House of Representatives
16 January 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3016

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until to-morrow at 11 a.m.

page 3017

QUESTION

MOTION OF WO CONFIDENCE

Debate resumed from 15th January (vide page 3016), on motion by Mr. Tudor -

That the House protests against -

The repudiation of the pledges of the Prime Minister and other Ministers; (i>) the political persecution of public men and other citizens and the press under the War Precautions Regulations during the recent referendum campaign ;

the deprivation of statutory electoral rights of Australian-born citizens by regulation behind the back of Parliament ; ‘

the general administration of public affairs, o-nd wishes to inform His Excellency the GovernorGeneral that the Government does not possess the confidence of the people of Australia.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- There has been a certain amount of questioning regarding the statement which I made last night that an honorable member who sits on the Ministerial side of the Chamber is employing Chinese during the crisis through which Australia is passing. As I am unwilling to do an injustice by allowing suspicion to rest on other members of the party- who. have not been guilty of this great bffence of preferring Chinamen to returned soldiers, many of whom are carrying their swags through the country, I say at once that the member to whom I referred is the honorable member forHume (Mr. Falkiner).

Mr Corser:

– In what capacity are the Chinamen employed? Mr. Rodgers. - Returned soldiers are physically unfit for the work that they are doing.

Mr Page:

– Our men are good enough to fight, but not good enough to work for you. A Chinaman can do more than a returned soldier!

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Now we have a Ministerialist” apologizing for his colleague. This seems tq justify the distrust and suspicion of the Liberals which exists in the minds of the people of Australia. The Chinamen in question ave employed at stick picking - could not returned soldiers do that? at ringbarking and scrubbing - could not returned soldiers do those tilings?

Mr Pigott:

– “When were they so employed ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– They are so employed now. Does the Government stand for that sort of thing? Not only does a member of the Ministerial party employ Chinamen, but most of its supporters in the western district of New South Wales employ Chinamen too. Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the honorable member for Flinders (Sir “William Irvine) have come to the House with offers to the Labour party. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) interjected that they hold the olive branch in one hand and a bludgeon in the other. They hold out the olive branch after having tried to gag and incarcerate us, after victimizing us. The Government has brought about the cutting down of wages, and the inculcation of a spirit of scabbery. The scab unions of this country have received the blessings of the Government. Other men have had their wages reduced or stopped, and men, women, and children have been starved.

Mr Webster:

– As a consequence of the actions of those who brought about the last strike.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– They are starving within the knowledge of the National party, and because of its doings. Having brought our supporters into such a position that many now do not know where their next meal will come from, honorable members opposite have the impudence to say to us, “ Come and help us to win the war.”

Mr Watt:

– How did the National party do the things that you speak of ? Mr. Laird Smith. - And when did it do them?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Only the other day the honorable member for West Sydney 1 showed how the Coal Board, which is essentially a Federal Board, exercises control with regard to the handling of coal.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is essentially not a Federal Board.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– During the strike Ministers gave preference to scabs.

Mr Pigott:

– Where was the honorable member then ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I was doing all in my power to destroy the National Government, and to bring about a better feeling among the people of Australia. You cannot do anything towards the winning of the war until the working classes are in a right spirit, and the sooner you realize it the better it will be for Australia.

It is impossible, because of the way in which the country has been run during the past twelve months, for any other party than the Labour party to carry on the war. Your potential recruit is the working man. Unless he has trust and con-‘ fidence in the Government, you cannot do what you desire. If honorable members are honest, they will admit the truth of that statement. If the offer of Ministers is sincere, if they really desire that Australia shall do her share in this war, they will first of all reinstate the victimized unionists. Is the Government prepared to do that? It is not. lt is not prepared to do the right thing towards the trade unions of this country. Is it prepared to remit the fines that have been imposed on trade unionists, and to stop the inculcation of scabbery? Is it prepared to take away the preference now given to scabs? I can answer all these questions. I say that it is not. While you have in existence in this community the feeling that now prevails, you must be powerless. A great number of votes” were cast for “ No “ at the recent referendum as a protest against the way in which the country is being governed. If talking would win the war, it would be already won. Honorable members opposite cannot be proud of. their performances of the past twelve months. N/ot a single piece of legislation of any use to the community has been placed on the statute-book, and everything likely to bring about harmonious feeling has been disregarded. When there was an Opportunity to take statesmanlike action, to stop a strike, this Government stood behind the bosses.

Mr Watt:

– What should it have done?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– What the men asked should have been done. Mr. Websteb. - What was that?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– A Royal Commission should have been appointed.

Mr WEBSTER:
Postmaster-General · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was promised, but now that the employees know that they can get it they do not want it.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Wot withstanding the t”irmoil and strife, and the bitterness and starvation created, the employers and the National party have failed miserably in their attempt to introduce the Taylor card system into Australia. The National Government was used as the tool of the employers. If Ministers are in earnest now in desiring that Australia should do its share in the war, they will immediately reinstate the unions, and stop victimization, the inculcation of scabbery, and the giving of preference to scabbery. Ailthat must be done before I shall be a party to what I should be ready to do if ‘ the workers were given a fair deal.

I desire now to refer to a scandal forwhich the Government should be severely censured. It concerns the rabbit industry, and in some phases is as bad as theconditions revealed in Upton Sinclair’sJungle. Profiteering prevails in the industry, and the methods of American commercialism. I trust that the Minister ii). charge of the matter will take heed of” what I say, and the Government, if in earnest in its desire to help Great Britain,, will do what I ask shall be done. Some seven months ago I interviewed Mr. Clarke, who was then the price-fixing Commissioner, to have the price of rabbits fixed for the trappers. I saw him. twice, and introduced to him a deputation from the Australian Workers Union. Hepromised favorable and sympathetic consideration, but after a couple of months.had elapsed, I ascertained - I had to ask a couple of times before I could find out - that this meant that Mr. Clarke waaof the opinion that if the rates fixed by the Australian Workers Union were given, it would hardly be to the advantage of the persons concerned. Mr. Clarke then vacated the position of” Price Fixing Commissioner, and MrWhitton took his place. I saw Mr. Whitton personally a couple of times, communicated with him over the telephone a good many times, and introduced a deputation to him to discuss the pricesof carcasses and the prices of skins. liealso promised sympathetic consideration. Another couple of months elapsed, and some time early in November I received a message from him to inform me that hehad received- a letter from the Crown Law authorities to say ‘that price fixing to thetrapper would be ultra vires. After seven months’ agitation, and after arranging deputations of men from all parts of Australia, the Government have raised that stlone wall. I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to pass a regulation under the War Precautions Act to make pricefixing to the trapper legal. I have so farreceived no reply from the Prime Minister.

Speaking’ here last July, I told the House that the rabbiting industry of Aus”tralia is in the hands of a combine, and wittingly or unwittingly, the National Government have placed the whole of the trade in the hands of that . combine to the detriment of a large section of the Australian workers, the consumers of rabbits in Australia,- and also to the detriment of the British Government, who had and still have large contracts for rabbits with Australia. Everything which may tend to the advantage of the combine has been conceded by the N-ational Government. No one, other than a member of the Rabbit Combine in Australia, had the right to pack rabbits for last season’s pack, and no one else will have the right in respect of more than 10 per cent, of the pack this year. The contract for this year covers something like 2,000 tons of rabbits. The combine having practically full control of the rabbit industry .”have asked the Government to so fix the price of skins as to practically compel the rabbiter to sell his carcasses. The prices of skins have been fixed in accordance with the desire of the combine, and at much lower rates than should be allowed. For instance, the rates fixed at the instigation of the combine are :- Furriers, 27d. per lb.; first winters, 20d. per lb.; second winters, 18d. per lb.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– TEey are nothing like what the squatters are getting for their wool.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Those are the prices which were fixed on the 31st August, 1917. As a result, skins which were bought for 27d. per lb. by the Austalian Government were sold for 42d. per lb. First winters bought at 20d. per lb. were sold at 36£d. per lb. The Government’ buys skins at prices fixed so low as to prevent the rabbiter from selling his skins at their proper value, and they have now in hand a profit of something like £200,000 made at the expense of the Australian rabbiters. I ask the Minister concerned, what do the Government intend to do with that moneyT which rightly belongs to the furriers or trappers, or to both ?

Mr Palmer:

– Are the prices stated f.o.b. prices?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– The prices fixed are the prices to be paid in Melbourne or Sydney, or other places where the skins -are auctioned.

Mr Palmer:

– That is no information at all.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– The prices fixed are not for export, but for the trade here. Skins, the price for which Has been fixed at 27d. per lb. here, ‘ have brought in England from 56d. to 72d. per lb., or an increase of over 100 per cent.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Who gets the difference ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I have said that the National Government have made £200,000 out of the trappers of Australia, and they are holding it. I am not concerned so much about this profit of £200,000 made ‘by the Government as I am about -the fact that they Have allowed themselves to be used by the combine to keep down the price of skins in such a way as to compel fie rabbiter to sell his carcasses to the combine at their own price. That is what is going on, and that is what - 1 complain of.

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

– Does the honorable member say that the rabbiters should get London parity for tlieir skins?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– No ; I do not say any such thing, but I do say that the price of skins in Australia should be increased at least 50 per cent. I say that if the Government are really in earnest in connexion with these small things, they will see that the price of skins is immediately increased by at least 50 per cent. What right have they to make a huge profit at the expense of the rabbit trappers of this country?

I want now to refer to a scandal which practically amounts to robbery of the British Government. We have a system of graders and inspectors in connexion with the conduct of the rabbit trade. I may say that our chief rabbit inspector in New South Wale’s is a fruit expert. He is inspecting rabbits at the present time. The shipping inspector is a clerk. The country inspector knows little or nothing of the trade. One grader knows something about grading rabbits, but has no knowledge of freezing, or of the financial part of the business.

Mr Pigott:

– What factory are these men attached to?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I am speaking of men who form the Commission or Board supervising the industry in New South Wales. Under the system followed the

Motion of [REPRESENTATIVES, j No Confidence. appointment of graders is practically controlled by the combine. If a person desires to’ apply for a Government stamp with which to grade rabbits, he has first of all to work at a freezing depot owned by the combine. It is only at the will cf the combine that he can secure such employment. After being some time at a freezing depot, he may be sent out on the roads to buy rabbits, but he will be working for the combine all the time. It is on the recommendation of the “combine that he gets his ‘grading stamp. How can it be expected of a grader who owes his position to the combine that he should do anything detrimental to their interests ? As the result of maladministration-, incapacity and trickeryT over 10,000 crates of rabbits of last season’s pack from New South Wales alone were uondemned and destroyed. This was due to the getrichquick methods of’ the combine.- Instead of freezing their rabbits properly, thev only partially freeze them, and then they go mouldy or rotten. The British Government bought a certain quantity of last season’s pack.” The Commonwealth Government - and this is where their responsibilities come in - acting as agents for the British Government, advanced 75 per cent, to the packers. Money has been advanced by the Government in this way for rotten and mouldy rabbits, and 40 per cent, of the total pack sent to Great Britain last year, when opened up, will prova to be mouldy or rotten. The British Government has paid for those rabbits. This is the work of the rabbit combine of Australia that has received” the blessing of the National party.

Mr Palmer:

– Upon what information does the honorable member base that statement ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I shall deal with that question later on. By reason of the fact that graders can only hold their Government stamp at the will of the combine all kinds of diseases are being sent to England in rabbits. In certain parts of Australia rabbits- are specially prone to hydatids. The presence of this disease is indicated by cysts, which can be pricked. It is because of incompetency and of the bribery and corruption going on in the rabbit industry to-day that rabbits suffering from hydatids are being sent to London.

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

– Do the rabbit trappers send rabbits suffering from hydatids to the combine?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I believe that there are some dishonest trappers who prick the cysts . and do send in diseased rabbits. But the honorable member for- gets that we h’ave graders and inspectors, and we should look for honest work from them. Instead of the graders being under the control of the Customs Department, the difficulty is that they are under the control of’ the Rabbit Combine. In these circumstances,, how can we expect this Australian trade to be fostered? We are sending rotten and mouldy rabbits to England, which the British Government have paid for. It will take Australia fifteen years to ‘ overcome the evil effects of the scandal in this respect in connection with last season’s pack.

Mr Jensen:

-. - The honorable member’s statement is incorrect, because the rabbits are re-examined in London, and, if unsuitable, are sent bacl? to Australia at the seller’s risk.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– It is all very well for the Minister to talk like that, but im- mediately the rabbits are taken into the freezers in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania, they become the property of the British Government. The Minister for Trade and Customs should know that.

Mr Jensen:

– Yes, but if they are unsuitable for consumption they are sent back.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– All responsibility, so far as the packers are concerned, ceases immediately the rabbits are in their freezing stores. They are then the property of the British Government, who assume all responsibility for them. The British Government have been, robbed by the Rabbit Combine of this country.

Mr Pigott:

– How long has this state of affairs existed?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– It has been going on for twelve months, and for the last eight months I have been endeavouring to induce the Government to put an end to it. I have failed to do so only because the Rabbit Combine is stronger than I am.

Mr Jensen:

– Why did not the honorable member come to me - the Minister controlling these inspectors - to make his complaint ?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Have” I not been writing continually to the Prime Minister and living on the doorstep of the office of the Price Fixing Commissioner ? How- ever, at this stage I do not desire to say any more in regard to the matter, except to challenge the Government to appoint a special Committee to inquire into it. ‘ If Ministers are in earnest about doing a fair thing to Great Britain and the British Government in this matter, they will immediately appoint a Committee. The disclosures that I have -made should cause every thinking honorable member -to consider very seriously whether the time has’ not come for an investigation into the question. If a special Committee is appointed, I can produce even more startling information. The facts that I have given are those as I have them at present, but the whole thing is even more rotten and move scandalous than I have shown it to be to-day.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– The action of honorable members on the other side of the chamber evidently shows that the case put forward by the Opposition is such that there is0no reply to it. The motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition specifies the ground -upon which the Government are deserving .of censure. His indictment against the Government is as follows: -

  1. The repudiation of the pledges of the Prime Minister and’ other .Ministers. (fc) The political persecution of public men and other- citizens and the press under the War Precautions Regulations during the recent referendum campaign. ;
  2. The deprivation of statutory electoral rights of Australian-born- citizens by regulation behind the back of Parliament. (d!) The. general administration of public affairs.

The Leader of the Opposition made out a clear case in support of that indictment, and, so far, theie has been no answer to it. Certainly the Leader of the Government delivered a speech in which, if he did anything at all, he asked for clemency from honorable members and from the people of Australia because of the position in which he finds himself. He dealt with the question of pledges and with the censorship, and then immediately endeavoured to shift the ground of the attack and put this side of the chamber on the defensive. It is an old game in parliamentary tactics for the leader of a party who is indicted to endeavour to shift the ground of attack without really answering the indictment against him; but the Prime Minister dismally failed in his at tempt. I have heard the right honorable gentleman on many occasions, but I have never heard him to worse advantage than on this occasion. He felt his position. No one knew better than he did, or those who sit behind him, that pledges which had been made to the people of this country had been broken with impunity. It is useless to claim that because of the circumstances in which Ministers find themselves they are compelled to accept the reins of office again. There might have been some justification for such an attitude if the Government were composed of honorable members who were not in the last Administration; but, in view of the public statement of the last Ministry - that if the powers asked for from the people were not granted to them they would ^ be unable to carry on the government of the country - I say that no member of that Ministry, and no honorable member supporting the Government who indorsed that statement, is entitled to take part any longer in the administration of the affairs of the country. Ministers admitted that they could not possibly do anything towards the prosecution of the war without the powers that were asked for. That being the case, why should men who know that they can do nothing in regard to . winning the war without those powers continue to hold office after the people had declined to give them those powers ? We cannot expect to get the best results from the administration of affairs pertaining to the war from Ministers who have made this admission. But, furthermore, the public outside expected that the pledges made to them would be honoured. It is time that members of Parliament showed to- the people of Australia that they- really have some feeling of honour in regard to these’ things. We condemned Germany for having broken her treaty with Belgium, and we felt that we were justified in entering into the war on that account; but while we condemn Germany and make the sacrifices that Ave are making both in men and treasure for the purpose of defeating that nation, we permit men charged with the administration of affairs in this country to break with impunity pledges given by them to the people. If public men do that sort of thing, how can the people have “ confidence in them? That is the question to be answered. The people outside expect their public men to keep the pledges they have made, and they can have no further confidence in men who break them; and as Ministers no longer possess the confidence of the people outside, how then can they administer the affairs of the country to the satisfaction of Australia and in the interests of the Allied cause? That is the position in a nutshell. The Prime Minister does not deny having made the pledges. It is unnecessary to repeat them. Is there, therefore, any justification for honorable members opposite to remain silent, saying not one word by way of approval or otherwise of the action of the Government they support?

Mr Fenton:

– Some of them will say something.

Mr CHARLTON:

– So far this has been a one-sided debate. Silence may be golden in some cases, but it is not golden in connexion with this indictment; because it is essential that every honorable member should place his position clearly before the people of this country. It is their owji supporters, not ours, who are condemning Ministers. The Rational Association in New South Wales has held meetings which passed resolutions .condemning the Primo Minister and others, though the position of the Prime Minister in this respect is not worse than that of any other honorable member supporting him. All honorable members opposite are in the same boat. Why should the Prime Minister be singled out for blame? The charge is one that has to be answered by every honorable member supporting the Ministry. Every man who votes against the motion of the Leader of the Opposition indorses the action of the Government in breaking pledges given to the people of Australia, and if honorable members choose to re-c main silent and refuse to give reasons4 for their vote on this occasion, it is their own funeral. The people outside are watching things closely. Never since I have been in a Parliament has there been so much justification for lodging a motion of no-confidence as there has been on this occasion ; and,in my experience, on every occasion on which such a motion has been lodged it has been discussed from both sides of the Chamber; the Government have, always had a case to put up or have endeavoured to answer the indictment levelled against” them. On this occasion*, no attempt is being made to do so.

In my opinion the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) dropped very much in public esteem yesterday. No one has been a greater admirerof him than I have been. Though I differ from him in politics, I have always given, him the credit of being a sincere and. straightforward man. But yesterday he was not straightforward. He was speaking under great restraint, and was apparently afraid of his words. He knew that if he had told the truth it would havebeen against the interests of the Government. He knew that if he had told thepeople the exact position he would, have had to vote with this side, and. in order to evade that position he endeavoured to show that if certain things had happened other thingswould have had to be done. He claimed that the Governor-General had exhausted every mfeans in his power to form a Ministry before asking Mr. Hughes toaccept a commission again, but the honorable member had no justification for saying so. He was only endeavouring to hoodwink the people. No one knows what took place between the Governor-General and different honorable members of this HouseAll we know is that honorable memberson the Government side carried a resolution approving of the action of Mr.. Hughes, and, once having done so, whether they had indorsed it on the platform or not, they must stand or fall by it now in public esteem. Yet, in a critical timelike the present, we find that no attemptis being made to justify the action of honorable members in accepting office again. To my mind, there was only one course tofollow. Because of the statements madeby the other side that they could not govern the country, and could not giveeffect to their Win-the-war policy without the power they sought and which the people denied them, the Leader of the Opposition should have been sent for. After all, were Ministers not elected to win the war? Was not that the cry that gave them their great majority? The patriotism of the people Was appealed to,, and thousands of workers who previously supported this side, gave support to the National Government because they thought that in doing so they would behelping to win the war. Having con- f essed that they could do nothing to win -the war without the powers that they asked the people to give them, honorable members are prepared to go on administering the affairs of the country without attempting to do anything towards winding the war. Was ever a Government placed in such a position? Never in the history of any Government have men accepted place and power in such circum- stances.

In May last Ministers went to the electors, and told the . people that they would not raise the question of conscription unless they found out later that they could not administer the affairs of the country successfully without the power to enforce military service overseas ; but if they had done the right thing, as the honorable member for Flinders has said, they would have faced the position at that time, and told the people that they must have the power to conscript the manhood of Australia if they were to properly administer the affairs of the country and help to win the war. However, they did not. They sunk the question, except that a guarantee was given that should some disaster befall the British armies, it would again be resurrected, and they did all this plainly in order to get on to the Treasury bench. They put the political side, and not the national side, “foremost. The national side is only jp.araded outside, and through the press, for the purpose of getting general support. But the people now see through the whole “business. They see that there is nothing ^genuine about those patriotic criea that are raised from time to time for the purpose of securing place ‘ and power. Actions speak louder than words. The actions of Ministers show beyond a doubt that they are prepared to have regard to the interests of party irrespective of what may befall lie prosecution of the war so far as the Commonwealth is concerned.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– What about the offer that the Prime Minister has made? .

Mr CHARLTON:

– I shall deal with that point when I come to it.

Mr Gregory:

– “Actions speak louder than words.” What answer have you to that offer?

Mr CHARLTON:

– I will let the Honorable member know when I come to that point. If the National party were in earnest,’ if they considered it necessary to get the power to conscript men in order to win the war, tihey should have asked for it in May last. Had they done that, everybody would have respected them. If they had been successful at the elections on a conscription policy, conscription would have been the law of the land, but they deferred conscription, and when they again brought it forward was it because they considered it necessary, or because influences were at work in the country which compelled them to take- action ? On this subject we have the statement of.no less an authority than the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce). The public are guided by statements made ‘by Ministers in regard to the Departments over which they preside, and Senator Pearce, in addressing a meeting in .Sydney on the 31st October, made it’ clear to the people that up to thai; moment the voluntary system had been a success, and he led them to believe that ithe Government would continue to operate it, for he said that the Government had flbeen drawing men from a reservoir which was not yet dry, although he thought it ought to have a little more water added to it. He further told his audience that as a result of the voluntary system 313,000 men had been sent abroad. At about the same time the honorable member for Flinders addressed a meeting in Melbourne, and ali those who supported the Win-lflie-war Government, and were strong in the ad^ vocacy of conscription, were crying out for the Government to move in the direction of introducing compulsion. “ The press of Australia was behind those people. The honorable member for Flinders went to New South Wales and to Queensland, and everywhere he met with the same reception. Parliament was to have re-assembled on the 21st November, but the Prime Minister hurriedly convened a Cabinet meeting, at which, no doubt, the whole situation was considered. The Government decided that something should ‘be, done, and resolved that instead1 of meeting the House they would aot under the Wkr Precautions Act, for the first time in a matter of this kind, and again submit conscription to the people.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member for Cook said that the matter was decided earlier than that.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I do not agree with the honorable member for Cook. It was evident to the Government that on the occasion of the second referendum they must utilize every means at their disposal in order to secure victory. First of all, they considered the manner in which the proposal should be presented to the electors. They decided that it must not be in the same form as on the occasion of the first referendum, because people would ‘be antagonistic to a direct proposal for the introduction of conscription. Therefore, it was resolved to ask the people whether they were in favour of the proposals of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing our troops abroad. Everybody was, and is, in favour of reinforcing our’ men who are fighting overseas, and I hope that everybody has been doing what he could to that end, but the idea of the Government was that people would not be able to return a negative answer to such a question. As a matter of fact, the principle at stake was exactly the same as that involved in the first referendum, namely, compelling the manhood of the country to fight in this war. The Government went further, and decided to make the compulsion apply only to single men. Twelve months before they had said that it was necessary to conscript both single and married men. On this occasion they thought they might get some of the married men who previously had voted “ No “ to reverse their vote if they understood that only single men were to be conscripted.

As a further step towards securing a majority at the referendum they decided to disfranchise by regulation a large number of Australian electors. There are in the community some men who, perhaps, ought to be disfranchised; there are some who ought to be interned; but many of those who were deprived of their electoral rights are as good and loyal citizens of the Commonwealth as I am. Their fathers may have been born in an enemy country, which they left in their childhood. They have resided in Australia for forty or fifty years. They have married Australian women, and reared Australian families, but they and their sons and daughters were deprived of the right to vote. And we were told by Senator Millen that by disfranchising these people the Government expected to wipe out the previous “No” majority. The next step was to enforce a severe form of censorship. The Government would not permit to be published any information which was calculated to assist the “ No “ cause. “We could not get our views presented to the public as we desired. Many honorable members made speeches that were never reported at all, but the case for “Yes” was placed constantly before the people through the newspapers and in other ways. In that way they sought to prevent us giving to the public the information which we considered necessary to guide them in coming to a proper decision.

In a further endeavour to get votes, the Government decided to extend the franchise to all lads under twenty-one who had enlisted for service overseas. They expected that no soldier could vote against conscription in the form in which it was being submitted, and it must have been to the Government the surprise of their lives that 90,000 men at the Front voted “ No,” reducing the previous “ Yes “ majority of 14,000 amongst the soldiers to 1,600. I believe that a majority of the rank and file in the trenches - the men who do the actual fighting - voted “ No.” Are they to be branded, as we have been, as disloyalists, Sinn Feiners, and pro-Germans? If those terms are ‘applicable to us, they are equally, applicable to those brave lads who are fighting for us. Those who are so ready to make use of these forms’ of abuse should not forget that the fathers and mothers of thousands of lads who are fighting abroad voted against conscription,’ and these libellous statements by leading public men of the Commonwealth were a distinct injustice to them.

The Government rigged the referendum in such a way that there appeared to be no doubt as to the result. The whole of the circumstances connected with the appeal having been arranged to their satisfaction, the Government decided to stake their own existence on the result. They pledged the existence of the Government on a “ Yes “ majority, but in spite of everything the referendum has been defeated. Yet to-day the same Government is on the Treasury bench administering the affairs of the country after having told the people that it was absolutely irapossibletfor them to carry on unless they had the power of conscription. As I view the circumstances, no self-respecting Government could continue in office after having made such a compact, and no selfrespecting man could give support to a Government who had broken their pledges in this manner. They have violated their pledges as guiltily as Germany violated hers) in regard to the neutrality of Belgium. These self-same men who appeal to the people to support the conduct of the war, and tell them that the justification for Great Britain entering the conflict was Germany’s breach of her .pledge to Belgium, are deliberately breaking the pledges they themselves made to the people. I am surprised that honorable members on the Government side can sit in silence when they know that this infamy is being enacted.

Mr Brennan:

– Their own crowd are turning them down.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes ; even the outside Nationalist organizations are repudiating the actions of the Government.

In regard to the whole conduct of the war, there has been much mismanagement during the last twelve months. In the course of this debate two suggestions have been made for the purpose, of bringing ; about a better condition of affairs. The Prime ‘Minister has stated that he is prepared to efface himself in the interests of a better understanding between the parties. The honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) has suggested that representatives of all parties should confer in order to devise means of enabling Australia to better play its part in regard to the prosecution of the war. These suggestions are all very well, but honorable members opposite do not realize the condition into which their blundering has got Australia. They deliberately permitted a State Government to control this country, at a time when the authority of the Commonwealth should have been asserted, and from that time onward there has been a slump in recruiting. If honorable members think that they can conduct the war by playing all the time to vested interests, they never made a greater mistake. In the conduct of a war there must be harmony, the Government must have the people behind them, and1 they must do what is fair to every man and woman in the community. The National Government should not have permitted a State’ Government to take “control of affairs, and, after having ‘ entered into a solemn agreement to do certain things, repudiate that agreement and “ put the boot into the workers.” From the day that the present Holman Government came into power in New South Wales the troubles, of the Commonwealth have been mounting up. Our chances of successfully prosecuting the war have’ been diminishing day by day, I am sorry to say, and that is due to the one-sided administration in connexion with the affairs of that Stata and the Commonwealth. I see very clearly that .the mistakes made by the Commonwealth Government at the time to which I refer have placed Australia in a very invidious position.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The honorable member’s argument means, “If we can- ‘ not get on the Treasury bench, we shall not raise any recruits.”

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is not my argument. Instead of interjecting, let the honorable member rise and defend himself. My argument is that our troubles commenced with the advent of the present Holman Government into power. It is well-known that the State Government of New South Wales did not intend to hold an election ; they had prolonged the life of the State Parliament. It’ is further known that in July pf 1916 they endeavoured, to introduce the ‘card system into the Government workshops of New South Wales.’ Finding that the men would not accept the. system, they withdrew it.- At that time they, had not made a coalition’ with their political :opp’onents, and ‘ they expected the State elections to’ take place within a few months. Later, a coalition was arranged,’ and “the Government suddenly precipitated an election,but, because of the difficulties in the Federal political’ arena, they said nothing at that time . about’ the - card .system. Nor did they say anything about the memorandum in regard to; economic conscrip-. tion which, had. been drawn - up . by ‘Mr.. Holman about a month, previously. ‘ It is now -public -property” that- a memorandum, as’ to what, should .be done to force’ men to enlist -was pre.pared.-by Mr.’ Holman.- A month or so later the genera] election took place,, and- during ‘that campaign’ he allowed his. memorandum to ‘remain dormant. The :f act;that;he drew it’-.up .would have still, remained- in. the background if. it-ha’d hot been disclose’d in connexion with, the recent campaign. It shows clearly, what the State National Government intended to do. Immediately after their return with a big majority they reintroduced the card system, and trouble occurred.

Every one knows that I never approved of the strike. Mr. Hughes had appealed to the industrial workers to avoid any industrial trouble during the war, and Mr. Holman had made a similar appeal, but what happened? We all know that a basic principle of arbitration is that, unless ordered by the Court, no alteration shall be made in existing industrial conditions where the parties concerned cannot arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement. The Holman Government knew that the railway men were opposed to this card system. Why, then, did they introduce it at that particular juncture? Can it be said that they acted in the best interests of the Empire? Was it absolutely necessary that they should introduce the system? Had not the State railways been worked for years without it? Why could it not have been allowed to remain in abeyance until the men were prepared to accept it, or, at all events, until after the war ? We cannot get away from that position. The public do not see it in that light, because the position is not so put to them by the newspapers. The newspapers make it appear that the porkers were responsible for the whole trouble. They make it appear that the men brought about the strike instead of endeavouring, in the interests of the country, to avert it. The Prime Minister has done the same. The State Government of New South Wales, members of which have now so much to say concerning the Prime Minister, were in fact responsible for the bringing about of the railway strike.

As I said at the time, I did not approve of the men ceasing work. Whatever the trouble was, it might well have been confined to the mechanics in the Department. That, however, was not done. After, the dispute with the railway men had been settled, I rose in this House and urged the Commonwealth Government to take control of the whole industrial trouble in New South Wales, since it vitally affected the welfare of the Commonwealth. I urged that no State Administration should be allowed to control such matters at a time of great national crisis. In normal times the Commonwealth Government have the right to deal with disputes extending beyond the bounds of any one State. In abnormal times - at a time of national crisis - when a strike occurs the power of this Government and of this Parliament in regard to.it is paramount, even when it does not extend beyond any one State. The Commonwealth Government is charged with the protection of the best interests of the Empire, and I maintain that the Commonwealth Government should have stepped in as soon as the railway strike was settled and have ended the whole trouble. The railway men had returned to work. Constitutional authority had asserted itself, and, that being so, the time had arrived for the State Government to forget the past and to allow industry to go on as before. But what did the State Government do? As the result of the stand they took, the business of the Commonwealth was held up. Shipping was scarce in Commonwealth waters, and we were trying to do the best we could with the limited freights at our disposal. West Australia was sending over ships for certain commodities, and other States were doing- the same ; but in consequence of the action of the New South Wales. Government the movements of shipping were seriously hampered.

