House of Representatives
18 June 1915

6th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 4186

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES BORROWING

Mr FLEMING:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the financial statements which have been made at various times in this Chamber, I ask the Prime Minister if the loan recently issued by the Government of New South Wales has received the sanction of his Government?

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

– So far as my knowledge goes, it was a conversion loan, and not affected by the agreement between us and the States.

page 4186

QUESTION

REFERENDUM LEGISLATION

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister, in view of what he has spoken of as the urgency of getting the Estimates passed, if he will agree to make their consideration the only business for the time being, leaving the other important proposals which are on the notice-paper to be dealt with later on their merits?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– As regards the formal introduction of certain Bills-

Mr J oseph Cook:

– It is not formal.

Mr FISHER:

– Then it is the more necessary that their introduction shall be made part of the business.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I should like an answerto my question. The right honorable member will, I think, see on reflection that what he has said is not an answer. My question to him - and I put it in all. sincerity, and beg of him to consider it seriously - is whether he will put aside what he regards as the formal stages of certain Bills, but what we do not so regard, and agree not to persevere with those proposals, until the Estimates are through the House?

Mr FISHER:

– I am unable to do that, notwithstanding the request of the right honorable member. If it is a challenge to the Government I accept it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is not a challenge, it is an appeal.

page 4186

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Water Supply

Mr GROOM:
for Sir John Forrest

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

In the report of the Engineer-in-Chief for Railways, placed on the table of the Senate on the 10th instant, it isstated - “ The conveyance of water from the Mount Charlotte Reservoir and the bore at 344 miles, in pipes along the line, has been fully inquired into and is impracticable “ -

  1. Why is it impracticable?
  2. If the Mount’ Charlotte Reservoir is not high enough for gravitation could not the water gravitate from the Bullabulling Reservoir?
Mr ARCHIBALD:
Minister for Home Affairs · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This proposal was considered tobe impracticable on account of its cost.

Mr. GROOM (for Sir John Forrest) asked the Minister of Home Affairs’, upon notice -

  1. Whether the tank near Cadonia, on EastWest Railway, is finished, and ready to receive water?
  2. If so, did the recent rains fill, or partially fill, the tank, and how much water has been conserved?
  3. Are there any other tanks completed on easternor western side, and what quantityof water has been conserved in each?
Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are:- 1 and 2. There are two tanks at Cadonia; One has been constructed by building a concrete wall across a rocky gorge. Thishas been completed for some time, and a considerable quantity of water has been conserved. The other, an excavated tank, is completed except lining and roofing.

  1. There are. no other tanks in the western end, but in the eastern end one has been completed at 53 miles, and about 500,000 gallons of water conserved. The principal supply of water in the eastern side is from wells.

page 4186

ASSIGNMENT OF WAGES

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON (for Mr.

Kelly) asked the Treasurer, upon notice-

In connexion with the following Treasury Regulation : - form No. 24b. - Clause 96.

page 4186

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Order by Employer on Commonwealth Works.

  1. Was the power to assign wages not yet earned included in the regulation which the above regulation superseded?
  2. Does it apply to casual labour?
Mr FISHER:
ALP

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

  1. No Regulation was superseded.
  2. Yes.

page 4187

QUESTION

COROWA RIFLE -RANGE

Mr PATTEN:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Assistant Minister representing the Minister oi Defence, upon notice -

Whether the Minister will establish a miniature rifle range in connexion with the drill hall proposed to be constructed at Corowa, New South Wales?

Mr JENSEN:
Assistant Minister · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes.

page 4187

QUESTION

TEMPORARY CLERKS

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

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he inform the House what steps have yet been taken, or are contemplated, in order to make temporary clerks who have been employed for some years in the Federal Public Service permanent public servants?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– No steps have been taken, and none are in contemplation.

page 4187

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGN

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

asked the: Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it true, as stated by Mr. Griffin in the correspondence laid on the table, that estimates made for the carrying out of his plans had been exaggerated to the extent of 300 per cent.?
  2. Who made these estimates?
  3. Has the Minister taken steps to have this alleged exaggeration confirmed or falsified by impartial quantity experts ?
  4. If not, will hehave those estimates submitted to such experts as soon as practicable?
Mr ARCHIBALD:
ALP

– It is not known to what Mr. Griffin refers. In asking Parliament to refer these matters to the Public Works Committee for public inquiry, I am removing them from departmental investigation and giving the fullest opportunity for refuting any alleged erroneous statements.

page 4187

QUESTION

TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

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

asked the Prime Minister,upon notice -

Is he aware that the Public Service Inspector of New South Wales is presenting a printed form to every man seeking temporary employment, informing him that before being entertained as a possible employee he must become a member ofsome trades union, and adding that, unless he replies in the affirmative within seven-days, his name will be struck off the list of candidates?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

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

No. The Public Service Commissioner advises that the instructions issued to all Inspectors were that a communication , be, sent to all persons at present on the register for temporary employment asking for. replies, to the following questions: -

Are you a member of. a trades union or industrial organization?

If so, state name of union or organization; adding that if no reply is received within seven days the person will be deemed to be a nonunionist, and will be so recorded until he notifies to the contrary.

page 4187

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONIST SOLDIERS

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

As none of the fifteen questions put to persons enlisting before attestation for service abroad elicit the information as to whether the person’ enlisting is or is not a member of a trades union, will he state the source of information which enabled him to state that 70 per cent, of those who have gone to the front are trade unionists?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I would be obliged if the honorable member would furnish me with details of the report alleged, viz., that I stated that . “ 70 per cent, of those who have gone to the front are trade unionists.” I might, however, direct the honorable member’s attention to an article in the Argus of 25th March, 1915, quoting the. result of inquiries’ made by the Commonwealth Statistician from trade unions throughout the Commonwealth, which showed that of the number of unionists in the Commonwealth eligible for active service, 6.77 per cent, had enlisted in. the Expeditionary Forces, while of the number of other persons eligible by . age and not members of unions 4 per cent. had. enlisted.

page 4187

QUESTION

WOUNDED SOLDIERS

Mr GROOM:

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

Whether he will endeavour to arrange that in the message sent to the Department notifying that an Australian soldier is Wounded, that information should also be sent of the hospital in which the wounded person is being attended to?

Mr JENSEN:
ALP

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

It is not thought that this request is feasible when the nature of the task is considered. It has to be borne in’ mind that immediately a wounded man is discovered, the first consideration is to tend his wounds, and, according to the degree of severity, he would be despatched to the nearest hospital that could efficiently deal with the case. In the course of a few days, and as Boon as able to be moved, he would, in all probability, be removed to some other centre, so as to make room for fresh cases from the front.

These hospitals are scattered over a wide area, including theÆgean Sea, Dardanelles, Alexandria, Cairo, Assouan, Malta; while many of the wounded are in or en route to England.

The lists of wounded would be compiled as the men were despatched from the scene of operations, and the compiling officers would, in all probability, not have the slightest idea of their destination.

In view, therefore, of the fact that wounded must, inmost cases, necessarily be moving on from hospital to hospital, it is not deemed to be of any practical value to delay the notification of our casualties while the information is being obtained.

Information is now being obtained from different sources showing the hospitals in which numbers of the wounded are located, and this is transmitted to next-of-kin from time to time as received.

page 4188

QUESTION

SLAUGHTER OF FEMALE CALVES

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

– On the 10th inst. the honorable member for Oxley asked -

Has the attention of the Minister of Trade and Customs been called to that portion of Mr. Justice Street’s report in which he lays stress upon the unrestricted slaughter of female calves, and suggests that some legislation should be brought in dealing with the matter? Has the Minister communicated with the respective State Governments with the object of carrying out Mr. Justice Street’s recommendation?

I was unable to answer the question at the moment, but I have now ascertained that letters were sent to the Premiers of the States on the 30th April, 1915, giving figures in regard to female stock slaughtered at export works, and suggesting that on the return of normal climatic conditions action be taken by the States to restrain the indiscriminate slaughter of female stock. Tha collectors have been directed to forward monthly returns of the number of female stock slaughtered for export. Totals for the year 1914 have been supplied, and details are available from the 1st January, 1915. constitutionalteration (tradeandcommerce)bill.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph (i.) of section 51 of the

Constitution

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I move an amendment -

That the following words be added : - “ as soon as adequate provision has been made by the united energies of the Government” and Parliament for the successful prosecution of the war.”

Opposition Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr Higgs:

– That is a motion of want of confidence.

Several other honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is quite evident from the interjections across the chamber that there is a little excitement this morning. I appeal to honorable members not to continue in that strain, because it will compel me to take very severe action, which I do not desire to do. I ask honorable members on both sides of the House to assist me in maintaining order.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– One grows accustomed to these taunts from honorable members on the Ministerial side in relation to this matter; therefore, one interjection here and there does not matter very much. I rise this morning to do my duty as I conceive it, and although there has been no formal consultation to decide on the steps to be taken - I desire that to be distinctly understood - I believe that in the amendment I have moved I am interpreting the sentiments of the bulk of the honorable members on this side of the House.

Opposition Members. - Hear, hear! .

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– And I believe I am voicing the sentiments of at least half the members on the Government side.

Mr Fenton:

– You are speaking for the Employers Federation.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I desire to urge reasons why this party strife should not be entered upon in this Chamber at the present crisis in the Empire’s history. Assuredly any one reading the newspapers must be impressed with the gravity of the international situation, but beyond all else there comes to us from over the seas a call to suspend party politics and concentrate our united energies on the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion. That is the supreme matter of national safety.

In the first place I ask myself whether the Constitution ought to be amended when 60,000 citizens are at the war, and unable to vote.

Mr Fenton:

– They will vote at the front.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– I again appeal to honorable members to discontinue these interjections. The honorable member for Parramatta has appealed to me for protection against this continuous interruption. If honorable members persist in these tactics I shall be obliged to take a course to prevent further disorder of the kind.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Honorable members on the Government side have fought many valiant battles to acquire for the people of Australia the right to determine, without let or hindrance, their own destiny as far as it is possible for them to do so under the laws of the country in which we live, but there is the outstanding fact that 60,000 of our citizens have left these shores to fight for the safety of the remainder in Australia, and by these proposals the Government are submitting the most supreme of all questions, the Constitution which governs them as well as us, and which fixes the destiny of all of us, to a referendum of the people in the absence of those soldiers, and without affording them the privilege of voting on the issue. Surely that is a complete subversion of democratic rule and principle. Moreover it is a political crime of the deepest dye against those brave fellows who are fighting at the front. Ought the Constitution to be amended in the absence of 60,000 of our citizens who are fighting for their lives, and, above all, for our lives? Is it treating those soldiers fairly to persevere with these proposals at this time? The 4,000,000 people living at home in safety are asked to decide this great issue in the absence of the 60,000 who are at the front helping to keep the fire-sides of the 4,000,000 warm and safe. I care not of what complexion the absent vote may be. Honorable members opposite claim that it would be a labour vote. Let it be so; I am not concerned with that point, but I am concerned with the fact that 60,000 men are deprived of the right to vote, and were not told that in their absence the Constitution would be altered, and made a different sort of instrument altogether. That is my first indictment against this procedure of the Government - that on democratic grounds these men have as much right to be consulted in the alteration of our Constitution as we who are still in the country have.

Mr Sampson:

– There will be 100,000 there before the Bill is through.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If what we are told is correct, before these Bills are submitted, there will be 80,000 soldiers away from these shores. Is this procedure fair to them?

Mr Hughes:

– Provision was made for the Canadians who were at the front to vote, and they did vote.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Do honorable members think that it is possible to make provision for voting in the trenches?

Mr Hughes:

– The Canadians were in the trenches, and they did vote.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I simply do not believe it.

Mr Hughes:

– You mean to say that I am telling a lie; but they did.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I say that I do not believe that they were able to vote. In the meantime all we are doing in Australia is to talk about the reconstruction of a house while the house is burning. Is this the time to be tinkering with its reconstruction - with its alteration here and there in detail? Surely the first thing you should do is to get the fire engines, and to devote all your energies to putting the fire out. Then, afterwards, you may do what you will with its structural position.

If there be one man more than another who sees the light in this respect it is the Attorney-General, who is in charge of these Bills. No man saw it more clearly than he did a little while ago. I cannot do better than quote his language.

Mr Riley:

– You could not see it then.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That was at a time when there was no Parliament in existence, when it was not possible to do what he suggested. Now it is possible. There is a Government, there is a Parliament, and all we are asking is that this Parliament should concentrate its energies upon the supremest of all questions, putting away these considerations until we are able to devote ourselves to them without the intrusion of the war. On the 11th. August, the Attorney-General stated -

For the time being there is but one issue-

It was not this issue either. It is clear what the one issue was -

For the time being there is but one issue - the war, and upon this we are united. We cannot criticise. What then remains. How can Mr. Cook consult us and we co-operate with him, and at the same time go on with party warfare. We cannot at once have party warfare and united action.

Mr Hughes:

– Hear, hear! What did you say to that?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I said to that what I say now.

Mr Hughes:

– I will read what you said on the first occasion.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I wish you would. Then the Attorney-General went on -

We cannot go on to the platform and denounce the Government, and at the same time work with the Government. The choice lies between party and the welfare of the nation. It rests with Mr. Cook to make his choice. He says party strife must continue throughout the Empire. His is the only voice that says so.

