow the lines taken by him in giving cheap legal advice. The exAttorneyGeneral is not only a member of the Labour party, but a friend, who, in the most honorable way, and notwithstanding almost insurmountable difficulties, has risen to one of the highest positions in the country. Yet the Attorney - General says, “ Here is a man who gave advice that was not paid for. I do not do that. My opinions are paid for, and always will be.” The sneer was uncalled for, and unworthy of the AttorneyGeneral, although it will not hurt the honorable member for West Sydney.

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

– I was not referring to him at all, and I said so.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable gentleman was speaking of the actions of the honorable member for West Sydney when Attorney-General, and the reference that he made did not come well from him.

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

– The right honorable member will do me the justice of saying that I have always treated the honorable member for West Sydney with courtesy.

Mr FISHER:

– I believe so, though it is of no moment to the honorable member for West Sydney whether he be treated with courtesy or not. His posi tion does not depend on the courtesy shown to him by either superiors or inferiors. His knowledge and ability, political and legal, are such that the most wise people in the country are glad to consult him.

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

– Hear, hear !

Mr FISHER:

– That matter need lot be discussed further. The AttorneyGeneral, as a distinguished member of the Bar, has admittedthat persons qualifiedto practise law cannot do so unless they comply with certain conditions; that those who are in the organization will not appear with others who are not. I wish to deal with this matter calmly, because it is one for decision after argument. Either our position can be defended or it cannot; either we stand for political justice or we do not. I am in favour of preference to unionists, and do not hesitate to say so. Society needs organizing. Those who have to earn their own living, whether as artisans, in trade, or in the professions, should form themselves into organizations, and when disputes arise, asthey will from time to time,they should be arbitrated upon by persons who have no interests involved. The condition imposed upon parties seeking redress for grievances by an appeal bo the Arbitration Court is that they shall give up their right bo strike, their right to do injury to the whole community, and this is held to entitle them to preference. The preference for which we contend is much less than that required by the organization to whichthe Attorney-General belongs. A member of that organization in this State has gone so far astothrow up a briefto appear forthe Crown to defend a man arraigned on a capital charge, within a day or two of the case being called on, simply because the fees marked on the brief, although those ordinarily paid, were not sufficient.

Mr Ahern:

– A barrister may throw up his brief whether a member of the Bar Association or not.

Mr King O’Malley:

– It is preference to unionists.

Mr Ahern:

– The incident has no relation to preference to unionists. The Leader of the Opposition is misrepresenting the facts.

Mr FISHER:

– I say that the organization to which I refer is exclusive, and I am giving an extreme instance of what a member of this organization, to which the Attorney-General belongs, and of which he has spoken so highly, will do.

Mr Ahern:

– The right honorable gentleman’s inference was that the barrister referred to threw up his brief be- cause he was a member of the Bar Association.

Mr FISHER:

– No.

Mr Ahern:

– It has been done repeatedly by men who have not been members of any association.

Mr FISHER:

– I did not intend to convey any such inference. I was simply pointing out what can be done, and is done, by members of the privileged, exalted, noble profession, and of the association which the Attorney-General defends. Let me remind the honorable member for Indi that such privileges are not to be conceded, according to the AttorneyGeneral, to any association of working men. The advantages that are extended to the members of the exalted Bar Association are not to be enjoyed by workmen who organize, not to gain a competency, but simply to obtain wages and conditions that will enable them to live.

Mr Anstey:

– And even when a man wants to act in accordance with the law they will not permit him to live.

Mr FISHER:

– The AttorneyGeneral said that if preference to unionists were given, certain conditions should be imposed. But is it not a fact that he has also said that, under no circumstances or conditions, is he in favour of preference ? How does he reconcile the two statements? The explanation is that one is intended for the public. The one is designed to regale the electors when the question is being put from a partisan point of view. The honorable gentleman, on this question, cannot blow hot and cold. He is either in favour of one or the other of these propositions. I favour preference to unionists in respect of all organizations. I wish to state once more my attitude regarding the position of the Executive. Our justification for the action of the late Government in granting, in their Executive capacity, during the life of the last Parliament, preference to unionists lies in the fact that three elections had taken place since preference to unionists had been declared by enactment to be the policy of this Parliament. The relation of the Executive to the Parliament is that of a Board of Directors to the shareholders of a private company. When the shareholders of a private company have declared in favour of a certain preference, the management or the directors are in duty bound to give effect to that policy; and in the same way the action of the late Government in granting preference to unionists can be fully justified. The AttorneyGeneral declared that we were a party of hypocrites because we would not declare for absolute compulsory unionism. That charge is not only undeserved, but has no application. How were the unions of which the Attorney-General spoke brought into existence? Were they brought into existence as the pampered darlings of a class ? Is it not a fact that there are living to-day men who, when they first became unionists, had to hide the funds of their organizations, and to meet in secret?

Mr Burns:

– They had to bury their books.

Mr FISHER:

– They had even to conceal their records. That has happened during the lifetime of the AttorneyGeneral, and men would have been outlawed had it been discovered that they were members of a union possessing funds and holding meetings. If they merely possessed the courage of which the AttorneyGeneral spoke, the men would have professed their principles, but have sacrificed nothing for them. His policy is that of no preference whatever to unionists, but as the spokesman of the Government he brings in a Bill which will carry out only a small part of his professed policy. I am not here to question the firmness of his belief in the principles he professes, but my knowledge of him is that while he can speak mightily and determinedly as to the views that he. holds, he is seldom to be found remaining in the breach when a regard for his principle calls upon him to stand alone. He fights best when he is in a big battalion.

