House of Representatives
17 January 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 3099

QUESTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– There are a number of notices of motion on the business-paper in the names of private members. I have one concerning the Commonwealth Bank. “Will the Government afford honorable members an opportunity, which was promised, to deal with these motions before we adjourn over Easter ?

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

– I am afraid that there will not be time for the consideration of these motions before the adjournment.

page 3099

QUESTION

S.S. VICTORIA

Mr WALLACE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister in charge of shipping been drawn to a newspaper paragraph in which it is stated that an Inter-State steamer, the Victoria, is about to be sold to the Chinese Government?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
NAT

– I ask the honorable member to postpone the question until the motion of no confidence has been disposed of.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister has intimated that no question will be answered while the motion of no confidence remains on the business-paper.

page 3099

MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

Debate resumed from 16th January(vide page 3096), on motion ‘by Mr. Tudor -

That the House protests against -

the repudiation of the pledges of the Prime Minister and otherMinisters;

the political persecution of public men and other citizens and the pressunder the War Precautions Regulations during the recent Referendumcampaign ;

the deprivation of statutory electoralrights of Australian-born citizens byregulation behind the back of Parliament;

the general administration of public affairs, and wishes to inform His Excellency theGovernorGeneral that the Government does not possess the confidence of the people of Australia.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

.- I think that every honorable member realizes the seriousness of the present position and the responsibility that rests upon us all. This responsibilityisnot confined to Ministers and party- leaders; every honorable member must’ shoulder his share of it. The recent voteon conscription has created a most serious political situation. The few remarks that I have to offer now will be arranged underthree heads. These are - (1) the failure tosecure by conscription the necessary reinforcements for our men at the Front; (2) the “extent to which Australia’s relations’with other portions of the Empire and the Allies are affected by the vote; (3) theeffect of recent events on the public life of” Australia. I am one of those who-‘ thought the holding of the first referendum on conscription a mistake. Theholding of the second referendum was ablunder. Although I advocated conscription to the utmost of my ability,I never addressed a meeting asking the electors to. vote “Yes” without feeling the impropriety of calling on women to vote tosend men to the war. The proposition was not a fair one. Parliament should have taken the responsibility. I have never been able to follow the somewhat conflicting figures that have been published; but we know that the voluntary system in Australia has given magnificent results - results, it can be safely said, as good as, if not better than, those obtained by that system in any other country. Had any one, when, at the commencement of the war Mr. Fisher offered 50,000 men for service abroad, declared that within three years there would be over 300,000 Australian volunteers under arms, he would have been regarded as an. exceedingly rash prophet. But the voluntary system failed in Canada, in New Zealand, and in England to givethe necessary reinforcements, and it has failed also in Australia in that respect. When Great Britain found that she could notget voluntarily the men which her authorities deemed necessary, she adopted the compulsory system.

Mr Fenton:

– How many men has she got by compulsion?

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

-Over 6,000,000 men have been raised in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, of whom over 1,0130,000 men have been obtained under the compulsory system. When the voluntary system failed in New Zealand, compulsion was adopted there also, and so, too, in Canada. The United States of America, I am reminded, took no chance. Australia alone of the belligerents has not adopted compulsion. To my mind, conscription is eminently a fairer way than the voluntary system of obtaining the men needed for a country’s defence, and it is infinitely the more democratic way

Mr Considine:

– Conscription is opposed toDemocracy.

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

– The foundation stone of Democracy is equality of sacrifice. During two electoral campaigns, at least, preference to unionists was a prominent issue, and in visitingthe timber districts of my electorate, where most of the mill hands are unionists, I found it difficult to answer a question which they put to me, embodying an argument which members of the Labour party have used with effect on every platform in Australia. They said, “Is it fair that when we have taken the risks of. dismissal and victimisation in striking to better our conditions, men who have stood outside and made no sacrifice should obtain the full benefits of unionism?” That is the argument on whichthe claims to preference to unionist’s have been based. It is contended that it is not fair for men to remain outside of unions, and then to enjoy the benefits that unionism has won for unionists at their own risk. I now ask, Is it fair for families to remain outside the military movement, and to accept the benefits conferred by the sacrifice of others? The best argument I have heardfor conscription came from an old lady, the wife of a worker, during my first referendum campaign. Some one had asked, “Do you think conscription fair? Do you think that a man should be sent to the war without his consent? “ This old lady said, “ I have three boys, one of whom is in the trenches, another in the hospital, and a third just gone into camp, while my neighbour here has five big boys, none of whom has enlisted. Do you call that fair? “ Can any one say that it is fair, democratic, or honest, that whole families should take no part in the war while others are sacrificing all their available men? There are families of three, four, and five eligible boys not one of whom has enlisted.

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

– I know a family of eight eligibles not one of whom has enlisted.

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

– Those who remain here are reaping the benefits of the sacrifices made by those who have gone to fight for freedom and liberty. My friends oppositecall those “ scabs “ who, refusing to join unions,enjoy the benefits which the unions have won.

Mr Mahony:

– What are you going to do about it ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is for those who have prevented the Government from getting necessary reinforcements to say what they are going to do. What remedy will they apply?

Mr Higgs:

– Did the honorable member vote to keep; this party out of office, and thus prevent it from having an opportunity, to do something?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Ishall deal with that matter when I come to the third part of my speech. Those who prevented an affirmative vote on the referendum by exerting all their influence in every electorate of Australia have won. They have beaten us badly.

Sir John Forrest:

– Not very badly.

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

– I never argue against facts. They won by a very large majority. Australia is therefore entitled to know what system they propose to substitute for the compulsory system. The offer made by the Prime Minister, and supported by the Minister for the Navy demands an answer. The Prime Minister has deliberately said, “ We want the help of honorable members on the other side, and if I am the man who stands in their way I will get out.” The Minister for the Navy, the Leader of the Liberal wing of the Nationalist Government said yesterday, “ Come in and help us ; if I am standing in the way I will get out.” My honorable friends opposite cannot escape their full share of responsibility. Does any one say that men are not required to reinforce the Australians at the Front? An event happened at Hobart two days after the last referendum, which, if it had happened two days before the vote was taken, would have turned thousands of votes. A large transport put into Hobart with New Zealand troops. They were not wounded or disabled men, but men being sent back to New Zealand on six months’ furlough, to enjoy a well-earned rest. Why ? Because there were other ‘New Zealanders to take their places. Not one man can leave the Australian trenches or Australian hospitals in England to come to Australia for a rest, because there is no one to take his place. I know men who have been at the Front for three years. They have been wounded, sent back to England, patched up, and then sent back to the trenches. They have been patched up three times, and are again back in the trenches. Do not honorable members think that those men require a rest, and have well earned it? Honorable members opposite cannot on any political ground relieve themselves of their responsibility in this matter. Having defeated the reinforcements referendum it is up to them to do something to assist in order that our men at the Front, who are war weary, may be given a rest.

Mr J H Catts:

– Why do not honorable members on the other side give them a rest instead of trying to form a sixth division ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

–I do not admit that a sixth division was created. I have it on authority that I accept that the sixth division was formed only for training. It was never an actual fighting force, and was never in France. There was not one man of the sixth division who ought to be in the fighting line. . I repeat that my honorable friends opposite cannot relieve themselves of their responsibility in this matter.

Mr Charlton:

– Is the honorable member aware that the Prime Minister. definitely stated that if the proposal were carriedhe would not call up more men under it than would be necessary to fill up the gaps caused by casualties? How could men be broughtback if that course were followed ? .

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I do not know whether the Prime Minister said so or not, nor do I think that it matters very much. I am not taking the view ofany politician orany member on either side of the House, as the authority for what I state. I take the views of the officers in charge of our men, whose word no on© will challenge.

Mr Finlayson:

– What?

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

– Men whose word no one will challenge tell us thatmore men are required. I have said that there are New Zealanders back in their own country enjoying a well-earned rest in their own homes and among their friends. They have been able to obtain six months’ furlough, because New Zealand, having adopted conscription, there are other men to take their place.

Mr Mathews:

– I do not believe that any of them are home on furlough.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member will believe me when I tell him that two or three days before Christmas I saw many hundreds of New Zealanders in Hobart on the way to their own country on furlough.

Mr Mathews:

– Those men were sick. I do not believe they were men on furlough.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I saw the men at Hobart. The honorable member has only to take up any of the New Zealand newspapers to find out that what I am saying is correct. Those men have returned to enjoy what every one admits is a well-earned rest from the trenches, and they will be given a chance for their lives when they go back there. Not one Australian soldier can come home for a rest, because there is no one to take his place. That is an aspect of the matter which cannot be overlooked.

What will be the effect of the referendum vote? With one exception, other portions of the British Dominions have accepted conscription.We know that South Africa has put up as good a fight as any other portion of the Empire in Africa itself. No men fighting under the British flag in this war have endured greater hardships or done better work than the South Africans. We are proud to knew that a. very considerable number of the men engaged with the South African Forces are Australians. In. view of the fact that South. Africa was practically surrounded by a hostile country and by millions of natives ready to take advantage of the first opportunity to revolt,every one will admit thatshe has done, and is doing, her full share in the present war.

Mr Brennan:

– That is another argument for the voluntary system.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– There are rumblings, and if the censorship were relaxed we should hear a great deal more -than we have heard, as to the effect of the referendum vote on our Allies. It has already been referred! to in the French Chamber of Deputies in connexion with -the retention of former German possessions, which will be a. most important subject for Australia when peace terms are being considered.

Mr Mathews:

– They are no good to us.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The. first portion of the German possessions that was conquered was taken inNew Guinea by Australians. We have taken some of the colonial possessions of Germany, and when the terms of peace come to. be settled the question of the retention of German colonies will be a matter of the first importance to Australia.

Mr Brennan:

-. - No annexations and no indemnities.

Mr Mathews:

– They would be “white elephants.”

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I am afraid that some of my honorable friends opposite are rainbow chasing. Without desiring to use the expression offensively, I am afraid that they are living in a fool’s paradise. They are passing resolutions on Sunday afternoons - a very harmless way, no doubt, of passing the Sunday afternoon - which they think are going to revolutionize the world.

Mr Brennan:

– Better a fool’s paradise than a jingo’s hell.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) to cease interjecting.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It has already been stated in the French Chamber of Deputies that if Australia desires to have a sayin the final settlement of the terms of peace she must take her full part in the war. After all, is not that a fair proposition? If the war should continue, and if the Australian. Forces at the Front are steadily and continuously reduced because there are not sufficient men to take their place, we must reduce the number of our divisions or our men must be incorporated with other portions of the British fighting forces. What will be our position when the Canadians, New Zealanders, British, French, and Italians realize that by compulsion they have been, securing the number of. men they required to keep their forces up to their full fighting strength to the close of the war; and that Australia is the one portion of the British Empire that has cried “ quit “ ? It will not strengthen the claims of Australia when the final settlement comes to be determined.

I make a final appeal to honorable members opposite. I am not appealing to one or two men on the other side who do not believe even in voluntary recruiting, and would not let one man go from Australia if they could help it.

Mr Considine:

– Who are they?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member is one of them.

Mr Considine:

– Does the honorable member say that I would prevent men going to the war ?

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

– The honorable member said so last night, and he said more than that.

Mr Considine:

– I rise to a point of order.- I desire to correct the honorable member’s statement. I never at any time made the statement he has attributed to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. He has not raised a point of order. He may make a personal explanation if he thinks it necessary after the honorable member for Franklin has spoken.

Mr Considine:

– I rise to another point of order. I ask that the honorable member for Franklin be made to withdraw the statement that I would prevent men from going out of this country to fight. I never made that statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will have an opportunity, if he has been misrepresented, to make a personal explanation after the honorable member for Franklin has resumed his seat. It is not in order to interrupt an honorable member while speaking in order to correct a misrepresentation.

Mr Brennan:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the honorable member’s point of order?

Mr Brennan:

– I submit that it is the right of any honorable member to call for the withdrawal of what he regards as an offensive statement. A statement has been made by the honorable member for Franklin which is regarded as offensive by the honorable member for Barrier, and I submit that the honorable member for Barrier has the right to call for the withdrawal of that statement.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I heard no offensive words used by the honorable member for Franklin. As I have already said, if there has been misrepresentation, it is not in order for an honorable member to interrupt a speech in order to make a correction. The proper course is for the honorable member, immediately after the honorable member in possession of the floor has resumed his seat, to make whatever correction he deems necessary.

Mr Fenton:

– The words were offensive to the honorable member for Barrier, anyhow !

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member is out of order in interrupting the Speaker.

Mr Fenton:

– This is a new practice !

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member to cease his interjections.

Mr Fenton:

– I only say that it is a new practice!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I name the honororable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) for disobeying the order of the Chair.

Mr Fenton:

– It is a new practice!

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! I wish to inform the House that it is the business of the Chair to see that order is maintained, and I call attention to the following standing orders: -

  1. If any member shall wilfully disobey any lawful order of the House, he may be ordered to attend in his place to answer for his conduct. …
  2. No member shall converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance whilst any member is speaking, or whilst any Bill, Order, or other matter is being read or opened ; and, in case of such noise and disturbance being persisted in after the Speaker has called to order, the Speaker shall call upon the member making such disturbance by name, and such member will incur the displeasure and censure of theHouse.

In this case the honorable member for Maribyrnong has offended against another standing order in repeatedly interjecting after being called to order. I have warned honorable members that thepractice will not be permitted; and I, therefore, call on the Prime Minister to take the necessary action under the standing order.

Mr Pigott:

– May I be permitted totake a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can be nopoint of order until this matter is settled.

Mr Pigott:

– But I wish to call your attention-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can he no point of order until the matter before the* House is settled. A point of order may be raised after that.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– I was not in the chamber when the matter arose of which you, sir, have spoken. I assume- that I havenothing to do but submit the customary motion. I venture, however, to ask thehonorable member for Maribyrnong toput himself right with the Chair.

Mr Fenton:

– What am I required to do?

Mr Orchard:

– Apologize to the Chair.

Mr Fenton:

– Is this another Speakeror another czar? I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Pigott:

– When the Prime Ministerwas entering the chamber, a moment ortwo ago, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) referred to him inthe words, “Here comes the executioner.”

Mr Fenton:

– That’s right ! Tell talesout of school!

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong is offending again.

Mr Pigott:

– Theremark of the honorable member for Batman appears to meoffensive, and I wish to know whether it is in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Batman was certainly notin order- if he made an offensive reference to anyhonorable member. If he did so, I ask him to withdraw:

Mr Brennan:

– Certainly; I withdraw. ,

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– <I can assure the , honorable member for Barrier that I had not the slightest intention to misrepresent him; but if I understood him aright last night, I cannot regard him as representing the great majority of honorable members sitting opposite, or the workers of Australia. What I understood was that the honorable member said he would not ask any one to leave Australia to fight, and that, when some honorable member interjected, “ Would you fight if the enemy came here?” he replied, “ I would, if we first had the land divided between us, and we had something to fight for.” -If that be correct, I can only regard the honorable member, when he says he represents the workers of Australia, to be slandering those workers to an extent that no other public man in Australia has ever ventured upon. Where is’ Australia being defended today? I remind honorable members opposite that in 1903 the first Commonwealth Parliament passed a Conscription Act for Australia.

Mr Fenton:

– No.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member has the record there, and he may refer to it.

Mr J H Catts:

– That was for home service.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And, in the case of the Navy, for service overseas.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Navy men volunteer.

Mr McWilliams:

-In 1903, as I say, a Defence Act was passed which secured the full and complete approval of the then Labour party. That Act provides that the Citizen Forces shall be liable to be employed on active service whenever called out by proclamation, and, with certain exemptions, it conscripts every man from eighteen to sixty years of age for the Citizen Forces. A proviso was inserted afterwards to the effect that the Military Forces, unless they volunteer, shall not be required to serve abroad beyond the limits of the Commonwealth or Territories under the Commonwealth.

Mr Considine:

– Whose pet scheme was that?

Mi-. McWilliams-Speaking from memory, I say that that Act had the full and complete approval of every member of the Labour party in this House. In that same Act provision is made for full and complete conscription for the Navy. And what does that Act mean? It means that if one shot were fired at Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles away, or in New Guinea, every man between the age of eighteen and sixty would be liable to be called into camp.

Mr J H Catts:

– These are our own Territories.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– They are- 1,000 miles away; and yet, in the face of that Act, we are told that, if we adopt conscription, we are enslaving the people, ringing the death-knell of Democracy, and smashing trade unionism.

Mr Considine:

– That is the object.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– If conscription shackles the people, they have been wearing shackles since the life of the first Parliament. Is there one honorable member opposite, excepting, perhaps, the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine), who, if an enemy landed in Australia, would not be prepared to call out the whole fighting force of the country? If it is right to have conscription for the defence of Australia, what argument can there be against conscription when Australia is being defended far more effectively in Flanders, the North Sea, and Italy than it could be here? So long as Australia has to fight for her freedom and independence, I pray God, night and day, that the fight may always be 12,000 miles away from our shores. Does any honorable member think that we could serve Australia better by waiting until the enemy came to Sydney Harbor, Port Phillip, or any other part of the coastline ? Do honorable- members think that the real liberty and the real freedom of Australia could be better fought for here than it is being fought for to-day in Flanders?

Mr Considine:

– It is being fought for in Australia, though it is rapidly vanishing under your Government.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I ask the honorable member to read the newspapers of to-day, and see what his latest heroes, the Bolsheviks, are doing in Russia to-day - those men who, he hopes, are going to spread all over the world.

Mr Considine:

– These are charges made by German J Jews

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– What are the Bolsheviks doing in Russia to-day? The honorable member, of all the public men s of Australia, is safer in Australia to-day than he would be in Russia. I wish to impress on the people of Australia, and through you, Mr. Speaker, on this House, that the bogy about conscription, the prophecies of what it is going to do to the Democracy, and trade unionism of the country are fifteen years too l’ate. The law was passed in 1903, and we are living under it to-day. Are there any honorable members opposite, with, perhaps, the exception’ of two, who would care to repeal that Defence Act? I do not think there are. I wish to address myself for a few moments to the third section of my speech, and to say . that I cannot regard the situation as it exists to-day as in any way satisfactory. The Government, in my opinion, made a mistake in entering into the pledge they gave at Bendigo. The real object of a referendum is that people may give an unbiased vote, free from party influences, and without having to select any particular candidates or Government. That is the theory which caused many of us to favour the referendum, but our experience has proved quite the reverse. I say deliberately that there has been more illfeeling and bad blood engendered by the last referendum than by all the previous elections since we became a Commonwealth. It is impossible to deny that, because the fact can be realized everywhere. The Government, in pledging themselves to stand or fall on the result of the re- ‘ferendum were defeating the very object of the referendum.

Mr Finlayson:

– Defeating the principle of it.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– Quite so; but the pledge was given, and I am one of many who think that the pledge should be honoured. The Commonwealth Parliament has, I think, stood as high in the estimation of the public as, perhaps, any Parliament in the world; it has set up a high standard, and has fairly well lived up to it ; and I am old-fashioned enough to think that, when a Government pledges itself to a particular line of policy, and declares that without that policy it will not continue to govern, it ought, when defeated, to honour its word.

Mr Corser:

– What of the pledge of the 5th May?

Mr Mcwilliams:

– i do not wish to be led astray in considering these serious and important matters, and I ask to be permitted to state my case in my own way. The pledge at Bendigo was given as distinctly and as clearly as any public pledge could be. The Prime Minister, speaking for his Cabinet, declared that if the referendum were not carried the Government would not, and could not, govern Australia, and some of the members of the Cabinet went even further. The referendum was not carried; and I say, straightout, that I think the Government ought to have honoured the pledge. It is a serious thing in the public life of a country, if public men give a distinct pledge as to the adoption of certain principles, and, when defeated, abandon those principles. No Government can offend the susceptibilities of public opinion and escape unscathed. I agree. with the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Leckie) that the great majority of lie people of Australia do not think that tendering a resignation for a few mintues or a few hours, taking it back and coming in again, is carrying out the pledge in the faintest degree. I shall vote just as I think I ought to vote, and mean to state my position clearly and distinctly. I think - and I shall not dilate on this matter, because it is a subject that should never have come before the House at all - that the GovernorGeneral made a great and serious mistake in sending that memorandum to- the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I am not going to discuss it, but a word of warning should be given to this extent - that it will not be possible for any Governor-General to send a memorandum to this House without that memorandum being open to full and ‘ complete criticism. It was a proper memorandum to send to the Colonial Office, but it should never have been sent to this Parliament, and it must be clearly and distinctly understood that in not discussing it the members of this House are placing on themselves a very deliberate restriction. It must be understood, also, that if political memoranda are sent to the House by any one, and incorporated in the records of the House, they must be open to full discussion and criticism by the House.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– To make the position perfectly clear, I would point out that there is no objection to reference to the memorandum, but reflections on the Governor-General must not be made in doing so; that is distinctly laid down in our Standing Orders: it is also in accordance with parliamentary practice and procedure.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I had no intention to reflect on the Governor-General, and tried to avoid doing so, but I thought it necessary that that word of warning should be given. I do not’ think the result of the referenda showed that the people had confidence in the party that was so badly beaten on the 5th May last. My honorable friends opposite carried two important referenda to the people, and told them that it was impossible to carry on without the powers asked for.

Mr Riley:

– No.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I have rather a good memory. My recollection is that the then Labour party took the referenda to the country asking for additional powers, and stating distinctly that they could not give effect to the Constitution without them.

Mr Riley:

– That they could not give effect to the platform.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If they said they could not give effect to their platform without those powers, what did they do? They are sent here to give effect to their platform. If they appealed to. the people saying, “We cannot carry out our platform unless you give us these additional powers” - and on those occasions they went a good deal further - and if the people deliberately, on two occasions, refused to give them those powers, then, if it is right that honorable members on this side should now resign and allow the Opposition to come into power, they themselves should have walked out of office and allowed the other side to come in on the defeat of their referenda. But they did not.

Mr Riley:

– That was different altogether.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. One is ours and the other is the other fellow’s.

Mr Anstey:

– It is the difference between one man’s meat and another man’spoison.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Apparently what is right for us is quite wrong for the other fellow. Yet, on this occasion, the party of twenty-two members opposite are making the claim to be allowed to violate every principle of responsible government and to ‘go behind the distinct direction’ given by the people in May last after a fair fight - and no fight was ever carried on more vigorously from one end of Australia to the other. The people were asked to make a choice between the Liberal or National party on the one side, and theLabour party on the other, and by the greatest majority that has ever been given in the Commonwealth, with a clean sweepof eighteen seats in the Senate and twothirds of the members of this Chamber, the National party was sent in by theelectors, who decided that they should govern Australia for three years, and that those holding the views of the Labour party should not govern Australia forthree years. There is no getting away from that position.

Mr Finlayson:

– You have forgottenthe promise that you would not re-intro duce the referendum.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– No such promise was given, but a distinct promisewas given that conscription would not be enforced either by regulation or legislation until the people had had another opportunity of dealing with the matter.

The one thing that overshadows everything else, to my mind, is the obtaining of reinforcements for the men at the Front. In view of the fact that the greatest bitterness that has ever existed in this country was created by the late referendum, and that there is a personal hostility to an extent that has never previously existed against any Government in Australia against the present occupants of the Ministerial bench, I have been thinking for a considerable time that it would be in the best interests of obtaining reinforcements if another Government occupied the Treasury bench.

Mr Riley:

– Hear, hear! From that side of the House, and we are prepared to assist them.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is of no use toclose our eyes to the fact, for it is impossible for any man to go into any por- tion of Australia and not find, that the hostility existing between the Labour1 organizations and the present occupantsof the Treasury bench is so intense that it is having a very serious effect on the obtaining of recruits under the voluntary system. , Holding that view it is my duty - and I take the responsibility, whatever happens - to give expression to it.

Nothing matters but winning this war, and nothing is so important to me as that the men who have been in the trenches for three years, many of them patched up and sent back again from time to time, should be given a rest and a fighting chance for their lives. Whatever means will give reinforcements, whatever means will enable us to see that those men get the assistance which, God knows, they want, and which every man in this Parliament and in. every party in Australia stands pledged to give them, should be taken. We pledged ourselves to help them when we sent them away, cheering them, singing “Australia will be there,” and showering honours on them. We must not let them rot unaided in the trenches. Are we going to see them wounded and patched up and sent back time after time, when we know that the New Zealanders are coming back, and getting a well-earned rest, because there are men to take their places? Not one Australian can. bo allowed out of the trenches to-day, because there is no one to take his place. Those of us who are getting letters from friends at Home know that men who have been wounded are leaving England again, all honour to. them, and going back when they are not fit to go. There is a shocking responsibility on every honorable member of the House, and on any party that refuses to insist that these men should get the help that some of them are dying for tor -day, and dying, too,, without a quiver.

The only thing Australia has to do is to see that reinforcements -are obtained to back up her men. We are responsible. Some one said that we did not send them, there. But we did send them there, and we must take the full responsibility for having done so. The great responsibility, therefore, rests upon us to see that reinforcements are sent to help them. I think we can get reinforcements by the way I have,, perhaps- feebly, outlined. I have tried to speak without bringing into the debate the slightest ill-feeling, and have studiously avoided hurting the feelings of any man in the House. This is not a time for personalities.. It is a time in which all must accept their responsibilities. I ask my honorable friends sitting on the opposite -side, the men , .’… defeated the referendum, who. have prevented honorable members- on this side from getting reinforcements in the way which we thought the best and most, proper - I appeal to them as- men of honour, having sent those men there, to come aud assist us in every possible way to get recruits. The only thing that matters is help for the men in the trenches.

Mr Considine:

– I wish to ‘make a personal explanation. Seeing that the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) has disclaimed, any intention to misrepresent either myself or the Governor-General, I simply desire to say that. I have never at any time stated that I would endeavour to prevent men from leaving this country who wished to go to fight across the seas. My attitude since the inception of the war with regard to the volunteers has been : “ Good luck to every man who goes ; the only harm I wish him is that he comes back the same as he went,” but my quarrel’ is with the man who says that because he volunteered I shall be forced to go.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I do not propose to attempt to reply to the greater portion of the impressive speech of the honorable member for Franklin, because, if he will pardon me for saying so, I do not think a great deal of what he has said has very much to do with the question before the Chair, which is the political character and capacity of the honorable members who occupy the Treasury bench. The Prime Minister has no regard whatever for public opinion, if we may judge by his action when the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion of censure. The Prime Minister then endeavoured to stifle all criticism of himself and his colleagues, except such as might take place during the discussion of a Supply Bill, when, in the midst of a debate about the Ministry, a member on the Ministerial side .might easily intervene to put the House off the track by discussing the administration of the Northern Territory, or Papua, or some other question.

The plain duty of the Prime Minister was not to allow any questions to be answered; not to permit a Supply Bill to go through, but to follow the invariable practice adopted by Prime Ministers since the inauguration of the Commonwealth. The practice was laid down by Sir Edmund Barton. When Sir George (then Mr.) Reid gave notice of the first motion of censure in the Federal Parliament, Sir Edmund Barton immediately rose and moved, “ That the House do now adjourn.” The House accordingly adjourned, and on the next day of sitting, when the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Page) desired to ask a question without notice, Sir Edmund Barton at once replied, “ May I explain to my honorable friend that with a motion of censure pending it is the constitutional practice to suspend the answering of questions.” No business whatever was done until that motion of censure, the debate on which extended over a fortnight, had been disposed of. We can gather from the action of the present Prime Minister that he and his colleagues wish to curtail this debate as much as possible.

There’ is no reason why we should go into recess other than that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Watt), both old political hands, no doubt recognise that if they can crowd the debate into a few days the press will have but little opportunity to report the speeches of honorable members. We had last night a splendid speech by the honorable member for Barrier (Mr.« Considine), and I think the press this morning devote just about twenty lines to it.

The Prime Minister, in replying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor), after certain members sitting on the Ministerial cross-benches had informed the Government that if they persisted in the course they were taking they would wreck the purple adjective party, endeavoured to draw us off the track by saying

There has been no reference to the great war. …… We stand on the brink of a precipice, over which we may topple to-morrow. …… Nothing was said of the great and tragic situation as it presents itself to the world to-day…… By a hair’s breadth we stand on the edge of a precipice…..

Millions of Germans are said to have gone from the Eastern frontier, and strong forces are concentrating at Cambrai.

In his endeavour to answer the Leader of the Opposition he was only repeating his referendum speeches. We had heard these statements from a dozen different platforms, but we had heard also, at the end of such remarks, a further statement to the effect that, in order -

To meet this situation, filled with the portents of evil, we require compulsory powers to send men abroad to light, and if you do not give us those powers we decline to govern this country; we will not attempt to govern it.

If Ministers wish us to discuss the war, let them set apart a day, or several days, for its consideration. I should have liked to follow the example of the honorable member for Barrier, but I submit that we ought to discuss the war apart from any motion of this kind.- I propose to discuss the sins of the Government and the political crimes of the Prime Minister.

The right honorable gentleman . offers to retire from his present position if he stands in the way of the formation of a National Government. That offer is palpably insincere. Did he not tell the country that he would not attempt to govern unless conscription were agreed to? The time for him to have effaced himself, as he now says he is prepared to do, was when the Governor-General asked him to form a second Administration. He should then have refused. I notice, too, that the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Joseph Cook) states that he also is prepared to retire if he stands in the way. Do these two right honorable gentlemen speak for the.whole of the Ministry? I am anxious to hear other members of the Government in that regard.

No one will believe the Prime Minister when he says that he is willing to efface himself. I well remember the time when, in 1904, there- were three parties in this House, and I proposed a Coalition between the Labour party and the members of the Deakin party. The matter was brought up at our Caucus meeting, and the present Prime Minister, at that time a private member, bitterly and tearfully resented the suggestion. “ Supposing,” said he, “ we do have to remain, as Mr. Higgs suggests, on the Opposition side of the. House! What better could we wish for? Have we not won our way fighting strongly in Opposition ?”

Mr J H Catts:

– He made a public statement to that effect.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am speaking of what took place in Caucus in 1904.

Mr McDonald:

– I remember the incident well.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am sure that the honorable member does.

Mr J H Catts:

– He made the same statement in this House and in the Case for Labour.

Mr HIGGS:

– He said, “What better could we wish than to be in Opposition? Have we not won our name by fighting fearful odds ?” The right honorable gentleman was so affected by the suggestion of a Coalition that tears choked his utterances, and he asked to be permitted to sit down until he had recovered himself. He did sit down, and was allowed to proceed with his speech as soon as he had overcome his emotion. Honorable members can well imagine how those members of our party who were opposed to a Coalition with the Deakin party were impressed by this speech, and the suggestion that we should coalesce was defeated by a large majority. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler), who was then a member of the Labour party, will bear out my statement as to what took place at that Caucus meeting. The objection which the right honorable member (Mr. Hughes) had to the proposed Coalition, at that time may be put in a nutshell. He said, “ Sir William Lyne must be in such a Coalition, and Mr. Watson must be a member of it. We cannot have in that Government three representatives of New South Wales.” That was the reason he opposed the Coalition. The Watson Government was formed, and the right honorable gentleman was a member of it. It was formed on 27th April, 1904, and remained in office for about three and a half months.

Mr Bamford:

– Now tell us the. sequel.

Mr HIGGS:

– It will be open to the honorable member to supplement my remarks later on. When Mr. Hughes knew that the Watson Government would shortly have to go since the numbers were nearly up, he came to our Caucus meeting and actually proposed a Coalition. The members of our party were so disgusted with this change of front on his part that it was many months before he got back his influence over them.

I feel assured that the right honorable gentleman will never efface himself from the Prime Ministership unless he feels that he is about to be kicked out, or is to be appointed to a position such as that suggested in this morning’s newspapers - the position of High Commissioner or some other office in the Old Country. Australia, I believe, is getting too hot for him, and I should not be surprised if such an arrangement were made. Should the Prime Minister be sent abroad by this Government, he should not go in any representative capacity, because he does not, and cannot, represent Australian public opinion.

Mr Brennan:

– I think that Britain is pretty well informed on that point now.

Mr HIGGS:

– The British people may have come to learn that the Prime Minister is nothing but talk! A great deal of his talk is both dangerous and absurd. Take, for example, his attitude while in the Old Country in regard to the Paris Conference and the Paris Conference resolutions. Those resolutions, no . doubt, stimulated the Jingo party in Germany; no doubt they led them to go to their Government, and say, “ You can see what our enemies are prepared to do. They are prepared to deny us all trade relations ! They say they will cut out ‘ the German cancer’ and therefore we must fight on.” They were futile resolutions, and could not be carried out; but the Prime Minister, no doubt, by his eloquence, was able to do a great deal to induce the British Government to agree to those resolutions. I hope that the Minister for the Navy, who I thought at one time possessed much more backbone than he has exhibited lately, will take these facts into consideration when it is proposed to send the Prime Minister, abroad. The Prime Minister’s name has come to be a by-word in Australia, and is detested by three-fourths of the people.

Mr Bamford:

– Why?

Mr HIGGS:

– Because of his words and his actions.

Mr J H Catts:

– Because of his slanders.

Mr HIGGS:

– Because of his slanders, some of which I hope to put before the House. It would be wrong of the Government to send the Prime Minister away in a representative capacity during the approaching recess. Before he ia allowed to go, the whole question of his going should he submitted to the House for discussion.

Honorable members will forgive me if I remind them of statements made by the Prime Minister in the Bendigo speech -

The Government, elected on a win-the-war policy, confronted with a situation that makes the reinforcement of our armies vital to our existence and to that of the Empire, comes before the people and declares plainly that it cannot give effect to a win-the-war policy unless it is clothed by the electors with power to act as the circumstances demand. Fellowcitizens, it is useless to palter with this matter. …..

Then followed the pledge -

Fellow-electors, the Government’s proposal is before you. We who were elected on a winthewar policy, tell you plainly that the situation in Russia and Italy is such that without the power to insure reinforcements we cannot give effect to the policy which you approved with such enthusiasm last May. I tell you plainly that the Government must have this power. It cannot govern the country without it, and will not attempt to do so……

The Minister for the Navy was on the train, we are told, when the final proofs of this speech were looked through, and he is also reported, in the course of a short speech, to have denied that then was any dissension in the Federal Cabinet over the conscription proposals, as had been asserted by a certain gentleman in a speech reported in .that morning’s daily press. I think he was referring to a speech made by Dr. Mannix, who had got word of some little dissension in the Cabinet. Some one had told him that Sir John Forrest was not in favour of the Government proposal.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Where am I supposed to have made this statement?

Mr HIGGS:

– At Bendigo. Does the honorable member deny it? If he does, let him prosecute the Argus for having attributed it to him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But I did not speak after the Prime Minister at Bendigo.

Mr HIGGS:

– It is stated in the introduction of the report of the meeting -

The Minister for the Navy (Mr. Cook), in the course of a short speech”, denied that there was any dissension in the Federal Cabinet over the conscription proposals, as has been asserted by a certain gentleman in a speech reported in that morning’s daily press.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But I did, not speak after the Prime Minister at” Bendigo.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am not saying that the ‘Minister did speak after the Prime Minister. I am merely quoting a report of the meeting1 -

Mr. Cook said that the Federal Cabinet was unanimously behind the Prime Minister, and would adhere as one man to the scheme for reinforcing the Australian troops at the Front, as outlined by Mr. Hughes.

That scheme for reinforcing the troops carried with it a pledge made by the Prime Minister that unless the powers asked for were given, the Ministry would resign and stay out of office. Other Ministers were involved in that pledge. Mr. Jensen, the Minister for Trade and Customs, speaking at Moonee Ponds on 28th November, said -

The Ministry felt that, in view of the situation in Europe, it could not hold office if twice defeated on the question.

They have been twice defeated, and onthe second time more heavily than on the first. Mr. Watt, the Minister for Works and Railways, also, in a speech at Kyneton, said -

The Government would stand or fall by the result. ‘

And the Prime Minister, speaking at Brisbane, said -

The pledge he gave to the people was that he would bring conscription forward again if the national safety demanded it. (Cheers.) It did demand it, and he asked them now to give him that power. If they did not do so, he, for ope, would not attempt to govern the country. (Loud cheers:) Without that power it was impossible to govern the country.

We all know, also, that Mr. Webster said that the Ministry would not stay in office twenty-four hours in the event of the conscription referendum being defeated.

I want now to put on record in Hansard the opinion of the Melbourne Argus before the National party came to the conclusion that for their own safety they ought to stick together and put up with the Prime Minister and his colleagues for a little while longer. On 4th January, the Argus said -

To resign and within a short time to take up the reins of government is plainly an evasion of Mr. Hughes’ undertaking not to attempt to govern, and is a negation of Mr. Watt’s declaration” You must get some other men to govern YOU; we cannot.”

I might add that I have not very much respect for the Argus, and that that paper has none for me, although the editor says he has, as I will probably tell the House a little later on. The Argus continues-

Resignation and subsequent resumption of office, supposing the Governor-General concurs, are not even a keeping of the letter of the pledge, and they are an unmistakeable violation of its spirit.

The Melbourne Age, on the same date, referring to the pledge, stated -

This declaration binds honest men as firmly as an oath. It has only one meaning…..

He cannot be held responsible for the suggestions that have been made for evading his word of honour, but they suggest so great a depth of moral infamy in our political life that it is impossible to pass them by in silence. ….. It would be a fraudulent design to deceive and betray. Honest men do not forswear themselves by subterfuges like this. When a Government stakes its honour on the statement that it will not “ govern the country “ in a certain event, every commonsense person of decent instincts understands that the members of that Government will surrender their portfolios absolutely……

Were the dishonorable “ re-election “ or “ reconstruction “ subterfuge to find favour with a majority of the Hughes party, parliamentary government in this country would be befouled by a stain from which it could not be cleansed for many years. Political life would not longer bc possible to the man of honour……

A Prime Minister who would seriously consider the hints thrown out to Mr. Hughes to enable him to continue in power could not escape being ultimately hounded out of political life as a dishonored and degraded man. ….. His most sententious and solemn assertions would be mocked and given no credence. The charges of bad faith would be true, and there could be no answer. Tho party dishonorable enough to aid and abet him in his falsity could not hope to retain its repute amongst decent men…… The honour of the Liberal party means too much to Australia at this time to allow of its being compromised, even by representations that it is capable of the dishonor contemplated by the vicious advice to construct under the same leadership.

Honorable members may think, while they are in the Caucus room or in this House, that they can escape the influence of public opinion, but eventually they will realize that this is impossible. The views of the Argus and the Age, as stated on 4th January, accurately expressed the opinion of’ the people of Australia.

Mr.- Brennan. - On this subject, you mean.

Mr HIGGS:

– Yes; and I thank the honorable member for his interjection.

Mr Maxwell:

– Subsequently, was any modification of that view expressed; and, if so, did it also represent public opinion?

Mr HIGGS:

– On 4th January, the Argus and the Age were trying, by way of protest, no doubt, to awaken members of the Win-the-war Government to a sense of their public duty, but, having failed, it appears that they were so afraid of the Labour party that they have decided, for the time being at least, to stand behind the Government and the honorable members who are supporting the Ministry.

When the Win-the-war party came into office they did a most unusual thing. Instructions were issued to Hansard to describe the Government not, as was customary up to that time, by the name, of the leader, such as “ The Deakin Ministry,” “ The Barton Ministry,” or ‘ the “ Reid-McLean Ministry,” but as the “ Australian National Wai- Government,” which, in their opinion, was evidently the name to which they were entitled. I am wondering now what title they propose to claim and insert in Hansard to indicate this reformed and new Government. What are they going to call the Ministry?

Mr Watt:

– We are open to suggestions.

Mr HIGGS:

– The Minister for Works and Railways says they are open to accept suggestions. That being so, I would advise them to adopt the title given to the Ministry by the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which describes them as the “ Limpet Ministry,” the limpet, as honorable members are aware, being a mollusc, without backbone, but with a tremendous capacity for adhering firmly to the rock upon which it makes its resting place. The Daily Telegraph, speaking of this “ Limpet Ministry,” said -

The pledge stands, in its own words, as one which explicitly declares that the Government will not attempt to govern. That section of the obligation has long been discarded, for from the date when the referendum figures left it beyond question that the Government’s proposals had been beaten, Ministers have exhausted their ingenuity in searching for means to evade it.

Referring again to the Prime Minister’s speeches, I want to remind honorable members of one of his texts -

Greater love hath no man than this : that he lay down his life for his friend.