I say that, throughout the Empire today, his - the Attorney-General’s of Australia - is the only voice that says party strife must continue. May I in this connexion call honorable members’ attention to the weighty words of the Imperial Prime Minister, which came to us only yesterday, and I want to put the two statements in contrast because they seem to me to so completely put the setting of things as we are seeing them to-day, after ten months of war? If things were serious then, and the honorable member was so anxious to stop party strife, so anxious to help us to do everything in the prosecution of the war, surely matters are even more serious to-day. . Speaking in the light of this graver situation, Mr. Asquith uses this language -

I come reluctantly to think that there should be a’ broadening of the basis of Government, so as to remove even a semblance of a one-sided party character. That would demonstrate to our people at Home, our fellow-subjects across the seas, to our Allies and enemies, as well as neutrals, that the British people were more resolute than ever in their one aim and purpose.

Mr. Asquith states also that they were determined to obliterate all distinctions untilevery personal and political, as well as moral and material, force was devoted to the prosecution of the Empire’s cause.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain stated, in fact, that the national emergency demanded the unreserved and whole-hearted co-operation of all parties.

Its Government was reconstructed, so as to intimate to the British people over the seas that there was not a shred of party difference in Great Britain. Everything savouring of party has been put away. Everything is being concentrated with the one object of effectively prosecuting the war.

Contrast this with the statement of our Prime Minister. He says -

We are not here as children playing in a dangerous place.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am glad to have that confirmation of his attitude.

We are not here as children playing in a dangerous place, likely to be attacked by the enemy. If we do not exercise our power and authority whilst we are practically at peace, when shall we?

That was a scandalous statement for the Prime Minister to make, but the Prime Minister repeats it here, and now.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear!

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– And I tell him to his shame and scandal-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must not use language of that description, and I ask him not to repeat it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I withdraw it. I ask the House to look at this statement. Are we practically at peace? Is this the attitude of the Government? Is it the attitude of the party behind the Government that we are practically at peace? And that there is no let or hindrance to our proceeding with our ordinary party programmes and party propaganda? Here is the statement, repeated and emphasized this morning, that there is no danger - that we are practically at peace, and, therefore, that we should not be obsessed, as the Attorney-General was nine months ago, with the one idea of the war, but that our first business here should be the perpetuation of party conflict, puttingthis great national war as far into the background as possible. I should like our men in the trenches to hear this statement by the Prime Minister. They would tell him a different tale.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Richard Foster:

– They are like a lot of heathens.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have appealed several times to honorable members to refrain from interjecting; but various expressions continue to be hurled across the chamber. I ask honorable members to desist, and give them timely warning that if they persist in disregarding my request, I shall probably hear, in an official sense, one or two of these interjections.

Mr Higgs:

– I desire, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to an objectionable epithet applied by the honorable member for Wakefield to the Prime Minister.

Mr Richard Foster:

– To the whole of the Government side.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member used the word “heathens.”

Mr Fisher:

– I accept it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Wakefield himself admits that he used this expression, which I did not officially hear, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I made use of the expression as applied to the whole of the other side, bub I withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has now committed an offence against the Standing Orders, and after what I have said I shall name him.

Mr Fisher:

– I understood the honorable member to withdraw the remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I had just appealed to the honorable member to withdraw the expression, and as an old parliamentarian he must recognise that his second offence was a thousand times worse than the original one. I tell honorable mem bers on both sides that if they defy the direction of the Chair I shall take a course that will prevent any recurrence of such conduct. The honorable member for Wakefield in the further statement that he made was insulting not only to me, but to the whole House.

Mr Richard Foster:

– As a matter of personal explanation-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can be no debate.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But this is entirely a misunderstanding.

Mr Higgs:

-The honorable member for Wakefield has been named.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am quite capable of dealing with these matters without the assistance of honorable members. If the honorable member for Wakefield wishes to apologize for his conduct I am prepared to withdraw from the position I have taken up, but unless he does so gracefully and properly I shall not.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I stated distinctly to you, Mr. Speaker, when you said that you did not hear the interjection, thatI made it, that it applied to the other side, and that I withdrew it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member withdrew in a way that was practically a defiance of the Chair.

Mr Kelly:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Wakefield has not done the right thing, and I name him for the action he has taken.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– It now becomes my painful duty under the Standing Orders to submit a certain motion, but if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that the honorable member for Wakefield have a further opportunity to explain.

Sir Robert Best:

– He has withdrawn the remark.

Mr FISHER:

– If the honorable member does not desire to make any further explanation, I shall have to move for his suspension.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Move him out after he has apologized!

Mr Higgs:

– He has not.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He has.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Burns:

– He applied the remark, first of all, to the Prime Minister, and then to the whole of us.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have repeatedly told tie House that I can manage this affair without any help. I do not require the assistance of . the Leader of the Opposition, or of any other honorable member. The Leader of- the Opposition, indeed, is adopting a course which he. has no right to take. I- appeal to him not to do so. The. honorable member for Wakefield did . not apologize. In his explanation he made his offence a thousand times worse than it was. Even an honorable member who has occupied a seat in Parliament for only a month or six weeks knows very well that when’ he is called upon to withdraw a statement he aggravates the offence by attaching some qualification to his withdrawal. If the honorable member for Wakefield wishes to get over the difficulty, I ask him to withdraw and apologize to the House.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I acted entirely within the Standing Orders, and have not a word to add to what I have already said.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) put -

That the honorable member for Wakefield be suspended from the service of the House.

The House divided.

AYES: 33

NOES: 24

Majority … … 9

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Speaker of the refusal, and on this occasion I shall excuse the honorable member for Richmond. I have to say, however, that if in the future any honorable member refuses to obey my orders, I shall ask the Leader of the House to have him suspended.

Several honorable members interjecting,

page 4193

SHELLS FOE THE ARMY. LABOUR TO BE MOBILIZED

page 4193

ABOLITION OF UNION RESTRICTIONS

And let us not forget that the abolition of union restrictions at Home is being agreed to by the union leaders.

Mr. Greene. - Read Ben Tillett

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes, I see our old friend Ben Tillett, than whom I suppose there has never been a more flaming propagandist in the interests of all that relates to the well-being of the worker, has been on a visit to the front, and he makes this statement in the paper this morning in the course of an interview in Paris on his return -

I have learned a new meaning for the word “ strike.” We have got to strike now, and with every ounce of British grit, energy, gold, and brains behind the blow. When the workers of England realise the situation, they will get their coats off, and give our soldiers the proper backing. We want shells and gas, and every death-dealing device conceivable. “ Give our soldiers the proper backing.” That ought to be the keynote of our action here.

Mr Hughes:

– Hear, hear.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Does the honorable member say that we can give our soldiers the proper backing while we are discussing these proposals here, and indulging in this party warfare?

Mr Hughes:

– Why should it be party warfare ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why should it be party warfare? For the simple reason that it is intended by the honorable member to be party warfare. It is intended by the Government to carry out the decision of the Inter-State Conference in Adelaide the other day.

Mr Hughes:

– That is not so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is intended to carry out the party propaganda on which they have consulted the country a number of times, but have refused to take the country’s decision. Why should it be party warfare? Surely the honorable member, as well as his leader, has his tongue in his cheek when he asks should these referenda be the subject of party warfare.

Mr Hughes:

– I do ask it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– These proposals aim at the radical alteration of our Constitution by the complete elimination of the Federal principle, and yet the honorable member asks, “ Why should it be regarded as a party question?” Is there any other question in the whole purview of our party relations which has. one tithe of the party tincture that these questions have? How absurd, therefore, is the statement that this is not a party matter. Besides, this is only a new cry. Hitherto these question’s have always been regarded as the dividing line - as marking the great distinction between parties in this Commonwealth ; but now that the war is overshadowingus the honorable member makes the appeal that they should be regarded as a great national matter, and not as a party issue at all.

I repeat that our part of the Empire is the only one where this kind of thing is taking place. What for? What is the motive underlying it? Members opposite, of course, say that the cost of living is going up. But is not the cost of living going up everywhere in the world just now ? Is not the cost of living in Australia up just now because of the drought? Would not the cost of living have been up had there been no war? What has the war done in Australia, so far as our financial relations are concerned? So far as our business relations are concerned, with one or two singular exceptions, we have had enough money to finance ourselves. There never was a war conducted where there was so much available money, and so many business operations, as there are at present in connexion with this war. I venture to say that the war is not responsible for the increase in the cost of living in Australia, except to a slight extent, and that slight extent is far below the extent to which prices have risen all over the world. For instance, we are told that the price of beef is up, and the honorable member for Indi asked a series of questions as to the increase in Victoria, carefully singling out those articles affected by the drought - beef, bread, sugar, and such like things; Well, as to beef, may I remind honorable members what they probably read in the papers only yesterday, that beef in Austria is 3s. 4d. per lb. There is a result of the war if you like. And I say that, considering that a world war is being waged, we ought to be profoundly thankful that beef is no higher than it is in Australia to-day. That is my feeling in this matter. And I want to know now how will these referenda proposals, if carried, help to bring prices down ? Is it necessary to tear up our Constitution and interfere with out preparations for war because the price of beef is a little high just now? Surely there is a strange want of proportion in the setting of the whole case.

Mr Kelly:

– The Attorney-General recognises that he has power already.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Besides, Mr. Justice Street has delivered the final word on this matter of beef prices. He says that, after a full investigation, the Trusts aimed at in this propaganda are not causing any injury to Australia so far as our present beef prices are concerned. Then we are told that there is a sugar monopoly ; but yet the other day, on the floor of this House, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was careful to tell us that we had cheaper sugar in Australia than anywhere else in the world.

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

– Cheaper than before the war.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes, that is a fact. The Minister himself had to admit in Adelaide that there were worse combines than the Sugar Combine. Well, let it be so. But cannot these combines wait a little longer while we are finishing this combine of the Germans and the Austrians? That is the combine we have to face just now, for that is the combine the removal of which brooks of no delay. It will submit to no arbitration. It has to be fought out and down before there can be national peace again. And then we are told that the price of bread is up. I regret that bread is up a little, but, surely,, it is because of the drought and not because of the war. In Sydney the Necessary Commodities Commission the other day decided not to grant the bakers any further increase in. the price of the loaf. Will any one say that in war time a 4£d. loaf is a thing to require the elimination of the Federal principle from our Constitution? Can it be said, that because bread is temporarily dear, that is a reason for entering at this time of all others upon a great constitutional struggle? These are the cases that honorable members opposite cite. I want to see cheap beef, cheap sugar, and cheap bread, but I say you will not make them one whit cheaper by political strife.

Mr Hampson:

– But you will by political action.

Mr Kelly:

– The Attorney-General says that he has all the power at present.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– All I have to say in reply to the honorable member for Bendigo is that, between his party and the five Labour parties of the States, they have all the political power they require at present. What they have not got in this Parliament, their confreres have in the States. Between them they have a totality of the political power of the Continent.

Mr Burns:

– How can they exercise that power with the Legislative Councils constituted as at present.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not wish to discuss that matter now. In my judgment the Labour party have the power. What power you have not in the Federal

Parliament you have in the States. What the Commonwealth Labour Government have not got, the Labour Government of the States have, and it is only a question of distribution.

I come back to my main point. I urge the ceasing of party strife until the war is over. Then all these matters will fall into their proper place, and we may resume our former relations, dividing ourselves on party lines, and proceeding at our leisure with the discussion of these great questions, which can then be considered in the calm, cold light of reason, with our judgment unperturbed by the war or any outside disturbance. What has occurred elsewhere? Are these referendum proposals of more pressing importance to the Labour party here than is Home Rule to the Irish? Yet we find Mr. Redmond cordially acquiescing in the postponement of the consideration of that question until the war is over, and concentrating his undivided attention, and that of his followers, on assisting Mr. Asquith, Mr. Bonar Law, and Sir Edward Carson, bitter, life-long opponents, and asking no questions about party propaganda. We have here in Melbourne a further evidence in the attitude of the Age newspaper of how during this life-and-death struggle the higher patriotism can prevail over every other consideration. When the Age and the Argus lie down together, and drop their party strife, there must surely be some overmastering compulsion upon them both. I think that it was a noble statement for the Age to publish when it renounced yesterday its right to the immediate revision of - the Tariff until the conclusion of the war. I wonder whether that is the reason for the alteration in the tactics of my friends opposite. They have been telling us ever since the session began that the moment the Estimates were out of the way the consideration of the Tariff would be the first business taken. Now it is no longer to be the Tariff, but we are to have the referendum proposals. What has caused the change? It is a change in tactics only, and I am pleading for a bigger change. Not only do I want the Tariff to be left alone until after the war, and we are made secure, but I desire that these greater questions shall also be left over, so that they may at the proper time be considered. The press of Australia has set us an example which I think we should follow in this time of national crisis. What I propose is happening all over the world. Bitter, unrelenting Socialists have joined the Cabinets of Continental nations for the better prosecution of the war in which they are ear gaged. Where shall we find one more devoted to Socialism than the present Minister of War in the Belgian Cabinet - a man of life-long convictions, who has sacrificed everything for his ideas. The same thing has happened in France and in Great Britain. Arthur Henderson, the Leader of the British Labour! party, has joined hands with Mr. Bonar Law. He has put all party considerations aside, and is urging his confreres outside to do the same. He, as a member of the British Cabinet, is devoting all his energies to the speedy ending of the war, and they are doing the same. This Labour Government and the party that supports it are the one Government, and the one party in the Empire who are prosecuting not a national, but a party war, who give party matters the first place on their political platform. It is against that that I protest in the most earnest way that I may, and for that reason; alone, have I moved the amendment.