Mr Conroy:

– I hope that this is a case of the big battalion.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not object to the honorable member entertaining that hope. Even the criminal lying under sentence of death does not abandon hope until the last. I challenge the Attorney- General’s statement that preference to unionists cannot be granted in any civilized country. I take the entirely opposite view. Preference to unionists is but a sign of civilization. It is in keeping with the whole trend of civilization, and does no injustice to any citizen. The Government that honestly declares for preference to unionists declares for a policy that more or less limits their action. The present Government declares for a policy, not of preference to unionists, but of free, open, unrestricted competition. Our experience is that, not merely in Australia, but all the world over, society influence and the prejudice of those in authority are entirely against unionism. For centuries unionists have had to suffer disabilities, and they have never suffered more than they have during the last fifty or sixty years. They have never obtained justice. The lingering prejudice still remains with the Attorney-General and his party. I am not going to say, however, that the Prime Minister has altered his opinions. I cannot believe that the honorable gentleman holds any other view than he held when, as a much younger man, he was associated with the unions.

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

– Did he ever advocate Government preference to unionists ? Mr. FISHER. - Yes.

Mr West:

– As Postmaster-General of New South Wales, he employed only unionists in excavating telephone tunnels.

Mr FISHER:

– No worse proposition could bebrought forward than that made by the Attorney-General that we should discriminate between preference to unionists in private and in Government employment. This Parliament has prescribed the conditions under which the private employer may carry on his industry, but, according to the Attorney-General, the Government should not be asked to comply with the same conditions when competing with that private employer.

Mr Hughes:

– Perhaps the Government are going to extend the prohibition.

Mr FISHER:

– One does not know. The Attorney- General, by implication; says that we should impose certain restrictions - if preference to unionists is a restriction - on private employers, but that the Government which, in certain industries, is competing directly with those private employers, should suffer no such restriction. Can he justify that contention ? It is perfectly illogical and unfair to outside employers. To be logical, the Attorney-General must get back to his old declaration that there should be no preference of any kind provided by either the Parliament or the Courts. In other words, he says, “ Let there be a scramble !

Let us go back to barbarism ! Let us go back to the time when the strong destroyed the weak.”

Mr Brennan:

– To freedom of contract.

Mr FISHER:

– Quite so ; there are, on the Government side of the House, honorable members who would have been in their element in Australia twenty-five years ago, when, after twenty years of borrowingand booming by Liberal Governments, the country was brought to its knees by financial disaster, the like of which had never occurred before in a country with our population. At that time, those who had to rely only on their hands to save their children from starvation had to scratch and scrape, and jostle with each other to get a mere pittance to keep body and soul together. Then there was no preference to unionists. Freedom of contract prevailed, and no one man was allowed to speak for two or three. Every man had to plead his own case. The AttorneyGeneral says to-day that we should revert to that position of affairs - that no two or three men should he allowed to organize and have one spokesman. On the other hand, employers may unite as much as they like, and one man may speak for the whole, and prescribe terms. Does the Attorney-General think it fair, even for a Government, to refuse to deal with men collectively? Is it fair for the Government, with their party behind them, to lay down certain conditions of employment, and declare that they will hear no one on behalf of an organization, but will deal with only individual men? What chance has the unit ? This may seem a smaller matter to some of my colleagues than it does to me, but if the Government carry out this principle, or what they call a principle, it will undoubtedly establish a precedent, because it cannot logically end with them. Governments, both Commonwealth and State, are not merely Governments in the old sense of the term - bodies merely to pass laws and keep the peace of the country - but they undertake enterprises and employ large numbers of people in productive and other occupations for the benefitof the community. It will be seen, therefore, that they stand in quite a different position from that of Governments of the past. It has been urged that preference, as established by the late Government, is not in accordance with British fair play, and the Attorney- General has sneered at the words “ other things being equal.” Other words maybe used to express the idea, but the words used mean that the preference is not to the exclusion of everybody - they mean exactly what they say. The AttorneyGeneral is entitled to his sneer, but it does not appeal to me, and I do not think it will have any serious effect on others. The charge by the AttorneyGeneral that preference means “ Spoils to the victors “ is not true in fact. There are no “ spoils “ when the Labour party are in office; the “spoils” begin only when they leave office. That is a rejoinder which I think I am entitled to make to the charge by the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Hughes:

– For which party does Mr. Teesdale Smith vote?

Mr FISHER:

– Apparently the “spoils” began as soon as the present Government came into office. Secrecy also then began; and there is no honorable member opposite who will defend the contract with Mr. Teesdale Smith, or the manner in which it was entered into.

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

– Every member on this side, except one, supports it.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– What about the Wireless Telegraph Company?

Mr FISHER:

– I am now replying to the taunt of the Attorney-General about “ Spoils to the victors.” Who are the victors? They are men who are not getting money, or any consideration at all, beyond the consideration that allows them to work. They pray for work, for opportunity to use their physical and mental powers, so that they may support their families and other dependents. All the privilege they get is that of being employed under prescribed conditions that apply to every workman. All that is involved is the privilege to be employed; and this does not debar any one else. Unionists are not entitled to any privilege of employment to which non-unionists are not entitled. Unionists are not entitled to a penny, or to consideration of any kind.We support the principle of preference because we believe that organization is essential and necessary. While the Attorney-General was out of the chamber, I drew attention to the fact that if individuals are not allowed to associate in an organization, they are undoubtedly placed at a disadvantage.

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

– Hear, hear! No one has disputed that.

Mr FISHER:

– What objection, then, can there be to treating as a body, and giving preference to as an organization, men who have made conditions prescribing hours of labour, and have fixed a standard of efficiency to which all must rise before they can join ? They are doing the work of the nation, and they are an organized society; and they ought not only to be given preference, but to be thanked. Every civilized nation should be thankful to the men and women who were the first to advocate and to carry out the great principle of unionism. Many of the privileges and conditions enjoyed to-day, from which so much of our happiness and comfort arise, are due to the sacrifice of those who have gone before us.

Mr West:

– And to that of their wives as well.