Mr Anstey:

– Not his own life, but some one else’s life.

Mr HIGGS:

– That was when he was inducing the young men of Australia to go to the Front, but there has never been a suggestion that the Prime Minister himself should give up his own political life. “Enlist,” he said, “and save your honour “ ; but would the Prime Minister sacrifice his political life?

Mr Anstey:

– Not on your life.

Mr HIGGS:

– It has been said that the Prime Minister has held out the olive branch to the Labour party, and honorable members may wonder why we cannot work with him. It is impossible for me, at any rate, to work with him.

Mr Boyd:

– But he has offered to resign.

Mr HIGGS:

– It is impossible for me to work with the Prime Minister, because, among other things, in his manifesto to Queensland and the other States, he said -

Unless you are wilfully blind, you must know that those who are the real, not the nominal, leaders of the campaign against the Government are playing the game of Germany in our midst, that behind them are Sinn Feiners, I. WAV. men.

Those Sinn Feiners, according to the Prime Minister,, have now become idealists, and men with whom he would be glad to work; but this changed attitude is merely for the present, possibly to try and damp the powder of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan). The manifesto stated, further -

Behind them are Sinn Feiners, I.W.W. men, and Syndicalists, men of the type responsible for the great strike which paralyzed our industries, men responsible for the rebellion in Ireland, men to whom is due the failure of voluntary recruiting, the kind of men who to-day are in power in Russia, who, in return for German gold, are offering a separate peace to Germany, and so striking the most deadly blow at the cause of the Allies.

Mr Anstey:

– Is the catalogue complete? Is there nothing in it about toads ?

Mr HIGGS:

– .Yes ; I think he described me as one, but that was merely one of his gentlemanly and complimentary expressions.

Mr Watt:

– And I think the honorable member once called a member of this side a Jersey cow.

Mr HIGGS:

– That was only when I was provoked. I never insult any man except under provocation, and then I do not always mean what I say. Those who opposed the conscription proposals of the Government were, at different times, called shirkers, slackers, cravens, disloyalists, haters of England, social lepers, and pariahs.

Mr Anstey:

– And worms.

Mr HIGGS:

– I ask honorable members who may be influenced for the moment by the suggestions of the Prime Minister to bear in mind that he does not mean to efface himself unless forced to do so. I ask them to remember the things the Prime Minister has been saying ever since the commencement of the conscription campaign in 1916. We have been described as pro-Germans, but we have evidence that the Prime Minister is a greater pro-German than any other man in this community. He is the man who allowed Julius Blau to get out of this country, and, at the time the matter was brought before the House, the Melbourne Argus referred to the Prime Minister’s action in these words -

Official documents put Mr. Hughes’ action in connexion with the case of Julius Blau, importer of eau-de-Cologne, iu a very unfavorable light. . . . The very name of this firm should have made Mr. Hughes chary of granting permission. The Attorney-General, despite the appeals of military officers, urged the Department of Defence to permit of Blau’s departure, and the visit was duly made.

The Prime Minister allowed this Hungarian, who has since been interned, to leave the country.

Mr Corser:

– The honorable member was a member of the Ministry at the time.

Mr HIGGS:

– The honorable member is repeating an audacious misstatement made by Senator Millen. Blau went insolvent, and in his evidence before the Insolvency Court he stated that the Prime Minister had stood by him until the case was mentioned in Parliament, and then, as is characteristic of the Prime Minister, he left him. The statement that I was a member of the Ministry at the time Blau left for America was made by Senator Millen at Rockhampton. Evidently the Conscription party thought that Queensland, and Rockhampton particularly, required special attention, for they sent up there three Ministers - Senator Millen, the Assistant Minister (Mr. Groom), and the Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster). The latter, I am sorry to say, had rather a rough reception, but that may have been due to his having told his audience that they were mongrels. Of course, they resented that statement by throwing blue metal at the Minister’s motor car - a very wrong thing to do. Senator Millen, at the conclusion of his speech atRockhampton, said -

With regard to a statement made by Mr. Higgs at his meeting last night - that Mr. Hughes had given permission to a German, Julius Blau, to go to America, although the Defence Department was against his going - I wish to say that at the time Mr. Hughes did that, whatever he did, Mr. Higgs was a member of his Cabinet. Mr. Higgs knew all about it, and, if he thought it wrong, his duty was to have denounced it and left the Cabinet.

That was an audacious misstatement, not to call it by a harsher term. The case of Julius Blau was brought under my notice when I was a private member, in April, 1915, by a member of the New South Wales Government, who objected to the then Attorney-General allowing this man to leave Australia, and I wrote to the Defence Department asking for anexplanation. I received this letter on the 29th April, 1915-

With reference to your letter of 23rd inst., enclosing certain questions relative to Julius Blau, &c, I desire to append for your information the following replies to same : -

Yes; but he has not yet returned.

and (3) Permission was given at the request of the Attorney-General, who satisfied himself as to the case.

That is the action of the man who had the impudence to call honorable members on this side pro-Germans. I was very interested to notice that the Prime Minister, in a speech in Sydney, issued a warning to liars. He said -

I want to warn every man in Australia that if, in this campaign, he utters lies he will utter lies at his peril. If anything be said by a speaker which is calculated to mislead the electors, unless he proves his words, his punishment will be swift and certain.

Nobody in Australia was more unsuccessful than the Prime Minister in his endeavours to make accurate statements. In the 1916 referendum campaign the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) raised in this House the matter of the introduction of Maltese into Australia. The Prime Minister, in effect, denied that there was any truth in the honorable member’s statement, and paragraphs were circulated throughout Australia headed, “A lie nailed.” The Prime Minister held one of his investigations into the matter. When a question is raised in this House Ministers, of course, invariably promise to in vestigate it, but we never see the report. According to a press paragraph -

The Prime Minister, on being questioned today in reference to the alleged importation of Maltese under contract, said that he was having a most careful inquiry into the matter. So far the Minister for External Affairs had not been able to obtain any evidence whateverto support a prosecution under the Act; but Mr. Hughes continued, “ Whether there had been a violation of any of the provisions of the Contract Immigrants Act or not, the Government, during the war, does not intend to permit any importation of labour which amounts to a violation of the spirit of the Act, and it has decided to take such steps as are necessary to prevent any further introduction of any kind of cheap labour during the. war. The people of Australia may rest assured that cheap labour, no matter from what country it comes, will not be permitted.”

What did he do? The Maltese referred to by the honorable member for Bourke were on a boat, and the Prime Minister sent them to New Caledonia, where they were kept at the public expense until the referendum campaign was over, and then they were allowed to return to the Commonwealth. I asked the Prime Minister whether, at any time, he had given instructions that the Maltese should be kept at New Caledonia, and he replied, “ No.” I then asked how it was that there appeared in the Estimates an item “ Cost of Maltese kept at New Caledonia, £3,008,” and the Speaker called me to order, and said that I could not ask that question, because I should be anticipating a discussion on the Estimates. The point I am making is the utter unreliability of the Prime Minister’s statements on all occasions when it suits him.

Mr Watt:

– According to what the honorable member has read, the Prime Minister’s promise was not to allow the introduction of cheap labour. ‘ I understand that the Maltese are not cheap labour.

Mr HIGGS:

– The point is the difficulty the Prime Minister experiences in observing his own regulations, which require that people shall not tell lies. I propose to deal with some of the methods adopted by the Ministry during the last referendum campaign to which I take exception. Many letters were written by me and other honorable members, and by parents, to the Minister for Defence asking that the soldier sons of those parents should be allowed to return to Australia. I sent one letter on the 2nd

November, and another on the 16th November, and I did not get a reply until the 14th December, six days before the referendum, when apparently a batch of replies was sent out for the purpose of influencing the votes of electors. Apparently the idea was that the letters should reach the voters just before polling day, but not in time to be used by public speakers who were advocating the “No” cause. This is the reply I received -

With further reference to your letter of 2nd ultimo, on behalf of Mr. W. Gerard, of Ambrose, who desired that his son be returned to Australia, I am directed to inform you that it is regretted Mr. Gerard’s request cannot be complied with at present.

In view, however, of the statement of 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 Australian Imperial Force 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 should the vote on the referendum be “ Yes.”

A similar letter was sent to me in reply to an application by Mr. T. A. McCosker.

Mr Bamford:

– I have received many of them. One reached me only yesterday.

Mr HIGGS:

– But not couched in those terms?

Mr Bamford:

– No.

Mr HIGGS:

– That letter was a deliberate attempt by the Government to drive the parents of the soldiers into voting “Yes,” and was an unfair use of a Government Department.

Mr Anstey:

– Only a few weeks before the Minister for Defence had stated that they could not bring the men back because of the lack of ships.

Mr Watt:

– Not only because of the lack of ships.

Mr HIGGS:

– There is no doubt that the members of the Government are sufficiently old parliamentary hands and political campaigners to leave a loop-hole of escape. Their promise was qualified to some extent. The anxious parent might read the letter, and be concerned only with the statement that if the referendum were carried there would be a possibility of his son returning. He would not notice the qualifying words, “ One of the difficulties would be removed,” and “ if the other difficulties could be surmounted.”

Mr.Sampson. - Does the honorable member deny that if the referendum proposal had been carried there would have been a better chance of bringing thosemen back ?

Mr Anstey:

– The Government said that they had not the ships with which to bring back 5,000 men.

Mr HIGGS:

– The Minister for Worksand Railways has interjected that thisletter was signed by the Secretary of the Defence Department, and not by theMinister. It is quite in keeping with the habits and customs of the Prime Minister to get somebody else to do the dirty work. The letter was not even signed by Mr. Trumble, but was signed by somebody else in his behalf.

Mr Brennan:

– Are the officialsactually being blamed?

Mr HIGGS:

– It was dirty worktoattempt to deceive the parents of this country. We all know that it is impossible to give effect to Senator Pearce’s scheme to return to Australia 5,000 of theoriginal Anzacs. How much would it cost to bring back a single soldier? Why, to return 5,000 men to our shores, to give them four months leave, and to pay them, would cost, at least, half-a-million pounds-

Mr Pigott:

– It does not matter what it would cost; it ought to be done.

Mr HIGGS:

– But we cannot get theships to enable it to be done. I wish now to call attention to some of the unfair tactics that were adopted by the PrimeMinister during the referendum campaign. In passing, I would like to mention a curious practice which has grown up in our public life owing to the methodspursued by the right honorable gentleman. Prior to his advent to office, a daily newspaper, like the Argus, would never dream of accepting gifts either at thehands of the Government or of any individual. But when the recent campaign ) started, what did the Prime Minister do ? Apparently, he visited the Argus officeand requested that the services of Mr. Dumas, one of its first-class reporters, should be placed at his disposal. Thisgentleman, it is said, was paid £12 per week, in addition to an allowance of £7 per week for expenses, to accompany the Prime Minister. That is an extraordinary thing in the life of public journalism in Australia. Every newspaper with which I have been acquainted in the past would decline to accept an offer of that sort. I say nothing against Mr. Dumas in the matter. He is a good reporter, and an assiduous and clever workman. But the Argus, instead of acting up to the high standard of public journalism which has been set ever since the establishment of the Sydney Morning Herald, allowed the Prime Minister to take this man away from its office, permitted him to accompany the right honorable gentleman, to eat his salt, and to prepare reports, of the meetings which he addressed. In that way it avoided the expense .which otherwise would have attached to the sending of a reporter throughout the Commonwealth to accompany the Prime Minister. Any journal should refrain from accepting an offer of that kind. It is the invariable practice of our daily newspapers to send a journalist with the Prime Minister on his tours of the Commonwealth, but, by paying that gentleman, they have hitherto reserved to themselves their right to criticise the Prime Minister. By handing over Mr. Dumas “to the right honorable gentleman . and accepting this free gift of news from him, or from the persons who paid Mr. Dumas - I do not know that the Prime Minister or the Government paid for his services - the Argus was prevented from criticising the Prime Minister, and this circumstance, no doubt, accounted for the fulsome flattery which appeared in the reports published from time1 to time. Head the account of Mr. Hughes’ meeting at “Warwick - “ Mr. Hughes “ - “ Assailed hy Mob “ - “ Riot at Warwick, Queensland “- - “ Free Fight on Railway Station.” That is a grossly exaggerated account of what occurred, and it was written by Mr. Dumas. In connexion with its publication I acknowledge that the Argus had the decency to break the law. It was ashamed to put Mr. Dumas’ signature to the report, although his name did appear in other newspapers to which that report was despatched. In so acting, the Argus violated the law, which requires that all reports and speeches of a political character at such a time should bear the signatures of their authors. Then the Argus complains of the censorship. Now, quite recently I sent a letter to that journal on the question of conscription. It did not appear. I then wrote a letter to Dr. E. S. Cunningham, its editor. Dr.

Cunningham is not a medical doctor - he is one of those gentlemen who, at a Press Conference, received the title of doctor. In other words, he is a literary doctor. I wrote to the doctor a courteous letter, ask- ing him why he had not inserted my letter in opposition to conscription, thanking him for a reply, and enclosing a stamped envelope. I wished to make it impossible for him to refuse to reply. What do honorable members think I got by way of answer ? I received a note which reads -

The editor presents his compliments to Mr. Higgs, and with great respect begs to inform him that the insertion of a letter is within the editor’s rejection. Further than this, no reply is offered to the question of Mr. Higgs.

That reply ought to be put amongst our literary curiosities. It is the first time that I have heard that the insertion of a letter is within the editor’s-“ rejection.” I wonder what the editor’s “rejection” is?The Argus almost invariably refuses to insert the letters of public men on public matters. Yet I consider that, as a public man, representing a constituency in Queensland, the columns of the Argus ought to be open to me at any time so long as I keep within reasonable bounds in the matter of space and adhere to parliamentary language.

I also had another experience - this time with the Sydney Morning Herald. Honorable members will recollect that the Argus report of Mr., Hughes’ meeting at Warwick ‘ represented him as speaking as “ a member of the Imperial War Cabinet.” That phrase, I confess, struck me. I had never heard that Mr. Hughes was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet, and accordingly I wrote to the press about it. Thereupon the Sydney Morning Herald stated that Mr. Higgs, having cast doubt upon the declaration that Mr. Hughes was a member of the Imperial War Council, Mr. Hughes had remarked “ that this circumstance showed Mr. Higgs’ utter ignorance of matters of common knowledge.” Now I said nothing whatever about the “ Imperial War Count,..:, “ I referred to the Imperial War Cabinet, which is a different matter altogether. Thereupon, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. T. S. Heaney, pointing this out, but although he had allowed Mr. Hughes to hold me up to public ridicule and contempt, he refused to insert my explanation.

In my opinion there is not another editor in Australia who, in similar circumstances, would have declined to publish my communication.

Now I come to the military raid upon the Government Printing Office in Brisbane, which was made under the direction of the Prime Minister. I hold in my hand a copy of the Queensland Hansard, No. 37. This raid took place prior to the battle at Warwick, and I offer it as a possible explanation as to why the Prime Minister was assaulted at Warwick.

Mr.J.H. Catts. - He was not assaulted.

Mr HIGGS:

– It was merely a technical assault. What a difference there is between the Prime Minister and Sir George Reid. I remember the time when Sir George Reid, as Premier of New South Wales, appeared on a public platform, and when his constituents purchased small packets of flour, with which they pelted him. They pelted him with eggs first, and followed up their attack with flour, until he was really a picture in. yellow and white. The Prime Minister will remember the circumstance. Indeed, he may know a good deal about it. Certainly he knows a very great deal about the interruptions of the pro-Federation meetings, because he was one of the leaders of the anti-Federal movement in Sydney at the time. He, therefore, knows a good deal of the breaking up of the pro-Federal meetings. I have a vivid recollection of what Sir George Reid said on the occasion to which I have referred. He did not get angry. He did notrush round with his “hand, not his face, bleeding” and vow that he would “get” this person or that. He merely smiled and said, “ Ah ! you can afford to do that under my Government, but you could not afford to do it under the regime of my opponents. You were too poor then.Under my Government you can afford to throw good food about.” The actions of these two men; under some degree of provocation, disclose a great difference between their characters.

Mr Kelly:

– Is it suggested that what was thrown at the Prime Minister was good food?

Mr HIGGS:

– Deponent sayeth not. By the way, the ex-Speaker of this Chamber and myself happened to be in Brisbane at the time the raid was made upon the Queensland Government Printing Office in connexion with Queensland Hansard,

No. 37. Now, this particular issue of Hansard is a public record of the debate which took place, not only on the military censorship, but on the various subjects which occupied the attention of the Queensland Parliament. Mr. Hughes objected to that special number of Hansard because some portions of it were printed in black type. But those portions, I would point out, are the portions which the censor refused to allow to be published. I have seen the instructions that were issued by the censor in Brisbane when Mr. Ryan was about to deliver his speech. That official directed that all reports of Mr. Ryan’s speech should be submitted to the censor. But when the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Groom) visited Brisbane the following day to deliver his speech the censor sent out a regulation countermanding the order for the submission of public speeches to censorship. The result was that Mr. Ryan’s speech was censored throughout Queensland, while Mr. Groom’s speech was allowed to go forth without any censorship whatever. Yet the day after the delivery of Mr. Groom’s speech the censorship of such utterances was again imposed. Surely nobody can support that kind of conduct. Yet it is the sort of thing which happens under the regime of the Prime Minister, who is quite unfitted to occupy such a distinguished office, because of his political and moral outlook. Here are the extracts from the Queensland Hansard, if honorable members care to look at them. They are contraband, of course, but possibly within the sacred precincts of this House they are open to inspection.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr HIGGS:

– I have been endeavouring, in carrying out my public duty, to impress upon honorable members that the Prime Minister is not fit to occupy his high position. I have tried to prove to honorable members as calmly as I can that we cannot rely upon his word - that while the rank and file in Parliament might be allowed a certain latitude, the man who holds the position of Leader of the House should be one whose word can be taken on all occasions. I wish to show that it is impossible to place any reliance on the Prime Minister’s word. When the Leader of the Opposition asked for an inquiry into the statements made in another place by Senator Watson, and the circumstances attending the resignation of Senator Heady, the Prime Minister said -

The honorable member has made what, in effect, are charges against myself, the Government, and the members of our party, charges which, in their nature, are grave, the gravest possible that could be made against public men.

What were those charges? The Prime Minister is reported to have said to Senator Watson, whom he was trying to get to join his party in a plot which had for its object the extension of the life of Parliament -

What is standing in your way? Why can you not come over? If you do not like to live in Newcastle we can find you another place to live in. Docs money stand in your way? I never turn on a friend. What about getting out? We will find you a job. ,

The Prime Minister admitted that those were the gravest charges that could be made against a public man, and in heated language he said, “ If honorable members require a Royal Commission or any other inquiry into the matter, in God’s name let them have it.” What happened? Did he let us have a Royal Commission ? No. He changed his tactics. When speaking later in the House, referring to the charges, he said -

What can any man think of such a charge from such a man ? I have only one thing to say about him and his charge. I have instructed my solicitor to issue a writ against him. That writ wall be out this afternoon. It is returnable in the Supreme Court of this State. Unless he pleads privilege he must defend it; he must do so publicly; he must take the consequences of his charge; he cannot and shall not be allowed to make such charges for party purposes. The Courts can and shall judge between him and me. It will be for him to make out his case. . . . We are going to appeal to the great jury of the people, and the Courts of this country can investigate these charges.

We all thought that the Courts would investigate these charges, though many of us were of opinion that the Prime Minister, instead of granting us the Royal Commission he promised, was bringing his action against Senator Watson in order to close the mouths of candidates throughout the country, so that they might not discuss the charges made by Senator Watson against him. The right honorable gentleman was applying the gag by means of the Courts. The elec tion out of the way, what happened? Were the Courts allowed to inquire into the charges made by Senator Watson, by this time ex-Senator Watson?: No. That gentleman was being worried by legal processes, and’ I am informed on good authority that the Prime Minister’s nian Friday, Mr. J. C. Watson, came into the case in order to bring about a settlement. The case was settled. We were told at first that one of the conditions of settlement was that its terms should not be made public, but afterwards the following paragraph appeared in the Melbourne Herald : -

It lis understood that the terms of settlement we’re that Senator Watson should make a statement that he did not, by the words he uttered, intend to impute to the Prime Minister any intention to bribe or corrupt him. On receipt of the withdrawal of the imputations, Mr. Hughes agreed to pay the costs of both sides. These, it is estimated, amount to £250.

That paragraph was a great surprise to us.

Mr Sampson:

– Was it merely a surmise on the part of the newspaper, or was it an official statement?

Mr HIGGS:

– That report appeared in the Melbourne Herald, and it has not been contradicted.

Mr Lamond:

– Did it surprise the honorable member that ex-Senator Watson withdrew the imputations1?

Mr HIGGS:

– The point is that the Prime Minister admitted that the charges made by ex-Senator Watson were the gravest that could be made against a public man, and he promised us that the matter would be fought out in the Courts. .

Mr Wise:

– Ex-Senator Watson withdrew the imputations.

Mr Tudor:

– He withdrew nothing. I make that statement absolutely.

Mr Brennan:

– There must have been good reasons for paying the money.

Mr HIGGS:

– About the time of this reported settlement, an article appeared in the Ballarat Echo as follows: -

We trust that the general reading and thinking public will not miss the significance of that item of news which states that the action for libel launched by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) against ex-Senator David Watson has been settled. The significance lies in the fact that on the defendant making a statement to the effect that he did not intend to impute to the Prime Minister any intention to bribe or corrupt him, Mr. Hughes abandons the action and pays the costs of both sides. There may be much, or little, or nothing in the statement the defendant has agreed to make, but there can be no questioning the fact that since he’ has to pay the defendant’s costs Mr. Hughes did not win.

The newspaper goes on to pointout that this was not a personal matter between Mr. Hughes and ex-Senator Watson, but that it was a matter concerning the reputation and character of public men.

Mr Wise:

– When one man withdraws a charge he has made against another it is the biggest win that the other can have.

Mr HIGGS:

– Let us consider the position of ex-Senator Watson. He was a defeated man, a poor man, a working miner, and he was worried by the law’s delays to which the Prime Minister had been subjecting him from the commencement of the action for libel. His case is set out in a letter to the Ballar at Echo dated 3rd November, 1917, in which he said -

I have received a cutting of the Echo, describing the humiliating defeat of Mr. Hughes in his withdrawal of the law suit against me in regard to my statement in the Labour party meeting. Allow me to offer you my very hearty thanks and congratulations on your out. spoken utterances on this important subject. I should be glad if you would favour me with a cutting or two to send tomy gallant sons who are fighting across the seas, and who have no opportunity of knowing the strength of the case from the biased reports appearing in the press. Your statement of the humiliating defeat of Mr. Hughes is a true and accurate report of the terms of settlement. At no time of my life did I ever seek to injure the personal character of any one, but when truth and honour are in the balances, then sentiment has to be thrown to the wind. Had it not been for the financial difficulty, nothing would have given me more pleasure than to have fought this business to a finish. However, I think I have the best end of the stick.

Mr Wise:

– There is no denial there of the withdrawal of the imputations against the Prime Minister.

Mr HIGGS:

– There is no getting away from the fact that, while Mr. Hughes was denouncing ex-Senator Watson in this House, and promising an inquiry through the Courts of the land - an inquiry which he had refused in this House - he sent some one to ex-Senator Watson in order to get him to settle the case, the Prime Minister to pay the whole of the costs.

In order to show why we cannot rely on the word of the Prime Minister, I draw attention to the fact that at the time of this incident, and when the dis solution was agreed upon, he made the following statement in the House: -

There has been sworn in in the Senate to-day a man who was Leader of the Tasmanian Labour party, and who is as good a Labour man as sits on either side of this House. A senator has resigned. Of the circumstances that led up to his resignation, other than those whi chare set out in the newspapers in regard tohis ill-health, I know nothing. I positively deny any knowledge, good, bad, or indifferent, of the whole matter.

Before touching on that matter, I want to know whether the Prime Minister had anything to do with a cablegram which appeared in the London Sunday Chronicle on the 14th October, 1917,. reading as follows: -

A Melbourne telegram states that Mr. Hughes’ £5,000 libel action against Mr. Watson has been settled. Mr. Watson has withdrawn the imputation, and will pay the costs for both sides.

The Sunday Chronicle is the newspaper for which Mr. Hughes wrote some articles when in London. Was the cablegram that I have read published to explain away, for the benefit of the British public, the fact that Mr. Hughes had been charged with trying to bribe a senator? Now, to deal with the denial that Mr. Hughes had no knowledge, good, bad, or indifferent, of the resignation of Senator Ready and the swearing-in of Mr. Earle. For over a week, as the documents prove, the Prime Minister was engaged in a plot to prolong the life of Parliament. Would he deny that he telegraphed to the Premier of Tasmania in these terms, asking him to come to Sydney?

Very important that I see you on Monday (26th February, 1917). Leaving for Sydney to-morrow. Please catch Moeraki 10 a.m. for Sydney. See me Sydney, Monday. Very important you should come.

Will the Prime Minister deny that he discussed with Premier Lee the resignation of Senator Ready, or that on Wednesday, the 28th February, Mr. Earle and Senator Ready arrived from Tasmania in the same vessel, and the Prime Minister took Mr. Earle to dinner, Senator Ready coming to Parliament House, where he fainted in the refreshment room, and was taken to the President’s room. He was taken to the President’s room, although the President had left the Labour party and Senator Ready was still one of its secretaries, and there were any number of the members of the party who would have been willing to help had anything been the matter with him. “Will the Prime Minister deny that Mr. Earle went to Government House and signed his resignation of his Tasmanian seat in the presence of His Excellency the Governor-General? Why -did the Prime Minister compromise -a high official by getting him to take part, however innocently, in a plot to prolong the life of Parliament? Will he deny that Senator Ready wrote out his resignation in the office of the Minister for Trade and ^Customs at midday on the day just mentioned? If the Prime Minister denies that, will he explain why, on the 1st March, 1917, he sent to Premier Lee the following cablegram: -

All arrangements this end complete. Beady has handed his resignation to President of the Senate. President will not announce until after dinner.

Will he deny that he cabled to the Premier of Tasmania that the GovernorGeneral would notify the Governor of the State that Mr. Earle’s resignation of his State seat had been written out in the presence of the Governor-General, who had attested his signature, and stated that the Governor-General awaited a notification from the Governor of Tasmania to ratify Mr. Earle’s appointment as senator ? Will he deny that he cabled -

Imperative that notification should reach the Governor-General to-night not later than 9 p.m. ?

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister, and possibly other members, induced Senator Ready to resign. The Prime Minister has burked all inquiry into the Watson charges, the inference being that he used towards Senator’ Ready the words that he was reported to have used to Senator Watson.

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

– Be fair to Ready. He has publicly denied that he was bribed in any way, and challenges any one to make the statement outside. When he was nearly dead, as the result of what was being said about him, his wife had to go on to the stage to defend him.

Mr HIGGS:

– The extraordinary fact is that Senator Ready, one or two days prior to his resignation, while still a trusted secretary of the Labour party and a member of its executive, had not said a word to any of us of his intention to resign. Both. this House and the Senate, when a member is ill, is always willing to grant leave of absence should it be asked for, and Senator Ready could have obtained leave of absence until the end of the session. He resigned on the 1st March, but he could have continued drawing his Parliamentary remuneration for another four months. We asked for an inquiry into the circumstances of his resignation. The Prime Minister promised to appoint a Royal Commission, but he has broken that promise, as he has broken so many others. He promised to have the matter tried in the Law Courts, and then paid the costs of the man against whom he had brought a libel action. It is not surprising that the public press is adversely criticising the present Government because the Win-the-war party has not endeavoured to tax the rich and those who are making war profits as they ought to be taxed. This is what the Sydney Bulletin says of them in its issue of 10th January -

To no country in the world should the financing of the war be so easy ; to none should payment of so large a proportion out of current taxes be possible. It is quite safe to say that, on the contrary, no country is piling up so large a debt in proportion to the number of men in the field; and the whole explanation is that the people have permitted the reins to fall into ‘the hands of adventurers who are prepared to do anything, to offer almost any bribe, m order to remain in office.

Try as we may, we cannot ignore public opinion. What I say may not carry much weight with honorable members opposite, but I am certain that those who are now supporting the Prime Minister in his unworthy career will be called upon by the electors for an explanation.

The most disquieting reflection on all this to the student of modern politics is that the Prime Minister is the product of Democracy, and the direct product of the Labour movement.

Mr Story:

– He is leading Democracy to-day.

Mr HIGGS:

– He rose to power climbing on the shoulders of the Waterside Workers.

Mr Lynch:

– - You were anxious to get him back after the split.

Mr HIGGS:

– Every man I know in the Labour movement here and elsewhere could earn a living before he associated himself with the movement. The only man who could not do so was the Prime Minister. He used to mend umbrellas for a living. He has also worked for 15s. a week in a kitchen in a West Sydney hotel1.

Mr Bamford:

– This shows the possibility of Democracy.

Mr HIGGS:

– I have heard the Prime Minister say that he never accepted any outside position in connexion with the Labour movement, but he was a travel ling organizer for the shearers of New South Wales. He secured his election soon after by denouncing Labour members for leaving the party. In those days such members were called bogus Labour members, and Mr. Hughes secured his return for West Sydney by denouncing Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald and others. It may be said that the Prime Minister, deserves great credit for having succeeded in reaching his present position from so lowly a start.

Mr Sampson:

– His career shows that Australia is a place of great opportunities.

Mr HIGGS:

– It proves what has been said by many persons, that anything is possible in a Democracy. It is admitted, that the Prime Minister is clever, but his methods are inexcusable. At the time I speak of he was helped by the man who is now Premier of New South Wales. Many a pound of Mr. Holman1 s money - Mr. Holman was then single- went to help Mr. Hughes. Listen to Mr. Holman’s opinion of Mr. Hughes to-day. Commenting on the acceptance by Mr. Hughes of the commission to form a new Government, the Premier of New South Wales said -

I have long known that Mr. Hughes is a man whose pledged word is absolutely worthless, but I confess I am amazed and depressed to find that the whole of his colleagues have joined him in this exploit. I can only attribute it in certain cases to a sense of mistaken loyalty to a man who has never been loyal to anybody or anything.

If you want another opinion upon the Prime Minister, whose word cannot be relied on, and whose one characteristic is ingratitude and disloyalty to his friends, I refer you to Mr. Beeby. Beeby, Holman, and Hughes used to go about together making speeches. I could name a dozen other men in New South Wales who have expressed a similar opinion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in my opinion, is unfit to occupy his position, and has no right to be allowed to sit on the benches opposite by those supporting him. I sincerely hope that honorable members on the Government side, who in private have expressed their opinion, will have the courage, when the vote is taken, to record it as they ought to do - as the vote of men who believe that the Prime Minister’s word ought not to be taken in the Parliament of this country.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- I rise with a great amount of reluctance to speak on the present occasion. I do so, principally, to remove certain misconceptions regarding myself, and also certain misconceptions regarding the position, as I look at it, which has arisen in the course of the debate. At the outset I have to inform my honorable friends opposite - though I am afraid that when I make the statement’ they will regard me “as something of a backslider - that I am unable to support the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition,.

Mr Blakeley:

– W)e did not expect it.

Mr FOWLER:

– The reason I do not support the motion is not’ that it is an attack on the Government of a sufficiently definite character, but that it does not go far enough. It only touches the fringe of the great matter that ought to concern this Parliament - the only matter, indeed, that ought to concern this Parliament and the people of Australia at the present juncture - and that is the prosecution of the war. It is a misfortune, only a little short of the result of the last referendum, that we should be discussing a motion of this kind at the present time. I say, therefore, that 1 cannot support the motion; but I shall give, under this motion, a few reasons why, and by reason of the latitude allowed in debate on occasions of this kind, the House should improve the present position.

There is one characteristic of this debate, common, I think, to all the honorable members that have spoken, and that is the distance they have kept away from the particular motion. It is, indeed: significant of- shall I call it? - the lack of concentration of honorable members opposite that they have gone all round the compass, and discussed such matters as the Taylor card system, the prices of rabbits, and so forth, at a time when Australia is waiting, and waiting impatiently, for a lead on a question that materially, concerns our honour and our very existence.

One of the most interesting speeches that we have heard, and one that was successful in regard to the distance that was kept from the subject-matter of the motion, . was that by the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) last night. Because that honorable member, in keeping away from the motion, got somewhat near to the particular matter that I have at heart - the prosecution of the war - I propose to follow him for a few minutes. He spoke about the position in Russia, and argued that revolutions, such as have taken place there, would probably do more to win the war than the armed efforts of the Allies. Let me suggest to the honorable member that if the revolution is going to be carried on by the impractical and absurd methods of those responsible for it, instead of there being a successful winning of the war thereby it may yet assist to rivet the fetters of Prussian absolutism on Democracy. While those revolutionary gentlemen talk with their heads in the clouds, the Prussians are getthing through their legs, and establishing a condition of affairs in Russia that may yet act disastrously,- not only on that country, but on the whole of the world. That is, indeed, a possible development. When one remembers that all revolutions of a similar character that have taken place have simply set back the hands of the clock of progress - in some instances for a hundred years - as in the case of the French Revolution - then I agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Archibald), in his insistence on the principle that evolution and order point the only safe way in which humanity can progress. But the honorable member for Barrier, in the course of his interesting address, showed the sources from which he had obtained the political knowledge that he was expounding to lis. He talked, in fact, that kind of political pabulum which has emanated from Germany, and which, as we have every reason to believe now, was concocted for foreign consumption - a political pabulum which, being disseminated throughout the world, to the detriment of the cause of the Allies, has been abandoned at the first opportunity by the very people who were responsible for it in Germany - those people who are to-day seeking, in spite of their teachings in regard to Socialism, to aid the Prussian rulers in their onslaught upon freedom.

Mr Considine:

– Has Dr. Leibknecht repudiated -his principles ?

Mr FOWLER:

– No; Leibknecht ia the one solitary honest man in the whole crowd, who has remained consistently true to the teachings of his school, and has not abandoned them like the great mass of the German Socialists. The hon.orable member for Barrier, as I say, showed the source from which he has obtained his inspiration, by his use of terms that are utterly foreign to Australia - terms which practically have no” meaning in a country such as this. He talked about the Australian “ proletariat.” . It is a mere travesty to apply a word of that kind to the masses of Australia. There are no people in the world belonging to the class to which the honorable member refers, who have a better standing, or more control of the political situation, than those referred to by him as the Australian “ proletariat.” But I know that when he talks in 1hat way he has in his mind heroic pictures of the French revolution. I have no doubt that, in his dreams of youthful ambition, he sees himself, some day or other, standing in a dramatic attitude on a barricade in Collins-street, with a red flag in one hand and a bloody sword in the other, waiting for the Australian “ proletariat “ to bring him the heads of the capitalist magnates of the country. The honorable member for Barrier is, if I may be allowed to say so, a man of considerable intellect and imagination ; and if the picture I have drawn of his mental attitude be a correct one to-day, I venture also to suggest that in another ten years he will be laughing at the speech he made in the House last night. . The honorable member spoke about landless Australians, and he gave us to understand that there is only one way in which, land can be obtained for the Australian “proletariat,” namely, by bloody revolution. Does the honorable member realize that the Australian “proletariat” have only to exercise their votes to get all that even he desires for them? To talk about revolution in a country like Australia is to indicate an intellect obsessed by teachings which are utterly foreign to Australia, and have no real practical relation to the actual conditions of this Commonwealth.

The honorable member gave us his assurance that the war in which we are engaged is a trade war. For the purposes of argument we will admit that such is the case, in the sense, at any rate, in which he puts it, and say that the war has really been caused by a desire for trade by the dominant nations of the world. A burglar has no doubt the same commercial instinct, though somewhat misguidedly he desires to trade in his own way. However, if the honorable member found a burglar in his own house some night, brutally maltreating a child or a mother, in order to stifle their cries, while he went on with his business, I ask how the honorable member would treat him? How is the honorable member prepared to treat the German burglar? Would he leave him severely alone to bayonet old men, outrage women, and starve little children to death 1 I am sure the honorable member would do nothing of the kind ; but that if he. were brought face to face with these horrors he would probably be one of the first to “ wade in “ with rifle and bayonet. I wish to follow up that question with yet another. After the German burglar has in turn devastated Belgium, France, and Great Britain, is the honorable member for Barrier prepared to stand helplessly by while he arrives in Australia and proceeds to carry into execution here his own particular methods?

Mr Considine:

– Once the honorable member admits the basis of my argument he reduces the quarrel to a squabble between burglars, and not between an honest man and a burglar.

Mr FOWLER:

– The honorable member perceives the point of my argument. I am glad that he does. If he does not see also that the relationship of Germany to the countries she has attacked is actually that of a burglar in more or less defenceless households, then he has failed altogether to gather any elementary lesson whatever as to the meaning of this war.

Mr Fenton:

– It seems to me that the honorable member for Perth has himself a good imagination.

Mr FOWLER:

– I know that the honorable member for Barrier possesses the quality of imagination, and if he looks at the position as I have put it to him, I feel sure he will realize that, remote though we are from the theatre of war, it is yet the right of Australians to do for others the duty that would be overwhelmingly a duty and a necessity in our own case here.

I was surprised to hear during this de- bate an effort made in defence of voluntarism. It is, to me, one of the mysteries of the Australian position that nearly every honorable member opposite, while professing the principle of State Socialism, denounces conscription. A fundamental principle of State Socialism is that the interests of the community are greater than those of the individual. And upon that principle State Socialists proceed by compulsion to impose on the individual those necessary duties without which society cannot be maintained and cannot progress. One of the most elementary duties of any society is that of self defence. If compulsion is necessary in lesser matters why in the name of logic and common sense should it be withheld in regard to the all-important duty of defending ourselves? I have not yet heard any attempted explanation of that anomaly, and am sure I shall wait in vain for it. There is not one honorable member opposite who does not in his heart and soul realize that he occupies a false position in this regard, and that Democracy throughout the world, and in all ages, has imposed upon all its citizens, and must of necessity impose upon them, the one overwhelming obligation of fighting in their own defence.

I come now to the more practical phases of this subject, and have a few observations to make concerning the speech to which we listened from the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Riley). That honorable member ‘ is a very cheerful optimist. I would remind him that in nature the most cheerful optimist in the face, of danger is the. ostrich. It can put its head in the sand while its tail sticks up high in he horizon, and convince itself that all is well. The honorable member, evidently a student of strategy, has given us assurances that all is well with the Allies. I do not think he went further, however, than to show that we could hold our own against the enemy. If we do no more than that - if the war comes to an end with us holding our own and no more- then we shall have absolutely failed in regard to every object we had in view when we entered upon the conflict. If peace comes to the world with anything like the present military situation Germany will have absolutely won.’ It will then be only a matter of a few years in the history of mankind when Germany will reap the fruits of such a peace in a way that will make freedom impossible to Europe and to us in Australia. We are very proud of our victories in Mesopotamia; very well satisfied with the progress made by our. arms in Palestine. But let me remind the House that, having regard to the present position in Europe, Germany isi the focus of a new and greater Empire. Germany has, even now, achieved the aim and object of German statesmen and publicists for many years - a Middle Europe Empire with a population of 200,000,000, and with resources vastly superior to those of the British Empire. If peace is concluded with a possibility of that* Middle Europe Empire, being maintained, there is an end to the British Empire in the near future, and a challenge indeed to the liberties of the world.

The honorable member for South Sydney gave us the assurance that men were not particularly needed; that we had more than enough at the Front. For an answer to that statement we have only to look at the cables in yesterday’s newspapers setting out that the Minister for National Service (Sir Auckland Geddes), who is not a military man, impressed upon the House of Commons the absolute necessity for increasing the man-power of the Allies. The message states that this Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on the previous day, said that the question of man-power was “ the central problem of the war. The urgent need at the present time is men for the Army.” A little further on he is reported to have said, “ Our enemies are staking everything on our failure to solve the manpower problem.” In the face of these statements - in the face of the efforts we know Great Britain is making - can we for a moment maintain conscientiously that the Commonwealth has done her full share in regard to the . supply of manpower for the armies of the Allies? I do not think we can. While the proportion of men we have sent to the Front per head of our population is somewhere about 8 per cent., Great Britain has thrown into the ‘ war more than double that percentage. No one can say that our interests in this war and its successful prosecution are less than those, of the Motherland. They are a great deal more, since the very future of Australia hangs in the balance to-day: This, war, and the part we play in it will determine whether this shall remain a white country, and whether it shall remain a heritage to our children.