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

– We have had this morning in this Chamber additional evidence of the patriotism of the Opposition. I am glad that we have had it. I felt that this was coming, because there is a long trail of events leading up to this action. The evidence is to be had not only in this Chamber, but outside as well. The Leader of the Opposition complains that while the newspapers and certain influential people are saying so-and-so, we are doing something different. We were sent here for that purpose. We are here to do justice to the people, and to fulfil the pledges that we gave when the issue was fought before the country. I wish to pin the right honorable gentleman down’ to the statement which he interpolated just now, when he said that I had admitted this morning that the first duty of this Government was to its party. I have not said that, and it is not so with us on this side. But there is abundant evidence that it may be truly said of the other side. Day after day, the press, which voices the political opinions of the Opposition, not those of the Labour party, has attacked the most’ prominent and the best Minister in

Australia - the Minister of Defence - a man who is most embarrassed at the. present time, and who has done most during his Ministerial life to provide for the effective and efficient defence of Australia. He is a native of this country, and his name will probably endure longer than that of any one yet known, because of his ability and sincerity. What is the purpose and intention of the amendment?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– To fight this party spirit to the death.

Mr FISHER:

– If the Government had agreed to a coalition, which is a magnificent method of doing nothing for a long time, there would have been no trouble and no display of feeling. Had the right honorable member for Parramatta and those sitting with him been returned to power at the last election, they would have scorned to take the advice of the Labour party. I do not charge myself with neglect of duty in that matter. I felt at the last election that, whatever the consequences might be, the courage of the men in office, notwithstanding their great ability, only oozed out on party matters. When the great issue of war Tell upon us, the responsibility was not gripped by them with both hands, as we expected it to be gripped. I do not question their patriotism or good intentions, nor their readiness to sacrifice themselves could they bring the war to a close, but I challenge their political actions and the help that they are supposed to have given to this Government since we have been in office. To come to the business of the House, I have restrained my colleagues in the Ministry from pressing on with business to enable the Opposition to get what is called a “full fling.” I have pleaded with the Leader of the Opposition and with others to allow us to get the Estimates through, so that we might deal with the business of the session. Again and again we have failed to do so. Days and weeks have passed, and we are no further forward. Now comes an outburst of patriotism from the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him, in the shape of a motion of want of confidence. The great Dr. Johnson had something to say about that kind of patriotism. I have seen these tactics before in this Chamber. J have seen honorable members who had gone to the country on issues to which they were diametrically opposed, and who had denounced each other’s policy, when seeking election, coalesce and fuse to oppose the reform policy of the Labour party. Those to whom I refer went back on their pledges to their constituents, and would have governed the country contrary to the wishes of the people if they had had the power. A remnant of that party forms part of the Opposition to-day, and their ideas still prevail. In office all is well ; out of office nothing is right. That is their history.

Sir John Forrest:

– I am afraid that we are not the only ones of whom that could be said.

Mr FISHER:

– I am not. If the right honorable gentleman says that that is the motive force behind the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, why does he not say so openly, instead of associating his action with the welfare of the nation, and with the fate and fortunes of the Mother Country? The help which the Government have received from the Opposition has not lightened its burden. It reached us in the form of nagging, suggesting, hinting-

Sir Robert Best:

– That statement is not very generous.

Mr FISHER:

– If the statement were unfair, I would have great pleasure in withdrawing it.

Sir Robert Best:

– You know it is unfair.

Mr FISHER:

– As regards the efforts of the Ministry to provide means for the successful carrying on of the war, nothing has been done that ought not to have been done, and nothing has been left undone that ought to have been done - for party reasons. The ideas of honorable members of the Opposition, and persons outside Parliament, have been investigated and dealt with. The policy of the Government is that the preparation for the conduct of the war is our first duty now and always. We may be wrong, we may have committed errors, and we may have overlooked certain things, but we have never been lax; we have ever been vigilant in trying to discover the best course ; to pursue. But day after day in this Parliament, and through the organs of the press - and I may remind honorable members opposite that in the newspapers they have a thousand pipe organs by comparison with our puny whistles - there have been suggestions and criticisms as to what we should do. Every morning the tongues of the press have been speaking in the houses of the community; and, because the Government are not moved to act in the way which the press suggests, we are told that we are not doing right. Had we followed the lead of the press in the past, the progress of Australia would have been retarded, and this Parliament would have been a useless instrument at this time to provide for the defence of the country, for our powers would have been more limited, and our opportunities fewer. Now, at the close of a financial year, the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment - a helping amendment, quite in keeping with his previous actions; an amendment not hostile-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yes; hostile to these proposals, certainly.

Mr FISHER:

– I cannot imagine that the amendment is hostile after hearing the fervour of the right honorable gentleman’s speech. He referred to me as having uttered some pious expressions regarding the war. What were those pious expressions? Before the war broke out, I said, at Colac, that the situation in Europe looked most unsatisfactory, and that if, in the turn of events, it should become the duty of the Mother Country to resort to arms, we in Australia should give her our most kindly and sympathetic consideration; and, in the final resort, after everything that wisdom could suggest and honour permit had been done in vain to maintain peace, it would be the duty of the Australian people generally to provide their last man and last shilling to help in the struggle. Is that the pious sentiment to which the right honorable member referred ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not think I used that expression this morning?

Mr FISHER:

– I heard those words; but I accept the statement of the right honorable member that he intended no reflection. The Leader of the Opposition is under no misapprehension as to how I regard the amendment he has moved. I treat it as an ordinary party move for party purposes, clothed and disguised in the cloak of patriotism, and no Government worthy of the name would remain a day in office if such a proposal were accepted by Parliament. The right honorable gentleman gave reasons in support of the amendment. One was that the British Government had ceased party strife. It has done so because the Government were falling to pieces.

Mr Watt:

– The British Government?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes.

Mr Watt:

– That is an extraordinary statement.

Mr FISHER:

– An election was due in the United Kingdom this year in accordance with the parliamentary provision for a quinquennial appeal to the people. From the Imperial Government’s point of view, it was impossible that an election should take place during the war. I am not one of those who criticised the right honorable member for Parramatta and his Government in regard to holding the last Commonwealth elections during the war ; I never have criticised that action, and I never shall. My distinguished colleague - the Attorney-General - took an opposite view, as he was entitled to do.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He said he was speaking for you and in your behalf.

Mr FISHER:

– The Liberal Government chose their own course, and followed it without consideration to the Labour party. I would remind the right honorable member that when he called me to a Conference I readily responded, and I summoned my colleague - the Minister of Defence - to come immediately from Western Australia, where he was engaged in the election campaign. I apprised the right honorable member for Parramatta of Senator Pearce’s presence in Melbourne.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No, sir; never at any time did you apprise me of any such thing.

Mr FISHER:

– I did inform the right honorable member when he was presiding at the Conference. I also apprised the honorable member for Flinders and Sir Alexander Peacock that Senator Pearce was in Melbourne. I could not suggest that he should be invited into our councils. However, I take no exception to the manner in which the then Government managed their own affairs, because the responsibility was on them. I could not take any action, by way of suggestion, in regard to a matter that concerned the Government, and I refrained from discussing the war issues.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Did you, or did you not, approve of the proposal of the Attorney-Genera] that, the election should be postponed?

Mr FISHER:

– I was never consulted. The Attorney-General can deal with that matter quite effectively when he speaks.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In the meantime, you say that he did not speak in your behalf ?

Mr FISHER:

– My view then was, as it is now, having been confirmed over and over again, that the character of the late Government made it impossible for them to carry on the war, or anything else, successfully. They were a Government who sought to conciliate every interest, and to do nothing that would disturb their political existence or make any suggestions that would alienate one vote. That is not the way in which to conduct a Government during a crisis. Ten times better is it to say “ yes “ here, and “no” there, and take the consequences. One statement only did I make regarding our attitude upon the war issues, and I think that, as a party, we have adhered to our word.

Now we turn to the party programme. We have emphasized above everything else the fact that the present Constitution is an unworkable and impossible instrument to do its duty to the people. Every day our sitting of this House opens with a prayer that we may be able to do something for the true welfare of the people of Australia, and every day that petition goes unheeded by members of the Opposition, even when the opportunity is afforded them. I defy any honorable member opposite to point to a single piece of Labour legislation that has not done good ; indeed, much of it has done all the good we predicted of it. But every one of those measures has been denounced by the honorable members who to-day are challenging the position of the Government. Let me deal now with the great point in the argument” of the Leader of the Opposition, that the sons of Australia and the Mother Country are in the trenches fighting for the honour and glory of the Empire and our Allies, and that, therefore, we should cease work in this Parliament. Was that a condition imposed by our soldiers when they enlisted? The honorable member for Parramatta waxed enthusiastic about the soldiers fighting in the trenches, but is patriotism in fighting the battles of one’s country qualified by conditions? Any man who has taken the oath of allegiance knows that he goes to the front to perform his duties and to give his life if he is asked to do so, and that is the highest honour that can be given to any man. If it can be arranged that our soldiers at the front may make their voices heard on the referenda proposals, I shall be glad. My whole life has been spent fighting in order that every person might have a say in the government of his country. What has been the attitude of honorable members opposite? Their political lives and the lives of persons holding their views, have been spent in endeavouring to limit the citizenship of their country, in setting up the paltry, outrageous pretence that they, being superior individuals, possessed of property, should have two votes whilst others had none. The occasion may be recalled, when my honorable friend, the member for Maranoa, with thousands of the. best men in. Australia, worked throughout the harvest leading a nomadic life, after having been deprived of their rights of citizenship. I saw an original letter from a justice of the peace in one of the districts concerned, asking the Minister to take the names of these men off the roll because they were Labour. That came from a magistrate, and yet other individual citizens could get seventytwo votes, with which they were able to vote in every electorate in Queensland.

Sir John Forrest:

– What has that to do with this question?

Mr FISHER:

– It has to do with the question in that it shows the worth of the patriotic interest that is being taken in the soldiers who are fighting at the front. Patriotism and enthusiasm of that kind are being made much of to-day when there is a political advantage to be gained by it.

Mr Gregory:

– Who framed the Federal Constitution?

Mr FISHER:

– We helped. We defeated the 1891 Constitution, and there is no better way of helping to make a good thing than by destroying a bad thing. We are, at any rate, strong enough to-day to do the right thing, just as the Western men were strong enough to do the right thing, and go to prison for it. Some of them spent three years in prison, when they could have secured release if they had only said they were sorry. They declined. There are documents in existence which disgust those who see them.

Yet four of those men have since found seats in Parliament, with the verdict of Democracy behind them.

Sir John Forrest:

– Let us get to the question.

Mr FISHER:

– What is the question? Is it not a question of putting the Government out, as the honorable member said on the occasion when my honorable colleague, Mr. Watson, first came here ?

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not want your billet.

Mr FISHER:

– Truth to tell, it is hardly worth having at the present time, but that is no reason why any one in my position should seek the easy course if he thinks the difficult one is the right course in the interests of the people. The difficult course is the course that this Government will pursue. [ Mr. Watt.- May I ask the right honorable gentleman one question. Is he prepared to submit to a referendum the question of whether we should have party warfare during this Parliament?

Mr FISHER:

– I am against putting to the country by referendum any question as to whether party interests shall be observed or not, for this reason: The people by whom we were elected assume that we are honest as well, as patriotic. Even if we were not patriotic, we would be honest. The interest of the country is our first interest. There is an easy course which this Government might pursue. We might go with the press. We might go with those who are moving honorable members, and live happily ever afterwards at the expense of the progress of this country. Far better to die an honorable death. Let a man die beside his principles5-

Mr Fleming:

– Rather than fight for he Empire?

Mr FISHER:

– No! Mere shouters for the Empire have been too much in evidence recently. The merits of the question on which this amendment is moved are not involved at all by this proceeding. This amendment amounts to nothing more than a vote of no-confidence in the Government. It. can have no other object than a political object. It cannot add one penny to our financial resources; it cannot bring a. single- man more into the firing line. If it. does anything at all it can only disturb the public mind. My last words are not to this House; they are to the citizens of

Australia, to the fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters of this country upon whom depend largely what troops and equipment shall be sent to the front; upon whom will rest the responsibility of raising the forces that we need. Notwithstanding any political disturbance that may arise, the hearts of the people. I believe, are beating true, irrespective of politics, irrespective of party warfare. The nation is in trouble. We are determined to see the trouble through; and, having provided all these forces of both men and money, it is our business to proceed with the ordinary work of government, and especially is it our business) in my opinion, to proceed with this necessary amendment of the Constitution, so as to enable the Commonwealth Government to give effect to the will of the people, and to protect the people’s interests.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:
Flinders

– The speech we have just listened to. from the Prime Minister is one which, perhaps, might, have been worthy of a leader of a political party addressing his own followers, but I think honorable members will agree that it was not a speech worthy the leader of the Commonwealth Parliament - the leader of Australia - in the greatest- national crisis . in its existence. I am not going to speak of the matters which the. Prime Minister referred to as having occurred, in the past. Surely the present, and the immediate future, contain problems sufficient for us without raking up party animosities arising out of what has been done long ago. What is the meaning of this amendment? It does not imply a refusal to permit the consideration of amendments to the Constitution. It is not directed against the introduction of these measures. It seeks that their discussion and consideration - involving as this does the most bitter political conflict that can possibly be raised in Australia at the present time - be postponed until adequate provision has been made by the united energies of the Government and the Parliament, for the successful prosecution of this war. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, referred - true, the reference waa made in language which was not a direct accusation - but his reference left the imputation that this amendment had been launched with a view of displacing the Government, and of enabling those who support the amendment to take their places. I think I am entitled to absolutely repudiate and resent that imputation, and I do so not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of every member who sits on this side of the House.