Mr FISHER:

– The whole proposal is in the interests of the wives and children; that is our idea; it is the beginning and the end of the contention. The only question is whether the way we advocate is better than that of absolutely leaving to Ministers the power to appoint whom they please. I wish to make it clear that preference, as granted by the previous Administration, did not in any way come into conflict with the Public Service Act. Those who have passed examinations, and thereby got into the permanent Service, have, at , the present time, security under the law; and, strange to say, the Attorney-General, with his Government and party, is prepared to accept and comply with an award prescribed by the Arbitration Court. Officers of the Commonwealth under the Public Service Act have the right to go to the Court, and, by means of evidence, present their grievances, and get an award. Do the Prime Minister and the Government intend, if this Bill become law, that that preference shall be dropped?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What preference?

Mr FISHER:

– At the present time, employes of the Government go to the Court under law.

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

– There is no occa sion to repeal the Public Service Act; there is no purpose in it.

Mr FISHER:

– Why ?

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

– The Public Service Act offers no possibility to the Court to grant preference. The right honorable member may not know that.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall take it from the Attorney-General that it is so.

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

– It is so, and under the right honorable gentleman’s own Act, in which preference was not included.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is preference not given to public servants under that Act!

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

– No.

Mr FISHER:

– May I ask the Prime Minister, or the Attorney-General, whether that applies to all employes under the Public Service Act - that preference cannot be granted ?

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

– No, no. The right honorable gentleman introduced the Public Service Arbitration Act, in which he did not provide for preference to unionists. That Act has no application to casual employes, and there is no proposal now, other than that in theBill.

Mr FISHER:

– Then our declaration of preference as a Government does not, and cannot, affect any person or persons employed under the Public Service Act?

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

– No.

Mr FISHER:

– It seems a simple little question to ask, but nine-tenths of the supporters of the Government say that it does. I take it that the only persons who are, or can be, affected by this particular Bill are those who are directly appointed by an officer under the Minister. I am sure the Attorney-General is quite with me in trying to get the facts before the people.

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

– Hear, hear !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We think that there is nothing more deadly than facts to the right honorable gentleman’s case.

Mr FISHER:

– I desire to have the facts, and onthe facts I am prepared bo fight. If I may say so, I should like to have the privilege of hearing the Prime Minister on this question.I can remember how, in the long by-gone days, in a more militant way than I have ever adopted, or will adopt, he used to tell hales of militant unionism,and declare that no non-unionists would ever be allowed to work with him and his union members. At that time, however, the honorable gentleman had his organization behind him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And the members of that organization did not go “ puning “ to the Government for everything.

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

– They stood on their own feet.

Mr FISHER:

– And that is all we ask - a fair go, and no favour.

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

– What? No favour, and preference to unionists?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes, preference to unionists, because they are members of organized bodies, but this Bill aims at giving preference to non-unionists. Members of an organized body will not work with non-unionists. The Prime Minister has said that no decent unionist will work with a non-unionist, and that his’ union, the Miners’ Union, knew what to do with non-unionists. Therefore, if the Government give employment bo non-unionists no unionists will be employed, and that means that it is preference to nonunionists that the Bill provides. Ministers know this very well. While pretending to make the matter universally fair, they are seeking to provide a legal condition which will prevent unionists being employed. It is strange that we find this Bill taking precedence over every other matter affecting the public welfare. One would think that the Government, in their present position, would endeavour to deal with matters of urgent and public interest, but instead, they have brought forward this measure, straightforwardly from their point of view, with the object of picking a quarrel with the Senate. The Prime Minister has said that the Senate does not represent the people, that the constitution of another place will need to be altered, and that Ministers cannot remain in their present positions unless this is done. The Attorney-General has said the same thing, and he continues to say it. The Bill has been brought down with the object of picking a quarrel with the Senate rather than to lay down a, principle. The Government have- chosen it for their own purpose, not to solve a dead-lock, but to create one. My justification for saying that is that every Minister making a public statement says that the condition of Parliament has a close connexion with this particular measure. So the Bill is brought forward, not bo solve a dead-lock between the two Houses, but to create one.

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

– Suppose that to be thecase, what then?

Mr FISHER:

-In the circumstances, it is a subversion of the principles of government, a desertion of the interests of the people, an attempt to gain political power at the expense of the interests of the people, and a disregard ofthe pledges and promises given by those who are doing this without any justification, legal or otherwise. In the policy speech of the Prime Minister, or in the speeches of those behind him, there will be nothing found which declares that this measure is the most important thing to be done by this Parliament.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then when you go through the country during the recess and invite us to go to an election, you are indulging in humbug. You never made a speech but you said, “ Let them come forward with it.”

Mr FISHER:

– No one is better than the Prime Minister at making a statement which is not a fact. After the Government, during last session, had said about twenty times that they were going to have a dissolution, I said at Geelong that if they wished for a dissolution they could have one, but next day the Prime Minister rejoined, “ But what we want is a double dissolution.” First of all, it was a dissolution, and then, when they were challenged as to . that they said, , “No, you have made a mistake; it is a double dissolution that we want.” My challenge to Ministers was that if they wished to get out of a difficulty, and found they could not carry on the government of the country, there was no obligation on any one taking office under the Crown to remain in office any longer than he could honorably serve his country. I would like to know to what limit Ministers would go before feeling their honour touched in any way.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The dead limit is Fisher and Company.

Mr FISHER:

– I have been in four Governments.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then you are a hardened sinner.

Mr FISHER:

– No; at the touch of honour we marched. I have never been a party to imposing, or seeking to impose, the closure on any Parliament.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You were a party to framing the standing order.