Mr Fenton:

– Surely the honorable member does not say that Great Britain has put into the field double the percentage of men sent to the Front by Australia. If he does, he is wrong.

Mr FOWLER:

– My statement is correct. When we take into consideration also the efforts that are being made in Great Britain in connexion with the manufacture of munitions and the whole prosecution of the war, then anything Australia has done fades relatively into insignificance. It matters not in the slightest degree whether we have sent five, six, or sixteen divisions. I am surprised that so much time has been devoted to the argument- as to whether six or only five divisions were ever projected. Such matters it may suit some honorable members to discuss, but I would remind them that Australia’s share of credit in regard ‘to the war will be determined, not by ourselves, not by our own feelings of satisfaction, “but by the voice of the world at large. While we are twaddling as to the number of men who have been sent to the Front, can we conceal the fact that there are tens of thousands of ablebodied young men thronging our cities, rushing to our race-courses, filling our theatres, while the duty they should be performing is being done for us by others? Can we conceal from the world at large facts like these? And will the world at large regard this Parliament as having done its duty when it is known that we have almost a quarter of a million men who in any other country of the Allies would have been called up for service, but upon whom we as a Parliament have never put the slightest pressure?

A bush fire is a very common occurence in Australia ; I have seen some dreadful ones. When a bush fire occurs every man in the district, and sometimes every woman who is able to use a beater, is out fighting that fire along so much of its length as human effort can be employed upon. Imagine what would’ be thought of a farmer who sent out one able-bodied son to fight a bush fire, and told another to stay at home and practice on his fiddle. What would his “neighbours say of his action? What help would he get from them when, perhaps, his turn came’ to call for assistance? Yet that is exactly the position Australia occupies to-day. One man goes and we allow another to stay at home, if not to play the fiddle, at least to do something more discreditable to his manhood and to Australia. Beyond question we shall be judged in regard to our attitude towards the war by powers outside of Australia, which, to a large extent, will hold our future in the hollow of their hands; and if we do not now acquit ourselves as a branch of the white race in taking up our full responsibilities!, it will be all the worse, if not for U3, then for our posterity.

I want now to go back to the causes leading up to the motion now before the House, and at the very outset I wish to dissociate myself absolutely and entirely from the sordid intrigue by which the Prime Minister returned to office after his nominal resignation. I do not desire to discuss it, except to make my position perfectly clear. I have no hesitation whatever in taking up an independent attitude over this matter. I dissent altogether from the contention of the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) that Government pledges also bind members of the party. In my judgment, nothing could be more fatal to effective parliamentary government. We, the members of the National party, had no say whatever in the pledge, and, accordingly, we are free to take up an independent position in regard to it. As one who has always upheld Parliament against the coercion of Ministers, I protest as forcibly as I can against any assumption that because members happen to sit behind a Ministry they must remain silent and refrain from taking any action that will incommode them or seriously threaten their position on the Ministerial benches. In the British House of Commons it has happened time and again that Governments which have made serious mistakes have been displaced by the votes of their own supporters. I regret very much that the cursed party system has fastened itself so strongly upon Australian politics as to make it almost impossible, or at least very difficult, for honorable members to adopt that course which their consciences or judgment may dictate in regard to the conduct of the affairs, of this country. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation whatever in taking any action in regard to this Government, which, in my judgment, may be necessary, on the present occasion.

It will not . be of very much advantage to discuss in detail the events leading up to the present situation. There is/ a well-known saying, worthy of general acceptance, that we should let bygones be bygones; but, on the other hand, it is our duty, as members of this Parliament, to learn from experience and, if neceessary, to criticise the Government for wrong-doing. It is our duty also, on special occasions to take whatever steps may be necessary to put right any errors they may have committed. I have criticised the Prime Minister on more than one occasion, and there are many phases of this question upon which I feel inclined to speak strongly now; but while I do not shrink in the slightest from the task, I feel under a certain amount of restraint, because, in the first place,t the Prime Minister is not present, and in the second place, it is on account of illness that he is not here. I shall, therefore, confine myself as nearly as possible to those matters upon which there is a certain amount of misconception, and if the Prime Minister, of necessity, comes within the purview of my observations, I want to assure the House that my attitude towards him ia absolutely impersonal.

Now, I maintain that the whole series of ghastly blunders that have brought Australia into her present position is due almost entirely to the Prime Minister. From time to time I have made my protests against the blundering way in which the affairs of this country have been conducted since he took office, and I want to protest very strongly indeed against the position he takes up concerning the result of the referendum vote. After we have gone through an experience that has left Australia in the mire of shame and national disgrace, for which he alone was primarily responsible, the Prime Minister now turns round and tells us that it was not the Government, but the people of Australia, who failed. This remarkable statement could only come from a leader lacking conscientiousness and possessed of a very considerable amount of hardihood. The people of Australia, in the first place, did not want these referenda, and did not ask for them. They were imposed upon the electors by the Prime Minister, and they were the outcome of cowardice on the part of the Government, led by the Prime Minister, whose failure to face the situation, and whose thrusting of the responsibility upon the people brought, about the only result that could have been anticipated. As one of the representatives of the solitary State that has not failed, and in view of the succession of blunders perpetrated by the Leader of the Government, from the time that he rounded the men of Australia into those home defence camps down to the day when he imposed the national police force upon Australia for some trumpery reason or other, it is a matter of surprise to me that there should have been a million electors who could still vote in favour of conscription. No other country in the world could have done better than Australia in regard to this matter. The people of this country rose to the occasion as well as could have been expected by any man with a proper conception of human nature and an understanding of the political situation. In every community there is only a certain proportion of people capable of putting patriotism before selfinterests. In every community there are slackers and those who are constitutionally averse to any new proposal, particularly of this kind.

I want also to emphasize the point that the vote given at the last referendum was, to a large extent, not a vote against conscription at all. This may seem a strange statement to make, but I contend that tens of thousands of people voted “ No,” not because they were against conscription, but because they were against the Prime Minister; and, in addition, tens of thousands of people voted “ No “ because they objected to having this responsibility thrust upon their shoulders by the Prime Minister. I believe a substantial majority would accept conscription readily enough from a Government and Parliament that imposed it upon them, but would vote “No” every time as a protest against the action of a Government in placing upon the electors the responsibility of deciding the issue. When we remember that the difference between the “ Yes “ and the “ No “ votes is represented by only about 4 per cent, of the population, honorable members will see the strength of my contention. We have had an offer from the Prime Minister to stand down if that course of action would lead to effective co-operation of members in the prosecution of this war, and i ask the members of the Opposition to accept it.

I quite agree that the presence of the Prime Minister at the head of this Government is detrimental to the effective prosecution of the war by a united Australia. More than that, I say that the internal affairs of the Commonwealth will suffer so long as the Prime Minister remains at the head of any Government. By the violence of his propaganda work in connexion with the, referenda, particularly the latter one, he has brought Australia within measurable distance of civil war. He has created a spirit of bitter antagonism that was foreign to Australia until now, and I believe that it would be a good thing for Australia, not only in regard to the prosecution of the war, but also in regard to the management of our internal affairs, if the Prime Minister were to stand down. He has made an offer to do so, and I ask the Opposition whether it is not their duty under the circumstances, and in the interests of the people they represent, to accept the proposal.

Mr Tudor:

– Can we rely on that undertaking more than we could on his word outside this House!

Mr FOWLER:

– At any rate, the offer has been made before Parliament and the country, and if honorable members oppo- ( site doubt its sincerity they have a very easy method of testing it. The Minister for the Navy made the same proposal, and I say frankly that the offer would have come with better grace before Ministers had entrenched themselves in the position in which they are now. But the offer has been made, and I ask honorable members opposite to take it on its face value, and, at any rate, accept it.

Let me remind honorable members in all earnestness that as a Parliament we have failed up to the present time to give Australia that lead which the people have a right to expect. We have been engaged in party squabbling; we have spent much time on matters that are only remotely