An Honorable Member. - You have got no chance.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– We do not want a chance just now. During the whole of this Parliament - and this is the only reference I shall make to the past - the Opposition has placed itself under the closest and most continuous restraint with regard to the actions of the Government. Time and again there have been opportunities which, under ordinary normal circumstances, would have been availed of, for pointing out what members of the Oppositon regarded as grave defects in the conduct and administration of matters arising out of the war. Buttime and time again these opportunities have been deliberately passed by by honorable members on this side. It is only when the Government, who, in this matter, are not acting as free agents - neither they nor the honorable members who support them are free, but are carrying out the express directions of a body which is superior to them and their supporters - say that they are now going to plunge Australia into what must be the bitterest political conflict that could possibly be aroused, that we as- an Opposition have considered it our duty, in the only way open to us, to ask the House to decide that the country shall not be plunged into internecine political warfare while our sons and brothers are dying on the battlefield. There is the simple issue, cloak it as you will; and there is not one honorable member on the Government side of the House who, if he were free, would not indorse such a statement of the case.

Mr Hughes:

– In what way does the honorable member say that we are not pledged to do this?

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– The AttorneyGeneral asks why I say that the Government in this matter are not free agents. Did not the honorable gentleman and his Leader, a week or two ago, leave on one side for a whole week the most important business of this country, in order that they might attend a Conference in Adelaide to receive the directions of their political supporters? And when, they came back, did not the honorable member and his Leader deliberately alter the order of procedure which they had set out for this House, and introduce, at the bidding of those supporters, the particular measure now before us ?

Mr Hughes:

– No! Emphatically no ! There is no truth in what the honorable member says.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– I did not “ say “ anything; I simply asked a question; and, although the ordinary rules of courtesy in this House prevent me from expressing my disbelief in any thing that is actually said here, I, like every member of the public, am entitled, notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s denial, to form my own conclusion as to the necessary inference to be drawn from the facts. What is the present position? It is one of the defects of the system under which my honorable friends opposite conduct their parliamentary proceedings, the system by which they are appointed, and through which they gain their places in this House, that they are given, from time to time, general sailing orders by a political Conference. They have now placed over them a political executive, the object of which, as stated in the motion published in the press, is to see that the resolutions and objectives of the Conference are carried out by the Labour party in this Parliament. One of the objectives of that Conference is the immediate introduction of these Bills. The Attorney-General now wishes to appear as a free, responsible Minister, acting upon his own judgment in introducing this Bill.

Mr Hughes:

– I say that emphatically.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– The more emphatically the honorable member makes his denial, the more it comes into striking contrast with the facts) as we know them. The Government, acting under the directions of a political Conference which was held some weeks ago, and which itself was composed of representatives who had been appointed some little time before, are now placing these Bills before Parliament, in order to carry into effect a resolution affirmed. I believe, some considerable time ago. I want to show the Government that they are blind if theydo not see that, even within the short space of time that has elapsed since this Conference was held, a complete change-‘ has come over the spirit of the people - that a complete change has come over the views of a large number of those who placed the Labour party in power. I read this from a hundred different signs. I know it from my own personal experience. Less than a week ago, I had the privilege of addressing a huge gathering consisting, as I am assured, and firmly believe, to a large extent of people who are either direct supporters of, or sympathizers with, the Labour party in this Parliament. .And I can assure honorable members that that gathering was unanimous and most enthusiastic in the determination that there should be an end to this wretched party conflict until the war is over. The Prime Minister made the statement that this Government had done all they could to aid the Mother Country ; that they had given to the Mother Country kindly and sympathetic consideration. Good heavens! are we blind? Are honorable members opposite blind to the danger which hangs over us at the present moment? The Leader of the Opposition has sketched the present position in Europe. Let me deal a little further with it. Any one who reads the newspapers can see that, on the Eastern war frontier, the power of Russia to actively participate for the present in any serious blow against the coalition of our enemies is either broken or being broken, and that before long the 700,000 or 800,000 enemy troops who are in one part of the Galician movement will be thrown back to aid the Germans in their attack upon our own men in Flanders. In addition to that, we must not lose sight of the fact that the cable news which we read in the papers from day to day has been censored, and that what is more, everything is put in the most favorable light to us. That cannot be denied. Our own men who are fighting in the Dardenelles are backing up an almost impossible position. They are calling to us.

Mr Hughes:

– I cannot think of any speech more calculated to hearten the Germans in their business than this speech by the honorable member.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– I hurl that accusation back in the honorable member’s teeth. If the Attorney-General and his party persist in throwing down this bone of contention, they and their Government will fall under the imputation of not being sincere in carrying on this war. The honorable member knows this and knows it well. Do we not also know that an efficient censorship has been provided in order to enable us here to speak the truth concerning matters affecting the welfare of Australia without danger of information being given to the enemy? The only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from the facts is that the result of this war hangs in the balance, and that we are now at the most critical point in the most dangerous war that has ever threatened our safety. And yet the Prime Minister talks in this way of the Mother Country! What stake has the Mother Country, great as it is, compared with the stake that we in Australia have ? Is there an honorable member opposite who will venture to suggest that if we are beaten in this war Australia will not come under the domination of Germany?

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member think that the passing or non-passing of these Referenda Bills will decide the great issues of the war?

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– I do not. It is well-known that I personally would go a long way towards the object that the Government have in view in the desire to enlarge the powers of the Federal Parliament. The passing or non-passing of these referenda proposals, when they are ultimately submitted to the people, will, have no effect on the war. But this invitation to the whole of the people of Australia to engage in what we all know will be a bitter political conflict, will have a> very deleterious effect on Australia’s share of the war. That is my answer to the honorable member.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Honorable members on both sides are again interjecting, notwithstanding my request that they should desist. I ask the honorable member for Barrier and the honorable member for Calare to cease interjecting.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– I do not intend to occupy much further the time of the House. We desire, in the most emphatic way, to make an appeal to honorable members to open their eyes to the actual situation confronting them. We appeal to the Prime Minister, above all others, to take his courage in both hands and to come forward and lead the people of Australia. He alone is in a position from which he can lead the people of this country along a path that will mean a successful termination to the terrible war which threatens our very existence, and he should subordinate all other considerations to that design. I disclaim and repudiate the idea that any political advantage could possibly accrue to the Op- position from the amendment which has been submitted by our leader. Everyone knows no such advantage could accrue to us, and to use this amendment, as I am afraid the Prime Minister has done, as a means of endeavouring to throw upon us the onus of making a party move in this connexion, of raking up ancient and buried subjects of party differences, will not tend to strengthen the Parliament in the duty which lies before it. I have only one or two words to add in regard to what the result would be - what the result would be to the Government supporters - supposing the British domiination were broken and Germany took possession of our country, as most assuredly they could, and as most assuredly they would. One would imagine, from what one sometimes hears outside, that when the millions of Germans, who are seeking a free outlet for their energies in other countries, entered into this country, the first thing they would do would be to. enroll themselves in the ranks of the Trades Hall! Why, if they came here, they would come to conquer on the same lines as they have carried on the war. They would come here to make our people hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the sooner the people of Australia recognise that’ fact, the better.

Mr Hughes:

– Hear, hear !

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– I am glad to learn that the Attorney-General recognises the fact.

Mr Hughes:

– I have always recognised it, and I was one of the first to point it out.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– Then it cannot be too frequently asserted from both sides of the House. No one can dispute that all the ancient rules, not merely as to the civilized conduct of war, but as to the treatment of a conquered country, have been cast to the winds by this new force that threatens us. Do not imagine for one moment that if we are beaten, and the Germans come here, they will treat us as we treated our former enemies in South Africa.

Mr Hampson:

– Why this scare speech ?

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– Do not imagine that they will give us, as we gave the Boers, a constitution, and continued possession of our property.

Mr Thomas:

– The Conservatism-

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– Let us leave out all talk of Conservatism. Cannot the honorable member for one moment forget the miserable party issues that divide us? Cannot he forget them for only one moment? Surely there will be time hereafter, when we are over this immediate crisis, for us to fight those battles to the uttermost ? There is no reason why we should not. Considerations that under ordinary circumstances are of great party moment become paltry and insignificant in the face of the huge danger that threatens us. It has been said that I am making an alarmist speech ; and perhaps I am. If I am, it is because I believe that, even now, the great mass of our people in Australia have not realized what this war means to them. And I say that we have not yet done - we have not yet half done - our duty in connexion with the war. All the united energies of Parliament and people are hardly sufficient to enable us to cope with the enormous difficulties confronting us without the introduction of issues that must split us asunder into parties incapable of harmonious action.

Mr HUGHES:
General - West Sydney · Attorney · ALP

.- With what the honorable member for Flinders has just said I entirely agree. The position of. this country in regard to the war is such that language cannot exaggerate the danger of our situation. Long before the war broke out, and since it has broken out, I have never disguised from myself, nor from others, the danger in which, not only this country, but England, stood. But we are not. now discussing this question. This morning we are discussing whether certain proposed laws, which the Government desire to submit to the people, should be brought before the House; but the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable’ member for Flinders have introduced intothis matter - severely formal as it is - an atmosphere which, if it be not party, I do not know what party is. In what way could they have assailed this Government more effectively than that in which they have assailed us this morning? What charge could they have levelled against us more deadly than that we are not awake to the danger of the nation. If party warfare be not the making of charges calculated to damage opponents in the eyes of the public, what is party warfare? What have they omitted to say that they could have said ? They tell us that they have shown in every discussion since the beginning of this Parliament a severe restraint. But it is this affectation of restraint that makes their criticism more effective ; it is the barb of the javelin they hurl into our breast. The charge made against us is that we are hot alive to our present circumstances. It is said that we neither comprehend the danger in which the country finds itself, nor have taken steps to protect her interests. Both of those charges are totally unfounded. Not one fact can be adduced in support of them. Why are we subjected to such criticism ? The answer is easy to find. The Labour party is in power! The Labour party is despised and condemned, as it always has been by its opponents. There has never been a set of circumstances in which they have found the Labour party right. In an atmosphere of unruffled peace, or plunged into a bloody war, we are always wrong in their eyes. This condemnation of the Labour party is no new thing; but the charge now levelled against us is one that must not remain unanswered for a single moment. ‘ I-wish to show clearly that this party and the Government are not only keenly alive to our present danger and its duty to prosecute the war with all its energies, but foresaw this war, and took steps to prepare for it, when the voices of honorable gentlemen opposite were dumb - when there was neither enthusiasm, nor prudence, not even common sense, displayed by them. The honorable gentleman has said we are not alive to our present danger. Sir, we foresaw it when he was certain all was well; we warned him and the country, but he would not heed. Let me- prove that this is so. I shall quote from a speech I made in 1908. If that speech had been made to-day it could not more appropriately set out the causes of our present danger, and the quarter from which that danger comes. I was replying to Sir George Reid, then, I think, the Leader of the Opposition, and who had said that, in his opinion, everything was well with the British Empire. I said -

He would nave us believe that everything is well with the British Empire; that there is no fear of war; that we may securely fold our arms, and rest in peace under the aegis of the mightiest fleet that the world has ever seen. But we should look the facts in the face, and see what reflection lightens or darkens the heavens therefrom. At the present time the British fleets are being drawn closer and ever closer to Great Britain. But three years ago, when the Naval Agreement Bill was being discussed, they were policing the most distant seas. There was .then a respectable squadron in the China seas, and a fleet in the Pacific. To-day, except for the Mediterranean squadron,, all the British warships are within a stone’s throw of Great Britain, encircling with a triple wall of steel the islands which are the heart of the Empire. The right honorable gentleman believes that everything is well, although circumstances tell a very different tale. Similar action on the part of a private person would be regarded as significant of his apprehension of danger. When a man takes the precaution to be always within a stone’s throw of his house, all men accept it as conclusive evidence that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of attack.

I went on to show where the attack would come from, and what the consequences must inevitably be. ‘ In support of my contention, I quoted from the Clarion some words used by Mr. H. M. Hyndmar -

There is not the slightest doubt that Germany, under . the . leadership of Prussia, is steadily making ready, at heavy cost, which the German Empire can at present ill afford, for a crucial naval engagement in the North Sea, followed by an invasion of this country. This is perfectly well known to all our leading politicians, and conclusive evidence of the truth of this statement is on record in the War Office and at the Admiralty. Everything is being got ready with that scrupulous care and minute attention to detail for which the Germans have been famous in military matters for nearly half a century.