Mr FISHER:

– I have explained that before. I am in favour of business being carried on against obstruction; but last session I was closured before uttering a word on the Loan Bill. The standing order was not framed for such a purpose. Since when has the doctrine been laid down that the Senate does not represent the people? Immediately Ministers have found a convenient medium of attacking another place. Senators were elected at the last election by a larger vote than was secured by Ministerialists. Apparently, “ win, tie, or wrangle “ is the policy of Ministers.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– If one House has more numbers than another is that not the best of reasons why we should ask the public what its mind really is?

Mr FISHER:

– I have already said that the proposal of Ministers is not put forward to solve a deadlock or remove a difficulty between the two Houses, but is to create one, and is therefore subversive of the principles of government. Ministers seek to create a difficulty instead of using the provisions of the Bill to remove one after a difficulty has arisen. If we continually provoke a quarrel with a coordinate House elected on the same franchise as our own we shall never be able to carry on responsible government, and there will be no limit to wrangles and disturbances, and to theexpense to which the people will be put. If the Government had had the decency to stay their hand until a real crisis arose between the two Houses, they would have been entitled to some consideration. But they rush forward with an object which is obviously political, and not national. In all other Parliaments the practice has been, if the popular House finds it impossible, through conflict with the other House, to carry on, that it should first go to the country to ascertain the will of the people; and that course should be sufficient and ample to meet the present crisis. In dealing with that phase of the question, let me quote the prophetic words used by the Treasurer at the Federal Convention in relation to the “ deadlock “ provisions of the Constitution. The right honorable gentleman said -

All these precautions are unnecessary, and may be found mischievous, because they will encourage differences rather than put an end to them. . . .

If you give the power to dissolve both Houses - the double dissolution, as it has been called - allowing the Government of the day to appeal to the constituencieswhenever a conflict of opinion occurs, it may, as time goes on, be used for a very different purpose from that for which it is being advocated at the present time. I can imagine that a Government which felt itself somewhat weak, or which thought that an occasion was on opportune one for an appeal to the country/ might encourage a conflict rather than try to avoid it, in order that in this way it might he able to recommend a dissolution of both Houses, in the hope that that would ‘ strengthen their follow*.^, or at any rate, give it more time. . . .

You may depend upon it that as time goes on every possible device will be used to gain political influence and power by taking advantage of the form of the Constitution.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– I hope this debate will not be a very long one. I agree with the view put forward by the Attorney-General, in his telling and succinct speech, that the matter has been debated over and over again, and not much new mutter can be contributed to the discussion. I am inclined to take the view advanced in the leading columns of the Age this morning that if the Opposition regard this as an unimportant measure they will allow it to speedily pass, because, if a double dissolution is dependent on the passing of this Bill, it will certainly bring us face to face with the position that we shall have to proceed with the other planks in our platform or go before the people. Opposition members laugh, but I should like to know whether they have. any platform. If they have one it is their duty to, as soon as possible, send this House and the other House to the country, in order that they may appeal to their own supporters to secure the passing into law of the principles they advocate. In my opinion the Labour Government, during their three years of office, exhausted their practicable platform, and they are so bankrupt at the present time, so far, as a policy is concerned, that they are awaiting the passing of the referenda proposals before they can proceed with the platform of Socialistic legislation which they now find it impossible to carry out.

Mr KING O’Malley:

– We can deal with the Tariff.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I hope weshall have an opportunity of amending the Tariff, but I think the members occupying the Opposition benches should be the last to charge the Government with not carrying out their policy of Tariff reform, when they so flagrantly neglected their opportunities in that regard during the three years they were in office. In speaking on this measure, it is the duty of every member to confine himself to the Bill itself, instead of indulging in a general discussion on the question of unionism. This measure does not involve the general question of unionism. The only question which it raises is as to whether a Government, who are the trustees of the public, and who, as such, have in their hands the revenues and funds of the people, shall be allowed to say that, in order to reward their own political supporters, they will give them exclusive employment in the Government service.

It is the duty of the House, so far as industrial matters generally are concerned, to endeavour to bring to bear the genius of both sides in order to evolve some scheme that will insure industrial peace, and prevent the old barbarous method of resorting to a strike when differences arise between employers and employes. That cannot be done except by some scheme of organization on the part of employers on the one Hand and employes on the other. That question has already been dealt with by this House. We have not a perfect system at present, but it is the duty of the House to endeavour to make it more perfect. The Arbitration Act of 1904 was given to the people by a Liberal Government. It might be a better law than it is

Mr Poynton:

– It contained preference to unionists.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It contained preference to unionists under certain circumstances, but I am not going to discuss now how far that principle should be embodied in any law administered by a properlyconstituted Court. That is not the question under discussion at the present moment. I am free to admit, however, that if we could induce the great body of industrial workers to give up the right to strike that obtained under the old barbarous system, it would be the duty of Parliament to provide some form of legislation which would be compensation and protection to the organizations and equivalent to the right they had forfeited. What form that protection should take is for this House to decide, but it is not under discussion at present. When the question does come up for discussion, and the Arbitration Act is brought forward for amendment, it will be for the

House to do something to preserve to the organized workers of Australia their rights, and enable them to settle their disputes in the Arbitration Court, or before Wages Boards, or by some other form of a tribunal, instead of the barbarous method of the strike, which is so productive of suffering and loss, not only to the parties themselves, but to the whole of the community.

However, what we have to deal with now is the question of preference to unionists in the Government service. For party purposes members of the Opposition have been endeavouring to make light of this important Bill. Some of them say that it is a sham, that it cannot effect anything, and so on. I am pleased to find that the Leader of the Opposition, who should speak with authority in behalf of his party, has declared this matter to be a very important one. I say it is an important one, because it is a question which strikes right down to the fundamental principles of administration. It is one which says that the administrators, who are intrusted with the public funds of the country, shall not use those funds for party purposes, but shall dispense those funds, administer the Departments, and handle the public money in a manner that will mete out equity and fairness to every section of the community. That is what the system of preference to unionists in government employment involves.