Immediately after the settlement of the dispute with the railway men the State Government endeavoured to arrive at a settlement with the coal miners, and there appeared to be every prospect of a settlement. Strange ito say, on the Friday before the railway strike occurred, Mr. Beeby arrived in Melbourne, and was1 to be seen at the Prime Minister’s door; while Mr.. Hall also came across to Melbourne at a -time when the miners were negotiating with Mr. Holmes, Industrial Registrar, and had almost reached a settlement, and were actually in touch with Mr. Beeby. Arrangements had been made for a conference at 2.30 p.m. on a certain date, and on the morning of that day Mr. Hall returned from Melbourne to Sydney, a* hurried meeting of the State Cabinet was held, and the result was that proposals, which they knew the men could not accept, were submitted to .the conference. In that way the strike was prolonged by the State Government. I do not know what connexion these visits of State Ministers to Melbourne had with the trouble, but the attitude taken up by the State Government certainly prolonged the strike. They refused to meet the miners, and it was only as the result of the Prime Minister’s intervention that we at last secured a conference. As soon as I put the position before the Prime Minister he did his best to bring the miners and the State Government together. The country was suffering, thousands weTe out of employment, and in .actual want; men were being evicted because they could not pay their .rent, and yet the State Government allowed the industrial trouble to goon when they could have settled it at its very inception.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– .That might be said of every case of the kind.

Mr CHARLTON:

– ‘Where bad management occurs.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– lt is the first time I have heard a member of the Labour party advocating that the Government should step in to break a strike.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The honorable member may put what construction he pleases on my remarks, but I am not bound to accept it. Evidently I am hurting him, and he does not like what I say. As soon as we secured a conference, the trouble was settled, and the men went back to work. The metropolitan newspapers gave it out ‘that they weTe responsible for the shortage of coal; but, .as a matter of fact, they were not. Even when the men agreed to go back they could not find work in the mines; the mines were idle because there was no shipping.

And why was the’ shipping held up? The fact is that after an agreement had been arrived at for the working of our shipping, when every ship, with the exception of the small steam-ship Oonah, was manned, when a New Zealand boat had her passengers on board, and was ready to leave, when steamers were in readiness to take coal to the different parts of the Commonwealth, the shipowners were permitted to withdraw the men from every vessel in Commonwealth waters, because a dispute had occurred in regard to that one little vessel, the Oonah. And this at a time when the country was suffering! When everything should have been done to help in winning lie wax ship-owners were permitted to withdraw their crews. Pot two or three weeks our shipping was held up, and even then the Commonwealth Government failed to in tervene. They allowed the ship-owners to hold up the shipping of this country at a time when it was ‘ vital to the best interests of Australia that every vessel should be in commission. If -honorable members consider that such an administration of the affairs of Australia in time of war was reasonable, I can only say that there is much to be accounted for.

It was just at this time that Mr. Ryan, Premier of Queensland, and Leader of the Labour party in that State, decided, for some reason or other, to commandeer certain steam-ships, and commenced to run them. The Commonwealth Government, instead of permitting him to go on as they had permitted the Holman Government to do in regard to the whole of the industrial trouble in New South Wales, immediately framed a regulation providing that no State Premier or Government should commandeer ships without the consent of the Prime Minister or the Federal Government. I do not say that it was a wrong provision to make, but I invito honorable members to contrast this treatment of Mr. Ryan with that meted out to the Holman Government, who were allowed, in time of war, to practically run this country on the rocks. When Mr. Ryan took action, the Commonwealth Government asserted its authority. When the New South Wales Government and the steam-ship owners took the action of which I have complained, the Commonwealth Government, instead of asserting its authority, allowed things to drift.

Mr Jensen:

– What was to become of the men who had stuck to the Oonah, and had kept things going?

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am surprised at such an interjection coming from a; member of the Government. He suggests that, because one little vessel - the Oonah - could not get its complement of seamen so that it might run between here and Tasmania, the whole of the affairs of the Commonwealth, at a time of national crisis, were properly held up by the steam-ship owners, and that the Commonwealth Government were justified in permitting that holding up. If his view is shared by all his colleagues, then I can only say, God help Australia and the Empire! Why should the shipowners have been allowed to decide the matter for themselves? Where was the

Commonwealth authority? The Commonwealth Government should have taken control, and have dealt with the whole question. I am not trying to lay down the exact steps, that should have been taken by the Commonwealth, but I do say that ‘the Federal Government should have asserted its authority, and should not have subordinated its rights to a State Government like that of New South Wales.-

To-day, we hear Mr. Holman, Mr. Hall, and Mr. ‘ Beeby - members of the Holman Government- attacking the Prime. Minister.- If I” had to choose between them- and the Prime Minister, I would take the latter every time. I have no time for men like the members of the State Government . I have named. It is [ amusing .to hear ‘Mr. Holman urging that the Prime Minister should resign because he has broken a. pledge. Consider for a moment the” pledges .-which Mr. Holman made at the last State elections. He said then that he would be no party to another conscription . referendum. He asserted during the State general elections that if the conscription question were resurrected lie would, take the public platform against it; but immediately it was raised Mr. Holman, according to the press, came over to Melbourne;. with the object of inducing the Prime Minister to make the question a vital one, so far as- the.- “life, of the Commonwealth Government was- concerned. His Government was, of course, all right. Provided. that the war. continued, he could see tw.o.or three’ years of office ahead of him. But he urged- the Commonwealth Government. to stand or fall by the conscription, -referendum. - And this is the gentleman who t.aiks ‘ about broken pledges ! -His; position is equally as bad as,- if not wo^se than, that of the Prime Minister in; .this ; Tespect. Although he h ad given the ‘people of New South Wales flic definite . assurance, that if conscription -wpfe- resurrected he. would oppose it, he turned’ round and supported the “Yes” side; What: brought about this change- pf : front ?: I cannot; of course, speak. ‘ definitely,- but ‘ I think it was Ane , . to.’, the ‘ f act that he, like the -Erime-‘iM3.niBfer,” Had been to the Old Couritry;’where.public men get into strange company. : ; There ‘they often make state- ments that they would not make at home, and in this way lead the people of the Old Country to form certain opinions regarding them. When they return here they have to live up to the opinions so formed concerning themselves. No doubt Mr: Holman felt that if he did not support the “ Yes “ side, notwithstanding his pledge to oppose it, he would appear in a bad light before the people of longland and America, where he had been travelling.

Mr. Holman has quite enough to do to look after his own Government. That Government deliberately entered into an arrangement with the coal-miners of New South Wales for the resumption of work, but that arrangement they have neveT honoured. What is the position to-day in regard to Pelaw Main and Richmond Main mines? I read this morning that at Pelaw Main alone there are 80 miners out of work. They are good workers - men who cannot be faulted ; but they have not been able to get back to the mine, although the Holman Government guaranteed that they would be taken back as vacancies occurred. The Holman Go-‘ vernment, according to press reports, has been writing to the Victorian Ministry stating that more labour is required over there, and asking that miners should be sent from this State. While that is so local miners are in a state of semistarvation, relying for the support of their families on the fi per week allowed them . by their fellow workers. We can guess what sort of a Christmas many of these poor people had in consequence of the. action of the State Government, and the failure of the Commonwealth Government to assert its authority. Is such treatment calculated to create an atmosphere favorable to recruiting? Trade unionists have responded nobly to the call of the Empire, and the district to which I am referring will bear comparison with any other part of the Commonwealth in the number of recruits it has furnished. These men did not stop the supply of coal in Australia. They were willing to go back, but’ they have been kept out of employment by the State Government,’ which is now endeavouring to patch up an agreement to supply the Victorian Government, during the next five years, with 1,000,000 tons - of coal at 15s. per ton. That is a higher price than has ever been paid for coal here, and the Holman Government seem to be greatly perturbed at the prospect of the Victorian Government failing to accept the offer. Why do they want to give a monopoly to J. and A. Brown, the coal kings of Australia? What does it mean? It means that men will be thrown out of employment, while others are working two and three shifts at these two collieries, and, at the same time, other miners, who, after fighting for years, have succeeded in getting one shift at mines which are now paying, will be thrown out of employment. -j All this shows that the State Government are not doing the right thing. I have no proof, but I am simply describing the position as it presents itself to me; and without a doubt there can be no justification for what is at present being done. The Commonwealth Government has permitted the State Government to usurp powers which in war time rightly belong to the Commonwealth. I do not wonder at Hall, Beeby, Holman, and Co. criticising the Commonwealth Government and its leader, for these people have been allowed too much latitude, and behave as though they, and not the Commonwealth Parliament, governed Australia. So far as Messrs. Beeby and Holman and their colleagues are concerned, they are to-day doing everything possible to break down trade unionism. This may be denied, but it is true, and everybody connected with industries knows it. Now that the strike trouble is over, and we should be endeavouring to promote harmony and the prosecution of the war, these people have set up bureaux, to which all applications for employment must be made, ignoring the unions altogether. This is justified on the ground that the unionism of to-day is not conducted on sane j>rinciples; but unionism to-day is conducted just as it has been for years. We should not have had all the present trouble had the State Government not done what it has done; they knew they were wrong, but immediatelv after the elections they so acted as to bring endless trouble on the Commonwealth. How many men are there in Victoria, and in other- States, at present in indigent circumstances because of the lack of employment ? How many fathers aud> mothers were unable to get the necessaries of life during the recent Christmas in consequence of the action of the State Government? But the. Commonwealth Government never ‘ endeavoured to assert themselves, and we, as the governing body of the Commonwealth, are not doing all we ought in regard to the war. I canscarcely describe my feelings sometimes when miners and others come to. me and complain that when, after responding to the Empire’s call, and risking their lives, they return to this country aa invalids, they are told, although many have large families to support, that they can have no pension because their incapacity did not occur in connexion with warlike operations. That I regard’ as a mere excuse; and there have been many cases of the kind in my experience, and, I suppose, in the experience . of other .honorable members. Any man who passes the doctor in Australia, and who, on service abroad, is seriously incapacitated through any cause not entirely due to himself, ought to be given a pension without any quibble. This treatment of returned men is doing much to injure recruiting, and there ought to be some immediate reform.

There is another phase of the question connected with the policy of taking into consideration the year’s income previous to enlisting in determining any pension granted. The other day the case of a widow was brought under my notice; and her case I regard as particularly hard, though it is only one amongst . many. She has one spn who pays her for his board, and another, a little lad working for a few shillings per week, not sufficient to keep him in boot leather. A third son was killed, and though she is. in poor circumstances, she was’ refused a pension on the ground that she was not a dependant on the deceased soldier for twelve months prior to his enlistment. This I regard as shameful. I never suspected when I took part in passing the’ present legislation that such subterfuges would be resorted to in the case of men who had risked their lives on behalf of their country. It is time .that we had plain speaking on these matters, because the complaints in connexion therewith are spreading all over the country, .people are taking the view that if that is the treatment meted put to those- men who are fighting foT. the ‘Empire, and to their dependants, it ‘is their intention to take no further.: part-; and this, of ‘ course, helps largely to kill the prospects of recruiting. .

Has the time not arrived when we ought to take into consideration .the increased cost of living, and, no matter what the increased expenditure may be, increase the remuneration to soldiers and their dependants ? There ought certainly to be an increase made in the separation allowance, and the money paid on account of the children is not sufficient. These are facts that are killing the voluntary systern’; and, though I shall not enumerate cases, I have no doubt that honorable members on both sides of the House can beaT me out. In many cases I ‘have been able to get redress, but such cases should not arise; and anything that the Government can do ought to be done to improve the position as early as possible.

It has been urged that we should do something with a view to ‘bringing about a coalition in this House for the prosecution of the war. Let me say that in the. present position that is impossible.

Mr Sampson:

– Why? Mr. CHARLTON”.- Because, from the time of the first referendum right up to the present, men on this side of lie House, and others whose political opinions coincide with ours, have been .attacked and maligned - ‘have been termed proGermans, Sinn Feiners, and accused of disloyalty. These things .rankle in the breasts of our supporters, and create a bad feeling outside. When the great emergency arose, and the Government had to decide as to the future conduct of affairs, we on -this side were not approached at all.

Mr Sampson:

– Do not the interests of the nation rise superior to all these considerations?

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is N what I have been urging all the time - that the interests of the nation should be paramount, as they have not been in the eyes of our opponents. Do honorable mem- ‘ hers opposite expect that such treatment will not be resented on this side?

Mr Sampson:

– Is it not the duty of your party to help to make the interests of the nation paramount?

Mr. CHARLTON.^I am pointing out what might have been done to help in that direction, but it is not possible at this juncture, after honorable members opposite have refused to negotiate with us. The Ministry, after breaking their deliberate pledge, “ask men on this side, who have been true to their principles for a. life-time, to amalgamate with them.. Where should we be if we did so? Supposing that to-morrow we decided to send representatives into the present Ministry, what would be our position outside? It would not be long before we should be asked to resign. We. should be accused of being like the Government amd their supporters - of looking after the “ loaves and fishes.” Here we have a’ Government who have deliberately broken their promises; and yet the members of it ask us on this side to enteT into a coalition with them. The position is untenable from every point of view, and could not. be accepted for a moment. If the Government were not. prepared to go to the? country, but had said there were men. opposite ready to act who had not indorsed the lead of the Ministry, and had! not broken any pledges, they would have been on different ground in approaching us. The Ministry, however, first make their position sure, taking care that thereshall be no » election, at any rate for months, and- then they talk of holding out the “ olive branch.” It is too late.

Mr Atkinson:

– It is neveT too late to* do the right thing.

Mr CHARLTON:

– But that is not theright thing. I hope that my political, record is a clean one - that my constituents, whether they support me or not, believe that I try to do what is right politically. I could no more ally myself with the present Government, after what has happened, especially during the last week, than I could go before my electors: and ask them to indorse such an action.

Mr Fenton:

– You would sooner go> out of public life?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes; I could not do such a thing. It is all very well for the Ministry to make overtures, but they have not done the right thing. The Prime Minister charged the Leader of the Opposition with having no policy; that is, the right honorable gentleman endeavoured to turn his guns on the Opposition without answering the indictment against himself. It will be time for the Leader of the Opposition to announce his policy when he is intrusted with the formation of a Ministry. The duty of the Opposition now is to show that the present Government have broken faith with the people,. and to urge that it is for the people to declaring a policy, and we are prepared decide the future. to do so if we have the opportunity.