I went on to elaborate that point; but it fell on deaf ears. I showed that Captain Mahan, the great American naval expert, Lieutenant Dewar, and authorities of one sort and another, all agreed as to Germany’s purpose : that war was inevitable - that we must prepare to meet it; but these gentlemen who to-day are so keenly alive to our danger did not heed - because there were party interests in the way. Who can say that there is one word I uttered seven years ago that has not been amply borne out by the facts today? Yet they say we are not alive to our danger. We always have been alive to it. But they have only just awakened. When the voice of the Leader of the Opposition was silent, mine was ringing through this chamber, and through the country, in an endeavour to urge the people to prepare for this very day. Where was the honorable member then ? His patriotism has at length awakened from a long sleep, and he now cries’, “ To arms! To arms!” Yes; but, by God, if we had waited until he called us to arms, we should have been, to-day, like dumbdriven cattle going to the slaughter pens ! It is because the Labour party realized that there was no salvation to be got by crying out “ peace, peace,” or “ all is well,” but by preparing for this evil day, that there is to-day freedom in our great cities from the ravages of German cruisers. But for the Labour party and those who saw the necessity for naval defence, the fate that overtook Liege and Namur would have overtaken Sydney and Melbourne. Who can deny that? No one ! The honorable member for Flinders has said that we are not sincere, and have not done what we ought to have done in view of the war. Why, sir, to whom is due the creation of the machinery by which our Defence Department has been able to raise, train, equip, and despatch 60,000 men but to those who advocated compulsory training? This Government has done yeomen’s task in this great and weighty business, and is still doing it. Does the honorable member for Flinders know that we have equipped 90,000 men? Does he know that we are doing what no other part. of the Empire is doing, not merely in drilling and raising men, but in equipping, feeding, and providing them generally in the most distant parts of the Empire ? The honorable gentleman may condemn us, but what has been done has been sufficient to wring from every one of our critics the admission that the Australian Army is the best equipped of the Allies. Yet the honorable member for Flinders says that we have done nothing - that we are not sincere. What a miserable, poltroonish remark that is ! Not sincere !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I say your statement is absurd.

Mr HUGHES:

– Surely the honorable member for Flinders ought to give us some credit. I do not say that he is not sincere, but I do say that he has come belatedly to the realization of this thing which we saw long ago. God forbid that I should say that a man is not sincere !

Sir William Irvine:

– I have not said that of you, sir I

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member did say so.

Sir William Irvine:

– I said that if you persisted-

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member said that he had reason to believe the Government were not sincere.

Sir William Irvine:

– No, no.

Mr HUGHES:

– It is a lie! We are sincere.

Sir William Irvine:

– I did not say that. If you will allow me, what I said was that if the Government persisted in plunging the country into this party warfare, they would be open to the imputation of not being sincere.

Mr Pigott:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the Attorney-General said that what the honorable member for Flinders had said was a lie.

Mr HUGHES:

– If anything I have said is open to objection I, of course, withdraw it; I did not mean anything in a personally offensive sense. The most effective and complete answer to the charge of insincerity, is found not only in what the Government have done since the war broke out, but the preparations they made to meet the present situation.

Now I come to the business in front of us. The right honorable gentleman at the head of the Opposition stated that he was opposed to these referenda proposals, and that we should not have introduced party measures during the time of war. The right honorable gentleman quoted from some statements of mine .made at the time of the elections, and I want to state quite frankly what my attitude at that time was. I have not altered by a thousandth part of an inch the view I then held. I was speaking at that time on behalf, at any rate, of the Labour party of New South Wales, and after consultation with the Executive of the party there, and after notification to my leader, who was then of the opinion, as apparently he is now, that he ought not to take action without the invitation coming from the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition, who was at that time the leader of the Government. I was of the opinion that it would have been very much better to have no election at all, and I made the suggestion in order to leave the Government of the day in power. Honorable members do not seem to realize what it was that I proposed.

We did not propose a Coalition. We never contemplated it. We would not have agreed to it. We proposed to leave the Liberal Government in power. Good heavens ! Contrast that situation with the one that members opposite are now attempting to foist upon this country.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Your leader said you had no right to make such an offer.

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

– Yes. That is the whole point.It discounted 75 per cent, of your offer.

Mr HUGHES:

- Mr. Fisher did not say that. I want to tell the House what I did. I made the offer after the Executive of the State of New South Wales had considered and approved it.

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

– Who are they?

Mr HUGHES:

– I want it to be perfectly clear. I did not pretend to speak for anybody except those I represented.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Oh. yes; you did.

Mr HUGHES:

– No, I did not. I am a member of the State of New South Wales, and so is the right honorable gentleman.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And you are a member of the party opposite.

Mr HUGHES:

– I spoke as I felt, and on behalf of the New South Wales Executive and members of the party, and we-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No; on behalf of the party.

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

– This is a new interpretation.

Mr HUGHES:

– I spoke, too, after approval of the leaders in South Australia and Tasmania. The right honorable gentleman did not reject my proposal because I was not speaking for the whole of Australia. He rejected it because he thought I was speaking for the whole of Australia. That was the whole trouble. He wanted to go on with the election. WhenI put this matter to my leader he said, “I am not going to express an opinion on the merits of the question at all. Let Mr. Cook make this offer, and then I will consider it.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yes. Now don’t you regard that as turning you down ? Why did not you tell us that? You should have told us at the time.

Mr HUGHES:

– Cannot the right honorable gentleman keep quiet for a moment? My leader, however, has said that if Mr. Cook had said that the postponement of the elections was necessary, then, in view of his undertaking to Mr.

Cook, he would have had to agree to it. When I suggested the postponement of the elections to the right honorable gentleman, what did he say? Was there any weapon in the armoury of his rhetoric that he did not use against it? He was not satisfied merely to reject it, but denounced it, and resorted to those personal offensive methods of dialectics which is his favorite weapon. . He said that the “ duty of the Commonwealth was to exercise to the full its powers of self-government.” The right honorable gentleman retained his colleague, the right honorable the exAttorneyGeneral, to put the matter in a more effective way; and I will read, for the information of honorable members, what, after mature consideration, that honorable gentleman said concerning our proposal. Here we have the honorable gentleman denouncing us to-day for bringing forward these constitutional questions in the middle of the war. Let us consider again what was the proposal I made last year. I proposed that honorable gentleman should remain in office, that the elections should be postponed, that the Parliament should meet as a Committee of Public Safety. What did he say to that? I will read his statement, as published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, on 8th August, 1914-

There is nothing new in this position. It has happened frequently before in our history.

I want honorable members to follow this -

Take for example, the year 1812. The burning of Moscow and the battles of Badajos and Salamanca. Parliament was dissolved, and Great Britain was without a Parliament for over two months. There are several other similar cases. In the event of war taking place at such a time, the duty of the Government is clear. Whatever may be the political or parliamentary position, it is its watch on deck. Ministers cannot leave the wheel for a moment.

So far from regarding the war as a reason for postponing the election, he said that the turmoil of elections and party strife are usual in great crises in British history 1 The honorable member fell back like a wise tactician upon his base, and said, “What! suspend party warfare during a great war ? Why, my friend is branding himself as an ignoramus ! Does he not know what has been the uniform practice during the great crises in the history of Great Britain ? In such crises, it has been the practice of Great Britain to resort to general elections. They did this for example during the burning of Moscow ! the battle of Badajos, and the battle of Salamanca ! “ That was the answer I received to my suggestion that party warfare should cease, that the elections should be postponed. And these are the men who now condemn our present action, who condemn, with unstinted words, the Minister of Defence. These are the men in whose eyes we can do nothing right. But let us see, further, what the exAttorneyGeneral said on the occasion I refer to -

Then, again, were Parliament revived, nothing is more likely to cripple the efforts of Ministers to do their duty in the present crisis. Mr. Hughes says it might sit as a committee of public safety. I should call it a committee of public insecurity. Ministers would not be able to meet it. They are engaged every day, during the whole of the day, and often very late at night, in dealingwith a continuous stream of most responsible matters, which have to be dealt with at once. Even if they were capable of meeting Parliament, apart from the question of Supply - which I will deal with in a moment - the first coursewould be to adjourn Parliament until it were necessary to obtain Supply again. It might succeed in adjourning the House of Representative’s, but the Senate would constitute itself , probably, a permanent committee of public safety, and would demand daily, and as a right, information upon a host of matters, which it is the’ duty of Ministers not to make public.

Do honorable members: hear that ? Yet every day now the megaphone-like voice of their insatiable . curiosity is heard throughout the country. They want to know, and they insisb upon knowing. It is nothing to them if the necessities of the Commonwealth and the country demand reticence. It is nothing to them at all that Ministers are working day in and day out, that their duties’ in Parliament, in Cabinet, in the ever-increasing great burden of work of administration entailed by this great war, are of such an arduous nature. Have they ever helped us or lightened the great strain imposed by. the duties to which we are subjected throughout every hour of the day ? Have they ever assisted us ? Never, by any act or word of theirs, have they done. so. Yet they tell us there must be no party warfare, that we must all work together.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You. would have been on your back many times but for the help we have given you .

Mr HUGHES:

– Why, sir, not only in this House, but in the press the criticism of the Opposition - bitter, carping, relentless - is never silent. I take the Argus, and what do I find? Denunciation of every act and word of the Labour party. We are never right. This is the type of those great patriotic journals which at this, the supreme hour of our trial, puts on one side all questions of party! It is for the State; but it views things from the biased, cankered standpoint of the partisan ! Not a day passes but every act of the Minister of Defence, or of this Government, is denounced, ridiculed, condemned by this journal. It. is the same with the great partisan press throughout this country. To them the great calamity is not that this country is at war, but that the Labour party is in office at the supreme hour of this country’s trial, and not only in office, but carrying on the defence of this country and its government in a manner that cannot be legitimately cavilled at. Our opponents say we have been in office since last September. I ask - Can they point to any act of ours which they could have done better?

Sir William Irvine:

– Do you invite that?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We will take you at your word.

Mr HUGHES:

– The futility of their record hangs over their head like a millstone. They speak! Yes, with the tongues of the angels, of prophets, of statesmen ! But as for action they are as men long dead. When they were in office, what did they do?

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a question of privilege. I understand that after the honorable member for Wakefield was suspended from the service of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, gave the direction that he should remove from the strangers’ gallery, in which he had seated himself. That direction is without precedent in the history of this Parliament. In previous Parliaments, honorable members who have been suspended invariably made their way to the gallery.

Mr Higgs:

– Mention the name of one who did so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member for Ballarat is a case in point. He came to the galleries almost every day after his suspension, and it has been our invariable practice to afford honorable members who have been suspended the privilege of sitting in the strangers’ gallery. The instruction of which I complain is an interpretation of the standing order with quite unnecessary harshness. For the first time in the history of this Parliament a suspended member has actually been bundled right out into the street. It was proper that the honorable member for Wakefield, the House having decided that he should be suspended from its service, should withdraw from the chamber; but he has been treated worse than a stranger, and hunted from the gallery. That, I submit with great respect, is an unnecessarily harsh application of the standing order. In view of what occurred, the. case would have been amply met by doing what has been done on other similar occasions, compelling the suspended member to absent himself from the floor of the House, but giving him the privilege of a stranger to sit in the gallery.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that an honorable member is permitted to rise on a question of privilege on the understanding that he will conclude with a motion, which the right honorable member has not done. I shall accept his remarks, therefore, as addressed to a point of order, not to a question of privilege.

Mr Higgs:

– I have had some experience in these matters, having on one or two occasions in the conduct of my public duty been suspended, with others, from the service of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. What then occurred took place fifteen years or so ago, but I know that we were ordered to leave, not merely the chamber, but the precincts of the House.

Mr Watkins:

– That is the New South Wales practice.

Mr Higgs:

– And the practice of the House of Commons. Whenever honorable members have, unhappily, taken the view that I should retire, I have felt called upon, not merely to leave the chamber, but to go right outside the building. An honorable member who enters the chamber, even to sit in the gallery, when under sentence of suspension, strains his privileges.

Mr SPEAKER:

-After the honorable member for Wakefield was suspended, he took his seat in the gallery, and I there upon instructed a messenger to inform him, as privately as possible, that he must not remain there. It is the general rule for the conduct of our business that in all cases not provided for by sessional or other orders resort shall be had to the rules, forms, and practice of the House of Commons, and the practice of that House in regard to suspensions is that the honorable member suspended shall withdraw, not merely from the chamber, but from the precincts. I have been under suspension on four or five occasions, and what then occurred has so impressed the procedure on my mind that I have never forgotten it. After suspension on one occasion I went to the gallery, and a constable thereupon informed me that I was liable to ‘ a fine of £500 for returning to the House. May, in the 11th edition, page 350, says -

Members ordered to withdraw in pursuance of this Standing Order-

That is, the standing order which corresponds to that under which the honorable member for Wakefield has been suspended - or who are suspended from the service of the House in pursuance of standing order No. 18, must forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House, subject, however, in the ease of members under suspension, to the proviso regarding their service on private bill committees.

That is to say, members serving on a Private Bill Committee may visit the rooms set apart for the meetings of those committees, and perform their service there, unless forbidden to do so by the motion for their suspension. I have no personal feeling in this matter, and if the House desires that I shall act leniently,I am willing to allow the honorable member for Wakefield to sit in the gallery. But without a direction to that effect, I must see that our standing order is’ obeyed.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is justice, not leniency, for which I ask. Standing order 59 speaks of the motion being made “ that’ such member be suspended from the ser-. vice of the House.” He is excluded only from “the service of the House,” andI contend that you, sir, have no right to read any other meaning into the standing’ order. I take it that the member who is suspended from the service of the House is to be treated during the period of his suspension as an ordinary member of the’ public. At any rate, that has been the’ interpretation which has been placed upon our Standing Orders during the fifteen years that this Parliament has been in existence. A new interpretation is now being placed on it which, I submit, is unnecessarily harsh.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The standing order of the House of Commons contains the words which are in our standing order, and which the Leader of the Opposition has quoted - “That such member be suspended from the service of the House.” Upon that the procedure set forth in May, which I have read to the House, is based.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The practice is new here.