Mr Poynton:

– That is not the argument your father used.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is bad taste to introduce family matters and personal remarks into a debate in this House,but any association my honoured father had with industrial unionism I am proud of. I am glad to know that he was the founder of the Miners’ Association in Creswick, a body which, by meeting the employers in conference and discussing matters with them calmly and deliberately, was able to improve the conditions of the workers in those days.

Mr Poynton:

– And what did they do to him ? They drove him out of the district.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I say that is absolutely untrue.

Mr Poynton:

– It is an absolute fact.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I was one of the dependents on him, and I ought to know better than the honorable member. I say his statement is absolutely untrue. As this personal matter has with such bad taste been introduced by the honorable member for Grey on several occasions, let me say that if the associations and industrial organizations were the same to-day as they were when my father was one of their leaders, I would be with them right to the last. My father was connected with industrial unionism before the unions became political organizations. They were industrial organizations only. The Prime Minister, too, was a champion of unionism when it was purely industrial, and not political in its organization.

This question of administrative preference to unionists was first discovered while the honorable member for Darwin was at the head of the Home Affairs Department. In a debate in this House the honorable member was taxed with having given preference to unionists, and with having issued a minute in the Department ordering that preference to unionists should be given. The interpretation of that minute by the administrative head of the Department was that, if preference to unionists was to be enforced in the Home Affairs Department, it would be necessary to dismiss all non-unionists then employed.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I never sacked anybody.

Mr SAMPSON:

– That was the interpretation placed upon the instructions in a memorandum issued by the administrative head of the Department. The Minister’s instructions declared that only unionists should be employed, and that the Department was to be furnished with a list of the non-unionists in the employ of the Department. No other interpretation could be placed on the Minister’s instructions than that contained in the memorandum from the head of the Department. Honorable members on this side believe that if the instruction had not been discovered, and the discussion had not taken place in this House, the principle contained in that minute would have been the prevailing policy in the Home Affairs Department. It is now stated that this Bill is not necessary, because by administrative act the Government have repealed an administrative act of their predecessors. Honorable members opposite argue that the Bill is a redundancy, and that all it could have achieved is already achieved by an administrative act of the present Government. It is fortunate that the people returned the present Government to power, if only for the fact that one of its important administrative acts has been to repeal that pernicious instruction in regard to preference to unionists in the Government service. Honorable members ask why we want this Bill. I am going to show that it is necessary that we should have an Act on the statute-book which will prevent the possibility of any such policy being repeated by a mere administrative act if the Labour party should be returned to power.

Mr Brennan:

– If the Labour party are returned to power, will they not have a mandate from the people to give preference ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I agree with the honorable member, but if the present Opposition are returned to power at the next election, and wish to restore the old practice of preference to unionists, they can only do it by bringing down another Bill to repeal the measure which is now before us; otherwise they will be breakers of the law.

Mr Brennan:

– You desire to stand against the will of the people?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I want to prevent any Government repeating this principle by any secret act of administration, under pressure from the outside organizations which control them. I have another reason. After the discussion in this House on the preference to unionists ordered by the former Minister of Home Affairs. the then Prime Minister declared that, all things being equal, preference to unionists would be given. He laid that down as the policy of the Government.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I had done that twelve months before.

Mr SAMPSON:

– For the time being the then Government put that saving clause forward as a justification for enforcing the principle of preference to unionists in the Government service. But we find that, in defiance of that statement, the Minister of Home Affairs attached a minute to specifications for a contract stating that the principle of absolute preference to unionists should be applied in private employment by the contractor.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Yes, I was boss of that show.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It has been stated in this debate that if preference to union. ists is given, it can only apply to a very small number of employes in the Public Service; but we have found out from our experience with the past Government that the principle did not apply only to casual employes in the Service, but could be enforced in connexion with all private contracts taken under the Government. This minute was attached to the specifications for certain works in the Northern Territory by the ex-Minister of Home Affairs, some time after the order for preference to unionists in the Government service was given. The minute on the specification read : “In the employment of labour and the carrying out of this contract, absolute preference is to be given to unionists.” This instruction proved that, if preference can be given to unionists by Executive act, it may not be given merely to casual employes, but may be made a condition in all Government contracts.

Mr Arthur:

– That condition might be overridden by the Arbitration Court.

Mr SAMPSON:

– We have no evidence that it would be. The public expenditure is increasing, and our commitments are very large. There are immense works to be undertaken in the Northern Territory; we have railways to construct; and, directly, or indirectly under contractors, must employ thousands and tens of thousands of workmen. To all these persons the principle of preference to unionists might be applied.

Mr McDonald:

– What wrong would be done by applying it?

Mr SAMPSON:

– It would mean that public funds would be used to force men into unions, and to reward political supporters. It would be a misuse of public money, a violation of public trusteeship, and a blot on Australian public life. The discussion of the Bill does not involve the discussion of preference to unionists generally.

Mr Arthur:

– The Attorney-General says that the Bill is a step in the direction of the abolition of preference to unionists.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is for the Prime Minister to make a public declaration of the policy of this party in respect of industrial organization, unionism, the powers of the Arbitration Court, and other matters of that kind. Until he has done so, I must confine my remarks to the measure before the House. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that the Bill is designed to give preference to nonunionists. , ‘

Mr Fisher:

– It makes it impossible for unionists to work.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Surely the right honorable gentleman has not read the Bill? The measure prohibits the giving of preference, leaving the field open for the employment of all qualified persons.

Mr Fisher:

– It is a Bill to enable the friends of the Government to be employed, and to prevent unionists from getting employment.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The best answer to that statement is that the Government employ thousands of unionists.

Mr Fisher:

– Because Ministers cannot help themselves.

Mr SAMPSON:

– To say that this is a Bill to give preference to non-unionists is to distort its language. It is a Bill to remove disabilities, and to make it possible for every citizen to obtain employment in the Commonwealth service. I hope that the measure will not be discussed at length, but will be passed through the House as speedily as possible.