*** 1 » incidental to the war, and while the great responsibility has been on our shoulders we have in many different ways sought to get rid of it rather than carry it triumphantly forward. We must remember that as members of the Commonwealth Parliament we are making history for Australia, and I am very much afraid that the page of history that we have been writing since the war commenced is blurred and blackened in many respects, and that the verdict of the future historian will not be to our credit. Before that page is finally turned down, and while there is yet an opportunity of writing upon it words that may redeem Australia and the reputation of this Parliament, why should we not seek a way by which we can achieve that worthy object? The Old Book tells us in words many of us dare not forget that "God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." Those words are true not only as regards an individual butalso as regards a people, and there is one awful feature of the law that we must never forget, namely, that the reaping of thecrop has sometimes to be done by those who were not responsible for the sowing. The sins of the fathers sometimes come upon the children, and the sins of legislators, of the responsible leaders of the people, at times fall upon the innocent, not alone in their own time but also in future ages. Facing such a responsibility I ask' honorable members opposite whether they cannot see their way clear to create a condition of affairs in regard to this war that will save our reputation, and preserve Australia for our posterity. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- What has become of the great 5th May policy ? {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr FOWLER: -- I had no great 5th May policy. When the 5th May policy of the Government was being spoken about on many platforms, I had only one remark to make concerning it, and , that was that I was determined by every means in my power to make it an effective war policy, and I regret very much indeed that up to the present time we have seen only the very smallest fraction of it attempted. It is notmy fault that that is so. On the contrary, I have endured a good deal of obloquy and misconception because of the plainness of my speeches regarding the unfortunate situation and those responsible for it. I am pleading now, not as a member of the National party, but as a member of this House who is proud to be a representative of the one State which can hold its head high at the present time in connexion with the conscription question. I am pleading that this Parliament should see its duty plainly, and do it fearlessly and well. The responsibility is on the heads of all of us, not alone on the Prime Minister, or the Government, or the National party, or the Opposition, but on Parliament collectively, to give the people of Australia a lead that will enable them to remove from their record the stains left by the blunders committed during the last few years, and once more allow our people to hold their heads up as proud members of the Empire. I trust that we shall sow no tares for those who come after us to reap. Itrust that we shall leave them no heritage of shame or sorrow, and that their curses may not some day reverberate above our graves.. {: #debate-2-s7 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
Batman .- I desire to add a word or two to the pre- scription that has been offered to the Liberal party and. the Government, which seems to be suffering from a kind of political locomotor ataxia. As a preliminary, I should like to say a few words in reply to the very eloquent and thoughtful utterances of the honorable member who has. just preceded me with a speech which would have been more interesting if it had been less like a leading article from one of the morning newspapers. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- It was the speech of a man who has been consistent throughout the war. I borrowed it from nobody. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Perhaps not. The honorable member addressed himself, in the first place, to some observations made by the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** in that most interesting audi illuminating address he delivered last night. I think, if I may say so, that the prophecy of the honorable member for Perth that in ten years' time the honorable member for Barrier may desert the principles to which he holds so steadfastly to-day, is a purely gratuitous assumption, unsupported by any evidence, unless it be the parallel of the honorable member's own career. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- I did not say that. I said that he will probably laugh at some of the ideas he expressed in that speech. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The honorable member said that, while the honorable member for Barrier may be in abstract principle quite .right in regard to some aspects of his speech concerning the war, he must surely remember that the duty of an individual to his own home and his own household, if a burglar takes possession of it, is to fight that burglar to the best of his ability with the weapons immediately to his hand. The illustration is a familiar one. We have seen it so often in the columns of the morning papers that we may be pardoned for a suspicion as to the source from which the honorable member drew his inspiration. I say now, as I have said on the platform many times, that I do not deny the primary duty of a. man to defend himself and his family or his country, but that does not for a moment excuse or justify the attitude of so many persons in this country and outside of it in constantly indulging in passages of semi-blasphemous incitement in connexion with a war in which they take no part. We are told that equality of sacrifice is involved in conscription, and an illustration was given by the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr.. Mcwilliams),** when he pointed out that upon the one side was a family, three of whose *members* had gone bo the war, and on the other side another family not one member of which had enlisted. Where,- he asked, is the equality of sacrifice? And why should not we who are members of Parliament, in safe and fairly lucrative positions, secure as to our posts and emoluments, decide between those two families and force the unwilling one into a course of action we ourselves are not prepared to take? I listened with great interest to the honorable and somewhat chastened member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** on this same subject. I credit him with perfect honesty of purpose. I credit him with consistency to the extent that he has never been afraid to express radical opinions, whatever they might be, either on the platform or in this House; but there has always come a time when he has just failed to vote and act 'up to the opinions which he has so courageously expressed. Those of us who have been in this House for only a few years will have had sufficient experience to know that he has always just failed to become either a Higinbotham or a Higgins because he has never had the courage to drag himself away from his party and press supports, and to vote up to the views which he so strongly holds. Everybody, admits the unanswerable logic of his arguments in connexion with the proposed amendments of the Constitution, and everybody is familiar with the fact that at the last moment he has weakly failed to put into operation the principles in which he has expressed his belief. I dare say that I will be considered offensive, though I do not mean to be, when I say that the honorable gentleman, in regard to this war, expresses what I conceive to be perfect Prussianism. I do not use that expression iu any offensive or abusive sense whatever. The honorable gentleman possesses honesty of purpose, and a. true sense of patriotism as he sees it. I believe, also, - that in the distinctly pan-Germanic way in which he disregards and despises the temperamental differences between men, which leads him to disregard and despise those spiritual elements in human nature which make it impossible to drive men *en masse* into the same course of action, he assaults, without knowing, or intending it, the very bases of Christianity itself. That is why he believes he is right - as do many others with him - in saying that our country is threatened. He has honest convictions. We are told that a foreign enemy is assailing us, and as members of this Parliament, which controls the people of this country, we are entitled to throw them into the breach just as we would throw shrapnel or bullets, or as we would drive our bayonets or other material things. We are invited to hurl masses of men into this cauldron of destruction without consulting either their temperaments or their desires. There we have perfect Prussianism. That is' exactly the set of principles, the set of views, the outlook and the ideals against which we are alleged to be fighting. If we do no better than follow the example of honorable members opposite, for whom the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** is a most able spokesman, we shall have done nothing more than transfer the curse of militarism from Prussia to Australia and the Empire. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Not at all. A very good excuse, anyhow. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Some faint idea of where we are trending may be gathered from a casual observation dropped today by the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Mowilliams),** one of the mildestmannered men who ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat. This Christian gentleman, for whom I entertain a great respect, said something about whether or not we shall surrender the German colonies as part of the peace terms into which we shall ultimately enter. As he has been permitted to discuss the matter, I presume that . I shall be allowed to make a passing reference to it. I ask him and honorable members opposite to try and understand the differences which separate them from those upon this side of the chamber. I ask them to say whether this is a war for annexation, or whether it is not. Let us put the question to ourselves, " Was or was not increased territory for the British Empire one of the grounds upon which we entered the war?" and a million voices will proclaim the fact that we never entered it for a motive so base. We entered it to serve those high ideals which are rapidly being undermined by Prussianism in our own country. We entered the war to sustain those high ideals, to sustain the principle of right against might, of Democracy against autocracy and militarism, of treaties which should be inviolable. But we had not gone far into the struggle before the cloven hoof disclosed itself, and we found somebody in another place submitting a resolution affirming that we shall not lay down our arms until we have added something to a territory like Australia, which is already larger than we can manage or occupy. That sort of patriotism is cheap - very cheap. The inflexibility of which suburban mayors speak at local banquets is very cheap. This war is not being carried on by politicians, or by members of the 'Ministry, many of whom being eligible for military service have repeatedly promised to play their part in it and have just as repeatedly failed to honour their promissory notes. These are the Micawbers of compulsion. This war is being carried on, not merely by the brave boys who are fighting at the Front, but by the women and children, the aged and infirm of this country. When we speak of our inflexible resolution to carry on this war, sitting in soft places in this Parliament, receiving our emoluments and increasing our emoluments for doing the same work as we did previously, we forget that it is the women and children, the aged and invalid, who are bearing the brunt of the struggle everywhere. In Britain, surrounded as she is by those cursed engines of militarism, the submarines - the productions of companies from which our own people have been drawing dividends in the past - people are being starved. But who are being starved? Think you, it is our political leaders? Think you, it is the neurotic patriotic British aristocracy? Think you, it is the persons who have shouted loudest that we are boys' of the bull-dog breed? Not for a moment. The persons who are being starved in Britain are again the women and children, the invalid and the aged. Those who, from their position of dependency and need, stand in want of those medicinal aids and comforts which are necessary to maintain life and which are denied them. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- What is the cause of that trouble? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- These are the people who suffer and die while the honorable member for Dampier **(Mr. Gregory)** stands, or preferably sits, prating about his inflexible resolution to carry on this war. What applies to Britain applies to France, and in lesser measure to ourselves. It applies also to the enemy. Our Navy, it is said, is supreme. Our Navy, so the newspapers tell us, is in a large measure successful in its efforts to prevent foodstuffs reaching the enemy. Reaching the swashbucklers at Potsdam? Not at all. They will have their small beer and good Rhine wine *ad lib.* Reaching the charmed circles of Prussian diplomacy? Not at all. None of its members will suffer. The Kaiser, the Imperial staff and entourage? Not at all. But in the heart of the German .Empire - some persons may glory in the fact, but I do not - the women, the children, the aged, and the invalid suffer and die because of the cursed system which was created long before August, 1914. The Minister for the Navy has told us that we may not rightfully claim representation at the Peace Conference because, forsooth, we have decided to do the full measure of our duty - as we have done it so well - as free men, rather than as serfs. There is far too much tendency on the part of men, who, not having been born in this country, possess none of the instincts of true Australians, to decry the position taken up by Australia in connexion with this war. "We have, it is said, enjoyed the protection of the British Navy. Hypothetically, that is quite true. Probably it is quite true. But the fact remains that 12,000 miles from the seat of war, unattacked, unviolated, and unthreatened, there have either gone from this country or there have volunteered to go, little less than 500,000 souls out of a small population of 5,000,000. Instead of congratulating Australia upon its unexampled record, instead of immortalizing, as . far as possible, the courage that its people have exhibited, and the sufferings which they have endured, honorable members, who are supposed to lead it, come here to decry Australia's effort, and to say, with deliberation and without shame, that she has debased and disgraced herself in the eyes of the world, as the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir "William Irvine)** grossly libelled her by saying only a day or two ago. We may not be represented at the Peace Conference. I hope, at least, that we shall be represented at the next War Conference, and if we' are I care not whether we are represented at the Peace Conference at all. I hope that never again in the history of democracy will the sons of Australia be dragged across the seas either compulsorily or voluntarily to fight in a war which they had no voice in making. Let us hope to see the end of. secret diplomacy, the end of those conditions which have led to this world calamity. I freely admit that having, with others - as I have done - accepted the conditions under which we live, knowing that the obligation of this country to fight in war rested not with the people but with the various Foreign Offices and secret juntas of the gilded aristocracy which have engineered these things in the past, I have my full weight of responsibility in connexion with this war, as other men have. Having accepted the conditions under which it was rendered not only possible, but also inevitable, it behoves us to stand by our Allies and our fellow Australians who have gone to fight this war beyond the seas. We have been asked for suggestions. I cannot speak for my party. The Leader of the party speaks for the party. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I am glad that the honorable member is not speaking for the party. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The honorable member is glad that I am not speaking for the party before he knows what I am going to say. He enjoys that sense of satisfaction which comes to an honorable member who fights his country's battles with great heroism from the Treasury benches- {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member has worn that out long ago. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I did not know that the honorable member had been so frequently brought to task for the same thing, or I would not have mentioned it.No doubt those other rebukes were also deserved. Now for the future. Let us see that recruiting is made a success; let us do our duty to our soldiers at the Front; let us try some new methods of doing it; let us try some new Government for doing it. Although many Governments have failed in the judgment of the people of Australia - and that judgment has been doubtless right - the present Government enjoys the unique distinction of being the only one in history, to my knowledge, which is at once a self-confessed and self -demonstrated failure. Ministers came into office declaring that nothing mattered but the war and the winning of the war. They went on to the .Treasury bench declaring that their sole object was to give effect to a policy .of winning the war. They declared that voluntarism had failed, and they passed a measure of taxation designed to' buttress up the wealthy in this country, and secure them their dividends, and another measure which was a penal tax for the purpose of doing by an indirect method of legislation what they were fearful of doing, and dared not do, by the direct method of legislation, namely, penalizing men who had not gone to the war. That was their record in regard to winning the war. They said, " While we claim the right to commandeer the lives and properties of the young men of this country, our policy is to secure 7 per cent, to the wealthy capitalists." Life, blood, and all from the working soldier; the full reward for capital on the gilded investments of the capitalists who had no intention of fighting ! That was their policy. They said that they had failed to get recruits by what they were pleased to call the voluntary method. If a chorus of voices, all affirming the same thing from their own experience, could be taken as a proof that voluntarism had failed, then, according to Ministers and every member of their party, the policy of securing recruits by voluntarism had failed.' Iti was that fact which drove them to the referendum, and, having gone to the referendum, they said, " We are depending, as a last and only resource, upon this method of obtaining recruits. This is our win-the-war policy. Nothing else matters. This, and this alone, is the policy by which we can" win the war." This was, as the Prime Minister called it, their " Rock of Ages." They said, " We want you to understand that, unless we have this power, unless you give us this power, we cannot! govern this country, and we will not attempt to do so." The country rejected them with contumely and with contempt, according to all accepted standards of responsible government. They not only voted Ministers out - they threw them out, and their whole policy with them. Yet Ministers come to the House to-day, and say, " We are not defeated; we are here." Waving both arms in the air, and with a smile suffusing his countenance, the Prime Minister said, " We are here. That is your trouble." In one sense, as lawyers would say, the Ministry is a *virgo intacta* amongst Ministries. Ministers have not been turned out. Can I be shown one member who has lost his seat as the result of the referendum ? Nothing has been defeated except their policy, and they took good care not to attach their fortunes as sitting members to their policy. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- On how many occasions was your party defeated on its Constitution Alteration referenda? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I have never asserted that a Government is bound to go out of omeo when, having submitted a question to a referendum of the people, that question has been answered in the negative. The taking of a referendum is an executive act which should not affect the life of a Government, and it was a most improper course of procedure on the part of the present Ministers, on the recent appeal to the people, to deliberately weight the scales with threats or promises. Although I know that the great majority of this country are irrevocably committed against the policy of conscription, I realize also that there were some thousands, nevertheless, who were led on by that aureole hue of hope that by voting in the negative they would forever get rid of Hughesism in all its forms. Notwithstanding that fact, it was an improper thing to load the scales on an appeal to the people of this kind. Nothing could make the question vital to the Ministry but their own deliberate act. The terms of the motion moved by my leader include, three specific charges brought against the Government, and the first charge relates to the repudiation of pledges by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. One would think that such an allegation was sufficiently definite and sufficiently serious to merit a definite and serious reply. My leader stood in the position of Crown Prosecutor. If I may be permitted to use a somewhat sinister metaphor, the Government stood in the position of a man in the dock. Serious charges were levelled against them ; the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Tudor)** collated the evidence in support of those charges, and he did not go beyond nor stop short of the material facts necessary to sustain them. What did the Prime Minister say in reply? "The honorable member for Yarra comes up and makes charges against me, but he says nothing about the battle on the Isonzo Front; nothing about the Russian revolution, or the altitude of the Bolsheviks, the Ukranians, or the Cossacks ; and nothing about the . position on the Western Front." The right honorable gentleman might also have said with equal truth and potency that the Leader of the Opposition had said nothing about the procession of the equinoxes, or about an eclipse, though heaven knows a reference to an eclipse would have been relevant enough.i All that the honorable member for Yarra did was to confine himself to the cold and formal language of a serious personal and political indictment. Certainly it was very unkind of him, and it drew from the Prime Minister the rejoinder that the honorable member had dealt with things infinitely petty and infinitely mean. Maybe the honorable member was right. He was dealing with the personal reputation of the Prime Minister. Perhaps the right honorable gentleman adequately assessed it as something infinitely petty and infinitely mean - and, no doubt, also an infinitely painful task on the part of one who has a larger measure of Christian charity towards delinquents than I could ever lay claim to. Nevertheless, although it was a matter of that kind, he dealt with it in the way I have described - in the cold and formal language of a person making out a cruel, hard case, but one which, in the interests of political decency in this country, had to be made. The Prime Minister's answer was, " I am here. We are here. That is your trouble." It is our trouble; it is not a trouble that we have brought upon ourselves, or to which we have been a party, or at which we have connived ; but everything which debases the public life of this country debases, to some extent, the reputation of every citizen of this country. To that extent it is our trouble. That is why we have launched this motion, and will support it to a man. For just one moment let me re-examine the facts which have been examined from other aspects by other honorable members on both! sides of the House. I do not intend to repeat the collated evidence to which I have already referred, amassed with crushing conclusiveness by the various members on this side of the House. Sufficient for my indictment are the words spoken at Bendigo - I tell you plainly that the Government must have this power. It cannot govern the country without it. It will not attempt to do so. Those words were uttered in circumstances of extraordinary solemnity, and in an extraordinary solemn manner, and they were uttered more than once in effect. They were uttered, it is true, in the presence of the numerous band of claqueurs, and hangers on, and boosters up, who followed the Prime Minister around this country, and who, in one way or another, contributed to those nauseating columns that rendered the morning papers of the time even more painful than usual. They were uttered, it is true, to persons of that kind, but they were uttered also to seriousminded men and women. They were uttered to men whose sons were fighting at the front; they were uttered to tearstained women hanging on his lightest word and believing that his lightest word might be accepted at its face value. They were uttered in the presence of hundreds of .people who realize that this country and the world to-day is bathed in blood by reason of the fact that in the centre of Europe a man repudiated his pledge. That is the fount and origin of this war, and if I am expected to cynically disregard the seriousness of the position that has been created in this House, I tell you that I have no intention to make myself a party to this debasement. Although my name in politics may sing very small indeed to future generations, my reputation is still worth something ,to me, and if in a hundred ' years there be any readers of the forgotten tomes associated with this House they will find that I at least stood up in protest with other men against a deliberate act of falsehood, in the presence of tragic circumstances of unexampled importance, on the part of the chief political representative of Australia. Then followed that petty jugglery which we saw, that procession backwards and forwards to a certain place - the pro- . cess of "in again, out again," as my humorous friend from Henty rightly terms it. There was nothing then about the position on the Isonzo front; there was no concern then for some days about the relative importance of the Bolsheviki and other persons in Russia. There was a continuous movement backwards and forwards, to see how the Government could get rid of the pledge, or shunt it from one to another, in order that the odium of it might be transferred or at least distributed. It does not need a very vivid imagination to picture what happened. The Government met. The first thing they said was; " What are we to do about it? The position is difficult; we ought to resign ; we are in honour bound to resign, and everybody here knows that we are not going to resign." " Hear, hear," from the Postmaster-General. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- That is worthy of the honorable member, because it is untrue. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The point was, "What were they to do about it?" "I will tell you what we will do," said one member of the Cabinet, " we will take it to the party and say to them, ' Now, boys, be sports. Look at what Hall has said about us. Look at what the newspapers have said. Look at what the *Age* is saying about our honour. That is a very awkward thing, not so much about our honour, but in relation to the elections, and what we are to do in the future.'" But the party said, "You have got into this difficulty yourselves; you must get out of it yourselves the best way you can, and you must get out of it in a way which will preserve your honour in connexion with the pledge which has been given." {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- You forgot to mention that they did not repent until the newspapers denounced them. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- That is quite true. The party said to them, paraphrasing a -well-known couplet - >We could not love thee half so much, Loved we not honour more. and the Government replied - > >We could not love thee half so much, Loved we not office more. The party said to the Government, " You must go away and settle this matter consistently with honour, and the only limitation we put upon you is that you must not settle it. in the only honorable way in which it could be settled, that is, by advising the Governor-General to send for the Leader of the constitutional Opposition." Honorable members will see what a happy position that placed the Government in. The Government went away and said to one another, "The party tells us we must do it in the only honorable way open to us, subject to the fact that we must not do it in the only honorable way possible." " Therefore," they said, " having been to the party, we will go to the Governor-General." Honorable members know what happened. The Government came down to -the House, and the Prime Minister placed on the table a memorandum. I am very glad to know, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that the Speaker has not taken the view which I thought, from casual observations on his part, he intended to take, that the memorandum was not a subject for discussion in this House. I was quite prepared to move that his ruling be disagreed with if he had contended that a memorandum submitted for the consideration of the House, and to influence the deliberations of the House, could not be discussed. It appears now that we may discuss it, subject only to the fact that we must make no reflection on the GovernorGeneral. That is a limitation which I readily accept, and beyond which I have not the slightest intention of going. There is probably no precedent in the history of constitutional government in Australia for a Prime Minister endeavouring to prop up himself and his brother decadent politicians by using the name of the Governor-General. It is obvious 'that the memorandum is a fit subject for discussion. It does the Prime Minister little credit - on the contrary, it is well in keeping with his conduct throughout these negotiations to enable him to retain his office - to put words into the mouth of the Governor-General for the purpose of propping up his position here. Nobody will be in the least deceived. Every line in that memorandum, from beginning to end, is a Hughesian effusion, and the only difference between it and a speech by the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes is that the right honorable gentleman thought he could evade discussion and criticism by associating the name of the Governor-General with it. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Is that not a reflection on the Governor-General? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Not in the least. It is a reflection on the honorable member who draws his emoluments at that table in defiance of his word. It is a reflection upon every Minister associated with him, so far as I am permitted to reflect on their political conduct. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- And it is a reflection on the Governor-General. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- It, is quite possible that the honorable member takes a different view from me in that regard; but since the Governor-General's name has been dragged in here, and associated with the document which has to be. discussed,' let me say at once that I think the Governor-General acted in accordance with the best traditions of his office. He had nothing whatever to do with the pledges made by the Leader of the Government. That was a matter for the Prime Minister's own conscience. The Governor-General had to satisfy himself whether the Prime Minister was a person who was likely to be able to lead a party and a Government to carry on the work of the House. He had to satisfy himself whether the Prime Minister was the kind' of man who would swallow his promises in order to retain office, and he has shown his good judgment, because the Prime Minister is prepared to swallow his promises in order to keep office. ' The work of Parliament is going on, and the GovernorGeneral is justified, because his sole concern is to see that he gets a leader who can carry on the work of this Parliament and control a majority in the Parliament. The right honorable gentleman can do it, and is doing it. He has his party behind him, and they have not the courage to repudiate him, and apparently he knew it. There is the whole position in a nutshell. It is not the business of the Governor-Generalto inquire into the minds of honorable members here, or to consider the wild and whirling election protestations and the futile promises, made to win support for a losing case of honorable members on the platform. His constitutional position is clear, and I think, if I may say so, that he discharged his duty in accordance with the best traditions of his' office - I leave now this graveyard of a bubble reputation, because I wish to speak of other matters. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Can you explain how it is that the man whom you now defame so much was able for twenty years to lead the immaculate life in your party? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- It may be that the honorable member gives him credit for too lofty a character. I am glad of the opportunity suggested by the interjection to say frankly that I have no personal animus against the Prime Minister. I am one of the few members of the House who were intimately associated with him personally and privately. I have partaken of his hospitality in considerable measure, and have endeavoured in some small way to return it. I enjoyed his friendship, and looked upon his career as a stimulus and an inspiration for my own. He was a man in whose company I found pleasure, and for whom I had a great admiration. But, after the outbreak of war and his visit to England, he became infected and inflamed with the germs of Imperial jingoism, which have destroyed many able men before. His condition became worse every day until he was caught up with a certain fanaticism, and now believes himself entitled to do anything to secure his ends. It has fallen to the lot of few men in history, and of no other man in Australian history, to do so much injury to a country as he has done to this. Not only has he done Australia political injury by the abandonment of his friends and his principles, but by his conscription proposals and his political speeches he has so misrepresented the Democracy of this country as to traduce and vilify it before the whole civilized world, being helped in this by the notoriety which his Tory Imperialist propaganda in Great Britain enabled him to enjoy. Not only has he done this gross public wrong to Australia, but by his abortive attempts to seize the bodies of the citizens and violate the homes of the people of this country, he has brought apprehension and sorrow to the hearts, not only of the ordinary citizens, but even to those who have had sons killed at the war or fighting at the Front. They, like others, have been afraid that this policy of violation and spoliation would at last reach them. I come now to the second count of my leader's indictment against the Prime Minister, which deals with the persecutions - the honorable member for Yarra rightly preferred that word to prosecutions - of public men; a very serious matter, on which I propose to speak seriously. The following regulation was passed on the 19 th November last - >Any person who, on or before the polling day for the referendum, makes or authorizes to be made, verbally or in writing, any false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their votes, or who prints, publishes, or distributes any advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any such statement, shall be guilty of an offence : > >Provided always that it shall be a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this Regulation if the defendant proves that he had reasonable ground for believing, and did, in fact, believe, the statement to be true. > >The time for appearance to a summons for an offence against this Regulation shall, notwithstanding any provisions of State law, be not more than forty-eight hours from the service of the summons. > >When any person appears or is brought before a Court of summary jurisdiction charged with an offence against this Regulation, the hearing and determination of the case shall take precedence of all other matters, and shall not be adjourned or postponed at the instance of the defendant, except where, in the opinion of the magistrate, the defendant would otherwise be seriously prejudiced in his defence, and then shall not be adjourned or postponed more than once nor for more than fortyeight hours. Then this regulation was framed on the 1st December, 1917 - >The averment of the prosecutor that the defendant is the person who made or authorized to be made the statement in respect of which the proceedings have been instituted, or was the printer, publisher, or distributor of the advertisement, notice, hand-bill, pamphlet, or card containing the statement, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary ; and {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The production of a paper purporting to be printed, published or authorized by any person shall be prima *facie* evidence that the paper was printed or published, or that the statements contained in the paper were authorized, as the case may. be, by that person. I can scarcely conceive of a more serious charge against a Government than that of manipulating the statute law of the country by weighting the scales against one party to legal proceedings for the sake of obtaining political advantage. That charge I make against this Government. It is almost inconceivable that some members of the legal profession should have sat quietly by while this outrage was being perpetrated, and should now sit quietly by while it is being condoned. The time for an appearance to a summons for an offence against the regulation is limited to forty-eight hours. It must be remembered that the penalty on conviction is not a small fine, or a short term of imprisonment. The charge for which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, who takes even tragedies in good humour, was arraigned at Maryborough, and on which he was honorably acquitted, carried with it the penalty of six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding, I think, £100. Twenty-four hours' less notice is given to a defendant under this regulation than he would be entitled to if charged with- . {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Drunkenness, for example. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Yes, or- begging the honorable member's pardon - with some other trifling offence. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- I had only twentyfour hours' notice to defend a charge relating to something said at a place 300 miles away from where the case was being tried, and it was impossible to get witnesses. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The interjection shows the lengths to which the Government went. A case could be adjourned only at the instance of the prosecutor - except where in the opinion of the magistrate the defendant would otherwise be seriously prejudiced in his defence, and then shall not be postponed . . . for more than fortyeight hours. Even though a defendant were in fact seriously prejudiced in his defence, it was expressly provided that no longer post ponement should be granted. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- My case came on on the Friday, so that an adjournment for forty-eight hours was impossible. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- In a case at Melbourne, of which I know something, a lady was charged in a summons served at her house when she was away at Colac doing work for the country, and could not have reached Melbourne, after she had heard of the summons, in time to make an answer to it. We pointed this out to the magistrate, and the barrister who appeared to prosecute graciously - I use the word advisedly - consented to apply for an adjournment, because, as he said, " Youcannot do so." Only the prosecutor could obtain an adjournment in these cases. This case was therefore put off until the Tuesday. The defendant was charged with having made false statements regarding the vote of the soldiers at the Front. The authorities probably thought that we would make no defence, and pay a fine, but we were determined to prove the truth of what had been said by calling for the records of this House, and bringing as witnesses returned soldiers whom we knew had important information on the subject. But we knew that we could not fight the case to a finish adequately unless we got an adjournment, and our application for the adjournment needed was strenuously opposed. But the police magistrate on the bench, after reading the regulation, said that " as it was contrary to natural justice he must disregard it," and a leader of the Bar, in putting the same view, said that it amounted to a direction to the Court as to how it should try the case. Consequently we obtained an adjournment in spite of and in breach of this iniquitious regulation, and ultimately gained the acquittal of the lady. In probably a dozen instances the Crown charged persons with making false statements; but to my knowledge in only onecase was a conviction secured, and even that is the subject of an. appeal. Nothing of the kind has ever happened in this country before. The Crown were so weak in their cases and so wicked in their desire to prosecute, that they haled defendant after defendant before the Court, and yet, in every instance but one, failed to prove their case. But that is not the worst of the matter. There is this aspect of it which I must not overlook. I ask honorable members to mark this, and let lawyers on the other side say what they think of it. I should like to know what the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Maxwell),** who, judging by interjections and observations he has made in this House, is disposed to be a fair-minded man, and as I know him personally I have always believed that 'he is, thinks about it. ' The averment of the prosecutor that the defendant is the person who made or authorized to be made the statement in respect of which the proceedings have been instituted, or was the printer, publisher, or distributor of the advertisement, notice, hand-bill, pamphlet, or , card containing the statement, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The honorable member will find the same provision in the Customs Act. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The honorable member for Grey **(Mr. Poynton)** may think that it is possible by searching the records of the jurisprudence of this country to find a single parallel to, that provision deeming such an averment proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, but it is not. There ai-e many cases in which, the prosecutor having proved certain formal facts, the onus of proof is passed on to the defendant, but there is no ease of this kind. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- There is a similar provision in the liquor laws, and in the Customs Act of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The honorable member for Grey does not know what he is talking about. The honorable member will have no difficulty in finding that the burden of proof in certain circumstances is placed on the defendant, but I say that he will not find a case parallel to this regulation providing that the mere averment, of the prosecutor that the defendant is the person who made, or authorized to be made, the statement in respect of which proceedings have been instituted shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary. Not only is that law improper and inequitable ; not only is it in essence weighted against the defendant, but, .if 'anything could be worse than that, this is made worse by the fact that the Government would not prosecute except in the case of charges made against their political opponents. That is a very grave charge. It is worthy of a serious answer from the Government, and it should be answered also by the party opposite, because it goes to the very base of British justice. If what I have said is true, and I shall prove it, it amounts to a prostitution of British justice. One could hardly make a stronger statement than that. Let me give honorable members one illustration in proof of what I say. The Prime Minister in proceeding up, and down this country, spitting venom and vituperation wherever he went, dividing the people, and promoting recrimination and ill-feeling, calling out the police here and creating new* police there, and making violent Imperialistic and jingoistic speeches dividing families and unmaking friendships, referred to three things more frequently than to anything else, namely, Sinn Fein, Industrial Workers of the World, and a certain ecclesiastic, who got on his nerves, and apparently afterwards got on his chest. His greatest trouble was the question of Sinn Fein. I am bound to say in passing that the right honorable gentleman knows as much about Sinn Fein as does the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Archibald),** and that is making a pretty strong statement to indicate his want of knowledge of the subject. There was a meeting held in the' Guild Hall, in Melbourne. This hall is leased to the Women's Political Association. There they hold meetings, and other Christian democrats also hold meetings there from time to time. There Avas a meeting, held there shortly before the referendum was taken, which was referred to in the *Argus* newspaper of the morning following in terms which I shall quote from ai declaration made by Miss Cecilia John, whose name I have permission to use. and who was one of the lessees of the Guild Hall. The Women's Peace Army have a flag, which was flying, and had been flying at all material times, over the Guild Hall. I shall read Miss John's declaration to show how the *Argus* treated the meeting to which I "have referred on the morning after it was held. The declaration includes the name of Miss Vida Goldstein, whose name also I have permission to use, and is as follows - >I, Cecilia .John, of- , in the State of > >Victoria, spinster, do solemnly and sincerely declare: - > >That I and Miss Vida' Goldstein are the tenants of all the premises known as " The Guild Hall," and situate in Swanston-street, Melbourne, under an agreement dated the 13th day of October, One thousand nine hundred and sixteen. > >That I have seen a copy of the *Argus* newspaper, dated the Cth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, which newspaper bears upon it a notice that it is printed and published by George Bell, at the *Argus* office, Collins-street, Melbourne, for Wilson and Mackinnon, proprietors. > >That on page seven of the said newspaper, on the 6th day of December, One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, under the heading of "' Reinforcements Referendum," there . appears the words " Sinn Fein flag hauled down." > >In the course of the article printed under the heading hereinbefore referred to the following words are used ; - " At this stage the Sinn Fein flag was noted flying from a flag-pole at the top of the building, and a loud chorus of hoots arose. There was an insistent de. mand that the flag should be hauled down, and the lieutenant again asked the police for permission to enter the building so that he might remove it. That flag means disloyalty to the Em. pire; disloyalty to you,' he remarked to Senior-Constable Scanlon, who was again compelled to refuse. 'We will have it down if we have to wait all night,' cried several of tho men." > >That no flag other than the flag of the Women's Political Association was flown over tho Guild Hall on Wednesday, the 5th day of December, and at no time during the tenancy created by the agreement hereinbefore referred to lias a Sinn Fi en flag been flown over the said hall, or has such a flag been hauled down. > >That on the evening of the 5th inst. the flag of the Women's Political Association, which at all material times has been flown over the "Guild Hall, was lowered as the result of the clamorous demand made by certain persons unknown, and the said flag was the only one hauled down. > >A meeting was in course of being held at the Guild Hall on the date in question in opposition to conscription, and I verily believe that the statement " Sinn Fein flag hauled down," taken with its context, is a false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their vote on the polling day for the referendum. > >That the colours of the flag of the Women's Political Association are purple, white, and green, and they are not identical with any flag known as a " Sinn Fein' flag." Following upon that, Miss John, acting under advice, addressed a memorandum to the Attorney-General in these terms - >I hereby apply, under the provisions of the War Precautions Act 1914-1016, for jour con- sent to prosecute George Bell, publisher of the *Argus* newspaper, for printing and publishing a paper containing a false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their votes at the polling for the referendum, and I support this application with declaration herewith. I have just read the declaration referred to. Her solicitors, in forwarding that memorandum to the Attorney-General, wrote as follows: - >Herewith we forward application on the part of Miss Cecilia John for permission to prosecute George Bell, printer and publisher of the *Argus* newspaper, on a charge of printing and publishing a paper containing a false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their votes at the polling for the referendum, such words being printed and published on the 6th day of December inst., in circumstances set out in declaration of our client in support, also herewith. > >Requesting that the matter, on account of its urgency and importance, may receive your immediate attention. That accompanied the application on the part of Miss John for the permission to prosecute. I do not know whether the matter is still under consideration, bub I do know that no reply whatever has been given to the application, and no> rejoinder whatever has been made to Miss John's declaration. On 15th December, 1917, this letter was written to the AttorneyGeneral : - > **Sir, -** *Re* application of Miss Cecilia John: Our client is amazed that you have not furnished a reply to our letter to you of 6th inst. > >You must be thoroughly seized of its importance and urgency. Your recent addresses have been devoted mainly to exposing and condemning Sinn Fein. We owe almost entirely to your distinguished eloquence our information that it is rampant, and that it stands for disloyalty and rebellion. > >It is stated that the Sinn Fein flag was flown over a city building in a conspicuous place, and that it was hauled down. It is, as you must admit, a grave statement. It is either true or not true. There has been either open disloyalty or misstatement of fact likely to affect the voting at the referendum. We submit that either the publisher or the disloyalist should be dealt with. > >We have submitted a sworn declaration to the effect that the statement is false. > >We beg to respectfully point out that your failure to acknowledge our letter and to deal with the question, is creating the impression in many minds that the administration of justice is being unduly hampered at its source. To that letter also there has1 been no reply furnished. Possibly because my name was associated with the matter the Prime Minister thinks that he may treat the application with contempt. He may consider that as I am a mere member of the rank and file of the Labour partyhe is entitled to ignore it. But I remind him, and I remind honorable members, that I wrote the communications I have quoted as representing a member of this community seeking for justice. I remind the House that the AttorneyGeneral defeated justice, and that he has denied justice in this particular case. Honorable members opposite may answer it if they will or remain satisfied with it, but I say that no graver charge could be levelled against a Government, and no graver charge could be condoned by a party than the charge I have made concerning the regulation weighted in the way I have said against the defendant in the first place and in the second place used for political purposes against one section of the people and one section only. I leave this matter without further reference to the details of other cases, each one of which has its peculiar attributes of impropriety on the part of the Government. I now desire to refer to the third count in the indictment - the disfranchisement of the Australian-born. It is hard to tell which of the charges is the most serious; - but I think all fair-minded men will 'admit that each of them is sufficiently serious to warrant the party opposite dealing with its own Government. I have here quotations from speeches delivered by the Minister for "Works and Railways **(Mr. Watt),** and by the Prime Minister, as> reported in the *Argus* of 12th December last. The words of the former were - >When the Government decided to remit the question of conscription again to the people, it decided that the vote would be taken only among British people. That meant that enemy aliens would not be allowed to vote. Why was the honorable member not haled up for making a false statement of a kind likely to affect the judgment of voters at the referendum ? He knew that the Government's decision amounted to something more - to something vastly different; he knew it meant something which affected, not only enemy aliens, but his brother Australians. The extract from the Prime Minister's speech is - >The Government has determined that for the future the decision of a matter of such moment to the Australian people shall rest, not with our enemies, but with our own flesh and blood. What more cruel or cowardly allegation could there be, after having taken away the votes of Australian-born citizens, against whom nothing was charged, or even suspected, than to say that they were our enemies? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The Minister for Home and Territories **(Mr. Glynn)** knew something about those votes. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Possibly he did. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- And still there was a big majority of . " Noes " in the Angas electorate. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- It is true that, in the result of the referendum, there is no proof, but rather a disproof, that that class of vote went with the Labour party. The fact remains that the vote in the negative ' was largely increased by comparison with last year even after our opponents had succeeded in removing from the register from 80,000 to 100,000 names. Nevertheless, I would not be so unjust to those disfranchised men as to say they would have voted with the other side, be-* cause I do not think so; and I warn honorable members opposite' that they are taking up a position which will entitle every citizen of foreign blood or extraction, whether alien or friend, to regard them with suspicion and distrust. It is not only the descendants of Austrians, Hungarians, or Germans who have to consider this matter. Let the descendants of Prance, America, Russia, and every other foreign country, whether allied, enemy, or neutral, beware. The other day I saw in the press a statement regarding a gallant French citizen, of whose family I know something, to the effect that his son had been decorated for gallantry on the field of battle. WhenI saw this, announcement I said, ' ' Yes ; we have gallant Frenchmen here, we have good citizens here from Italy, some from Russia, and a variety of countries, all members of the white races and welcomed to our shores; but members of this Parliament who can break their plighted word to the Australian-born descendants of Germans, will break their word just as readily to those men who are fighting with us, or are neutral in the war, for with men of the Government stamp prejudice and passion -are stronger than right and reason. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- I believe a memberof this House was disfranchised. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I believe so, and other men just as deserving have been similarly treated. These are matters which rest on principle, and not on expediency. They can not be waived aside by. the argument of military necessity, because that is a sinister argument which should not be readily used, and has been invoked elsewhere. We are under an ob- ligation to every law-abiding enfranchised white citizen of the country to give him equal rights in the government of the country. We cannot with impunity tear up the " scrap of paper " or disregard our guarantees. If we do tear up the " scrap of paper " and disregard our guarantees in the future, as the Government have done in the past, we shall set up conditions here, as I have said already, which are not worth fighting for or defending. The Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Watt),** at least, might have been expected to know better. He is a champion of the Australian Natives Association, in connexion with which he has won some honour, and he has prided himself on his radical leanings and democratic ideals. Yet he weakly followed in the wake of that imported gentleman, the Prime Minister, who, in this matter, does no credit to the gallant country from which he came to find an asylum in Australia. In assisting in that! act of gross injustice to his fellow Australians, the honorable member was guilty of .pusillanimity and disregard for the rights of his fellow countrymen which disqualifies him absolutely as a good Australian. We are asked what we are going to do in the. future - what we are going to do with regard to the offer that has been made to us by the Prime Minister - if it is an offer. I wish to tell the party opposite something for the good of their souls. When I noticed the remarkable difference between their studied politeness of today, and their militant aggressiveness of a few weeks ago, I naturally asked myself the reason. I see the party opposite occupying a position not unlike that of the small boy who has been conducted to the nursery by his parent, and has returned after disciplinary exercises looking for a soft place to sit down. They have just had such corrective measures meted out to them. They have whirled about the country as the mouthpieces of vituperation and vindictiveness- ^-vilifying, not only the party on this side, but also the majority of the people of the country, Having been whipped, scorched, and de- feated, they came back into the House meek as sucking doves, their leader bearing meekly a small olive branch to the party on this side. We would like to respond in a way which we think would be the best, not necessarily for this party, but for the country as a whole. I, therefore, ask the party opposite to seriously reconsider their .past conduct, and, above all, to consider the vote of the people at the referendum. If they can bring their conduct more into keeping with the aspirations of the majority of the people, as shown in that vote, I think we might, not as members of a Ministry they may form, but with moderate harmony - if I may so express it - carry on together the work of the country. But there must be reformation. First of all, it is perfectly idle for the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** to ask what we are going to do in the future, seeing that his most generous admission is1 that we cannot do anything with conscription at present. That honorable member, with a lethal weapon in one hand behind his back, tenders his olive branch with the other. Let honorable members opposite dismiss every notion from their minds tha* the party on. this side, either directly or indirectly, can be associated in any kind of friendly intercourse with a Ministry which has even for its ulterior object a policy of compulsion. Let the Government and their supporters get that into their minds as a preliminary, and then set iia work in connexion with the war. I have two alternative policies. My two policies are not by any means incompatible. One is the policy indorsed by the Trade Union Conference of Great Britain and by the Labour Councils of New South Wales and Victoria, and that policy is to use all legitimate means, as a Dominion of the Empire, to influence the centre of the Empire - in common with those Democrats who, at the heart of the Empire, are striving for the same thing - to bring this fearful fratricidal war to an end by negotiation. That is the first plank; but if we cannot be wholly successful with that immediately, let us in the meantime, as we must do our full measure of justice to the soldiers at the Front, get to work. Let us understand that we are not going to improve the position by speeches - by the employment of men to make abusive speeches about "slackers" - or by securing to wealth more than its full reward, while at the same time proposing to take the all, which includes the life of the private soldier and the worker. Then let honorable members opposite get out of their minds, once and for all, the notion that we can materially increase the number which this country is sending across the seas. We cannot do that by any means; on the contrary, it is inevitable that the number must still further decrease as the war goes on. We cannot get more out of the bucket than there is in it. *Extension of time granted.* {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- There are two means by which I think the parties, in this House might be brought more closely together. So far as the Ministry itself is concerned, it is perfectly hopeless to think of improving the position when your leaders are unsatisfactory to the Commonwealth. Having regard to the vote at the recent referendum, and the many and significant evidences of dissatisfaction on the part even of, those who voted in the affirmative, it must be realized that there is a profound distrust of the Government. Right or wrong, that seems to be perfectly obvious. It is idle to say this is a personal question. One might just as well say, " Here is an army going to fight, having at its head a leader whom the whole army and the country distrust. But what matters it who the leader is ! The cause we are fighting for is the only consideration." It is clear that, in circumstances of that kind, the first act of wise statesmanship would be to remove the commander who had not the confidence of those who had to work under and with him. That applies to this Government. It is, indeed, the first consideration. Without presuming to speak for our party, but as one who knows the tone and temper of it, I think that honorable members on this side of the House are very far from desiring to be associated in Ministerial office with any one on the Government side of the House. They are perfectly content that a Ministry should be formed from the present followers of the Government. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- There is quite a galaxy of talent over there to draw upon. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- There is. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- But, short of association Ministerially with this party, would it not be possible for the honorable member's party and our own to come together in a more informal way? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I see no reason why it should not be. Some people, somewhat unkindly, describe me as an extremist with regard to the war. That, of course, is quite wrong. Speaking for myself, even if I am an extremist, I shall, at all events, place no obstacle in the way of a *rapprochement* of the kind suggested by the honorable member. I have told the House the first essential to the success of such an effort. When I talk of a change of Government, I speak not so much because of the reasons I have been putting forward as to why the present Government should be censured, but because I feel certain that the main outstanding fact, quite irrespective of anything I have said, is that the people no longer consider the Prime Minister and his Ministry proper persons to lead the House at this time. The next consideration is as to how we are to deal with the question of raising recruits. I have already said that, in my opinion, nothing the Government may do will largely increase the numbers. I am not a pessimist; but, to my mind, what we have already done is marvellous. Doubtless, a more harmonious feeling amongst the people, a greater cooperation, and a cessation of much of the present party bitterness would improve the recruiting situation; but my own view is that we should best face the situation by means of sacrifices on the part of those in this country who are capable of making sacrifices. We are all capable of making sacrifices in one way or another. Let us make them. Let us, as members of this House, set an example to the country. Let Ministers set an example of personal sacrifice of material things. Every one of us, as an example to the country could and should do so. We could then go to the financiers and capitalists of this country so that we might improve the lot of the soldier and -his dependants. We might then improve the condition of soldiers' dependants in the matter of separation allowances. We might then wipe away the feeling existing in the minds of so many thousands of the people that the dependants of soldiers are not getting a fair deal; that our soldiers themselves are not receiving the fullest measure of justice; that there is altogether too much care on the part of the present Government and many of their supporters to buttress up the material interests of this country, while paying little attention to the just claims of those who are making the real sacrifice, both in Australia and beyond it. These are two lines upon which I think the Government party might go. {: #debate-2-s8 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- The extension of time granted to the honorable member has expired. {: #debate-2-s9 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Dampier .- I am pleased that the House granted the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** an extension of time so that he might complete his speech, because honorable members on both sides are anxious, I am sure, to see something in the nature of a *rapprochement,* and to hear anything that might help in that direction. We on this side have only one purpose in view, and that is that Australia shall be able in the present circumstances of the war to do its duty. It is not with us a question of who shall be in power and who shall be in Opposition. Offers have been made by the Government, but the Opposition so far have made no response. Replying to the first statement made by the honorable member for Batman, I would point out that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** has offered to stand down. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- Who believes him? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Why not put his offer to the test? He said in this House that if the Opposition were prepared to join in forming a National Government, he would stand down rather than be an obstacle in the way of such an arrangement. If the Opposition desire to meet us, surely it is worth while making some reply to that offer. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** has not yet done so. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- He has, so far, had no opportunity. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Quite so, but members of his party who have spoken since that offer was made could have answered for him. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Why did not the Prime Minister make this offer before he resumed office? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I hope that I am not giving offence to honorable members opposite in bringing forward this failure of the Opposition to reply to the Prime Minister's offer. I have in view only one object in alluding to it. I care not a rap for one side or the other, my opinion being that members of all parties in this House must put their heads together to determine how we can best do our part in this war. That we must do, and the time will come when there will be trouble for those who at this juncture would not try to bring all parties together. Having listened to the speech made by the honorable member for Batman I feel convinced that if we could win this war with platitudes, we would need only to send the honorable member to the Front and victory would speedily be ours. He said that if a burglar entered his house he would be justified in using every means and every weapon in putting him out again. After listening to his later remarks, however, I can hardly believe that he would do so. I think he would begin to argue with the burglar as to how he got into his house, and what right he had to be there. The honorable member drew attention in most pathetic terms to the evils of this great war. He spoke of those who were suffering - of the poverty of the women and children in the Old Country and in Germany. He failed, however, to point out who was responsible for this state of affairs. Who dares to say, as far as we or Britain are concerned, that this is not a just war. When, as **Senator Millen** recently put it, this country declared war against Germany, was there a man in this House who raised a word of protest? Was there in this country a politician, a clergyman, a trade union, or any other trade organization that uttered a word of protest when we entered the war? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The House was not sitting at the time. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- It met shortly afterwards, and neither the honorable member nor his party raised any protest. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- They claimed all the credit for what Australia had done. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- They did more than that. We know the promises that the Labour party made at the general election about that time, and at which they were returned to power. We sent troops to German New Guinea, so declaring war against Germany. We sent troops to the Old Country, again throwing down the gage of battle to Germany. Eight months after the outbreak of war - after the Labour party had had ample time to consider the position - we had the statement by **Mr. Fisher,** confirmed and indorsed by every member of his party, that " The unchangeable policy of the Government is to obtain, equip, and transport to the seat of war every available man fit to help our Allies." {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- We stand by that statement to-day. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I wish the honorable member and his party would show by actions rather than by words that they stand by it. We ask them now to help us in prosecuting the war. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Let them get back to that attitude. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- After destroying it by talking conscription for nearly three years. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I doubt if I would have spoken ou this motion at all had it not been that some one had given to the press what is supposed to have been a report of what took place at our party meeting. This report stated that I struck a discordant note in relation to the action of the Prime Minister. Well, I, with some others, was dissatisfied with many administrative actions in connexion with the conduct of the war, and more particularly in the Defence Department, and I feel sure that the great majority of members believe, with me, that the control of that huge spending Department should be in this Chamber. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Hear, hear 1 Long ago. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- If we could insist upon that change, and obtain some control of the Defence Department in this House, it would help very materially to get rid of many anomalies existing at the present time. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- No party appears to be able to' get rid of that " old man of the sea" called Pearce. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I should be pleased indeed if we could effect this change. As I have said I' have been dissatisfied with many acts of administration. I think the Prime Minister has been wanting in tact,, more particularly when dealing with industrial troubles. But more than all I objected to the Prime Minister's action in holding the second conscription referendum. I did not want it, and it came at a most inopportune time. .This war has been going on for over three years. We made promises to those who went away that they would be well treated when they returned, and we had actually brought forward a scheme for repatriation, when the second conscription referendum was announced. The time, therefore, was most inopportune. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I remind the honorable member for Maranoa, however, that he and members of his' party are more to blame than we are for this delay in formulating schemes, because his party were longer in office, and nothing was done. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Well, you go up to Queensland and see what we have been doing. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I have no desire to go to North Queensland. What has happened there does not reflect much credit on Australia. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- But I am speaking of efforts on behalf of repatriation. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- When I blame members opposite for delay in formulating repatriation schemes I do not absolve members on this side. However, I have great confidence in **Senator Millen,** who is now administering the Repatriation Department. I know his ability, and I believe that he has thrown himself earnestly into the work of repatriation, and so I am hoping that very shortly we shall have in operation a scheme that will give satisfaction to the people of Australia. This repatriation scheme, as I have said, was formulated just before the decision to hold another referendum was announced, and therefore it could not be examined by the general public and the soldiers who were returning to these shores. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that if the Government had had time to finalize the details, and if returning soldiers had had an opportunity of examining it, we would have had a bigger vote in favour of conscription, not only from the soldiers, but from their friends and the general public as well. The time of holding the referendum was inopportune also because it was right in the middle of the harvest, when people were particularly busy, and worse than all, as I pointed out when the first proposal was announced, Parliament, which was elected by the people to. do the work of the country, was asking them to decide how this work should be done. I have always 'objected to referendums, and more particularly on a proposal such as this, and that is why I thought a change of Administration would be for the good of Australia. A referendum on conscription appealed to every vile and ungenerous instinct. It appealed to every selfish, sordid, and mercenary interest - to the pettifogging pacifist, who cares for nothing but his own miserable interests - it appealed, also, to the selfish employer or employee who cared for nothing so long as profitable occupation was insured. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- The pacifists appear to be the only .true altruists. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Then, again, political influences were operating among the workers to insure a vote against this proposal. Even the girls were appealed to. I saw a circular issued in my own State telling the girls that 6,000 of our boys who had gone to the Front had been married at Home, and the girls were invited to contemplate what would be their future prospects in the matrimonial market if conscription were carried. The mothers, too, were told that if they entered the polling booth and voted "Yes," they would leave with the brand of Cain upon them. These were the influences responsible for the " No " vote. I want it to be distinctly understood that I, for one, refuse to believe that the big proportion of people of Australia are disloyal. 1 believe, however, that they have been led by false advisers, and I know that a big effort was made to stir up sectarian trouble, notwithstanding the splendid response by the Catholic community to the call of the Empire. There are over 350 boys' names on the honour roll of the Christian Brothers' College at Perth, which is only a young college, and the same can be said of a great many other Catholic institutions; but, unhappily, there have been in our midst those who, in the words of Mon.signor Cassidy, out of disloyalty to Aus-' tralia would stab at the heart of England through the souls of their own sons. 1 have nothing but contempt for people who would do that sort of thing. The trouble to-day seems to be due, to a great extent, to political antagonism to the Prime Minister. I do not think that, after the pledge made by the Leader of the Government at Bendigo, members of the Government are absolved by their recent course of action ; but, when considering how I shall vote on this motion, I must ask myself what is offering to me in the choice of Governments. In this connexion I have been waiting patiently for an answer to the suggestion made for the formation of a Coalition Government. If we turn down the Prime Minister, are we to get the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** ? The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Higgs)** to-day referred to the present Government as a limpet Ministry, because of the manner in which they were hanging on to office. I do not know if the report of the Labour party meeting was correct, but I know it was stated that they claimed the right to form an Administration. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Where did that report appear ? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- It appeared in the press, and there was no denial of It. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- There was, but the newspapers would not publish it. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The argument was that the Leader of the Opposition should have been sent for to form an Administration; but what possibility was there of the Labour party carrying on for five minutes ? The proposal was that the Labour party should form an Administration, obtain Supply, and then carry on under . war-time regulations, without any further control by Parliament. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Well, you could not call us limpets, because we have not been on the rock yet. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- But the honorable member and his party were very eager to get there. Now, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I have to come to a determination, and, by my vote on this motion, to choose between the two parties. No one can doubt the Prime Minister's loyalty. I took the trouble to read part of his speeches in connexion with the Defence Bill of 1909, and- {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- You mean his loyalty to the Empire? I do not think any one doubts that. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I point out, too, that the honorable member for Maranoa was one of his strongest supporters up to a little while ago, and I am a little disturbed in my mind as to the action of the honorable member, for I know how strongly he feels in regard to the war. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- And yet he has been called a pro-German. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I am not aware of that. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- My feeling for the Old Country is as strong as ever it was. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- But, unfortunately, the honorable member has shown that his loyalty to party is greater than his loyalty to the Old Country. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I am absolutely opposed to conscription. I do not believe in it, and never did. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- No one doubts the loyalty of the Prime Minister, and no one has ever yet been able to point to a single action of his that has been derogatory to the interests of the Empire. Nor can they complain of his loyalty to Australia, or of his want of courage. When he came back to Australia- {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Have you heard of the bull that rushed at a railway train? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I complain of his want of tact. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- When the Prime Minister went Home, he was the leader of a big party, and members opposite gloried in the speeches which he made in the Old Country. Certainly, he did make a great name for himself, and honorable members opposite were proud of him. He was admitted into the confidence, not only of the Imperial Government, but of the Governments of the Allies. He went to the Front, learned of all the difficulties and the vicissitudes of life in the trenches, and came back with a message. With other honorable members, I went to the Town Hall, where he had arranged to speak, and I hung upon his words minute after minute, hoping to hear that he intended to bring in conscription. In my mind there is not the slightest doubt that the Prime Minister desired to take this course, but I think he was keener in his desire to keep his party together and carry them with him. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- That is so. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- When the Prime Minister came to his party, he asked that the question should be submitted to the people, and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Mathews)** was among those who voted against this course. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I was; Iwould always vote against even the initiation of that scheme. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The honorable member was false to his principles, but the Prime Minister showed magnificent courage at the Labour party meeting. When he left the party he practically walked out into political darkness, for he had not the slightest idea that he would be accepted by the Liberal party, or that he would be able to carry on for twenty-four hours. Up to that time there had been no negotiations in any shape or form between the Prime Minister and the then Liberal party. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Had not an arrangement been made that he should receive support from the Liberal party ? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- There had been no promise whatever, except that given at the commencement of the war, that the Government would receive loyal support while they continued to do their best to prosecute the war to a successful issue. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- The Labour party has made the same promise. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The Labour party has never given that support to the present Government. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Why hold inquests when you desire to bring the parties together ? {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Perhaps the honorable member for Werriwa and I differ because I am an ardent conscriptionist and he is not. I am asked to vote for a motion of want of confidence, and I have to decide this question for myself. In the Prime Minister I have found loyalty and courage and as far as I can judge he has adhered to the principles he advocated prior to the war. All the honorable members on the opposite side were conscriptionists at one time, because they supported the Defence Act. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I did not. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The Labour party boasted of the fact that they were responsible for placing that law on the statute-book. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I plead guilty, and I would do the same thing again for the defence of Australia. I say that every man from sixteen to sixty years of age should shoulder a rifle in defence of this country. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- But as conditions; are developing nowadays the boys of eighteen and men of sixty go to the Front, while the men of twenty-five and thirtyyears of age remain behind. I ask honorable members opposite whether the present conflict is not our war. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I say it is. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Did one honorable member opposite object to our participation in the war? We were faced with a proposal for playing our part in this conflict with the aid of conscription. Conscription is the principle of the Defence Act under which the Governor-General may call up every man between eighteen and sixty years of age and make him bear arms in defence of the country. This is our war, and the question we have to decide is where we can best defend the country. Are we to wait until the enemy comes here? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- We have not waited. We have sent 300,000 men overseas. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Lamond: -- We did not send them. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- If the Government did not send them, who did ? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The Government did not send those men, although it provided for their reaching the Front. The Government had not power to send one man out of Australia. *Several honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! These interjections must cease. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** voted for conscription in the Defence Act, but to day he is against that principle. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- There is conscription for the Navy under that Act. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- That is so. I should like to see a National War Government formed of all parties. We on this sideinvited the Labour party to join with us before the Hughes Coalition Ministry was formed. We desired to bring all parties together. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- No chance. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- We made a proposal to honorable members opposite. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Let the honorable member get that out of his mind. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I am trying to get from the Opposition a statement that they will join with us in forming a Ministry that will insure an effective continuance of Australia's part in the war. How could I vote to place in power honorable members opposite when I find that a little while ago they were in favour of conscription, and to-day they are opposed to it. We offered an opportunity to honorable members to join in the National War Government, and they refused it; but is there not some possibility of their joining us now in response to the latest offer made by the Prime Minister? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The honorable member need not waste his time. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It is very cold over there. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Are honorable members on this side to be expected to support a Labour Government, in view of the timid loyalty shown so far by the Leader of the Opposition? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- He is not timid. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- He is in his utterances. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- He is as loyal as any man in this House. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The loyalty of the Leader of the Opposition is to the outside organizations, and his party, rather than to the country. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member cannot say that our leader is disloyal or weak. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I do not reflect on his integrity; I am speaking of his timidity. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- His flesh and blood are at the Front. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- He is not the only man who has relatives at the Front, but many of them are prepared to make sacrifices for their party rather than for their country. The honorable memberforBroken Hill **(Mr. Considine)** was applauded last night when he said that the Labour party favoured a peace settlement similar to the proposals of the Russian Bolsheviks. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- And the proposals of Lloyd George. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- If the Labour party would subscribe to the utterances of Lloyd George, and declare that they are prepared to continue the fight until this terrible German menace is removed, we on this side would be heart and soul with them. That is all we desire. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Lloyd George did not say a word about enfranchising the manhood of Britain. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- We have no time for those problems of domestic politics now. Cannot we fight out our differences on these matters after the war has been won ? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- No ; I would not trust Lloyd George, or anybodyelse. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- We have been asked to put honorable members opposite in power; but I understand that the outside Labour organizations have passed resolutions urging the Government to represent to the Imperial authorities the necessity for bringing forward peace proposals at once. What good should we derive from such a course ? Would not peace to-day, under conditions such as we ' could oiler, leave Germany the dominant Power, and free at any time to overwhelm the world with all her dreadful f rightfulness ? To-day Germany controls the whole of Belgium, the northern portion of France, a big slice of Italy, and the whole of Roumania and Servia, and Russia is beaten to her knees. If we made peace overtures to them to-day would they not claim a German victory ? Gould we depend on Germany honouring any arrangement that was arrived at? Did she not pledge herself to observe the neutrality of Belgium ? Did she not promise, when she took possession of Antwerp, that if the Belgians would return to their own country they would not be interfered with, and do we not find today that the Belgium citizens are herded together like cattle, and set to work against their own people ? Did not Germany, as one of the signatories of The Hague Convention, help to formulate rules for minimizing the horrors of war? Has she kept any of her pledges? Would a peace such as we could demand to-day be of any advantage to us? The Germans realize that the entry of Great Britain into the war destroyed their plans and their prospects of a speedy victory. If Britain had stood aloof Germany would have overrun France immediately and absolutely destroyed that nation. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- And later would have destroyed Great Britain very likely, 'so that to Britain the war is also defensive. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- We have read the German hymns of hate; the hatred which they express has been seared into the very hearts of the German people. Any peace under present conditions would only be a patched up affair. We might cover up the fire for a time, but the flame would burn within, and might burst forth at any time in the future, when we and our Allies were less prepared than we are to-day. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- According to the honorable member's view, shall we ever be able to trust them? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Not until Prussian militarism is destroyed. In my opinion, we should forget everything except the fact that we are at war. Every effort on the part of the people of Australia and the Empire should be concentrated on the one purpose of achieving victory. I should not care what power the Government took so long as it helped to that end. For that reason, I should like to see all parties combine so that we might have a guarantee that no one section of the community would be treated unfairly. If we are satisfied that the war is a just and honorable one, let us, like the people in the Old Country, do all that possibly can be done to bring it to a successful conclusion. We in Australia have a big prize to fight for. Only a few years ago we were at death grips with the South African Republics. Today they are fighting with U S. Surely the response of those Republics to the generous treatment they received from their conquerors is a marvellous tribute to the far-sighted conceptions of liberty of those who are building up our Empire. What harm could conscription do to Australia? At the commencement of the war it was anathema to the people of Great Britain, but to-day it is in operation there as it .is in New Zealand, Canada, and the great and democratic United States of America. America had not entered the war a week before a measure for the enforcement of conscription was before Congress. During the recent campaign I was addressing a meeting at Northampton, in Western Australia, and on the platform were two returned soldiers, one a man of sixty-three years of age, who had served for a little over two and a half years, and the other a boy of nineteen, who had enlisted when he was seventeen years of age, and had returned a cripple. We talk about Democracy, equality of opportunity, and equality of sacrifice; but surely the present system of getting soldiers is undemocratic and unfair. Honorable members opposite say that they will not submit to conscription, but they must realize the dangers and injustices which arise every day out of the existing system. Will they not then meet us to a certain extent? The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** proposed that there should be a Conference between representatives of both parties in order to see whether a solution of our problems could not be arrived at. I am prepared to give way a little. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Only a little? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I think the honorable member will agree with me that we wish to do our duty according to our lights. To my mind, there is only one way in which we can discharge our duty, and that is by means of absolute conscription. But the honorable member does not believe in conscription. Yet it is possible that if we conferred together we might be able to devise some means whereby we could push the recruiting system. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Let us have a try anyway. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- If it be only for the purpose of ascertaining the actual facts of the position. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I want to do something, anyway. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I am prepared to make sacrifices, and I am sure that the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** is. The present position is bad. Honorable members opposite must recognise that, whilst we have all this party feelling, all this antagonism and animosity, we cannot perform our duty, and things must go from bad to worse. The sooner we come to regard the position in that light the better. If honorable members opposite will meet with honorable members upon this side of the chamber it may be possible, by means of mutual compromise, to formulate some scheme under which we shall be able to do better than we are doing to-day. But while the present political turmoil exists we cannot do our best in the interests of the Empire. I have received quite a number of letters from soldiers and others in reference to the position as we find it to-day. In one instance the father of a soldier at the Front has died, the old mother is now left at home, and the farm is going to wreck and ruin. She wishes to know if her son cannot be allowed to return home. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- That is not an isolated case. I have received similar letters. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Here is the final paragraph of a letter from the Defence Department to one of these writers - General Birdwood has himself stated that he deeply sympathizes with the relatives of soldiers, but owing to the urgent and pressing need for every available man at the Front, he -regrets that he cannot approve of any lit soldier being returned to Australia. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- He would say the same if we had an additional five divisions there. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- Why should we be fighting and squabbling politically while such a condition of affairs obtains? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What is to stop us all from putting our shoulders to the wheel and doing our best in the circumstances? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I feel so bitter at the unfairness of the present system of recruiting that I prefer to remain outside any conference which may take place between representatives of the two political parties in this chamber. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- If the bitter men on each side will not meet, what chance is there of success being attained ? {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- The honorable member misjudges me. I was about to say that I am so bitter that I thought my presence at any such conference would be objected to. I am prepared to make any political sacrifice in the world so long as I can secure support for our boys at the Front. It would not matter much to Australia if I were turned out of political life. I am prepared to make my political sacrifice at any moment, but I am not prepared to see one of the lads at the Front unnecessarily sacrificed. I think that representatives of both sides in this Parliament should meet and endeavour to ar-. rive at some workable arrangement under which Australia will be able to discharge her duty in connexion with this great war. {: #debate-2-s10 .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports -- I wish first to speak of the pledge given by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** on behalf of himself and his Government. During my life I have worked with foreigners of every nationality. I recollect that they used to affirm that the English language was not capable of expressing one's meaning in the same way as is the French, the German, or the Italian languages. The Latin races make this claim more than does any other race. They admit that it is possible to swear in English better than in any other language- {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- It was a French author who said that language was given to us to enable us to conceal our thoughts. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I have heard that, too. But there was no concealment about the pledge which the party opposite gave to the electors of this country. They said that they could not, and would not, govern unless the referendum were carried. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** may argue that that pledge was given to conceal something. I did not think so at the time. The Prime Minister made the pledge, and it was supported by other Ministers. Moreover, I agree with the honorable member for Flinders that the followers of the Government who did not repudiate it were bound by it. Last May a general election took place, and on that occasion the political party opposite stole the title of the "Win-the-war" party. The phrase, I believe, was coined by one of the recruiting committees. My honorable friends opposite, being hard-heads politically, realized that it would be a capital cry upon which to go to the country. It implied, not merely that they were the " Win-the-war " party, but that their opponents constituted the " Losethewar " party. They thus managed to convey the impression that they were " the real Mackay," and would win the war. They made the people believe that they would do something which honorable members on this side of the House would not, and could not, do. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Mr Story: -- They were in favour of doing everything possible, whereas the honorable member's partly were not. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member makes that statement, but. he knows that it is inaccurate. The position is that when the Prime Minister gave the pledge which he did, he meant it, because he thought he was going , to carry the referendum. He gave it with a view to inducing electors who were anticonscriptionists to vote in favour of conscription under the threat that if they did not they would be afflicted with something worse, namely, the Labour party. Had he not given that pledge, I firmly believe that conscription would have been lost by another 100,000 votes. Dozens of men and women told me that they were not in favour of conscription, but that they were " not going to have our lot." There is no doubt that that was exactly the impression which the Prime Minister sought to convey. When he gave that pledge people thought that he meant to respect it. Yet to-day the same Government are in power. They were irrevocably pledged not to carry on the govern ment of this country in the absence of conscription. Yet the people rejected conscription. As the Government have said they could not carry on without conscription, and could not reinforce the men at the Front by any. other means, I wish to know by what method they intend to reinforce them now ? During eighteen months of the two years that T assisted in the recruiting campaign, I was ashamed of the men who spoke from the recruiting platforms, because they were practically talking conscription all that time. They were doing so at the time when we were getting more recruits than we could supply with caps. They were doing so at a time when we were obliged to accommodate our troops on the show grounds and in cattle pens. Thousands of men have been buried at the Front who were called coldfooters in the days of which I speak. Do not honorable members realize that the continual upbraiding of men because they will not do a certain thing steels their resolution to refrain from doing it *1* Let me quote an example. Near where I live there used to exist a " push " of young fellows, nine of whom had evaded compulsory training.' The war broke out, and within seven weeks every one of those young men had enlisted under the voluntary system. Four of them have since been killed on active service, and the remainder have been returned to Australia maimed. ' That circumstance evidences the Australian spirit. *Sitting suspended from 6-30 to S p.m.* {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- We might as well have a quorum present. *(Quorum formed).* {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was saying that the Australian would not submit to compulsion, and that more could be got out of him under the voluntary system than under any compulsory, system, and I pointed to the fact that the very men who had sought to evade training under the new compulsory system were amongst the first to volunteer to go to the Front to fight. I make the deliberate charge against those who first conceived the idea of establishing conscription in Australia that they mooted it for the purpose of spoiling voluntarism - not because the blanks could not be filled by the voluntary system, but because certain people would have conscription. I am willing to concede that hundreds of thousands believe conscientiously that the system of conscription should be imposed in Australia, but the great majority of those who support, the principle of compulsion, particularly those Conservatives who first mooted it, have a political and an industrial motive. For one thing they raised the cry for it at a time when more recruits were coming forward than could be accommodated in the training camps. I speak as one who recruited with the best of them at that time. At a meeting held at Brighton in July, 1915, there were several speakers, including an individual called Snowball, who lies like a trooper. **Mr. Adamson,** M.L.C., could not be present, but he forwarded a written apology, in which he said that if he had been able to attend the meeting he would have advocated conscription as the only way in which to get men. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- He was quite right. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member agrees that as far back as July, 1915, when we were enlisting thousands more than we could put into camp, conscription was necessary. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- Yes. That was one of the reasons why I advocated it then. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- It proves that con.cription was not required for the purpose of filling the. blanks at the Front. If during the two referenda campaigns it had been said that because certain families had given their all and some families had given none to our Forces, one might have understood the demand for conscription, but the plea put forward was that we were not getting enough men for the Front. The Government said that they* would not. and could not, carry on unless conscription was in force. Why then do they not go out ? They have created considerable bitterness amongst the very men whom they want to enlist. Just fancy the honorable member for Grey **(Mr. Poynton),** who, like myself, is too old to go to the Front, seeking to compel others to go. He has the infernal impudence to ask that others should be compelled to go while he and I stay at home and draw our salaries. I could understand the honorable member and others asking men to fight for them, but it is a very different proposition to make men go away to fight for them. It is somewhat .like the attitude taken up by the Shah of Persia. When he was in England, he witnessed a review of the volunteer army, and said that on his return to Persia he would establish one, and when the Prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward VII., said to him, " Supposing they will not volunteer, what will you do?" he said, "I will make them." In my opinion it is not possible to get 5,000 recruits a month as things are in Australia to-day, but I throw the onus for that state of affairs on honorable members opposite, and on those who wanted conscription; because the moment they commenced to talk conscription they embittered the whole of those who might have been induced to volunteer. The honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Leckie),** who is Chairman of the State Recruiting Committee, and **Mr. Donald** Mackinnon, the Director-General of Recruiting, endeavoured to restrain any talk of conscription at recruiting meetings, but it was impossible to prevent some men from talking it. We had the regrettable experience of hearing returned soldiers speaking from recruiting platforms, and expressing doubt as to the chastity of women who would walk with men who did not enlist, and we heard them making use of language too . strong for repetition. After an outburst of oratory, after placing the position before the people in an able manner, showing the acuteness of the situation at Home and the scarcity of recruits, they felt quite insulted and injured because men did not rush on te the platform, and enlist to fight for 6s. a day for those who are making millions.- That was where the trouble started. They embittered those whom they might have enlisted, men who were the flesh and blood and relations of those who had already gone away in their thousands. The men who went away in 1915 were called "cold-footers." "The men who went away in 1916, and who have died in their thousands, were also called " cold-footers." Some of the men who are now enlisting are called " coldfooters." We all understand the position in Australia to-day. It has been brought about by honorable members opposite, and there will be no change while they remain in office. That the people distrust them is proved by the manner in which their system of conscription has been rejected. Since the 5th May last, when the general election took place, the Government have not attempted to extract money from the profiteers in Australia in order to pay for the war. The revenue of £3,500,000, which the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Higgs)** proposed to raise from the taxation of excess profits, and the £2,000,000 that the honorable member for Grey **(Mr. Poynton)** proposed to levy - the honorable member admitted that he had whittled the tax down too low, and said that if he had his way it would not have been brought down, because he recognised the field for taxation excess profits presented and the necessity for the revenue - was cut down to £450,000 by the present Treasurer **(Sir John Forrest).** That is another reason why recruits cannot be secured. There is no equality of sacrifice, and there is no intention to make the wealthy people pay their share. Again, in 1914 the Government undertook to pay the private soldier 6s. per day, with 4£d. for each child - it was a disgrace - and 10s. separation allowance for the wife. That scale stood for three years, but as the purchasing power of the sovereign since 1914 has decreased by 33 per cent., let us increase the soldier's pay, so that he and his dependants may live, and let us make the profiteers pay for it, not the workers.- If one dares to disagree with what the Government desire in regard to the war, or dares to be an anti-conscriptionist, he is told that he is a pro-German, and is in receipt of German gold. Such talk hurts. Anti-Jingoists and anti-capitalists - that is what we are. Yet on every platform men said of us, "You are pro-Germans," knowing all the time that they were lying. In to-day's *Age* the following cablegram appeared : - >In a speech at Frankfort-on-Main, **Dr. Dernburg,** formerly Colonial Minister, bitterly attacked, the pan-Germans and ridiculed their demands for annexations and indemnities. There was not enough gold in the world, he said, to pay the cost of the war. Germany possessed no power to compel the payment of long-dated instalments from England and America. The value of the mineral-producing districts of Longwy and Briey (France) was £150,000,000, which represented the cost of the war for only twenty-five days. > >The idea of taking colonies, **Dr. Dernburg** proceeded, was equally illusory. Germany's capital outlay upon her colonies before the war produced only £5,000,000 a year, which was the cost of the war for a day, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. General disarmament was essential. The cost of. the air war alone was equal to the whole German army budget before the war. The cost of armaments on the new scale was obviously unbearable. Will any honorable member on the' other side say that that man is a proBritisher because he made that statement ? He made it because he realized the position. When the sailors of the German Fleet revolted, set out to devastate their ' shore barracks and the ships, and were shot down in hundreds, or captured and afterwards decimated, will any honorable member say that they were pro- Allies? It would be ridiculous to say so. It is because they were anti-war, anti-jingo, anti-everything that was bad, that they revolted, and thai is why **Dr. Dernburg** makes the emphatic statement I have read. It is as plain as the palm of one's hand that his statement is correct, but because some of us dared to differ from the stand taken by those forming the Government, and those behind the Government, we were called pro- Germans, our loyalty was doubted, and we were charged with being rebels. On top of all this we are calmly asked to forget it all and agree to some form of collusion in the interests of the Government, or, as the other side put it, in the interests of the country and the Empire. I ask any member on the other side what he would do if a man knocked him down and kicked him, and then asked him to have a drink? {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- You would rush him. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I guarantee the honorable member would not. But that is the position we are in so far as the Government is concerned. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- All the vituperation was not on one side, was it? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I will admit that; but what a sorry crowd we should be if we had lain down and taken all that the honorable member's party tried to give us. We should be a lot of weaklings if we took it all without hitting back. When my leader was alluding to the way the daily press treated us, as compared with the 'other side, he was asked, " What did the Labour press do for the conscription side ? " There is no comparison between the Labour press and the daily newspapers. The Labour press is subsidized and run in the interests of the wageearning section of the community. The big daily newspapers are supposed to be run in the interests of this country for every one. Will any Minister say that they as a Government, or their supporters, built up those great newspapers? Will anybody say that the newspapers built themselves up? If it had not been for the everlasting " brown " spent by the workers in purchasing the papers they would never have obtained the prominence they have to-day as advertising mediums. Honorable members opposite know well that they are not their newspapers. It may be correct that they have means of getting them on their side, but they are not their papers in the sense that a Labour paper is the paper of the Labour party. They are supposed to give the news of the day, and place both sides before the public, but they have restricted, and done worse to, our statements. The only time we could get a report was when we were locked up or had a rowdy meeting. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Now we understand why you were prosecuted at Maryborough. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I was prosecuted at Maryborough for telling the truth. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- It was to obtain the advertisement. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- When I made the statement, which I had made in the House half-a-dozen times, and from twenty platforms, I did not dream that it would bring about a prosecution. I was doing too well at my meetings. My handsome face drew the crowd. Now the honorable member has mentioned it, I will describe the methods of the Government prosecutions, every one of which I dare say was as foolish as was my own prosecution. I happened to be in Maryborough the day before His Majesty the Minister for Defence **(Senator Pearce)** attended there. Fancy the Duke of Melbourne Ports having the impertinence to appear in a town before His Majesty the Minister for Defence! I evidently did very well at Maryborough, but **Senator Pearce** reached there next day, and did very badly. He came back to Melbourne, and had a summons delivered on my wife when I was 300 miles up country. He was my witness, but he cleared out to Western Australia. Honorable members have heard the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** on the legal aspects of the regulation under which I was prosecuted; but I ask everybody in this House, or outside of it, what sort of treatment is it to mete out to any man to leave a summons at his house, after taking good care, by telephoning and making inquiries at the door, that he was away ? The particular individual iO whom the summons was delivered was my " lump of love." It reached me two days afterwards, or rather I received by telegram the information that the summons had been left for me. I had not time to go to Melbourne. I tried to reach my house by telephone, because I knew the summons would cause a little trouble in the " dovecot " at home, but I could not. I had to appear before the Court at Maryborough as a criminal, without a lawyer to defend me, and against evidence brought up by the Defence Department, which was represented hy one of the leading lawyers of the country. That was a nice position for a poor, innocent Labour nian. I was summoned because I said that the Minister for Defence had endeavoured as early as November, 1914, to sesure the formula for the manufacture of steel for shrapnel shell, and could not get it. ' Honorable members have heard me make that statement in the House on two or thine occasions. The facts are that the Town Clerk of Williamstown rang me up one day to ask me if I would introduce a deputation of manufacturers. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- That is not what you were summoned for. Was not that only part of the statement? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I will give the whole of the facts, and show how silly the whole thing was. I met the deputation at the House. It was headed by **Mr. Dan** Gray, of Gray Brothers, and we saw the Minister, but the Minister said it was user less for him to receive the deputation, because he had not the formula. This was about March or April, 1915. He said he had been trying Lo j;et it since November.. 1914, but he added, " The formula is the secret of the large firms who manufacture this particular stel." He told us so himself, and the private firms agreed, knowing that they had secret formulae themselves. He also told me that **Mr. Hugh** V. McKay, who was coming from the Old Country, *via* America, would bring a formula with him from America. Evidently it could not be got in Great Britain. I enlarged upon the enormity of the situation that while the Government were trying to compel men to go to fight and die, other men were not compelled to give up their secret formula? for the benefit of the nation. I was summoned for saying it, on the ground that the statement was prejudical to conscription. The issue narrowed itself down to the question whether the British Government or the private firms owned the formula. The Minister for Defence told me himself that it was held by the private firms. The Defence Department's witnesses gave evidence in the Court that it was the British Government that held it. We knew the British Government had no laboratories before the war for inventions or discoveries. They may have had a standard of steel, but it was not their secret. The Government alleged that I made a false statement when I said the formula was the property of private firms, and the Minister for Defence, who caused me to be summoned, cleared out to Western Australia. That was the treatment meted out to men who dared to oppose the Government on the conscription question. The Prime Minister said, "I am the Prime Minister of Australia, and I will not be deterred from my task of saving the Empire. Neither 1 nor my Ministers shall be summoned or subpoenaed to any Court." I have as much right in Australia as the Prime Minister has, and, perhaps, more, because I am Australianborn, and he was imported ; yet he can have one law for himself and another for me. I am the representative of the people of Melbourne Ports. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- And you have never run away from your seat. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- That is quite true. It is actions of that sort that discredit the Government and all those behind them. Do you, sir, or any honorable member think that circumstances such as I have described warranted my being haled before a Police Court? Half-a-dozen others were haled before the Courts for saying there was a sixth division. ...11: Minister for Defence says there is no sixth division, and honorable members on the other side have also contradicted the statement. We have heard since from the same side that the sixth division was broken up. Here is a nice little illuminated card sent from the Old Country to myself by a relation of mine at the Front. On it is inscribed, " Egypt 1914, Western Frontier, Gallipoli 1915, France, Belgium, Great Britain1" - six divisions in all. Even the shape of the sixth division badge is given. Yet summonses are out to-day against men who have not yet appeared before the Court for having reprinted that card to prove the statement that there was a sixth division. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- How many battalions were there in it? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- They do not say whether there were two, or nine, or none. Those are the methods to which the other side resorted to gain a point. They would have jailed the whole lot of us if they could have done so, though considering what they did do, it has caused surprise that they did not go further. Australianborn persons who have no more desire to be under the German flag, and no more feeling for Prussianism than I have, were prevented from voting. I wonder that the Government did not lock up a few hundred thousand " No " electors to make sure of getting a " Yes " majority. Passing from that, let me refer to the nasty," bitter sectarian feeling that was introduced into the campaign. I am not a Roman Catholic, and cannot be accused of being a Sinn Feiner if that term connotes Roman Catholicism. But, I ask, had not **Dr. Mannix,** a Roman Catholic prelate, as much right to enter the political arena and to talk politics as the 98 per cent, of the Protestant clergymen of Australia who preached conscription? {: .speaker-L1J} ##### Mr Lister: -- We do not dispute that. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- It was disputed all through the fight. Archbishop Mannix was called a rebel because of the views that he expressed, and the Protestant clergymen, who from the pulpit and the platform advocated conscription, were patted on the head as patriots. Let me read a passage which appeared in the *Herald* of 31st December last, headed, " Union draws nearer. May come in three years " - > **Mr. R.** E. Wootton, who was at the head of the laymen of the movement for union, thinks that the war is likely to hasten it by leaps and bounds. " It cannot be denied," he says, in discussing this subject, " that the spiritual outlook just now is not as strong as it should be. There is an indifference to things religious which is simply amazing. It may be the people are obsessed by the war, but it is not comforting to find, at a time when one might expect to see places of worship filled to overflowing, the congregations greatly diminished and a general indifference to the call -of the church. If indifference is to be overcome, the churches must stand together, and it is the recognition of this fact that is hastening the desire for union." I wish to give a bit of advice to the Protestant churches and to their clergymen. Let them open their hearts to the people, and the churches wall be full. The Protestant clergymen, with the blood lust in their eyes during the conscription campaign, repelled their congregations. At this time there are smaller congregations in the Protestant churches, and their congregations are likely to continue to decrease until the pastors prove that they are Christians. Let them prove that they are Christians, and the churches will be filled. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- There were a few exceptions', and one of them was sacked. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- At Rockhampton there is a clergyman whose name is the same as that of the Prime Minister, and he, for daring to be a Christian, was turned out of his church. I have always been told that these subjects are very dangerous to handle, but if they were handled more often, it would be better for the churches. The sooner clergymen realize that it is the great body of the workers who should be looked after, and not the moneyed portion of the community, the better it will be for the clergymen and for Christianity. But now as ever it is the men with the largest banking accounts who are wanted in the churches. The great charm of conscription to the Protestant clergy was due to the fact that they knew that the wealthy men of the community were conscriptionists. If they paid greater attention to the conditions of the poor they would do more good than by preaching hell fire and conscription. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Eather O'Donnell, of Tasmania, was a body-snatcher, too. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- What I complain of is that **Dr. Mannix** was condemned for the stand he took, while the 98 per cent, of the Protestant clergymen who opposed him were praised for their patriotism. He, at any rate, was on the side of humanity, and they were not, and he had as much right as they had to express his views on the war. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- But you suggest that they preached conscription to get money. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I say, advisedly, that ;he majority of them are always on the side where there is money. Most of the 98 per cent, who talked conscription did so for that reason. Let me speak now about the censorship, which has become so bad that even the capitalistic press are objecting to it. They had not one word of condemnation for the action of the Government when the conscription fight was on, and the censorship was being stringently applied to the Labour .newspapers. **Senator Pearce,** replying to a question concerning the prosecution of Brother Boote, of the *Worker,* denied that the article on which the prosecution turned had been censored, and said that Boote was prosecuted for not submitting it to the censor. But he knew that, had it been submitted, the censor would not have allowed it to be printed. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr Mahony: -- Column after column was cut out of the *Worker.* {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Yet the Labour party was said to be getting a fair deal! The day before yesterday the *Herald* re1 printed this article, that had appeared in a Sydney newspaper : - >In his original challenge to the *Sun,* **Senator Pearce** declared that no war news transmitted from England had been deleted from messages by Australian censors. When given a case' in point, the Minister hastened to state that he meant that news already printed in Great Britain had not been withheld' from publication in Australia. Again, the Minister is in error, and this time it is not possible to believe that he errs through ignorance or accident. . Not once, but dozens of times since the war began has the cable war news been mishandled by ' the Censor's Department, under the direction of superior authority, presumably the Minister for Defence, since Parliament looks to him for all matters pertaining to the war emergency bureau. During the conscription campaign a cablegram was received which mentioned that the Australian Army was having a rest, the men playing football away from the fighting line. It is time that our men had a rest. But this cablegram was notallowed to be printed lest people should know that the position was not so acute as the Government declared it to be. It was censored to make the mothers and fathers of the soldiers believe that their sons were in the trenches eternally. They are there often enough, God knows! But the mothers and fathers and wives were being told that if conscription were carried, and more men obtained, their rela tives would be allowed to return to Australia on furlough - a delusion and a snare. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The cablegrams referred to were posted outside the *Argus* office and then withdrawn. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- New Zealand is bringing her men back for a rest. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Certainly. New Zealand soldiers in bad health have been brought out on furlough,' and Australian soldiers in ill-health have been brought back to this country, and have subsequently returned. But if they had ten more divisions they would howl for another ten. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- After two and a-half years' service, the New Zealanders are returned for a rest. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- French soldiers have been sent back to Noumea, and then returned to the Front, a sea trip being beneficial. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Naturally, they want all the men they can get. . {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- The more men, the more officers. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The Sixth Division was formed because they had a BrigadierGeneral too many. The Government had no right to try to delude the mothers and fathers and wives of those at the Front by suppressing information concerning them. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- The relatives of the men at the Front are in direct communication with them. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- There are not many homes in Australia which do not receive letters from the Front, but the censors deliberately suppressed the information that I speak of, for the purpose of influencing the vote on the referendum. Those who support the Government should be ashamed of what was done, and will be blamed if they do not condemn the Government. The newspapers are at last taking His Majesty the Minister for Defence to task for the course that has been pursued. Honorable members opposite know that what was done was a. crime, and they must bear their share of the responsibility for it. We were twitted with considering only our own interests, and not those of the workers, when we opposed conscription. We have explained that Australia's position differs from that of other parts of the Empire, this country being isolated, so that if any more of the flower of her manhood were taken away, there would be a shortage of labour. To that it was said that the women of Australia ought to be organized to take the places of eligible men. A lady, speaking at Malvern, said that this should be done, and a farmer in the Indi district offered her a job. Her reply was that the gentleman had misunderstood her ; that she was a woman of fifty years of age, and she did not mean that she herself would do that kind of work, but that there were some other women who would do it. It i all right that the wives and daughters of the workers should do this work, but do not ask the women of Toorak, Malvern, and such parts to do it. They will not milk cows, clean out dairies, or dig spuds They are prepared to leave that kind of work to the mothers, wives, and daughters of the workers, who can take the place of the men who are to be sent to the Front. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Madame Melba offered her services as a strike-breaker. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Yes, and she has now over twenty Germans in her troupe, and will not be permitted to take them around with her in America. We are told that we are exaggerating when we say that the party opposite desire to fill the places of the men who are sent to the Front with Chinese and other Asiatics. We are told that we .are exaggerating when we say that there will soon be a shortage of labour in Australia that cannot be made up. Tn this connexion I quote the following from the *Age* of the 11th of this month, and it will be admitted that the *Age* is not a Labour newspaper: - {: .page-start } page 3153 {:#debate-3} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-3-0} #### LABOUR SHORTAGE IN CANADA Proposal to Conscript Alien Labour The Canadian Government is planning to conscript alien unskilled labour for work on the farms, in the mines, and at other necessary national industries. This proposal is due to the shortage of labour when is beginning to be felt. , Canada has a long way to go yet before she will have done as much as Australia in respect of the number of men' sent to the Front. The population of Canada is 3,000,000 in excess of the population of Australia, and yet we are told that there is a shortage of labour there now, although the United States is on the borders' of Canada, and the Canadian labour market might be supplemented from there. Though we have sent to the Front more men in proportion to our population than have been sent from Canada, we are told that it is foolish to suggest that there will be a shortage of labour here; and when we say that Chinese will be introduced the party opposite laugh at us and say that ft is nonsense. I suppose that to-day, although Canada has a population of 3,000,000 more than we have in Australia, she has sent some 70,000 fewer men to the Front than we have sent. Since **Mr. Hughes** left our party I have charged the National Government with having failed to take up the question of repatriation in the way they should have done. I desire to say a few words now, in order, if possible, to deter the Government from making the settlement of returned soldiers on the land the principal feature of the repatriation scheme. If they persist in making it the principal feature of the scheme it will be a failure, and will bring Australia into a very dangerous position. The effect of it will be to raise the price of land. {: #subdebate-3-0-s0 .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Then the proposal is doomed to failure. The Lord has delivered those responsible for the proposal into my hands. I want the State Governments to be very careful in this matter. It is the duty of the Commonwealth Government to see that the money of the people of Australia is not frittered away in raising the price of land. I quote from an article in the *Age* of the 29th of last month, which deals trenchantly with this question, and voices a salutary warning. It says - > **Mr. Mackinnon,** whose duties have brought him closely in touch with repatriation, appealed to the Ministry to undertake wholeheartedly the task of restoring the men to civil life, and advanced the opinion that for several years to come closer settlement in Victoria must resolve itself into land settlement for relumed soldiers **Mr Clarke,** as Minister for Lands, is responsible for repatriation - a task congenial to Him - and now finds himself at the head of a Department so unequal to the work that it is pursuing practically the methods which have ended in the revelations of disastrous failure in the management of the old closer settlement system. > >The State is still left burdened with a wide assortment of land bought for closer settlement which it would have been difficult for the most ingenious jobber to have disposed of to the credulous people, even in boom time. During the debate last session on the Discharged Sol diers Settlement Bill, members affirmed, without serious challenge from the Ministry, that a total amount of £132,000 had been written down in connexion with certain estates. The names of the estates are given. I do not refer to what has taken place in States other than Victoria, because I know nothing about them, but I do know that efforts made at closer settlement in Victoria have been, a rank failure. If the same persons are to be intrusted with the settlement of soldiers on the land under the- repatriation scheme the result will be a bigger failure still. The men who took advantage of the closer settlement proposals in the past desired in most cases to become farmers, and knew something of the life, but many of the returned soldiers who are likely to bo placed upon the land will have no fitness whatever for such a life. Unless the Government desire that the money provided for repatriation shall be frittered away they will put out of their minds the proposal to settle returned soldiers on the land. If I have been destructive in my criticism I ought also to be constructive. Some people tell us that repatriation will cost £30,000,000. If we are to spend that amount on repatriation it will be best to leave land at its present price, and let those who desire to settle upon it do so, and spend the money, or most of it, upon increased industrial production in Australia. We could go in for shipbuilding. We have been promised that that will be done, but the Government have not yet made a start. Freights for the transport of commodities from Australia to the Old Country are now so high that it would pay to build wooden tubs for the purpose, even though they should make only two trips. We should start shipbuilding in Australia now. Wo could not do better for many of our returned soldiers than to find places for them in shipbuilding yards. If there is money to be spent in the establishment of the shipping industry a considerable sum can be well spent in instructing returned soldiers for that industry. We might go in for the production of iron to a much greater extent than we do now. We might spend some repatriation money on the production of steel, plate, bar, and rod .iron, arid plain and galvanized wire. We scarcely manufacture any wire in Australia, and there should be nothing very difficult about its manufacture. We might well undertake some of these industries in connexion with the work of repatriation. Why should there be all this talk about the settlement of our soldiers on the land? Is it because honorable members opposite have friends who own land that might be sold for the purpose, as has been the case under State Governments in the past? Our chief primary product is wool, and it would pay the Government to spend £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on the introduction of machinery for the manufacture of yarn and all kinds of woollenpiece goods. It seems to me that it is not the desire of the Government to follow such a course as I have suggested. If it is, they have not told us about it, and they are still frittering away the time in making arrangements whilst there are hundreds and thousands of returned soldiers with whom the State War Councils have not attempted to deal. We have many of them going about looking for work. They are willing to work, and have been promised work, but cannot get it. If the Government had been able to carry conscription, they could have done anything they pleased with the returned soldiers as well as with the men in the camps. It takes the men all their time to secure anything like decent treatment even when inducements have to be offered to them to enlist. What would be done for them under the system of conscription, when they could be forced to enlist ? It is my opinion that the Government desire to stand where they are, not because they are afraid of the legislation we might bring into effect as a minority, because they know that we could do nothing that they were not willing that we should do. They want to stay where they are because they have a method of getting men for the Army that they will not disclose to the people of Australia to-day. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- Starvation. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Exactly. By a process of starvation they intend to make men enlist. There are dozens of establishments dispensing with men at the present time. I have been condemned for saying that it was the capitalistic section of the community that engineered the strike at the Eveleigh workshops. As the strike opened up, it became clear that there was an endeavour to crush unionism. They gave iti a bad break, but they have not crushed it. They are after it still. It was the intention of the individuals who placed the Government in power, or" a majority of them, to breaK down the wage-earning section of the community in order to make them pay for the war. I intend to quote something in support of my belief as to what is desired by the employing section of the community. I quote the following from a leaflet issued by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, of Sydney, lt is dated 7th October, 1917, and is issued for the information of shareholders. I am told that this leaflet is very scarce at present. It says - Sydney, 17th October, 1017 Note for the Information of the Shareholders. During tha past half-year the work of our two principal refineries has been much hindered by a strike of the workmen employed, the result being that a large proportion of those' who struck work have ceased to be members in the provident fund. As this strike is the first of any importance that has occurred in the company's history, and as our experiences in the matter may guide others in industrial businesses, it has been decided that I should place before you the facts of the case and the conclusions we draw there, from. It should first be said that none of those who left our works in Sydney without notice, or who refused to resume duty in Melbourne when a supply of raw sugar they declined to discharge had been landed, either then, or since, claimed to have any grievance against the company. The wages here had been fixed by the Court, and the same rates were being paid in Melbourne; while, in other respects, the conditions of employment compared favorably with those obtainable elsewhere. Although such was the case and all the members of the provident fund were given the opportunity to return to duty for a week after they struck, only a trifling percentage of these members availed themselves of the oiler made: and not one of the Sydney men expressed to the manager of the refinery any regret for tha action taken. According to the rules of the fund, absence from work for a week without leave constituted resignation from the company's service, so all these men were deemed to have resigned, and were paid out of the fund, and some 370 have lost their interest in this institution, being 30 per cent, of the wage earners who wen members. Those entitled to pensions by reason of their age will receive these; the others drew all the money they had paid for their weekly subscriptions. Now, aa to the fund, I would remind you that this was started during the general strike of 1890, and, as the scheme was adopted on my advice, I have been closely connected with its development, and had a large share in framing the rules. The two main principles adopted were that the company duplicated all the subscriptions and that the salaried officers and wage-earners became members on exactly the same footing, and had an equal share in the control. The first of these provisions has, year by year, involved large payments, and in the twenty-sixth year just ended, the contribution of the company was £9,976. The second was objected to by the officers at the time, and not without reason, for I have not heard that any other service in the Empire has followed the same course as the company took in this matter. However, the objection was over-ruled, as it was thought desirable to offer inducements to the wage-earners to show the same interest in the welfare of the company as the members of the staff. Despite the friction engendered by the 1890 strike, the feeling between manager and workman was then better than at present; and for about fifteen years this state of affairs existed, so it seemed to us at least probable that the scheme we had adopted would have the desired effect. But the consequences of the arbitration system then began to be manifest in emphasizing points of difference and in pulling employer and employee apart, and, thenceforward, there was an increasing disposition on the part of the men - even unskilled labourers - to submit to union domination and to accept the doctrine that the employer was always in the wrong. These factors have been at work now for twelve years, and it cannot be a surprise that the lesson taught has been learned by those concerned. They have been led to believe, and have been justified in believing, that the Arbitration Courts were established to favour the wage-earner, and it has been no secret that the small section of the community controlling the unions and labour leagues had viewed our provident fund and benefit society with bitter hostility, because these ..ere deemed to be a bond between the company and its employees. In consequence there has been a gradual change for the worse in the bearing of our employees here to the company, and this has been noticeably aggravated by the long drawn out disputes in the Arbitration Courts - the proceedings in 1913 having covered twelve months, while this year a re-hearing of the claims of the men has occupied several months without finality having yet been reached. Although we had realized the altered attitude of the wage-earners, we had not thought it possible that, after twenty-seven years df effort on our part to make the conditions of their employment as good as, or better than, those in other services, they would carelessly forfeit a valuable and important interest in the business for which they worked, but we under-estimated the forces above alluded to. This interest has accrued through the fi for fi subvention by the company, and its investment, according to the rules, in the company's shares, of which the members now own between 8,000 and 9,000 in each of the two businesses, the present market value of the holdings being £'360,000. From this investment the income is £217000 a year, and it has, almost wholly, been acquired out of the subvention by the company, tho members' subscriptions being invested on deposit. Much is said and written nowadays about profit-sharing in industries, and it is a grim commentary on the theories advanced that, in this instance, a very large section of the wageearners concerned - some of them of the second generation - should, at the bidding of an outside body, forfeit their interest in the benefit above described. Yet people talk of the advantages accruing from co-operation between employer and employed and of the fitness of the latter to take a share in the control of ihe business in which they are engaged. It is not proposed, even now, to stop the admission of all wage-earners to the fund, but this will be restricted to those who have convinced us that they can be trusted to show a regard for the interest of their employer. Aa to the rest, it may be that the sharp lessons to be taught by the adversity ' confronting us in the early future will, in due course, bring about a saner view of right and wrong, and thus lead to a return of the better feeling that has been lost. Very much will depend on the question whether the community will persist with the . attempt to regulate wages by force of law, but it seems that this system must sooner or later come to an end if the producing interests of Australia are to be saved from disaster; though the task will be a difficult one because of the enormous legal and personal interests built up round it. Every one who has followed the proceedings under these Acts will surely believe that the system will not stand when wages must be reduced; and who can hope that, in the Commonwealth, when the war ends and the cost of it has been realized, the wages recently fixed in various branches o£ trade will be maintained? So far as the officers of the staff are concerned, it should be understood that the foregoing remarks in no way apply to them. Their loyalty to the service has always been beyond question, and it has been shown in a convincing way during this upheaval, while the pro. visions of the fund have been by them highly valued, and its advantages are certainly richi) deserved. For my own part, I must confess to a great disappointment. During the forty-seven years during which I have been directly in command of other men in the company's service, I have sought to realize the responsibility thus placed on me, -and the result is as here described. Whether this is due to my mistakes or the consequence of the influences before alluded to, others must decide. I make no defence and offer no justification, leaving the facts to speak for themselves. EDW. W. Knox, General Manager The trouble is that we cannot reach these vampires - the Sugar Refining Company - by the Tariff. These scoundrels can wink at the whole of the legislation of Australia; and so perverse are they that they would rather refine black sugar imported from abroad than sugar produced by white labour in Australia. There are many people in Australia who think that the Tariff is to the benefit of the company; but, as a matter of fact, the latter does not care whether there is a Tariff or not. Some twenty-seven years ago, as we know, there was a great strike in Australia, and **Mr. Knox** admits that he was the father of the scheme referred to in the circular I have read. He conceived the idea that the men should pay so much towards an insurance or pension, the company providing the remainder, just as, I may remind honorable members, the Tramway Company of Melbourne did, so far as the friendly society of their men was concerned. The Sugar Refining Company did not take this step from any kindly feeling towards their employees; they knew' that, with pensions coming to them, the men would, perhaps, not strike when there was necessity to do so; but these men would not " scab " on their fellows; they risked their pensions and remained true to the movement to which they belonged. **Mr. Knox** tells us that none of the men has even expressed regret for the stand they took. Had the men gone down on their knees to the company and asked to be forgiven, they might, perhaps, have been taken back in their old positions. This company, which has made millions out of the people of Australia, is now robbing their employees, either by refunding only the amounts paid into the fund, or by paying men 18s. or 19s. per week instead of 30s. or 35s. This fund was intended especially to hold the men, and prevent industrial trouble. **Mr. Knox,** in this circular, specially informs the workers of Australia what are the intentions of the capitalistic section. He says that the Arbitration Courts have to go - that they have raised wages too high; that the Courts have been looked on as expressly brought into existence for the benefit of the working section of the community. He goes on to say that the task will be difficult because of the enormous legal and personal interests involved, but that every one must see that the system cannot stand when wages must be reduced. It will be observed that he emphatically says that wages must be reduced, because who can hope when the war ends, and tha cost is realized, that the wages r.ow fixed can be maintained? The Government have made no pretence in the way of taxing men who have made fortunes out of the war, and have apparently decided that the working class must pay for this war, as it has paid for all others. But I warn them to consider well their acts. It requires no great stretch of imagination to conceive that the revolutionary spirit of the Bolsheviks may extend to Prussia, from Prussia to Britain, and from Britain to Australia. Do not go too far in making the working section of Australia feel the pinch, as they must do when it is sought to compel them to pay for the war. If that is done we may wake up some morning and find ourselves without our heads. {: #subdebate-3-0-s1 .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 .- I propose to pass by the opportunity of discussing the motion before the Chair from a party point of view, and to confine myself to a suggestion that, if possible, we should, both inside and outside this chamber, endeavour to arrive at a common basis of action and revive in Australia that grand spirit of unity with which she entered the war. I do not propose to deal in detail with the various paragraphs of the motion, but first to bring the minds of honorable members back to the conditions under which Britain entered the war. She entered as a volunteer Empire, maintaining a very old tradition, and Australia followed suit, and still remains volunteer. Britain remained in the arena for many weary months as an unprepared nation. I might liken her to an individual pugilist, who, with a good cause and sound heart, enters into a combat with a highly-trained athlete for whom, of course, he is no match. Britain took her blows and staggered in the arena, until she realized that the time had passed for waging modem warfare on an amateur basis. She recognised that throughout the ages all the mighty empires that had had to fight for their existence had thrown the amateur system overboard; and then, against all her traditions and instincts, she adopted the other system. Th"e Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** after he had been Home, and in the inner councils of the Old Country - after he had been in the theatres of war, and, as it were, visualized modern warfare and the means to be employed to wage it - returned to Australia and told us what he believed to be necessary. There is not much advantage in *post mortems* and inquests in the middle- of a mighty war, but my only- regret is that conscription was not brought about at once. I want to take members back to the stage when voluntarism, and not conscription, was the test before Australia. I admit that we did select a tribunal before which to test conscription. I believe it was the wrong one, but we tried it, and the verdict was against us. We appealed from that verdict, and very fully stated our case again, with the extra inducement, if you will, that the Prime Minister attached to the appeal. The appeal; however, was not upheld. We are, therefore, brought back to what was the position when the parties faced this country in May last. Both parties then went before the people on a policy practically providing for the continuance of Australia's participation in the war under the voluntary system. A claim has been put forward by the Opposition that since our conscription referendum proposals failed, the logical conclusion is that the Opposition should take possession of the Treasury bench and operate the voluntary system. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- A prominent politician in the honorable member's own State - the Premier of Queensland, **Mr. Ryan** - has said that the logical result of the failure of our conscription proposals is that the Labour party should cross over and operate the voluntary system. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Give us the actual quotation. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I depend upon a statement reported in the press to have been made by **Mr. Ryan.** It appeared in both the Melbourne morning newspapers, and was to the effect that if we were to have the best that could be got out of voluntarism, seeing that the Government had failed on the conscription ' referenda, the Opposition should come into power and operate the voluntary system. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What is wrong with that? {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I would remind honorable members on both sides that, in May last, the country was appealed to on the one issue of the voluntary system, and that by an overwhelming vote, Australia decided in favour of the Nationalist party carrying on the voluntary system. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Every one of the Government party ran away from their conscription pledges. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I shall answer the honorable member. Circumstances changed. Since the date of the May election, there had been a very substantial falling-off in recruiting. This party believed it to be in the best interests of Australia, and the fulfilment of Australia's pledge, which every member of this Parliament has agreed to - the pledge to send as many reinforcements as possible to the Front - that a measure of compulsion should be applied to make up for the shortcomings of the voluntary system. We did not propose the total abolition of the voluntary system. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- That fs not correct. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- That was the proposition we put before the people. It was a proposal for the continuance of the voluntary system, but also for the application of the compulsory system, in so far as the voluntary principle, failed to provide the computed number of reinforcements required - 7,000 a month. We therefore come back to the stage at which the whole country was agreed at the elections in May, 1917. It was then agreed that the voluntary principle should operate, and that we should continue the war under that principle. Australia has been the judge, and has twice given its verdict. I come now to the point that I wish particularly to bring before honorable members. I can say with perfect safety that, neither in the country nor in this Chamber have I ever pointed the finger of scorn at any man or woman who opposed conscription. I have never, from any public platform, nor from my place in this House, even by suggestion, indicated a measure of disloyalty on the part of any one in Australia. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Thank you. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- It is not a question of thanks; I am simply stating a wholehearted attitude that I have taken up in both my private and public life. It is because of this that I feel fortified in putting forward the suggestion I propose to make. I regret that proposals of a far more- mature nature have not gone from the Government benches to the Opposition to take part, as the Labour party are doing in Great Britain, and in other Allied countries, in the waging of this war. A nation divided cannot put forth its best effort. We had last night, from the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr.** Considine) a reference to the situation in Russia. If convincing evidence were wanted of the effect of a nation divided from within, for whatever reason it may be, it is to be found in the situation of Russia to-day. Those who believe that out of a great revolution there will speedily come the emancipation of the masses have, in the interval, at any rate, to recognise in Russia a very sorry spectacle. I certainly hope that the future will have something better in store for her. There was a belief at the start that out of the revolution there would quickly be gathered the elements of a Democracy - that a constitutional movement would come along, and that the hope of Russia was Kerensky. But what has been the result ? We have seen factions in Russia directly the revolution took place starting to fight each other. We have seen a grab for positions until finally, as demonstrated last night by the honorable member for Barrier, we see a usurpation of power by the Bolsheviks which the honorable member hoped would quickly spread over Europe. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Very well. The first action of the Bolsheviks was to renounce their Allies in the war - to repudiate their participation in the war - although Russia was one of the first in the field, and the mobilization of that country quickened the actions of others. Their next act was to repudiate the nation's obligations, national and otherwise. Then they came to the question of internal confiscation. If that is the hope of modern Democracy I trust it will never spread beyond Russia. My hope is that another and greater force will arise and will honorably carry on Russia's part in the war. I am hopeful that something better will take the place of the present futile attempt in this House to get the maximum effort out of Australia. We are not producing what we should. Honorable members are more concerned about party wrangles and the kudos that will attach to them either as individuals or as a party in this fight. The question as to whether there is a wave of feeling against the Government or in its favour is the one that seems to most to be all-important just now. So far as I am concerned it matters little whether it be from the party on this side or the party on the Opposition benches that the future conduct of this war shall operate, provided that the men who undertake the work give their solemn pledge to produce the maximum effort on behalf of Australia. If there be any individual or group of individuals standing in the way of the nation, now is the time for self-abnegation. It was mentioned by a Minister of the Crown last night in answer to a statement by the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Leckie)** that the members of the present Government were the first eleven in Australian politics. The Government certainly assumed a mighty obligation when they once more undertook the responsibility of waging this war on behalf of Australia. In the circumstances, I believe, the duty is one that the Prime Minister should undertake at the request of the GovernorGeneral. I have been led to speak to-night because the Government propose to ask this week for two months' Supply. On the granting of that Supply the House will go into recess for two months. Meantime the forces are massing on the Western Front. Our men are amongst them. Our blood and sinew are stiffening for the test. Our reinforcements, however, are being reduced. In the full view of all these things the Government undertake the stupendous obligation to continue waging Australia's share in the war. Every possible interest in the Commonwealth should be consulted, so that everything humanly possible may be done to rouse from the very loins of this nation one last effort to strengthen our battalions. I have listened with great patience to this debate. I was hopeful that there would be shown on both sides a much greater disposition to come together. We are all involved in this question of recruiting. We have all made our appeals. From the public platforms of Australia every honorable member has made his appeal for recruits, and men have responded. They responded to our appeals knowing that we had pledged ourselves to do all that was humanly possible to help in this war. What does it matter that in the interval the Labour party happen to be in Opposition, and we happen to be on the Government side of the House? It is but a passing phase of .political life. lb does not relieve us of the obligation to put forth the very' best the country can do for our men at the Front, who have not come from one section of Australian life, but are drawn from every class. Now is the time to compose our differences. We have had our political fights and wrangles since the war began. We have had three elections and two referenda. We have had a surfeit of public wrangling, and press and people, I believe, are sick of it. I suggest that before this debate closes we should know exactly what the Opposition are prepared to accept. An offer has been made to them. It is for them to- say whether or not it is sufficient. It has been made by both the Leader **(Mr. Hughes)** and the Deputy Leader **(Mr. Joseph Cook)** of the Government. If it be not sufficient, if iti be not in the form most acceptable to the Opposition, then by all means let the Opposition state their terms. If they do, this party will consider them. This party is not entirely run by the men on the Treasury bench. It comprises fiftythree comparatively independent men. If the Opposition state their terms, then I am sure the members of our party will give them the most earnest consideration. I do not: mind saying that I was one of those who, at an earlier stage in the life of this Parliament, exerted every possible ounce of energy to see that a proposal was made to the Opposition to take part in a National Coalition Government. On that occasion the proposal was made wholeheartedly, and every opportunity was given for consultation. The Opposition might well have stated their conditions. The proposal I have to make is that if we cannot arrive at a basis of agreement to-night, we shall at least all take part in the formation throughout, the country of a league of national unity, non-political and non-sectarian. The league should have for its object the registration in Aus-' tralia of all men and women, irrespective of age. I am not one of those who believe in a measure of war service which merely calls upon those who happen to fall between certain specified divisions of age to bear the whole weight of waging the war.- On this occasion the registration should be along these lines - (1) Test of membership - To stand by the Empire and the Allies until the objects for which they entered the war have been attained, or there shall be a declaration of peace by the Allies; (2) to render services in terms . of my voluntary registration, the object being to unite the Australian people in an indissoluble bond of unity and loyalty to the Empire and to secure the maximum of effort. We would endeavour to secure the registration, first of all, of those prepared to render combatant service, and, secondly, of those able to render noncombatant service. The latter, as the possessors of the greater share of this world's goods, would be asked to render service and provide a share of their wealth, without interest, while the war lasts. We could see that such men were approached, just as the recruiting sergeant approaches a young man of military age, and asked if they were prepared to register for national service in the way suggested, and, if necessary, it could be known if they refused. At present the burden is not being shared equally, all round. There are many people who, by placing at the disposal of the Government their brains and talents, could be of immense service in a hundred and one different ways. Honorable members on both sides of the House should be given an' opportunity to make their individual appeal to Australia through the daily press in such a manner as ' they think fit. We should be all committed to the task which lies before us. I was very pleased indeed to hear some whole-hearted statements in recognition of this fact from honorable members on the other side of the House, from the Leader of the Opposition downwards, and I say this is the time for action. The war is raging, the enemy are massing on the Western Front, and the Allied Forces are gathering to oppose, them. We in Australia are looking on. We visualize the war by our party fighting - and we have had some pretty acrimonious debates of late - but I sa,y the. machinery for united war service is at dur hands. It is not for me to set out the details. This is a responsibility for the House, but we now have the opportunity, at any rate, to get .the movement going throughout the length and breadth of Australia. {: #subdebate-3-0-s2 .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke .- The honorable member who has just resumed his .seat had something to say about certain remarks made by the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine).** I only want to point out with reference to that matter, that during the last few days two cable messages have been received dealing with the Russian situation. One was to the effect that the Russians, by the discord they were spreading throughout the German Empire, were doing more than anything they had been able to do while fighting, to end the war. The second cable was to the effect that **Sir George** Buchanan, the retiring British Ambassador at Petrograd, in the course qf an interview, had said, " We are looking for the triumph of Korniloff and Kaledine." But these men, I might add, represent the capitalistic interests of Russia. Now the Bolsheviks have clearly and distinctly stated that they are prepared to amass a Russian Army for the defence of the Social Democracy of Russia, but are not prepared to sacrifice flesh and blood for the maintenance of capitalism, and Arthur Ransome, the Russian representative of the London *Daily News,* said the other day. that it would be wise for the British Government to recognise the Bolsheviks, because they represented the great mass of the Russian people, who were prepared to carry out their obligations to the Allies. The turmoil in Russia has been caused largely by a body of men who appear to be more anxious for the preservation of the capitalistic system than for the preservation of the nation. The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Rodgers)** has made some suggestions. Later on I propose to refer to them. Some interesting remarks, pleasant to listen to, have been made on this subject'; but they are no more interesting than statements which have appeared in the daily newspapers of late. This Parliament, we have been told, indulges in mutual recriminations which should cease, because the country is on the edge of a precipice; the Germans are massing on the West Front, and we must drop everything to save the Empire. That seems all right. Brotherly love and all that sort of thing is a fine sentiment. I dream about it: But when I look at the daily papers published during the last few days I find that not merely one paper, but that the press - Liberal and Tory alike - of every city of Australia, from Brisbane to Perth, has been indulging in condemnation of the existing Government. It would be almost useless to repeat all that they have said. It would take up too much of honorable members' time, and mine too. But I do want to draw the attention of honorable members to a few things. The Sydney *Daily Telegraph* spoke of the Ministry as " this wriggling Government that seeks to wriggle from its obligations," and the Melbourne *Argus* the other day said that the Prime Minister was seeking to evade his obligations and that his proposed action was a direct negation of a statement by **Mr. Watt** that the Government would not carry on if conscription was defeated. The *Argus* said that no honorable men could conduct themselves as members of this Government were behaving, and the *Herald* remarked that " honour has vanished from the public life of Australia," and that " politics had been dragged to the lowest depths." The *Age* said that Ministers had proved themselves unworthy of their trust; that they were cringers after greed, and were the object of public scorn. ' The Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** they said, was " a disgraced and degraded man. who deals in subterfuges and base trickery," and that " every man who supports him loses his repute and sinks lower and lower in the sight of all decent citizens." The whole of the metropolitan press a few days ago said these things of the Government, and now members of the Labour. party are asked to enter into negotiations with them. What for *1* For the good of our country, or is it in order that we may become participants in all their dishonour and shareholders in their infamy ? Is that the purpose of these overtures ? Can any honorable member bell me what public good will come of this proposal? The honorable member who has just sat down says he is one of a body of men not led by this, Government. Excuse me, what are we here for to-day ? Are we here to discuss the problems occupying the public mind ? This country, we are told, is on the edge of a precipice, and at the most critical period in its history.' But are we here to discuss all these problems ? No. We are here as a matter of courtesy. To do what? To pass Supply for the Government. And when we pass Supply, what will the Government do ? They will go into recess, of course, and close up this deliberative assembly. Are we to participate in the transactions of this Government - to sit beneath their banner, and to speak the same things from the same platforms? There are seventy-five members of this Chamber, all supposed to be representatives of the people. But what voice have we in the conduct of the affairs of this country ? As a matter of fact, Australia is not governed" by the representatives of the people at all, but by an inner circle of two or three men. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- The powers given to the Government will carry them to any length they choose, and once Supply is granted they will close these doors, which will remain open only so long as this debate is prolonged. We are the representatives of the people, but it appears that during the next two or three months we will not be permitted to discuss any of the great issues" confronting this country. If we as a party participated in the government what voice would we have in dictating the Government policy ? It would be merely nominal, because the Prime Minister suggested at Glen Innes the other day that he could go anywhere and do anything if he could get one or two of his Ministerial colleagues to meet with him. That is the situation as it presents itself to me. Can the honorable member who has just sat down tell me in what way one united party can influence the course of events during the next few months ? {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- A united party would have a great bearing on the question of reinforcements. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Yes. That is your contribution to the war. My contribution goes much further than the mere recruiting of the manhood of this country. That is the issue which divides us in regard to this war. Sacrifice, in my judgment, does not mean merely - sacrifice of flesh and blood; not merely the taking of man and throwing him like a dog into the battle line. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- My suggestion was a little wider than that. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I hope it is. But tha-t is where we stand, and it is not likely that in the future we shall have any influence on the conduct of the Government in this war. What is the position? We have just emerged from a period of turmoil and discord. Were we responsible for this? Did we precipitate the country into this crisis? Did we throw it into this trouble? Not at all. Did the honorable member and his party? No; of course they did not. We as a party were not consulted, and neither was the honorable member. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- You are right there. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Honorable members opposite are supposed to be supporters of the Government, but they did not have any voice in the decision that plunged this country into all this turmoil, and if we were one great united National party we would still be ignominiously ignored, but would have to carry responsibility for the actions of the Government. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- You could state your terms. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Undoubtedly, we could. That is the first thing to be dealt with, but not in the future any more than during the last two or three months, will honorable members have a single atom of influence upon the policy of this country. They were not called together as a party and asked whether this referendum should be held, or asked what should be the terms upon which the question should be put. Parliamentary government, then, has disappeared. Of all the shams imposed upon the people, this talk of the parties joining together for the sake of national unity is the greatest farce ever imposed on a so-called Democracy. One of the direct results of this war has been to destroy Democracy; government of the people by the people through the National Parliament is a thing that does not exist in Australia to-day. When Parliament has voted Supply we shall adjourn, and critical questions will not be discussed. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- It is only fair to say that the British and French Parliaments are in the same position. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I have seen too much of . this camouflage business to allow the Minister to work it on me. I am not to be drawn from my argument. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** has moved a motion that is clear and specific enough, and it demands an answer. The honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** has said so. He has put interrogations,- but even he is nor answered. The accusations contained in . the motion are interesting enough and wide enough, and we can discuss almost any anything ing under them. Perjury, persecution, coercion, suppression, and defilement of the electoral laws of the country! The Government forced the issue upon the country, suppressed the electoral laws, and framed new regulations, and established under the War Precautions Act a direct interference with the statutory methods upon -which an election should be conducted. Will the honorable member for Flinders permit me to remind him that in June, 1915, when I was sitting behind the Government of which the present Prime Minister was then AttorneyGeneral, I denounced the unlimited powers that were being granted in the War Precautions Bill. The honorable member for Angus **(Mr. Glynn)** who was sitting in Opposition, denounced its provisions and interrogated the AttorneyGeneral. He said that the first War Precautions Act gave the Government all the powers it required. The present Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Watt)** expressed doubt about the range of the legislation and the honorable member for Flinders also raised questions. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The honorable member resigned on principle over those powers. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- And he accepted his resignation back again. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- That is not true. The then Prime Minister **(Mr. Fisher)** told the House that he would deal with me because I was opposing the Government. I therefore handed my resignation to the Labour organizations, and told them that they could choose between the Government and myself. If they were not satisfied with my conduct they could forward my resignation to the Speaker. They handed the resignation back to me, and told me they were quite satisfied, and I could do as I liked. Under those conditions I resumed my seat in the House. I desire to remind the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** of what took place at that time. The thenAttorney-General told the House that the War Precautions Act would not be utilized for any other purpose than to deal with enemy subjects, or those persons who were trading or communicating with the enemy. The Liberal party was sitting in Opposition, and honorable members of it thought that those powers might be used against them to suppress their ' newspapers, and to punish Liberals for expressing their opinions on the platform, and they called attention to the width of the powers which this legislation was conferring. The honorable member for Flinders asked questions, and finally, after a definite explanation by the Attorney-General, the honorable member said, " On the solemn promise and assur ance given by the Attorney-General that these powers will not be utilized for any other than the purposes specified clearly and distinctly by him I will give my vote for this measure." Those were the only conditions upon which he supported the Bill. Does the honorable member agree with the extent to which, and the method in which, those powers have been used? Were the actions of the Government under the War Precautions Act a compliance with the solemn pledge and promise he extracted from his present leader? The then Attorney-General said that no regulation would be made infringing in any way public liberty unless it was laid on the table of the House, but even since this House adjourned before Christmas we have seen imposed under those powers a referendum which has thrown the country into turmoil, and at the same time we have seen a criminal code built up for the purpose of intimidating the people and persecuting those who were opposed to the proposals of the Government. Have not men been prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned in violation of every solemn oath made on the floor of the House in the presence of honorable members and the press? Because of those pledges honorable members opposite supported the passing of the War Precautions Act, and to-day they stand behind the man who went to extremes which have incurred for him the odium of all decent citizens in the country, irrespective of their political leanings. The charges made by the Leader of the Opposition are sufficient in number, and I am not to be side-tracked from them. The Prime Minister has dealt with other matters, with previous referenda, . and other things that did not relate to these charges. I admit that a referendum decision has nothing to do with the stability of the Government. In 1913, the Labour party, then in office, went to the country, and we secured a majority for our candidates, but not for our proposals. We continued to administer the affairs of the country with the limited powers at our disposal. But had **Mr. Fisher,** or any other man, made a bond upon his honour that unless the power to deal with monopolies was given by the people he would not continue to take a hand in the Government, such a bond would Have been an obligation upon him - if any bond is an obligation on a person occupying a position in Parliament. But it would not have been a bond affecting in any way members of the party who had not entered into the 'compact and know nothing about it. If it had been so regarded it would have been an absurdity, because it would have involved the majority returned by the people to carry on the Government handing their trust over to a minority. The pledge entered into by the present Prime Minister bound only those who made it before the electors, but that fact does not relieve the majority of their duty and responsibility to carry on the government of the country. Had honorable members opposite seen fit to form a new Government, saying that the former Government must honour its pledge and obligations, well and good. Such a course would have conduced more to peace and harmony in this Chamber than any other step that could have been taken. The majority of honorable members have not seen fit to do that; that is their business. The Government have seen fit to violate their oath and repudiate their obligations ; that is their business. The Prime Minister said, "It was not a pledge; it was only a threat." I do not care what it was. If it was a pledge it should have been honoured; if it was a threat to intimidate the people it was a cowardly and improper thing. "Whatever it was, the majority of the electors refused to be influenced by it. But the Prime Minister will not discuss the pledge. He say3 of the Leader of the Opposition, "You did not deal with anything." He desires to side-track the issue. He does not desire the honorable member to concentrate public attention upon these charges. He is an old politician. He knows the game. He desires' to focus public attention upon other subjects. So he asks us to discuss the effect of the referendum vote upon the world generally, upon our future,, and upon civilization. He says we have not discussed its effect upon Australia, upon die Empire, upon the war, and upon the universe generally. Those things have nothing whatever to do with the questions under discussion. What is the duty of this Parliament in relation to the accusations and charges that have been made? That is the only question that concerns us at this stage. I repeat, if honorable members think fit to support the Prime Minister, well and good; that is their business. But in it we can have no compact or part. The majority of the men behind the Government are quite prepared to support the honorable gentleman, but nobody can accept the excuses he made. Could he not have made a more reasonable excuse? Might he not reasonably have said, for instance, that the code of honour which binds a man in private life does not bind a man in whose hands is reposed the conduct of affairs of State? Might he not have said that the criminal code makes perjury a crime, but public necessity makes it a virtue? Might he not have said, " We did not do these things for ourselves alone, but for our country's good? " Do we not think of our country all our lives? Is it not in our dreams as it is in those of the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Webster)?** This is the policy we see carried out when Ministers want to find excuses for their actions. In accordance with this policy the Postmaster-General said - " I brought to the Postal Department my sagacity. I have made order out of chaos. I am the greatest administrator the country has ever seen; but if you do not vote Yes ' I will withdraw from you the light of my wisdom, and will not occupy this position for twenty-four hours." But twenty-four hours went by, and he was still in office. And a second twenty-four hours went by, and he was still there. And on the fifth day, at 3 o'clock in the morning, his conscience called, saying unto him, "Bill, an act of perjury is better than a lost -perquisite. Never mind your pledge ; stick to your job." And the Minister said, "I cannot tell a lie." Then conscience spoke again, "The job is better in your hands than in those of anybody else; hold it for your country's sake, your services are too valuable." Thereupon the Minister replied : " If you put it that way I will stick to the job." What is true of the PostmasterGeneral is equally true of the Prime Minister. He loves his country; he is anxious for the safety of the Empire, but we have heard some of the things which the newspapers have said about the conduct of the Government. There is no need for us to criticise them. The press speaks of our indulging in abuse and recrimination. Not a word said on this side of the chamber from the beginning of the debate until now is worse than the language used or sentiments expressed in the daily press of this country. Could we get a greater tirade against, or denunciation of, the Government than is to be found in a tabulation of what has been said concerning them in the newspapers? {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- Yet the honorable member complains of a political censorship ! {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I will tell honorable members something about the censorship. I know some newspapers that the Government dare not shut up. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- What are they? {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I will tell honorable members presently. The Minister for Works and Railways cannot side track me in that way. He wishes to get me on to something else. I repeat that what applies to the Postmaster-General equally applies to the Prime Minister. He puts the Empire first, and we know from the press that he had some very intimate associates. It is a most peculiar thing how many men of honour this party breeds. Their honour, it is true, is never discovered until they have left it. After men have climbed up out of the dirt, after they have been brought from obscurity and given a position in the public life of this country, after they have been able to avail themselves of all the opportunities which the Labour movement has afforded them, there comes a day when that movement cannot give them all that they desire, and they then become servants in the army of capitalism. Capitalism knows their value and knows how to utilize them. It is a remarkable fact that, not merely in Australia, though more in Australia than in any other country in the world because of the predominance of the Labour party here, the reactionary forces are led by one-time men of that party. Under such conditions it is inevitable that those who have lived a lifetime in the shearing sheds of this country, who have worked on the waterside for years, who have always delved and toiled, should regard them as bitter enemies of our class. What must the great mass of workmen feel towards these individuals whom their votes have elevated to prominent positions in our public life, and whom they now see serving against them in every fight for a crust of bread ? Yet that is the position in the case of **Mr. Beeby, Mr. Holman, Mr. Hall,** and **Mr. Hughes.** We are told that they left the Labour party in order to serve their country. I dare not apply to them here the most appropriate term which occurs to me, and which will readily occur to the minds of honorable members without my mentioning it. These men are now falling out with each other. Who denounced us? **Mr. Holman, Mr. Hall,** and **Mr. Hughes.** To-day these men are denouncing each other. Where can there be found more violent language than that in which **Mr.- Hughes** has indulged in regard to his colleague **Mr. Holman,** or than **Mr. Holman** and **Mr. Hall** have applied to **Mr. Hughes?** There is the justification of our case. These men condemn and denounce each other. They are like rats in a pit." They are fighting to escape from it, and they are tearing each other's throats. There is no more ignominious spectacle in the public life of a country than that of men who are battling for a common cause tearing at each other in the presence of their common enemy. There has been no abuse, no recrimination, on the floor of this House which equals what has been said of these men by the press of Australia on the one hand, and their colleagues on the other. Into the controversy that has arisen in respect of **Mr. Holman** and **Mr. Hughes,** the Prime Minister has not entered, but his henchman, **Senator Pearce,** has. These men have been writing about each other, and, on the principle that when rogues fall out honest men come into their own, we now begin to learn something of the real' position. It seems that all these men were originally conscriptionists. But when **Mr. Holman** and **Mr. Hall** found the votes of the electors were against them, they entered into a written pledge - nob a spoken pledge which could be twisted around afterwards, but what the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** has described as a pledge in " clear, definite and unambiguous ^language" - to oppose conscription if the Federal Government should raise the question again. As men of honour they said they would oppose it. Then they started to denounce each other, and it appears that they entered into a compact to violate their written pledge, copies of which had been distributed throughout the country in thousands. They were to oppose conscription, and for what? To save their political skins at the State elections, because their own positions were deemed to be more important than were the interests of the country. That is what **Senator Pearce** said about them. Thereupon **Mr. Holman** turned round and said, " The same thing about you. That is why you dropped the question of conscription in May last." Then **Senator Pearce** said these conspirators got together and declared, " It is true that we signed a document and put our names to it, and that as. men of honour we must oppose conscription if the question be again raised. But we will perjure ourselves, and do the very thing that we said we would not do. We will support conscription in contravention . of our oath on condition that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth will enter into a compact that ho will risk his political position on the issue." The right honorable gentleman said, " I will." Then, after the referendum, **Mr. Beeby** said, " I knew him. I knew that he never meant to keep his pledge," and **Mr. Holman** said, "No man could ever trust **Mr. Hughes."** I am not denouncing the Prime Minister. I am not uttering a word against him." I am merely presenting for the records of my country the testimony of his dearest friends. **Mr. Holman** said, " No man could ever rely on the word of **Mr. Hughes.** He never had any empire, save himself." Thereupon, **Senator Pearce** replied to **Mr. Holman,** " Same to you. You are a bigger pledge breaker than he is." These are the lovely specimens who have become the leaders of the antiLabour forces in this hour. That is the position with which we arc confronted. Let us leave it at that. The Prime Minister has now seen fit to change his pledge. Of course he has kept it, but still he remains in the same place. He kept his pledge, went out of office, and still stopped where he wag. Then I am told that he said, " I have kept my Bendigo pledge. I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General and tendered my resignation unconditionally." Let me say here, that I. never walk into the presence of His Excellency the Governor-General without a spirit of humility, which is proper to me. In mentioning his name, I have nothing to say except in tones of utter reverence. I sympathized with him in the emergency in which he was placed. The Prime Minister went to His Excellency and said, " Your Excellency, I made a pledge to my country, and I am in honour bound to keep it. It took me a long time to think about it. I first thought of it for days, then I handed it to my party for consideration. Its members said that they had every confidence in me, and that I ought to go on. I went on, and I had no thought of resigning. But the next day the newspapers strongly denounced my dishonorable and disgraceful action. Thereupon my party recanted everything that it had said. It held another meeting, at which its members threw all responsibility upon me, and so I present my resignation." His Excellency probably said, "Have you any advice to tender me in this great emergency?" and the right honorable gentleman replied, " No, Your Excellency, I have not." Possibly His Excellency then asked, " May I put it to you that amongst the sixty or seventy members of your party there are many men who are held in high esteem, who are capable statesmen, and good administrators?" But **Mr. Hughes** merely replied, " Your Excellency, I cannot tender any advice on .such a subject." So he went out of the Presence, and we may fairly assume that in doing so he did not sing, nor did he whistle, " Call me back again." He left His Excellency the. Governor-General to rely possibly upon his own judgment, after being deprived of the wisdom of the most capable man in Australia. His Excellency then looked round for advisers. He looked from Capricornia to the Yarra, from Balaclava to Parramatta, and from Grey to Gippsland. The representatives of all these constituencies tendered him advice. I do not know what' advice they gave him, but he looked at the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Wise)** and could not discover in him any of those elements which are essential to the proper conduct of public affairs, nor could he see in him any of those factors which are necessary to give to the great National party coherence and cohesion - coherence especially. Neither could he discover these elements in the honorable member for Grey (Mt. Poynton). Amongst all his advisers he could not find one man to whose hands he could safely intrust the destiny of this country. {: #subdebate-3-0-s3 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- From both sides. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- From both sides. But then who would expect His Excellency to see merit in a Labour member? Did not an honorable member say last night that he had never seen a Labour man with any brains ? {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- The honorable member did. Then the debate started afresh. Charges and accusations were made against the Prime Minister, whose only answer was, " Think of the honour of the country. Think of the Empire. Do not think of the job." He said, " I will subject myself to a self-denying ordinance. I will sacrifice everything for my party. I want to see a great unified party, and to keep my job. I will sacrifice everything, even honour, to keep my job." Now he says, "Having lost my honour for the sake of the job, I will risk the job if you will take it." Is it a threat, or is it a pledge ? Is it in the same clear, definite, and unambiguous language as that of the first pledge? Will it be kept in the same manner? But what would happen ? Supposing he again goes back to His Excellency and says, " A new crisis has arisen; I love my country so dearly that I am prepared to immolate myself and sacrifice all those perquisites and emoluments attaching to my office for mv country's good in order to secure a unified party." Will he leave His Excellency in the same position as he did on the last occasion, with no advice? Will he -say, "There are others you might send for and place in my position *1"* No. What can His Excellency do? Can he come to any other result than that he arrived at previously ? Must not he come to the same conclusion, and say once more that the elements essential for the proper conduct of affairs are discoverable only in William Morris Hughes, ai-d that he alone can give to a great party cohesion and coherence ? And must he not look at all our heads and see no merit in any one of us? Undoubtedly, we shall again have it laid before us that we are all a band of brothers, and the same old Prime Minister will be with us after all our sacrifices. This is what the right honorable gentleman calls self-sacrifice. My word ! Let it go at that. The second charge is that persecution was applied to public men. I do not see why it should not be applied to public men as much as to others. The great pity is that from the beginning of the war it has been applied to many poor men who do not possess any social influence or political standing. Men with wives and families who have erred, very often through ignorance, have been heavily penalized under laws similar to those which were made to apply to some of my friends here. I was not looking for fines, penalties or risks of any kind. I would sooner run than fight: that is my nature; but in the case of one little paper, the man who printed it was heavily fined, and the men who sold it in the streets for the purpose of earning a few coppers were heavily fined, but the man who wrote it was allowed to go free. When the Prime Minister had that procession in Sydney - the rigged-up band, the shouting soldiers, the motor cars and the loud hurrahs - some poor devil in the crowd sang out, " Down with Hughes!" Then it was, "You must not sing out, ' Down with the Kaiser !' Down with the Czar !' or ' Down with Hughes!' - Ten days." One can stand on the platform and shout " Liar " to every one ; but if one does the right thing and says that the Prime Minister's statements are mythical, he is punished. These persecutions were of the most odious character, because they were so one-sided. The Prime Minister alone could initiate prosecutions. He could prosecute' any one on this side, but we had no power to prosecute him. The Prime Minister, the honorable member for- Henty **(Mr. Boyd)** and I could commit identical crimes against the War Precautions Regulations, but whereas I would be punished, the honorable member for Henty could go free, and so could the Prime Minister. If these regulations are to receive the indorsement of fair-minded citizens, they should be made to apply to all parties and persons, irrespective of religious beliefs or politics. The censorship has been applied in the most odious manner. One saving grace of recent months has been the fact that the daily press have absolutely refused to abide by it to any great extent, and the Government have been afraid to prosecute them. There have been two classes of offenders against the censorship regulations, the newspapers that supported the Government, and those that opposed them; but the only newspapers that have been prosecuted are those that dared to oppose the Government. Will the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** believe me when I tell him that when little weekly papers hostile to the Government re-published things that had been published in the daily papers, they were prosecuted and fined for having done so. I do not blame the majority of the members of the Ministry. When I speak of the responsible Ministers in this connexion I refer to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence **(Senator Pearce).** They were the two mainly, concerned in the framing of these regulations. Many of these regulations are not known to the country; many of them are not even known to the majority of the supporters of the Government. I am satisfied that many, like the Police Force Regulations, were passed without even members of the Government being cognisant of them. These things are gazetted daily. As I was saying, I do not blame the censors. They are carefully selected for their anti-Labour bias, and they are la rarely drawn from among the members of the Stock Exchange, and occupations of that character, also from the Tory press; they are anti-Labour to a man. But my experience of them is that every one of them is anxious to do a fair thing, and endeavours to carry out his duties well and fairly, so long as he himself is left to be the judge of the situation. Prosecutions have been initiated in Victoria by the Prime Minister's Department in spite of the recommendations of the censors. I am not speaking of something that I do not know. When the censor was asked to make a recommendation, and he recommended that a prosecution should not take place, he was actually hauled over the coals, and told to mind his own business, and the prosecution was instituted, and he was called into the witnessbox to, support a ca3e which he knew was absolutely rotten, and to endeavour to secure a conviction against a man for an offence which he knew there was not a tittle of evidence to sustain. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- Is there any instance of that? {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Yes. I stand on good ground, and speak on excellent authority. I have seen the documents. I am sure the honorable member will accept my word. In the particular Case to which I am referring, I have seen the censor's report recommending that no prosecution should take place, and saying that there were no grounds for one. A communication came back telling him that no recommendation wls required from him, and that he was simply to do what he was told, namely, to get the material ready while they conducted the prosecution. Yet the censor had to go into the Court and give evidence when he knew there was no evidence to sustain a prosecution. **Mr-. Austin** Chapman. - That statement is as hot as Hades. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- There are dozens of cases. I can keep honorable members all night giving instances. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- We should have the instances. It is too hot for me. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I will give one case, the case of the Sixth Division. Men have been prosecuted and convicted for saying that there was a Sixth Division of the Australian Imperial Force. Poor men have been punished for saying it, for writing it, and for selling the newspaper that published it. Free speech can never be suppressed. Men will take the risk of saying what they feel inclined to say. All that can be done is to punish them. Newspapers cannot be suppressed; and had it not been for the fact that towards the end the Government lifted the rigour of the censorship a little, mainly because of the protest of some of the censors, there would have been considerably more prosecutions. In many cases the newspapers have absolutely defied the censors, but they have not been prosecuted. However, returning to the case of the Sixth Division, men have been punished .for saying that such a division existed. When Brigadier-General Anderson returned from Great Britain, he made a statement, in which he said that there was a Sixth Division. That statement was published in the leading newspapers, whereupon I approached the censor here and pointed out that I had been prevented from making this statement, and had been threatened with prosecution if I did say it. I asked whether I could say it now that the leading newspapers had printed the statement. The censor replied, " I have recommended a prosecution, and it will probably take place against them, but now that they have said it you. can do so." Then, for a time, it was perfectly legal and permissible to say that there was a Sixth Division. But the Government suddenly changed their mind, and gave instructions to the censors not to allow any one to say that there was one, and to prosecute any who did say it. The Leader of the Opposition made the statement in Richmond, and all the daily newspapers published it, but when we sought to publish it we were not allowed to do so, and were threatened with a prosecution. As a matter of fact, we have been punished dozens of times for printing things that had already appeared in the daily papers. The offenders against the War Precautions Regulations are not confined to a particular section, but in no single case has a powerful newspaper been prosecuted. Action has been taken only, against those who were opponents of the Government. The other day the Minister for Defence said that it was absolutely untrue to say that war news had been prevented from being published. As a matter of fact, I had a cable sent to me. Some papers published it and were not prosecuted, while others were prohibited from publishing it and were threatened with penalties if they disobeyed. Let me come down to the last point that I wish to make on this matter. We have just come out of the turmoil of a referendum, which was conducted under regulations not thought of or considered by members of Parliament. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Sir William Irvine: -- Before you leave the question of the censorship, can you indicate the dates of those instances to which you have referred ? {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- The most important case where the censor made a recommendation that there was no case for a prosecution, and was told to go into the witnessbox and give evidence, because the Department was going to institute a prosecution, happened within the last couple of weeks. Of course, when the matter went to the Court, there was no case. The censor was merely dragged into the Court and made a fool of. I do not want to fill *Hansard* with quotations; I would rather desire honorable members to be conversant with broad principles, but if they want to make inquiries into particular instances, I can satisfy them that all over Australia the thing is a scandal. Then as to coercion and suppression. Why did the Government inflict on public men and others a kind of spy system, tapping their telephones and opening their correspondence? They talk of Germany, but there never was, even in that country, a bigger or more odious spy system than has been going on here. Do honorable members know what really happens in this country ? There is a crowd of listeners at every telephone, and a gang of men sent to open the correspondence of particular individuals.. The Government cannot be sure that all the men they appoint to' do this sort of work are their own faithful agents, and in many cases the men engaged as spies to watch some of us, open our correspondence, and listen at our telephones are our friends. Very often they hear conversations that they are not wanted to hear. Thus we get the Maltese question; thus we get wireless messages; thus we get coded telegrams. The Government build up an odious spy system, and become the victims of it themselves. They employ men to violate their own honour and prostitute themselves. They say, " Go and watch this public man; listen at his telephone; listen to all the . conversations that he takes part in; see if we can trap him; open his letters." Recently I was in communication with a business firm in Western Australia. In their reply letter they said, " Your apples arrived safely." The fellows at this end could not make out what " apples " meant, and somebody went nosing around here to find out what I could mean by it.They have not found out yet. A few weeks ago I was told over the telephone that I could get certain documents if I came down. I went at once. It was not twenty minutes from the time I left my house to the time I reached that office, and when I got there the agents of the Government were there already trying to discover something. Of course, they had only come on a visit of inspection, but they were looking around eagerly. Of course? they had tapped that telephone.They were there before I could reach there myself, but they got nothing. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- Why do not they send for the cowardly little Prime Minister as a witness ? {: #subdebate-3-0-s4 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- 1 call upon the honorable member to withdraw that expression. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- The Prime Minister has accused many people in this country of being cowardly, and I thought the epithet could be applied to him. I withdraw it. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I come now to the last act in the drama: the defilement of the electoral laws. If the Government decided that an election or referendum was necessary, would not- the ordinary electoral laws be adequate to meet the situation ? Yet, for the taking of the last referendum, the Government changed the very day of the week on which it has become the habit and custom in this country to hold elections. In the voluminous regulations which have been framed and issued under the War Precautions Act, they have had practically a new electoral law created, not by the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled, but by a few men in their dug-out, and framed, too, on such lines that the Government thought they would be able to carry what they wanted to carry. They hedged the poll round with a whole brood of regulations, under which all classes' of" men were to be prosecuted if they dared to say this and that. I pay my meed of respect to the majority of the men sitting on the other side for the generous and fair-minded manner in which they carried on the contest, but that cannot be said of the comparatively few who followed the lead of the Prime Minister. They were permitted unlimited licence to say whatever they wished, while anybody who dared to controvert or answer them was haled before the Court under regulations of which not one of us was cognisant, but which were framed merely for the purpose of carrying out the referendum. We hear how, from a little acorn, the oak tree grows. My God ! out of a rotten egg they manufactured the Federal police force. It sprang, like Minerva, fully armed from the brain of Jove. We are the representatives of the people, but not one of us has had a chance to say whether that force should be created or whether it shall continue to exist or not. It is to go on whether members like it or not. Government of the people by the people and for the people through their representatives ! The people have no voice, and we who are assembled here have no voice. After we adjourn we count for no more than the great mass of the population. In order to carry the referendum not only did the Prime Minister alter the date to suit his convenience, but he changed the very day of polling which has become the habit and even the law of the land, to a day which he thought would prohibit thou sands from going to the poll. Then he took it upon himself, without the members of this House - even his own supporters - having a chance to say " yes " or " no," to deprive scores of thousands of Australian-born citizens of the right to exercise their franchise. He did it, of course, in order that the voting should be confined to men and women of British descent. A fine sentiment, but if it were carried out extensively throughout the British dominions, whom would it reach? I was thinking how, when he paid_his visit to England and danced through the blue room and the green room at Windsor Castle, his British heart must have swelled with pride as he looked upon the long line of the British Georges - George the First, George the Second, and George the Third - all true-born Britishers. When he looked at Battenberg and others of that line, true Britons all, I wonder if he thought that regulation would apply to them ? The honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** reminds me of the position of Lord Milner and others. The Prime Minister did not go far enough. Was it not the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Fowler)** who quoted Scripture to the effect that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation? Why did not the Prime Minister apply that principle in regard to the disfranchisement of those of German descent? Why did he not strike off the rolls every one whose father or grandfather or distant relative was a German ; every one who knew <a girl who was acquainted with a man who was once associated with some one who was a German? If it was right to refuse the vote to men who. though born on the soil of this country, by the mere accident of birth, over which they had no control, were of German descent, why did not the right honorable gentleman treat in the same way those who for long years prior to the outbreak of war have both publicly and in private assisted and fostered in Australia German industries and German trade? The other day the Countess of Warwick, in an article published in the London *Daily Chronicle,* stated that what the British workmen feared was not so much the Germans in France as the Germans in England who saw in the war nothing but an opportunity to rob their countrymen in the hour of her distress. If the action of the Prime Minister was sound, why should the fact be overlooked that there are persons in Australia who have been charged with the administration of affairs of State, who have had so little regard for British prestige that they have caused railway carriage wheels to be imported to support the industry of Krupps. State Governments and municipalities have for years assisted German commerce. Why not reach out to those persons, who are worse than the Germans iu this country? They prate of their British blood and associations, but they have clone more than the Germans to undermine the stability of the British Empire. It is they who have kept German vessels on the sea and on our coasts, and have handed over to the Germans the wharfs of this country and its commerce. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- And its mines. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- The crowd who' for years in Australia have assisted the development of the power of Germany are those who now, in its hour of crisis, are fostering in Australia, not the trade of Germany - they cannot do that - but the trade of a people whose colour is not that of the Germans. We dare not mention them; that is not permissible under the censorship regulations. But most of you know that these people are rapidly getting hold of British avenues of trade, and the industries which the Germans used to control. All we are doing is to exchange the commercial control of one foreign country for that of another, and this because we have to pay for support, to offer bribes to win friendship. What we are doing in Australia is to take business from one set of people and give it to another who, .God help us, are a darned sight worse, because the Germans are at least white. Let me show where I stand. I am an Englishman. I have been in this country since I was twelve years of age. I wish to be thought an Australian. God forbid that we should ever develop in Australia the conditions that exist in the older countries of the world. I have spent a long life in trying to make Australia what England is not. England languishes today because her people have been impoverished by the enemies within her border. I saw England under the most horrible circumstances. I have walked its lanes with my mother, hungry and footsore. I have walked from county to county; *from* Devon to Yorkshire and Lancashire and Nottingham, and so to London. I have slept under walls, and lived like a dog or a rat, eating grain out of a bag. Yet do you say that I do not love that country? I do love it. All who are near and dear to me are there. The woman who bore me, the brothers who grew up with me, are there. The little village in which I was born is there. I went Home to see it, and the last remnant of my home had disappeared. My ancestors had lived there for centuries, and had fought and died for their country. It was this old-established yeomanry who had an interest in the soil for which they fought and bled who made England. They fought for it, and maintained its traditions, and were respected in the land. I left England because she refused me the necessary sustenance and education. She refused to make me a good man and a good citizen. She reared me in hunger; I have known my mother to say that she would sooner see her boys brought home dead on a shutter than have them hanging round suffering. Since the war began, this Empire for which we fight has given over £30,000,000 of money to compensate the Roumanian Oil Company for the closing up of their wells in Roumania, so that the Germans could not use them. In England itself I have a mother seventy-four years of age. My brother there, who had a small business, was taken by the scruff of the neck and sent to France to fight.- What is to become of my aged mother and of the invalid wife who cannot conduct her husband's business? Tn England, thousands of businesses and homes have thus been destroyed without compensation. The Prime Minister has said that there are 12,000.000 whose souls are attuned to the slums in which they dwell. That is what capitalism has done for England. It cares nothing for the education or' physical development or health of the people. Talk of Democracy ! The great mass of the people of England have never had the vote. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- And never will get it. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- They will get it. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Yes. There may be limitations and restrictions imposed, but they will get it. Still, they never yet have had it. What are they fighting for ? What are they to come back to ? To the same horrible conditions, and the same capitalistic control ? {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- These conditions do not obtain in England now. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- Of course not. A war always creates a paradise. The working man is wanted in the trenches to fight for the maintenance of the privileges of an exclusive class. The Countess of Warwick, who is connected with a family that occupies a place in the history of England, said, " I own 50,000 acres of the best land in England; others hold similar areas. But the lands of England should be the property of those who fight for the country." Capitalism is the dominant factor in this war. That is why we who are workmen want to know where the working classes will come in. Talk about Ignatius Donnelly's *Caesar's Column;* this war is producing the most horrible resuscitation of capital in its most brutal form. Democracy, like patriotism, is but a word. It is laughable to hear the Democracy of England, of America, or of Germany spoken about. Australia alone among the countries of the world is democratic. Here alone the working men and women have the future of the country in their own hands. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- For whom is the honorable member putting up a fight now ? {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY: -- I am putting up a fight for my country, and for the mass of those who live in it. I would refuse to fight or to shed another drop of blood for the maintenance of an England such as has been dominated by the moneyed powers for the last fifty years, by those who have made the slums and destroyed the people. They have crushed out their souls, they have plunged them into horrible misery, and they are now throwing them into the battle lines. They throw them into the battle' line, where millions of them are destroyed. Are those who come back to return as men have done from other wars, to the same horrible indecent conditions? Do honorable members desire to know what I live for ? I have come out of the bowels of the working class, as others on this side have done. I have been put into a position in the Parliament of this country. I try to be as true as I can to the class to which I belong - not because it is a class, but because it constitutes the great mass of the people. By its very numbers it constitutes the Democracy, the Demos, the great mass of the people. We are told that the defence of our country entails sacrifice. One fights for his house, but no one would be expected to fight for it who was merely a boarder. I want to know that I have a proprietary interest in the country. I want to know that others who are called upon to lay down their lives have a proprietary interest in the soil of the country for which they are fighting. Bearing out what the honorable member for Barrier has said, I may refer to what was said by Lord Rosebery, in 1909. I have quoted him before, but the statement will bear repeating.- Speaking to the overseas press delegates on their visit to London, he said, " There is at this moment a hush in Europe in which you can almost hear a leaf fall to the ground. Yet in the midst of this apparent peace there is the most active effort for war. I believe the power of this old country of ours to be such as to be able to meet any reasonable combination of Powers that may be brought against it." Such was his confidence in the preparation of the country ; . and it reminds one of the "sleep safely in your beds" speech of Lord Fisher. This was said five years before the war broke out, and it confirms the statements that have been made that there was great preparation for long years for the war. Gladiators and boxers are trained for a long time before they enter the ring. In like manner the nations are trained, and when the gong sounds they sprang at each other's throats. Lord Rosebery said, " When I view the approaching Armageddon I wonder whether we shall emerge from it into barbarism' or into a condition of things in which the workmen of the world will rise and say, ' we shall have no more of this misery, this grinding of us to powder.' " So it is to-day that the hope of the world - the hope of peace - comes from the rising revolutionary spirit of the peo- ' pie. The revolutionary movement in Russia is spreading to all the countries, and we have seen from the cables that have recently appeared that the controlling powers in Germany dread more the spread of revolutionary doctrines than they do the bayonets of the enemy. So the cry which the workmen raise is ' the best harbinger of peace, since it means the destruction of the capitalistic system, which is the foundation of war, and the destruction of which can alone bring permanent peace to the peoples of the world. It is true that there have been wars in all ages, but the wars of the past were entirely different from the wars due to modern capitalism. In earlier ages of the world's history men went forth to war, and when they conquered the enemy they lived upon him. They made a slave of 'him, and made him work for them. But, under modern conditions, men who come back from war, whether fit or wounded, come back to the bondage and slavery, not of a foreign enemy, but of men of their own race, who have made profits out of the war. The other day references were made to the enormous fortunes made in England during the war. The great mass of the people get nothing, but are asked to give up everything. The workmen have given up their trade union privileges. The authorities hope, by a policy of suppression, to be able to secure harmony and peace. We are told that' there is harmony and peace in England. Do honorable members believe that ? If they do, let them go to the Library and read the *Nineteenth Century and After.* Let them read an article in the *National Review* dealing with the rise of the revolutionary movement. By the way, the *National Review* publishes an article on the rise of the re volution ary movement which we are not allowed to republish in this free Australia. One can buy a copy of the *National Review* if he has the money, but we must not reprint an article from it in any radical journal in this country. An article is published in the *National Review* dealing with the rise of the revolutionary movement in England, which, it is estimated, is supported by some hundreds of thousands. There have been statements recently in the press to the effect that 1 , 000,000 youths in England are beginning to protest against the policy of suppression. The revolutionary movement which started in Russia is spreading throughout the countries of the world, and is not to be ignored even in England. Men talk of the war lasting for another twelve months or two years, but I venture to think that it will not last another two years because the internal situation in the countries chiefly concerned will prove to be more disastrous to the dominant and moneyed powers of the Governments of those coun tries than any result of a war with bayonets. To come to our own country. What are we going to do in Australia? This country has madea mighty and magnanimous contribution to the war. There are men in this country who are making magnificent fortunes out of the war. I put it to you, sir, that without going outside the walls of this chamber you might lay your finger upon certain individuals- I have no intention to mention names - and say, **"Sir, is** itnot a fact that you are enormously richer to-day than you were when the war started ? " Is it necessary that I should go any further? Is itnot a fact that the prices of our commodities have become so enhanced, that many persons are much richer than they were when the war started? I say without any disrespect at all that there are individuals to whom we might say, " **Sir, you** are *very* wealthy to-day. You are worth scores of thousands of pounds more than you were at the beginning of the war." What have these men sacrificed? They have sacrificed nothing. The war has enormously increased their wealth. At the same time the war demands that one should lay everything he possesses upon the altar of his country. He should be prepared to sacrifice all his worldly possessions, his lands, or mines, or minerals, and all his resources. There should be sacrifice, not merely of human life, but of human property. Men should be prepared to yield their wealth and sacrifice all their property on the altar of their country for its common defence. I am not here to discuss how and by what methods, but to lay down a sound fundamental principle, and I say that if it is possible to conscript human life it is equally possible to conscript human wealth. What was the spectacle that we witnessed at the last referendum ? On the one side there were the powerful newspapers of the country and behind them all the resources of the men of money, all the powers of wealth, and the prestige of social position. Every advantage was with the Ministerial side. On the other side, apart from the righteousness of their cause, there were few men of any great social importance, or of any great personal ability, and yet that side scored a majority. Was that because of the influence of a few men ? No ; it was because in Australia there is a rising tide of revolt in the young manhood and womanhood of the country, affecting even the men who have returned from the battle; and the position will become worse as time goes on. As to the Prime Minister, no man could have done . more to defeat the referendum than he did. If he had been paid, and asked to carry out methods that would have resulted in its defeat, he could not have done better. All his denunciations and abuse, every method he employed, and all his battle-cries, including that of "To hell with the Irish," had their effect in defeating the proposal. If he saw anything crimson, it was ' the Industrial Workers of the World ; if he saw anything green, he tied something over its mouth; aud if he saw the yellow dog, he tied something to its tail; everything he did bended to arouse the animosities of the people. He raised the question of Germany and the influence of German money ; in short, all he did won him more enemies than friends. There can be no possible finality to this thing.. Unless the Government and the party behind it are prepared to impose conscription 'upon Australia, as they have threatened to do - unless they explain away their threats as they do their pledges - they will have to face the situation as it is. They have the reins of government in their hands, and they may utilize all methods of voluntarism ; but they must recognise that Australia has got to its limits so far as the mass of its citizens are concerned. This is not a question of party. It is a question, to a large extent, of Australia against importations. We who were not born in Australia, bub who have come from England, and desire to run this country as if it were an English country, must not forget that an Australian sentiment and nationhood is growing up, and that there is a disposition to cry, " A plague on you and your parties of whatever name or brand." In the particular parts of the continent where the Australian population is in a majority and powerful, the referendum was beaten in the most ignominious manner, and the only "places in which it was supported to any extent were those places most affected by the immigrant section. The day and hour has arrived when we who are English have to nationalize ourselves, accept the conditions of Australia, and look at the world through Australian eyes. We who live here have to face, not only the problems of the war, but also the problems that will follow the war. This is the day and the hour when Parliament must ask itself, not so much what it will do during the war, or to what extent it will drain the manhood of the country overseas, but in. what manner it will organize our material resources so as to provide for the men who return from the slaughter line. This has so far not been considered, nor have we yet devised means to meet the enormous debt and load of interest which we shall have to carry in the future. The day and hour has arrived when we should consider these problems. Australia has performed a gigantic task under the voluntary system. No man or newspaper ever contemplated that under a free' and voluntary enlistment system our enormous Army could have been raised and sent 16,000 miles overseas. This country, under the voluntary system, has, in proportion .to its population, done immensely more than even Canada, whose people outnumber us by 3,500,000. Somebody has said that this country of ours will not be represented at the Peace Conference, and I agree with the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** on that point. If, after what Australia has done, the Imperial or any Allied Government dared to exclude us from a voice in any Peace Conference, or in any deliberations as to the ultimate disposal of this continent - if any dared to so deny us, after our enormous contribution of material wealth and men and blood, simply because a majority "of Australian citizens, in the exercise of their free democratic rights expressed an opinion contrary to that of some one else, then God help us. We should know what was in front of us. If the Minister for Defence has any knowledge of the matter, and if there is any foundation for what he has said in this regard, then it would have been better if Australia had never entered into the war. If it be ventured to exclude- us from any peace deliberations. I venture to say that, whether Britain or Germany wins, Australia will be the price that will have to be paid. The future of the country demands that we should recognise the long and faithful services of the men we have sent to the Front, and we should ask ourselves how we are going to reconstruct our country so as to meet the obligations that will come as a result of the vast contributions we have made in the prosecution of the war. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Are the Government prepared to grant an adjournment of the debate *1* {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I understand that it was the desire of the House to rise at the ordinary hour, but more time has been consumed than was contemplated when the original arrangement was made between the Government and the Opposition. The responsible Whips feel it to be impossible to keep to the arrangement unless we sit a little later. The arrangement, as honorable members will . recollect, was that we should take a vote before the departure of the Inter-State trains to-morrow. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Not necessarily, {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- If possible. That was the arrangement which the Opposition desired us to make. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- We are prepared to stop on. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- It will not be possible to carry out that arrangement unless we sit later to-night, as there are still a number of honorable members who wish to speak; and I must therefore ask the honorable member for Werriwa to continue the debate. v {: #subdebate-3-0-s5 .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Werriwa .- I am somewhat embarrassed in having to follow so brilliant and entertaining a speech as that just delivered by the honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Anstey)** ; bub I feel that my rather peculiar position in this House demands that I should not cast a silent vote on u is question. If we are to believe what we have been told to-day, and especially this evening, by a number of talented members of the Opposition, then I, as an anti-conscriptionist, made a great mistake in not remaining with those who claim to alone possess the true faith. I do not think there is one member of the Opposition who denies for a moment that) I am, or ever was, .either than a consistent opponent of conscription in any shape or form : but I have been compelled by my regard for that primary principle to sever my association with them. I think I shall be able to show that those honorable, members who have poured the vials of their wrath upon the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** and who have credited him with the responsibility for the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves in this House and in the country, divided as we are, have displayed exactly the weaknesss of their own case. While I differ from the Prime Minister in many respects, and have been compelled tooppose even his referendum proposals, I recognise that, from the very beginning' of the conscription issue, he has been a>. consistent exponent of the true principles of Democracy inside the Labour movement. I cannot forget the history of the trying times through which we passed in 1916, when the question of conscription first loomed big and large before the public of Australia. Listening to the history of that time, as related by the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Catts)** and others, one would be forced to believe that the Prime Minister had conspired against the very movement that he has spent the greater part of his life in building up; one would be compelled to believe that he had become so perverted by association with greatness in other spheres that he no longer regarded the movement or the principles of Democracy with other than contempt. It is true, unfortunately, that in the hour of danger that threatens Australia to a greater extent than ever before, we in this House are divided and find ourselves inclined to waste our energy in fighting each other. It is impossible, we are told, for us to come together to do what is humanly possible to meet our difficulties, and to face our foes unitedly, as free men should do. All this is because the old feud, which began in the Labour movement in 1916, is still in full blast. That difference is at the very centre of this contentious matter. We must look at the position for a moment to see exactly what has happened. If it be true that the Prime Minister, and those who were associated with him in the old Labour movement, but who have severed their connexion with the Official Labour party, have turned their backs upon the principles of Democracy - if it be true that even I, as an anticonscriptionist, have thrown in my lot with the wolves and have left the lambs, there ought to be some evidence of it. What do we find? The Prime Minister went to England charged with responsible duties in the interests of this country. , While there he sought and obtained many essential advantages to Australia and the Australian people. He was welcomed as a man of capacity, as an Empire builder; and the Australian Labour party gloried in Ids triumph. When he toured Britain preaching universal service, preaching and teaching what he considered a vital necessity - that the whole of the resources of Great Britain and the Dominions should be thrown into a common centre in order that the war might be prosecuted to a successful issue - there was not a note of discord in Australia. No one took exception to his utterances. We know, too. that throughout the British Empire a spirit of patriotism animated the people, and that the principle of conscription was !be ing advocated and taken up day by day by increasing numbers even in Australia. The concription pot, in fact, was boiling over. I well remember the discussions "that took place in Labour circles, both inside and outside the Labour party, at that time. It was evident that the majority of Labour people believed that if the conscription issue were submitted to a referendum it would in all probability be carried. The statement has been made that if the Prime Minister had not brought back this accursed thing with him from Europe - is it suggested that he brought it back in his carpet bag? - we alone among the nations at war would have been immune from any difference of opinion with regard to this principle of conscription, ls it not as clear as the noonday sun that if the Prime Minister had never again revisited these shores we would have been compelled to face this question ? Is it not clear that when the Prime Minister came back to Australia, a large section of the people were expecting him to declare for conscription ? ' And why did he not do so ? When he was delivering those speeches which attracted so much attention, speeches made purposely, no doubt, to educate public opinion to the acceptance by a truly democratic method of the principle of conscription, did we as a Federal Labour party make any demur, or indulge in hostile criticism? No. It was not until 24th August, when the Prime Minister came to the Caucus room, that a discordant note was sounded. It was then found that the Prime Minister had determined, if possible, to induce the party to submit the question to the people. AIr. *Lynch* Honorable members in the course of this debate have said that the Leader of the Government while in England was carried away by his association with Imperialists, and that he came back to Australia for the specific purpose of enslaving the manhood of this country; that he would, if he could, have thrust conscription down the throats of the people. But is it not a fact that he pleaded and fought wilh his own party to get even a majority of two to declare in favour of submitting this question to the people? If he were compelled to do what we knew he would be obliged to do if the vote failed, that is, resign, a large number of the old leaders of the Labour party, including many able men who had won their spurs in the movement, would have followed him. While, as an anti-conscriptionist, I would part with all I possessed rather than see conscription fastened upon the land of my birth, I preferred severance with the party rather than acquiesce in the expulsion of those men who were prepared to stand behind the Prime Minister in a vote of censure if such were moved when he must meet the House. Doubtless members of the party knew what the Prime Minister would do if they failed to put the first principle of their platform into operation by referring the question to the people. The Labour Government would have been disrupted, it is true. A new Government would then have been formed, and we would have had conscription by proclamation, or honorable members would have failed miserably in their professions about doing what they more than hinted it was the duty of the Prime Minister to do - to take the only available means at his disposal, as it was absolutely impossible to put the Bill through Parliament, to do what' the exigencies of the circumstances and the danger to the Empire demanded. Conscription would have been secured in that way. Therefore, was it not the knowledge of that fact that compelled a large number of the Labour members to sit silent and refuse to vote when, by twenty-three to twenty-one votes, a motion was carried to submit the question to the people ? The Prime Minister, if he was desirous of de-, stroying the Labour party, could have got all the assistance he wanted, but he pleaded, -as never man pleaded before, for the movement in which he had spent his life. And is there one well-informed Labourite, in or out of this Parliament, who can say that during that trying time the Prime Minister broke tue platform of that party? Is there one? No, not one. This is what the London correspondent of the *Sydney Morning Herald,* writing after the referendum had been turned down, had to say concerning the opinion held in England bv those people who, according to the Prime Minister's opponents, won him over and made him a traitor to Australia. The article is dated London. 2nd November, 1916, aud, states - >Our first cable news of the referendum result discloses a majority against the proposal large enough to Settle the matter without much need of reference to votes still uncounted. That being so, many Australians on this side are disappointed. ' The newspaper comment of this country is quite pathetically non-committal, and for good reason. The Liberal organs being also Radical, approval of the referendum, but for decency's sake they are unable to say much concerning its result as a contribution to the downfall of the enemy in the field. Nor can they rejoice, much as they would like to, in the defeat of **Mr. Hughes,** to whose propaganda on this side they were opposed, seeing that it was he who gave the Labour electorate of Australia its chance of gathering up its forces and organizing its attack. The Conservative newspapers, similarly, can say little. They have small sympathy with Labour and less with Socialism. But as it was they who, for their own ends, boomed **Mr. Hughes** into eminence as the strong man of the Empire, they cannot with any grace condemn the referendum result without disclosing **Mr. Hughes** as something less strong than they made him out to be. For even this public knows what a strong man ought to have done and would have done in the face of the obvious need for men, and for that reason the Conservative Hughesite press lias been very silent on the subject of the referendum ever since it was announced as the policy df **Mr. Hughes.** Now, with the result of it a defeat, that press is, on its Hughes side, more than ever in a tight place. So it comes about that nearly all the referendum press comment here says nothing that matters, and is merely the colourless comment of a pious hope that the Australian Army will continue to bc fed by voluntary enlistments - which hope, in truth, is all that is available to any of us. The Prime Minister might have basely repudiated his party and obtained conscription, but the damning fact that condemns honorable members opposite is that the referendum was submitted according to the constitution of the Labour party. The Bill was supported by honorable members generally on both sides of the House, and the issue was submitted constitutionally to the people. Even if the Liberal members who loyally stood behind the Government had refrained from voting, there was a majority of Labour members in both Houses. It was Labour's referendum. It was supported and- opposed by Labour men, bub still, if the blame attached to anybody, it attached to us as a Labour party. The Prime Minister had carried out all that was possible for him to do in the circumstances; he had subscribed the Labour party's principles. Therefore, if Labour had been better educated in the tenets of its own faith, it would not have allowed itself to be led astray by all these petty abstractions - the things said with regard to what had been done by regulation, and the statements made by . the Prime Minister, whose scorpion tongue, it was said, had always scorched our opponents in the old days while we laughed and made merry over their discomfiture. The outside organizations showed not only that they were out to kill conscription, but that in their panic desire to do so they would outrage every plank of the Labour platform and the principles for which it stood. I, in common with every member of the Labour party in New South Wales, received a warning that if I supported the referendum on conscription inside or outside of Parliament, I would lose my indorsement. I think that furnishes the reason why so many gentlemen who sat in the corner would not vote on the referendum proposal. They knew that if this outrage on our platform - this outside domination - were persisted in, their political existences would be at stake, and that if they supported the minority they must cause a disruption of the Government and hand the affairs of the country over to men who were sufficiently conscriptionist to give effect to their opinions in the only way open to them, namely, by introducing Conscription by proclamation. It is true that about ten of those men did not support the Referendum Bill in this House, and on the first occasion on which they went up for election four of them lost their seats. We submitted the question to the people, and we denied the right of the organizations outside to dominate our actions. We knew that their action, was based on the resolution passed at the 1916 Conference in New 3178 " " *Motion of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *No Confidence.* South Wales, and subsequently adopted by the other States. We knew the action was utterly unconstitutional, and that " the new movement," as it was called in Labour circles, considered the moment opportune for instituting full control over Labour members, Federal and State, that would mark the beginning of a bold progressive policy. The old constitutional and truly democratic method of leaving the punishment of Parliamentary representatives to the constituencies was .to be set aside. It was clear to us that if we subscribed to that principle every member in the Labour party became the mere puppets of the executive, which would be the real Parliament if Labour continued to govern. I appeared on the platform in 1914 as the selected Labour candidate for Werriwa. I said to the electors, " Here is the platform, and I will explain it as well as I am able to do. It binds me. and it binds you if I am accepted, and not even a comma in it can be altered until somebody occupying my position comes before you again. You are not asked to sign a blank cheque." But the unconstitutional decision of the Conference, which threatened with the loss of indorsement every man who dared to support a referendum of the proposal was held to be binding on us, and we were informed on that occasion - and the threat has been ruthlessly carried out - that we' would be expelled from the movement and our seats taken from us if we dared to disobey. I do not think those men realized how far this absurd principle would carry them. They did not see that the indictment of a democratic form of government was involved in their monstrously foolish action. It is true that, by the stirring up of , mud, and the causing of confusion, they tried to induce the people to forget that this outrage on representative government was being perpetrated. For a vain and foolish desire to take charge of the representative institutions of this country by a system of applied tyranny, they forgot the duty that the Labour movement owed to humanity and all the higher ideals for which it stood. How did those honorable members who voted for the referendum in this House escape the wrath to come? They were honorable and straightforward men, and they voted for the appeal to the people. They knew that they were bound to vote in -the House as the majority of a duly-constituted Caucus meeting decided, and they voted accordingly. Some of them had to go on the penitential platform for a while, but they were all forgiven. If honorable members will examine a list of the names of those gentlemen who turned against the Prime Minister when we were asked as Federal members to stand up, not only for the unity of the Federal Labour Government and party, but also for the imperishable principles of right upon which the Labour movement rests, they will find that they represented constituencies in which whoever secures the Labour nomination is sure of being returned. The sacrifice they were asked to make was too great. Perhaps the same accusation might be made against me, because Werriwa is not a Labour seat- at the present moment. It may be said that I had not the same temptations as those other gentlemen, but I ask honorable members to recollect that, on 24th August, when the threat was whispered round the caucus room, that men were in danger^ of having their indorsements refused, I stated that I declined to accept a seat, much less a nomination, from bodies that had forgotten the principle of liberty. I, one of the most confirmed anticonscriptionists, preferred to be driven from the movement that I love,, rather than be led by a halter by those who had no conception of freedom and no idea of where their actions would land the Labour movement!. I have been branded as being lukewarm on this question. In reply, I propose to read what I said at the first meeting addressed by me in opposition to conscription in 1916. On that occasion I was condemned because iti was alleged that the tone which I adopted was too moderate. At that time I felt that, notwithstanding all that had transpired, nowithstanding all the condemnation to which the Prime Minister had been subjected, there was sufficient Democracy in the Labour movement to bring us together again when the bone of contention had been decided, as I hoped it would be decided, by the electors turning down conscription. This is what I said on the 10th October, 1916- From no section or party that continues to withhold and deny a full measure of freedom could I accept a seat in Parliament in the future. Though opposed to conscription of the manhood of Australia, I want to say that I cannot join in the wholesale condemnation of our Prime Minister that a large number of my party is inclined to indulge in. I want to record here my belief that 1 think **Mr. Hughes,** in advocating conscription for Australia, is animated more by the deathless feeling of love and patriotism for the land of his birth (which all true men feel), more than concern for the immediate welfare of the land of his adoption. i went on to say - I do say that the horrors that he witnessed on the field and in the hospitals, the inner facts that were revealed to him, the unexampled opportunities that were his to see and know, what a fate was threatening the loveland of his birth, and her proud Empire has betrayed him into asking a sacrifice from Australia which is foreign to our conceptions of the vital principles of self-government. He must not forget that whilst we all claim to be patriotic and devoted to the Allied cause, there are degrees of patriotism by which useful and effective service can alone be made in this country, and beyond which we cannot go without danger or disaster to our possible maximum effort in this war. It is useless to ignore these degrees I have mentioned, for they have their root in the same noble feeling that I credit the Prime Minister with (perhaps unconsciously) being swayed. We nativeborn Australians must and will put Australia first. I want to show that if the gentlemen who now accuse the Prime Minister of every crime in the calendar were only true to their better selves, they would ask, " Why did not the right honorable gentleman perform this culminating act of treachery when he could have made it effective 7 Why did he leave us nothing to go upon except this small thing by comparison with the big things which he might have done against us, but did not?" They know perfectly well that what I am saying is absolutely true. They know that the Labour party submitted to the people in a constitutional way the question of conscription, that it was defeated by the electors, and that, because of the failure of that referendum, there was no shadow of reflection cast on the Prime Minister that was not also cast upon every member of that party and supporter of the Government. Yet we are now told that in re-submitting the referendum, and because of a promise which he made, the Prime Minister stands condemned, as do also his Ministerial colleagues and the whole of the members of the National party. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with the pledge to hold a second referendum, which he gave, and immediately telegraphed my resignation as a candidate of the National party if I were expected to be bound by lt. However, I was informed that I was not, and that is why i am here to-night. As the result of the recent referendum, we are now told that the people are solidly behind the small remnant comprising the Official Labour party that was returned to this Parliament after the electors had ascertained something of the facts connected with the rupture in the Labour movement, and despite the circumstance that the general elections on the 5th May last resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that party. On that occasion what did the electors of Australia do? They practically wiped that party off the slate. The honorable member for Cook **Mr.** Catts), in his short history of the period to which I refer, said that we repudiated the idea of conscription from the beginning, that we had nothing tto do with the wretched thing, but that **Mr. Hughes** did it all. According to the honorable member, the right honorable gentleman1 alone was responsible for all the evil and all the injury. The honorable' member reminds me of the small boy who was picked up unconscious at the heels of a mule, and who, when he regained his senses, was told that he must have done something to the mule. Though he was covered with blood and scars, he absolutely scouted the idea, and said, " I was merely trying to cut my name on his heels with my jack-knife." That is why the Official Labour party was turned down. In it we had a body of men who, by submitting to the tyranny which was put upon them by ignorant and panicstricken outsiders, had forfeited every right to the consideration of people loving a representative form of government. These men were defeated, and will be defeated again unless they can convince the people that some new form of iniquity was threatened by the re-submission of the question of conscription to the electors. The Official Labour party has no hope of governing this country until they undo, the wrong which they have done.I am just as sound a Labour man as I ever was. During the recent campaign I told the people in my electorate, many of whom are supposed to be hide-bound Conservatives and red-hot conscriptionists, that my position had not changed, and that I could not allow an outside body to take away from them the right which T held sacredly in trust for them, or permit their part in the government of the country to be dictated behind closed doors by a few. gentlemen to whom their representatives were to play the part of willing slaves. The Labour movement will never die; the humanitarian principles upon which it has been built up in various forms throughout the world will still go on, but nothing has done more to disgrace a great movement than the surrender which was made by men who, had they taken the stand that others took, and defied their would-be masters outside, would have still been participating in a solid Labour Government controlling the affairs of this country. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- They would if they had only stuck to their pledge upstairs. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- We have heard a lot of scriptural texts being bandied about to-day, perhaps with very little Christian spirit, but the man or the party that causes others to sin also sins. If there be degradation or evil in the actions of a Government - if crimes are alleged against it - because of the tremendous difficulties that have been occasioned by the disruption of the Labour party through the outrage of the principles upon which the party was founded, those responsible for that outrage must accept the blame. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- But was there a majority at the Caucus meeting for the refferendum ? {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- Undoubtedly there was a majority for the referendum. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- What were the numbers? {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- The numbers were twenty-three to twenty-one, and. all the time I had my eye on certain gentlemen who requested the Prime Minister to go to their "bosses" and try to convince them that what he proposed was a right and democratic thing. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I was not one of those. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- The action of the honorable member, as it was explained to me, was based on a conscientious objection to conscription. The honorable member said that he would not remain in any Government that would adopt it. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I said that I would not remain in a Government that took a referendum on the question. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- I am a native of Australia ; it is the only country for me, but it is my honest opinion that where a country governed by a party system has reached such an acute stage as we reached in Australia, when some sudden disruption prevents parties from performing their duties according to a well-established" and disciplined system, what has ' happened in the Commonwealth must happen, and there cannot be anything but turmoil and dissension- such as, unfortunately, we now have in Australia. No one was louder in his declamation against the Liberal party than I was; there was no one more opposed to the principles dear to those gentlemen who form the Liberal party than I was, but I recognise that they stood solidly behind both the Fisher Government and the Hughes Government when we were supposed to be a united Labour party. Without in the slightest degree reflecting on the capacity of the Liberal party to take up the reins of government, I believe that, owing to the jealousy of organized labour against capital and capitalism, and against what may be termed the upper grades of society whom the Liberals are considered to represent more largely than any other grade, the best efforts Australia is capable of giving could have been brought to bear at this time only by the methods that were adopted when they agreed to give us loyal support in every action taken for the maintenance of our maximum effort in this war. The sudden disruption of the Labour party brought about a state of things which we now deplore. Honorable" members say that there can be no peace until they get on the Treasury bench. They have forgotten that there can be no peace in Australia until the principles of Democracy are brought into play, until the great Labour movement is freed from the pernicious interference of men outside attempting to control fitter and abler men inside. Otherwise, they will make themselves so impotent as to be scarcely counted in the deliberations of the country. I can prove what I am saying by reference to resolutions in conference and actions right throughout the past. The first referendum was purely a Labour proposal. Surely, then, the National party cannot be condemned for referring the same question to the people again. I believe that there are many who thought that the referendum method should he dispensed with altogether; but, notwithstanding the dictum of the honorable member for Flinders **(Sir William Irvine)** that the reference of such a question to the people is opposed- to the principle of Democracy - the honorable member quoted Abraham Lincoln in support of his contention - I believe a true democratic method was followed. All questions affecting the lives and liberties of the people can be settled by reference to the people. Abraham Lincoln was formulating something which had its foundation in a high moral principle. When he said that true government consisted of government of the people by the people and for the people, he was simply voicing something based on the imperishable truth that the right begotten of our common humanity rises superior to all mere petty, man-made institutions ; and as the greater cannot be contained in the less, so the people are naturally the final court of appeal. The second referendum provided at least a necessary corrective to that conscriptionist opinion which the people of Australia are not inclined to cultivate any further, but which, on the contrary, they are the more inclined to dissociate themselves from the more closely they examine it. With all due respect to my conscriptionist friends, their attitude in assuming that conscription is the one patriotic test reminds me of something I read many years ago of a certain clan who were celebrated for having exceptionally wide mouths. The reason was that, as each of them came into the world, he was tested to see whether he was the real McKay by having a huge wooden spoon, an heirloom, thrust into his mouth. The test generally had to be gone through . whatever the infant's feelings were. So there seems a tendency to thrust the conscription spoon into the mouth of every man and woman in Australia to test their loyalty. A very great mistake is made by those who take up that attitude. I am speaking plainly in this matter, because I feel perfectly independent on it. It was rendered utterly impossible for me to stay with those gentlemen who made a bone of contention of the conscription racket, because that is one thing just now which creates a panic amongst the people. It has wrecked a great voluntary recruit ing movement, and while that panic is upon the people their desire to avenge the great sin that cries aloud for vengeance in the world is liable, for the time being, to be thrust on one side. I spoke on the question of conscription on the 20th September, 1916, when addressing the House on the Referendum- Bill, and my views are the same now. I said that whilst every man and woman was entitled to hold a conscientious opinion for or against conscription without let or hindrance, I could not support it conscientiously, because I believed it was opposed to the doctrine of right. We have heard the parallel of the burglar entering one's house. My interpretation of the law of right, based upon my belief in a Higher Powers is that if a burglar or murderer comes into your house for the purpose of destroying life, or something that is worth even more than life, it is your duty to slay him - if you cannot in a more effective way protect your household. It is your duty, also, in a corporate capacity to slay any body of men that invade your country, but the matter must be within the orbit of ' your own control. If yon go with lethal weapons in the middle . of the night into the house of another man to destroy burglars who may be prowling there, you place yourself in a wrong position. You might be accused of being there with burglarious, or worse, intent yourself. You place yourself in the same position when, in a corporate capacity, you and your fellow citizens enter another country with arms in your hands. The limitation is there, clear and definite. *Sitting suspended from 12.6 to 12.35 a.m. (Friday).* {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- We are asked to wrack this Government because of a pledge made by the Prime Minister without consulting his party, to the making of which I suppose the majority of it would not have agreed. I should certainly not have done so. Those who ask us to do this have, as a plank of their platform, the initiative and referendum. It has always been maintained by Labour men that the referendum means the submission to the people of some clear question to which they can give a distinct and specific answer, as a verdict is returned by juries in a Court of law. During an ordinary election multitudinous questions are before the electors, who arrange them in different orders of importance, so that it is impossible to say that the return of any one candidate signifies the expression of the will of his constituents on any one of them in particular. The people having been asked to vote on the momentous question of conscription, why do the members of the Opposition say now that the verdict obtained means not only that there shall not be conscription, but that a majority of the electors has not confidence in the Government, and wishes to be ruled by the small minority opposite" My view is that the electors simplyanswered the question that was put to them without being concerned with the pledge of the Prime Minister. What is the use of a referendum if it is to be Icon.tended after the verdict has been delivered that the people have expressed an opinion in regard to this, that, and the other matter outside the question submitted, which had been the subject of statements, or challenges, or promises, or threats or bribes prior to the taking of the vote. We know well that nine out of ten of those who voted at the referendum were concerned wholly with expressing their opinion on conscription, and at the present moment the people are interested not in the question whether the Government has adopted the right method to relieve itself of the obligation imposed by its pledge, but what attitude the Government intends to take regarding conscription : whether it intends to respect the popular decision or contemplates some interference with it. Although most of the members of this party are conscriptionists, the people having been permitted to say directly whether they would have conscription, and having declared against it, we feel that that policy should not be put into force' contrary to their declared will. The decision of the constituencies must be respected. And while we maintain that attitude, I shall refuse to admit that the Democracy is better represented by the members of the Opposition than by this party. Honorable members opposite could have prevented the trouble and turmoil that we have had if, after the first referendum, they had realized that the people had spoken, and that so long as their decision was respected the integrity of the party and Government must remain unimpaired. They now ask the Nationalist party to disrupt the Government for the very reasons for which they disrupted the Labour Government, which had faithfully given effect to 'its party's platform. But it was made apparent then, that whatever might be the feelings of honorable members here, and however much they might desire unity, those controlling the movement outside had sentenced . **Mr. Hughes** to political death. They ask us now " to disrupt this party as they disrupted our Government and our party, when to have retained them would have been to make it certain that conscription would not be passed in this country during the currency of- the war, or even if another referendum was taken. Why did they disrupt our Government and party. It was because it was felt that a refusal to follow the orders which had been received from outside would probably in the future have involved the loss of a number of seats. They ask us now to break up a Government and a party who received the approval of the people on the 5th May, on the condition that they were not to introduce conscription. They ask us to do sp because, in order to placate friends or reconcile foes, the Government came to a decision to stake their existence as a Government on the carrying of the referendum vote, and made a pledge that could not be kept if they were to be loyal to the still greater pledge to the people who had elected them, and had put up the bar so definitely against those who were opposed to them on the 5th May. Personally, I opposed the Government proposal,- as I had said that i would. . I said that I could not support the Government, or appear as one of its recognised candidates, if it went before the country as a conscriptionist Government. But I am not going to vote against them on a motion of this kind, because this is a case of Satan reproving sin. I refuse to kill my elephant to destroy a flea on it, though that might be a policy which would appeal to honorable members opposite. It is most difficult at a time like the present for every man to walk a chalk-line, and we should be indulgent and fair to each other. When speaking on the 20th September, 1916, on the Referendum Bill, I said that I intended to support the principle of anti-conscription, but, as a farmer with some little property, I advocated that those similarly placed should ear-mark a proportion of their wealth, nob for the purpose o* immediate liquidation, but in order to make partners in the wealth of the country the men who were brave enough to go forth and fight for us. I advocated a measure which would affect myself in common with every other man in a similar position, and I may say that, whatever little consideration my proposal received, came from those from whom I least expected it. I attempted to give some earnest df my sincerity in this matter. I pointed out that by merely voting at the ballot-box, we could not win the war. I pointed out that it would be much easier for us to vote to send a handful of single men to the Front, to throw a few of our numbers to the wolves, in the hope that we would be able to get away before the danger reached ourselves, than to do what would be involved in the adoption of a true policy of anti-conscription, which would demand that each and every one of us should make as nearly as humanly possible an equal sacrifice. I held that we should ask no sacrifice from other people while we were unwilling to give even our all. The business of the country and the relation of classes and industries to each other are based upon certain principles. However much I may disagree with those principles, I know that they cannot be disregarded altogether without bringing woe upon the whole community. I believe in evolutionary progress in all things. If ever there was an opportunity for a people to give an earnest of their sincerity in the cause of patriotism, that opportunity is now with us. We must not waste our energies in fighting each other. We must realize that, as well as maintaining our men at the Front by every possible effort, it is up to us to institute systems by which not only our existing industries will be maintained, but new industries and new production created. We must be prepared to do all that self-sacrificing people should do to maintain their position and independence, and that is all that it is possible for them to do, not merely from a military point of view, but in every other way. To merely vote down conscription will not solve the problem with which we are faced. _ The people of Australia, having been given an opportunity to decide the principle upon which they would conduct the war, have decided against conscription. I think that they have rightly so decided. I do not regard the referendum vote as in any way disgracing the people of Australia. I feel that it would have been an unutterable disgrace to Australia if conscription had been carried. I admit, that other men are equally sincere in holding the opposite view. But we are up against tremendous problems. We have in this great empty country to solve problems hitherto undreamt of. I had an opportunity to tour the greater part of New South Wales as a member of a Royal Commission inquiring how rural industries might be fostered and extended. I have been for 26 or 27 years a working farmer, and I know something of the problems which the people of Australia have to face. After investigating the matter, I saw plainly that our systems of land settlement are unstable, and are not based on equity or justice. Unless we in common with the people of other countries evolve purer and truer systems under which individuals, as well as classes, will be more just and fair to other individuals and other classes, unless we bring about a state of things in which, whilst conserving the responsibility of the individual, we can provide an equal opportunity for all, we shall, as the result of the present world conflict, be drawn into a maelstrom of revolutionary difficulties and disunion which cannot promote advancement, but must result in retrogression for society and civilization. Whilst the war has not actually been waged in. Australia this problem will be as important for us as it is for the people of other countries. Though the majority of the party to which I belong are opposed to me on the question of conscription, I believe that the fact that Australia has retained her freedom in that all-important matter will cause this country to be regarded as a haven to . which countless thousands of liberty-loving people bereft of homes will come. I believe that by the referendum vote it will be found that we have not put a brand of disgrace upon Australia, but have shown the people of the world that this is a country in which we have kept the flag of Liberty flying. It is that flag which has made British colonization the most successful in the world's history. The fact that Great Britain had to change her system in her hour of danger is no proof that there was a sudden thrust forward by a laggard Democracy. It only meant that the principle of voluntarism had been carried to suchan extent that it had been forgotten that eternal vigilance and preparation for war is the price of safety and liberty. At Home and in the Dominions we had failed to make every possible provision for defence; otherwise it would not have been necessary to abandon voluntarism at the heart of the Empire. By maintaining the principle of liberty only can we make Empire expansion worthy or defensible, and that principle would have been maintained in all its glory under the one flag but for the circumstances I have described. I think I have shown clearly that while the party on this side has made an attempt to get the people to accept conscription there is no evidence yet of that tyranny which would compel men, because of their conscientious opinions, to leave the party; but should that moment arrive, I shall be prepared to take the action I took on a former occasion, and tread my lonely path. {: #subdebate-3-0-s6 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong -- Inmy humble judgment the pledge or threat - though I believe it was intended for a pledge - made at Bendigo was an abuse of the referendum. As I understand it, a referendum should be the submission of a question absolutely stripped of all party or other consideration ; but if, as I believe, the Government were driven into making the promise or pledge, they should, as honorable men, be bound by it. A comparison between the referenda in connexion with the amendments of the Constitution, and the referendum taken recently, is not a fair one. As one who fought hard in favour of the constitutional referenda, I can say that, if the party with which I was associated had staked the life of the Labour Government on the result, and had failed to carry their proposals, it would have been their duty to go out of office. However, they never made any pledge of the kind; but displayed more courage than was displayed by the present Government in December last. If the present Government believed that conscription was absolutely essential for the proper conduct of the war, they should have taken their courage in both hands, and, in the election campaign of May, pledged them selves to carry conscription,just as the Labour party pledged themselves to their policy at the 1913 election. Having twice tested public opinion on the question of conscription, it is about time to conclude that tie people of Australia are distinctly against the system. That being so, it devolves on honorable members on both sides to evolve some other scheme whereby we can supply what we deem to be a sufficiency of men. Honorable members applaud that sentiment; but it is quite likely that, later on, when I express my opinion as to the number of men and divisions that should be maintained at the Front, they may not express such hearty approval. It is said by some that it is not fair to compare the efforts of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, but, personally, I think the comparison a perfectly legitimate one. I say now, as I said during the referendum campaign, that Australia is supporting six divisions at the Front, while Canada is supporting four, and New Zealand one. Whether the war lasts six months or five years, I would not be one, nor have I ever been, to contend that Australia should be called upon to contribute as large a percentage, according to population, as those countries nearer the battle front. Our conveyance of 300,000 men from Australia to the seat of war is a transport featnever equalled in any part of the world; and, when considering what contribution we will make in men, we must always take into account the difficulties surrounding our position. It is not possible for Australia to contribute the same percentage of her manhood as does Great Britain, seeing that we are at least from six to eight weeks distant, in point of time, from the battle front. while the Mother Country is only a few hours. In this respect, New Zealand and Australia are practically on the same footing; and a similar comparison may be made with the United States and other countries participating in the world conflict. It fell to my lot during the recent campaign to address meetings at Corio, Grampians, Bendigo, and Wimmera, and I must say that I had a very happy time. I met with only two rotteneggs, and not one reached my body, though, unfortunately, the chairman of a meeting got one in the mouth, with the result that he will probably carry a scar for the remainder of his life. To the electors I put the position that Australia, with a population of less than 5,000,000, and 12,000 miles from the seat of war, is maintaining six divisions at the Front; Canada, with a population of over 8,000,000, and 3,000 miles from the battle.front, is maintaining four divisions at the Front, while New Zealand, 12,000 miles from the battle-front, and with a population of 1,250,000, is maintaining one division. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- New Zealand has sent 86,000 men to the Front.- {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I am speaking now of the number of divisions being maintained there. At a joint meeting of members of both Houses, I asked the ©Prime Minister whether, we were to be bound to secrecy as to what transpired, because, if so, I would seriously consider whether I should not withdraw. The right honorable gentleman said that, with the exception of one or two matters, members would not be bound to secrecy. Even had we been pledged to silence as to the. number of. troops sent to the Front, I should have been absolved from that pledge by the speech made by **Senator Pearce** in the Sydney Town Hall on 31st October last. During the first referendum campaign I mentioned that up to a certain point four divisions had been promised, and that I believed that the Government had the approval of Parliament in despatching those divisions to the Front. But when the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** off his own bat, promised a fifth division, I considered he went beyond what this Parliament would be prepared to concede. As I said at the joint meeting of members of both Houses, when we promised_ to maintain a fifth division we ".bit off a little more than we could chew." I have made myself conversant with the Canadian position, having read the *Hansard* report of the speech ' made by **Sir Robert** Borden in introducing the Military Service Bill, as well as speeches by **Sir Wilfrid** Laurier, **Mr. Oliver, Mr. White,** and others. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- How many have enlisted from the province of Quebec? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I shall deal with that matter all in good time.- {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Does the honorable member also know that sixty-six different languages are spoken by Canadian immigrants ? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- That may be. When the Military Service Bill was before the Canadian House of Commons in June last, **Sir Wilfrid** Laurier said there was considerable complaint as to the contribution made by Quebec, where the principal sections of the French-speaking people of Canada live. **Sir Wilfrid** Laurier, who is of French extraction, regretted that that section had not contributed its fair quota, but said that from the official figures he had been able to obtain he had formed the opinion that the French-speaking ' section of Canada had contributed at least one division. During that debate it was also brought out that of 300,000 enlistments the Canadian-born represented only 125,000. Nearly two-thirds of the enlistments in Canada comprised Britishborn who had arrived there in comparatively recent years. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Has the honorable member seen **Sir Edward** Kemp's statement, as published in the *Herald* yesterday, that 350,000 have gone to the Front from Canada ? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- My information has been gathered from official documents, and the *Hansard* report of the debate on the Military Service Bill in the Canadian House of Commons. Ohe of the mom serious complaints made in the Canadian House 'of Commons, during the last six months and prior to the recent general elections, was that a great number of men who were physically unfit to enter the firing line had been sent from Canada to Great Britain. It was computed thai nearly 50,000 would have to be brought back. **Sir Robert** Borden, who read in the House of Commons a cablegram from **Sir George** Perley, the representative of Canada in Britain, stating that he was sending back these men. because complaints had been made of a shortage of labour in the farming and other industries of the Dominion. It was asked why these men should be sent to Great Britain, since they were physically unfit to go to the Front, but would be of use in the industries of Canada. Having regard to Australia's remoteness from the battle front, I hold that with or without conscription it is impossible for us to maintain six divisions there. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The honorable member should not forget that until recently Canada had to keep 150,000 men on the American fro frontier. . . {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- They have been relieved. Up to a certain period 50,000 men were kept in camp in Canada because of the foreign element in the United States, as well as within Canada itself. According to the latest figures, Canada has sent 350,000 men to the Front. From that total, however, we must deduct the 50,000 who are being returned because of their physical unfitness to enter the firing line, so that the position of Australia and Canada, in so far as the total number of effectives at the Front is concerned, is very much the same. I read very carefully the speech delivered by **Sir Robert** Borden upon his return from a visit to the Old Country, when he said, in January, 1915, " I saw one Canadian division at the Front," and I remember quite distinctly reading this year that he said that he had just returned from the Front, where he saw four Canadian divisions. Right through his speech were references to these four Canadian divisions, and I say now that Canada is experiencing a considerable difficulty in keeping up her enlistments. In view of the position in Canada, I think it is time we came to some decision as to Australia's contribution to the war, and having fixed upon the number of divisions, endeavoured to maintain a full supply of reinforcements for them. During the recent campaign I said that, if we could keep four divisions at their full strength, it would be better than endeavouring to maintain a larger number of divisions under the voluntary system. I am of the same opinion to-day. I desire now to refer briefly to the Sixth Division and to quote a reply made by the Prime Minister at Bendigo in answer to a question on the night before the 1917 election. **Mr. Hughes,** as reported. in the Bendigo *Independent* of 5th May, 1917, admitted that Australia had a Sixth Division at the Front. We had 60,000 men at Salisbury Plain, and a division was formed and sent to France where they aided in the great victory at Lagnicourt. (Cheers.) I have turned up the files of the daily press to find that the battle of Lagnicourt is reported by cable to have been fought on 17th April, of last year, or only a couple of weeks before the Prime Minister made his statement at Bendigo. I am not going to say that the Sixth Division is in .existence to-day on the Western Front, for I know that it is not, but when people say that there never was a Sixth Division there, I am entitled to quote the Prime Minister's statement which has never been denied, though men who advocated the " No " side of the conscription issue have been prosecuted for saying a Sixth Division had been formed. The fact about the number of divisions was established by the " figures presented to the combined meeting in the Senate club room, and also to a public meeting held in Sydney. **Senator Pearce** said then that there were five divisions on the Western Front, and the equivalent of another division was being maintained in Egypt, on the Suez Canal, and in Mesopotamia, so that at the time of the referendum we were practically maintaining six divisions. In my humble judgment this number is too great for Australia, situated as we are so far distant from the battle front. It would be far better if we could maintain four divisions at their full strength instead of having a greater number of ragged divisions. Hitherto, there has been altogether too much haphazard promising to provide men for the Front. Prior to the first referendum in October, 1916, ' and when a Fifth Division was promised, I raised an objection to the extra division; and I say now that, if we did as well as Canada, which is only 3,000 miles from the battle Front, we would be doing magnificently, because the population of Australia is 3,000,000 less than that of Canada. Even if we subtract the French population of the Dominion, there is still left an Englishspeaking population larger than ours. Corning now to the motion before the House, I desire to place on record the resolutions agreed to by -the National party, as supplied to the press on 3rd January. After considerable discussion, as I understand, the following motion was agreed to : - >That the Federal National party expresses its continued confidence in **Mr. Hughes,** and in view of the exceptional circumstances considers that, in the best interests of the country and the Empire, **Mr. Hughes** should retain the leadership of the party. Another motion carried was as follows : - >That this party, in view of the recent declared attitude of the Official Labour party on the vital question of the conduct of war and peace, declares that in the interests of the country and the Empire it will not support any course of action that will hand the government of the Commonwealth over to the Official Labour party. > >Another motion was submitted as follows : - > >That the National party approves of the Government honouring the pledge it gave to the people that unless it got the power asked for it could not and would not carry on the government, by tendering its resignation, and that **Mr. Austin** Chapman be asked to form a Government. > >That motion was not acceptable to the National party, so the following was agreed to : - > >That the matter be left in the hands of the Government to take whatever steps it deemed advisable to give honorable effect to *the* pledge given to the people of Australia. > >I do not intend to say anything about the members who moved or seconded the motion, but we all know that the resolutions were adopted because they were given to the press by the Prime Minister in the course of his statement, and therefore they are a true record of the meeting. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Other motions were submitted. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Yes; but these motions dealt with the particular phases of the matter in which we are now interested, and it seems to me that the attitude of the National party was like that of a man who put up his umbrella *to* protect himself from the rain. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- You are looking at it from your environment. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- But the honorable member is in my environment, so I am quite right. What I want to say is that if these resolutions were analyzed carefully it would be seen that the main concern was to avoid a general election at all costs. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- The honorable member does not want an election, does he? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I do not care a snap of the finger what any man or woman may say about inconsistency as applied to my actions. If I am convinced that a certain course of action which I may have approved of is wrong, I would be very foolish if I did not change my opinion. I do not mind what people say about inconsistency. When, during the recent campaign, I was asked how I regarded the pledge made by the Prime Minister, I said Ibelieved **Mr. Hughes** would tender his resignation if he intended to remain true to his pledge ; but I did not know whether he would offer any advice to His Excellency or not. But he, having made that pledge, and the majority of the people having voted " No," I should say that if the Prime Minister resigned the matter would be left in the hands of the GovernorGeneral, and I saw no other course for him to pursue than to send for the Leader of the Labour party. He might or might not undertake to form a Ministry. If he were commissionedto do so and his Government met the House, some member of the Opposition might immediately move the adjournment of the House, and that would be the end of the Ministry; or, alternatively, the Government might be allowed to live for a month or so. But whether they met with a sudden death motion or were allowed to remain in office for the time being, there was only one way to clear up the situation, and that was for the Governor-General to grant a dissolution, and consult the people again as to whether they would or would not return a party pledged to conscription. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Would the honorable member advocate a double dissolution ? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Then what would be the position in the Senate? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- If, for the sake of argument, there were an election next month, and the Labour party were returned to power, I should have very little fear of what the Senate would do after having heard the verdict of the people. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- The Fisher Government did not resign when the referendum proposals were defeated. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I have previously said that if the Fisher Government had staked their life on the carrying of the referenda, Ministers would have had no honorable alternative but to resign. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- The Fisher Government said thatthey could not carry out their platform without the powers sought. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- That was a legitimate argument to use when asking for power to amend the Constitution. But the Government did not pledge their life on the result. The action of the present Government was an abuse of the referendum. Whether their statement was a pledge or a threat they had no rightto submit the question to the people in that form. The issue shouldhave been a straight-out one, and free of all extraneous matter, and then, finding that the people's opinion was adverse to their proposal, the best thing the Government could do was to conduct the government of the country as best they could with the powers they possessed. I have no means of finding out how members of the National party spoke in their Caucus meeting, but, knowing the views of the honorable member forFlinders **(Sir William Irvine)** on this question, I have not the slightest doubt that he emphasized his own opinion that the Government having pledged their life on the issue must keep their compact with the people and resign. The whole burden of the speech of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Lynch)** was a tirade against the Labour party. If the honorable member had directed some of his caustic criticisms to members of his own party they would have been better applied. When there is any missionary work to be done it is well to do it in our own circle before we set out to evangelize others ' Having regard to the text of the resolutions of the Nationalist Caucus, it seems an act of impertinence on the part of honorable members opposite to ask members on this side to coalesce with them when they have already shut the door against any negotiations of that character. I do not blame the Prime Minister alone for that. I believe that every one of the resolutions was carried by an overwhelming majority of the party, and the blame for any consequences resulting from them must be borne by the party as a whole. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Even though some honorable members opposed them? Mr.FENTON. - I give credit to those honorable members who voted against the resolutions at their Caucus meeting. The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Higgs)** to-day quoted some criticisms of the Government by the leading newspapers of the Commonwealth. It is surprising to me that any newspaper, after publishing such drastic criticisms of the Government before it was re-formed, should now have the temerity to make the suggestion of a coalition with members on this side.I do not know what the developments may be now, or at any future date, but, so far as I can judge the temper of the people of thiscountry, nothing less than a general election will clarify the political atmosphere and bring about a condition of affairs which, will enable us to do effectively our share in the further prosecution of the war. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- In the event of a general election, would the policy enunciated by the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** last night be the platform of the Labour party? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Most likely. The honorable member must know that the Conferences inNew South Wales and Victoria have passed an identical set of resolutions, but those resolutions do not become the platform of the Federal Labour party until the Inter-State Conference has met and indorsed them. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- That is what we said in regard to the conscription issue when we were expelled. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I stand to-day on the same general platform as that to which the honorable member was pledged when he laststood for election in the Labour interests. That was the platform drawn up at the Adelaide Conference, at which **Mr. Fisher** and a number of others who have since left the Labour party, attended. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Is it a fact that the next general Conference has been postponed until after the anticipated general election in March? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Whether that be so or not, until a policy is indorsed by the Inter-State Conference, it cannot be incorporated in the Labour party's platform. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The Labour party did not wait for the Inter-State body's decision in regard to conscription before it kicked us out. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- In connexion with that occurrence", I took a certain course, involving some risk. As the honorable member knows, I took a line of action in this House which other honorable members did not follow. I was prepared to take certain risks, and told the Labour Executive so. Unfortunately, what has since happened makes it absolutely impossible for us to come together again. Everybody will admit that the splitting of a great party like the Labour party was a very important event. But one of the worst things that has ever happened ho Australia was the introduction of the question of conscription. It was introduced at a time when recruits were freely forthcoming. I do not intend to discuss the anomalies that obtain under the voluntary system. But there are evils connected with the conscript system to which I can never assent. Let us go back to the genesis of the present trouble. In the early stages of the war, the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. J.H. Catts)** was the secretary of the recruiting committee in New South Wales, and at that time recruits were coming forward so freely that the commanding officers in one or two of the camps had to request the committee to stay its hand, because they could not provide for the numbers that were offering. That was the time when an attempt was made to introduce the wedge of conscription. The result has been, in some cases, to set husbands against wives, and brothers against sisters. I blame those who are so anxious to fasten conscription upon the Commonwealth, for the disruption which obtains at the present time. There is one point which has been overlooked during this debate, just as it was overlooked during the recent campaign. I refer to the part which our Australian Navy has played in this war. Whilst 1 am prepared to give the fullest credit to our boys in khaki, I cannot forget our boys in blue. Australia has made a splendid naval contribution to the war. She has contributed no less than fifteen fighting ships, manned for the most part by Australians, and she has paid the whole of the cost and maintenance of these vessels, which are playing their part - either in the North Sea or elsewhere - in the great struggle that is being enacted to-day. Our naval arm comprises 5,000 men, for whom we have not been given any credit. Even the Minister for the Navy is not prepared to give Australia credit for what she has done in a naval sense. In the matter of munitions, I know that we have not done as much as has Canada ; but I would remind honorable members that in railway units and workers for Great Britain, we have contributed close upon another 5,000 men. From time to time, I have seen letters from men who are doing splendid work in the munition factories of Great Britain. In addition, we have sent away over 300,000 men to take part in the field operations in France and elsewhere. In short, Australia's contribution to this war is a magnificent one. Con sidering our population, it is absolutely impossible for us to supply reinforcements to the extent of 7,000 a month, and the sooner we recognise that fact, the sooner shall we come to our senses. Australia is capable of certain things, but she cannot, and ought not to be asked, to perform impossibilities. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- In proportion to her population, Great Britain has contributed a great many more men than has Australia. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Any honorable member who imagines that we can send overseas, a distance of 12,000 miles, the same number of troops as Great Britain, proportionate to our population, is labouring under a delusion. It must not be forgotten, that transport is a most difficult matter in connexion with this war. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Great Britain transports our troops from here. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- We provide them with all their equipment, and pay all the expenses of their transportation. Coming to our White Australia policy, I say that the working men and women of this country have to depend for their livelihood either upon their brains or their muscle. They have acquired certain rights and privileges of which they are naturally very jealous. To-day, in view of those whohold office in this Parliament, they are perfectly justified in suspecting that both our White Australia policy and the labour conditions which they now enjoy are in very grave peril. Why? The answer may be found in the Canadian *Hansard.* Not long ago a Chinese Immigration Bill was introduced into the Canadian Parliament - a measure which provided that Chinese students should be entitled to finish their education in Canada. When that Bill was under consideration, **Mr. Macdonald** asked - Has the Minister received from the coal mine proprietors of British Columbia or any other employers of labour in British. Columbia, any request for permission to bringin Oriental labour? **Mr. Roche,** Minister for the Interior, replied ; Yes, there have been several requests made on behalf of certain employers of labour in British Columbia, in the central provinces, and I think in the eastern provinces, asking that Chinese labour should be brought in, but the- Government has not seen its way cleaT to adopt a policy of that kind under existing circumstances. Then in the *Argus* of 11th January I read the following cable: - The Canadian Government is considering a plan to conscript alien unskilled labour for work on farms, in mines, and in other necessary national industries. This is regarded as necessary, owing to the shortage of labour that is beginning to be felt. Thus we have, first, the question by **Mr. Macdonald** in the Canadian Parliament, secondly the guarded reply of the Minister for the Interior, and lastly the cable which I have read. The elections are over, and the Borden Government have won, although the other party increased their strength. Some people expected tho Opposition party to win, but I did not. For one thing, the rolls were compiled in a very peculiar manner; a manuscript roll was used and other curious practices -were indulged in. The newly-elected Government is now making arrangements to bring Chinese labour into Canada. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The cablegram does not say so. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- They are considering a plan for conscripting alien unskilled labour. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- How can they conscript alien labour if it is outside the Dominion ?' {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- They can get them under contract. If the information in the cablegram is correct it shows the significance of the question asked in the Canadian Parliament. The almighty dollar is the sole thought of employers and capitalists in all partis of the world. They know no nationality. No matter whether it is over the prostrate forms of their neighbours, they will have their cheap labour to secure more profits on their invested capital. I draw attention to what is happening in Canada because there is a danger of the same thing happening in Australia. Those who believe in the White Australia policy should pay some heed to an article that appeared in the *Pastoralists' Review* on the 16th February, 1916. It contains a map of Australia with the northern portion coloured black, and the letterpress reads as follows : - We are very glad to see that responsible men, Government officials, and the principal newspapers realize, or are beginning to realize, the impossibility of the White Australia policy A " White Australia " within limits lis very commendable and necessary, for we want no " alien " problems, but limits there must be, and the purpose of this article is to set forth those limits, as marked out in the *Review* two years ago. ... Within this strip indentured coloured labour from Java, the Archipelago to the North of Australia, China, India, or the South Sea Islands, should be allowed free scope under white supervision. . . . Children born in the country would be subject to the same conditions as their parents, and would have to leave with the latter, or after a fixed number of years. Of course, we realize that the great problem will be to deal satisfactorily with the half-caste, but owing to limited space this question must be discussed in a future article. It is a problem that can be solved, must be solved, for even if the question of climate did not make a White Australia impossible, the .war has put an end to it. After peace is declared the colour line will become more and more indefinable, and we shall be compelled to recognise the fact, for Great Britain will say to us, Renounce your 'White Australia ' policy, or suffer the consequences. Your blood will be upon your own head." If ever there was an article that should have been censored this was one. I drew, the attention of **Senator Pearce** to it. I understand that copies were sent to every honorable member. It shows that there are persons in Australia who are desirous of importing alien labour, and knowing the class of people supporting the present Administration, I am very suspicious in regard to the security of our White Australia policy. ' Some honorable members are very fond of talking about the support given to those who voted on the " No " side during the recent campaign. It is said that the "No" voters were members of the Industrial Workers of the World, disloyalists, Sinn Feiners, and so forth. The Prime Minister had something to say the other day in which - I do not make any charge, but I understand that his language' as recorded in *Hansard* is somewhat mollified - he made a very serious reflection upon some of the rich people in Australia. When people charge us with being pro-Germans, or members of the Industrial Workers 'of the World, or with being disloyal, I ask what more disloyal person is there in the community to-day than the food exploiter, who is growing rich at the expense of his country in this time of war? If my friends opposite propose to allow the cost of living to be maintained at such a high rate, many who in ordinary circum stances would enlist will not do so. I have met men who are in the Citizen Forces and who are fairly well conversant with military operations, but they have told me that, though they are willing to enlist as privates, they do not intend to leave Australia and allow their wives and children to maintain themselves on the allowance which the dependants of a , private draw, because they know that they cannot possibly maintain themselves upon it. The principle pre-requisites for obtaining a proper supply of men for the Front are an increase in the pay. of the men, an increase in pensions, and a good solid system of repatriation. If the men are satisfied on those points thousands will be prepared to enlist. As things are now, many cannot and will not do so. The course I have suggested is the beat means of obtaining recruits. If there is any man who ought to be well paid it is the man who is performing a soldier's duties. Unless we give these increases we will not get that number of recruits that the most sanguine think will be forthcoming. I agree with honorable members who say that it is absolutely essential to set about looking after the industries of this country. In the matter of repatriation more has been done in the direction of land settlement than in any other direction, but only about 15 per cent, of the soldiers will be anxious to go on the land. I am sorry to say this, because, although I represent a city constituency, I recognise that the aggregation of people in our cities is a great problem. Nearly half of the population of Victoria is in Melbourne, nearly half of the population of New South Wales is in Sydney, and I believe that the same condition obtains in Adelaide, South Australia. i am sure that not more than 15 per cent, of our returned soldiers will desire to go on the soil. What are we to do with the other 85 per cent.? We are making little or no effort to provide for them. The War Council, and other bodies, are making fair attempts to meet the demand, but we have done little or nothing for the organization of industries to prepare for our men when they come back, to create profitable employment, or extend our industries. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** wants to send returned soldiers into the country to take the place of Chinese at scrub-cutting. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I hope the honorable member is not in favour of Chinese being extensively, employed in this country. It would be preferable for those who have scrub-cutting to do to give the work to some of our returned soldiers rather than *to Chinese. No effort is being made to revive languishing industries,- or establish new ones. All that we have heard about the Bureau of Science, and other organizations, is so much talk, and so it is with shipbuilding. We are getting' disgusted with what appear to be the wilful delays in connexion with the shipbuilding policy of Australia. A commencement should have been made with a vigorous policy of shipbuilding over twelve months ago, at least. **Sir Auckland** Geddes stated the other day in the House of 'Commons that men were needed; but, about a fortnight previously, **Mr. Lloyd** George said the great question of the day was tonnage. So it is - tonnage for the conveyance of both troops and food , supplies. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** is only humbugging with the question when he talks about conducting arrangements with this or that union. What have the private companies been doing? Mort's dock recently sent out one of the biggest dredges constructed in Australia, and I believe it arrived safely in Victoria. We have recently in our docks transformed the sailing ship *John Murray* from a training ship into a cargo boat. If things of that sort can be done in both States, surely there is no difficulty about getting men for shipbuilding. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- They will have to work a great deal quicker and better than they' have done on the *Loongana..* They have taken over eight months in Sydney to do what would be done on the Clyde in six weeks. Three times she has started out and broken down, and had to return. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I thought I heard the honorable member say the other day that she had to return, not because the repairs done to her had not been effective, but because something fresh had happened. These, however, are only small things. I should like to see the work done by, say, twenty Australians put alongside that done by the same number of Englishmen, The reports I receive from the other side go to show that, where Australians are working in munition and other factories, they are doing far and away more work than the same number of Britishers can do in a given time. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- They are building boats twice the size of ours in Great Britain in about five months. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- They should do it inless, because they have all the equipment, and the men have had the training. I am confident that, where an Australian workman is pitted against an English workman, he will beat him every time. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- What has that to do with the no confidence motion? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Shipbuilding has a lot to do with it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- You could sail around the world on this motion. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- The sins of the Government are so many and extensive that we should have three or four weeks to discuss them. Honorable members seem to think that if they get conscription, all their troubles are over. My reading of what is transpiring in other places is that that is just when the troubles begin. The additional man power obtained under conscription in Great Britain is a mere bagatelle compared with the numbers raised under the voluntary system. Before the late Lord Kitchener went down in the North Sea, he had the British Army of practically 5,000,000 men in being. The following press cutting shows how some of the tradesmen of Great Britain are suffering under the methods introduced by the British Government: - > **Mr.** W. T. Wilson, Labour member of the House of Commons, writes to the *Journal* as follows: - "Members who are in the army will keep writing me complaining that they are not receiving working pay when attached to working companies. I have already published the reply of the War Office, viz., that working pay ceased on 31st December." > > **Mr. A.** W. Singer, a member of the Ealing branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, wrote the following letter to the secretary of his branch : - "I joined the colours on the 9th October. After I passed a trade test I was shifted to a working battalion. I am now working at the trade at the ordinary regimental pay.1s. a day, without any extra working pay. I think this is very unfair." > >Editorial Note. - This matter has been raised in the House of Commons. The War Office has flatly declined to reconsider any extra pay to working parties. ' > >German Prisoners Compelled to Scab. - At a meeting of the Greenock branch of the. society, the following resolution was adopted : - " That we, the members of the above branch, enter our protest against the action of a firm acting as agents for the Ministry of Munitions paying scandalously low and inadequate wages to the miners of Ramsay, and, when they complain, discharging them and replacing them with German prisoners. We consider this to be a perfectly disgusting form of blacklegging, inasmuch as prisoners of war in any country cannot be considered free agents, and, therefore, the authorities are taking an advantage over both miners and prisoners." That is one of the results of the conscription system, and many others could be pointed out. If it is introduced here, we do not know what will happen with regard to trade union conditions, or anything else. There are honorable members on the other side who profess to have sympathy with the working man and his conditions, but they should remember that if they introduce conscription what has happened in Great Britain, where the trade union movement is very strong, will happen here, where the movement is very strong also. On the question of the employment of returned soldiers, I wish to put on record, to show how a returned soldier was treated by certain employers because he happened to be against conscription, the following letter, which was published in the *Ballarat Echo,* of 9th instant: - > **Sir, -** I wish through your paper to draw the attention of the public to the treatment I have received from my employers, Ronaldson Bros, and Tippett, of Creswick-road. I am a returned soldier, discharged from the A.I.F. with a good character. I served about five months in Gallipoli. I went to work at Ronaldson and Tippett's after my return, on the understanding that I was to be permanently employed. On 23rd November, during an argument with the foreman, I asked him if he was satisfied with my work. He replied that he was, and that if it continued to be as good I would never be put off. About the same time **Mr. Ronaldson** told me the same thing. > >On the occasion ofthe first referendum I supported conscription, because I believed that statement of the Government that 16,500 men every month were required, and I did not think it was possible toget that number without conscription. I soon learned that the Government's statement was not true, and therefore on the second referendum I opposed conscription, and spoke against it from the platform. On the afternoon of the night I was to address my first meeting, at Buninyong, **Mr. Ronaldson** was joking with mo, but the next morning he called me a traitor, and a lot of other names. I was paid up to 20th December, as were the rest of the moulders who were not working through the holidays. I was not told that I would not be needed after Christmas. As it happened, I had a good position offered me during the holidays, but I told the gentleman that **Mr. Ronaldson** had been good to me when I first went there, and that I would go back to him. I was given a week to consider the offer, but I never changed my mind. Two days after **Mr. Ronaldson** sent a little boy to my house to tell me not to start until he sent for me. Learning that all the men started work again on Monday last, I went to him on the following day (Tuesday) to inquire when I could start. He told me I would not get a start at all. I asked "Why?" He said: "I don't want to argue with you." I said: "Why should a difference of political opinion make a separation between us?" He replied: "You spoke amongst the men." 1 asked for a chance to clear myself, but he said: "If you don't shutup, I will give you a- minute to get out of the place." With that I went. - Yours, &c, {: type="A" start="M"} 0. S. Tolliday. The firm of Ronaldson Bros. and Tippett has a reputation for patriotism, the usual conscriptionist brand, of course. Assuming that ex-Private Tolliday's statements are correct - and we know of no reason for doubting them - the firm's patriotism will not stand the strain of providing employment for a soldier unless his views happen tobe their views, and Ronaldson Bros. and Tippett's views towards noconscriptionists, and unionists, and labourites generally are notorious. Their attitude seems to be petty and callous in the extreme. If returned soldiers who risked their lives can only find employment by accepting the political opinions of a narrow-minded employer, then what did they fight for - Freedom? Hardly; if in their own country, that they fought and suffered for they are not to be allowed freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Does any fairminded person believe that ex-Private Tolliday would have been discharged if he had remained a conscriptionist? **Mr. Hughes** has issued many strange regulations under the War Precautions Act. One thathe might issue with advantage is one penalizing small-minded partisan employers who victimize returned soldiers because of their political or industrial beliefs. The letter which I have read was published in the *Ballarat Echo* of the 9 th January, 1918. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Has there been a reply to it? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I am a regular subscriber to the newspaper in question, and have not yet seen a reply. A member of the State Parliament, who knows exPrivate Tolliday well, has informed me that the case is a grievous one, which should be ventilated. The man himself has not shrunk from publicity, stating his charges over his own name. The newspapercomment on his statement is this - >A question with regard to the case of exPrivate Tolliday might, with advantage, be asked in Parliament. As the matter stands, it certainly seems one on which the War Council should take action. With regard to Ronaldson Bros. and Tippett, we may say that we have no hesitationin accepting ex-Private Tolliday's statement, if for no other reason than that applicants for work have been handed the following list of typewritten questions, to which they are required to fill in answers : - Name- Address - Age- Married or single - State of general health - Name and address of last employer - Position occupied - Wages received - Terms of service - Reasons for leaving - Number of years spent at - Religion - To what organizations do you belong? - Have you been engaged on military service since 1914? (discharge to be produced). Have you been refused military service for physical unfitness?' Remarks. I hereby offer my services for employment, and certify the above statements are true. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- There is nothing wrong with those questions, except that concerning religion. {: #subdebate-3-0-s7 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- That is a wrong question. It seems to be insisted on for some reason. The introduction of sectarianism into the conscription campaign was most disgraceful. During the campaign I dealt with those who introduced sectarianism, in the manner in which they should be dealt with, but as the hour is so late I shall not say anything more on that or on other subjects no. {: #subdebate-3-0-s8 .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Illawarra -- In some of the addresses to which we have listened the subjectmatter of the referendum has received more attention than the position which confronts the country today. I should be glad to think that there was some prospect of a Coalition or nonparty Government such as has been suggested by the Prime Minister, but the debate has made it clear that the Opposition is not able to consider any proposal to join a Ministry composed mainly of members of this party. The speech of the honorable member for Barrier and his production of the war policy of the Official Labour party ended all hope of that. Between the proposals for peace, outlined in that document, and the objects for which the Allied Governments and nations are fighting, there is a difference that cannot be reconciled." We are engaged in this war because we appreciate the necessity for achieving the aims indicated in the address of **Mr. Lloyd** George the other day, and in similar addresses delivered by his predecessor in office. To talk of peace in the terms of the policy of the Official Labour party is to ask the Allies to forego the objects for which they entered into the war. It is useless for us to look for the solution of the present troubles without facing the facts of the situation. Itis evident that no one opposite has authority to enter into a coalition with members on this side, and that authority to do so cannot be obtained from those who now control the Official Labour movement. In the speech of the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. J. H. Catts)** there was a pretence to consider the position as though the Opposition were free to act on the lines he indicated, but I venture to think that the claim of the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine),** that he represents the great majority of politically organized Labour in this country, is more correct than that of the honorable member for Cook, or of the Leader of the Opposition, that the party can enter whole-heartedly into the prosecution of the war. If, as a result of an appeal to the country, the Official Labour party were to obtain a majority in this House, it would not then be in a position to prosecute the war in the manner in which **Mr. Fisher,** when leader of the party, promised that it should be, conducted. For the honorable member for Cook i,o try to deceive the country into the belief that the aims of the present Official Labour party are the same as those enunciated by **Mr. Fisher** at the beginning of the war is to ask the people to forget all that has happened during the last two or three years. The Labour party is not under the same control to-day that it was under at the beginning of the war. Since the Avar commenced it has in the States and in the bigger trade union organizations, such as the Australian Workers Union, outlined policies and principles diametrically opposed to those enunciated by **Mr. Fisher.** Whilst I admit as readily as does any other honorable member that there are in the Official Labour party, both inside and outside of Parliament, men who are wholly loyal, and whose desire would be to assist the nation in the successful prosecution of the war, I say that as the party is now constituted or controlled, those men are utterly helpless in the hands of more numerous sections of it. Much as I should desire to see a Government representative of all parties in Parliament and in the country, and valuable as such a Government would be, I believe that such a° combination is not possible under the conditions which confront us. Another alternative has been suggested which might be considered, although I have very little hope of any better result being attained in that direction. We have reached a stage when it seems to me that this Government and this party should definitely affirm' that the question of compulsion for military service abroad is finally decided for the remainder of this Parliament. That, I think, is a necessary prelude to any scheme to increase the number of reinforcements for the men at the Front. No matter what happens, it seems to me that it would- be useless during this Parliament to raise that issue again. While there is a prospect that it may again be raised, whether by an appeal to the country or in any other way, we shall be unable to secure the same united support for any proposals that may be decided upon to secure reinforcements that we might look for 'if we could dismiss the fear in the minds of many that the question may again be raised during the life of this Parliament. As to the conduct of the referendum campaign, I do not think it necessary to say anything, but I do wish to say a word or two in reply to remarks which fell from the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Higgs).** I heard with amazement and disgust the references which the honorable member felt it necessary to make to the humble beginnings of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. In past days there were men of quite different political views who used to jeer and gibe at those who in the different State Parliaments attempted to represent the workers of the country, and who had themselves followed humble occupations. But that such a gibe should come from one who has been Treasurer in a Labour Government indicated so complete a reversal of the way in which members of the Labour party usually regard such matters as to leave me without any words to adequately express my amazement at the statements of the honorable member for Capricornia. There has been during this debate altogether too much of personal attack upon the Prime Minister. I am not one of those who share the hope expressed by several members that if we changed the leadership of the National party we should avoid the personal attacks that are now made. We had yesterday an exhibition of what might happen in other circumstances. Whilst the Minister for the Navy was making some remarks he was bombarded just as viciously as the Prime Minister had been. I venture to say that in the present temper of political parties in this country whoever leads the National party in this House must expect to be subjected to the same vituperation and abuse as the present Prime Minister has had concentrated upon him. It may be that the right honorable gentleman's energy and enthusiasm in the cause of the Empire at this time have intensified the hostility of his opponents, but it seems to me that these qualities should be regarded as virtues rather than as vices. I believe that there is no man in this country to-day who is making such sacrifices for the cause in which he believes as is the Prime Minister. In my opinion one of the greatest sacrifices he has made has been to retain office at the present time. It is easy for honorable members to speak of limpets clinging to office. It is very easy to impute to men in the pay of the country that they hold their positions only for their emoluments, but it is a fact known to every member of this House that the Prime Minister, in attempting to discharge the heavy responsibilities of his office at the present time, is risking his life as1 truly as the men at the Front are risking theirs. It would have been an easy way out of the difficulty, due to the pledge which was forced upon 'him, if not by men at least by circumstances which men created before his Bendigo speech, for the right honorable gentleman to have retired for that rest which he is unlikely to obtain as long as he remains Prime Minister. But the position which confronted the National party was one in which men required to set aside personal considerations and do all that was necessary in order that the work of the country might proceed in the best possible way. The proposal that eleven' members of the party on this side should be disquali fied from accepting office during the continuance of the war was one of a very serious import indeed for the country. The proposal that at this time, when we need the services of the ablest and best men in the community, we should allow the eleven who have been chosen because of their superior ability to conduct the business of the country to retire from office and undertake the experiment of putting eleven untried men in their places never seemed to me a very practical proposal. It cannot be denied that a Ministry could easily be formed on this side of the House, of men who, if they had similar experience, would be able to conduct the business of the country as well, or nearly as well, as the present Cabinet; but this is no time for attempting such experiments. One of the things that has most impressed me in the proceedings of the last couple of weeks - the meetings of the National party, and the various negotiations arising from them - is that they form one of the most complete refutations of that school of politicians, or. would-be politicians, who believe that politicians are always actuated by selfish considerations and regard only the improvement . of their own conditions. When the National party met, they were asked to say that eleven of the most prominent members of it should be disqualified from holding office. Had that course been adopted, I think it quite reasonable to say that a chance would have been given to twenty-five or thirty members of the party to obtain Ministerial rank. If the sordid motives so often attributed to men in politics were the moving motives of the men of this party, their vote would have been cast in the direction of creating those vacancies. However, the first division resulted in only two members of the party voting against the leadership of the present Prime Minister, and they were both men in my judgment - their names have been published - who were not actuated by a desire to attain office in that way, but who had always criticised the party leadership. And the subsequent votes afford a striking instance of, not one or two, but numbers of members setting the interests of the country above their own personal preferment and the realization of their .ambition. It is unfortunate that circumstances such as these should have been made the basis of some of the speeches we have listened to during the past few days, in which every evil motive has been attributed to the Prime Minister and his supporters. However, I am not so much concerned with what has happened as with what is to happen within the next few months. Some method of obtaining reinforcements for the Front has to be devised. My personal view is that the whole present fabric of recruiting must be pulled down, and something entirely different erected in its place. I do not think that the public meetings which are held in Melbourne and Sydney - and which are exceedingly expensive, while some of the speeches delivered tend to accentuate the feelings raised by recent political controversies: - bring to the recruiting sergeants any men who would not come without them. For the future two lines, it seems to me, must be adopted. We must rely more on personal canvass for the recruiting of eligibles than on public appeals which are directed mainly to ineligibles and ineffectives, and which do not reach the men who could enlist. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- For many weeks past returned soldiers, under the direction of the Department, have been making a house-to-house canvass. {: #subdebate-3-0-s9 .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr LAMOND: -- In some places that is so, under the direction of local committees. That has been the plan in the district in which I live, but it is only one of very few instances. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- I think it does more good than the public meetings. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr LAMOND: -- In my opinion, the public meetings do not do any good. I have heard returned soldiers as eloquent as any men could be, without any results at all, and the money could be much better spent in increasing the number of those who make personal appeals. Further, a great deal could be done by getting officers, who are going to the Front, to recruit their men before their departure. If military men, who are to be in charge of the work at the other end, could be sent out to seek men to go with them, instead of having civilians telling others to go, some good results might be achieved. While I think it is impossible to form a Coalition Government, it might be possible to erect some machinery for the control of recruiting, by means of which those of the Official Labour party, inside and outside Parliament, who . still wish to go on supporting the men at the Front, would be able to work with others in that direction. The suggestion that there should be a sort of round table conference, of few or many representatives of both sides, might be carried out. Rut before anything effective can be done, it must be emphasized that /the attempt to secure authority for compelling men to go to the Front is abandoned definitely by this Parliament. We shall have to give such assurance as will be accepted by the people on that head before we can hope to get much assistance, even from the loyal section of those who, in the last campaign, were associated with the " No " side. I hope that some of the suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate will be considered by the Cabinet. I have no doubt that there is a good deal of truth in the contention of some honorable members opposite that many votes in the campaign were influenced by, I was going to say, the stingy treatment nf returned men, particularly those who have been seriously injured. The responsibility for the legislation under which we are acting in that direction rests with the Labour party, and we who have left the party cannot escape that responsibility any more than can those who remain in it. It seems to me unfair that this treatment should be made the subject of a charge against the National Government, when the responsibility should be shared by those who supported the Government by which the legislation was introduced. The refusal of the officials to allow any assistance to men who are injured otherwise than in the actual prosecution of the war is imposed upon them by the Act itself. They have no power to go beyond it. And so with regard to the miserably inadequate amounts allowed to men by way of pension. The maximum amount is fixed, and the gradation runs down from that level according to the injuries received. These are matters which Parliament should review at the earliest moment, with a view to something in the way of real pensions being provided for those- who have been severely wounded, and whose incapacity will continue throughout their lives. There are some other questions with which I should like briefly to deal. With regard to. repatriation, the Government is working with all possible speed. I am not one of those who believe that either the shipbuilding proposals or the repatriation scheme should be pushed ahead with that speed which makes perfect work impossible. Sufficient time should be taken so to prepare the schemes that, when they are launched, they may proceed without interruption. . Too rauch haste in the inauguration of these matters leads to the kind of legislation of which I am complaining with, regard to pensions. Ministers should take sufficient time to make sure that their schemes are perfectly conceived, and that the preparations aro thorough, before the actual work is commenced. I have not nearly so much faith as **Senator Millen** has in the measure of assistance that his repatriation scheme is going to receive from honorary services. I think the defect of the scheme, so far as it has yet shown itself, is that it centres too much around honorary workers. In my judgment, it would be far better to have a well-paid man of great capacity doing the work, rather than a large committee of honorary workers who, patriotic though they are, cannot continue year after year to give to tho scheme the necessary oversight, without which it will absolutely fail. I have said all I wish to say with regard to the motion itself. I shall not vote for it. It would have bean much better had it never been introduced. It does not tend in any way to assist in what should be the principal work of the Commonwealth at this time - the vigorous prosecution of- the war. We have to realize that the objects for which the Empire entered upon the war are not achieved. There is still much to be done before the world will be saved to Democracy. I disagree entirely with those honorable members of the Opposition who contend that this is a commercial war. If it is, then the attitude of those leaders of the Official Labour party who support this war is entirely wrong. During the recent campaign, one of the set questions put all over the country was, " How old are you f " If one said that one was over the military age, the further question was put, "Have you any Boer war medals about you *V* The difference between the Boer war and the present war is almost the difference between light and darkness. Have honorable members opposite, who set these questions, for- gotten that the official attitude of the Labour movement towards the Boer war was one of openly-declared and recorded hostility ? The difference between this war and the Boer war is wide indeed. This war is different from any that has occurred in our life-time. It was inevitable if those institutions that we value were to be saved to the world. I see in this war an effort to maintain the democratic privileges which the world enjoys. I see in it a conflict that is inevitable if the privileges of Democracy are to be extended, to any country that does not enjoy them to-day. I see in this war a conflict as between right and wrong - between Democracy and tyranny. I ' see in it a fight for the freedom of the world, and for the right of the peoples of the world to enjoy that liberty which the honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Anstey)** referred to last night as' being enjoyed here and not in some of the other nations. That we should ask at this time to have guarantees as to the maintenance of the privileges we enjoy in a country that is controlled by the men and women in it, is, it seems to me, quite a fatuous proposal. The men and women df Australia control Australia fo-day. Whether we shall be able to control it next year, or the year after, depends entirely upon the result of the war now being waged in Europe. All the moving facts that the honorable member for Bourke gave in his eloquent address last night are to me but inspirations to renewed effort - to see that.the Empire shall not fail in the conflict in which she is engaged. It is true that the Mother Country has too long forgotten the needs of those who do her work, *y* It is true that she has allowed large sections of her people to fall below the line of decent living. It is true that she has paid dearly in this conflict for the neglect of the social conditions of her people in the years that have preceded it. But we may hope that she has learned in this conflict a lesson that will give to the people of Great Britain an opportunity of obtaining some of the privileges that we in this country so richly enjoy. She is called upon to make tremendous sacrifices in defence of the liberties, of the world, while we here have done, comparatively, so little; but when the war isover her people will gain in a greater measure than we shall from what they have endured. I believe that the war will be followed in Great Britain by a tremendous improvement in the conditions of the masses of the people. I believe that the warwill be followed in. every country by an extension of the privileges of the people. I believe we shall win. If we do not, then the reverse will be true. In every country Democracy will suffer and will have' to commence again the long fight she has had in order to achieve the position in which she stands today. I believe as thoroughly as I believe in anything, that we in Australia; enjoying the privileges of Democracy to a greater extent than any other part of the world, have for that very reason a greater need to do our utmost to see that the cause of the Allied nations shall prevail, and that freedom and liberty shall not be banished from the world. {: #subdebate-3-0-s10 .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr MAHONY:
Dalley -- May I ask for the adjournment of the debate? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I think honorable members should go on, otherwise we will not be able to finish the debate within the time agreed upon. {: .speaker-KLG} ##### Mr MAHONY: -- I am quite willing to curtail my remarks if the debate is adjourned, and, so far as I am concerned, therewill be nothing *to* interfere with the arrangement, because I will not make a lengthy speech. If, however, I have to continue now, I shall take my full time. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I will agree to an adjournment of the debate if we can finish by lunch time 'to-day, as agreed upon. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I understood that what was agreed upon was that we should have a division in time to allow Inter-State members to catch their trains. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Will that include Supply? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Supply would come on after that. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- That would mean, then, that we could not get through in time. If honorable members will be prepared to take the vote about 3.30 this afternoon we could adjourn the debate now. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I have no doubt that we will be able to meet the Minister's wishes. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Mahony)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3198 {:#debate-4} ### PAPUAN OIL FIELDS Report of the Public Accounts Com mittee on the Papuan oil fields presented by **Mr. John-** Thomson, and ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 3198 {:#debate-5} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented: - >Public Service Act - Promotions of - > >W. Bennett, Department of Trade and Customs. > >P. Embelton and W. Howie, Department of Defence. > >War Precautions Act - Regulations Amended Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 317, 325. > >House adjourned at 2.47 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 January 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19180117_reps_7_83/>.