Mr HUGHES:

– The criticism directed against the Government this morning meets with a complete and final answer in the attitude and declarations made by the ex-Prime Minister and exAttorneyGeneral .regarding the suggestion that- party hostilities should be suspended at the time of the last election. Before the luncheon adjournment, I was quoting in support of that statement remarks made by the honorable and learned member for Flinders. I had shown with what contumely and contempt these honorable members had dismissed our request for the complete suspension of party warfare. They did not inquire whether I had authority for making the proposals which were put before them. They were sure that I had, and it was for that reason that they rejected them. The honorable and learned member declared that, so far from Parliament being a committee of public safety at a time of the greatest crisis in our history, it was a committee of public insecurity. From the day we took office until now, these gentlemen, under cover of a reticence imposed upon them by the present extraordinary conditions, have never ceased their unrelenting criticism of the Government, and of our every act for the prosecution of the war and the conduct of affairs generally. To continue my quotation from the answer of the honorable member for Flinders to my proposal to postpone the elections, and put an end to party warfare - he went on to say -

It cannot be justifiably asserted that Government cannot be carried on under existing circumstances. There has not been a murmur of opposition against any action taken by the Government.

That was true so far as the Labour party was concerned. Not one statement of ours criticised the actions of the late Government regarding the war. The declaration of the present Prime Minister was unconditional, that we would support them in everything they did. We were so desirous of helping them that we suspended our political campaign for three weeks with that object. The Prime Minister and myself came to Melbourne. For three weeks we refrained from taking an active part in the political campaign. But were honorable members opposite silent during that time? No; they made declarations of the difficulties in which they found themselves; but they were unceasingly active. Not only did the Prime Minister and myself refrain altogether from party warfare for three weeks, but we asked the present Minister of Defence to come across from Western Australia. What for? To assist us in the campaign, and to harass the then Minister with criticisms from his predecessor? No; but to place at the disposal of the Government the services of a man who knew more about the Defence Department than any other man in Australia. How did they treat Senator Pearce ? They never invited him into the Conference; he remained in the city while the Conference was being held-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Delivering party speeches the whole time.

Mr Tudor:

– No.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yes; the record is there.

Mr HUGHES:

– I regret that the right honorable gentleman makes such statements in a place where I cannot answer them in the only way they should be answered, but I say emphatically that his statement is not correct.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I say it is correct.

Mr HUGHES:

– The present Minister of Defence left Western Australia to come to Melbourne. The journey to and fro itself occupied some fourteen days of his time, and he was in this city for five days. The Conference sat, but his services were not required; his advice was not sought; his presence was not noticed. That was the manner in which these gentlemen who tell us we ought all to work together treated our overtures of help at the outset of this great crisis. These were the men who would not accept our proposal to suspend all party strife.

Now they pose in a very different attitude. They are against party strife, and yet they deliberately invoked it; for an election is the culminating point of party strife. We proposed to postpone such, strife and to put our services at the Government’s disposal. The Prime Minister and I went to the Conference, but we discussed finance, not defence. At that supreme hour it was not considered by the Government necessary to call in the services of the man who knew more about the Defence Department than any other man in Australia. But I must return to the answer of the honorable member for Flinders to my proposal for the suspension of party strife. It speaks for itself. He said -

I need hardly add that it would be the greatest relief to Ministers were they enabled, by any means, to share the responsibility that at present falls on their shoulders with members representing the other side of the House, but that we feel is impossible.

That was the feeling .of honorable members opposite when the Germans were thundering against Liege, and when there seemed to be between them and Paris only the space of a few hours. At that time the British expedition had not reached France, and it seemed as if the German eagle, in the vicious fury of its first flight, was about to plunge its talons into the very heart of our Empire. It was at this dark moment the Liberal Government spurned the offer we made. They did not want to share their responsibilities with us, they were resolute in insisting upon going on with the elections. Yet they now denounce us because we propose to submit the referenda to the people. The gravamen of the attack upon us to-day is that we are intruding into this great crisis a petty party squabble. If there is any question that is supremely national in its character, it is this question. Every honorable member on the Opposition side whose opinion is entitled to respect has affirmed over and over again that the question of amending the Constitution is urgent, and must be dealt with. The honorable member for Flinders is impaled upon his own logic and his own utterances. He has said, and he has repeatedly affirmed, that amendments of the Constitution were urgently necessary, and that there could be no half-way house, at any rate, so far as two of them were concerned, between the Constitution as it is and the amendments we propose. Indeed, the honorable member, on the 15th February of this year, while the by-election of the Grampians was in progress, emphasized the unsatisfactory position of the Commonwealth in unmistakable langauge to which the honorable member for Balaclava found himself so completely opposed and unable to agree with that he publicly repudiated it. No one can doubt that the honorable member for Flinders in his speech went far beyond what we propose. It is evident that what the honorable gentleman really proposed was Unification. I will leave that matter now; it will come forward again in the second-reading debate. If the honorable member challenges the assertion I have made I will confront him with the statement of the honorable member for Balaclava and my comment upon it. The honorable member for Flinders regarded this matter as supremely important, and in February of this year, when the war was at its height, he was of opinion that it was necessary in order to meet existing, not prospective, difficulties in regard to finance, that there should be one spending authority. The honorable member cannot deny that, and, being a constitutional lawyer, he knows that there is no way of doing what he proposes except by an amendment of the Constitution. What did he mean, or what could he mean, but that the difficulty being imminent and the danger great, it was necessary to meet the situation by amendment of the Constitution ?

Mr Watt:

– His proposal, like your proposal for a truce, was unauthorized.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member for Flinders cannot be heard now in protest against our action, when he has all along been of opinion that the referenda were not party matters, but that the elections were party matters. The motion now before the House deals with a great national issue; which has been admitted to be such in the past, and which cannot now be debased to the level of a mere party squabble, by any means honorable members can summon to their assistance. I desire to contrast the attitude of honorable members to-day with their attitude when they were asked to suspend electioneering tactics during the greatest crisis of our history. In the

Hansard report for the 21st April, 1914, page 162, the following passage occurs: -

Mr Anstey:

– I have no desire to interrupt the honorable gentleman, but I thought that perhaps he would put forward his own proposals.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Quite so. As the honorable member for West Sydney referred to the matter I am glad to say that it has already been publicly indicated that we shall be prepared, at the proper time-

Mr Webster:

-“Not now,O Lord, not now.”

Mr W H IRVINE:

– I am now going to tell honorable members what the proper time is. I have always maintained that the power to refer amendments of the Constitution to the public is one which ought not, except so far as is absolutely necessary, to be exercised at the time of an election. We cannot separate these things entirely from party issues. They never have beenand they never will be entirely separated from party considerations. They ought to be, so far as possible, divorced fromparty issues when the people are asked to vote npon them. They ought never in any circumstances tobe left to the people to decide upon during the heat and turmoil pf a general lection.

I say that in those words the honorable gentleman has drawn a clear distinction between two things.One is the abyss of party warfare - the din and turmoil of a party election. The other the submission of the referenda when there was no general election. He said the latter was the proper course. Yet he was asked to suspend such party warfare, and he would not do it. He replied, “ It is impossible; the Constitution will not allow it. The people are with us. Parliament would be a mere committee of public insecurity. We are the guardians of public honour. On our shoulders, bowed with tremendous national responsibilities though they be, the whole nation may rest secure.” And po he would not suspend the election. He has said, ‘ ‘ These referenda proposals ought not to be treated as party measures. No doubt there is an atmosphere of party about them, but they ought to be submitted to the people, not in the din and strife of a general election, but as abstract questions on which the electors can be asked to vote.” Contrast the attitude of honorable members opposite with that of the Government; the determination to press on with a general election; with the submission of abstract questions where there is no election; contrast what they said at the time of the elections with what they say now and with what they said at the very beginning of this war, when it burst upon us like a bolt from the blue, when the boldest man was appalled, and when it seemed as if we were standing on the edge of a great gulf. I agree with honorable members that we have not brought the German monster to his senses, but we have shown that, in spite of their forty years of preparation, in spite of the prostitution to their foul purpose of every scientific invention produced in the onward march of civilization, we have held them. They are not in Paris; they have not broken through Ypres; they have not reached Calais; nor, though the tide of battle may ebb and flow, will they ever beat the Russians to their knees. Never! The greatest general of all the ages, in the very heyday of his glory, and at the head of the Grand Army, not when overwhelmed with the cold and terrors of the frightful retreat from Moscow; but when sweeping triumphantly in his first dash through Russian territory, discovered at Borodino what a fighter the Russian was. There he fought the bloodiest battle of his whole career, and even the most partisan account dared only to call it a drawn battle. No ! the Russians can never be beaten save as men heat back the sea, only to find it close around them again, finally to overwhelm them. Though we may have felt at times appalled by the task, yet we have held this German monster at bay for nine months, and, with God’s grace, we will hold him to the end. Bub we could not have known that in August last when our proposal for suspension of party warfare was made and contemptuously rejected.

Honorable members opposite tell us that we should not go on with these proposals. Why? They say that we ought not to do this because the proposals are party in their nature. The proposals are not party in their nature. The honorable member for Flinders says there must be an atmosphere of party round them. No doubt this is so to some extent, but there is not a man in this House whose opinion is entitled to respect as coming from a constitutional authority who has hot declared over and over again that we ought to amend the Constitution. The’ honorable member for Angas, the honorable member for Darling Downs, the honorable member for Flinders, have all said, over and over again, that constitutional amendment is necessary.

If utterances like these do riot raise this controversy above the muck-heap of party squabble, what does, or can? We are told that we are doing this because the. Inter-State Conference told us to do so. Honorable gentlemen opposite seem totally unable’ to understand our movement, or even to find time to read the plain words of the Labour constitution under which we live, and breathe, and move. We are not ashamed of our movement. We are what we are, by grace of the people. This movement has its roots deep in their hearts and lives, and there is not one act of ours, nor any power or authority we possess, that does not spring direct from the people.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Holman did not say that.

Mr HUGHES:

– The right honorable the. Leader of the Opposition cannot understand such a movement as ours. He has been too long away from it. He is a stranger in the house in which he was born. May I tell the honorable gentleman something? Within seven days of the meeting of Parliament, this party, by an almost unanimous vote, decided to present the referenda proposals to the people at the earliest possible moment.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– A fine comment on your truce proposals.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable gentleman may smile as much as he pleases, but I say that emphatically.

Sir William Irvine:

– Did not your party decide to bring on the Tariff before the constitutional amendments?

Mr HUGHES:

– No. I will tell the honorable member why. After the Referenda Bills are introduced, very nearly six months must elapse before they can be submitted to the people. This includes the preparation of the rolls and the presentation of the case for and against. A memorandum prepared’ by the Electoral Commissioner shows it to be imperative that the proposals to Parliament must be at once introduced if we intend taking the referenda this year. This is the answer to my right honorable friend. We have nob introduced these referenda because the InterState Conference so decided. The Government, within three days of its being sworn in, as its very first act, declared its policy for the session, and in that policy it included the presentation to this House and the people of these Referenda

Bills at the earliest possible moment. There was never any doubt at all on that point. The only doubt was as to whether we should present them to the . people earlier, say in August of this year or in the last month of the. year. My right honorable friend d««s not seem to understand what the Inter-State Conference can do and what it cannot do. The InterState Labour Conference has nothing at all to do with the current Parliament. It cannot interfere in any way with the policy of this Parliament. It dictates the policy of the next Parliament, not of this. We are here as representatives of the people upon the platform we accepted on the hustings, and that platform cannot be altered by anybody, inside or outside Parliament.

Now I want to show the House the position in which the Government and the Labour party stand in relation to these proposed amendments of. the Constitution. In the course of a speech delivered on 21st July, in which he declared the policy of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said -

We want the opportunity of submitting once more our proposals for giving greater constitutional powers to the Commonwealth. You have turned down these proposals twice, but if we are returned to office we will send them back to you, believing as we do that out constitutional power is weak and worthless unless these proposals are given effect to.

There is the policy of this Government. It is upon that . that we were returned, and that position was set out again and again. On the 8th September, when ,we were in office, the Prime Minister said -

I am still of opinion that’a great wrong was done to the whole of the people of Australia by Mr. Cook offering the advice to the GovernorGeneral to refuse to accede to the Senate’s petition to put the Referenda questions before the electors’ in the elections just held. By such a device the Government has wasted a valuable opportunity, and caused a large expenditure in the immediate future, to enable the people to give Parliament powers to protect thu citizens of the country from the effect of injurious trusts, combines, and monopolies.

On the 3rd August - one day before the declaration of war by Great Britain, but after war had broken out between Germany and France - the Prime Minister stated -

The Commonwealth Constitution was a chequer board, and was the worst in the world. The high cost of living arose as the result_ of trusts, combines, and rings . . and nothing could be done to deal with these until additional powers were given. It was no use threatening to bang the trusts with the feather duster. Constitutional alteration was the only remedy.