Mr Arthur:

– If the Bill became law, and preference were given in spite of it, what would happen ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– The ordinary man who violates the law is put into gaol, and a Minister who did so would deserve the same treatment. If the discussion of this measure is unduly prolonged, the Government will be prevented from submitting measures to give effect to other planks of the platform for which we have the mandate of the people. We promised the people that we would remove the stain of preference, to unionists from the political’ escutcheon, so that the public money must be spent in the interests of the whole community, and not merely of a privileged class. When the Labour Government was in power, its measures were not inordinately discussed when it could be shown that they had been introduced in accordance with a mandate from the people. The Opposition held up the postal vote proposals for a night or two, because we claimed that the people had not given a mandate to the Labour party to exclude the sick and the old from the exercise of the franchise.

I agree with what has been published in one of the morning newspapers in regard to the attitude pf the present Opposition towards this Bill. I hope, also, that the advice of the other morning newspaper - the Argus - that the closure should be applied, will be adopted if there is any undue debate on the proposal. I hope that the Government will fearlessly avail themselves of ‘all the legitimate forms that the Standing Orders permit to secure the speedy passing of this measure.

Mr Arthur:

– Will the honorable member include Mr. Speaker in the application of the closure?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am not going to particularize. Every member of the Liberal party owes it to his constituents so to vote as to insure the passing of this Bill after a reasonable debate.

Mr McDonald:

– The Prime Minister can move the application of the closure at any time.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I hope that will be done if the Opposition continue to hold up public business. We have important measures awaiting our consideration, and we should be prepared to deal with them. We should show the people that we are prepared to do business, or else go back to the country.

Mr Burns:

– What is the important business proposed by the Government?

Mr SAMPSON:

– We want, for instance, to put into shape the emasculated banking scheme that was passed by this Parliament some time ago. There is other important legislation which we were returned to enact.

Mr Tudor:

– What is it?

Mr SAMPSON:

– There is, for instance, our proposal for a national insurance scheme.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The question is that the Bill be read a second time. I ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I hope that the course I have suggested will be followed. If it is not, then the responsibility of holding up important public business must rest with the Opposition. I am sorry that it should have been necessary to introduce this Bill. I regret that we should have had in Australia a Government which would so misuse political and administrative power as to apply public funds to reward their own political supporters in Government employment.

Mr McDonald:

– You are a liar for making that statement.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is correct.

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

– It is absolutely incorrect. You know that you are telling lies.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is the honorable member in order in saying that the honorable member for Wimmera is telling lies?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If any honorable member made such a remark, I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr McDonald:

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– It was the honorable member for Denison who made it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must again direct attention to the disorderly practice of repeatedly interjecting. I hope that the honorable member will be permitted to proceed without interruption. One interjection leads to another, and to consequent disorder.

Mr McDonald:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member for Wimmera in order in saying that the members of the late Government misappropriated Government funds for party purposes ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not hear him make such a statement; but it is not in order for an honorable member to reflect upon the members of a party, or upon a party as a whole, in the House.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– On a point of order. The honorable member for Kennedy

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Wimmera, if he conveyed the imputation mentioned by the honorable member for Kennedy, to withdraw it.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I should like to explain what I meant.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable member made the remark, he must withdraw it.

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

– It is not what he meant, but what he said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will honorable members remain silent? The honorable member for Wimmera should obey the direction of the Chair, and withdraw the statement if he made it. He may thereafter explain.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I regard this as a matter of policy affecting the Government, and therefore, am not prepared to withdraw the statement that I made.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– These constant interjections in chorus prevent me from hearing what is said by the honorable member addressing the Chair. If an honorable member is out of order, I shall call him to order at the first opportunity. The honorable member for Wimmera must withdraw.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I wish to tell you, sir, that I did not make any personal reflection. The honorable member for Denison has not withdrawn his remark.

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

– The honorable member for Wimmera should withdraw.

Mr Hughes:

– Withdraw.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I take exception to the remark made by the honorable member for Denison.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I had hardly resumed my seat, after calling for order, before there was a chorus of interjections. In the circumstances, it is impossible for the Speaker to know what is going on.

Mr Charlton:

– You know, sir, that the honorable member ought to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I asked the honorable member for Wimmera to withdraw, and I understand that he has done so.

Mr Hughes:

– He has not.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He has.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will honorable members remain silent while the Speaker is on his feet? I shall name the next honorable member who interjects, and ask the Prime Minister to take such action as will cause him to be suspended for the sitting. The Speaker must be heard in silence. I understood the honorable member for Wimmera to withdraw.

Mr SAMPSON:

– What I stated was-

Mr Hughes:

– Withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member for West Sydney cease interrupting? I ask the honorable member for Wimmera to withdraw.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Will you tell me what I have to withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not argue with the Chair.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I do not know what I am to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member, when called upon to withdraw something to which exception has been taken, as being offensive or reflecting on members, must do so unreservedly. If he did not make the remark attributed to him, he may say so. He must withdraw, and then explain.

Mr SAMPSON:

– All that I have to say is that I withdraw my remark as applying to any individual member of the Opposition or of the late Government.

Mr Hughes:

– That will not do.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I desire your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether an honorable member is to withdraw, without qualification, and without questioning any statement that any honorable member cares to put into his mouth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have not said so; on the contrary, I distinctly told the honorable member for Wimmera that if he did not make the statement imputed to him, he could deny it. If, however, he did make the statement, it must be withdrawn at the direction of the Chair, even though it might not be offensive taken by itself. I have pointed out that if the honorable member to whom a remark has been applied regards it as offensive, it is the invariable practice to withdraw it without qualification, the honorable member who made it having an opportunity afterwards to make an explanation.