The Government. may delay an appeal However, not having the opportunity, we to the electors; but I do not agree with the are not going to be caught in the way statement that there should be ho general suggested- we refuse to stultify ourselves election at present because of the feeling for all time. it would engender outside. As a matter **Mr. Webster.** - You have a policy, of fact, the feeling outside could be no then? worse than it is at present. Since the **Mr. CHARLTON".** - Yes ; and I venwar we have had a Federal election, two ture to say that our policy would meet referendums, and State elections, and, in with a good response, my opinion, a Commonwealth general **Mr. Webster.** - But you are riot preelection would clear the atmosphere. If Pared to offer that policy to the country, an appeal to the people were made now, I **Mr. CHARLTON.-** We are prepared believe that whatever party came back to do so if you will give us "the opporwith the indorsement of the consti- tunity. The present Government are adtuencies, there should be a coalition at ministering the affairs of the country toonce. There would then be some room for day; and. it °e time enough for us coalition, but in the House as at present to prescribe what should be done to proseoonstituted, and in view of the broken «ute the war when we are given the right pledges of the Ministry, it is impossible to do so. The present Government canfor men on this side to accept the con- not, by any subterfuge, get away from ditions. For those reasons, a coalition, their present position. _ Everybody knows in my opinion, has to be discarded. that the Government simply went out and Now I come to the suggestion made by in again. Their resignation was only a the honorable member . for Flinders **(Sir farce- the greatest farce ever perpetrated William Irvine)** - that there should be a in a deliberative assembly, conference of members of both sides. But **Mr. Webster.** - Is that a reflection on that simply creates the old position. We the Governor-General? could, of course, meet and discuss the dim- **Mr. CHARLTON.** - I do not know on culties that have arisen, but we could no whom else it is a reflection, but it is, at more ally ourselves with a party which any rate, a reflection on the honorable has broken its pledges than attempt to member for sitting where he is. If I were "fly from here to Newcastle. the honorable member, not only would I {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- No harm can be done not sit there, but I would be afraid to "by a meeting of the kind. make any interjections. The honorable {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- What good could member, above all, should be quiet- he be done? Honorable members opposite that said that if this proposal of the Goput barriers in the road that it is im- vernment was turned down the Governpossible to overcome from our point of ment would not retain office for twentyview, and then they hold out the " olive four hours. branch " and ask us to join with them. I **Mr. Webster.-** We did not. We reknow that the public press will applaud signed within twenty-four hours after the the suggestion that has been made; and writs were returned, it certainly is clever of the Prime Min- **Mr. CHARLTON.** - The honorable ister to evade answering the indictment member waited for the writs to be reagainst him, and, at the same lime, put turned, and for twenty-four hours af terns on our defence. But we do not accept wa-F^s- that position, for we have no accusation **Mr. Webster.-** Would not you wait for to defend ourselves against. We are pre- . the verdict ? pared to promote the prosecution of the **Mr. CHARLTON.** - The verdict was war; and if the Governor-General had apparent to every man in Australia sent for the Leader of the Opposition, "who did not want to continue on the and that gentleman had formed a Govern- Treasury bench as long as possible within ment, while we might have got our *quietus* a week of the vote being taken. Even if at once, we would, at least, have had an we accept the honorable member's plea opportunity to put a policy before the that he waited for the official declaration people. We should not have shrunk from of the poll, and then resigned office, is he going to justify his presence there now because he walked out and walked in again ? Isrhe going to shelter himself behind the Governor-General ? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- We resigned unconditionally. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The honorable member can no more shelter himself behind what the representative of the King did in the matter than I could so shelter myself if I coalesced with him at the present moment with regard to the prosecution of the war. The people of Australia have his measure; they know what his promises were. They know that they were made deliberately, and just as deliberately broken. There is no excuse for the breaking of those pledges. The honorable member cannot, by any side-wind, get away from the fate in store for him. Those honorable members who support him are in exactly the same position. No doubt many of them do not agree with the action of the Government, but if they in- dorse the Government's attitude they must take the responsibility. They cannot escape from it. They must do one of two things - vote with the Government or with the Opposition. They can explain their position as much as they like. They may not believe in us as a party - in fact, I know they do not - but they have to choose between supporting the Government and voting against the Government on a vital question of honour. Every man on that side is involved in this question. They cannot get away from it even by the specious argument used yesterday by the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine),** that he supposed certain things happened with the GovernorGeneral. The fact remains that those gentlemen should not be on the Treasury bench. If the Ministerialists intended to have no election, but to go straight on, they should, have selected another Ministry from amongst themselves. That would have been the honorable way. Honorable members opposite say they do not indorse what the Government did - that they were not called into the Cabinet - but that they had to indorse the decision or leave the party. I quite understand the position they are placed in. We are - sometimes placed in awkward positions ourselves, but, having been placed in that position, they must say whether they approve of what the Government have done or not. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They may move an amendment. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- So far as I can see they do not intend to speak at all, and perhaps that is the best course for them to adopt, because they do not appear to have any defence for what has happened. The Prime Minister himself has no defence, and when the people read his speech they will be surprised. He is a man who can generally defend his position well in this chamber, but he never made a weaker exposition in his life than he did on this occasion. He evidently felt his position. He knew that something wrong had been enacted. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- It was one of his masterpieces. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I am waiting now for the Postmaster-General to rise and justify his actions in the whole business, so that we may see what a masterpiece he will make of it. The Prime Minister dealt only with a couple of 'phases of the matter. He endeavoured to make it appear that instead of his Bendigo statement being a solid pledge to the people it was only .a threat. The ideai of a man occupying his position telling the people, after deliberately giving that pledge from time to time, that it was only in the nature of a threat! People will be surprised to read that statement. Everybody knows, as the Prime Minister knows, that he himself said the Government intended to refuse to carry on unless they got the power of conscription. That was no threat on the part of the honorable member. After making that solemn promise the honorable member broke it, and now endeavours to justify his action on the plea that it was only a threat. Everyone knows that it was just as solemn a pledge as was the treaty between Germany and Belgium, the breaking of which justified our entering into the war, yet that pledge is being broken by almost every Minister. I, do not say by all, because there are rumours that the right honorable member for Swan **(Sir John Forrest)** had nothing to do with it, but every other Minister, so far as we know from newspaper reports and from statements made in the House, has broken his pledge to the country, and now they' would shelter themselves behind the Governor-General. That is too thin altogether. I do not say that the Prime Minister gave any information to the Governor-General one way or the other - nor do I know what the GovernorGeneral did, but there was only one honorable way out of the difficulty. That was to let the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Tudor)** form a Government, and be sent to the country. Alternatively, they could have taken another course. A Government could have been formed from men on the Ministerial side who had made no pledges to the country that they would not govern without the power of conscription. "What sort of position are we put in ? What have the Government done to win the war since they took office ? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- They raised their own salaries. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I say nothing about that, but so far as I know, only two or three measures that have any bearing on the war have been passed since the Government took office, and even they have very little bearing on it. One is the tax imposed on single men. So far as I know, not one honorable member opposite announced on the platform at the last election that- the Government were going to bring in such a tax. When the Government come to collect the tax they will meet a good deal of hostility from those who have to pay it, and from their parents too. Honorable members opposite may laugh, but they will not laugh when the time to open the ballot-boxes comes round. Nobody can justify that tax on the poor people of this country. It is said to be a tax only on single men, but I know dozens of single men that have greater obligations than many married men have. I have known single men who have been keeping their widowed mothers for years. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- Are they not exempt? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- There are no exemptions, and those men have to pay. Another measure passed by the Government is the tax on war-time profits. What does that" amount to ? It is simply an inducement to those who can by any means increase the price of commodities to do so, because they get 25 per cent, of the increase, as a bonus. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- You would not vote against the second reading of the Bill. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No, but I would have gone further and taken the whole excess profits. I have always contended that the whole of the profits made in time of war over and above those of normal times should go to the Treasury to help to prosecute the war, but this tax takes- only 75 per cent., leaving 25 per cent, to go to the man who, being successful in business, can increase the price of coiU7nodities. It is a nice inducement for men who can do^a little profiteering to get all they possibly can, because they are allowed to keep one-fourth of all the money they are able to make. If the Government had done the right thing they should have prevented that happening. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- Would not they get a great deal more profit" if the Government did not take any ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Certainly, they would get the whole of it, but the Government are charged with the responsibility of preventing them doing that sort of thing, and that is what should be done in time of war. We should not permit the profiteers to go on as they are doing. We should not allow the cost of living to' be increased to people all' over Australia. We should make an honest endeavour to keep it down. If we took the whole of the excess profits there would be no inducement to merchants to make them, the public would be able to get their necesV saries at reasonable prices; there would be no reason to increase the price of commodities, because of the existence of monopolies, amd the people generally would be in a better position. Will any one say that those two measures have done much to win the war up to the present, or that they have even affected the .war at all ? . We have not gathered in one shilling of the war-time profits tax, or one shilling of the bachelor tax. The only other thing of any moment the Government have done is to pass the Repatriation Act, but that, after all, is a mere shell. There is not a guiding principle in it. Although it was passed by this Chamber of responsible men, much of its conduct is left to outside Boards. I hope they will make a good job of it, but I doubt very much if it is going to be successful. To-day many men who have returned from the Front, and have been discharged, are out of employment, although they have dependants. That sort of thing should not be permitted. Every man who returns from the Front should have some employment 'before he is discharged, yet to-day there are large numbers of returned men who have none. Of the eighty men I spoke of at the Pelaw Main, I learned yesterday from a paper in, the Library that four are returned soldiers. Those four, who went to the Front to do their best in the interests of this country, are kept out of employment, and their little ones are in want. That is a nice state of things to exist in this country. There are. thousands of men walking about to-day out of employment. At a meeting' in Maitland - I did not intend to relate this incident, but I shall - a man came on to the platform at the end of the meeting and said - " I am a returned soldier. I have had one son killed at the Front. I have two other sons fighting. I was told when I left that I would get my -employment back when I returned. I was working at the Pelaw Main as a coal miner." That man did not get his employment 1 again, because free labourers taken from this State were sent over to New South' Wales. Is that the way to win the war? {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- It is more than likely that an eligible got his job. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- It is quite possible. These abuses are rampant, and must be rectified. It is because of incidents like this that the Government are not getting the response that they expected to their appeals for recruits. I was never one of those who thought that out of the constantly diminishing number of men the same number of recruits would be got :as were obtained when there was a full complement of men to draw from." It is not reasonable to expect it, but the Government could get a fair number of recruits if the conditions were such that the men could feel themselves justified in, responding to the appeal. iSo far as this "Chamber is concerned in the prosecution of the .war, unless we turn our attention to all these things, promote harmony in this country, show the people that we are going on right lines, make reparation, as far as possible, for the great bungles that have been recently committed; and unless the present Government, that stands right in the way of the successful prosecution of the war, gets out of the road altogether, nothing taxable will be done. There is no- escape from that position. This Government must leave the Treasury bench before we can hope to get the workers of this country to join whole-heartedly in any scheme f ot the prosecution of the war. I say this deliberately as one who oomes to a very large extent in contact with the workers. They have lost all confidence in the Government. They think that ever since the last election the Nationalist party has been more concerned with protecting vested interests than with the cause of the 'workers themselves. They see What has happened, and is still happening, in New South Wales. They know that many of their number are out of employment. They see their fellows returning from the Front altogether disregarded, and in view df those facts the Government cannot expect to have the great mass of the people behind them in anything they attempt tg do here. That can only be brought about by clearing the political atmosphere, inside and outside, by means of an immediate appeal to the people. The sooner it is done the better. Let .us get it over, and if the Government are returned with a majority, as the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** said he thought they would be, we shall be able to do something for the prosecution of the war. As things are to-day, everything is in a most unsatisfactory position. The workers feel that they are being harshly dealt with. The New South Wales Government - I care not what **Mr. Holman, Mr. Beeby,** or **Mr. Hall** may say - were responsible for all the industrial trouble, in New South Wales by " putting the boot " into the workers, by deregistering trade unions, and by setting up bureaux and compelling men to go there and register for employment. Can it be said that it helped in the prosecution of the war to treat in this way members of trade unions, many of whom have sons at the Front fighting for us ? Was it fair to make an attempt, at such a time, to , filch away the privileges of trade unionists ? Do honorable members think that if unionists knew th'is would have been done they would have gone to the Front to fight for us? No; they would have remained in Australia to fight the Government here rather than go overseas to take part in the great conflict. In the face of this treatment some honorable members and newspapers in this country, as well as a section of the public, profess to be amazed that all that ought to he done is not being done in connexion with the prosecution of the war. The people must realize that something is wrong, and that something ought to be done to put our house in order, so that the political atmosphere may be cleared. The unions must be rehabilitated before Australia can be expected to play her part properly in this war. The Government hitherto have administered the affairs of this country in a way that has earned for them the undying hostility of the great body of the workers, thousands of whom have loved ones at the Front. It ought to be in the interests of those who are supporting the Government to see that proper treatment is meted out to the workers instead of endeavouring to force conscription on the country. As I have already said, thousands of our workers are to-day fighting for the wealthy sections of our community, for the men who are thus enabled to amass more wealth than ever. The time has arrived when there should be an increase of pay and allowances foi our troops, and the more I think over the position, the more established am I in the conviction that the Government should draw more largely on the wealth of the country by medium of the income tax to finance this war. Those who have the income should pay. The Government should take, all the available surplus income .before any attempt is made to conscript the manhood of Australia. "We should see to it that our national debt is not so heavily increased as to impose a great financial burden on our boys when they return from the Front. It is quite probable, unless financial measures are taken to check the increase of debt, that ultimately we will have a national debt of between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000, involving us in an interest liability of from £22,000,000 to £25,000,000, so that, in' this respect, a grave duty rests on. those w.ho> may have in their hands the management of the affairs of this country. We must increase our taxation proposals, because we must get the money to meet our obligations. If the Government honestly believe in the conscription of the manhood of the Commonwealth, they ought certainly to do something to conscript the wealth of the country. But when I speak of the conscription of wealth, I want it to be clearly understood that I do not subscribe to the views of those who favour undue interference with capital, because that course would react unfavorably on the workers and the industries of the country, with theresult that wages would be reduced owingto the contraction of industrial enterprises and the closing down of those that wereunprofitable. I refer particularly towealth as represented by incomes, and I say that, if we take all sums over a certain amount, we shall be doing somethingtangible in the interests of the prosecution of this war - something that will, really assist to keep down our national indebtedness. {: #subdebate-1-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I wish to take thisopportunity, in order not to interrupt honorable members in the course of their speeches during this debate, to remind them that a practice is growing up on both sides of the House of addressing members directly instead of addressing theChair. This practice leads to disorder. Another tendency is to refer to other honorable members by name, instead of by the name of the constituency they represent. These are not only against the rulesof the House, but it also means a great deal of trouble for the *Hansard* staff in making the necessary corrections in theproofs in order to make the speeches conform to the rules of debate. *Sitting suspended from 1B.55 to 2.30 p.m.-* {: #subdebate-1-0-s3 .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera .- The honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. Charlton)** said, before he concluded his speech, that no one party in this Housecould concentrate the forces of the Commonwealth in the manner necessary toenable Australia to do her best in theprosecution of the war. He said, too, that the Opposition had a policy which it was prepared to put into operation if permitted to take possession of the Treasury bench. In my opinion, at a timelike this, members should rise superior to party considerations. We should forget the recriminations of the past, and, viewing the issues in their true importance,' should subordinate party interests to Parliamentary interests, as these must be subordinated to the wishes of the people, and as the interests of Australia must be subordinated to the interests of the Empire, of which we are only a part. The ideals and principles for which weare fighting are the permanent elements of our civilization, and are therefore superior to all other considerations. The present occasion affords a splendid opportunity to the Opposition to help the Government to shoulder the great responsibility that rests on us, by co-operating in a policy which will do the best for the men at "the Front, for the people of Australia, and for the Empire generally. I do not propose to review the recent referendum campaign. In my opinion, it was most unfortunate that the Government proposal was not accepted,' because its acceptance was, I believe, vital to the proper reinforcement of our troops at the Front. Only by conscription can we properly arrange for the necessary reinforcements, and distribute fairly and equitably the duties which a war entails on the citizens of the countries engaged in it. "Unhappily, many electors placed personal interest before national interest. Still, the appeal to the country having failed, we, as Democrats, must accept' the verdict of the people for the time being. I desire to express my view regarding the re-appointment of the Ministry. The Prime Minister has rendered great services to Australia and to the Empire, services which will be as lasting as they are eminent. It comes, therefore, with bad taste from many of his erstwhile followers to make him wholly responsible for the failure of a policy which they also supported ; but I have one or two remarks to make concerning the pledge given by the Government at Bendigo at the opening of the referendum campaign, when it was stated that Ministers would not attempt to carry on the government of the country if not given the power to conscribe. In compliance with that pledge, the -Prime Minister, when a majority of the electors had voted against his proposal/ handed to the Governor-General the resignation of himself and his colleagues. His Excellency has presented to the House a memorandum on the subject, the statements -in which, I think, we are at liberty to traverse, though I do nofc propose 'to traverse them to any considerable extent. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir "William Irvine)** said yesterday that it was due to the House that the Prime Minister should state that the resources of Parlia-. ment had been properly tested before' he was commissioned to form a new Government; and state, too, whether advice to that end had been tendered to His Excellency. I do not think' that the resources of Parliament were exhausted. In my opinion, a" greater effort could have been made to form a new Ministry in conformity with that promise. {: #subdebate-1-0-s4 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I ask the honorable member not to criticise the action of the GovernorGeneral. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I am not criticising the action of His Excellency : I am merely saying that I do not think, on the facts presented to us, that the resources of Parliament were exhausted in the advice that was tendered to His Excellency before **Mr. Hughes** was called on to form a new Administration. I do not think that an entirely satisfactory solution of the problem was attempted. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- It strikes me that the honorable member is a disappointed man. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- It is a diseased mind that must always impute motives to others. The honorable member is unable to rise to the proper consideration of national questions. My criticism of the position would have precluded me from accepting a portfolio in the Ministry. I am not satisfied that every attempt was made to redeem the Bendigo pledge by exhausting the resources of Parliament in the formation of a new Government. I regret that the resources of Parliament were not exhausted. Therefore, on the facts presented, I desire to record my dissent from the Government's method of' redeeming its pledge to the people of Australia. Turning to our duty in this war, is it not possible to reconsider our position in the light of the result of the referendum ? The recrimination of parties on, the floor of .the House will riot help Australia . to , do her part in the war. I hope, therefore, that the' debate will be used, not to express the bitterness caused during the;. referendum campaign, but to build up a structure of cordial agreement on which both, sides will be able to make every effort towards winning the war. The Opposition party is pledged to the country in regard, to the war just as much as this party is pledged by the promises made in May. last. In 1914 it issued a manifesto pledging itself to prosecute the war with the utmost rigour and determination, in any and every emergency, to the last man and ; the last shilling. Both sides are pledged to the electors to do all they can for the winning ,of the war, and it is the duty of members, therefore, to assist 'iri every possible way all efforts to', that end, even to the extent of accepting the Prime Minister's invitation to join the National Government. It is possible for the members of this House to work more closely together in the prosecution of the war, I do not say that members should forego all their cherished ideas respecting the political regeneration of Australia, or renounce their opinions as to what is best for its government.. But if both sides are determined to fulfil their pledges to the people, members should come together to carry out a more vigorous war policy for the assistance of the Empire and the reinforcement of our boys at the Front. A divided Parliament and a divided community cannot lead to a satisfactory prosecution of the war. I hope that an attempt will be made to carry out the pledges on which this party was returned to power last May. It is our duty to provide for not only the reinforce- 1 ment of our boys, but also the reoiganization of our resources in a manner that will help the Empire in every way possible. There are many things that, we can do with this object in view. The great industry of shipbuilding should be in full swing in Australia. Because of our remoteness we have not been able to assist, as Canada has done, in the manufacture of munitions, though we have sent steel of the highest class to Great Britain to be used for munition work. We have also sent 300,000 brave men to the Front. It is they who are .shouldering the whole burden of Australia's responsibility in this war. We have made very little effort at borne to assist the Empire industrially. We should try to do in regard to shipbuilding what they did in Great Britain for the organization of munition making. There is no reason why there should not be employed in the shipbuilding industry in Australia from 200,000 to 300,000 mechanics. We need some scheme of organization which will bring about the hearty co-operation of the Labour party in shipbuilding and kindred industries of a purely warlike character. At the beginning of the war, **Mr. Lloyd** George met the Labour leaders of Great Britain, and told them in confidence what we were up against, and what it was necessary to do for the reorganization of the industrial as well as k the military resources of the' country. The. result is that there are probably 4,000,000 men and women workers employed in Great Britain to-day in tlfe manufacture of munitions. Yet we in Australia, even in connexion with the organization of the one industry of shipbuilding, have- done practically nothing. If we are to do anything material, we must have the hearty co-operation of the great Labour organizations and our commercial forces, with the genius of the engineer and the great captains of industry behind them. The bulk of the product of the last two harvests still remains in Australia, and we have some 4,500,000 tons of wheat which we cannot at present get away. Every primary producer in the country should be » encouraged to produce as much as he can of raw materials during the war. We must get our products away to the markets that are open to them, in . order that we may build up the wealth of the country, to enable us not only to finance our war operations, but to pay our way after the war is over, and to do our duty to the returned soldiers in placing them in occupations. Primary production is the creation of new wealth, and, whilst there may be some doubt as to the possibility of the shipment of our primary products at an early date, we should do all that we can to prevent great areas of the Commonwealth going out of profitable cultivation. We can only do this by securing sufficient shipping accommodation to transport our products to the Allied markets. **Mr. Lloyd** George took the proper steps when he waited upon the Labour organizations and secured their sympathy and cooperation. He'has induced a feeling of mutual responsibility between the Government and the workers of Great Britain, and, as a result, vast arsenals have been organized there for the making of munitions. I wish to make a suggestion, which I hope will be taken notice of by the Government. I think that the shipbuilding proposals should be placed under another Minister. The Prime Minister has done great and signal service for the Empire, but it will be admitted that he has too much other work to do to successfully organize a shipbuilding scheme. Ite control should be placed under another Minister, who should be given the power and responsibility with which **Mr. Lloyd** George was invested to interview the great Labour organizations and secure their sympathetic co-operation in the carrying on of this work without- any loss of time. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Should not the shipping business be controlled by the Minister for the Navy? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I think that it should be in the hands of the Minister for Works. He should be made responsible for meeting the Labour organizations and discussing with them the shipbuilding proposal in all' its bearings, in order that this great industry may be Started with the least possible delay. Last year we passed a measure providing for the establishment of silos and other wheat storages in different parts of Australia, but so far very little has been done to realize the object for which that measure was passed. Wheat is now being brought to the seaboard, where there is great danger that weevils will get into it and destroy it. Wie may have to hold this wheat for two or three years, and something must be done to protect it while we are building the ships necessary to send it away. I do not see why we should not be able to do in Australia w'hat has been done in Canada. We cannot manufacture munitions as they are Deing manufactured in Canada, owing to -distance from the seat of war, but we could undertake shipbuilding, and Canada is also making great strides in that direction. "Notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain is building ships at the present time at a greater rate than ever before, and that America has launched a shipbuilding policy involving the expenditure of "hundreds of millions of money, the records of German submarine destruction go to show that vessels are being destroyed faster than the combined Allied nations are able to build them. We -in Australia, though we possess resources of timber unsurpassed in. any part of the world, Tiave not yet made a proper start with the shipbuilding ' industry. If a business man had the labour at hand and a good contract for work of the kind to carry out, he would be. able to commence operations in two or three months' time. There should be no more paltering "with this important question. I hope that the Government will delegate to some Minister the authority to interview the labour organizations of Australia in order to secure the labour necessary to establish this important industry in the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KUF} ##### Mr Spence: -- All that is being done. Mi SAMPSON". - It is not being done in the way in which it should be done; although I admit that much progress has been made. It is not a matter which should be taken in hand in one particular State, but in every State of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- The proposal has got to the stage suggested by the honorable member already. , {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- Only to a limited degree. The co-operation to a certain extent of a section of the workers' organizations for the establishment of the industry has been secured, but the business has not been undertaken in anything like an adequate way *ot* in a way commensurate with the effort which Australia should put forth in connexion with the conduct of the war. I hope that the suggestion made by the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** will be acted upon by both sides of this House. I do not know what is exactly the best way in which to bring about the co-operation of both parties, but certainly the members of this Parliament should set an example to the whole of the Commonwealth by uniting their efforts for the successful prosecution of the war. The" time has gone by for indulgence in party strife. We oan only bring about the cooperation that is necessary to enable Australia to put forth her best efforts if honorable members opposite will place their pledges to the people of Australia above all party ties and considerations and above the powers of the organizations outside, and get to work with honorable members on this side to .see whether it is not possible to arrive at some understanding, even though it should take the form of a Cabinet combination of both sides in order that the work of the nation may be carried out. I personally regret that we are not able to send reinforcements to our men at the Front under a compulsory system, but we must have regard for the fact that the vote of the people has gone against it. We must accept, the position, since the Government did not do what they should have done and set a lead to the people. In every other Allied country the Governments have taken the lead in this matter and have established conscription, instead of passing on their responsibility as has been done here, in what may be said to be a cowardly way, to the people. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Does the honorable member believe in-re-introducing the question ? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- No. I say that we must accept the vote of the people,, while I regret that it has been against conscription. The party on this side is pledged to concentrate the forces of Australia upon, a war policy. Honorable members opposite, in 1914, made a similar pledge, and it is therefore the duty of honorable members on both sides to take the matter in. hand. They should, as far as possible, forget party lines for the time being, and set an example to the country by subordinating party interests to the interests of the nation. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** has proposed that there should be a conference between a certain number of honorable members from this side appointed in any way which may be deemed, best, and a similar number of honorable members from the other side, to talk matters over. No harm can be done by embracing the honorable member's suggestion. Even though a complete agreement may not be arrived, at, we shall have attempted to do something. The effort will go to our credit, even though we may not be able to arrive at a complete agreement. The best means to bring about some union of both political parties for the better prosecution of the war should be the paramount consideration at. the present time. I rose to make one or two suggestions, because I think that we -should no longer talk about what is past. Our work and responsibility lie in the future. There are manifold things to be done. We have incurred great financial responsibilities which can only be met by increasing primary production throughout Australia, and that our primary products may be turned into wealth we must have ships to send them away. Side by side with the efforts made to reinforce the men at the Front we must have the industrial community concentrated as far as possible upon war work, and our primary producers encouraged to increase production to enable us to meet the financial obligations of the war. Notwithstanding our great disappointment at the partial failure of the voluntary system, I believe that if honorable members from both sides would come together and formulate a policy of voluntary enlistment, which would be indorsed and heartily supported by both sides, wemight be able to raise a reasonable number of recruits each month, and so do some justice to our men at the Front. I commend these suggestions to honorable members opposite. I hope that on-, both' sides we shall forget party interests and the bitterness arising, from the referendum campaign. We should rememberthat we have in Australia a country that is well worth serving and saving, and that we represent a part of that Empire which has given us a freedom unparalleled in the world's history. We should rememberthat on that account the greater responsibility rests upon every member of this. House and of the community. - 1 repeat my hope that the suggestion made by the honorable member for Flinders will be acted upon, and that it will be followed by a closer union between the two political parties, in order that we may prosecute the war and carry on war work as it is our duty to do as responsible representatives of the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-1-0-s5 .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY:
South Sydney -- I wish that the tone of. the remarks made by the honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Sampson)** had been adopted throughout the referendum campaign. If the National Government had approached the subject in a statesman-like manner,, and had taken Parliament into their confidence, they might have avoided the bitterness that is now rankling in .the breastsof honorable members and amongst the community generally. The honorable member for Wimmera said that we should come together and do the best "we can for the country. I agree with him. But I remind the honorable member that he is a member of a party 'which immediately after the result of the referendum wasknown passed a resolution not to permit the Labour party to olccupy the Treasury bench. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- That was only as a Government. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- When the National' party was defeated at the . referendum, they were called together to discuss the political situation. One of the firstthings they did was to re-affirm their; loyalty to their leader, and the next was to carry a resolution that the party led' by the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Tudor)** should not be given the opportunity to form a Government. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- The honorable member must not take that resolution as indicating the views of all the members of the party on this side. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I accept that correction, but it indicated the view of some of the honorable members opnosite. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- lt was the view of the great majority of the party opposite. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- I want to suggest to the honorable member that it would be better to take the views of honorable members on this side as expressed on the floor of the House. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- lt is reported that the Government did formally resign in the morning, and that in the afternoon the Prime Minister was sent for to form another Ministry. If honorable members opposite were sincere in seeking tlie cooperation of members of the party on this side, they would surely have instructed their leader to make overtures to members of this party. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- He has done so. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- When this Government, new only in name, was in course of formation was the time to hold out the olive branch to this party. But it was not done. Every Minister was put back into his old seat,' and fully installed in his office before they came along with their make-believe, and said, " Why do you not let bygones be bygones, and help the Government to carry on this great war?" I do not say that there are no honorable members on the Government side who are not absolutely sincere about the matter, but on the facts, as they present themselves to us, there appears to be a good deal of sham about this offer to honorable members of this party. Had there been any real intention on the part of Ministers to secure co-operation from this side of the House the ofFer would have been made when the Ministry was being formed. The leader of this party was' sent for by the Governor-General. Why? Just to have .a conversation and to gloss matters over. He was -not offered a commission to form a Ministry. He was merely consulted by the GovernorGeneral, just as the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Wise),** and- other honorable members were consulted by him. This party, which represents the majority of the people of the country on one big question, has been ignored, and now we are asked to render assistance to the Government to win the war, and to carry on their administration. I am always at the disposal of any Government that will seek to bring the war to a successful issue, and I believe that a majority of the men on this side of the Chamber are likewise at. the disposal of the Government to that end, but we would not be men if we stood by individuals who stigmatize those who hold different views from themselves as disloyalists, as traitors, as men receiving German gold, as Industrial Workers of the World men, and as Sinn Feiners, All members of the party opposite are not guilty of making these statements, but they have been made by one man whom there is no need to name. There are honorable members opposite who hold the honest belief that there are men on this side just as loyal as they are. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** has said that the voluntary system has failed up to a certain point, and that the Government decided to take the referendum on that account, but there was no justification for taking it on those grounds. Before I enter upon that phase of the question I want to protest, as a member of this House representing a large city constituency, against Parliament having been ignored in regard to the holding of the referendum. Is Parliament simply to be a nominal affair ? When there are issues to be sumbitted to the country, is Parliament to be closed, and is legislation to be enacted by regulations framed by a few. men sitting, in Cabinet? I maintain that the question of submitting this issue to the people should have been referred to Parliament. Fancy a country like this, with seventy-five men representing the people, and Parliament being closed down, and by means of War Precautions Regulations the country being involved in turmoil, and in the expenditure of over £100,000 on the taking of a referendum without the representatives of the people being consulted upon the point. It. i3 a disgrace to the intelligence of the people of this country that their representatives were not consulted on such a great issue. Ministers also saw fit to break the law which says that all elections shall be held on a Saturday. They wiped that out bv a War Precautions Regulation, and held the referendum on a Thursday, not for the purpose of securing a big vote, but in order to suit their own ends. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- **Mr. Oldham** did that. **Mr. RILEY.** - Do not blame a public servant. Let the honorable member take the responsibility himself. -I object altogether .to the taking of the referendum, because the number of recruits we have been receiving has been quite sufficient to supply reinforcements for Australia's army , up to the present time. As the Treasurer **(Sir- John Forrest)** interjected yesterday, 47,000 recruits were enlisted last year, and a return handed to me by **Senator Long,** who was supplied by the Defence Department with the number of recruits enlisted from October, 1916, when the last referendum was taken, to the end of September of last year, shows that 56,470 recruits were enlisted during that twelve months. The return is as follows: - >Summary. > >Queensland . . . . . . 8,364 > >New South Wales .. .. 2.1,339 > >Victoria . . . . 13,030 > >South Australia . . . . 4.904 > >Western Australia .. .. 8,817 > >Tasmania . . . . . . 2,710 > >Grand Total . . 50,470 I admit that there was a larger number secured during the months of October and November of 1916, but that fact does not alter my argument. We secured 56,470 recruits in twelve months, whereas the Minister for Defence has said that in no one year of the war have the Australians' casualties reached 40,000. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Our casualties already number 200,000. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- The honorable member will not dispute the Minister's figures. If Parliament had been called together and had had before it the figures that were then available no referendum would have been taken. With these facts in my possession I attended a meeting in the Sydney Town Hall on the 31st October, just before Cabinet decided to take this referendum. **Senator Pearce** addressed the meetiing, and eaid that Australia had done exceedingly well, and that we should feel proud of what it had done. So we should. I deeply regret that there are so many men in this country who see fit to go on to platforms and decry the efforts that Australia has made, and who say that Australia has not - done its share, or has not answered the call. When I think of what happened when the call came, how stockmen rolled up their whips and turned their horses' heads towards the coast where they could enroll, how men in the mines threw down their tools and made their way to the re- - cruiting depots, and how men from the factories!, the universities, the schools, the shops, and the wharfs, and seamen from their ships came forward to make up the great army that has left this country - I say, when I think of all these things, I cannot but realize that it is an honorable tribute to the people of Australia and to the efforts of this Parliament. Yet our friends do not give the country any credit for having done this. Australia, besides sending these men away,- has fully equipped them and has paid them while they are overseas. No other portion of the British Empire that has sent men to the war has maintained them after they have left for the Front.' New Zealand, it is true, pays its men after they have left the Dominion, but Canada and South Africa do not. But Australia has carried out its contract to the letter ; its men are not only controlled, but are also paid from the day they leave our shores until they come back. The war is costing us over * £1,000,000 each week, and even if peace came to-morrow we would have a burden of over £10,0.00,000 per annum to pay for the loans raised for the purpose of doing our share in the war. Yet we have public men saying that we are not doing enough. We cannot do too much. That is my attitude. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the people of Great Britain. All we have we have received from them. They owned this country. They have handed over to the Australian people an island continent full of natural wealth, and have said, "Govern this country for yourselves and do what you consider best. Make your own laws, and while you are doing that we shall project you in every way." No matter what we do we cannot repay the Old Country for what she has done for Australia. That is my conviction. **Senator Pearce,** speaking in the Sydney Town Hall, said that Australia had sent overseas 313,000 men - a fine army. At the commencement of the war nobody thought for a moment that Australia's contribution would reach such dimensions. I remember that when we proposed to send 100,000 men people laughed at the idea, and said that such an army was too big for Australia to raise, but up to the 31st October last we had succeeded in sending overseas 313,000. {: .speaker-KH8} ##### Mr Heitmann: -- Those figures are not correct. We have sent overseas 282,000 men. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I take the figures of the' Minister in preference to those of the honorable member. **Senator Pearce** said also that there were at that time 16,000 men in camp. If that number is added to the 313,000 men already sent overseas Australia's army is found to number 329,000. The honorable member for Cook **(Mr. J. H. Catts)** was haled before the Law Courts because he said that there were six divisions abroad, although the Minister and the Government say that there are only five divisions. I shall argue on the basis of what the Government say is correct If there are five divisions in the field, and each division comprises 20,000 men, there are in the firing line 100,000 men. On the same occasion the Minister said that the casualties up to date were 109,000. If we deduct the casualties from the total army of 329,000 men, there remain available for active service 220,000 men. Of them the five divisions absorb 100,000, leaving 120,000 men which the Government have not accounted for. Where are they ? In the camps, of course, at Salisbury Plain, and in different parts of the Empire, waiting to reinforce our five divisions. Having regard to those figures, the Government had no justification for saying to the people that we are not able to supply the requisite number of reinforcements, and must have compulsory service. A false issue was put to the people upon false premises. Either the Minister for Defence is in error, or he has misled the people. In his speech in Adelaide the Prime Minister tried to evade the figures quoted by the Minister for Defence, but he could not do so, for they are printed in the press. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- Some of our men are in Egypt and Palestine. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I say there are six divisions, comprising 120,000 men; but, even so, there remain 100,000 men available for reinforcements. It was the knowledge of these facts that caused the people to reject the referendum with such emphasis. If conscription had been carried on the occasion of the first referendum, would the results in the war theatre have been substantially different? If Australia had been sending to the front 16,500 men per month, would the upheaval in Russia, or the reverse in Italy, have been obviated? No; our men would have been on the western front. The so-called 'disaster in Italy was magnified in order to give strength to the Government's claim for conscription. Mr.-' Maxwell. - Is there a war at all ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I know there is a war,, because I have sons, friends, and blood relations engaged in it. The paralysis of Rvissia is not due to the success of theGermans or Austrians, but to internal dissensions among the Russian people. Having rid themselves of the Czar, they are now trying to determine who shall rule the country. We know from our own' experience of the two referenda how internal dissensions affect the peopleToday Russia is said to be out of the war. For the time being she may be, but I believe that Russia will come again. The Prime Minister and the honorable member for Flinders drew very lugubrious pictures of our circumstances to-day. I admit that the outlook is not bright, but it is not as 'dark as they depict it. The cause of the Allies has suffered disappointment, but it has made gains in other respects. I do not belittle the war efforts of the Russian people in the past. We owe a great debt to Russia for what she has done. While the British were hard pressed during the retreat from Mons, and the French were sorely beset at Verdun, the Russians advanced in their hundreds of thousands in order to relieve the pressure on the Western Front, and later, when they had been driven back, the fact became, known that only one amongst four of the Russians had a rifle. They sacrificed their men in order to aid their Allies on the Western Front, and I give them all the- credit that is their due. Honorable members opposite bewail the fact that Russia is now out of the fight, but while she was in it the Allies had to provide her with money, guns, munitions, and equipment, because she, like others of the Allies, was not prepared for this Titanic conflict. But there has now come into the field, on the side of the Allies, another nation whose entry has been lightly passed over by the Prime Minister, and other advocates of conscription. America does not require assistance with money, guns, or munitions. She can supply all her own requirements, and assist the Allies as well. A nation of 100,000,000 people has come to our assistance, and, whilst not belittling the efforts of Russia, I say emphatically that America is a far more powerful Ally than Russia could be. America has brought to the 'assistance of the Allies millions of tons of shipping, which is one of the most important factors in the war. She has released all the German ships that were interned in American ports, and has placed the whole of her mercantile marine at the disposal of the Allies. Therefore, I say, the entry of America more than compensates for the exit of Russia. I charge the Government with having neglected their duty in not having taken into account, when considering the proposal to hold the second referendum, the fact of the' great American people having entered the war on our side. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- But America is not prepared for war. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- If America participates in this war only in proportion to what Australia has done she will place over 7,000,000 men in the firing line. These figures give some idea of what Australia's contribution has been, and yet honorable members opposite say we have not done enough. I do not say that we have done all we can do. I believe we can do more, and the Labour party will assist the Government to do all they possibly can. I repeat that the fact of another Ally having come to our assistance should have been taken into consideration by the Government before launching a second referendum which has cost the country £100,000, and has divided the nation, in some cases inspiring hate (between members of the same family. If the Government had consulted Parliament on this matter Parliament would have given reasons why the second referendum was a dangerous expedient which should not be resorted to. The Prime Minister said that he was compelled to propose the second referendum because of the failure of Russia and Italy. Italy has not failed. The Italian people number 38,000,000, and at the time of the big reverse their army comprised 2,500,000 men. Since then the army 'has been increased to 4,000,000 men. The mere loss of 250,000 men did not put Italy out of the fight, although she did suffer a setback. As an offset to the Italian reverse let us consider the position of the Allies in Mesopotamia and Palestine. At the time the first referendum was taken General Townshend and his army were beleaguered at Kut-el-Amara, and were being starved into submission. "When' the second referendum was iaunched the British were in possession of the larger half of Palestine. They held the ancient city of Jerusalem, and Jaffa, its seaport, and controlled the great trunk railway to Bagdad. The outlook in both Palestine and Mesopotamia is so much in our favour to-day that I should not be surprised to hear soon of Turkey making a separate peace, because she is so hard pressed. But these facts were not properly set before the country as counterbalancing the setback in Italy. Had the situation been con-, sidered by Parliament I believe that the good sense of honorable members would have resulted in their saying that the referendum was not required, and that sufficient recruits could be obtained voluntarily to supply reinforcements. I believe that 7,000 men per month are more than are required to reinforce our troops. We are told that there are in the firing' line only five divisions, representing 100,000 men, and that we need for reinforcements 7,000 per month, or 84,000 per annum. Who will say that there is a wastage of 84 per cent, per annum in any army? If there had been wastage at that rate in the German army the war would have been over long . ago, and at the same rate of loss there would remain to-day no French army and no Australian army. Our casualties in three years have been 109,000, representing a little over 12 per cent, of the men employed in the firing line. The Government were asking for too much when they represented to the people that they required 7,000 men per , month. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The Government said that they would send a smaller number if possible. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I am only stating the number for which the Government asked. ' They asked for 7,000 a month, which is more than is necessary to reinforce 100,000 men in the firing line, I do not. propose, however, to rest my argument solely on that ground. I hold that the Government made a mistake. They staked their existence on the acceptance of their referendum proposals, and since those proposals were rejected, they have no right, as honorable men, to occupy the Treasury bench. I go further,- and say that the Labour party would be justified at this juncture in respecting any other Administration formed from the Government side of the House. We cannot expect to govern, since we are in a minority. But there are on the other side men of whom I have an intimate knowledge - men who are as capable of carrying on the affairs of the country as are the present members of the Cabinet. If the Government had resigned, and had said to their supporters, ' ' Form another Government from our own party, and we, the retiring Ministers, will loyally support it," the Labour party could not have cavilled at their action. In that way the Government would have carried out their promise to the people, and would have acted as honest men. It is a slander on the Liberal party to say that there are not among the supporters of the present Government men qualified to carry out the policy of that party as put before the people. Imagine the Ministry suggesting that the brains of the Liberal party had , been exhausted in the formation of the present Government. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- ^There are several ambitious would-be Ministers on 'the other side. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- And several who are quite as capable as any member of the present Ministry. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- The Postmaster-General does not like that, {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I am not speaking in a personal sense. If the present Government had resigned, and a new Ministry had been formed from their supporters, that would have been a justifiable position to take up. The Government, however, have not seen fit to follow that , course. It suits their book to remain where they are. They have broken their promise to the people, and are prepared to take the risk until the next general election comes round. I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Wimmera refer to the question of shipbuilding. The proposal to send men oversea, against their will', has been defeated, but there is no reason why we should not organize the manhood of Australia to do something quite as useful to the Empire and our Allies in- winning the war. We could help them by organizing the industrial section of the community on a proper basis. We could keep our men in employment by building ships to carry our produce to the Old Country and to our Allies. This Parliament has never hesitated to vote all that has been asked for by the Government to aid in the prosecution of the war. There are no two parties in this House so far as the war is concerned. We are all one in voting the money necessary foT the prosecution of the war. We are one solid party, in- the determination to carry on the war to a successful issue. Why, then, have the Government failed to bring forward a shipbuilding scheme? They say that they are negotiating. We are spending over £1,000,000 a week in carrying on the war, and the British Government are spending over £50,000,000 a week in the same direction. But while the very existence of our kith and kin in the Home Land hangs in the balance so far as the supply of foodstuffs is concerned, the Prime Minister is cavilling' at the terms laid down _by the boilermakers, wanting them to break down their day-labour system and to adopt the pernicious piece-work system in connexion with shipbuilding." The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, as the result of a hard fight, the display of much grit, and the spending of its own money, has built) up for itself a reasonable standard of living. But the Prime Minister, in this time of national crisis, goes to the members of that society, and says, 71 Do away with all your conditions, accept piece-work in the present emergency of the country, and we will then enter upon shipbuilding here." Is it not really too paltry? If, by adding to the shipping of this country, we could bring the war to a close a week earlier than would otherwise be the case, the result would far more than compensate for the expenditure of a few million pounds on . vessels that might have to be .scrapped. In Chat way wa would save not only money, but the blood and tears of the people. The Government^ however, instead of acting promptly, are prepared to stand off and to fight the unions. They would break down union conditions, and introduce the pernicious system of piece-work which trade unionists are fighting all the world over. Are honorable members opposite prepared to sit behind a Government which is today fighting the established customs of trade unions in this country ? Those of us who have had any experience of the piece-work system know that here it means something altogether different from piece-work in the Old " World. There they have a cold climate and are largely guided by custom and tradition. Yet the engineers in Great Britain object to the system. In Australia, with its hot climate and other conditions adverse to piece-work, the men are justified in resisting to the very last the introduction of such a system,. By this time we" could have had three or four hulls built at Cockatoo Island Dockyard. There are. hundreds of men out of employment in Sydney and Melbourne. What are we doing for them? The Newcastle Steel Works is prepared to turn out plates to build these hulls. The Mori's Dock Engineering Company cannot build the ships we want, since it has not the requisite accommodation, but is prepared to build engines for them. There are in Adelaide and Perth other firms which ought to be encouraged in this work of national importance. The Government, however, instead of attending to this allimportant work, have been going about stirring up strife by trying to compel men to go oversea against their will. They have had an opportunity to afford the greatest possible help to the Empire and its Allies by promptly' establishing the shipbuilding industry here, but they have done nothing. All these things make one wonder whether the Government are doing their best to win the war. I certainly feel confident that they could have done more in regard to shipbuilding. Then, again, we agreed some time ago to the Government's proposal to construct silos for the protection of our grain. What has been done in that direction ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Not a brick has been put in a silo. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I have not heard of anything being done in that direction. These are matters which the supporters of the Government should seriously consider. They should ask themselves whether, as a party, they are doing their duty in allowing to remain in office a Government that is inactive in regard to all these great undertakings. The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Rodgers)** referred a day or two ago to the scarcity of wheat bagsr We might well appoint a Committee of members of the. House to attend to the interests of the farmers, and to see that they are supplied with these bags. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I predicted that not a brick would be laid for a long time in connexion with the silo-building scheme. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- The honorable member did. The trouble is that the Government have taken on too much. They are dealing with the whole of the wheat trade, which is in itself a very big thing. They are dealing also with the wool and the metals of Australia, and this ' Parliament should assist them as far as possible by appointing committees to investigate and report to the responsible Minister with regard to all those matters. As it is, Parliament is not consulted. We are living in almost a state of martial law. When I was speaking in various parts of New South Wales during the conscription referendum, detectives were present at my meetings to take a note of everything that was said. During the campaign there was practically a "reign of terror because the little Czar was out to see that no one said anything that might injure him or his party. Members of the Cabinet have lately addressed a number of enthusiastic meetings of ladies, but they have neglected to put it to them that they should play their part in this war by answering the call of the Minister for Munitions for women to volunteer to relieve the overworked ladies who have been in the munition factories ever since the war began. In those factories ladies have been working early and late. They have had to . deal with poisonous gases,1 and as a result many have lost their lives. The Minister for Munitions asked for 100,000 women to relieve our sisters in these factories. Why has the Prime Minister failed when addressing enthusiastic, meetings of ladies to call for volunteers? During the referendum campaign I addressed a meeting aj; North Sydney - a stronghold of the " Yes " voters, and was being rather roughly handled by the ladies when I said to them, " I am very pleased I have come here. I know you are all anxious to win the war. The Minister for Munitions has called upon the ladies of the Empire to assist their sisters in the munition factories at Home. Who will be the first lady to give in her name as a volunteer ? " There was no response, although North Sydney gave a great " Yes " vote to win the war. That, after all, was the real test to apply to these people. When we ask them to do something they want to leave it to the other fellow. This House has not been treated fairly, nor was the conscription issue properly put before the people. The number of recruits coming in to-day is greater than the casualties suffered by our army. Some of our men have been wounded three or four times, and are back again at the Front. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Lamond: -- There are 50,000 of them who should be back here. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I quite believe that. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Lamond: -- How is the honorable member going to bring it about? It cannot be done without men. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- But the proposal is not that so many men who have been wounded shall be returned if more recruits are obtained. The more men we send the more the military authorities will increase their divisions. Military men, in their desire for more troops, are very much like the man who owns land. The man who has land wants more; the man' with money wants more money; the employee earning big money wants still bigger wages. It is the same throughout every grade of society. We could not give the professional soldiers too many men. I hold, however, that it is for us and not for the military authorities to determine how many men shall be sent. **Mr. Lloyd** George, speaking in Paris to the leading journalists of France, said that the British Army then consisted of 6,500,000 men, a fine achievement for the Old Country, which had almost no standing army to speak of "before this war. I feel proud of the achievements of the Old Country - proud when I read of the battle and the retreat from Mons as conducted by that ".little, insignificant Army" at which the Kaiser sneered.. It is a grand relcord to have put up, and no army could have done better. To-day the British Army consists of 7,500,000 men; the French Army is 1,000,000 men stronger than it was at the outset of the war; the Italian Army has increased from 2,500,000 men to 4,000,000 men; the Roumanian Army consists of 500,000 men; arid the Servian Army of 200,000 men; while the United States Army, according to a magazine I saw in the Library, was represented by 2,300,000 men, trained or in training, on the first of January this year. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Absolute tripe! {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I am only repeating what is said by American papers. The very first contingent, that arrived in France from America consisted of two divisions, or nearly 40,000 men; and American troops are arriving at the rate of 8,000 each ship. There are at the present time over 1,000,000 American soldiers in France, and more are being landed every week. With these facts in front of us, we ought to take a more cheerful view of the outlook than is taken by our honorable friends opposite. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- And in view of these facts you ask the women to enlist? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I ask the women to enlist, but I do not seek to force them; that is the difference between the honorable member and myself. We, on this side, are as anxious as any to win the war, though we decline to force men to go and fight. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I believe in equality of sacrifice. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I do not observe that the honorable member is wearing any medals of the Boer War, so that it would appear that he did not make any sacrifice on that occasion, though he was then of military age. I . ask honorable members to look at the map of the Western Front, and to compare the position of the British Army to-day with its position twelve months ago. At that time, during the winter, the British Army was on the flats, entrenched in the wet ground, suffering from trench feet, frost bite, and so forth. During, the summer, however, **Sir Douglas** Haig's operations have resulted in our men working up to the high ground, in this way proving the superiority of the French and English troops over those of Germany. All the great trenches, tunnels, and " pill -boxes" that the German Army had constructed' for winter quarters are in the possession of the British and French troops, who are now looking over the plains of Belgium. There is no doubt that the Allied troops on the Western Front dominate the position, and victory is only a question of time, as the Germans themselves well know. **Sir Douglas** Haig, in his review of the year's operations, published last week, points out that he has driven the enemy back:, .and captured ,59,000 prisoners, 400 guns, and 3,000 machine guns. Everything looks bright and prosperous so far as the Western Front is concerned. The great German drive on Verdun, which was made just about the time of the first referendum, when the Prime Minister came back from England and told us that France was almost bled white, has been turned back. It must be admitted that in the process France has suffered terribly, but the map showa that the French line is now straightened out. There is, therefore, no justification for the Government of this country trying to" force conscription on the people on the plea that the Empire and civilization is in danger, for we are better off to-day than we were twelve months ago. The position on the West Front is certainly 100 per cent, better than it was at that time; and we are able to deal with the submarine menace to a certain extent. In Mesopotamia we are " standing on velvet." {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- You are an extraordinary optimist I {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- If honorable members opposite took a more cheerful and national view, it would be better for the country. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Do you see no danger? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- We do see danger; and we are prepared to do all that we can to win the war speedily. It is, however, a mere question of time, for there can be no doubt about the result. As surely as we are sitting here, victory will come to the Allies, and Germany knows it. This is shown by the fact that the Germans are talking of compromise with the rebels of Russia, and trying to patch up a peace with that country. The Government have absolutely failed to do their duty to the people of this country, by their introducion of the referendum without consulting Parliament; indeed, the Government did not even consult their own party. When the present Prime Minister was Leader of the Labour party, we always insisted on being consulted, and if we did not agree with the honorable gentleman, we told him so. Now, however, the great National [lll]-2 party is not consulted by the Government; and the country is put to an expense of over JE100,000, while bitter feeling has been created amongst the people from one end of the Commonwealth to the other. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- You are optimistic as to' the expense of the referendum. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- That is the minimum cost. We on this side have never refused to assist the Government to carry on the war ; but we hold that we can assist without sitting in conclave with honorable members opposite. If the Government could' place before the country a policy that would assist to win the war, every man on this' side would give it most earnest consideration, and do all that is possible to end a conflict that means disaster to humanity. {: #subdebate-1-0-s6 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaMinister for the Navy · NAT -- I wish I could take the rosy, optimistic view of the last speaker, according to whom the war is going well, the enemy is beaten, and everything seems quite right. {: .speaker-KH8} ##### Mr Heitmann: -- And the Italian trouble was a God-send ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Yes; nothing is wrong, particularly in Russia. The whole survey the honorable member has given of the world's exigencies and tragedies, seems to indicate only one thing - a speedy conclusion to the war and a triumphant victory for the Allies. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- That is what I believe. **Mr. JOSEPH** COOK.- I profoundly wish in my heart that it may be so; but I see a very different picture. Before alluding to that particularly, however, I wish for a few moments to refer to some of the statements made by honorable members opposite during this debate - to one or two charges against the Government - and especially to the. statement) made by the honorable member for Darling in reference to the rabbit industry. I have taken some trouble, since that honorable member spoke this morning, to ascertain the facts, and I can find no sort of substantiation whatever for any of the statements he made. It is not true that diseased rabbits are being" poured into the cold stores. It is not true that diseased meat is being sent overseas to feed the soldiers. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- Such rabbits have been sent. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Such statements, unless true, are brutal calumnies, and the man who makes them should either substantiate them or be heartily ashamed of himself. No one acquainted with **Mr. Percy** Whitton, the Price Fixing Commissioner, who has control of this matter, will question his *bona fides,* ability, sincerity, or his devotion to the best interests of the country, and **Mr. Whitton** has said that there is no sort of justification for the statements- that all the rabbits that go into the cool stores are strictly supervised by inspectors. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- Are livers sent down with the rabbits for examination? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am now dealing with rabbits and not with livers, and I wish to say, on the authority of **Mr. Whitton,** that there is no justification or ground whatever for making these very serious allegations concerning the food sent overseas to feed the Allied armies. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- **Mr. Whitton** is not a meat inspector. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is a pity that we cannot conduct our controversies without statements of this kind. Does the honorable member for Darling not see that such allegations damage the reputation of the country in the eyes of the world? Whatever we may say and do amongst ourselves, do not let us decry our own country and our own resources, as they relate to the feeding of the armies at the Front, and as they relate to the direct- {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Talk to your own Government supporters! Slanderers of Australia ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It seems impossible to say anything in this House without there at once being raised a hubbub. I never rose to conduct a debate with a greater sense of responsibility than in connexion with this matter. Honorable members who have known me for the last three' or four years will, I think, bear witness to the truth of my statement when I say that since the war broke out I have had little stomach, indeed, for pure party fighting - no man who has known me in this House for years past will, I think, dispute that fact. I should despise myself if for one moment I took a purely party view of the controversies which are raging up and down the world to-day, and if I sought to exploit the tragedies taking place overseas, for any purely personal or party advantage. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- It is what you are doing now, anyhow! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am afraid my honorable friend is not the judge of that. I hope to be judged by fairminded men. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J rH Catts: -- Your istatfsment cannot be permitted to go unchallenged. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Yesterday the honorable member pleaded that there could be no harmony in this House, or in the country, except on one set of conditions; and that stiatfement has been reiterated here to-day. It is said that there is only on© way of getting recruits and of conducting the war effectively, and that is to let my friends opposite conduct it. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- No, sir! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- What honorable members opposite say in effect is, " We will not help you, but we may permit you to help us." {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- That is "not true ! {: #subdebate-1-0-s7 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I have constantly called for order, and the Minister has himself appealed to me for some protection. I ask honorable members to restrain themselves, and not to forcev on the Chair a duty which it has no wish to perform. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- My honorable friend yesterday unconsciously bore tribute to the point I am now putting. He said there was harmony in this country when Labour was in power. . That is true to a great extent, but the reason why it is true is that when we were on the Opposition benches our one aim during the whole three years was to assist the Government to the full extent of our power. Never once did we attempt a vote of censure on the Government. Never once did we take the slightest advantage of any lapses on their part in government or in administration. Never once did we attempt to take advantage of any of their mistakes. On the contrary, our undivided support was constantly and continuously at their disposal'. That is the distinction. The moment we get over here everything, of course, is wrong. Honorable members opposite leave the war entirely out of sight and begin a tirade of abuse. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Who ? We? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am speaking of the whole party over there. Of course, the one thing that is wrong is that they are in the minority, but that cannot be helped. The people of this country, in a fair contest, decided that this Government and this party is the one that should control matters in connexion with the war. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr Nicholls: -- They did not say so on the 20th December last. {: #subdebate-1-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I shall not again call ' for order. If honorable members will not obey the Chair, I shall take, another course. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- So far from my desire being to provoke any antagonism' to-day, I have risen for quite other purposes, so I shall leave that point. The honorable member who last resumed his seat pretended to tell us, with the greatest show of authority, how many recruits were wanted, how the war was progressing, and how' everything said on that point by this side during the recent contest was inaccurate and untrue. He told us that 7,000 recruits per month were not necessary. That, I take it, is the general view over there. Certainly it is the view of the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. J. H. Catts),** who spoke yesterday. He guarded himself by speaking of the paramount requirements of Australia. He is more concerned with keeping men here than with sending them over there. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- The traitors are abandoning Australia. You know what is the matter. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- There is the sentiment. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- The traitors on that side of the House are abandoning {: type="A" start="A"} 0. u SfclTctl.1 et {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I call upon the honorable member for Cook to withdraw that statement and apologize to the House for having made it. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- In accordance with the Standing Orders, I withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- And apologize. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- And apologize. Is there anything- further ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- That will do. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is a pity that we should be assailed in this way when trying to make some reply to the statements about recruiting. No one called the honorable member a traitor yesterday when he was speaking. The question whether- 7,000 recruits are needed or not must be left to -those who are conducting the war, and who know the requirements at the Front. The public must judge in this matter between General Riley and General Birdwood. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Or Captain Cook. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No; I have never pretended to make a statement of my own. I have neither the knowledge nor the authority to do so. I am quite content to let those who are conducting the war state the requirements of the war. I venture to say that when" the facts are ascertained it will be found that our men to-day are sadly and badly in need of recruits, and that we have not overwhelming numbers in reserve to do as we please with. The fact remains that there is no Sixth Division, because the men are not there to compose it. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- What has become of it? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It had only a shadowy existence at any time. The honorable member knows the facts as well as aw one else- if he cares to believe them. My own son was in that so-called Sixth Division in England. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- And yet you prosecuted men for saying there was one. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Batman must restrain himself. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member will not let any one explain. When they attempt to do so he begins this tirade of abuse. I remember this matter being debated at a meeting I addressed in South Australia. A returned soldier got up in that meeting just to do what the honorable member is doing. He said he himself had been in that Sixth Division. That was a clincher. When I asked him one question daylight was let into the matter in a moment. I asked, "How many battalions were there? What, battalion were you in?" He said, "There were four battalions, and I was in one." Exactly! It takes twenty battalions to make a division, and that gentleman said there were only four. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I have had a letter from a man who was in the 69th Battalion, which would make at least nine battalions in that division. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Then had not you better settle it between yourselves, and make some authoritative statement upon the matter? There is no Sixth Division at all. There was never a complete Sixth Division. An effort was made to give the recruits over there a divisional organization, but it fell through, because there were not men enough to do it. Why, therefore, belabour this matter? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Was not that only for reinforcements in any case? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It never was intended to put another division in the field. It was intended only for the purpose of better training, to give them a divisional organization, and even that had to be given up. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Then why did the censor of the Defence Department issue an instruction that the newspapers were not to mention the formation of this new division? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member is off on another point. I ca'nnot answer him, but I can give him the facts so far as I have learnt them. I got them from my own son amongst others, who has had to go back to the Front and out of this so-called Sixth Division because it never matured, and who lost a great deal in doing that. After >all, the future of the war and its effective conduct is the main thing that concerns us just now. There is only one authority that can determine the number of recruits wanted - the man who is fighting the job on the field, and who asks for what he believes to bo the requisite number to keep our five divisions in full strength. As to that point, my friends point-blank say that they will not give the number of reinforcements that General Birdwood says he needs. They say 7,000 recruits per month are not needed. They, therefore, refuse point blank to adequately reinforce our divisions in the field. They make for themselves a standard of numbers and reinforcements, and say " As to that standard of our own creation we will do our best to subscribe to it and gather recruits for it," but as to the standard required by the military authorities on the field, they dispute it,' and will have nothing to do with it. In this controversy there is only one test to apply to all our arguments - the test of war. Party proposals ought to have no place in the controversy. Party objects should be put right out of sight. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- If that is so, why this motion of censure?' {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- To try to get a set of men who will keep a solemn pledge which they make to the country. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Then the honorable member is much more concerned with the keeping of a pledge which he admits should never have been made, in the *bona fides* of which he does not believe, which he scouts and flouts and jeers and gibes at, than with the conduct of the war. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- You are more concerned about hanging on to office. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- My record is the answes to that. I have been in this Parliament for seventeen years. I was in this House for nearly ten years before I took office at all, and then only for a brief period. The people who have had office longest are the people who are gibing at us for that very thing. There is no hanging on to office at all in it that I can see. I should be very glad to be out of my office, and quite content to be a private member. No man need covet the responsibilities Ministers have to carry in these days. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Do you think anybody believes that? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I wonder if this offensive little man will cease for one moment. I believe the honorable member could not help being offensive if he tried. This is a tragic matter. I do not see the rosy tints on the Western Front which the honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. Riley)** sees. I see a gathering storm. I read of hospitals being prepared in unprecedented numbers. I read of armies being transferred from East to West by the hundred thousand. Three-quarters of a million men was the last figure I saw, and I see a tremendous effort being made to break through the Western Front by sheer weight of numbers. I see every indication of perhaps the greatest onslaught that the world has ever seen. What is our answer to that? The controversies of the Chamber! Votes of censure! The country, we are told, is split up into warring sections and factions, and honorable members on that side say in effect, as they have said even to-day, that they will do nothing to help unless they can come over here and control the whole affair themselves. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It was said" this morning, plainly and unequivocally. There should be no controversy at this stage; but it is a fact, nevertheless;- that, while the enemy is trying his best to break through the trenches on the Western Front, honorable members opposite seem to be engaged in the delightful task of endeavouring to break through the political entrenchments in this Parliament. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- Because, we do not think that you are competent to carry on the Government. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Now, what is the gravamen of these charges which the Leader of the Opposition has made against the Government? They all relate to what is called the breaking of these so-called pledges, and I want to make it quite clear that the Prime Minister's statements were made on behalf of the Government. He distinctly said at Bendigo that the Government would not attempt to govern unless they received this accretion of governing power at the hands of the constituencies. The Government, recognised their obligations, and took -the earliest possible steps to give effect to their undertakings. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Your friends do not seem to think so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The Government seem to have a great many friends on both sides of the House. I am only concerned with my own conduct and duty in connexion with this war, and I hope to be judged ultimately by that test. I say there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to evade obligations entered into when the Prime Minister made his speech at Bendigo, because an unconditional resignation was tendered to the Governor-General . {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- It was a farce. MrT JOSEPH COOK.- I am not troubled very much about what my honorable friends opposite think, because, apparently, nothing would be acceptable to them. They have gone to the length of suggesting that the Governor-General's statement to this Chamber was a fake. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- It was very wrong on the part of the Prime Minister to use the Governor-General in that way. **Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER** (The Hon. J. M. Chanter). - Order! The honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** must cease interjecting. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is equally disgraceful on the part of the honorable member for Batman to say that the Governor-General could be used by any man. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I will repeat what I have said when I am speaking. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member is endeavouring to criticise a man who cannot defend himself on the floor of the House. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Nothing of the sort, I am dealing with your Government, which placed the Governor-General in, that position. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! If the honorable member for Batman does not cease interjecting I shall be obliged to name him. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- As I have saidT an unconditional resignation was tendered to the Governor-General, who took such steps as he thought fit to satisfy himself as to the possibility of the government being carried on by 'other means before he recalled the Prime Minister to office. Honorable members know what those efforts were, because all the information and details are set ont in the Governor-General's memorandum, and there t-was a request 'that the statement should be given to the House and the country. I submit that His Excellency's statements should be taken as they stand. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Without criticism? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- His Excellency satisfied himself that the government of this country could not be carried on by any other means. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Unfortunately, I am not allowed to ask you a question, {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member may ask as many questions as "he chooses, but he has no right, either inside this chamber or outside it, to attribute motives other than those that are right and proper to a person in the position of the Governor-General, who cannot defend himself in this chamber. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I have not done so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The GovernorGeneral's memorandum indicates that the Government did decline to carry on, and, as a result of the inquiries made by the Governor-General, the Prime Minister was called back, to office. I want now to refer to the statements made by the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** and the honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Sampson)** as to the alternative course.- They say they are not quite satisfied that another Government could not have been formed from within the party. But those honorable members know the position so far as the party is concerned. They know the motions that were carried, because they have been published to the world, and- they know what steps' the party took, so I do not think it necessary for them to say on the floor of this House that they are not quite satisfied that all steps were taken by the Government to get another Government from the party. In my opinion, no members of any party, ever ventilated_ their opinions, or exercised their right of judgment, more freely than members of our party on the occasion I refer to. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- That is quite true. We all spoke quite freely. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- All members of the party who are listening to me know that they were free to exercise their judgment, untrammelled by any consideration, and that, of course, must be the answer to statements suggesting that the possibility of another Government from within the party had not been exhausted before the Prime Minister was recalled. Let me now turn- to another aspect of this matter? It seems to me that, after all honorable members opposite should not be so very much concerned about the steps taken on this side, because, surely, they realize quite clearly that whoever else may have the right to sit on these benches, they certainly have not. The result of the referendum gave them no electoral warrant for a change. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- We do not claim that it did. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- But it has been asseverated on quite a number of occasions that the only way to get recruits, and to conduct the war properly, is for the party in Opposition to come over here. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- That is absolutely untrue. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I repeat that the referendum result can furnish no warrant to honorable members opposite in support of that view. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Quite so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- They have no right to seek the government df this country. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Quite so; "that fs agreed,. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- And in proof of this view, I quote the case of my own electorate. The first referendum gave a majority vote for "Yes," and I am proud to think that I represent a constituency that did give a " Yes " vote. On that occasion, I think, the majority was about 9,000. At the general election our majority was 17,500, and at the recent referendum there was again a majority of about 9,000. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- - It was a little less than last year. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I think it was a little more than on the last occasion. Certainly it was not less. Therefore, it seems to me that the large body of electors in my constituency who voted " No " could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to prefer the restoration of honorable members opposite to office. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- You are not prepared to test the question, though. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- My own impression is that the people have had enough testing for the time being. That is my settled conviction, and I think it is also- the conviction of most members on both sides of this House, if they all would be quite frank. I do not think we have a monopoly of that feeling. It seems to me that we have had quite enough electoral disturbance and turmoil, and the country now needs a period of peace in order that we may do something effective in the conduct of this war. On this question of breaking pledges I cannot help remarking that a great deal of the criticism has come from the men who ought to be the very last in the world to condemn anybody else for breaking pledges. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- You are referring to Holman. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am referring to those men to whom my remarks apply. In all my life I have never seen more savage, more unwarranted, more unfair, and more unsportsmanlike attacks than those made by some of our so-called friends over in Sydney. Allegations have been made against us in this respect, and statements have been made in this House as to the circulation of teertain literature. Complaints have also been made as to the censorship. Our opponents have said that they were hobbled and gagged. On that point all I can say is that if they were gagged, it must have been done very loosely, because they were guilty of such strong statements that I am puzzled to know how they can convince themselves that their liberties were in any way curtailed. Let me tell the House of one or two things they were allowed to say. I might quote the *Lottery of Death* to show, not how much they were gagged, but how much the censor really passed. The pamphlet to which I refer was a most disgraceful production to circulate throughout the length and breadth of this country. Here is one statement contained in it - " The scheme proposed " - that v is our scheme - ' ' will reduce thousands to the level of cannibals drawing lots for an obscene feast." The suggestion was that men fighting in this war of liberty were being sacrificed in an obscene feast, and that those taking part in the ballot were likened unto cannibals. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- What is war but cannibalism ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I do not care what the honorable member says about war in the abstract,, but, when the honorable member likens our brave men at the Front to cannibals taking part in an obstoene feast, he traduces them. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- I made no such statement. I take exception to the suggestion that I even hinted that our men were cannibals taking part in an obscene {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -I attribute to the, honorable member nothing that is improper; but I ask what other interpretation could be put on this statement than that the scheme which the Government proposed would reduce the citizens of Australia to the level of cannibals drawing lots for an obscene feast. Yet the " antis " were allowed to circulate this statement throughout the country in hundreds of thousands of copies. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The *Worker* was- prosecuted and fined for publishing that statement. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It may have been prosecuted for some other statement, but not for that, I think. That newspaper speaks of - the old sour-faced spinsters, . . '. the old maids with bosoms flatter and features sourer than ever. This is the newspaper that poses as having been gagged; and bound, and prevented from conducting its propaganda properly. Here is another piece of Chesterfieldian language from the same source - >The Government disqualification of persons of German descent- nothing is said here about Australians - shows that Hughes is a man who reduces the polling booth to a level lower than that of a brothel . Here is another statement from another of their papers - >Husbands for our future brides under conscription - Chinese, Japs, and Hindoos ! Here is another statement from the *Socialist - x* They had another day of prayer in the Town Hall on Monday. You bet the prayers were all Yes's; you bet they prayed to a conscription God. I quote these sentences to show that, despite the censorship, my honorable friends suffered little disability in the statement of their case to the people in their own way. I am not here to defend all that the censors did. They made mistakes; perhaps not quite as many mistakes as honorable members opposite would have made had they been in their position. But mistakes will, be made wherever human instrumentalities are at *work.* I-, do not say that the censorship was all that it might have been, but my honorable friends were able to scatter broadcast throughout Australia the kind of stuff " that I have read, and a great deal" more like it. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Such statements would not come under the heading of military news. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No; but they profoundly affected the vote. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Where did the "antis" get their money ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: **- Mr. P.** J. Minahan, who was for some time a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, was treasurer of the "anti" funds in that State, and appealed for assistance in these terms- >We can win if our wealthy citizens will help us with money. If we lose, the blame will rest with those who will not do their share by providing the necessary funds. Every one knows that there was no lack of funds. The "antis" had enough money to pay for all their advertising, and for three or four days running their advertisements occupied half pages in the daily newspapers of Sydney, pillorying the State Premier for a supposed secret memorandum submitted to his Cabinet. {: .speaker-KMC} ##### Mr Orchard: -- I understand that they started with nothing and finished with a surplus. - **Mr. JOSEPH** COOK.- Clearly the wealthy friends to whom they appealed *came to* their assistance. The result is that the " antis " have won. I wonder if they really have . won ! Is it a victory to have refused to send adequate reinforcements to the men at the Front? It is too early yet to say. Remember that just as a battle is only an incident in this Armageddon, the referendum is only an incident in the series of evolutionary events which may shape themselves before we are out of the war. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- This is conciliation! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- There is nothing in my remarks but conciliation. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I regard the result of the referendum as a tragical loss to this country, as a great blow at the reputation of Australia. Here is evidence of it. We were reminded the other day by a French deputy who was discussing the question, that we had been the first to take German territory, and the first and the loudest in the expression of our determination to keep that territory. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Who said that we were loud in our determination to grab' territory ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No one. That is not what I said. The deputy whose remarks I am quoting added this comment, to which I draw the attention of honorable members : ' ' They who acquire must pay." That is an ominous and pregnant sentence, full of human philosophy and experience. May I tell honorable members of something else of which we were reminded the other day by a certain prelate here?. The first shot fired for the Empire in this war was fired in Australia. It was a shot fired across the bows of a German vessel in our waters. Australia was the first to take German territory, which we say we are going to keep; and I profoundly hope that we may. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- We have more than we can manage now. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- If we are to acquire territories, and to establish an Australian influence in them during all future generations, we must pay the price of the acquisition; the implication is that we are not paying the full price of the bargain implied in our determination. We shall know who has won and who las lost when the representatives gather round the peace table, and the great settlement comes to be made. When all the troubles that have arisen come to be settled, we shall know whether we have won or lost. There are many matters profoundly affecting Australia which will then be brought forward for consideration. It will then be decided what shall be done with our islands; what place we shall occupy in the councils of the world ; what is to become of our free Government among future world powers. Our whole destiny is at issue, and must be settled at the peace congress. It seems to me that if we have not done everything that we should have done, some searching questions may be asked. ' When we make our claims and seek to establish our status, if we have not done our best, as other nations have done their best, if we have not made sacrifices equal to those of our Allies, .may they not say to us, " You kept back part of the price of the liberties for which we have waged this war; you would not conscript your single men, and thus compelled us to conscript our married men. Yours, therefore, cannot be the dominant voice at this table." {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- "Your blood be on your own head !" {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I profoundly hope that fate may not have that in store for us. But, it seems to me, that our influence at the peace congress will be in proportion to our sacrifice now. We shall know whether we have won or lost when later on we learn the effect of sending to the Front our bravest and mostvaliant boys who were willing to go, married men and others, and learn the results that will be woven indissolubly into the texture of our future economic relations. Then only shall we be able to say whether we have won or lost in this great world's struggle. Meantime our friends opposite have won. What have they won for ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Freedom. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Freedom ! They have won for the forces that have kept back part of the price of liberty. They have won for the view that when the common liberties of the people of the world were at stake they did not make common sacrifice with the rest of the Allies who stood for the defence of those common liberties. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- What about the 90,000 soldiers who voted "No"? Is the honorable gentleman accusing them? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am accusing nobody. I am merely expressing my own opinion. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- This is conciliation and peace. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- Order! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- What does the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. Finlayson)** mean by prating about conciliation and peace? *Several honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I have continually called honorable members to order, but some are inclined to disregard the call. I remind honorable members that every member of (the House claims the privilege of free speech in conformity with the Standing Orders. The Chair endeavours to secure for every honorable member the privilege he is entitled to. The Minister has appealed for order, and I have already made several appeals to honorable members to refrain from interjections, as they lead to disorder. I call attention to the fact that, quite apart from conformity to the Standing Orders, as Ministers are on the motion now before the House being challenged, and are upon their trial, it should be admitted in a spirit of fairness that they should be allowed to state their case without any interruption whatever. I again ask honorable members to restrain themselves, and not to force upon the Chair the necessity to take definite action. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I appeal to honorable members to say whether I have said one personal word since I rose. I am speaking strongly, because I feel strongly. I am one of those who believe that the result of. the Reinforcements Referendum vote was a tragedy. May I not even say that? An honorable member was called to book here the other day for saying that the party opposite was the German party: I want to say that I do not believe that my honorable friends over there are the German party. I never have accused them of disloyalty. They cannot say that I have. I know that the bulk of them are loyal. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Which of them are not? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am not speaking of my honorable friends particularly, but of the great bulk of the people of this country who voted " No " at the referendum. I believe that the bulk of them are thoroughly loyal citizens. My honorable friends opposite are, in my opinion, mistaken, and I sometimes think stupidly so, but that is all. May I put this view to them? May I ask them which result Germany would most appreciate - the getting , of 3,000 recruits ' per month *by%* the voluntary method or 7,000 per month by the compulsory method ? Which of these two results does any honorable member think would be most appreciated by t the German hosts ? It seems to me ' that there is only one answer to the case as put in that way. I believe that our enemies will rejoice over the result of the " No " vote, because it expresses itself in the way I indicate. The party opposite have destroyed legal ' compulsion, but they have not destroyed compulsion altogether. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They have not destroyed economic compulsion.- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- They have imposed and riveted compulsion upon the people of this country. Let me give an instance of what I refer to. I know the case of a young fellow who was carrying on a business with his father. He -is a married man, and after the referendum vote he went to his father and said, "I cannot stand this any longer; I am going to the war." The family had other single men at the war, and this young man was the married son of the family. He has enlisted, and is going to the war. That is the kind of compulsion that has been imposed by the " No " vote. There is another kind of compulsion that the jjarty opposite have imposed. We are feeling it, and they are feeling it, and know of it every day of their lives. I refer to the compulsion' of the wounded to go back again, the compulsion of the wounded who, in all fairness, ought to be able to come home. The party opposite are imposing upon them compulsion to go back into the trenches and continue to fight. Is there any member of this House who does not daily receive letters asking that men who have been wounded at the Front may be permitted to come home? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- And alsoasking us to vote " No." vN {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member for Darling must ' cease his interjections. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am not questioning their right to vote in any way they please. I am trying to get to the heart of the matter, and tq see what the effect of the referendum vote is. Its effect, as I say, is to impose a compulsion of the wounded, which, to my mind, is, infinitely worse than the compulsion laid upon healthy young citizens of Australia to go and do their bit alongside their mates, and relieve them so that they may come back, over-strained and over-burdened as they are by the obligations already imposed upon them in this war. I may remind my honorable friends of the nature of the recruiting that was carried on by the voluntary method before the appeal was made to the people. It was stated, and, I believe the statement has the requisite authority behind it, that out of every 100 men enlisted under the voluntary method twenty-eight were married men, and thirty-one young men below the age of twenty years. That is, 59 per cent, of the' voluntary recruits were outside the ages of those concerned under our scheme. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Are those official figures ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- They are not, but I understand that they were obtained from official sources. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Could we get them from the Defence Department? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I should think so. One of the saddest sights, to my mind, of the late referendum fight was the number of young men, fit and eligible in every way, who came to meetings and laughingly and jeeringly said that they would not go and fight. That was to me the saddest sight of all. I want to say that I would rather be with those who have been beaten in that fight than to have won the fight with the votes of men like that. That is all over. We cannot recall that vote. It has gone for what it is worth. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- And what are the Government going to do? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- What are we going to do? May I suggest to my honorable friends, who have destroyed the method we proposed, that, in all fairness, it is up to them to say what they are going to do. They surely, as well as the Government, Jiave their obligations left. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- We have. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Very well, then. . All that I have to say on behalf of the Government is that if my honorable friends opposite have any schemes of their own which they think will help recruiting they should bring them along and let us consider them. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- And the honorable gentleman would cheerfully turn them down, as he did everything we suggested on the Repatriation Bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I again icall the honorable member for Darling to order. I have spoken to him twice already. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I should like to ask whether there has been a single constructive suggestion made from the other side during the whole of this debate. We were told last night that it will be time enough for that when they are called in. It seems to me that the victorious party has some responsibility whether they are called in or not. A great appeal has been made to the people, and over 1,000,000 voters have turned down the proposal of the Government. Have they no responsibility to pursue every legitimate means for the purpose of winning the war and assisting in every way to do so? I cannot help feeling that all the proposals that have been made so far are arguments against any recruiting at all, and not merely against compulsion. What can be the meaning of the argument, for instance, about the sacredness of human life, if it be not against the sacrificing of life at all? What is it but a statement that human life is so sacred that it should not be sacrificed ? What is the meaning of the other statement made by my honorable friends that we had eighteen months' reinforcements in hand? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- My honorable friend said it. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- No fear. The honorable' gentleman should not try to put that down to me. He cannot find that statement in any of my speeches. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I think I can find it in auite a number of the honorable gentleman's speeches. My honorable - friend and his helper, **Mr. Ryan,** and others made the statement that there were eighteen months' reinforcements already in hand. If that argument meant anything at all it meant that there was no urgency for recruits. Then there was the statement that we should send food in preference to sending men. What is that but an argument against recruiting ? What is the statement that men are needed here but a statement against recruiting? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- So they are needed here. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- If they are needed here, and are kept here because they are needed, that is surely an argument against recruiting for the Forces overseas. I want to say it is not a matter of keeping Australia safe. Australia is not safe to-day. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Hear, hear; and the honorable- gentleman knows it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I do know it. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Then why send our men away? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No nation is safe and no nation can be considered safe until this war is over. I want to say to my honorable friends opposite that the nation that will not risk its all in the fight for liberty is not worthy of liberty. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Why does the honorable gentleman not go away then? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- If the honorable member for Cook does not cease his interjections I will have to take another course. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- A nation that will not risk its all in the fight for its liberty is a nation that must go down in the long run. That is the teaching of history. It is pleaded that it is the Government's responsibility to do all that is necessary. Already statements have been made here that we are bankrupt of any proposals, and that it is the Government's responsibility. The Prime Minister the other day offered honorable members opposite their share of the responsibility if thev cared to take it. If a scheme can be arranged I will not stand in the way of it. I shall p-ladly get out. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- But what about the honorable gentleman's Government*? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I shall gladly get out and stay out, and help in every way I can from the outside, as I did for three years. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Is that statement from the Cabinet? , {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I give the 'honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Catts)** one more warning, and it is his last. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I do not desire to bandy words with my honorable; friends opposite. In my view, the situation is far too grave for that. . I am saying that if they are prepared to take a share of responsibilities, I will not stand in the way of any arrangement that may be deemed to be the most effective for the successful conduct of the war. That is the only attitude any honorable member should take; it is the only attitude an honorable member can take. Let no party stand in the way of the conduct of this war; perish all parties if they stand in the way of the effort needed to win. This great tragedy over the seas towers transcendently above any petty squabbles of our own or any little differences that we may have. There should be one test alone applied to the government of this country and the conduct of . this war, and that is the war test. Now, looking into the future, what are the things we have to do? I am not here to sketch a programme or anything of the kind. The position has been decided so far as immediate recruiting is concerned, but other steps must be taken, and taken speedily, in order to get recruits. That is tiie first and paramount requirement. Whatever we may say, do, or think, we are under an obligation! either to bring our boys home, or send them adequate support. That is our obligation first and foremost, and all the time, ' and when we settle down to business I hope sincerely that this House will come together and consult together. I entirely agree with the statements made by the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Injine)** jesterday that we ought to consult together and bring our united efforts to bear on this great question of what is best to do immediately in order to keep a stream of reinforcements going to the Front. The sooner it is done the better. Of almost equal importance is the question of shipbuilding. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- "Do it now"; that is the old motto. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- We are doing it now. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- You are not. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member will see three or four ships commenced almost immediately. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They should have been in hand long ago. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- It is all very well for the honorable member to say that this should have been done long ago. The matter has been in hand a long time, and a great deal has been done in the direction of preparing for shipbuilding; plans have been laid down, material has been purchased, and the last touches are being put upon a scheme which, I hope, will lead to a large number of ships being built in Australia at a- very early date. Yet we. are told that we have done nothing. The first thing this Government did nearly twelve months ago was to place orders for fourteen ships in America, which step did not interfere with our efforts to establish the industry here. The present Ministers have been in office for about ten or eleven months, and during that period we have had a general election, a general strike, and a referendum. Take these three incidents out of a year and see what is left. Those outside the Government little know what that general strike meant in the way of consumption of time, and in the laying of obligations and burdens on the Government. The strike is over. Unfortunately, it has left an aftermath. I am one of those who believe that that aftermath affected the "No" vote the other day very materially, but I decline to accept any responsibility for that fact so far as the present Government are concerned. No one in his right mind can charge the Government with dereliction of duty there. During that strike the Ministry set itself a straight course from start to finish. The responsibility rests elsewhere. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP; UAP from 1931 -- That remark is rough on Fuller. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No, it is not. It is rougher on some of my friends opposite. I did not hear of many of them trying to bring peace to the troubled arena during that very trying time. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- What did your Government try to do? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I invite the honorable member's attention to a statement made by the leader of that strike in Sydney as to what I tried to do, and as to how I treated the men when there was an opening to get them back to work. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- The right honorable gentleman is side-stepping again, {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member is offensive again, as usual. One of the things before Australia is the better organization of the nation. Reference has been made to the big schemes that the Government have in hand, the dealings in wheat, metals, *ava* produce, and almost illimitable other things. The suggestion was made just now by the honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. Riley)** that committees of the House should be formed for the purpose of assisting the Government in the direction of inquiry into some of these mat£ers. I do not put that suggestion out of court. The House can assist the Government in many ways. Whether that assistance will take the form of committees of the House or not, I do not pretend to say. It is a matter upon which the Government as a whole would require to be consulted. However, I welcome the offer from the honorable member. His suggestion is worthy of the most serious consideration, and I can promise him that it will receive that attention which it undoubtedly merits when the Government have time to deal with it fairly and fully. The question of repatriation has been bandied about the chamber to-day, and all kinds of opprobrium have been heaped on the repatriation scheme. All I ask is that honorable members will wait in pa.tience a little while longer until thatgreatest of all schemes ever undertaken by any country in the world has had a chance to mature. The Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Millen)** has done wonders so far as he has gone, and he is proceeding on right lines. Only those who are nearest to him know with what infinite skill and labour he 'has addressed himself to it, and it is only fair that honorable members should give him a chance. He seems at last to have got on his feet, and to have set the scheme going. Let him be judged by results, but not while he is engaged in an almost superhuman effort to initiate this gigantic scheme and bring it into full working order. Then, there is the question of getting this country back, after the war. is over, to the condition of self-support upon an economic basis. I am afraid that my friends who criticise so glibly are little aware of the extent to which this country is living and leaning on the old Motherland. But for the generous purchases by the Motherland, Australia would be in sheer straits to-day, and when the war is over, of course, these will ease down, together with the loan moneys we are spending, which are mortgages on the future. All that kind of support will drop out, and there must be other supports to take its place. It seems to me there are only two courses - one to increase employment, and the other to increase production. There is no royal road to a settlement of our future economic relations. Every ounce of the ability of this country must be pressed into production, and our productions must be increased and expanded enormously, so that we may address ourselves to the heavy ^burdens which are heaping themselves on our shoulders every day, and so that we may bring about the future prosperity of the Commonwealth when this borrowed money shall cease to be the buttress it is to-day. Looking to the future, as I see it, I am bound to confess - and I hope that honorable members will not read into the words that I utter a meaning other than that which I intend them to convey- it will be by some form of national service that we shall be able to safeguard ourselves against the dangers and menaces of the future. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- That is recognised in our Defence Act now. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Yes, it is recognised in our Defence Act, and so is the other aspect of it, which sends our sailors over the seas. After all, the sacredness of human life argument relates only to the man oh the land leaning up against a post, and not to the sailor who is braving the dangers of the deep. There is compulsion throughout the length and breadth of our sea service to-day. The principle of compulsion is there. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP; UAP from 1931 -- It is all voluntary enlistment. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- You can call it what ' you like. We train the boy until he is eighteen years of age, and then pass him into the Reserve, but by proclamation of the Government he may be called up at any time and sent to any. part of the world. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr Wallace: -- He has the choice of saying whether he will go into the Naval Service. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- He has no choice whatever; he has not even that choice, for the Defence Act passed by honorable members opposite says that the Navy must have first choice, and that these men must be conscripts. Honor able members had better see the length to which they have gone in regard to this matter of compulsion. When we recollect what has been achieved by the voluntary system during this war we realize on the one hand that it has done wonders, but on the other hand that there have been dark tragedies.Had there been from 12,000 to 20,000 more supports for our boys at Gallipoli, a very different complexion would have been put on the war. Do we remember the tragedy that occurred to French's Army because there were not adequate supports to send to them? They went bravely to their, death'. They have written an imperishable record and inscribed one of the most brilliant pages in the history of the world ; but the case would have been better still, and many of them alive tjo-day, had there been supports available at that particular time. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- That is a serious reflection on those in charge of the men. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No. I am simply suggesting that for want of rein-> forcemeats at the proper time these men had to be sacrificed in a way that 'would not have been necessary if supports had been available, and for that tragedy the haphazard method of volunteering must be held responsible. The Empire and all of us must carry the responsibility for these matters. There ought to be no repetition of this kind of thing. We have heard a good deal to-day of the troubles and the trials of the workmen of this country, but I wish I could persuade them, and that honorable members would assist us to persuade them, to get more into the spirit of the workmen in the Old Land, guided by their trusted leaders. I have here a little pamphlet, *Why British Labour supports the War,* written by J. A. Seddon, one of the most trusted leaders of the unions in the Motherland, and a fine rallying support it is for the principle of sacrifice in this great war of freedom! This is how be puts the case - >In order to help on the war and to bring victory, our trade unions have sacrificed, for the time, many jealously guarded rights, which we and our fathers had won only after long struggles. Men who led the campaign for short hours of work are now themselves working long hours on war tasks. The trade unions have permitted the dilution of labour, the introduction of women and semi-skilled men in what were solely skilled men's tasks. Many trade union regulations have been wiped out for the time by the trade unions themselves. The unions have passed self-denying ordinances against strikes. Disputes that once would have made 50,000 men down tools in an hour are now endured until opportunity comes to get them put right. > >He proceeds to show that the disputes that have occurred in the Old Land since the war have been brought about in spite of the Labour leaders. He attributes them to the mischief-makers, and suggests that if he had his way those men who deliberately bring men out on strike in this fashion should be sent to the trenches and kept there. Then he continues - > >What has brought about this great change? > >We have learned that Prussian militarism must be destroyed root and branch, and the only way to destroy it is to fight it. We have realized "that this war is a death grapple between systems which cannot co-exist if freedom is to be something more than a name. > >We ought to get that sentiment firmly embedded in our minds. We have to fight our way through to freedom, and we can only fight as we have strength, and as our resources are marshalled for the fight. I believe that every ounce of energy, and every resource of Australia that can be put into this fight should be applied in order to secure the freedom of the world and guarantee the future of Australia. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- I rise to make a personal explanation. I understand that the Minister for the Navy, in the course of his speech, said there is not a tittle of truth in my assertions in regard to the rabbit industry. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- In the honorable member's statement that diseased rabbits unfit for human consumption were put into cold stores and afterwards sent overseas. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- The honorable member means my assertion that 40 per cent. Df the rabbits bought by Great Britain and exported were rotten and mouldy. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- That was absolutely true. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- Who is your authority? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Men in the trade. I challenge the Government to appoint a Select Comittee to inquire into this matter. The right honorable gentleman said, also, that I had stated that the Labour party would not help the Government in respect of war efforts unless we were on the Treasury bench. That statement, also, is very far from the truth. No statement of that character was made by me. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- If I mis-heard the honorable member, I am soriy. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- I also wish to make a personal explanation. I only entered the chamber towards the end of the speech made by the Minister for the Navy, but I am informed that, earlier, he referred to a resolution passed at a meeting of the National party. I infer that his reference was to the resolution authorizing the Prime Minister to try to form another Government. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I did not refer3 to that. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- I am informed that the right honorable member referred to the party resolutions as supplying an answer to the view which I put before the House yesterday, and that he proceeded to say. that I knew the facts as well as any other honorable member. Of course, when a question as to what took place at a party meeting is introduced, it is difficult to refer to it without stating what actually did take place. I -intend to avoid doing that, if possible.; but I wish to say that I knew the facts only so far as they were communicated to us by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes).** In addition to that, I assumed that those members of the late Ministry who had been consulted by the Governor-General had naturally given him an assurance that they would support any Government formed from the ranks of the National party, and not bound by the Government's pledge. It was on that point alone that yesterday I' suggested that, in the circumstances which have since arisen, I should desire a further and more explicit statement from the members of the Ministry. {: #subdebate-1-0-s9 .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE:
West Sydney -- The Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Joseph Cook)** made a fine speech in regard to the things he intends to do, and if he keeps the promises he has made we shall be quite satisfied; but when we have regard to the manner in which the Government have honoured their previous promises, t£e prospects he puts before us do not seem quite so alluring. The right honorable gentleman stated that the " No " vote was not a victory for Australia. I say that it was a victory, not only for Australia, but also for that Democracy which has given us a chance of being the representatives of the people. The vote of the people on 20th December was a vote of want of confidence in the Government because of the unfair tactics they adopted throughout the referendum campaign. The Government were positive of victory, and they set out to make every post a winning-post. They commenced by disfranchising Australians. In that way, they deprived 100,000 persons, who were said to be of German extraction, of their votes. I cannot see how any advantage could accrue to the Government by preventing the votes of German sympathizers, for' it must be apparent to everybody that any person with German sympathies would vote in favour of the. Government proposals. The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that the members of the Labour party were German sympathizers. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- The German party. **Mr. WALLACE.-** It is certain that any person who had no interest in Australia would have voted " Yes." The war will be decided in Europe, not in Australia; and if, contrary to our hopes, the Germans are victorious, the more Britishers we send out of the country the better for the Germans or German sympathizers. If the Government proposals, had been carried, and 100,000 men of German sympathies were left behind, it naturally follows that after we had been deporting Australian citizens for a number of years, all who would be left would be Germans or pro-Germans; and in the end the country would naturally pass into the hands of Germany. The real proGerman party is the one which sought to deport all men of British sympathies and leave the .continent in the possession of Germans and persons of German descent. Those who attempted to introduce Prussian militarism in Australia are the real Germans. {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr Palmer: -- According to your logic we should not be represented at the war at all. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- I do not propose to deal with that argument now. Honorable members opposite belittle what Australia has done in this war, but no one expected the Commonwealth to do as much as it has done. To use the words of the Minister for Defence **(Senator Pearce)** in Sydney, the sending overseas of 313,000 men is a wonderful achievement for Australia. At the commencement of the war we decided to send 20,000 men to assist the Empire. Later we increased the number to 50,000. Volunteers continued to come forward, and then when 'the camps were overflowing, and we were enlisting from 18,000 to 20,000 men per month, it was decided to increase Australia's contribution to 100,000. No doubt if the. men had continued to come forward at the same rate the Government would « have promised 200,000 or 300,000, and then they would have wanted reinforcements for fourteen or fifteen divisions. If anybody is responsible for the falling off of recruiting it is the party opposite, because of the way in which recruits were murdered when they came along so willingly at *fh&* commencement of the war. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The Labour party was in power. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- The Labour party was in power when the first 50,000 men were promised, but I am told by the rank and file of the party that they had no voice in regard to the promise of the present Prime Minister to send an extra 50,000 men to Europe. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- **Mr. Eisher** made the first promise. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- It is safe to assume that if **Mr. Fisher** had remained in Australia Australia's contribution would have ceased at 50,000. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- He said that we would send the last man and the last shilling. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- I shall deal later on with the question of the last man and the last shilling. If the honorable member's party remains in power the last man will certainly be given, but it will be a long time before the last shilling is produced. The Government disfranchised these men of Australian nationality to whom I have referred, but being, still unsatisfied, proceeded to disfranchise the nomadic workers of Australia. I hold that every elector should have a right to give expression to his views, and this is, therefore, a question of paramount importance. After the great industrial troubles that occurred in the principal cities of Australia, many men had to leave our cities to seek employment in the country, and *vice versd.* But when the Government decided that a writ should be issued for the taking of the referendum, they scarcely allowed these men twenty-four hours within which to secure enrolment. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- They are not to be found in the country. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- There are plenty of men looking for work in the country districts, although, as the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** has said, Chinese workers are perhaps preferred by certain employers. As the result of the action taken by the Government, thousands of nomadic workers were disfranchised. The Government, seeing that they had over 100,000 disfranchised men "in the bag," felt quite secure. These nomadic workers invariably vote for the Labour party, knowing that it is the only party that has tried to conserve their interests in the past, and that it is prepared to continue to do so. 1 The Government, having all these votes "in the bag," became, to use a colloquialism, " pretty cocky." The first referendum was defeated by a majority of something like 70,000, and since they had over 100,000 votes "in the bag," the Government proceeded to make, pledges or threats. These pledges or threats have already been dealt with so fully by honorable members on both sides that I need not repeat them. It remains only for me to say that the Ministry never anticipated that they would be called upon to keep their pledges. Had they dreamt of such a thing they would not have made them. As soon as they saw the record of the triumphant majority for the "Noes," they set about devising ways and means to get away from the pledges they had given. I have heard and read a good deal of criticism of the way in which Ministers have evaded their pledges, but the stand taken up by them is, I think, best summed up in a story that I read in a Sydney newspaper. It is the story told of a gambling party in the United States of America. A new chum entering a saloon in one of the cities of America saw five gamblers playing cards, and noticing that the dealer " stacked " the cards, and dealt himself four aces, at once said to one of the other gamblers, " Tli e dealer has stacked the cards on you." The gambler looked up, but made no reply, and the new chum addressed him again, saying, " Don't you see, old man, that he has stacked the cards against you?" The only answer he received was, " Well, what's wrong with that? Is it not his deal?" It may be said of the referendum that it was the Prime Minister's deal. He could deal himself four aces, and it was quite useless for any outsider to try to get into his school since it consisted wholly of professionals. As to the suggestion that our party might have obtained office after the recent resignation, I think that, having regard to the skill of the political card-players composing the present Ministry, we had very little hope of .anything of the kind. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Does the honorable member say they are political card-sharpers or spielers ? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Absolute spielers. The Ministry in their conduct of the referendum did not confine their attention to the disfranchisement of the electors and the faking of the vote as far as possible. There was also partisanship on the part of those in charge of public Departments. I decidedly object to a Government that will not honour their pledges, recognising that such conduct reflects on the integrity of Parliament as a whole, and must naturally lead people to conclude that no reliance can be placed on the promises of men elected to responsible positions in Australia. That is a feature of the campaign that I bitterly deplore. I suppose, however, that I should be thankful that it was the members of the party opposed to us that broke their pledges, since it is quite possible that they will be relegated to that political oblivion which they so richly deserve. At the same time I deeply regret that such a page has been written in the political history of Australia. It is a page that can be effaced only by the present Ministry facing their masters, the people, and obtaining absolution from them if they decide to give it. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Why suggest these unpleasant things? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- I know that a general election would be rather unpleasant to the honorable member, since a big " No " vote was cast in his electorate. It is singular that Ministers in charge of Departments should instruct officials under them to send out during a political campaign letters like that which I am about to read. A letter was written to the Minister for Defence in relation to the return from the Eront of a son of one of my constituents. The reply received was as follows: - >With further reference to your representations on behalf of **Mrs.- -,** who requests the return to Australia of her son, I am directed to inform you that this matter has had careful consideration, but it is regretted this Department cannot take the action desired, but, in view of the statement by **Senator Pearce** to the effect that if the referendum proposals are carried one of the difficulties in the way of granting leave to members of the A.I.F. would be removed, and if the other difficulties could also be surmounted the Commonwealth Government would do its best in an endeavour to obtain leave to Australia for them, the matter may be submitted for reconsideration in the event of the vote on the referendum being "Yes." Obviously there was no necessity for the last sentence in that letter. If sufficient reinforcements were coming forward, the matter would certainly require consideration, but I hold that the last sentence of this letter can be described only as partisanship of the worst type. The letter was written on 13th December, 1917, and had it been sent on at the time to the lady concerned the possibilities are that she would' have voted in favor of conscription. I sent it on to her with a note explaining the circumstances, and expressed the opinion that the promise would not be carried out, even if the conscription referendum were decided in the affirmative. I believe the lady voted *"No,"* not so much because of what I told her, but rather as a protest against the sending out of such a letter during the campaign. I hope that the Electoral Act will be so amended as to prevent the issue of such departmental communications. It is unfair that heads of Depart- ments should be allowed to use their prestige and their position to promote either side of a political fight. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP; UAP from 1931 -- It would be interesting to know whether any instructions were given to the officer concerned to write such a letter. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Like other honorable members I have had a good deal to do with the officer in charge of the Defence Department, **Mr. Trumble,** and am quite sure that he would not have allowed such a letter to go out except under instructions'. Another feature of the conduct of the conscription campaign to which I strongly object was the raising of the sectarian cry. It is scandalous that anything of the kind should have been allowed. The same sort, of thing was resorted to in connexion with, the* general election on 5th May last, literature calculated to stir up strife and to cause dissension in the community being issued. The honorable member for Cook **(Mr. J. H. Catts)** was prosecuted for making a statement which it was alleged was calculated to be offensive to an Ally. The feelings of the people of Australia have also a right to be studied, and men who set out to stir up strife amongst our own people by the dissemination of sectarian literature should also be prosecuted. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They are hindering recruiting. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Certainly. I know of lifelong friendships that have been broken up as the result of the circulation of literature of the kind to which I refer. In ordinary circumstances a man does not take much notice of such things. Religion is a mere accident of birth. A boy is brought into the world, and as he grows up is told that he must attend a certain church. He continues to attend it. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Sometimes. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Quite so. Those who follow the teachings of their church more closely than others are naturally looked upon as good-living people, and they resent aspersions upon their faith. I am prepared to put up an argument onone side or the other concerning the question of religion, and would treat this sectarian literature with the contempt it deserves. But many people have been greatly offended by such literature, and by the distribution of cartoons of the vilest kind reflecting upon the integrity of females belonging to a certain denomination who are worthy of the respect and consideration of every fair-minded man. Such a thing should not be tolerated, and I hope that the Electoral Act will be so amended as to provide for the fining or imprisonment of those who circulate such literature. I do not propose to say much more concerningfjthis question, since I am satisfied that after the Critchley Parker incident little will be done. Apparently the motion moved in this House some five months ago has had no effect, and something more definite than the mere passing of a resolution is required. I hope tfliat the Electoral Act will be amended to meet the situation. A lot has been said concerning the conduct of the war. I hold that the Government have done absolutely nothing to bring about that co-operation- which they profess to desire. Statutory Rule No. 190 reads as follows: - >Amendment of the Wah Precautions Regulations. > >After Regulation 40b of the War Precautions Regulations, the following Regulation is inserted: - "40c. Any person who, by word, deed, or otherwise - > >interferes with, impedes, prevents or hinders the discharge, loading, coaling or despatch of shipping, or the performance of any industrial operation connected therewith or incidental thereto, or > >interferes with or impedes any person or body of persons engaged in, or dissuades, prevents, or hinders any person or body of persons from becoming, or continuing to be, engaged in, the discharge, loading, coaling or despatch of shipping, or the performance of any such industrial operation, shall be guilty of an offence." When the strike was declared off in Australia, the workers of the country decided to resume work, and all they asked was that they should be allowed to resume on the conditions that prevailed prior to the dispute. In most instances that permission was not granted ; and then this regulation was put into effect. The Seamen's Union decided to go back to work, and also agreed to work with voluntary labour. However, a little dispute arose in Victoria over the *Oonah,* and, as a consequence, the Steam-ship Owners' Federation ' sent the following telegram to the secretary of the Federa» tion in Sydney - >As Seamen's Union will not provide less than a whole crew for *Oonah,* and this vessel is manned by volunteer firemen, some of whom wish to remain in employment, members have ' decided not to engage members of the Seamen's Union until *Oonah* is manned, and to discharge all union men who have been engaged. No steamers aTe to leave port until Seamen's Union are prepared to provide men who will wogk along with any labour employed by shipowners, whether on shore or afloat. Advise Cooper. Shipping was stuck up for fourteen days ; and, under the War Precautions Regulation, the Steam-ship Owners' Federation ought to have been prosecuted. Men were prosecuted in Victoria, New South Wales, and other parts of Australia under that regulation, by virtue of which armed guards were placed on the wharfs all over the Commonwealth. It is of no use the Government trying to shirk their responsibility, because their armed guards were on all the various waterfronts in order to see that the regulation was carried out; and anybody who prevented or attempted to impede the despatch or loading of shipping by word or deed was deemed guilty of an offence. " If one man spoke to another and asked him whether he thought he was doing a fair thing in not refraining from working under the particular circumstances, Court proceedings followed with a possible sentence of six months' imprisonment. Yet the Steam-ship Owners' Federation could hang up shipping for fourteen days, and absolutely no notice was taken by the Government. We have heard a great deal about cooperation with the workers of the country. After the strike, when wharf labourers applied for work, the following card - which is as comprehensive as an insurance policy, or the regulations on the back of a steam-ship passenger'sticket - was handed to them for signature - Application for Employment. Date 191 To the Secretary, Permanent Wharf Labourers' Bureau, Dixson's Buildings, 64 Pitt-street, Sydney. Name of applicant in full Where living Age Married If married, number Single children Name of previous employers Length of service Date and reason for leaving Capacity in which employed References Name of union (if any) Rates of pay and conditions of work to be as per -schedule dated 24th September, 1917. ' If engaged I will honestly carry out my duties, obey all lawful commands and handle' all goods as directed. I will not, by word or deed, do anything that will disturb the peaceful work of my fellow employees. Applicant On the, back of that card was a statutory declaration to which the applicant was asked to conform - Statutory Declaration. I, of Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, do solemnly and sincerely declare: - That I am not a member of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, or of any branch thereof. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1000. Subscribed and declared at this day of , One thousand nine hundred and Before me - That is how the Government attempted to co-operate with the workers in carrying on the industries of the country. Further, there was a declaration that had to be made in Victoria. It was drawn up for the purrjose of a bogus union which had no right to be in existence. The work in question had up to that time always been carried out by wharf labourers; and this union was brought into existence by the powers that be in Victoria in order to obtain a false registration. The declaration was as follows: - Declaration. In the matter of the Grain and Flour Workers Union and of an application for inember- " ship thereof. I, of in the State of Victoria, labourer, do solemnly and sincerely declare - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That I desire to become a member of the above union. 1. That I am a natural-born British subject.** I was born at on or about the day of , and have resided in Victoria for upwards of years. 2. That I am not a member of any other union or industrial organization. (t) (o)* I have duly delivered to the secretary of such last-mentioned union, my written notice of resignation, and have paid all 'subscriptions, fines, and/or other moneys due or to become due by me to such union, but I have not yet received a clearance from such union, because (as I believe) its rules prevent my resignation from being formally . accepted until after the expiration of three months from the delivery of such notice. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 6 ) * If I am elected .to be a member of the Grain and Flour Workers Union I intend (and undertake) to obtain and produce to the Committee at as early a date as possible an official clearance from the union mentioned * If not a natural-born British subject, the closest inquiries must be made, and a special clause inserted. t If a member of any other union, &c. insert the word " except " and the name of such union. *(a)** If not a member of any other union, strike out this sub-paragraph. [!))* If not a member of any other union, strike out this sub-paragraph. in sub-paragraph (a) hereof, and I declare that I no longer consider myself to be a member of such union, and that, save as aforesaid, I have severed and intend from now onwards to completely and permanently discontinue all connexion between myself and such union. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. I have read carefully the rules of the Grain and Flour Workers Union, and I am heartily in accord with its objects. 1. If I am elected to be a member of the Grain and Flour Workers' Union I intend (and undertake) to loyally obey and conform to all its rules and agreements, to do all in my power for its benefit and advancement, and to abstain from doing anything which might be injurious to its interests. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of an Act of the Parliament of Victoria rendering persons making a false declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury. *Note.* - Each declarant should be warned that a false declaration of any fact is perjury. That is further illustration of how the Government were endeavouring to bring about co-operation with the workers. This union was applying for registration in complete defiance of the arbitration laws of the country. Section 61 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-11 sets out- >During the pendency of any dispute or matter before the Court no resignation of or discharge, from the membership of any such organization shall have effect. Honorable members will see how the scheme was prepared and carried out. Immediately the employers in New South "Wales had the workers at their mercy, the former organized a combination amongst themselves, and the same thing occurred in Victoria. When matters: had progressed sufficiently, new unions were created, but when it was found that the Arbitration Acts were against this, the Commonwealth Government slot in motion the War Precautions machinery, and issued regulations to de-register the unions of the men. This, to my mind, shows conclusively that the Commonwealth Government were working in conjunction with the employers in order to smash trade unionism in this country. It would seem that not only the Commonwealth Government, but Governments in other parts of Australia, who talked about " winning the war," had forgotten just exactly where the war is. On the platforms outside, the members and supporters of such Governments spoke of winning the war in Europe, and in Parliament they made long orations to *Hansard* - such as we heard from the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** the other day, and from the Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Joseph' Cook)** today - to the same effect. But immediately Parliament went into recess and Ministers got together they started on " winning the war " in Australia. And the war in Australia has not been brought about in the last week or two. There are honorable members opposite, who, I am quite sure, if they were " in the know " as to what was occurring under the surface, would not support the present Government for ten minutes. On 4th July last, the *Sydney Morning Herald* printed two columns of matter condemnatory of the workers of the country. The graziers protested against an award of **Mr. Justice** Higgins; and from that date every newspaper one picked up had something to say about "winning the war," and co-operating with the workers with the object of practically bringing them to a state of subjection, in which they would be prepared to accept any terms offered. A shipbuilding scheme was proposed, and conferences took place with the members of the various unions,, who were divided as to the terms; a.nd while the division prevailed, nothing was done in the way of ship building. It seems singular that in every case of a strike in other parts of the world - and of these we have heard something this evening - responsible Ministers of the Crown have been only too willing to confer with the workers, and all the available machinery has been placed at the disposal of those concerned, in order to settle the dispute. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- During the recent strikes the Prime Minister met two deputations with that end in view. {: #subdebate-1-0-s10 .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- But the Prime Minister did not attempt to do anything in the way of settling the strikes; the deputation saw the Prime Minister all right, but the Prime Minister did not do anything for the deputation. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Is it not a fact that the Waterside Workers Federation was helpless, and had no sympathy with the strike. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- None of the union officials, who have been much maligned and blamed for the strike, had any sympathy with it at all. The officials have been merely used as stalking horses* by honorable members opposite and members of the Government, and held responsible. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Who was responsible for the strikes? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- The men themselves, and the honorable member himself. The *Sydney Morning Herald,* and all the principal newspapers of the country, were attacking trade unionism, which asked for, and was refused, certain concessions. Then the State Government of New South Wales took a hand, and introduced a system that had been rejected twelve months previously - a system that would have altered the standard of work in the shops. The trade unionists of the country immediately concluded that this was an effort, on the part of those who introduced the alteration, to flout or trounce trade unionism. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Is that the opinion of the Australian Workers Union officials ? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Then why did not the Australian Workers Union enter the strike ? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- So far as the officials of the unions are concerned, they did not desire to strike. The men had been so provoked by little pinpricks inflicted by the employers, and by what the New South Wales Government did when they tried to introduce new standards of work into the workshops, that they simply broke out into revolt. Had the leaders been the rebels which honorable members opposite say they are, you would not have seen working men, three or four thousand strong, marching in processions and singing songs in the streets of Sydney. Had the leaders been as bad as they were made out to be, something more than that would have been doing in Sydney. As a matter of fact, it was the leaders that kept them from resorting to violence. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I have always said that the recognised leaders were never responsible for the strike. It was men outside that became leaders, or presumed to be leaders. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- I have no doubt that those who are on top at present were preparing for that strike. After getting the Win-the-war party into Parliament in the various States they determined to use that party for all it was worth. They were determined, whether the war in Europe was won or lost, that the war *in* Australia would be won, and that the industrial conditions obtaining in Australia at the beginning of the war should not obtain at its termination. The proof of that is that, whilst they were saying that they were not out to crush trades unionism, they are to-day employing men at less rates of wages than they should pay under the arbitration awards. The "Waterside Workers Union is still a registered organization, but the employers in New South Wales are paying those men £3 ls. 6d. per week of 464 hours, which is. about fi less than the award rates. They were, therefore, out, if not to crush unionism, certainly to reduce wages, and nothing has been done by the authorities to compel them to pay the standard rates. The Wharf Labourers Union, owing to various technicalities, cannot get before the Court to compel the employers to pay the proper rate of wage, and the employers are now paying less than they should pay under the law of the land. I notice, however that they have not reduced freights or fares, for they applied recently to the Government to increase them. Obviously, therefore, it is not all patriotism that is inspiring the ship-owner. He is out to make large profits, smash trade unionism, and get the maximum amount of work . done for the minimum amount of pay, and this Government is assisting him to do it. Before the Government can rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the workers they will have to undo all that has been done for the last five or six months. They will have to restore trade unionism to the position it held before the strike. It is impossible for honorable members on this side to make any overtures to the Government whilst the workers are being treated as they are today. I am opposed tooth and nail to the Government until they are prepared to restore the position which has recently been broken down, and to work on new lines in a spirit of co-operation with the workers of Australia. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- You are speaking of the State Government? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- No. The Government say they are here to conduct and win the war. How are they going to do it without the co-operation of the workers? Without that co-operation none of the countries engaged in the war to-day could carry it on. It is the workers of the world that are carrying it on. If this country was in such deadly peril as certain people try to make out, if it was so directly menaced and so close to the seat of war as other countries, the responsible heads here would, have to co-operate with the workers to a far greater extent than they are doing to-day. The position is scandalous. We are told that Australia stands in imminent peril of the arrival of the Germans, possibly within the next month or two, yet, in Australia, with its untold wealth and its vast undeveloped resources, thousands of men able and willing to work cannot find employment. This scandalous state of affairs gravely reflects on those responsible for it. The Government may not be directly responsible for bringing about the existing unemployment, but the Government of a country are responsible for the well-being of its people, and during a time of war they should be devoting all their energies to getting the best they can out of their country. We are in the ridiculous position,, however, of borrowing money to carry on the war. It is said that we have no right to ask America or other countries to fight for us, but I say that we have no right to ask other countries to pay for our share in the war. What right have we to borrow millions of pounds from Great Britain to conduct the war? Why not get "the necessary money from our own country? Australia should be doing the same as other nations on the other side of the sea. Great Britain and Canada have undertaken huge responsibilities, and we know that Great Britain is up to her neck in the war and that Canada is doing as well as can be expected of her, but Australia is in absolutely the worst position of" any country engaged in the war. She is impoverishing herself not only in manhood, but in wealth. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Canada has had to borrow money outside,, and has not raised anything like £100,000,000, as we have, within our own borders. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- Although Canada has borrowed" money outside she has done so to establish munition and other factories in her own territory. At the termination of the war those factories, which are now turning out munitions, and for which she is receiving a certain return in money to help her to meet her obligations, will be converted into industrial concerns, and their machinery will be utilized to produce commodities essential for trade and export. The borrowing of that money will therefore be of direct benefit to Canada when the war is over, but we fn Australia have not established a single industry. We are paying out money all the time, and at the termination of the war we shall have to meet huge obligations with no means of coping with them. All the new machinery installed in Great Britain and Canada during these -war years will be used afterwards to produce commodities for trade and commerce, but Australia will become the dumping ground of the whole world, and we shall have no possible opportunity then to build up our industries. We should start to do so at once. While the war continues it gives us at least an opportunity, with an enforced Tariff barrier created by war conditions, to put our industries on such a footing that when peace comes we may be able to compete with our rivals overseas; but I am afraid that if present conditions are allowed to continue Australia will find itself in a very critical plight on the restoration of peace. Not only shall we be depleted of our manhood generally, but financially we shall be practically bankrupt, whereas other nations such as Great Britain and Canada will emerge from the war, as nations, financially stronger than they entered into it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Go and see the woollen and clothing factories before you talk like that. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- I have seen the Woollen Factory long before to-day. Had the Win-the-war Government had anything to do with the Woollen Factory, or the Small Arms Factory, or any other Government industry established in this country, it is safe to say that- it would never have been established. The PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Webster)** smiles, but he was in the party when those enterprises were brought into existence. We give him credit for that, but he knows very well that if it had been left to the honorable member for Parramatta **(Mr. Joseph Cook)** and others following him at the time, none of those enterprises would have been in existence in Australia to-day, and the Government would -have had to buy from Great Britain or Canada singlets to supply Australian troops, and the very flannel and khaki that our soldiers are wearing to-day. That would have been the position of affairs but for the Labour party having been in office here. Those men who have left the Labour party have left all those progressive ideas behind them also, and have got into a groove in which they do not believe in progress. , As far as the conduct of the war is concerned, I am satisfied that our party, although we number only twenty-two, would do the work much more successfully, both financially and in getting recruits, than the party opposite, with all their fiftythree members. The Win-the-war party have murdered the recruiting business altogether, for the .two referenda and the organization they have brought into existence to get recruits have done more to kill recruiting than anything else that could have been done here. If the business had been left to our party, and we had followed on the lines originally laid down by the Labour party, increasing the emoluments of the soldiers and the pay of their dependants, recruiting would never have failed, and we should have been getting more than sufficient recruits at the present time. When recruits were offering in plenty, the Win-the-war Government sacrificed them, and when the numbers began to fall off a little they set out by means of conscription referenda to kill the whole movement. It will take some resuscitating, and not only this, but the other party will have to go in for some very drastic reforms if we are to stimulate it now. With regard to the prosecution of members of Parliament during the referendum campaign, it appears anomalous that gross misstatements of facts can be made by responsible Ministers in Australia without any one undertaking to prosecute them. It may be news to honorable members that the first lie told in that campaign was told by the honorable the Prime Minister himself. In the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 17th November last, the Prime Minister, replying to **Mr. Storey,** M.L.A., of New South Wales, said - > **Mr. Storey** also charges the State Government with breaking ita promise of supplementing Federal pensions. The specific promise of the State Government is set out in an official memorandum by the Premier, entitled, " The > >State's Duty to the Soldier." This memorandum states that the New South Wales Government proposes to supplement the Federal pension of £1 per week by a further State pension of £1 per week. But since this announcement was made, the Commonwealth had increased the amount of Federal pension to £1 10s. per week, in which case the State obligation was reduced to making up the balance of the £2, viz., 10s. per week. Since this was announced the Federal Government have again increased the pension to £2 per week, so there is no longer any necessity for the State to supplement the pension. I replied in the *Evening News* of the same date as follows: - >I have made inquiries at the Pension Office, and have been informed by the officer in charge in Sydney that, so far, no instructions have been received to increase the present rate of 30s. per week, or £3 per fortnight. **Mr. Hughes** chides **Mr. J.** Storey with wrongfully accusing the State Government of not honoring its election promise to make up the pay to £2 per week, and to cover **Mr. Holman's** failure to pay this extra 10s., he calmly announces that the Federal Government has stepped into the breach. Will **Mr. Hughes** inform us when the instructions to increase the allotment will come into force? That was lie No. 1. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Why did not the Prime Minister prosecute himself? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- As AttorneyGeneral, **Mr. Hughes** naturally has never filed a bill against himself. I have made inquiries, and find that up to. the present the Federal Government have failed to increase the pension to £2 per week, but I hope they will take an early opportunity of doing so. I should like to remind the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith)** that a conference of Inter-State trade unions of Australia was held in Hobart in May, 1916. I was a delegate to that gathering, and believe I met the honorable member for Denison in Hobart on that occasion; and I want now to inform those who are chiding the Labour movement with not doing something in the way of winning the war that, whilst at that gathering we passed a resolution against conscription, we also submitted a scheme to the present Minister for Defence for the organization and orderly utilization of labour during and at the termination of the war. It would have been advisable if the Government had given some consideration to that proposal ; but, instead of doing that, they introduced a conscription referendum, and since then there has been a second, involving the country in an expenditure of nearly £400,000, whereas the proposal we made would not have cost one-quarter of that amount. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Where do you get the figure of £400,000 as the cost of the referenda ? {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- If that is not the amount, I will stand corrected if the honorable member can give me the figures'.' The point is that if, instead of spending mopey on a referendum, the Government had given consideration to the proposal I have mentioned, they would have restored confidence, and there would not have been the same difficulty in getting recruits, because, as the Prime Minister has said, when a country is too rotten to be worth fighting for, you will never get recruits. The following is an outline of the scheme adopted at the Hobart conference : - >That there shall be a statutory committee, who shall have power *to* appoint an advisory committee in defined areas, to whom shall be delegated the power to organize and direct the industrial situation, with the object of utilizing to its fullest advantage the resources of the Commonwealth during, and for a period after, the war. The advisory committee shall be composed of men who are industrialists, who shall act during the pleasure of the statutory committee. The committee recommended - > >The Federal, State, and municipal de partments shall keep the committees fully advised on all sources of employment. > >The statutory committee shall take what steps they deem fit to prevent a congestion of labour at any place. > >They shall in all cases see -that con tracts made to the men who have enlisted are fully honoured. > >They shall from time to time advise the Government regarding works of public utility which might be carried out with advantage. > >And to carry out any further duties that the Minister may direct. > >Such sum as Parliament may direct shall be placed at the disposal of the statutory committee. > >That all patriotic funds now in hand or hereinafter collected shall be vested in and administered by the statutory committee. > >Such funds shall only be expended to relieve sailors, soldiers, and nurses who are disabled, or during a period . of restoration to health. > >The adoption of that resolution shows that the trade union movement was interesting itself in post-war problems, and that Labour representatives could see that chaos would result from the administrative measures of the Government at that time. It also shows that we were prepared to assist the Government in endeavouring to insure something like a normal state of affairs so as to avoid any large amount of unemployment in Australia at the close of the war. I maintain that the Labour movement has always interested itself in the conduct of the war, and, provided it had a fair deal, would always be prepared to support the Government in war measures; but because of the treatment meted out to them, trade unionists are now quite properly beginning to ask themselves what the war is for, and, after all, what benefits they are likely to derive from its prosecution. The fact that they are asking themselves this question is due to the administrative failures of the Government. There would have been no complaints whatever if Labour had received proper treatment. Whenever a strike is threatened, there is always a sneer as to the underlying causes, though in nine cases out of ten the object of a strike is to secure more money with which to buy bread. On the other hand, the exploiters and profiteers who have control of the prices have no hesitation about their course of action; and" when they put up prices, is not that a strike1 against the consumer? And yet we do not hear any sneers concerning' their actions. They are not under any necessity to appeal to an Arbitration Court, or to consult anybody. They simply alter their prices, and the public have to pay or else do without the particular commodity affected. I noticed in the Melbourne papers the other day that the Prices Commissioner was informed by a witness that members of a certain organization declined to observe the prices fixed by the Commissioner, and I have not seen any report of a prosecution. On the other hand, if a labourer or any member of a trade union refuses to work for a certain price he is immediately haled before the Courts and charged with a breach of the award, or, perhaps, a war regulation is framed- to de-register the union concerned. This shows that the Government have absolutely no sympathy for the worker, but if they desire co-operation they will have to start afresh, and, in the words of the Scripture, I would say to them, " Ye must be born again.'' The Minister for the Navy, in his oration this afternoon, said that Australia was dishonoured by the '" No " vote. He became 'quite pathetic, and at one time I thought we were going to have tears and more tears. All I want to say is that Australia is not dishonoured by that vote at all, but, on the contrary, it saved Australia's honour, because when our boys went away to fight the people of this country told them that they were going out to break down - the Prussian military system, and .to bring into existence in Europe a state of Democracy similar to that under which we are living in Australia. Now, while our boys are fighting for these ideals, the Government of this country have been endeavouring to bring into existence that very evil against which our Empire is fighting. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- You must remember that a lot of our soldiers voted for this proposal, too. {: .speaker-KWX} ##### Mr WALLACE: -- We must not forget though that when they left Australia they were told that they were taking part in a holy crusade, and were going to fight for the ideals of Democracy, so I maintain that any attempt to introduce the Prussian military system into Australia was equivalent to an attempt to traduce the honour of this country, because if we had accepted conscription Australia would not have been the same country from a democratic stand-point that it was when they left these shores. I hope that Australia will always maintain this position. It has ever been a free country, and I hope that we shall always be able to say to the stranger coming to our shores, " Here at least you will find a system under which the motto is, ' all for each, and each for all.' " *Sitting suspended from 6.80 to 8 p.m.* {: #subdebate-1-0-s11 .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE:
Indi .- I do not propose to make a lengthy *post mortem* of the political situation, such as we have had from members opposite since the debate opened; indeed, I shall not go further back than the 5th May' last, and that only incidentally to refer to the programmes which the two political parties then placed before the country, and on which this Parliament was elected. I am not concerned to any extent with what has occurred in the past. The question that matters to me is, what is going to happen in the future? Are those who have accentuated the present crisis going to be more dangerous: are they going to interfere with the performance by this Parliament of its paramount duties, the making of provision for reinforcements and repatriation, which are the matters of urgency before us ? We have had from certain members glowing pictures of the position at the Front. From the honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. Riley),** we had an oration the tenor of which was that everything is all right in this the best of all possible worlds, and that even if there is a war it is almost worth having to be as cheerful as he is. He urged us to ignore the big potent facts which are in evidence on the other side of the world, to sweep aside the big disasters of the past -few months, and to persuade ourselves, and to try to persuade the people, that everything is well, and that no special effort is needed from us; that if only the present Government, and the party supporting it, were out of power, there would be no cause for anxiety as to the result of the war. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** in defending himself against the attack made on him by the Opposition, said that the pledge which undoubtedly was given at the opening of the last referendum campaign, was really a- threat, and not a pledge. His defence was that he had threatened the electors that they must either accept the Official Labour party and **Mr. Tudor,** or the Liberal party and himself. I do not agree with him that what he said was a threat ; in my opinion, it was a distinct pledge. It might, perhaps, alternatively be regarded as a bonus offered to his opponents to cause them to redouble their efforts, in the knowledge that if they succeeded in persuading the people of Australia to vote " No " they might have the reward of office. That is how they regarded it. They did everything they could to win victory for their cause, and they succeeded. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- We had not the War Precautions Act to help us. {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- I gather from what has appeared in the newspapers as coming from authoritative sources that, were the present Government out of office, and the Opposition in its place, that Act would be worked to death. Instead of taking a national view of our circumstances, the Opposition has taken a party, and, indeed, almost a personal view. Ever since the outside organizations issued their edict of' *spurlos ver sunken* against the Prime Minister and those with him, the order that he and they should be " sunk without leaving a trace," every act of the party opposite has had apparently the one and only object of getting rid of those who at the time of crisis placed their country above party. The Prime Minister said that the people had to choose between the Official Labour party and the present Government. I say that he had no right to give any pledge on behalf of this party without consulting the members of it, and obtaining their consent. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Is this a cave ? {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- No; only a frank statement of my opinion* The only person who can pledge me is myself, and the only person who can pledge my constituents is their parliamentary representative. I decline to recognise a pledge given on my behalf by another without my consent. The Prime Minister has no right to assume that he could pledge this party and say to the country, " The result of this referendum shall be Tudorism or the present Government." {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Did the honorable member during the referendum campaign say what he is saying now? {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- Yes. Within three days before the announcement of the Prime Minister I stated that I did .not think that conscription would come, and if my advice had been taken, based on knowledge gained in travelling about Victoria, there would not have been another referendum. However, the Government took on itself to authorize the holding of a referendum, and, as I believe that conscription is the only fair system under which a Democracy can defend itself, I resigned the chairmanship of the State Recruiting Committee, and used all the influence I had to persuade the peoole, of Australia to be true to themselves by recognising that a Democracy deserves to live only if it is prepared to defend itself. The Government claims that, having resigned office unconditionally, it has fulfilled its pledge. I venture to say that that view is not held by many persons outside, even amongst those who supported this party at the last election. Such a fulfilment of the pledge which was given cannot be satisfactory to those who accepted that pledge in earnest. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Is it satisfactory to you? {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- It is not. I do not think that it is a fulfilment of the pledge - or of the T' threat," as the Prime Minister has called it, thus coining a new synonym for the Australian political vocabulary. The action of the Prime Minister resembles that of a batsman who, in trying to score, is run out through his own misjudgment, and refuses to go, but, to mislead the spectators into the belief that he is playing the game, walks back to the pavilion and then returns to continue his innings. The view that the members of the Government take of this matter is largely a personal one. What grieves me is that, to use another cricket simile, they have " queered their pitch," that is, they have impaired their usefulness as an Administration. No matter what the abilities of a batsman may be, if the pitch has been queered, if it is not true, he is not likely to make many runs; and unless a Government Has the whole community behind it, it is not likely, whatever the ability of its Ministers, to do the work that might be expected from an Administration possessing an overwhelming majority in both Houses of the Legislature. ° {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- Does the honorable member suggest that the second eleven should take charge? {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- Sometimes players are kept in a team on their reputation when it would be very much better if some of the members of the second eleven were put into their places. Until the Prime Minister took this action, -I had been, except for some small matters such as might occur under any Government, perfectly satisfied with his leadership. I pay a tribute to his patriotism, to his unequalled eloquence, to the spirit in which Ihe went forth and upheld the cause which he thinks vital to the Empire and to Australia. He may have been, wrong, but I think that he was right in what he did. Any one who is fair must grant that his reputation as a man of spirit and his eloquence have resounded, not only throughout Australia, but throughout the world, and have helped to -bind together the different parts of the Empire. He is not a true Australian who is not proud of the way in which the Prime Minister has upheld the honour of this country. But the rigljt honorable gentleman has done a thing of which I do not approve.- Why he and his Ministers, with a record as blameless as that of poli ticians could be after so many years in Parliament, have done this thing, I find it difficult to explain, and in- looking for an explanation, I have been reminded of these lines of Shelley - >The sense that he is greater than his kind Has struck, methinks, his eagle spirit blind, By gazing on his own exceeding light. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- The honorable member might quote Shelley on war. He has given some illuminating opinions on that subject. {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- Not on the present war. To quote Brennan on peace might, perhaps, be more to the point. While not 'approving of the action of the Government, I am invited to vote for a motion which, if carried, would place on the Treasury bench the members of the Opposition. Now, on the 5th May last, I was elected to carry out certain promises. The policy enunciated by this party then was totally different from that enunciated by the Official Labour party, although Labour memberssay now that they are as willing to aid in winning the war as we are. The evidence in support of their statement is not so great that it could be put into bags and carried away in a lorry. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** said, when- speaking on the motion, that he hoped to pull certain members from this side to his . side of the chamber; I did not hear him say that he would be willing to come to this side to help us to carry into effect the promise made on the 5th May, that we would make every effort and use all our powers to enable Australia to assist the Allies and the Empire in winning the war. A one-sided bargain is proposed to me. I am asked to break the pledges which I gave to the electors on the 5th May, to do the very thing for which honorable members opposite are now blaming the Prime Minister and his Government. It appears to me that they are tossing with a doubleheaded penny, and want us to do something which they will not do themselves. In ordinary circumstances, and if there were no gigantic contest going on in theworld,, and we were not at war, thinking as I do on this matter, I should have no hesitation in voting for the motion, trusting to the ordinary course of events for a satisfactory settlement of matters. But there is a war going on, in which the safety of Australia is involved, and I have to ask myself whether the members of the Official Labour p*arty are willing and able? with the organizations behind them, to do everything I consider necessary to win the war. I do not think they are. Our experience of their work since the 5th May last has not shown that they are so willing to help. Prior to the first conscription referendum, they made the statement that they were in favour of voluntary recruiting. They repeated the statement before the last referendum, but have they helped us since the first -referendum, or since the 5th May, to secure recruits? **Mr. West.** - Yes, they have, **Mr. Mathews.** - As Chairman of the State Recruiting Committee of Victoria, the honorable member should know that the talk of conscription killed voluntary recruiting. {: .speaker-KR9} ##### Mr LECKIE: -- As Chairman of the Victorian State Recruiting Committee, I know that every Victorian member of the Official Labour party was appealed to in writing to assist in securing recruits, and, with the exception of two shining examples, we did not get anything like encouragement from them. Even those *who* did assist .took discouragement very easily. If they had stood up to their work and had done what we did, speaking for myself and those associated with me, who made every effort by platform work and in other ways, to secure recruits, there would have been no occasion for the reinforcements) referendum. If they had stood behind the country and had done what they could to induce the young men to realize their duty, there would have been no need for that referendum. We might have secured the men required, though it would have been with the various injustices to different sections associated with the voluntary principle. We should have had married men going where single men without responsibilities should have gone. We should have had young men striving to go, and insisting that they should be allowed to go, before even they became of age.With all its horrible and cruel inequalities of sacrifice, I believe we could have secured the men required, or most of them, by the voluntary system, if honorable members opposite had rendered the assistance expected of them. -In view of their performances during the. last twelve months, I cannot take it from them that in future they will mend their ways and help in recruiting. When the members of the Official Labour party show that they are willing to sink party considerations and everything else m the interests of Australia and the Empire, and when every one of them is prepared, on recruiting platforms and through the organizations behind them, to secure the men necessary to reinforce those at the Front, and to do all that is necessary to repatriate our soldiers when they come back, they will find me standing behind them and fighting for them, but not- until then. I am in a somewhat uncomfortable position, but I have no difficulty in making up my mind as to how I shall vote on this motion. I cannot support a motion, the carrying of which would mean the placing in power of members of a party which, during the lasb twelve months, has shown no signs of a willingness to sink political differences to help the country to do its full duty in the cause of civilization. I could not help being struck by the remark of the honorable member for *Cook* **(Mr. J. H. Catts)** that up to the time when the Official Labour party vacated the Treasury benches there was no division and dissension in the country and everything went on smoothly. That is a statement of fact, because (the members of the old Liberal party then stood behind the Labour Government and did not attempt in any way to block them. They said that they would help them in any way they could. What has occurred since the Official Labour party left office? Has not the National Government been met with, if not the active, then the passive opposition of honorable members on the other side? They have shown a desire above everything else to kill politically the Prime Minister of Australia and those who are' associated with him. They forgot that there was a war on, and that the freedom and future of Australia was involved. When the members of the party opposite realize that they cannot be separated from the rest of the Australian nation, and are willing to throw in, not only their personal efforts, but the efforts of the people they represent, behind the Government of the Commonwealth, whatever Government it may be, and to try to make the people of Australia a united people, with the one object of preserving the freedom of this country, they will find me standing behind them. {: #subdebate-1-0-s12 .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier .- I do not propose to follow the Prime Minister's late friends in attempting to castigate him unkindly, because I believe that every one of those who have rushed into print and on to the platform' to condemn the right honorable gentleman are equally guilty of everything with which he is charged. I refer particularly to such men as **Mr. Hall, Mr. Holman,** and **Mr. Beeby,** of New South Wales, and I agree with the remark made by an honorable member on this side that if there be any difference in merit between those gentlemen and the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** ' it is in favour of the Prime Minister. I am not altogether surprised at the attitude which the right honorable gentleman has adopted. When one considers the statements which he has made at various times on the subject of conscription, and the way in which he has changed his opinion without giving any adequate reason for so doing, one cannot be surprised at anything he may do. At one time he stated, with regard to conscription - It is a menace to civil liberty, a ready and dangerous instrument in the hands of a despot' or an unscrupulous politician, to crush liberty and oppress the people. Conscription produces militarism. Conscription produces a caste. It drives men from production, I do not intend to inflict upon honorable members too many quotations from the Prime Minister, but these are pertinent quotations, indicating his attitude on the conscription question. He said on another occasion - We have to conquer Germany, but if we emerge from this war with a conscript army Germany will have conquered us, and thousands of gallant boys and men will have died for another Australia than the one they knew. So much for his opinion of conscription. With regard to the Prime Minister's pledge, what particularly struck me was the airy manner in which he waived aside all mention of it. He said that we might call it a pledge if we liked, but that he called it a threat. He told the House the other evening that what he meant was that it was a question of the National Government or the Tudor party, and that he expected by using the "threat" to influence the people cf the country to vote "Yes" at the referendum. Now he comes before Parliament and says that he believes that he has honorably observed the pledge. It would appear that he expected to influence the people to vote " Yes " at the referendum by merely walking out of office and then walking back again. No honorable member opposite can say for a moment that the Prime Minister, or any of those' be-, hind him, had it in inind that, by merely resigning without conditions, and walking back into office within twenty-four hours, there would be an honorable observance of the pledge - or " threat " - made by the Prime Minister at Bendigo. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** has established a reputation in this country as "the incorruptible " ; the man who is prepared to stand out irrespective of his own personal or party interests for what he believes to be right. I cannot speak for myself, because I have not been here long enough, but I venture to say that honorable members who have been here as long as the honorable member for Flinders never heard a weaker apology than that which he made during this debate' for the position he took up. He attempted to place his position before the House and the country, but his effort was extremely weak, and honorable members, after he finished, were left about as wise as when he started as to what his opinion of the Government really was. He was under no misapprehension when he spoke at Hawthorn during the recent campaign. He said there - When the Government says that it will not undertake to carry on the government of the country an hour- after the people refused the power asked for, we must rally to its support. At the same place he said - If you do not record a " Yes " vote you will no longer have the advantage of the present Government in control of the affairs of this country. At the " Yes " meeting - the magnificent meeting! - held at the Auditorium in Melbourne, according to the daily press, the honorable member said - When pledging its existence upon this referendum it had adopted the only course under which it should have a referendum at all. For himself, he would say it was not the course he should have taken. The course he should have taken was to bring in a Bill for conscription, go before the country, and upon it let all the members of the party behind the Government stake their political existence. But the Government must be the interpreter itself of the pledge which it gave to the people of this country at the last election. The Government had given the pledge that it would not attempt to govern Australia unless the people gave it the powers which it said were necessary to govern. ... He believed the pledge bound every supporter of the Government who did not forthwith disclaim that pledge. The Prime Minister has airily waived that pledge aside, saying it was merely a threat, and that the Government had resigned unconditionally, and had been recommissioned with the indorsement of the party. Instead of answering the censure motion, the Prime Minister attacked members on this side because they had not submitted a policy. Yet, in the same speech, he claimed that the result of the referendum placed the National party and the Government in exactly the same position that they occupied on the night of the 5th May. At the general election the Government went to the country with a policy. They told the people that they were the " Win-the-war" Government, and that if support was given to honorable members on this side everything for which the Empire stood would be endangered. They came back from that election with a great programme. The Prime Minister says that they are now in the same position. Why then does he turn to us and say, "Where is your programme?" We are not on trial. In this instance we are the prosecutors. The Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Joseph Cook)** told us plainly to-day that, to use the simile employed by the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Leckie),** by walking into the pavilion and out again he had squared his conscience, and done everything that was necessary in the circumstances; but during the referendum campaign he took very fine care not to tell the people that if the Government woiild have to resign because of the vote going adversely to them, they would simply come back to office again, and their pledge or " threat " would be wiped out of existence. However, when the Governmelnt and their supporters ask uswhere our policy is, I say it is that which was adopted by the New South Wales Labour Conference in June last, and indorsed by the Victorian Labour Conference. The Labour party is governed by an InterState Conference, but that body has not yet met and formulated a war policy. However the different State conferences which have met have put forward a policy, and it is my policy. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Is the honorable member referring to the peace resolution ? , {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It is the pronunciamento, if you like, of the Labour Conference, and reads as follows: - >That, as the Governments of Europe, founded on class rule, and adopting the methods of secret -diplomacy, have failed utterly to preserve peace or to bring the present war within measureable distance of a conclusion, and whereas the existing capitalistic system of production for profit compels every nation constantly to seek new markets to exploit, inevitably leading to a periodic clash of rival interests, we contend that only by an organized system of production for use, under democratic control, can a recurrence of such calamities be permanently avoided. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- You stole that from the Bolsheviks of Russia. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- And a very good source to get it from. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- That is an admission. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It is no admission. The Bolsheviks, President Wilson, and other people who have made pronouncements concerning the war, are in harmony with the pronouncement of the New South Wales Labour Conference. It proceeds - >The present system, by fostering commercial rivalry, territorial greed and dynastic ambitions, has created an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust among the Great Powers, which was the immediate cause of the present colossal struggle. > >While the people suffer and die in millions, thousands of the ruling and privileged classes are amassing huge fortunes out of war profits; apparently existing Governments are making no sincere efforts to obtain a speedy peace, but are devoting their whole endeavours to the continuance of a disastrous struggle. We are, therefore, convinced that peace can only be accomplished by the united efforts of the workers of all the countries involved. > >We, therefore, rejoice over the revolution in Russia, and congratulate the people of that country upon their efforts to abolish despotic power and class privileges, and urge the workers of every land where similar conditions exist to follow their example with the same magnificent courage and determination. > >We are of opinion that a complete military victory by the Allies over the Central European Powers, if possible, can only be accomplished by the further sacrifice of millions of human lives; the infliction of incalculable misery and suffering upon the survivors; the creation of an intolerable burden of debt to the further impoverishment of the workers who must bear such burdens, and the practical destruction of civilization among the white races of the world. > >We, therefore, urge that immediate negotiations be initiated for an International Conference, for the purpose of arranging equitable terms of peace, on which Conference the working class organizations shall have adequate representation, and the inclusion of women delegates, and we further 'urge that the British Belf-governing Dominions, and Ireland, shall be granted separate representation thereon. > >We submit that in framing the terms of a lasting peace, the following principles should be observed: - > >The right of small nations (including Ireland) to political independence. > >That the European countries occupied by invading armies during the present war be immediately evacuated. > >That disputed provinces or territories shall choose their own forms of government, or shall be attached to such adjacent countries as the majority of their inhabitants may by plebiscite decide on the democratic principle that all just government must rest on the consent of the governed. The free exercise of such choice under conditions of political equality to be secured by the appointment of an International Commisson of Control. > >Note. - This course (with such safeguards for the rights of minorities in communities of mixed races as the Conference might devise) would secure a final settlement of the rival claims for Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, Transylvania, and other territories similarly circumstanced. > >That prior to the disbandment of the combatant armies and the merchant navies employed in the war, they shall be utilized by an organized system of volunteer service for restoring the devastated territories at the expense of the invading powers, which shall also compensate the widows and dependants of all non-combatants, including seamen, who have loBt their lives as a result of hostilities. > >That where an amicable arrangement cannot be reached by the Peace Conference in regard to captured colonies and dependencies, such territories shall be placed provisionally under international control. > >That the freedom of the seas be secured on the lines laid down by President Wilson, of America, in his speech at Washington in May, 1916, where he advocated: - "A universal association of the nations to maintain the inviolate security of the highway of the seas for the common and unhindered use of all the- nations of the world." > >The abolition of trading in armaments, and the prohibition of the private manufacture thereof. > >The abolition of conscription in all countries simultaneously. > >The control of foreign relations under a democratic system, based upon publicity, in lieu of the present methods of secret diplomacy. > >That the existing machinery for international arbitration be expanded to embrace a concert of Europe, ultimately merging into a world-wide Parliament, as advocated by President Wilson, in a recent message to the American Congress. I am quite prepared to go before tbe country on that policy at any time. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I wonder how it is that it was not censored. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It was censored. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Now I can quite understand why you are afraid to hold an Inter-State Conference. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- When an InterState Conference is held it will trouble the honorable member very much. But there is no need for an Inter-State Conference on this matter. What was adopted in June last in New South Wales has been indorsed by the Victorian Conference, and I have" not the slightest doubt it will be adopted by other Labour conferences when they meet and discuss the subject. I have endeavoured to place this matter before the House and the country because of the attempts that have been made since the Labour Conference met to keep the people of Australia from knowing what the position, of Labour is in regard to the war. Honorable members on the Government side complain that recruiting has fallen off, and during the referendum campaign they said that the voluntary system had been demonstrated to be an absolute failure. Accepting their point of view, perhaps the matter I .am about to quote may offer some explanation of why the number of recruits offering has decreased. This is an extract from a letter written by M. F. Sidwill, Maida Vale, London, W.C., published in the *Daily Mail* of 6th January, and reprinted in Sydney *Truth -* >This afternoon, seeing a large crowd round Gamage and Co. Ltd., Holborn, London, W.C., gazing at a window filled with beautiful socka at 2s. and under a pair, and pyjamas 3s. 8Jd., and shirts, &c, I was tempted to go inside and see these bargains. What was my surprise . to find they were all Australian Red Cross articles, sent to England for our "Boys." The name tickets of several A.R.C.8. centres I noticed "Broken Hill," "Croydon Gift," " S.A..." " Red Cross, S.A.," in endless number, the socks even had Red Cross worked into them. They were stated to be " salvage stock from a torpedoed boat." Some articles were slightly iron mould, and others a bit stained or faded, but the greater number were in perfect condition, especially the socks, which had not a blemish on them. It is absolutely outrageous this public sale of A.R.C.S. articles, and the Australian public should know, so that future " deals " should be stopped on the London market at the cost and sacrifice of our folks at home and the poor " Boys " this side. Whoever are responsible seem to have betrayed their trust to have permitted such, and should be removed. The writer of that letter is neither a redragger nor a Sinn Feiner. He is a member of the London branch of the Aus- tralian Natives .Association, and a Canadian Red Cross worker and visitor. {: .speaker-KMC} ##### Mr Orchard: -- Vere those goods insured? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do not know. **Mr. Orchard.** - The honorable member is referring to a salvage sale. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- During the referendum campaign this statement was published in the Sydney *Daily Telegraph-* >MONEY WANTED. Needy Soldiers' Families. *An Urgent Appeal.* > >According to **Mr. 11.** M. Pontey (lion, organizer of the Fruit and Vegetable Fund)' acute distress exists among many soldiers' wives. They are not strikers' wives, he explains. They , are the wives of the right kind of strikers - strikers for justice and liberty. And the pity of it, over 4,500 children under the age of 14 years are' the direct sufferers of their fathers' patriotism. " Cannot something be done?" asks **Mr. Pontey.** " The answer is, ' Money - who will give?'" > > **Mr. Pontey** explained the position yesterday. " Where the' difficulty arises," he said, " is that with the exception of the help they get from the Lord Mayor's Fund there is no other source of relief available. Over £800,000 was collected for the Australia Day Fund, yet not a penny of it is available for these soldiers' wives and families. Of course, I am not suggesting that these funds have not been raised for good causes; the public barely knows of the acute distress which cannot be relieved. Let me tell you of one typical case among some 20 or 30 of acute distress which are being relieved by us to the best of our ability. . These cases have been picked out from about 1,200 receiving help from the Fruit and Vegetable Fund. They are women who have from seven children upwards to provide for. Some have eight and nine children under 14 years of ago. It is no good to say the father ought not to have gone. He is there now, and it is up to us to do something for the wife and kiddies. It is what voluntarism has been responsible for. However, all that by the way. The case I am referring to is that of a woman who has had nine children. One has since died, and the youngest is only fire months old. Her husband embarked in November, 1916, and the youngest child was born towards the end of June last. Before that event she had to go out to work, washing, to supplement her military pay of £2 lis. per week, exclusive. of a small allowance from the Lord Mayor's Fund, and she is again at work trying to provide food for her children.She got into difficulties during the period that the youngest child was born. And she is now in debt to the undertaker, the landlord, the draper, and the grocer. {: .speaker-KMC} ##### Mr Orchard: -- An explanation of that case appeared in the press j>n the following day. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I did not read any explanation of it. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- There was no explanation. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I read that statement during the campaign, and used it on the platform. Besides the 1,200 women receiving fruit and vegetables, I have 400 I can't put on the books for lack of supplies. I am getting letters every day asking for help, and ali I can reply is that I am unable to help families with less than three children. At present over 200 baskets of food are going out of the depot daily. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- The honorable member is the fourth who has read this matter to the House. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do not care if I am the four thousandth who has read it. Here is another quotation from the leading article in the *Barrier Daily Truth* of 10th January, 1918- >Broken Hill has sent 5,000 men to the Front. Is it to be expected that those of the diggers who come back alive will be content with such a condition as is shown by the following list, compiled .from some of the pays earned by parties in Thompson's section of the British Mine? > >d. 30 Party . . . . . . 12 3 37 ...... 3 7i > >44........ 2 1 > > . . . . . . 14 10 > >50 .. .. .. 12 3 > >52 ...... 8 4' > >53 ..... -.3 0 > >54 .. .. .. 15 0 > >70 .. .. ..9 7 > >82 .. .. .. 14 1 > >83 .. .. .. 11 9 > >84 .. .. 15 11 > >85 .. .. .. 13 5 > >86 .. .. ..4 2 > >87 .. .. ..4 9 > >88 .. .. ..8 0 > >89 .. .. .. 12 7° > >90 ...... 19 > >91 ...... 15 1 > >93 .. .. ..8 2 > >94 ...... 14 7 > >99 .. .. . . 12 3 > >103 .. .. . . 13 2 > >It will be seen from this that the ls. 9d. of No. 90 is run pretty close by the 2s. Id. of No. 44. No. 53 made 3s., and No. 86 felt quite a capitalist on 4s. 2d., till No. 87 showed 4s. 9d. > >How much has this company invested in the War Loans, at good interest, and exempt from taxation ? The point of that article is that the miners at Broken Hill work on contract. The work is set at so much per ton, and they have no say in the matter. They must either accept the price set for them, or go up the shaft. The last award of the Arbitration Court fixed a minimum wage for (contract miners - that of labourers, the lowest paid workers. The minimum was fixed at Ils. 3d., but with a provision that if any contract party pulled out they should receive not the minimum wage but only what they had earned. If those men' who had earned only ls. 9d. per shift were told that there was another contract in the next mine at which they could better themselves, and they left the work on which they were engaged, they would receive only the ls. 9d. they had earned. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- If lis. 3d. is the minimum wage, how is it possible that a man doing an honest day's work can earn only ls. 9d.? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have told the honorable member how it happens, but I cannot make him understand. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Will the honorable member say that the average wage of the contract miner is less than 15s. per day?1 {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do not know what the average wage is at the present time, and nobody else knows unless he has access to the mining companies' books. In any case, there is no possibility at the present time of obtaining a fair average, because the mines have been idle so long. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- It is strange that the contract miners at Kalgoorlie can earn from £1 to 28s. per shift. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It is stranger still that the people who are boasting about how much they will do for the Empire, and have money invested in the war loans at a profitable rate of interest, and free of taxation, should compel men to accept such a price for their labour. The attitude taken up by these people is well satirized in this statement regarding the War Loan. {: .page-start } page 3078 {:#debate-2} ### THE TWO APPEALS To the Rich fob Money. "We want some money badly, what about it, f ri'end ? Remember you're not asked to give-7-you're merely asked to lend. TO the poob for LlFE. We want you, you coward, you shirker, you thing too mean to live, By God, we'll drag you from your home, we'll take if you. wonft give. There is one policy in .regard to human life, but quite a different one in regard to capital. No wonder the Prime Minister, in his attempted explanation of his failure to keep his pledge, said that he did not blame the Sinn Feiners, or the men who were loyal to organizations outside, but the men he would never forget and never forgive for going to the ballotbox and voting " No " were those who had accumulated huge fortunes out of the war. We did not know previously that such men were so numerous. Honorable members opposite told us that nobody was making great profits out of the war. But the Prime Minister, having to make some explanation, said he will" never forget or forgive the men who made huge fortunes out of the war. {: #debate-2-s0 .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Huge profits will suit my argument just as well as huge fortunes. The Prime Minister accused these people of making huge profits out of the war, but what has his party done to stop them? He must now abuse some one or other, and he knows that his friends who are making these huge profits will have nothing to say to him because of his attack upon them. It will go out to the country that he has denounced these people, and everything will be all right again, so far as he and his party are concerned. We thank the Prime Minister, at all events, for the information that these profiteers were so numerous that they succeeded in bringing about the defeat of the conscription proposals. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Get into the procession with the , German flag ! That will carry everything. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- That is a lie. The honorable member is alluding to an anti-conscription demonstration which took place in Broken Hill the night before the last referendum: There is in South Broken Hill what is known as the Burke Ward Glee Club, the colours of which are black and red. That club had in the procession a lorry which was decorated by its minstrel party with the club's colours, black and red, and in front of it there was carried a white banner bearing in black a portrait of the Prime Minister with the words "I'll have you." The Nationalist organ came out next morning with the statement that the Political Labour League had marched under the German colours. If the honorable member has no better authority for other statements he makes than he has. for this, he has not much to go upon. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- But were they German colours *1* {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- The honorable gentleman is the best authority on the subject, seeing that his party appealed to the Germans at the last election. If lfe is going to say that a portrait of the Prime Minister on a white background with the black and red colours of the Burke Ward Glee Club behind it made up the German colours, he can do so. I have here another statement that 1 projjose to put before the House, and it puzzles me now* it escaped the censor. It furnishes yet another explanation why recruiting has fallen off to some extent. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The honorable' member knows why it has fallen ofi. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do, and so does the honorable member. That is why he is sticking to his job. This is a quotation from a speech made by **Mr. Holman** on his return from the Old Country, and it appeared in the Sydney *Bulletin* of 8th November last - >The Belgian and French farmers and landowners, instead of going to their own Governments and making claims which would be settled with the British Government, personally come to the British adjutants or other officers on the ground and begin to haggle about the trench rents and rent for other occupied territory. So Australia pays its share to the British Government. The Belgian and French peasants are sometimes grasping, and show themselves in their worst lights. We have had honorable members declaring that, as the result of the"" " No " majority, Australia is disgraced and ridiculed in the eyes of the world; and yet we have it in this speech by **Mr. Holman** that Australian soldiers are being charged rent for the very trenches in which they are fighting for the liberties of the people who demand these rentals. Another reason why recruiting has been interfered with, and why the referendum was turned down by a big majority of the people, is that there has been, on the part of the Win-the-war Government, an unjustifiable interference, under the War Precautions Act, with the liberties of the people.- A regulation framed by the Government under that Act, and de- scribed as Statutory Rule 255, provides, amongst other things, that - Any person who without lawful authority (a) has in his possession or on premises in his occcupation or under bis control any copy of a prohibited publication .... shall be guilty of an offence against the Act. And the punishment for this is six months' hard labour. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- How did the honorable member dodge it ? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I dodged it because the Government and their supporters, backed the wrong horse. They thought they would have me in the trenches, but the people decided otherwise. . {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- The honorable member would have been of no use in the trenches. It - needs a stout heart to go there. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Then the honorable member will never be in the trenches. This regulation further provides that - >Any person who, without lawful authority . . posts, delivers, or receives through the post any copy of *a* prohibited publication . . shall be guilty of an offence against the Act. Was there ever a more :ridiculous law -perpetrated on a people calling themselves a Democracy ? It offers a premium to any individual to send a prohibited publication through the post, and then to become a common informer against the person receiving it, and to .secure his imprisonment for six months. Under this War Precautions regulation two booklets, *The Fiddlers* and *Defeat?* wer» suppressed. Whatever may be the views we hold with regard to the temperance question,' it cannot be denied that these pamphlets were issued by the Temperance party at Home with the object of helping the Allies to win the war. The Temperance^ party endeavoured in this way to show how, from their point of view, drink was injuring the troops and the munition workers, impairing the efficiency of the men at the Pront as well as here. The action of the Win-the-war Government in suppressing these pamphlets had a detrimental effect on recruiting as well as on the "Yes" campaign, as shown by **Mr. Mauger's** attack on the Government's policy of conscription. As one who travelled through the country, I know that this action on the part of the Government excited the opposition of a considerable proportion of the populace. I could, if necessary, give a long list of publications that have been suppressed under this regulation, and I defy any honorable member to show how any of those publications could possibly have any detrimental effect upon our efforts to win the war. Pamphlets such as *Labour Unionism* and *Socialist Labour Unionism,* which were issued years before the war, were among those suppressed under this regulation. Newspapers published in London, and passed by the censors in England, were also held up. When I questioned the Prime Minister in this House on the subject, his only reply was that " if the honorable member and those associated with him withdraw their opposition to conscription, they can read and say anything they like." Speaking on behalf of the Government, that was all he could say in reply to our protests against the unwarranted prohibition of this kind of matter. Here is another fact which may be appreciated. It was put forward by **Mr, W.** H. McKenzie, secretary of the Returned Soldiers' Anti-conscription League in New South Wales, in answer to a letter by Lieutenant Thomson, who was in the opposite camp, during the recent referendum campaign. **Mr. McKenzie** wrote - >As to any union having its rate of wages reduced during the war, Lieutenant Thomson, like Rip Van Winkle, must have just awakened from a long sleep, or does he conveniently forget in his present environment the recent application of the Employers' Federation, backed up by the State Attorney-General **(Mr. Hall),** to have the wages of lift attendants reduced from £2 14s. to £1 7s. 6d. per week, on the plea that women and returned soldiers, disabled from following other occupations, could do the work. I was invited by honorable members opposite to deal with matters that had a detrimental effect upon recruiting, and to assist them in reviving the voluntary Tecruiting system. I put forward these as some of the reasons why the voluntary recruiting system has failed, if it has failed. Here we have it that a soldier who has been to the Front, and has returned with the loss of a limb, is to be rewarded by a pension, and, if he was a lift attendant before he volunteered, by securing like employment again at 27s. 6d. per week, plus his pension, instead of the *£2* 14s. per week that he was paid for the same work before he joined the Forces. Meantime, his patriotic employer is to be bene- fited to the extent of the difference between the *£2* 14s. per week that he used to pay and the 27s. 6d. per week he has now to pay for this particular work. That is ao queer way of encouraging recruiting. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- The honorable member should mention that that was- a proposal by New South Wales Labour men - Hall and Holman. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Labour has spewed them out of its mouth, **Mr. CONSIDINE.-** It was a proposal made by men described'by the honorable member and his party as representing the brains of the Labour party. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- I made no such claim. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- During the last general election the honorable member's party issued huge posters setting out that the Labour party " blew, out its brains " when _ it expelled these and other men from its ranks. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- I never admitted that the Labour party had any brains.- {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I suppose the Liberals made much of- the crossing over of these men to their side because there wag no evidence previously of any brains in the Liberal party. Whether Messrs. Hall and Holman have any brains or not, the Liberal party seemed to be glad topick up these rejects of the Labour party. In discussing the attitude of this party on the question of conscription, honorable members opposite have spoken of " organizations outside this House." The Prime Minister denounced one ' of the leading clerics of this country because he referred to the present conflict as a "sordid trade war." The right honorable gentleman almost went into hysterics over that statement; but what did he, himself, say, as quoted in his *The Day and After?* Did he not say that it was a war for the commercial supremacy of the world? Speaking in the House of Commons before the Empire Parliamentary Association, on the 9th March, 1916, under the presidency of **Mr. Bonar** Law, the Prime Minister amongst other things, said - >This war is not as other wars. This war touches the Empire at every point of its multifarious activities. It is not a war in which our Army is alone concerned ; not only a war for national existence - it is a war for commercial and industrial as well as national supremacy. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized. That, as I s.ay, is quoted in *The Day and After?* {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- Is it not quite true? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Do you admit it? {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- I should think it is obvious. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I desire to be perfectly fair, and I give the honorable member for Flinders a hearty invitation to come to Broken Hill, and explain to my constituents how a world, war for the commercial and industrial supremacy of the world benefits the workers of the Barrier or of Australia. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- It is a war for national existence. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I doubt it very much. I have here another quotation that I regard as very pertinent in view of the interjection of the honorable member for Flinders. It is a quotation from a speech made, not by a Sinn Feiner, or a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, but by the Eight Honorable Joseph Chamberlain to a deputation of unemployed shoemakers in 1896, who advocated municipal workshops. **Mr. Chamberlain** on that occasion said - >VVliat *you* want to do is not to change the shop in which the boots are made, but to increase the demand for boots. If you can get some new demand for boots, not only those who are now working, but those out of employment, may find employment. That should be our great object. In addition to the special point before me, you must remember that, speaking generally, the great cure for this difficulty of want of employment is to find new markets. We are pressed out of the old markets (out of the neutral markets which used to be supplied by Great Britain) by foreign competition. At the same time, foreign Governments absolutely exclude our goods from their own markets, and unless we can increase the markets which are under our control, or find new ones, this question of want of employment, already a very serious one, will become one of the greatest possible magnitude, and I see the gravest reasons for anxiety as to the complications which may possibly ensue. I put the matter before you in these terms; but I beg you, when you hear criticisms upon the conduct of this Government or of that, of this commander or of that commander, in expanding the British Empire, I beg you to bear in mind that it is not a Jingo question, whicli sometimes you are induced to believe - it is not a question of unreasonable aggression, but it is really a question of continuing to do that which the English people have always done - to extend their markets and relations with the waste places of the earth; and unless that is done, and done continuously, I am certain that, grave as are the evils now, we shall have at no distant time to meet much more serious consequences. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- What is wrong with that? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have not said that anything is wrong with it; but I do say that in those views, as expressed by **Mr. Chamberlain,** and as indorsed "by honorable members opposite, lies the seed of all wars. If there is nothing wrong in the British Empire seeking continuously to expand itself - to do what the English people have always 'done, according to **Mr. Chamberlain** - then every other industrial and manufacturing country in the world has a perfect right to do the same. And it is the resultant commercial and industrial rivalry that makes war inevitable. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- It must be done by peaceful methods. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Yes, when you wipe out the other fellow ! Honorable members ask what is wrong with the views expressed by **Mr. Chamberlain** ; .and I can only reply that the *Barrier Daily Truth* was fined £100 for printing that quotation when I used it in my first election speech, in order to define my attitude regarding the wari- {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- I hope you refunded the fine out of the generosity of your heart. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- No, brother, my heart pays no more dividends than does your own. I use these quotations in an endeavour to make plain the opinons held, not merely by myself - because I am only an individual - but by those who sent me here, and by people who are largely increasing in number every week. Honorable members may laugh- {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- No, no ! {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I am not speaking of the honorable member but of others who laughed when I was tauntingly asked whether the pronouncement by the Labour Conference in January last had been obtained from the Bolsheviks of Russia. But it is the ideas of the Bolsheviks that are going to transform the world. The only thing wrong with the Russian revolution is that it is confined to Russia; and I pray that before many days it will cross the border- and send the Kaiser and every other parasite in Europe out of existence. The history of the British race has shown that, whenever a revolution has taken place on the Continent of Europe similar ideas have manifested themselves in great political upheavals in British countries. Honorable members opposite are absolutely out of touch with the feelings of the people - at any rate, of the workingclass men and women of this country - in reference, not only to the war, but to the methods that are necessary to readjust society in keeping with the development of the race. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- You are out. of touch with the movement in Britain ! {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I am not out of touch with the movement in Britain, or with the views put forth by **Mr. Ramsay** Macdonald and other Labour leaders there. It is amusing to hear the interjections of those honorable gentlemen who almost went into hysterics of joy when the revolution broke out in Russia; when the bush fire started there was smiling, but they are not smiling now. The daily press hailed the movement with joy when it was merely a question of substituting one set of masters for another in Russia; but when the working classes seized on political power, and for the first time in their history established a working-class Government that properly reflected the views of the Russian proletariat - and when those people succeeded in doing more than are the legions on the Western Front - a very different view was- taken. The German Empire is rocking with the propaganda of the Bolsheviks. We were told in last night's cables that to-day Germany is permeated with 'secret societies distributing anti-military and other revolutionary literature; -and I "make bold to say that, when this war is finished, it will be found that the propaganda of the Bolsheviks in Germany and other continental countries of Europe has ' proved a more effective weapon in bringing about a lasting peace for the people of the world than all the tirades and platitudes of patriotic gentle-; men opposite. What have the Russian people done? Through the Bolsheviks Government they have taken the land away from the Grand Dukes and other parasites. For the first time in history they have made patriotism profitable for the working classes of Russia, and have shown that the true interests of the country lie in giving the land and the workshops to those who produce the wealth of the country. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Do you want that done here ? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- In Australia something like 2,75p.000 people are allowed to exercise the ballot,- and, according to the census statistics, 2,000,000 of these do notrown an inch of the country for which they are asked to sacrifice their lives and' liberty, whilst 460,000 of the remainder - do not own £100 worth of land. Without wearying honorable members with figures, I desire to say that it has been estimated on the census returns that something like- 15,000 people own Australia. That fact I present to honorable members who talk . so glibly about " equality of' sacrifice." What has wealth done? If the land of Australia were given to the peopleT it might, of course, involve some hardshipto those who own a number of estates orstajtions. -Many honorable members know that if there is a land ballot in New South Wales, or in any other State, there arehundreds of applicants. Let the land begiven to the people, and thus rid ourselves of the anomaly we find in Australia,. When the people of Australia own Australia, there will be no need for conscription. No German or other enemy would find itpossible to establish foreign rule or despotism here if the people really owned the country. When the old Roman Empiretottered to its ruin, there was the same phenomenon. The soldiers of the countrydid not own the land, and had not where to lay their heads, as was said about One greater than they. The state of affairs that brought about the disruption of the Roman 'Empire, that has ruined every empire since history began, theaggregation of wealth in the hands of the few and the alienation of the land from the people, exist to-day, and the workingclass people of this and every other country are engaged in a war greater even than that now raging in Europe. TheEuropean conflict, although the greatest war that has ever occurred in the history of humanity, is nothing in comparison with the great class war that has been waged ever since man has had the slightest rudiments of civilization. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- How many people in thiscity would go and work on -the land in< the country out of choice? . {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I cannot answerthat question ; and, even if I said what thehonorable member wishes me to say, it would not -satisfy him. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- What would you do on theland without any knowledge -of it? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Who told the honorable member I had no knowledge of it ?* I have worked on the land. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- You would sell it to the best buyer. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I worked on- the land for 15s. a week, driving a. five-furrow -disc plough. I also know something more about the land from having carried my swag through this country. That is tha best way to obtain, knowledge of the land. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr BOYD:
HENTY, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- You took the earliest opportunity to get off it. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I did, and the people I represent thought I would be much .more useful to them here than "Carrying my swag or doing something else outside. I have no fault to find with their judgment. Honorable members opposite are smiling now, because some of them think I am giving vent only to my own personal sentiments, but, perhaps, they will remember another historical parallel. Do they recall how, prior to the Erench Revolution, the aristocrats laughed and sneered at the representatives of the ^bottom dogs when they first appeared in the assembly? But they did not laugh afterwards. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- And a good many of those who led the revolution did not laugh afterwards. > {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Possibly not, but the aristocrats and the exploiters of the people who laughed at the representativesof the workers when they first met them in that assembly did not laugh afterwards. When the numbers on opposite sides in this chamber have changed, and a majority holding the views I am attempting, perhaps in a halting way,, to enunciate this evening, occupy the Ministerial benches, the gentlemen now opposite me will not laugh either. The views I am expressing are not those of an isolated individual. It is because the gentlemen opposite me are out of touch with the working-class people of this country, be- cause they have got it into their heads that it is only a handful of agitators or walking delegates, as one of them calls them, or, as the Prime Minister has said, about 5 per cent, of the workers, who are ^causing all the trouble, that they pay no heed to what we say. But I tell them that it is not the 5 per cent, that is causing the trouble. It is the 95 per cent., that are pushing the 5 per cent, ahead. As time goes on,, unless- the existing evils -rare remedied, unless the exploitation that :'is going on now stops,, unless the- interests that honorable members opposite represent leave off their little game of utilizing the present European conflict for the purpose of robbing the people in Australia, exploiting their necessities and waxing fat on the blood and tears and suffering of the men with whom, they pretend so much sympathy, and for whom they bubble over with feelings of patriotic fervour, while all the time making it a profitable concern - unless, I say, this comes to a halt, there will not be too many happy faces on this side of the House after the party opposite have once more faced the electors. It is because of the actions of honorable members on the other side, the pledge breaking, the reckless disregard of the people's interests, that people outside are becoming absolutely disgusted with politics, politicians, and parliamentarism generally. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- Yet the people are better off here than in any other part of the world. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have quoted a few samples of how much better off they are. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- Isolated cases. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Yes ; there were 1,200 isolated cases set out in one statement I read. I have endeavoured' to place before the House an answer to -the Prime Minister's question, " What is the policy of honorable members opposite? " I say, speaking for myself, that my policy with regard to both the war and the problems arising out of the war, is based on the manifesto issued by the Labour Conference in Sydney, and adopted also by the Victorian Conference. Whether honorable members "give me credit or not for honesty of purpose or honest views does not concern me one iota, but I believe that this war is no different from any other war that has been waged by rival commercial combinations, and the working class of this and all other countries engaged in it are being hurled at one another's throats. There has never been a war fought yet in the interests of the working classes. The nearest approach to it is the latest struggle for freedom on the part of the industrial and agrarian proletariat in Russia. The hope of the world lies in the success of the Russian revolution, and in that revolution not stopping in Russia, but crossing theborders to other European countries, until we are rid once and for ever of all the parasites that cause war and to whose interest it is that wars should continue. We of the working class have no interest in war. If you put the question to me I tell you plainly that I will never ask any man of my class to go and fight in a country outside this. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Would you ask him to fight inside it? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Yes, when the land belongs to the people, when Australia belongs to the Australians; when we have something to fight for, I will fight quick and lively, and so will every other * working man, to see that they do not rob us of it. But while you are engaged in exploiting us inside Australia, and pointing out to us that our duty lies in going outside to fight for the people who, as the Prime Minister says, are accumulating large fortunes out of the war, you have to show the workers of Australia - and to every one of you I extend a hearty invitation to come up and explain it to 'my constituents - how a war fought for the commercial and industrial supremacy of the world is of benefit to the working classes of this' or any other country. **Mr. ARCHIBALD** (Hindmarsh) T9.0]. - We are indebted to the honorable member who has preceded me for his address. He has the advantage of being young, and therefore of possessing that fervid enthusiasm generally associated with those who turn their attention to political thought at his age. I am not going to find fault with the speech he has made. I do not think it will do any harm to the House or the country, because it gives the House and the people an opportunity to know a phase of political thought held by the honorable member as representing, as he says, and I do not doubt his word, a very important portion of his constituents. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- And others besides his constituents. {: #debate-2-s1 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- I do not know the extent of his following. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- is he speaking for his party ? {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- I am not interested in that, but it would be singularly unfortunate if his views were held by any great number of the workers of Australia. If they are, then the prospects of the people are not very bright. The honorable member has referred to one or two histori cal parallels, including the French Revolution, but I appeal to any intelligent worker of this country to ^say whether the man that can see any analogy in the conditions in Australia to-day and those obtaining in France prior to the Revolution, must not be hopelessly insane or utterly incapable of reading or understanding history. It is a singular ', fact that revolutions inflict greater harm on the working people than on any one else. I am not greatly worried when I hear views like that enunciated by wealthy men, because they can get out of the trouble. It is always lie poor that suffer, have suffered, and will continue to suffer. Will the honorable member read " The Feast of the Pikes " in Carlyle's *History of the French Bevolution'i* There he will find that after more than one revolution had taken place in France,, there was a body of troops bivouaced in a portion of Paris, and all they had to eat was bread and salt. That is what they got out of the revolution. All movements of this character that attempt to overthrow society react always upon the working people. One thing that made the old Labour party, which has been wrecked by honorable members on the other side, and helped it to do its work so effectively for the benefit of the workers of Australia, was the fact that we believed in the evolutionary movement. We were confident that the gradual growth of public opinion would eventually put us into power, and it did. The evolutionary principles advocated by myself and others on this side of the House, and, in fact, by all who built the movement up, were the source of its strength, and so surely as honorable members on the other side have wrecked it, just as surely as the sun shines to-morrow they will have to go back to it again. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- Go back to the Government benches? {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- Never mind about them. There is something more serious to think of. I am not interested so much in the occupancy of the Government benches as in the cause of Democracy, for which I have stood all my life on both sides of the world. I believe in the cause of Labour to-day as strongly as ever I did, and I am as firmly convinced as ever in the efficiency of the evolutionary movement for the benefit of the working classes. As sure as the sun shines, all this revolutionary trash, if persisted in, will ruin this country. But I have too much faith in the common sense of the people of Australia to believe for a moment that they will be carried away by any specious arguments in favour of this policy. I have nothing to say against the Russian people. Heaven knows they have Buffered enough, and, in my opinion, they have a long road to travel; but I believe they will overcome all their difficulties, and ultimately will act up to their honorable engagements with the Allies. * Let me refer now to some remarks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** with regard to the referendum and the censure motion. His speech was a marvellous utterance, but to me it appeared like the play of Hamlet with the Prince cut out. Wherever the English language is spoken, and wherever European civilization holds sway, this question of the war is all important,- and it was absurd for the Leader of the Opposition to omit special reference to the conflict in which we are now engaged. I believe myself that the referendum was justified by the military situation, but I must congratulate the honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. Riley)** upon the speech which he delivered to-day. Though I differ from him on many subjects, I must admit that his speech was the best made by honorable members on that side of the House, either in or outside of this chamber, because there was an absence of any attempt to pour a torrent of, abuse upon the right honorable gentleman at the head of the Government, or upon any of the honorable members who are associated with him. The honorable member for South Sydney certainly put up a strong case in support of the attitude taken up by opponents of the Government on the question of the referendum, but he failed to realize that America, having come into the,conflict at such a late date, was not likely in the near future to be a strikiug force sufficiently important to compensate for the collapse of Russia. Had America come into the war twelve months earlier, there would have been greater justification for his optimism. We have only to remember the time it took the Mother Country to marshal and equip her forces to realize that America cannot at once make her influence felt. As I have said, I think the Government were justified in their action with regard to the referendum, and it is singular that so much resentment was evoked by a chance reference of mine to the influence of the German vote. We must judge by the facts, and the facts show that, in the last general election, honorable members opposite did have the advantage of the German vote. They certainly did get the Sinn Pein vote, the Industrial Workers of the World vote, as well as the vote of the militant industrialists, but they did not get the support of all the industrialists of Australia, and that is why I am hopeful for the future of this country. On that occasion, I should say, the Nationalist candidates received from 50 to 60 per cent, of the workers' votes. I know this was so in my own district for, while I expected a majority of about 2,000, I really secured a majority of about 4,000. It is a matter of some interest to notice that, on the conscription issue, the industrialists followed the banner and supported the "No" advocates, but any one acquainted with the various organizations knows quite well that during the last three or four years, or perhaps for a longer period than that, the executives of these organizations had been gradually coming under the influence of "the Industrial Workers of the WorldT and that a section of the Sinn Feiners were pushing their way formidably to the front. There is no doubt also that honorable members on the other side of the House are praying that this conscription issue will be continued, as it is the only thing that is keeping their party together. If conscription were out of the way they would be done, and so they have to make it as live a question as they can. That, I think, is the explanation of the fact that a large number of unionists are nob in favour of conscription. I believe with tEe honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** that if, when **Mr. Hughes** returned from England, a proposal for conscription had been submitted to the people it might have been carried, but since then there has been ample opportunity for the elements. I have mentioned to agitate the minds of industrialists to such an extent that they are prepared to allow the present (crowd to retain control of the various unions, because they lock upon them as a guard against the possibility of conscriptionf Theyjyere successful at the last referendum, but the general election results show that on any other question Australia is prepared to scrap them when an opportunity occurs. That, as I understand it, is the correct interpretation to put upon the recent political .history ot this country. Amongs'u a great number of unionists there i-* what I would call a certain amount of moral cowardice. Honorable members opposite must realize that the "No" attitude is wrong, but they have not the courage to make a stand against it and attempt to oust from the executives of their unions those men who have no right whatever to speak for the majority of unionists. I have in mind one union which, with a membership of something like 12,000r yet allows about 200 men to direct its policy against, perhaps, the wishes of the majority of the members, by the adoption of a system of terrorism and tyranny. I am not here to defend the attitude of the ma- jority, because my policy always has been to make things as lively as possible for those with whom I disagree industrially, and either to get out or force them out of any position of authority. Knowing as I do from the results of the last general election that the majority of industrialists in general are sound on the general principles of trades unionism, I realize that on the conscription issue they have committed a grave error of judgment. In view of all the facts one cannot help feeling amazed at so much talk about Australia being a Democracy. There was a time when this country could be called a Democracy; when, whatever differences of opinion we may have held, we adhered to the principle of representative Government, which, according to Lincoln's wellknown axiom is defined as "a Government by the . people, for the people, and through the people." Honorable members on this side of the House still stand for that principle, but honorable members opposite have abrogated it, and instead of standing for a Democracy to-day they represent an autocracy. What is the position ? Honorable members opposite are not free. They cannot even negotiate with this Government or with anybody because the autocracy outside dictates to them their policy. We have heard the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** declare that their policy was drawn up at the last Victorian Conference. It was ; but it was also to be subject to modifications from time to time as the Conference may decide, and such modifications were to be dictated to the men who repre- sent the Labour organizations in Parliament. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- How long did you put up with it? {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- I did not endure it for an hour. That is the reason why I followed **Mr. Hughes** out of the party. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Did not the conference formulate the policy of the party when the honorable member was in it. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- Yes; but a member was not interfered with during thelife of a Parliament, and after a dissolution, if a man did not care to pledge himself to any changes in the platform, he did not stand again in the Labour - interest. Conscription was a matter with which every member of the Labour party was free under his pledge to deal as hepleased. Honorable members opposite - speak with their tongue in their cheek. Was there ever such contemptible hypocrisy ? They have made speeches day after day, two-thirds of which have beenrevolutionary rubbish. They" know that, they are bound hand and foot to 'the Labour organizations of Melbourne,Sydney, Adelaide, and Brisbane. What is the use of their canting about Democracy ? They are not free imen. In my time, the Labour movement was verydifferent from what it is now. ' Do you think that men of my stamp were suchfools as to try to build up an autocracy in the nineties ? The success of the Labourparty was due to the fact that it succeeded in making the people believe that at that time they were being ruled by an autocracy of squatters, merchants, and others representing big vested interests. The honorable member for Barrier was* free to make the speech that He made tonight, and we are indebted to him for letting us know the views of an important section of the workers; but are the principles which he advocated those on which this country should be governed? Are they the principles of the party opposite? Plainly, honorable members opposite do not wish to hear my views; but I did not come into the Labour party to make money. I carried the Labour banner when to do so was to be persecuted, to be treated with scorn and contempt. It was years before I entered Parliament. To-day there are in the Labour movement men who did not come into it until there was something to be made by doing so, and they : "will not stop in it an hour after there is nothing to be made out of it. I was not anxious to address the House, because I think that the less that is said to keep alive bitter feeling the better ; but I do not wish to give a silent vote on this motion. I feel that I must say something regarding the pledge given by. the Government at the beginning of the recent referendum campaign. The hysteria of members opposite regarding tfie breaking of that pledge is amusing. The Labour party was put into office in 1914 because it promised to use the last man and the last shilling in winning the war. The present members of that party have not attempted to defend their breaking of that promise,, although they make a great deal about the present position of "the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made a mistake in giving the pledge that he did on- opening the recent referendum campaign. The- country had given a mandate to the National party, and the -voting of. " Yes " or " No " on the conscription issue did not concern the -existence of that party; but the right honorable gentleman has been so much abused that I shall not say- anything against him now. In loyalty to him, I waived, my personal, views;, as I have done before under similar circumstances, and indorsed the pledge, believing that it would have sufficient weight to secure an -affirmative vote. What political skunks we have in Australia to-day when men -dike Holman and Hall- {: #debate-2-s2 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw that expression. . It is not parliamentary to apply it to the Premier of a State. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- Then I withdraw it. The Prime Minister has taken all the "blame on his own shoulders, and says nothing, but I am absolutely certain that the two men that I have named advised him to do what he did, and promised to stand behind him. Now they abandon him1. In "the piping times of peace" a Government that had made a pledge such as the Bendigo pledge, would have had to go out of office; but in the present c'rcumstances it would be criminal to allow members of the Opposition to hold office, even for five seconds. The consequences would be too serious. Although they may ignore the war, it is to us a terrible reality, and although we cannot get our way in regard- to conscription, it is our duty to give all the support that we can under the voluntary system to the boys at the Prout, and to show the Empire and our Allies that Australia does- not waver in its determination to stand by them to the best of its ability. What would be the result? The party opposite would come into office, and 1 venture to say that within twenty-four hours a cable Would be sent to London to Philip Snowden or Ramsay MacDonald, informing the people of Great Britain that the Australian Government favoured an early peace on the lines set out by- the honorable member for Barrier. That is the situation which has to be faced by honorable members on this side, whether they like it or not, and by the country. So far as I am concerned, the party opposite will never get into power but in one way, and that is by the votes of the people at the ballot-box. I shall not assist them to power, because I look upon them as an element of danger to the integrity and safety of the Empire and of Australia. Holding this view, I have to choose .the lesser of two evils. I must stick to the pledge, and sacrifice the ttovernment, or ignore the pledge and stand by the Empire and its best interests. Right or wrong, I shall not hesitate to do what I think right, and I am prepared to . sacrifice the pledge and stand by the Government. I do not believe that the Government should have resigned. I think it would have been far better if they had frankly taken the people into their confidence, explained to them the position, and told them that in the circumstances they did not think it in the best interests of Australia1 that they should resign. My experience as a public man for twentyfive years has taught me that the people do not mind a man making a mistake if he is prepared to own up. If a man makes a mistake, it is a thousand times better that he should- frankly and openly tell the people that he has done so than * that he should attempt- in any way to escape its consequences. I am not censuring the action taken by the Government on this occasion ; it- is merely that I hold one view, and they hold another. I do not complain that the Government are again in office. I hope that they will continue to be there. The party, opposite have displayed spite and malignity against the Prime Minister,, and have- hunted him> like sleuth hounds, with bitter and violent hatred.- I have enough faith in the workers of Australia to believe that any feeling of that kind against the right honorable gentleman will die down before long. He has committed faults, as all of us have, but his power and ability must be acknowledged by every one. There is no member of thi9 Parliament who has had such an intimate connexion with the British Cabinet in relation to the war, or who has received in such a degree the confidence of the leading Imperial men in London and Paris as has the Prime Minister. Do honorable members mean to tell me that, because of the pledge which has been referred to, we can sacrifice the services of such a man? In spite of the howling of the press, to do so would be, in my opinion, insane. I hope that whatever misfortunes may fall upon Australia, we shall never be governed by the press. We all know the great administrative ability of the Prime Minister, we know the work that he has done, and in view of the fact that he is so- closely in touch with the Imperial Government and the public men of Prance, it would be sheer madness on the part of the people of Australia to deprive themselves of the services of such a man merely because he made what, in my opinion, was a hasty pledge. I have never hesitated for an hour to decide that at this crisis the Prime Minister must be in charge of affairs, pledge or no pledge. If it were a matter of the safety of Australia and of the Empire, I should not hesitate to break another pledge to-morrow. The idea of handing this country over to the party opposite, permeated as it is with revolutionary rubbish, is impossible to me. We know the work that they have already done. Let us consider it for a few moments. Let us look on this picture and on that. When the Hughes Government was formed immediately after we left the Labour Caucus, the coal strike broke out for the purpose of overthrowing us. We know how that was fixed up in a few days by Judge Edmunds. We had a more formidable strike only a few months ago, which was brought about for the purpose of destroying the Government of this country, and putting the Opposition in power. With the revolutionary purpose of seizing the government of the country, they were prepared, as they did, to plunge the people of Australia into misery. The result of the policy of those on the opposite side associated with that strike was that in Australia, the land of plenty, little children cried for bread. During the time **Mr. Hughes** led the Labour party no child in Australia had to cry for bread.- We never engineered strikes to overthrow the Government of the country, and we never brought about misery amongst the people. We have here a means of judging the" two parties. We have the evolutionary Labour party carrying out principles upon which we worked successfully for years, and we have the revolutionary party, the only result of whose operations has been that, in the richest and most highly blessed country in any part of the- world, children have been reduced to cry for bread. This has been the result of their brilliant statesmanship and their revolutionary claptrap. We heard complaints the other day of what is occurring1 at the present time in Sydney. There were men there who left their work. They might have demanded a ballot to decide whether they should strike, but they did not do so. The work of the country had to be carried on, and other men took their places. Now they are feeling the effects of the insane policy of those who led them into a blind alley. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- One of the supporters of the National Government moved the strike resolution. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- Taking all these facts into consideration, by no stress ofreasoning could we hand over the country to honorable members opposite. To do so would be one of the greatest mistakes that could be made. It is said that the present Ministry should have made way for others, but I do not know any honorable member on this side of the House who would have the confidence of the majority of the party sitting on this side that the right honorable member for Bendigo possesses. I appeal to honorable mem'bers opposite that something should be done for the purpose of mitigating the bitter feeling now existing. Ever since I was a lad the Labour party has advocated class consciousness, but now no such thing exists; there is class hatred, and it is a growing feeling which is bearing a crop of bitter fruit. Honorable members opposite are working to do all they can to destroy their country. At any rate, if that is not their object they are working very hard to accomplish that end; it will be no fault of theirs if it is not brought about. It is nearly time that they realized, with other portions of the Empire and with our Allies, that they should be part of the Government of tie country. Their answer is that many things have been said against them so as to wound their feelings, but if the bitterness had been a hundred times greater it would not justify their refusal to assist in the formation of a united Government for the purpose of carrying on this war. What has been done in other countries can be done here, and should be done. The country is ready to weigh honorable members in the balance. If they are not prepared to accept the overtures' made by the Government asking them to join hands in carrying on the affairs of the country during the terrible times in which we are living, the people will be entitled to treat them as enemies of the country, of the Empire, and of European civilization as a whole. {: #debate-2-s3 .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS:
Macquarie -- I regret that this motion has to be debated at this particular stage in history, but under the existing circumstances it is positively necessary that the conduct of the present Government should be challenged. There are many things calling for the fullest attention of honorable members, but when a Government has committed a crime that crime should be brought before the eyes of the people, and should not be permitted to be shrouded for ever and die a mystery. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** is not responsible wholly and solely for the misdeeds and pledgebreaking of the National party. Each and every member of that party participated in that pledge-breaking.- But the Prime Minister was instrumental in dividing the people of Australia into two sections, and in creating an enormous amount of turmoil and bitterness throughout the country. He is ,now practically on trial, and the day is not far distant, I hope, when the people of Australia will demand that the National Government shall face them again, so that they may express a verdict upon the attitude of the right honorable gentleman and his followers. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** is the man who so badly misjudged the opinions of the people of Australia. When he was dining with the noble class he suddenly discovered that conscription was positively necessary; he made a mistake of thinking that that- class represented the whole of the population, and believing that it was their desire that a measure of conscription should be introduced, he voiced that opinion publicly. I have to say most regretfully that there is no greater coward in Australia to-day than the honorable member. > {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- The honorable member must withdraw that statement. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I withdraw it, but I wish to quote one or two remarks made by the honorable member in order to see whether they were justified. On one occasion he said - I do not think that conscription should be confined altogether to what is known as men of military age. It ought to be a Bill to conscript the effects and services of all nian from 20 to 60. I want to know what the honorable member is doing here if he holds the *opinion* that every man from twenty years to sixty years of age should be conscripted. There is a certain class of people in the world that likes to call upon other sections of the community to perform work it is either afraid or not capable of doing. The honorable, member went on to say - Many of them were of such an age that they could not perform the most useful and most important services, but he was sure that there were things which they 'could do. The whole of the manhood of Australia between these ages, and perhaps a little higher than sixty, who were capable of doing work for themselves might be capable of doing work for the State, and the Government ought to have the right of calling upon any who were capable of doing so. That is a most astounding statement for any man to make. Any reasonable man knows perfectly well that there are in the community a number of men of sixty years of age who may be capable of doing light work, but are absolutely incapable pf taking up arms to defend the country. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** is a person who believes in conscripting every man between the ages of twenty and sixty, but he is enjoying freedom and liberty in this country, and is not prepared to do that work himself. Men who advocate such a policy as that should set an example by doing the practical portion of the work instead of merely talking. The conduct of the Government can be -challenged on many grounds. Every pledge given by them during the recent referendum has been broken, yet the Prime Minister now desires to know why the Labour party will not join hands with him. The Labour party cannot join hands with the National party because that organization has shown that it does not honour its pledged word. It is remarkable that the Nationalists should ask the Opposition to assist them in legislating and in carrying on the war, having regard to the fact that prior to the referendum all sorts of insults were hurled at us. We were called Sinn Feiners and disloyalists, and were said to be receiving German gold. Our opponents sought, by every means, to represent us as having plumbed the lowest depths of degradation, and now the Prime Minister asks us to assist his party in legislating for the benefit of the country. He is prepared to smother up all the iniquities he has perpetrated upon the Labour party, and he asks us to let bygones be bygones. Repeatedly he, and other men associated with the National party,, have accused us of being disloyalists. I suppose that if the referendum had resulted in a majority for conscription, the majority of us would be " doing time " to-day, because I believe it was the intention of the National Government to use the War Precautions Act to the fullest possible extent. An important factor in bringing about the defeat of the referendum was the action of the Prime Minister in disfranchising a number of Australian voters. I am not in favour of any German, or other enemy, subject, having a vote, but every Australian-bom man and woman should be entitled to exercise the franchise. The most unjust feature of the Prime Minister's action was that, although all Australianborn persons of German extraction were denied the right to vote, it was possible, that had there been an affirmative majority those persons would have been compelled to fight. It is a regrettable fact that despite his action in disfranchising persons of German extraction, he permits to participate in the deliberations of the National party caucus an honorable member who is of German extraction. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The Labour party did that for over two and a half years. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- The fact that the Labour party did a thing is no reason why the National party . should do it. We never hear anything about the National party being associated with Germans. If any party in the country benefited by German gold, and the votes of people of German extraction, it was the National party, and not the Labour party. That is very evident from the result of the recent referendum when the Prime Minister decided to disfranchise those people who had so loyally supported him. For a long time past there has been -a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the Government, not only in regard to the conduct of the war, but in. regard also to the various promises made by the Prime Minister to different sections of the community. On the occasion of my first taking my seat in this House I heard the Prime Minister declare - " There are two classes of people in this country with whom I should like to deal severely. .One is the person who will not fight to defend his country, and the other is the man who is making large profits as a result of the war. If the opportunity presents itself I shall deal with them severely." The right honorable gentleman has endeavoured to deal with one of those classes, but he has made no effort to penalize those persons who are accumulating money as the result of the war. More exploitation is taking place to-day than at any other time in the history of the Commonwealth. Day by day the cost of living is increasing, and the purchasing power of the sovereign is diminishing. But the man who, some time ago, said he would settle the exploiters has refrained from interfering with them at all. All he has done since he has been a member of the National party has been to abuse the people who are opposed to conscription. The Prime Minister, if my memory serves me rightly,, told the people that he was going to launch a gigantic shipbuilding scheme. He led the farming community to believe that within a very short period he would have available- sufficient vessels to take away their produce. He led the whole community to believe that he would have the means of immediately getting rid of the surplus products of this country. As to the shipbuilding scheme, he consulted various unions in the Commonwealth, and asked them to break down one of the vital principles of unionism - a principle for which they Had been fighting for the past fifty years. Because they would not submit to the terms he dictated - because they would not adopt the contract system - the Prime Minister said, "I do not care twopence whether any ships are constructed or not, or whether Australia's surplus products are exported or not, I am not going to construct one vessel unless the unions agree to my terms *I* and conditions." The result of this is that no attempt has been made by the Government to build even one ship, to say nothing of the number originally mentioned by the right honorable gentleman. _ {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- He had not very much chance to do anything six or seven months ago, owing to the strike. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- This promise was made after the strike. After all, was that strike created by the workers themselves, or was it due to the direct vindictiveness. of the Prime Minister and his supporters ? The Prime Minister and his supporters created it. If the honorable member really wishes to know who was the chief culprit, let me say at once that it was **Mr. Beeby.** He, in my opinion, was instrumental in bringing about the trouble. But, strike or no strike, war or no war, Australia has to progress. The Government have failed to carry out their promise in connexion with the shipbuilding scheme. Instead of Australia's products going on the dump-heap, or being cast overboard, they could have been exported and used to the best possible advantage. The failure to export has been due to the lack of shipping. Some time ago the Prime Minister announced that he had placed an order in America for the supply of fourteen vessels, and that, within a very short period, they would be here.. We believed that those ships would be brought into commission within a very short period. We suddenly learned, however, that information had been received fxom the "United States that the ships could not be built because sufficient hardwood was not available, and would have to be obtained from Austral ia, There seems to be no valid reason why the Prime Minister should have placed such an order in America, seeing that these ships could be built here just as well as in any other part of the world. It would have been a more democratic move on the part of the Prime Minister had he arranged for the construction of ships in Australia out of Australian, material and by Australian workmen. In that way our unemployed would have been absorbed to no small extent. It is very debatable, however, whether the Prime Minister desires to make use of our Unemployea. It would csuit him and his followers far better to have quite a lot of unemployed in this country, rather than that the whole of our labour should be provided with work. I dare say it is for these reasons that the right honorable gentleman has decided to hang up the shipbuilding project and various other new industries which should have been brought into operation long ago. {: .speaker-KK9} ##### Mr Jensen: -- The honorable member does not know what he is talking about. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I know that the Government may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but it is not capable of fooling the whole of the people the whole of the time, as it is trying to do. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Abraham Lincoln the second ! Mri NICHOLLS.- I wouTd sooner be so described than occupy the honorable member's position. The position of the honorable member and some of his fellow supporters of the Government is a strange one. They tell the people that they are opposed .to the actions of the Prime Minister, and yet they will not vote against him.. They fear that if they supported this motion the Labour party might take over the reins of government. They are prepared to back up the Prime Minister in all his misdeeds and misdoings, rather than run the risk of having to face, the people and of the Labour party being returned to powers The Government and their supporters are actuated by the desire to retain their positions and the emoluments attaching to them. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- That is very like an imputation of motives against honorable gentle-' men. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- The Minister may please himself how he votes. For some time certain disabilities have been placed in the way of our wheatgrowers. About the end of 1915 or the beginning of 1916, the Government decided to take possession of the wheat'growa by the wheat producers of this country, and to pay a certain rate per bushel for it. The farmers were promised approximately 4s. lOd. per bushel for the 1916-17 crop. Up to the present, however, they have not received that amount, although I believe that the money is in the Treasury ready to be paid to the farmers at any moment. Why have the farmers not received it? **Mr. Rodgers.** - There was no promise in respect of the wheat. There was a promise of an advance, and that promise has been fulfilled, o {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- It has not been carried out. The farmers received a first advance of 2s. 6d. per bushel. They were promised another advance of 6d. per bushel, but it was taken from them by way of a deduction on account of the quantity of wheat that had been destroyed by weevils and mice. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Not at all. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Lamond: -- They mistook it for a war profit! {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Perhaps so; but I repeat that the farmers have not received payment as promised for the 1916-17 crop. A deduction was made on account of the quantity destroyed by weevils and mice. It will be remembered- that I asked the Prime Minister if he intended to refund the money which was deducted for the loss, and he said that he knew nothing about the matter - that the wheat waa pooled. But the farmers are the wheat poolers, and they are the persons who are held responsible for the loss. It does not appear to be fair on the part of the Government to firstly' take possession of *the* wheat, secondly not to pay for it, and thirdly to charge the farmers for its destruction!; but that is exactly what has happened. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Whom would you charge ? {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I would charge the people who have taken possession of the wheat, and who ought to be responsible for the loss of it. I have visited hundreds of farmers during the last five or six weeks, and they are all complaining about their treatment. Another great disadvantage under which the wheatgrower is labouring is that he cannot get sufficient bags. . There are tens, of thousands of bushels of wheat out in the open without protection, and the only valid reason is the scarcity of bags. Have the Government done anything in the way of providing bags? In order to secure their votes and co-operation, the producers were promised everything that was necessary, but the Government have failed to carry out their promises. Those who have not received their money for the 1916-17 crop are in1 many cases on the verge of bankruptcy. They had their places mortgaged before the wheat waa taken possession of by the Government, and in scores of cases the failure in the payment has resulted in bankruptcy. If there is any section of the community deserving consideration it is the primary producers, who are positively the backbone of Australia ; and yet they are being treated with injustice. If, however, we turn our attention to the wool clip we do not hear of any o'f the large squatters having been refused payment. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Has the small producer of wool been refused payment? {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I am speaking of men who are wholly and solely dependent on wheat-growing, and who have been unfairly treated. The man who lives entirely on wool-growing and who shears 10,000 or 15,0.00 sheep, is not waiting for his money; it ia immediately handed over to him. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- The man who shears 100 sheep is treated in exactly the same way. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- All the men who deal in sheep are; otherwise there would be an injustice. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Your implication is that only the big man gets his money. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- What I say is that the wheat farmer does not get his money, while the sheep farmer does, and that is because a great number of big pastoralists have been instrumental in dictating terms and conditions to the Government. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- In favour of the small farmer. " v {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- That is why these people are receiving immediate pavment. It is strange that a set price should be given for wool, and that, after the wool is landed in the Old Country, another payment should be made to the squatter. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- And to the" small wool producer. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- And to the small wool producer, but, no second payment has ever been made to the wheat-grower. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Of course it has. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- One industry has received abolutely fair treatment by the Government, while the other has been treated most mercilessly. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- There has been a double payment on each of the two pools. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I do not know that, though the honorable member appears to know all about it. I am merely offering the information I received from persons who grow wheat, and who are complaining bitterly. The next promise made by the Government was to construct wheat silos from one end of Australia to the other, but that promise has not been carried out. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- The late Government did not promise that at all, but that they would finance the States in such operations. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Then that evidently has not been done. I understand that the construction of the. wheat silos is entirely under the supervision of the Commonwealth Government. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Tenders have been accepted. ) {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- But the silos have not been constructed; and the result is that the wheat-growers are suffering a double disadvantage', inasmuch as they cannot get their wheat to market, or sufficient bags in which to store it. Had the Government done as it ought to have done, these silos would have been constructed long ago, and there would haye been sufficient ships built to transport the wheat. Quite recently the Government decided to take possession of the 1917-18 crop for something like £15,000,000; but if they are going to extend the same treatment to the producers that they have in the past, the result will not be very satisfactory, and it is quite possible that the producers may direct their energies in more profitable directions. The Government are certainly not assisting in the slightest degree to develop the country, although if any country is worth development it is Australia. The Commonwealth presents great possibilities, and will have to meet great liabilities after the war is overr Unless something is done in view of the men returning from the Front we may find some strange relations created. There is talk of placing the returned men on the land, but I see no land being prepared for them; and further, there will have to be avenues of employment for those who are not suited to country pursuits. The Government have talked very loudly about their repatriation scheme and the treatment they intend to mete out to that class of people, but they have done nothing but talk. All they have done is to denounce the disloyalty and the bad tactics of those who are opposed to their schemes. Before leaving , the question of disloyal utterances I wish to make reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister on 30th October, 1914, months after the war broke out, and quoted by the Brisbane *Standard.* It was extracted from *Hansard,* page 384, and, says that paper, shrieks for itself - >I care not what people say. It is a mere matter of caste, but speech runs free. In the organization to which I belong there are 1,000 foreigners - Scandinavians, Germans, Italians, and what not. I never ask them whether they are naturalized or unnaturalized. All he thought about at that time was whether they were good trade unionists or not. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- That is probably taken from its context. You will want to know what he was arguing. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- It is simply a statement by the Prime Minister that the organization to which he belonged had a membership of foreigners of, approximately, 1,000. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- He was speaking on preference to unionists. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -That is so, and he said that he did not care whether those people were Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, or what not, provided they were financial members of the organization. I suppose that if a person made the same utterance to-day he would get anything in the vicinity of four or five years' imprisonment. The Prime Minister's present state of mind must be of recent development. It seems remarkable that he should have changed so rapidly. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- He was describing his attitude in a time of peace. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- This was in a time of war. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- He was evidently referring to the attitude of the unions towards foreigners in peace time. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- The date was the 30th October, 1914, when the war had been in operation for some months. If I, or any of my supporters, were to make a similar statement to-day, we would get a long term of imprisonment. It seems strange that after being free to make such a statement, the Prime Minister should bring in such a vile regulation as that which he introduced under the War Precautions Act to stupefy and stultify his opponents, and block up all the avenues of discussion. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- I suppose the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Webster)** was responsible for that. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- I do not think the Postmaster-General would be responsible . for very much except getting up very early in the morning. If ever a vile regulation was brought into operation it was that War Precautions Regulation. We may talk about Czars, and Kaisers in foreign lands, but it strikes me very forcibly that there is just as great a Kaiser and despot in power in Australia at the present time. There does not appear to me to be a greater despotic leader than the present Prime Minister is. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You say he is the tool of the wool -growers. How can he be a Kaiser and a tool at the same time? {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Whatever he is, despotic regulations have been brought into operation during the past few months. Those under the War Precautions Act are the vilest ever introduced by any leader sinice the inception of responsible Government in Australia. The result qf this referendum will go down as a sordid page in "history for, ever and a day. Mi-. Considine. - But this is not a responsible Government. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Whether it is responsible or irresponsible, it is a Government which is attempting to conduct -the affairs of this country. The Prime Minister stated that freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press were in operation, but not one man who took up the side of no-conscription was permitted to express a free opinion or allowed free publication. He was not even permitted to think freely, but was surrounded by all sorts of cast-iron regulations. On the other hand, the advocates of conscription were permitted to make use of the vilest and most horrible arguments.- A pamphlet, called *The Antis' Creed,* was published, alleging that the anti-conscriptionists believed in the sinking of the *Lusitania,* the murder of Nurse Cavell, and in forty other horrible crimes. Had that been published by those opposed to conscription,, they would not be enjoying their liberty to-day, but men could do anything they liked so longas they agreed with the Prime Minister and his party. If, however, a man did anything that incurred their displeasure, the Prime Minister would have him " sure and sudden." He said the firstman that told a lie would be dealt with, but ' the very first lie was told by thePrime Minister . himself when he said, that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were in operation. It seemsstrange that the whole of the tyranny should have been heaped on those who believe in freedom and Democracy, whilethose who advocated conscription could make any statement they liked, and enjoy the widest freedom and liberty.. However, history will repeat itself. Had the Government done the honorable thing, they would certainly have resigned after the pledge given so distinctly by the Prime Minister and the Minister for theNavy **(Mr. Joseph Cook)** that in no circumstances would they attempt to govern . this country unless the people granted them the power they sought. The people refused that power, the Government met, decided to resign -for five minutes, and then went back into office. We need notdiscuss why they went back. It was because they were afraid to appeal to theelectors again. Whether their action* was constitutional or not is a matter forfuture consideration. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- They went back because of a high sense of public duty! {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Yes, that is wlrafe . induced them to resign for five minates>. and go back again. I suppose the GovernorGeneral knows his business betterthan I do, and had a perfect right to commission the Prime Minister to form a Ministry. We were told that the Labourparty could not carry on, but I supposethe party had no wish to take office. It was not the desire of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** and our party to seek office in a manner similar tothat adopted by the Prime Minister and' his party. The Leader of the Opposition would not stoop so low as to do anything like that done by the National party. It was' never the intention of the Labour party, being in a minority in the House, to take the reins of office. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- I think the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Catts)** said it was- {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Perhaps, had an opportunity presented itself, the' party might have accepted office, and then have --sought an appeal to the people on the question of conscription. . I do not suppose it would be regarded as courteous to challenge the actions of those in authority, but I want to quote from *Hansard* something which has a bearing on this subject, because it relates to similar circumstances, in. which the conduct of the Governor-General was challenged. In *Hansard,* page 3113 of 1915, there appears the following motion by **Mr. Webster,** the member for Gwydir: - > That the action of the Governor-General, in refusing to grant the request' of the Senate to submit the Referenda Bills (constitutionally placed before him by the Cook Government) to the eJoc- tors of the Commonwealth, establishes a precedent which might be irksome to the Commonwealth, and, in addition to involving the Commonwealth in further heavy expenditure, seriously hampered the good government of Australia. I leave it at that, and I suggest that the fact that the present Government came back to office will, have a serious effect upon the future welfare of this country. Complaints have been made about the dearth of recruits, and in this connexion I say that the Government and their supporters, by heaping all sorts of abuse and insults upon the people, did a great deal to hinder recruiting. Moreover, they have never attempted to legislate for the v benefit of those people who to-day are in the trenches, and who, we hope, will return to Australia in the near future. They have done nothing- for1 the repatriation of our soldiers, nothing towards the development of this country, and have never attempted to create a better system of society, or provide more comforts for the men who have left Australia to fight for the British Empire. As a matter of fact, when a strike took place recently, the Nationalists were prepared to pay £1 per day for- general, work, whereas those who have left Australia to fight for this country have to be content with the magnificent sum of 6s. per day. If £1 per dav is a fair rate to pay for work in Australia, it is fair and reasonable that men who are fighting for this country should also get something in the vicinity of £1 per day instead of 6s. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- That was the rate fixed by the Labour Government. **Mr. NICHOLLS.^** But that has nothing to do with the action of the National Win-the-war Government. It does not necessarily follow that the National Government should expect the old rate to continue. They should have endeavoured to break down some of the old-established customs, and adopted a new standard for, the payment of our troops. The trouble is the rate, fixed originally as the minimum, has become the maximum m nine cases- out of' ten. The future for Australia is- very serious. Although members of our party have been accused of being disloyal, the people of Australia on the 20th December accepted the Labour policy in preference to the policy of the- Win-the-war Government. They accepted our policy because they know quite well that if the Labour party came into power again their sons who are fighting abroad will be amply protected upon their return; and that, instead of pensions being reduced they will be increased, and that instead of women and children being in need of food, it will be provided for them. In hundreds of cases men returned from the firing line have received pensions: in > the vicinity of 22s. 6d. per week, but though they were led to believe that these pensions would be continued for ever and a day, they found out after six months that the amount was reduced to 10s. Other men who received 45s. per fortnight as a pension, have had the amount reduced to 17s. 6d. Their wives have been practically starving whilst they were fighting for the country, simply because there was not sufficient money to maintain the home. Is it likely that in such circumstances married men can be persuaded to go, or that single men will go if they know that, upon their return, they will not be fairly treated? Supporters of the National Government run away with the idea that recruiting has fallen off because the Labour party has created dissension in the minds of the people. Such is not the case at all. Any falling away in recruiting is due to the fact that the men's intez'ests are not being protected properly. Although the Government made certain promises men have found,upon their return, that in regard to repatriation no attempt had been made to provide for those who were not eligible to go upon the land. The avenues of production were not being opened up. I hope, however, that in the near future something will be done in this direction. Recruiting has fallen away considerably because the men could see that sufficient provision had not been made for the maintenance of their wives and families. In numbers of cases where married men have enlisted and left three or four children behind them, they have found that their wives could not exist on the amount of military pay provided, and I know that in a large number of instances wives of soldiers have been evicted because they could not pay their rent. This has happened in scores of cases, and still the Government have closed their eyes to the position. The Government has focussed its attention -on the industrial field, heaping iniquity after iniquity on the industrialists, and branding them as strike breakers. But industrialists constitute the bulk of those who are fighting for Australia in the firing line. There is not such a big proportion of the wealthy classes at the Front as of the working classes; the wealthy prefer to stand by and ask others to go. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- That is grossly unfair. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- It is a positive fact. The bulk of the men in the firing line come f rom the ranks of the trade unions. They are not sons of members of the Stock Exchange, or sons of members of the Million Club, or sons of directors of financial institutions. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Then why did not the honorable member's party vote for conscription to compel the sons of the wealthy to fight? {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr NICHOLLS: -- Because if conscription had been carried, regulations would have been framed to prevent these men from going. There is a desire to send the last man, but not the last shilling. Nothing was said about the conscription of wealth. What was desired was the conscription of men ; to send from this country the great bulk of the trade unionists, so that the capitalists might run it in the manner that they thought fit. That was the object of the referendum. It was not the desire of the Prime Minister to refer conscription to the people when it was referred. He was driven to the holding of the referendum by the press, and by the vari ous financial institutions, who felt that if they could get conscription carried, Australia would drop back into the hands of those who controlled it years ago. We know what the state of society was when the working man was not represented in the Legislatures of the country. The Nationalist party and the capitalistic class wish to get back to the old state of affairs, but they have miserably failed. There is one thing left for the Government. If Ministers do not care to honour their promise, let them do the manly thing and resign office to-morrow morning, or make an appeal to the people. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Mcwilliams)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3096 {:#debate-3} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Dominions Royal Commission (Imperial) - Natural Resources.v Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions - Minutes of Evidence taken in the Central and Western Provinces of Canada in 1916, Part II. (Paper presented to the British Parliament.) High Court Procedure Act and Judiciary Act - Rules of Court - Admiralty Rules - Statutory Rules 1917, No. 322. Trade Marks Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1917, No. 291. Unlawful Associations Act - Regulations Amended- Statutory Rules, 1917, No. 264. War Precautions Act- Regulations Amen led -Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 253, 254, 265, 271, 2S1, 282, 283, 302. {: .page-start } page 3096 {:#debate-4} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-4-0} #### Motion or No-Confidence {: #subdebate-4-0-s0 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I move - >That the House do now adjourn. The Government hope to get rid of the motion of no-confidence, and to obtain. Supply during the course of the week, an arrangement to that effect having been made with the Opposition. Therefore we shall not sit so late to-night as was contemplated. The understanding is that, sofar as this House is concerned, our business will be finished this. week. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.26 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 January 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19180116_reps_7_83/>.