In the face of these declarations - one in July, one in August, and one in September ; one before the . war and one after the war commenced - how can it be said that the people did not, with their eyes open, affirm the policy of this Government to put these proposals for the amendment of the Constitution at the earliest opportunity? That they did approve of it is clear. We were returned with a clear majority. Take the case of the other House. What did the people do ? They were asked to give the late Government more senators. They had only seven out of thirty-six. But the people did not give them more senators; they did the very opposite. But for the dispensation of Providence, in the death of one of our members, the Opposition would have been represented by four senators. As it is, there are five. But to come now to the main point. We are told that we ought not to present these propositions to the people because of the war. In 1911, when they were first brought forward, were they acceptable to honorable members opposite? There was no war then. They then had objections against the proposals sufficient, overwhelming, satisfactory to themselves. In 1912, when they were brought forward again, there was no war. But honorable members were again opposed to them. In 1914, when we were going to the country, why did not they agree to our request that the proposals should be submitted to the people at the election ? There was then no war, and apparently no prospect of war. But they said there were reasons why they should not be submitted. They advised the GovernorGeneral not to submit them. They prevented the people dealing with them. And now, in 1915, once again a reason is found why the proposals should not be presented to the people. The Opposition will never lack reasons for preventing the people having these powers. In 1911 their objection was that the proposals meant Unification ; that State rights were in danger, though one honorable gentleman stood up boldly in this House and declared that we were only exercising our constitutional powers in a sane and rational way. In 1912 the same objection was put forward. Again the Unification argument was used and counter proposals were submitted - emasculated, effeminate, hopeless. ‘Some of the people were deluded by their utterances, but not many; for the proposals were within an ace of being carried. There was no war then - not with Germany, Austria, or Turkey ; but with every vested interest in this country there was war to the knife, and there is war still. That is the explanation of all this spurious patriotism which we have heard today. Throughout the whole of this controversy one phenomenon, and only one phenomenon, has remained constant. Many arguments have been advanced, many reasons given, why we should not go on with these proposals. Then there was peace; now there is war. All. other factors have changed; but one thing has remained constant: the menace, inevitable and overwhelming, of these proposals to the great vested interests of this country; and so we need not be surprised that when the tocsin rings, whether it be in time of peace or war, the phalanx of vested interests will rally to the sound. This is the explanation of the opposition to these proposals. Look at the columns of the great newspapers to-day. They are against these proposals. They were always against them. If Providence by some sudden act were to wipe out this awful war and every one of its dreadful consequences these newspapers would not abate one jot of their biased criticism. It is not the circumstances in . which these proposals are brought forward that raise opposition. The opposition is to the thing itself. Honorable members opposite, after two or three days of Caucus, have taken their courage in both hands and have made a great demonstration of their patriotism. I am not going to say one word against their patriotism. It is as good as ours, but it is no better. Yet this I do say : that it is not by such means as this that patriotism can be demonstrated. The right honorable gentleman tells us we ought not to take the referenda with 60,000 men at the front. The men who have gone to the front, whether they believe in Liberalism or Labour - may God speed them. But in what way will the taking of this referenda affect their operations ? When the fortunes of our party were at stake, and thousands of our men were away, or were about to go away, honorable members did not hesitate to push on with the election. They turned down with contempt and ridicule all suggestions to suspend party hostilities.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Just as your Prime Minister did.

Mr Fisher:

– I said I would support you, right or wrong.

Mr HUGHES:

– But when an opportunity comes for rational and sober discussion of this matter, we meet with opposition which professes to be nonparty, but which is partizan to the core. Why should these matters not be discussed ? Why, at least, do not honorable members allow the Bill to go to the second reading, and there discuss the merits of these great questions ? Why do they take this unusual and unreasonable method of denouncing the subject before its merits are disclosed ? I leave the matter there, with this positive assurance : that just as the people of the country were not blind to the motives that actuated honorable gentlemen opposite and their friends at the time of the elections, just as they saw through the specious reasons advanced for pressing on with the election and condemned their arrogance in proclaiming their ability to bear upon their shoulders responsibilities which would crush other men, so will they now judge between us. They will not forget the fact that honorable gentlemen opposite proposed to keep Parliament shut - Parliament, the great safety-valve of the nation, the constitutional mouth-piece of the will of the people - the Parliament that was referred to as merely a committee of public insecurity, that would only hamper these honorable gentlemen in the performance of their tremendous duties. The people listened to them and to us-, and gave their decision. To their judgment I now again appeal. We were elected upon a programme which was clearly put before the people; and neither the thunder of the guns nor the blood-red mists of war prevented the people from realizing that they had to choose between the Liberal party and the Labour party. They chose the Labour party, one of whose fundamental planks for the last six years has been that there must be an amendment of the Constitution to protect the interests of the people. Upon that I stand, perfectly confident that the people will approve of what we propose to do.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

.- After the storm of eloquence to which we have just been subjected, a little quiet argument on my part may be justified. I fail to understand why the Attorney-General, who has just resumed his seat, should have displayed so much excitement and warmth in dealing with this matter. The issue is a simple one, and may be put very clearly in a few words, without any of that thumping of the table, or enforced, excited and out-of-place rhetoric to which we have just listened. There must be something very important, from the point of view of the Labour party, in the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition has moved, since we have had from them two mostfurious party speeches, traversing’ the whole arena of Labour organization and aspiration for many years back. We have had the Prime Minister telling us what happened in Queensland some twenty years ago, we have had from him references to the Electoral Act, and a story concerning people who went to prison, although he did not tell us for what reason they were sent there, and we have had to listen to the right honorable gentleman steering all round the political compass in stating his objections to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Now, what is that amendment? The motion is that leave be given to introduce the first of the six Referenda Bills proposed to be submitted by the Government, and the amendment is in the way of an addendum that the leave be given “ as soon as adequate provision has been made by theunited energies of the Government and Parliament for the successful prosecution of the war.” There is nothing in such an amendment that calls for any excuse. The Labour party should not be surprised at the action we have taken. One .might think, after hearing these two hostile party speeches, that these proposals were new, whereas they have been twice submitted to the people by referenda, and have been twice rejected. In these circumstances, is it reasonable that we should consent to their submission once more to the people at this time of crisis in the fortunes of the nation ? They say, in fact, to the people, “You did not know your own mind on the two occasions when you rejected those proposals, when we were at peace, and now that we are at war, we ask you to change your mind as we, the Labour party, know better than you do.” I think that a good deal of the excitement that has been displayed by honorable members opposite must have been entirely assumed.I cannot believe that the Government expected the Opposition to allow any of these Bills to pass without comment. It would not be reasonable or justifiable for us to allow them to go before the country at any time, and particularly at the present time, without full discusssion. In the first place, the Opposition, as every one knows, are opposed, and have been for many years, to these proposals on the part of the Labour party. We regard them as an attack upon the fundamental principles of the Constitution; more particularly in relation to the bargain that was made when the States handed over bous the powers that we, as a Parliament, now possess. I personally believe that until the States themselves are willing to give us more power affecting the fundamental principles of the Constitution, we should not seek to wrest it from them at the point of the bayonet. The Opposition have, from the. first, been trying to impress upon the Government and their supporters that we are opposed to any party strife during the continuance of the war. We have told the Government that we are willing, to assist them in making the financial and all other arrangements necessary to the successful prosecution of the war.” But we think that we should not engage in any polemical or disputatious measures during the present crisis. There are good reasons for this stand on our part. I speak with some knowledge of what is demanded of a member of the Cabinet when I say that Ministers cannot possibly attend to their departmental duties in a time of stress and danger like the present if they are to attend here day after day and control the parliamentary machine. They need to be able to give their undivided attention to their Departments, and to the work of administering the affairs of the Commonwealth with reasonable economy and efficiency. It is in the interests of the country that we desire to get away from party strife in this House, and that we plead that the. Parliament should devote all its energies to the successful prosecution of the war. In these circumstances, it seems, to me that the surprise” and anger expressed by the. Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are. entirely assumed. Why should they display such a hostile feeling in respect of the attitude we have taken up? It was absolutely necessary that we should take this stand if we were to be consistent with the views that we have expressed since the opening of this Parliament. Let me repeat that we believe that during this war the whole time of Ministers should be devoted to promoting measures for the national safety, and honorable members on all sides should be eager, ready,, and willing to assist the Government in carrying out their great and important duties. But there is no necessity for the introduction of any of these Referenda Bills during the continuance of the war. What is more, so far as I am able to’ judge,, there has been no demand for them.

Mr Sharpe:

– There is a demand for them.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– There may be in the circle in which the honorable member moves, but I have not discovered that there is. During my political campaign I used to say, whenever I had a large meeting’, “ Is there any one in this hall who has suffered because of some want of power on the part of the Federal Parliament ? If there is, let him stand up and tell us how he has suffered. Such information will be useful to me and instructive bo every one.” But I could never induce any one in my constituency to respond to the invitation. On the contrary, I have heard it said, We have heard of many cases where people have suffered because there is too much power in the Federal Parliament, but we have never heard of any one who has suffered because of any want of constitutional power on the part of the Commonwealth.” The assumption on the part of the Government and their supporters seems to be that we have no self-government in the States, and that the Federal authority should supersede the powers already existing in the Stats Parliaments themselves. I see no necessity for anything of the kind. There has been no demand for the passing of this Bill from any section of my constituents, or from any section of the Liberal party. What would the Labour party say if our positions were reversed ? If we were in office, what would they say if, in the present national crisis, we were to bring forward Bills which had been twice rejected by referenda? Let honorable members opposite put themselves in our position, and ask themselves how they would view such a proposal on our part. Why are the Labour party taking up an attitude the opposite to that which has been adopted by our great exemplar in the Mother Country ? Is it because we are far away from the seat of war that we imagine we are in perfect security? In the British Parliament all controversial legislation has been laid aside, and both parties are not only working together, but have joined in shouldering the burdens of government. Some honorable members opposite think that, personally, the Opposition in this Parliament are anxious to join with the present Ministry and to share in the government of the country,. Nothing, however, but a strong sense of public duty would induce any one of us to do anything of the kind. Some have said that we are after the loaves and fishes, but that, after all, is a most contemptible suggestion to make. No such motive influences the action of any honorable member on this side of the House. We recognise, however, the dangers and the difficulties of the present time, and believe that, no matter what our personal cr party feelings may be, our first consideration must be the safety of the country. I dp not wish to work with honorable members of the party opposite in the one Ministry, and I suppose that they do not wish to work with me in the same Cabinet; but if we are, to consider the safety of the country we must divest ourselves of all party feeling; the desire to protect the safety and interests of the. Empire and the Commonwealth must in the present terrible crisis override all and every other consideration. In two other important respects political differences in Great Britain have been sunk. I do not suppose that any question is deeper in the hearts of. the. people of Ireland than is that of Home Rule; but in this time of great national peril it has been agreed in the British Parliament that it shall be allowed to remain in abeyance. Then, again, the trade unions of Great Britain are willing to sink for the time being their fixed union principles and ideals. Why cannot the. Labour party and Labour Government act in the same way?

Mr Sharpe:

– The position here is different.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Because honorable members opposite think they are safe. They sit there, well satisfied, and, seem to think there is no danger. If they felt as the people of Great Britain and Ireland feel, and as the members off the British Parliament feel to-day, I think they would act very differently.

Mr Thomas:

– What about the brewers and distillers of England who have threatened the House of Commons in the midst of this great war?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable, member has brewers and distillers on the brain. I am afraid I should be called to order if. I made any reference to that subject. Here we are at the end of the, year, and the Appropriation Bill has not been passed, although I think it is the duty of the Government to see that that Bill is passed within the financial year/ Why has the Appropriation Bill been set aside in favour of these Referenda Bills ? These Bills cannot be pushed through, as time must be afforded for their discussion. I see no reason at all why the Appropriation Bill should have been postponedin order to further the realization of a plank of the Labour party which has been twice deliberately rejected by the people with an’ interval of three years between each rejec- tion, and will,I believe, again be rejected.

Mr Fenton:

– No, no !

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– If the referenda proposals are not rejected, it will only be because the people have not the heart to conduct a great contest with this terrible war hanging over them. Can any, member be expected to undertake a cam-‘ paign w.ith the same vigour and interest as’ he. would if the war were not raging ?

Mr Sharpe:

– We have had to do it in Queensland.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It was most unfortunate that those elections should have to take place, and it would be even more unfortunate to have a referenda campaign in the Commonwealth.

Mr Sharpe:

– The Queensland election was unfortunate for your party !