Mr Hughes:

– I desire to raise a point of order. The honorable member for Wimmera made certain statements to which honorable members on this side took exception, and I submit that under the Standing Orders, the honorable member must withdraw those statements without reservation or conditions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already so ruled.

Mr Hughes:

– What the honorable member for Wimmera did was to say that he withdrew the remarks so far as they applied to any honorable member on either side of the House; and I submit that that is not enough. The honorable member must unreservedly withdraw the remarks, and, if he chooses, may say that he did not intend them in the sense in which they have been taken. In any case, the withdrawal must be absolute.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understand that that is exactly what the honorable member for Wimmera did.

Mr Hughes:

– He did not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under the circumstances in which I sit in this chair, with the dinof conflicting voices, several members interjecting at once, it is extremely difficult for me to hear, but I was under the impression that the honorable member for Wimmera said that he withdrew the remarks so far as they ap plied to any individual member of the Opposition or of the House. If that be so, no member of the House is involved in what the honorable member for Wimmera said.

Mr Sampson:

– You have, Mr. Speaker, correctly stated the position. I should now like to draw your attention to the fact that the honorable member for Denison has not withdrawn the statement he made.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Nor has the honorable member for Kennedy.

Mr McDonald:

– I did withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understand that the honorable member for Denison has made a remark to which exception is taken, and, if that be so, I must ask the honorable member to withdraw it.

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

– I do not know what it is I am asked to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member has said something which another honorable member regards as offensive, it is the custom to withdraw it in the same way as I required the honorable member for Wimmera to withdraw what he had said.

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

– Seeing that the honorable member for Wimmera has withdrawn some remarks, I am most happy to withdraw something, though I do not know what it is, that I have said.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Seeing that the usual hour for the adjournment of the House has arrived, I ask leave to continue my remarks at the next sitting.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1077

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business. - Old-age Pensioners, Adelaide. - Motion of Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling. - Compulsory Training, Apprentices.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- If the business of the House is arranged by the Prime Minister, I should like to know from him when an opportunity will be given to discuss the motion of dissent from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of which notice has been given? That ruling of the Speaker, so far as we are able to gather from the records of the House and the precedents available, is entirely erroneous.

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

– What ruling?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The ruling as to the closure yesterday.

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

– Is the honorable member in order, on the adjournment of the House, in discussing the validity or invalidity of a ruling given by the Speaker? The Standing Orders provide a proper way of bringing up the subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in doing so. I did not quite hear what the honorable member for Cook was saying, because a matter of some urgency had been brought under my notice at the moment by an officer of the House.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The AttorneyGeneral is unnecessarily touchy. I was not proceeding to discuss the matter, but merely making, as I think I am entitled to do, a passing reference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in continuing to debate the matter.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I have absolutely no intention of doing so; otherwise I should have armed myself with the authorities at my disposal, showing that my case is a very strong one. I certainly think the Prime Minister is very badly advised, particularly under present circumstances, when notice of a motion to dissent from a ruling has been given in connexion with the “ gagging “ of the Government Preference Prohibition Bill through the House-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in taking his present line of discussion. There is an order of the House that Government business must take precedence of all other business ; and what the honorable member is now doing is reflecting on the decision of the House, and discussing something that is on the notice-paper.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If there is any reflection, I think it is on the conduct of the Government in so arranging the businesspaper as to practically “gag” discussion on the correctness of the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I again point out that the House itself decided that Government business was to take precedence; and before the Government could have rearranged the business-paper, even had they been willing to do so, they would have to get leave of the House to vary the decision already arrived at.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Quite so, but I submit that the Prime Minister, had he not been very badly advised, would have taken steps to enable the motion as to your Tilling to be discussed. I further point out that on the business-paper of Wednesday last there was a notice of motion dissenting from your ruling, and that was given precedence over Government business.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In such a case, leave of the House to give it precedence would have to be obtained. I called the honorable member’s attention to the fact that the Sessional Orders affecting Thursdays did not come into operation until yesterday.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Sessional Orders were carried last week, and I understand that they came into operation on the first sitting day this week, namely, Wednesday. If the Sessional Orders carried last week did not come into operation until Thursday-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in discussing a decision already arrived at by the House, because to do so is a reflection, not upon the Government, but on the House itself ; in addition, the honorable member is anticipating the discussion of a motion on the notice-paper.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I submit that I am within my rights in discussing the question whether the Government have fixed the business on the notice-paper in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already pointed out that I have looked over the business-paper, and that it is fixed in accordance with the decision of the House regarding sessional orders.

Mr J H CATTS:

– At any rate, I wish to know if the Prime Minister will inform the House as to whether he proposes that there shall be an opportunity to discuss the motions to dissent from Mr. Speaker’s rulings that have been lodged. I wish to point out to the Prime Minister the unfortunate position in which he places,not only Mr. Speaker, but the House, by preventing notices of motion to dissent from Mr. Speaker’s ruling on points of vitalimportance being given consideration, particularly in view of the fact that at the commencement of to-day’s sitting Mr. Speaker said that he had appealed to the Government to give an early opportunity for the dis- cussion of these motions. I submit that the Prime Minister- should give us this early opportunity.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I agree with the honorable member who has just spoken about the most unfair and undignified position in which the Government are placing Mr. Speaker by keeping over the discussion of these motions, and about the great disadvantage it will be to honorable members. The other day Mr. Speaker gave a decision, with which the House may agree when it has the opportunity of discussing it, regarding the inability of the honorable member for Bourke to move an amendment to the motion for leave to introduce the Government Preference Prohibition Bill. That amendment was ruled out of order, and we should have had a decision from the House as to whether honorable members supported Mr. Speaker, but we shall not have an opportunity of arriving at that decision before the stage of the Bill at which such an amendment may be moved has completely gone.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will recollect that the motion to dissent from that ruling was placed first on the next day’s business-paper, but was blocked by a motion for the adjournment of the House, which was supported by several honorable members.