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am not now speaking from a party point of view ; and I think that honorable members opposite; ought to moderate their tone in this regard. It is quite bad enough to be defeated without having to suffer the gloatings of your successful opponents. In the ordinary affairs of life, this is not regarded as quite the proper or sportsmanlike attitude to adopt. The AttorneyGeneral told us the true reason for the urgency of the Referenda Bills. He says that the Government wish to have the referenda before the end of the year, simply because it is a great plank of the party; but I wonder what honorable members opposite would have said of us if we had been in power and persisted in sending to a referendum of the people, in the midst of this terrible war crisis, a question that has already been twice decided upon by an adverse vote. We are not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bills at this moment but they simply mean that home rule, according to honorable members opposite, has been found to be no good for the Australian States. Apparently honorable members opposite, and their supporters, prefer to be governed in their local and industrial matters by a far distant authority; but if the Bills be passed, and the referenda are decided in the affirmative, I think the people will find that a great mistake has been made. The introduction of the Bills now simply means that the party in power consider them more important than any other business - more important than the proper prosecution of the war, and the safety of the country. All day long, the Prime Minister and his colleagues are besieged with questions from both sides of the House regarding the war, and the adverse criticism comes more from their own side than from ours. As a matter of fact, Ministers have not time to attend to the pressing duties which are forced upon them by the crisis and by being present all day in Parliament. It is most difficult to get any information from the Defence Department. After a delay of two or three months the reply is that the communication had been mislaid ; and all this is, of course, very unsatisfactory and distressing under the circumstances. If a .relative or friend is wounded at the front, it is impossible to ascertain where or in what hospital he is; and the Department suggests that the inquirer might get the information desired by telegraphing to Egypt or Malta. Why cannot the Department, when they ascertain that a man has been wounded, also ascertain the hospital to which he has been taken ? At any rate, some effort should be made ‘u this direction. I do not altogether blame Ministers for all this delay and uncertainty, because, as I have said, they really have not time to do all that they should do. The Prime Minister, for instance, must find it most difficult to attend to his duties, and be present in the House; and I repeat that the introduction of the referenda measures at this juncture simply means that the Labour party regard them as of more importance than the proper prosecution of the war and the safety of the country. The Prime Minister is alleged to have said that we are now “ practically at peace,” and to have advanced that as a reason for going on with polemical discussions concerning the powers of the States. I know sufficient of the right honorable gentleman to know that that cannot represent his real feelings, and the statement must have been & lapsus lingua. How can it be said that we are practically at peace, when each and every one of us is doing the best we can to send men to the front, and assist the Mother Country in maintaining the safety and the integrity of the Empire ? It is idle to talk of our being practically at * peace with the daily records of deaths and suffering - with those lengthy lists of killed and wounded. Almost every evening we read of hundreds of men who have been laid aside; and yet we are told by the Prime Minister that we are practically at peace. I cannot think that he meant what he said . With this cloud hanging over us, it is, as I say, impossible to give that attention to ordinary political matters that we otherwise- should. All our thoughts from morning until night are centred on the war. Each morning we eagerly scan the newspapers to see who has fallen by the way, and to ascertain what the Old Country and her Allies are doing. If things are going well we rejoice, while news to the contrary leaves us dejected. With our minds so occupied how can we turn to questions of local politics, and enter upon a campaign throughout the constituencies? If the Government persist, I think they will find their efforts result in the smallest poll ever taken on the subject. There is scarcely one of us who has not relations and friends at the war - I know I have myself - and any day we may learn that they are killed or wounded; indeed, in a few months almost everybody in Australia will bo in mourning. Then it may well be said of us, what was said of the Mother Country at the time of the Crimean War, “ The angel of death has gone forth through the land, we can almost hear the beating of his wings.” We are asked to throw all these grave considerations aside, and embark on a political struggle to decide whether the powers of the States shall be curtailed, and the powers of the Commonwealth increased. I do not desire to delay the House, and will only say, in conclusion, that to go forward with these referenda proposals at the present time during this terrible war should be revolting to every one not blinded by class feeling and class prejudice.

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

.- I do not know when I rose .with more reluctance to address myself to this Chamber. For some days past I have had it in my mind to say exactly what I thought of Australia’s position at the present time in connexion with the war. But I felt that it was almost impossible to do so without immediately laying myself open to the charge of doing it solely from party motives. Yet no one could have felt more deeply than I have, not for the last few days, but for months past, that this country has never, from the very inception of the war, really recognised the tremendous issues at stake - has never realized what these issues are, and to what extent this country, above all others, is implicated in the great struggle. I stand here this afternoon, convinced, perhaps, as I have never been convinced of anything, that, if by any chance Germany should not only not .be defeated, but not be absolutely beaten to her knees, the day will come when a Prussian officer will sit in your chair, Mr. Speaker, and a Prussion governor, from yonder Government House, will dispense a policy ‘of blood and iron. Unfortunately this has not been recognised as hanging in the balance to-day.

Mr Thomas:

– A speech like this will help us.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No harm can be done by bringing the facts to light.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to order. The Prime Minister is calling us “ gasbags “ over here.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the honorable member for Parramatta that it is for me to decide whether words shall or shall not be withdrawn, and any chastisement must come from me, and not from honorable members.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I beg your pardon ; I am not chastising any one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member reflected on me.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I did not; I deny it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must try to keep his temper. If the Prime Minister made the statement attributed to him, I ask him to withdraw it, and to apologize for having made it.

Mr Fisher:

– I withdraw it; but may I say a word ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

Mr Fisher:

– I did not use the word attributed to me.

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

– The interjection of the Prime Minister exactly fits the case. The great trouble with this country is that it has not yet recognised the tremendous issues that are at stake, and we have been content to make speeches about the situation. When the news reached us of the sack of Louvain, when we read of the horrors in Belgium, and of the way in which the enemy are using the sciences to destroy life in contravention of their most sacred promises, instead of setting to work to make shells, we made speeches. A few years ago, there were in England men who recognised that it was time that the country stopped making speeches, and commenced preparing for a great war. One of those who did that was the chief leader of the Socialist party in England, Robert Blatchford. No doubt honorable members have read what he wrote. In the magnificent series of articles which he contributed to the Daily Mail, he said -

Germany puts her destinies in the hands of warriors; we leave ours in the hands of politicians. Germany acts; we talk.

He adds that “ words count for nothing in the game of blood and iron.” What was the use of the Attorney-General declaring, as he did this afternoon, that Russia will never be beaten, and that we shall never be beaten. It is not a bit of good talking; we must act. Unless this country realizes that we have not attempted to begin our part, or, at most, have done very little, that we must organize’ every resource, and that the British Empire must do the same, from one end of it to the other, unless we realize that Germany must be beaten to her knees, the day will come when the policy of blood and iron will win, and Germany will get what she is seeking. All credit to her if she does so under those circumstances. As Blatchford says -

Unless the British are ready to fight and pay and work as they have not fought or paid or striven for a hundred years - if ever - the Empire will assuredly go to pieces and leave us beggared and disgraced under the conquest of a braver, better-trained, and better-organized nation.

Mr.Fenton. - That was written nearly four years ago.

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

– Yes. Is it not time now that the conflict is upon us, and has been waging for nearly eleven months, that Australia, in common with the rest of the Empire, awoke to the truth of this warning? God forbid that I should say a word against the brave men who are upholding so magnificently at the Dardanelles the honour, and glory, and reputation of this country. We all acknowledge the magnificent work that they have accomplished, and the great name that they have earned for Australia by what they have done. But shall we not prove ourselves a set of doddering idiots if, while these men are falling thick as autumn leaves, we sit here discussing questions utterly insignificant, and which are as nothing compared with the tremendous issues at stake? Nothing short of world domination will satisfy those who guide the destinies of Germany. For many years, her philosophers, poets, public men, historians, scientists, and politicians, her whole intellectual life, have been steadily preaching this one doctrine of world domination, so that it has entered into the very soul of the nation. Germany has a white population of 65,000,000 persons, which is more than the white population of the British Empire. We have to recognise the tremendous driving ‘force behind the German nation, that the Germans have bent their whole energies to the organization of the nation down to the tiniest details for the accomplishment of their ultimate purpose. If they are only checked in the struggle in which we are now engaged, it must be evident to every honorable member that the day will come when once again Germany will feel her strength, and once again that indomitable spirit which urges the German against the world will re-assert itself. Unless Germany is ab solutely beaten to h’er knees, and made powerless, I believe that, within our lifetime, she’ will choose her opportunity to attack again the one enemy that she had in mind when she entered upon this war. To any one who has read what the Germans have written for all the world to see, it must be perfectly evident that the great enemy that Germany had in view was England. Do honorable members believe, for one moment, that it is the British Isles that Germany wants? Is it there that she looks for a place where her surplus population may live “ under a German sky and on German soil,” as Bernhardi put it? Those who have read his books know that what Germany wants is not Great Britain, but her colonies. I have read all of Bernhardi’s works that have been translated into English, and I can tell the House that in more than one hundred passages he says, in one way or another, that it is England with which Germany is going to try conclusions; that it is the English colonies that Germ.any is going to take; and in allbut absolute words he asserts that it is Australia that she desires. We know that Bernhardi is the popular exponent of the policy of blood and iron, the man above all others who has crystallized and expressed German sentiment on this subject.

Mr Hampson:

– Have the Germans no designs on French colonies?

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

– They may have designs on French colonies, but it is Australia that they chiefly seek to get. For the sake of having them on record, let me read some passages that I have taken from his works. He says -

If we continue to exist as a colonial power by the grace of England, Germany will once more occupy that position of utter insignificance which she occupied before 1866. World power or decline is Germany’s motto by the will of history. . “ . .

England opposes us throughout the world with hostility, and prevents us acquiring colonies the possession of which is for Germany a question of life and death. . . .

Every unprejudiced man must to-day have arrived at the conviction that Germany’s further development as a world power is only possible after a final settlement with England.

Bernhardi’s definition of a world power is a power with great colonial possessions. He says -

It can really not be expected that Germany, with her constantly-growing population, should renounce her claims to become a great colonial power, and to acquire territories suitable for settlement. . . .

Through war we can enlarge our colonial possessions and acquire a sufficiency of colonies fit for the settlement of white men.

Over and over again, you will find that, underneath what Bernhardi lias written, there is the declaration that Germany requires territory for occupation by Germans, country fit for settlement by white men. Germany does not want a black man’s country; it is a white man’s country that she is after. The Dominion of Canada is closed to her because she would immediately bring another war on her shoulders were she to attempt to go there. What Germans have in view is the great and wonderful country in which we live, where they could find full activity for all their surplus national life and energy. Bernhardi says -

In the interests of. the world’s civilization it is our duty to enlarge Germany’s colonial empire.

We therefore need to enlarge our colonial possessions and such territorial acquisitions we can only realize at the cost of other States.

We must firmly keep in view the fact that it is impossible to change the partition of the earth as it now exists in our favour by diplomatic artifices. If we wish to gain the position in the world that is due to us, we must rely upon our sword.

Mr Thomas:

– That is nothing new; we have read all that.

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

– But has the honorable member understood it?

Mr Thomas:

– I have understood it so much that my son has gone to the front.

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

– I am glad to know that. Many of us have relatives near and “dear to us at the front, but that fact has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether this Parliament is really alive to the responsibilities thrust upon it at this time, and to the tremendous issues at stake. If we wish for proof that Parliament is not alive to the issues involved, we may find it in what has happened in this House to-day. It passes my comprehension how honorable members can sit here and say they realize what the war means to Australia, and yet continue bickering in party strife.

Mr Thomas:

– Could a man do more than allow his son to go to the war?

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 20

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That the words proposed to be added (Mr. Joseph Cook’s amendment) be so added - put. The House divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 30

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph1 of section 51 of the Constitution - put. The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

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

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4221

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph xx. of section 51 of the Constitution.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am. called, sir. You cannot submit that motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under our Standing Orders an honorable member may intervene at any moment with such a motion.

Mr Kelly:

– Will it appear in the records of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition had been called by the Chair when the Prime Minister moved the application of the “ gag “?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It should do so. Question - That the question be now put - put. The House divided.

Ayes . . . . ..26

Noes . . . . . . 17

Majority . . 9

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph xx. of section 51 of the Constitution - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

This this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

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

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4223

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph xxxv. of section51 of the Constitution.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr.FISHER. - I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You will not let us say a word ! You tyrant !

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 15

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter paragraph xxxv. of section 51 of the Constitution - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 15

Majority … .. . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

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

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4224

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect to industrial disputes in relation to employment in State railway services.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

Mr. Speaker-

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I move-

That the question be now put.

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority ……11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect to industrial disputes in relation to employment in State railway services - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That the second reading of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for Wednesday next.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4226

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect’ to trusts, combinations, and monopolies.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

This this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the second reading be madean Order of the Day for Wednesday next.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No .

Question put The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 17

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4227

CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That leave he given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect to industries and businesses declared to be the subject of a monopoly.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The question is, “ That the question be now put.”

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

Ayes … … … 27

Noes … … … 17

Majority … … . 10

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the. Constitution by empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect to industries and businesses declared to be the subject of a monopoly - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 17

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) put -

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

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4229

SUPPLY BILL (No. 8)

Bill returned from the Senate without request.

page 4229

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business

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

– In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

I wish to intimate to honorable members that the second reading of the Bills with which we have just dealt will be the first business on Wednesday next.

Mr Kelly:

– Why not “ gag “ them through ?

Mr FISHER:

– Only incidental business will be allowed to intervene, and the third reading of the measures will be fixed for a fortnight from to-day. Honorable members will thus have an ample opportunity to study their provisions.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the Prime Minister propose to go straight on with them on Wednesday?

Mr FISHER:

– If the right honorable gentleman desires an adjournment of the debate after the Attorney-General has delivered his speech, in moving the second reading of the Bills, we will consent to an adjournment to the following day.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I am not sorry that we have come to the end of the proceedings of the day. In my judgment -

Mr FISHER:

– I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr Kelly:

– Afraid of criticism. Skulking cur!

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … …11

In, division :

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not hear the words of which complaint has been made, and, under ordinary circumstances, I would insist on the honorable member withdrawing them. But we are now in a peculiar position in that the question must be put.

Mr Hughes:

– The words were distinctly used, and I ask you, sir, to take official notice of them.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Hear, hear! The honorable member for Wentworth called him a skulking cur. I call your attention, sir, to the language of the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Hughes:

– What language ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Taking oaths and swearing across the table at another honorable member.

Mr Hughes:

– What did I say?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If there has been any language indulged in such as has been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition he should tell me the exact words which were used. A good many interjections are thrown across the chamber which officially I do not hear. But if this sort of conduct is going to continue, I warn honorable members that I will take the necessary steps to have those who make interjections - no matter on what side of the chamber they may sit - suspended from the service of the House.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 6.8 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 June 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1915/19150618_reps_6_77/>.