Mr HIGGS:

– I rise particularly to draw attention to the very barren nature of the answers given to a series of questions put by me to Ministers concerning matters of great public importance. The Attorney-General and the Prime Minister may deem it very clever in replying to me to say that they will introduce certain legislation when opportunity offers.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What else could we say?

Mr HIGGS:

– The Prime Minister has had twelve months in which to introduce these measures. The only information we got from Ministers to-day was with regard to the Tariff. We were told that the Inter-State Commission decline to make any report until they have taken evidence in all the States, and the Minister of Trade and Customs has told us that the officers in the Customs Department are preparing a list of anomalies. We shall await with great interest the appearance of that list. The commercial community of Australia are suffering from the absence of a- Bankruptcy Bill. That is a measure which would be treated as a non-party matter, and passed; and if it is framed on the lines of the Bill which has lately gone through the House of Commons, it will be of great advantage to the commercial community of Australia. The Prime Minister says, “ I will introduce this Bill when opportunity offers.” Next Wednesday he can ask for leave to introduce the Bill, and he will be granted leave, and if he places the measure first on the business-paper it will be discussed, and no doubt passed very speedily. The same remarks will apply to insurance, so far as the Constitution will allow. The Prime Minister, nearly twelve months ago, met a deputation of unemployed, and he sympathized with them - I suppose that while he was speaking he felt that sympathy - but, so far, he has made no attempt to introduce legislation to insure people against sickness, or to pass a law to assist widows and orphans, or to pass a Bill to endeavour to insure people against unemployment. Where are these measures ? Where is the Bill for the appointment of commissioners to manage the Post Office, or that to appoint industrial boards to settle Inter-State disputes, or that to appoint a board to settle the maternity allowance - the Bill which the Knight of the -Crown of Italy is to introduce when opportunity offers. I do not know that we will pass the Bill very easily, but we have a right to know the nature of the measure. Then there is also the Bill for the redistribution of seats, which is to take that matter out of party political management, or manipulation, as the Prime Minister says. Where are all these’ national matters, that Ministers are not introducing them ? Why are the Government holding up the business of the country by introducing measures which are not nearly of the same importance as some I have mentioned?

Mr Finlayson:

– You know that they are against hasty legislation.

Mr HIGGS:

– I know that the AttorneyGeneral is. He believes in things as they are. He and his class have done very well with things as they are, and he does not wish to have any alteration in the laws. He thinks that any alteration will prevent him and those whom he represents doing so well. Of course, he is entirely mistaken in that Conservative and Tory view, but, nevertheless, he holds it. I would like the public of Australia to take particular notice of the Government and their method of doing business. I would like them to read the Ministerial statement of twelve months ago, and compare it with the Speech of the GovernorGeneral a month ago. They would realize that Ministers are merely marking time, and haveno intention of introducing these items of legislation, but intend to fool the general public so long as the poor general public are unacquainted with their real aims.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

– I would like to bring under the notice of the Treasurer a matter which is rather urgent to the old people of Adelaide. The place where the old-age pensioners are paid is on a flat on the riverside, about three-quarters of a mile from the nearest spot to which these old people have to go. The road leading to it is very little used, and is very steep. It is a hardship for old people over seventy years of age to have to struggle down there, particularly in the summer time, when the heat in Adelaide is very severe. Ever since the ground has been levelled, the place has been used as a gun-carriage shed. It is simply constructed of wood and iron, and has a narrow bench inside on which the old-age pensioners are obliged to sit in summer, with their backs to the heat. There is no. shade outside, and they have to sit in that position for some time before they can get their wants attended to. In winter, the place is flat and dismal, and having been laid out as an evolution ground for cadets, it becomes simply a sheet of water after heavy rain. In addition, the soil is of a clayey character, and that makes walking somewhat dangerous to those who are not nimble on their feet. Honorable members will see that this is an awful place to send old people to in order to get their pensions. I hope that the Treasurer will try to secure an office more centrally situated in Adelaide. I would suggest the General Post Office, or Selborne Chambers, which are almost exclusively used for Commonwealth purposes. If the Treasurer looks at the matter from a sympathetic point of view, the obtaining of improved accommodation will not be a difficult matter. I hope that he will take the matter into consideration at an early date.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- I am sorry to have to draw attention to a few matters. I would like to leave them over till next week.

Mr Joseph Cook:

-Youlive in Victoria, but do you think it a fair thing to keep members here lateon Friday afternoon ? You would not think so if you lived in another State.

Mr ANSTEY:

– If I thought there would be any other opportunity of saying what I wish to say, I would not proceed with this matter, because I feel that the delay is probably inflicting an injustice on some members of. the Chamber. If the Prime Minister would exercise the same regard for the opinions of honorable members as he wishes us to show, I, for one, would be pleased to do as he asks. The point I wish to draw attention to is this : Last Friday I moved an amendment in this chamber; it was seconded, and was properly before the House. The AttorneyGeneral raised a point of order, and you, Mr. Speaker, expressed the opinion that the amendment was out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is a notice on the business-paper in connexion with that matter, and thehonorable member may not now discuss it.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I am not discussing it. I am calling your attention to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not do it.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I am not discussing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to it.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Is there anythingI am in order in referring to ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in arguing with the Chair.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– There is considerable hardship imposed on several members of the community. I refer to lads who are apprenticed, and are compelled to leave their trade to attend drills and parades. Will the Prime Minister endeavour, either by regulation or an amendment of the Defence Act, to relieve those apprentices from parades and drills which interfere with their apprenticeship and employment, and very often lessen the money which goes into the family purse ?

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

– Even at the risk of failing in courtesy, I refuse, point-blank, to answer questions at a quarter past 4 on Friday afternoon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 May 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1914/19140515_reps_5_73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant