House of Representatives
25 January 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



  1. Sixty-one, and the balance are unfit for active service.

  2. The policy of the Department is to give preference for all Home Service positions to returned soldiers, if they are suitable for the duty to be performed, and this policy is being adhered ‘to.

Mr. FINLAYSON asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is correct, as reported, that a proposal has been submitted to the Commonwealth Government regarding the provision of scholarships for Australian soldiers in England?

  2. Is the Prime Minister at liberty to supply full particulars as to the details of the scheme?

  3. Will the Commonwealth Government favorably consider applications from members of the Public Service now in the Forces who may desire to take advantage of the proposed scheme, and who will require extended leave, without prejudice to their reinstatement in former positions, on their return to Australia?

Mr. HUGHE S. - The answers to the honorable members questions are as follow : -

Tentative proposals in respect of the oversea soldiers and sailors scholars’ scheme, which has for its object the special educational training at British Universities and Schools of Technology of oversea soldiers and sailors of all ranks unfit for further active service, have been submitted to the Government, and are under consideration by the Minister for Repatriation.

Mr. GREGORY asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether he will immediately give instructions to the effect that soldiers’ pay books must be made up prior to the soldier’s embarkation back to Australia, so that all soldiers on their discharge may be paid all moneys due to them, including deferred pay?

Mr. GROOM. - The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Instructions have already been issued that, where possible, soldiers’ pay books should be checked prior to embarkation. It has been found impossible for this to be completely carried out owing to insufficient notice of embarkation in a great number of cases. Furthermore, thousands of payments are made to Australian soldiers in British and other hospitals, of which advice is not received until after embarkation. Experience shows that many of these payments are not entered in the pay- books.

For these reasons it is impossible to pay soldiers in full on discharge without involving the Department in serious overpayments. The balance of active pay as per pay-book is paid to the soldier within two or three days of his return, and 75 per cent, of his deferred pay is paid on discharge. Every effort is being made, both in Australia and abroad, with a view to prompt finalization of soldiers’ accounts, and it is anticipated that the balance of deferred pay will shortly be available within a few weeks of discharge.

page 3543

QUESTION

RANDWICK HOSPITAL

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

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

Whether the Minister will make available for members copies of the two reports of inquiry into the management of theRandwick Hospital?

Mr GROOM:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Yes, copies of both reports and the Minister’s minute thereon will be laid on the table of both Houses.

page 3543

QUESTION

MILITARY SERVICE REFERENDUM

Voters of Alien Parentage

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. West

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House if he has any information at his disposal showing how Australianborn citizens of alien parents voted atthe previous referendum?
  2. If so, how was this information obtained?
  3. If he has no information, will he inform the House the reason that the electors referred to were deprived of their franchise in the referendum taken on 20th December last?
Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. No information as to how these electors voted is available.
  2. See answer to No.1.
  3. I refer the honorable member to my speech in the House on the no-confidence motion.

page 3543

QUESTION

PRISONERS OF WAR

Exchange: Treatment in Germany.

Mr FINLAYSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether he is able to state how many Australian prisoners of war have been released from Germany as a result of the recent exchange ?
  2. What action is being taken, if. any, to enable these men to return to Australia?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

The High Commissioner has been askedto obtain this information, but it is not yet available.

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government any information as to the conditions of the civilian prisoners in Germany ?
  2. What assistance has the Government given to enable friends of these prisoners to forward food and comforts to them?
  3. Has the High Commissioner reported in regard to representations made to him by these prisoners, and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken to meet their suggestions?
  4. Is it a fact that the British Bed Cross Society is willing to do what may be possible on behalf of these prisoners on a payment of £2,500 per annum, and, if so, will the Government give favorable consideration to an arrangement with the society in this respect?
Mr HUGHES:

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

  1. Reports have been received from time to time in regard to the treatment at the Internment Camps in Germany. 2, 3, and 4. The camp where Australian civilian prisoners are quartered is organized with a chairman and a secretary, who communicate with the High Commissioner’s office, London, from time to time their needs in the way of clothing, &c, when arrangements are made to meet them through the Central Prisoners of

War Committee, London.

Six parcels of food are sent monthly to every man, value 13s. to 14s., iri” addition to 64 lbs. of bread per man, and clothing on same scale as British prisoners.

The High Commissioner states that the Australian civilian prisoners receive identical treatment in matter of food and clothing with British prisoners, but, as a result of correspondence, a special allowance of extra boots and clothing has been sanctioned. He further states that all letters from the camp are promptly answered.

The High Commissioner states that the Central Prisoners of War Committee now desire to place all overseas civilians under the care of their respective Governments. He suggests, however, that this Government await receipt of his letter of 7th December before taking action in this respect. The Commonwealth Government has no information as to the British Red Cross Society being willing to undertake the work of attending to the Australian civilian prisoners on payment of £2,500 pe* annum. lt is proposed to defer any action in this matter until the letter of 7th December from the High Commissioner comes to hand.

page 3544

QUESTION

ANTI-CONSCRIPTIONIST LITERATURE

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact, as was recently reported from Cairns, that literature for anticonscriptionists at Sunnymount had been held by the postmaster, who refused to deliver to the addressee, and that parcels of literature from the anti-conscription committee there had not been delivered at Cooktown ?
  2. If so, was the action of the postmasters concerned taken on the instruction of the Postmaster-General, or with his approval?
Mr GROOM:
for Mr. Webster · NAT

  1. The Postmaster-General has not seen the report from Cairns, nor has he knowledge of any such cause of complaint as that referred to.
  2. If action was taken as inferred it was taken without his instruction or approval.

page 3544

QUESTION

TEMPORARY POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that an order has been issued to dispense with the services of all temporary employees in the Postal Department, irrespective of whether they have dependants or not? 2, Is it a fact that three ex-temporary employees of the Mail Branch of the General Post Office, Sydney, who completed two years’ service at the beginning of December,. 1917 (and who were put off on the 29th of the same month, after rendering satisfactory service, in order to make way for returnedsodiers), have received only twelve days’ recreation leave instead of twenty-four, as laid down in the Regulations ?
  2. If so, will the Postmaster-General give instructions which will enable these men to receive payment in lieu of such holidays, seeing that they are no longer employed in. the Postal Department

Mr. GROOM (for Mr. Webster).The answers to- the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. No. 2 and 3. The Postmaster-General has no knowledge of this matter, but he will make inquiries and see that the persons referred to get what they are entitled to.

page 3544

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL,

Money Owing to Farmers - Erection of Silos - Consignments to Millers - Appointment of Mr. Giles - Supply of Cornsacks. f

Mr FENTON:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will inform the House what is the total amount of money owing to the farmers of the States respectively for the harvests of 1914,’ 1915, 191G, and 1917 respectively?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

There are two harvests in process of realization, viz., 1915-1C and 1916-17, and it is not possible at this stage to state the amount due to farmers. In the case of the former, there is a considerable quantity still on hand in Victoria and South Australia, which, although forming part of the British Government sale, is subject to contingent charges. In addition to this, there is a considerable quantity of the 1916-17 harvest unsold, consequently the net price realized is not ascertainable.

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What progress has been made with the erection of silos for the storage of grain authorized by this Parliament last year within the various wheat-growing States ?

Mr HUGHES:

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

Contracts have recently been let for the erection of the New South Wales silos, and the work is to commence almost immediately.

Tenders for the erection of silos in Victoria will be called towards the end of this month.

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

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Prices Commissioner has issued regulations authorizing the use of secondhand bags for wheat consigned tb millers?
  2. If so, do such regulations still exist, and has the price for such bags been fixed?
  3. Will the Government take seriously into consideration the advisability of re-organizing the Wheat Pool conditions, and placing the same on a basis similar to wool, more particularly in reference to payments?
Mr HUGHES:

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

  1. No. The Wheat Pool, however, determined that wheat should not be received in secondhand sacks which would go into the Pool. The Board had no objection to millers receiving new wheat in secondhand sacks, as this would not in any way endanger the stacks of the Pool.
  2. See No. 1. No price has been fixed for secondhand bags under the War Precautions (Prices) Regulations.
  3. The conditions relating to wheat differ so entirely from those applying to wool, that this request cannot be complied with.

The weight of wheat harvested in recent years is ten times as great as that of the wool clip, hence the wool clip can be shipped much more easily than the harvest. Difficulties of wool storage are comparatively few, but in regard to wheat, they are exceedingly great. Wheat is apt to undergo deterioration, to which wool is not subject. Further, the whole of the 1916-1917 harvest has not yet been sold - over 30 per cent, still remaining unsold. Although an advance of 3s. per bushel, estimated at £15,750,000 (exclusive of expenses) has been arranged by this Government for the 1917-1918 harvest, not one bushel has been sold to the Imperial Government, or any other buyer.

Mr. GREENE (for Mr. Pigott) asked the Prime Minister, upon, notice -

  1. On what date was Mr. Clement Giles elected to a seat on the Australian Wheat Board as Growers’ Representative for the wheatgrowers of the Commonwealth?
  2. How many meetings of the Australian Wheat Board have been held since Mr. Giles’ appointment?
  3. Has Mr. Giles, as Growers’ Representative, protested against his exclusion from the executive of the Australian Wheat Pool?
  4. Have the representatives of the organized farmers of the” respective wheat-growing States interested in the Wheat Pools urged that the Growers’ Representative should be appointed to the executive of the Board, and that he should be remunerated from the proceeds of the Pool?
  5. Do the functions of the executive of the Australian Wheat Board include negotiations for the sale of the wheat under control of the Board, and the agreements connected therewith ?

    1. Has Mr. Giles had practical experience in the sale and marketing of wheat in European markets?
  6. Is there any reason why Mr. Giles has been denied a position on the executive of the Australian Wheat Board?
Mr HUGHES:

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

  1. 7th August, 1917.
  2. Three.
  3. Mr. Giles has brought under notice of the Wheat Board representations of various organizations, protesting against the status accorded him by the Board.
  4. Yes.
  5. The executive of the Wheat Board have at no time had functions in which other members of the Wheat Board were not entitled to participate.
  6. It is known that Mr. Giles represented, in London, the South Australian Farmers’ Union for some years. ‘
  7. Mr. Giles, at all times since his appointment, has been in the same position as other members of the Board, both as to information and powers. The Australian Wheat Board, at a recent conference, determined that the executive should be abolished, in order that all suspicion might be avoided that Mr. Giles was in any worse position than any other member of the Board.

Mr. GREENE (for Mr. Pigott) asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it true, as reported, that wheat farmers, owing to an alleged limited supply of cornsacks for harvesting operations, have suffered great hardship and loss?
  2. What steps were taken by the Government to provide a sufficient supply of cornsacks consequent on the Prime Minister’s reply to a question by the honorable member for Calare on 12th July last, viz: -Have the Government definitely undertaken the responsibility of supplying cornsacks required by growers for the coming harvest?” and to which the Prime Minister replied “Yes.” ?
  3. Will the Prime Minister, as a member of the Australian Wheat Board executive, protect those farmers who, it is alleged, through inability to obtain new cornsacks, were compelled to use secondhand bags of good quality, and at a price exceeding the fixed price for new cornsacks, and are now threatened with a serious deduction on account of having their wheat in secondhand bags?
Mr HUGHES:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The whole question of the supply of cornsacks, and the failure of farmers to get them, is now being investigated by the Chief Prices Commissioner.

  1. This is purely a matter of arrangement by the State wheat offices.

page 3546

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPBUILDING SCHEME

Mr. Curchin ; Operations in Brisbane and Sydney.

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Mahony

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a Mr. Curchin has been appointed Commonwealth Supervisor of Shipping?
  2. Where was Mr. Curchin employed before coming to Australia?
  3. What are Mr. Curchirn’s qualifications for the said position?
  4. Under what conditions has Mr. Curchin been engaged by the Commonwealth Government -

    1. The period for which he has been engaged;
    2. The salary to be received by Mr. Curchin ;
    3. What are Mr. Curchin’s duties?
  5. Is it a fact that there are men in the employ of the Commonwealth, with all the qualifications required to fill this position?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. Mr. Curchin has been engaged as Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Government’s , scheme for the construction of ships in Australia.
  2. With J. W. Isherwood, as chief manager.
  3. The High Commissioner reported that he is highly qualified, suitable for the appointment, and has references from leading shipbuilding firms. 4. (a) Three years.

    1. ? 2,000 per annum,
    2. Those of Chief Executive Officer under the scheme.
  4. There are no available men in Commonwealth employ who have had the requisite experience in up-to-date mercantile ship construction.
Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether, in connexion with the shipbuilding proposals of the Government, it is intended to utilize the advantageous facilities available in Brisbane for the construction of either wooden or steel vessels?
  2. If not, why not?
Mr HUGHES:

– It has been decided, on the report of the Chief Executive Officer for Commonwealth ship construction, to lay down two ships at Walsh Island and two at Williamstown. The question of utilizing other sites is receiving the fullest consideration of the Government.

Mr. J. H. CATTS (for Mr. Mahony) asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with shipbuilding in Sydney?
  2. Are ships to be built at the Naval Dockyards, Cockatoo Island, and Mort’s Dock and Engineering Company Limited, Sydney ?
  3. If not, why not?
Mr HUGHES:

– It has been decided, on the report of the Chief Executive Officer for Commonwealth ship construction, to lay down two ships at Walsh” Island and two at Williamstown. The question of utilizing other sites is receiving the fullest consideration of the Government.

page 3546

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF COMMONWEALTH STEAMERS

Legislation - Arrival in Commonwealth - Carriage of Wheat.

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Having reference to paragraphs 35 to 38 of General View of Finances of the Commonwealth, dated 6th March, 1917, in which it is stated that a fleet of steamers has been purchased at a cost of ?2,052,476, and that- “Legislation is required to cover the purchase of ships, as well as to legalize the proposed method of accounting,” can the Treasurer state when the said legislation is to be brought before the House of Representatives ?

Mr WATT:
Minister for Works and Railways · for Sir John Forrest · NAT

– It is anticipated that the final decision on this matter will be arrived at shortly.

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as stated in John Bull of the 25th August, 1917, that of the thirteen ships bought on behalf of , the Commonwealth in 1916, only two had arrived in Australian waters up to the 25th August, 1917?
  2. Will the Prime Minister make a full statement concerning the Commonwealth line of steam-ships; whether they are all still under the control of the Commonwealth, and what work they are engaged in?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. No. There were fifteen ships, not thirteen, and all had arrived in Australian waters prior to the 25th August, 1917.
  2. They are still under the control of the Commonwealth Government, and are engaged in carrying wheat. The vessels of the Line have made twenty-seven voyages from Australia to England, and have carried 146,000 tons of wheat and flour since October, 1916, when the first voyage was made.
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What tonnage of wheat has been carried from Australia by the Commonwealth line of ships?
  2. What is the average rate of freight charged for wheat cargoes or parcels by the Commonwealth ships ?
  3. Was a Commonwealth steamer, about September last, chartered to carry a cargo of salt from India to South Africa at a rate of £10 per ton?
  4. Was this steamer previously chartered to carry cornsacks to Australia during the month of September at a rate of £4 per ton?
  5. What is the “ Blue BookRate “ for wheat brought from Australia to England?
Mr HUGHES:

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

  1. 146,000 tons.
  2. Six pounds to United Kingdom; £4 10s. to Pacific ports.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. There is not a “ Blue Book Bate “ for wheat from Australia to England. As high as £11 per ton has been paid for wheat from Australia to Europe. The rate of freight on wheat from Argentine to Europe ranges from 200s. to 300s.Recent rates for wheat from Karachi to United Kingdom, 250s.; from Bombay to Mediterranean ports, 450s.; from Calcutta to Marseilles, 650s. Neutral tonnage is asking from Australia to United Kingdom 300s. Freight on wool from Australia to England, 31/4d. per lb.

page 3547

QUESTION

MILITARY SERVICE AND REINFORCEMENTS REFERENDA

Destruction of Documents - Overseas Vote

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Did he or any member of the Ministry, just prior to the election of 5th May, 1917, instruct the Chief Electoral Officer of the Commonwealth to issue a telegram to Divisional Returning Officers ordering them to burn or destroy all documents connected with the 28th October, 1916, conscription referendum?
  2. Did the Chief Electoral Officer so instruct Divisional Returning Officers ?
  3. If so, will the Prime Minister lay on the table of the House a copy of the Chief Electoral Officer’s telegram to the Divisional Returning Officers referred to?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. No.
  2. The regulations required that the documents should be retained in the possession of the. Divisional Returning Officers until the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer was obtained for their destruction. This authority was issued by the Chief Electoral Officer in the ordinary course of administration under the law at the expiration of twelve months - see section 40 of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906-1912, and section 7 of the Military Service Referendum Act 1916.
  3. The Chief Electoral Officer’s direction, dated the 27th of October, 1917, reads as fol lows : - “ A period of one, year having elapsed since the taking of the Military Service Referendum 1916, the certified lists, ballot-papers (used and unused), and the used forms of declarations should now be destroyed.”
Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Having reference to a statement attributed to the Minister for Home and Territories (the Honorable P. McM. Glynn), namely, “ That copies of the necessary papers had already (7th November, 1917) been distributed for voting abroad and in distant parts of Australia “ - see Melbourne Argus, 8th November, 1917 - on what date was the announcement first publicly made that it was the intention of the Government to hold a second referendum on the question of compulsory service?
  2. On what date were instructions given to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue “ necessary papers for voting abroad and in distant parts of Australia “ ?
  3. Will the Minister describe in short detail what those papers were?
Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

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

  1. The Chief Electoral Officer was informed of the intention to take a referendum on the 7th November. The regulations and writ were issued on the 10th November.
  2. No specific instructions were given to the Chief Electoral Officer. He took preliminary action only.
  3. The usual practice has been followed of supplying to very outlying places a few forms, e.g., absent voters’ declarations and blank forms of ballot-papers, but otherwise no papers dealing with the referendum were actually distributed until after the regulations were passed. The papers then printed and distributed were the official documents necessary to carry out the referendum.

page 3547

QUESTION

SECRET SERVICE FUND

Mr FENTON:
for Dr.Maloney

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that there is a secret service fund ; and, if so, will the Prime Minister inform the House what amount is allotted, and also what were the amounts expended during the years 1915, 1916, and 1917?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– I do not know of any such fund.

page 3547

QUESTION

RABBIT SKINS

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Blakeley

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What percentage of profit is made by the Commonwealth Government on transactions dealing with the buying and selling of rabbit skins ?
  2. What is the total amount of profit made on such transactions?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. It is not possible yet to say what was the percentage of profit to the Commonwealth Government to the 31st December. To the end of September, 1917, the net profit was about 28 per cent.
  2. From April, 1917, to the end of the year the net profit to the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the purchase and sale of rabbit skins was approximately £230,000.

page 3548

QUESTION

CURTAILMENT OF RACING

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

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

  1. Whether it is. true that Mr. John Wren, of the proprietary Albion Park (Queensland) Racing Club, has been granted three extra racing days by the military authorities with the approval of the Minister?
  2. Is it a fact that the racing dates of the Queensland Turf Club have been curtailed, although the profits of this club are devoted solely to patriotic purposes?
Mr GROOM:
NAT

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

  1. The military authorities are prepared to permit the holding of three extra meetings registered racing to Mr. John Wren at Brisbane. It is necessary for Mr. Wren to obtain also the permission of the Queensland Turf Club, the governing racing body of that section of Queensland.
  2. Yes. By the scheme of reduction affecting Brisbane, Albion Park was reduced from thirty-five to sixteen meetings and the Queensland Turf Club from twenty-three to eighteen meetings.

page 3548

QUESTION

MORATORIUM

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

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Has the regulation been . issued under which insurance companies are relieved from the operation of the moratorium when their business is transacted with members of their own company?
  2. If so, will the Minister table a copy of such regulation?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. A regulation has been made (Statutory Rules 1917, No. 253] excluding from the operation of the moratorium loans made by any life assurance company on the security of its policies, other than industrial policies, provided the rate of interest is not greater than-

    1. the rate usually charged by the company before the war for a similar loan; or
    2. seven per cent., whichever is the less.
  2. The regulation has been tabled.

page 3548

QUESTION

IMPERIAL WAR CABINET

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Having reference to the Prime Minister’s statement at Bendigo on the 12th November last that “ he spoke as a member of the Imperial War Cabinet” - When was he sworn in as a member of the Imperial Cabinet?
  2. Is the Prime Minister a member of the Imperial War Cabinet?
  3. On what date was the said Cabinet formed, and what are the names of the members thereof?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The invitation to attend the special meetings of the War. Cabinet extended to the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions last year constituted them members of the War Cabinet during their stay in England, and, pending their re-assembling, they have retained their status.

page 3548

QUESTION

WIRELESS WORK-SHOPS

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr, Higgs

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Will he lay on the table of the House a statement giving full particulars and prices of gear and general material covered by the purchase for £55,000 of the wireless work-shops at Randwick ?
  2. Will he say upon whose recommendation the Randwick wireless work-shops were purchased, and who valued the stock prior to purchase?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

  1. TheRandwick Wireless Work-shops were purchased for a round sum of £55,000 without special prices being fixed in the purchase money for particular pieces of gear or material. The stock and plant prior to purchase were valued by Mr. Herbert E. Ross, F.I. A., Sydney, in conjunction with Radio Commander Cresswell at’ £46,496. A detailed statement showing the valuation of various items will be made available to the honorable member. The land and buildings were valued by the Homo and Territories Department at £14,240. Total valuation, £60,736.
  2. The need of work-shops for the manufacture and repair of Government wireless apparatus had been represented in March, 1915, by the Officer-in-Charge of Wireless. Subsequently various proposals were considered without result. In May, 1916, the Shaw Works, including wireless patents, were offered to the Department. The Officer-in-Charge of Wireless recommended the purchase, and the Minister, after having an independent valuation and consulting Cabinet, approved the purchase.

page 3549

QUESTION

ARREST OF MR. SCHACHE

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr, Higgs

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Minister for Defence issued a warrant for the arrest of Charles Stanley Schache, of Gladstone, a married man having a wife and young family?
  2. Why was Schache arrested?
  3. Is it true that Schache is an Australianborn, and that his father was also born in Australia?
Mr GROOM:
NAT

– The answers to these questions are as follow: -

  1. A warrant for the arrest of Charles Schache was issued on 15th December, 1917, by the Minister acting for the Minister for Defence. It is reported that lie is married and has four children.
  2. The warrant was issued in view of the hostile origin and associations of Charles Schache.
  3. He was born in Australia. It is reported that proof of his German parentage was given at an Exemption Court in November, 1916.

page 3549

QUESTION

STEEL FOR SHRAPNEL SHELL

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– On the 10th January the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) asked: -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence lay on the table of the Library all documents connected with the attempt of the Government to secure the formula for the manufacture of steel for shrapnel shells?

I promised to refer the honorable member’s request to the Minister for Defence, and I am now able to furnish the following answer: -

The official files relating to this subject contain matter which it is inadvisable, in the public interest, should be divulged at present. A complete statement containing copies of correspondence and cablegrams on the subject of manufacture of shell is in course of preparation, and will be published as early as possible.

page 3549

WOOL COMBING AGREEMENTS

Government’s Share of Profits. Mr. J. H. CATTS (for Mr. Higgs) asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amount of money has been received as the Government’s share of the profits arising out of the agreements with (a) the Colonial Wool Combing and Weaving Company Limited; (6) Messrs. Wheddon Bros. Limited?

During what accounting period were the said profits made?

Mr. WATT (for Sir John Forrest).The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: - 1 and 2. An amount of £12,646 17s. 5d., from which a deduction for taxes has yet to be made, has been received from Messrs Wheddon Brothers Limited in respect of the half-year, 1st February to 31st July, 1917. The balancesheet of the Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Company Limited is being made up to the end of December, 1917, and as yet no amount in respect of profits has been received from that company.

page 3549

QUESTION

MUNICIPAL RATING : EXEMPTION OF COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. West

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether he has received any communication from the municipality of Paddington relating to the unfair burden cast on the municipality by exemption from rating of Commonwealth properties?
  2. If so, is it the intention of the Government to afford any relief to such body?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

The matter is now receiving the consideration of my colleague the Ministerfor Home and Territories.

page 3549

QUESTION

INSPECTION OF EXPORT MEAT

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. The amount received during last financial year as fees for inspection of meat for export?
  2. The total payment made to the inspectors for the same period?
  3. Is it a fact that sixteen inspectors were dismissed in Victoria since the beginning of the present financial year. If so, on what dates and for what reasons were these men dismissed ?
  4. If it is not possible to so arrange matters as to give these inspectors constant employment, cannot some arrangement be made to temporarily employ these men during the off season in other branches of the Service?
Mr GROOM:
for Mr. Jensen · NAT

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

  1. £19,535.
  2. £16,137.
  3. Seventeen (17) meat inspectors have been dispensed with in Victoria since the beginning of the present financial year, as follows : - Two on 25th August, 1917; one on 6th October, 1917; eight on 12th November, 1917; six on 24th November, 1917. In view of the abnormal slackness in the meat export trade in Victoria there was insufficient work available to justify the continued employment of these inspectors.
  4. The employment of meat inspectors during the off season in other branches of the Public Service has been favorably considered. On the 28th November last the Public Service Commissioner was requested to give favorable consideration to applications from disengaged meat inspectors for temporary employment in the Trade and Customs and other Commonwealth Departments as clerks or in any other suitable capacity. The. inspectors concerned were advised to register their names with the Public Service Commissioner^

page 3550

QUESTION

EMPLOYEES IN HIGH COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr, West

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many men of military age are employed at the High Commissioner’s Office, London ?
  2. How many of them are English citizens?
  3. How many of them are Australian citizens f
  4. How many of them have been taken into employment since August, 1914?
  5. Are all the employees of undoubted British birth, or are there any naturalized or unnaturalized aliens employed?
  6. Could not any positions be filled by men over military age, particularly by disabled members or ex-members of the A.I. Forces ?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. Sixty-one.
  2. Twenty-five.
  3. Thirty-six.
  4. Thirty-four. 5 and 6. These comprise twenty-two discharged soldiers, six medically unfit, eleven serving in the A.I.F,., six specially exempted, three on home service. The balance includes officers specially sent from Australia. The Colonial Office has already been advised of the exact position. None is employed except of British birth, and the first care is to employ unfit ex-members of the A.I.F. Difficulty is experienced in getting suitable men over military age, and women are being employed in lieu thereof.

page 3550

QUESTION

GERMAN NEW GUINEA

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether Commonwealth Government funds are being advanced or -loaned in German New Guinea through the Administrator or otherwise on lands, buildings, or other securities?
  2. If so, what moneys have been so advanced or loaned, to whom, and on what securities?
  3. Has an advance or loan of £9,000, or any amount, been made on the estate of one Kaumann ?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. No. Several advances have been made from Administration funds, which are the revenue of the Colony.
  2. On the 31st December, 1917, advances, with 8 per cent, interest added, were as follows : - J. Komini, £957 14s. 4d. ; security, copra. Ah Tam, £779 12s. 5d. ; security, plantations and buildings. F. A. Smith, £4,678 12s. 4d. ; security, plantations, wharf, and buildings. G. T. Heathcote and Hamburgh, Sudsee Aktien Gesellschaft, £2,340 6s. 6d.; security, plantation and buildings. C. A. Schultze, £654 lis. lid.; security, plantation and buildings. Roman Catholic Mission, £542 2s.; security, plantation and buildings. C. Calder, £648 ls. 3d.; security, plantation and buildings. Ablinghi Plantation, £3,134 6s. Id. ; security, plantation. Tomalili Plantation, £418 3s. 8d. ; security, plantation. These plantations are being worked by Government.
  3. No advance has at any time been made to any one of that name.

page 3550

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DISTILLERY COMPANY

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that permission has been given recently to the Australian Distillery Company to issue 15,000 new shares at £1 each ?
  2. Whether, in view of the refusal to allow other business to increase their capital during the war, the Treasurer considers that discrimination in favour of the alcoholic liquor traffic is advisable or justifiable just now?
  3. Will the Treasurer state what guiding principles determine the approval or rejection of all such applications?
Mr WATT:
for Sir John FORREST · NAT

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

  1. The issue of the shares referred to has been authorized under the War Precautions (Companies, Firms, and Businesses) Regulations.
  2. I am not aware of refusals having been given to similar applications in connexion with other businesses. Where, as in the case under notice, additional capital is required for the maintenance of ‘a business established before the regulations came into force permission of the Treasurer is granted to the issue, provided the amount is not considered excessive and the conditions of the Treasury are accepted.
  3. See reply to No. 2.

page 3550

QUESTION

POSTMEN AND ELECTORAL WORK

Mr J H, CATTS:
for Mr. Mahony

asked the Minister for- Home and Territories, upon notice - >

  1. Is it a fact that the names of electors are removed from the electoral roll upon reports by postmen?
  2. Is it a fact that postmen receive a fee for each elector whose name is removed from the roll upon such postman’s report?
  3. What amount, if any, has been paid to postmen ineach Federal electorate in respect to names of electors removed from the electoral roll?
Mr GLYNN:
NAT

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

  1. No. The postmen merely furnish information to the Divisional Returning Officers in accordance with the attached directions. No names are removed from the rolls by the Divisional Returning Officers otherwise than in pursuance of the requirements of sections 61, 61 (a),62, 66, and 72 of the Electoral Act.
  2. The remuneration received by postmen for their services generally is set out in paragraph 7 of the attached directions.
  3. The amount paid to postmen in each electoral division during the year 1917 was as follows : -

page 3551

QUESTION

OUTPUT OF SILVER, LEAD, AND ZINC

Mr FENTON:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will inform the House what was the output in silver, lead, and zinc respectively for the years 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, and latest date of 1917 respectively from the following mines : - Amalgamated (De Bavay), British Broken Hill (old), British Broken Hill (new), Broken Hill Proprietary, Broken Hill Block 10, Broken Hill Block 14, Broken Hill Block 14 (preference), Broken Hill Juncton (paid), Broken Hill Junction (contributing), North Broken Hill, Sulphide Corporation (preference), Sulphide Corporation (ordinary), Zinc Corporation (preference), Zinc Corporation (ordinary)?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

None of the companies mentioned produce silver, lead, or zinc in separate form on their mines, but produce concentrates containing those metals. These are forwarded to the lead smelters and zinc refineries, where the different metals are extracted. It is pointed out that where the name of the company is repeated in the question, e.g., British Broken Hill (old) and British Broken Hill (new), or Sulphide Corporation (preference) and Sulphide Corporation (ordinary), there is only one mine, and the term “ old “ and “ new “ or “ preference “ and “ ordinary “ refer merely to the designation of the different classes of shares capital. Figures as to the metallic contents of the concentrates and zinc tailings produced or sold by the various companies have been compiled by the Registrar of the Australian Metal Exchange, Melbourne, and are as follow : -

page 3552

ADJOURNMENT

Statement of Government Policy - Re-assembling of ParliamentsPolitical Situation - Conscription - Supply of Reinforcements - British Medical Association and Friendly Societies - Bendigo Pledge - Captain Glossop - Australian Civilian Prisoners in Germany - Proposed Coalition - Recruiting - Adjournment of Parliament - Organization of Industry - Fiscal Reform - Science Bureau - Shipbuilding in Australia - Purchase of Commonwealth Steamers - Balance-sheets of- Commonwealth “Undertakings - Restriction of Race Meetings.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

I desire to say, for the information of honorable members, that the Government intend to direct their immediate and earnest attention to the many great questions that are now demanding to be dealt with, particularly the questions of reinforcements for our troops overseas, repatriation, shipbuilding, and the orga nization of trade and industry^ In addition to these, we propose to consider, the whole matter of industrial legislation, and we hope to be able to submit to the House on its reassembling a more or less comprehensive measure dealing with the subject. There are other matters of first importance which the Government will endeavour, aa far as lies within our power, to deal with in such a fashion as will be to the advantage of the country.

As honorable members know, the Government have given a guarantee to the producers of the Commonwealth in regard to the harvests for this and the next season, and, in fulfilment of that guarantee, we are arranging to pay a first instalment of 3s. per bushel on the present harvest. I regret to say that the Wheat Board has been unable to effect the sale of this harvest, and, although we shall spare no effort to satisfactorily dispose of it, I think it only right to say that, as far as one can see, there is no immediate prospect of their being able to do so. However, this will not affect the guarantee, which stands on its own basis, and is independent of any sale.

Mr Tudor:

– How much did the Govemment guarantee?

Mr HUGHES:

– “We guaranteed 4s., f.o.b.

One is unable at this stage to. offer any useful observation as to the state of the war. It is in the last degree improbable that that happy conclusion which we all desire will come before the House reassembles. I feel sure I am echoing the sentiment of every honorable member when I say that it will be indeed a happy consummation if by the time we meet again the first real and earnest offer of a peace which will prove acceptable to both sets of belligerents has been made. In the meantime, and failing that, the Government will direct its attention wholeheartedly, and without delay, to the question of securing reinforcements for our forces abroad, ‘and to that other side, of the same question - the repatriation of our returning soldiers. I hope that in both these matters, as well as in all the other complex and difficult problems which now confront us, we shall have the assistance of all sections of the House.

The question of finance, upon which, to a certain extent, all other things must rest, is engaging the very earnest attention of the Government. Honorable members have already been told by the Treasurer that it will be necessary to raise in Australia the sum of £40,000,000, and probably a good deal more, before the end of the year. That is a task which confronts us in any ^circumstances, and it is one to which we must seriously address ourselves. The policy we shall adopt, and the means by which we hope to achieve our end, it is not my present purpose to discuss. But the problems of reinforcements, repatriation, the organization of industry, shipbuilding, the disposal of our primary products, and the subject of finance are all great questions, in respect of which the Government is fairly entitled to claim the support of every section of the House.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- The Prime Minister has certainly laid before us a very large programme - a programme commencing with reinforcements and ending with the Government guarantee in respect of the wheat harvest. Hitherto, when the House has adjourned on occasions like the present, no definite date has been fixed for the re-assembling of Parliament. But I understand that on the present occasion there is a more definite date in view–

Sir William Irvine:

– What is it?

Mr TUDOR:

– I understand that iti is about the 10th April.

Sir William Irvine:

– I have never understood that.

Mr TUDOR:

– I understand that the two months’ Supply for which the Treasurer asked was intended to provide for the ordinary services of the Commonwealth till the period immediately succeeding the Easter holidays.

Sir William Irvine:

– We were assured that in all probability the House would meet long before that period.

Mr TUDOR:

– I have never understood that. My understanding was that when once Parliament had voted Supply the Government “intended to ask Parliament to go into recess until after Easter. My own opinion is that we are gradually drif ting into a bad system in connexion with the granting of Supply. Already, during the current financial year-, we have passed nine months’ Supply without a single line of the Budget having been discussed. This afternoon the Prime Minister has foreshadowed a programme -indefinitely larger than the programme that is outlined in most GovernorGeneral’s speeches. I should like to know whether the industrial legislation of which the right honorable gentleman spoke will be more or less comprehensive than is the existing industrial legislation.

Mr Hughes:

– It will deal with industrial matters.

Mr TUDOR:

– Wonderful ! That statement may go into Hansard without any qualification. Until we meet again the Government will be all-powerful in dealing with these questions, and I do hope that the industrial legislation that is foreshadowed will not mean industrial conscription.

Mr Hughes:

– I give my honorable friend that positive assurance.

Mr TUDOR:

– I stated the other day that if harmony was to be restored in the community, certain things which have been done must be undone. I repeat’ that statement now.

This afternoon we have witnessed the greatest farce that has ever been enacted in this Parliament. At the request of some honorable members upon this side of the chamber, and of others upon the opposite side of it, instead of questions being answered in the ordinary way, the replies were handed to the members who had asked those questions. I admit that the sitting this afternoon is quite an extraordinary one.

Mr Hughes:

– There were about fifty questions, I think.

Mr TUDOR:

– There were forty-eight. The Prime Minister has included two that he expected to be asked next week. Until quite recently, honorable members who have sat in this House for the past sixteen years have been accustomed to the practice of Ministers reading replies to questions which were put to them. If we cannot follow the business which is being transacted more intelligently than we could follow the replies given to questions this afternoon-

Mr Fowler:

– The questions are the property of the House, anyhow.

Mr TUDOR:

– Exactly . Under the practice which was adopted this afternoon we must await the publication of Hansard in order to ascertain the answers which were given to the questions which appeared on the business-paper.

Mr Groom:

– Notice must be given, if we are to have the answers printed.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; but I hope that the system which was introduced this afternoon will be immediately altered. I protest against it. Unless every honorable member is ‘to be handed a full set of the answers to questions, it will he impossible for us to intelligently follow them . Unless that can be done, it will be better to revert to our original procedure, which I prefer to- this method of speeding up. I do not know whether it is for you, Mr. Speaker, or for the Government, to make the change.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that the original procedure was departed from with the tacit acquiescence of the House.

Mr TUDOR:

– The change was requested by some honorable members. .

Mr Groom:

– And acquiesced in by the House.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; to give an opportunity to see how it would work. I do not think that any member is satisfied with the present practice. c

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:
Flinders

– I understood - there may have been a later statement which’ I did not hear - that when Supply for a period of about three months was being asked for, the Prime Minister said that in all probability Parliament would re-assemble some considerable time before that period had expired.

Mr Hughes:

– No; I did not say that.

Sir WILLIAM IRVINE:

– My recollection may be inaccurate in the matter. I am sorry that we are not likely to meet earlier, though I hope that the Government may be able to call us together sooner than the date spoken of. I realize that the extraordinary circumstances connected’ with the formation of this Government make it necessary that Ministers should have some time in which to consider what their policy is to be, and I take this opportunity to say a few words on the remarkable political situation in which we find ourselves.

I shall shortly refer to what has been called a pledge, and what the Prime Minister designated as in the nature of a threat, the public declaration of policy contained in the announcement of the Ministry that they could not continue to carry on the government of the country without conscription. I am personally concerned with what has followed, being one of those who backed the Government’s bill absolutely. I stated that I would be bound entirely by the pledge that had been given.

Three questions will arise in the minds of the public in connexion with the return of Ministers to office. The first of these is, Has any change in the circumstances of the war, or of Australia’s participation in it, occurred which affects the declaration made b$ the Prime Minister in November last? I think that the answer which will occur to every one present is “ No.” The Prime Minister today -indicated that there is some possibility of peace negotiations. That is a very cheering thought to us all, and we sincerely hope that peace may soon come; but in the absence of anything definite, the circumstances of the war and of our participation in it are the same now as they were in November, or certainly not any better now than they were then. The second question is, Does’ the Government intend to introduce conscription? The answer to that has been practically given by the Prime Minister, who has decided that at the present time it is impracticable - politically, at all events - to introduce conscription by Act of Parliament, and that it would be impracticable to go to the country on the question, even were a dissolution obtained.

This brings m© to th© third question, which is of vital interest to the Government and the’ party that supports it. If circumstances have not altered, and if conscription is not going to be introduced, although in November last it was declared after full consideration to be vital to our participation in the war, the people will naturally wish to know if the Government has any definite or alternative method of obtaining the needed reinforcements. That is the plain issue before us, I do not think that the Government have yet, or had when Ministers re-accepted office, any definite alternative scheme in mind. If it had, that scheme should, have been stated long ago. Therefore, the time that will elapse before w© meet again seems to me to be given the Prime Minister and his colleagues to try to devise an effective substitute for conscription which will procure. 7,000 recruits a month. I do not think it will be possible to get quite so many as that, and I do not know what suggestions have been made, but I say emphatically that a declaration of the kind made by the Prime Minister cannot be lightly put aside. No change of circumstances, no decision of honorable members, can alter a definite engagement of the kind that was given. To my mind, the warrant of Ministers for retaining their seats on the Treasury bench must depend on whether they can between now and the next meeting bring forward some definite and complete scheme which will have a reasonable chance of proving an adequate substitute for conscription. If the Government asks us to indorse the continuation, or any variation, of -that wretched system - wretched in its later development at all events - of hysterical appeals to the sense of shame of persons who> have no sense of shame, which for some months, or for some weeks, before conscription was declared to be vital, had (resulted in the number of recruits dwindling down to a small stream, consisting almost entirely of schoolboys lately arrived at the age of eighteen years, of soldiers who had been patched up and were ready to return to the Front, and of family men who, having managed to settle their affairs, found themselves able to volunteer, as they had all along intended to do- if we enter again on that wretched system, I say now, and I desire to place it on record, that not only shall we fail in our duty to the Empire, but that Ministers will be in a position of having failed to honour the pledge which they gave to the people. Whether they will do that or not remains to be seen. During the conscription campaign I was asked on many platforms whether the Government would keep its pledge, and I repeatedly said that it’ was unthinkable that an engagement of honour, given under such circumstances, would not be maintained in substance as well as in the letter. The only way in which it can be so maintained is by the Government finding some effective alternative to conscription. The Prime Minister has to-day mentioned a large number of very important matters that will engage the attention of the Government in the immediate future : Repatriation, finance, industrial legislation, and so on. These matters are of extraordinarily great importance, but, overshadowing them all at the present moment is the absolute and paramount necessity of not allowing our divisions at the Front to be depleted and broken up, and our promise to the Empire to fail. Conscription, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is necessarily put aside for the time being - many honorable members think for all time, though I do not. I have said before that I do not believe that there will be any method whereby we can get anything like the necessary reinforcements unless both parties cordially co-operate ‘ in the attempt to get them, and I had hoped that, before we parted, the Leader of the Opposition would have been in a position to say whether, on this one point of getting recruits, honorable members opposite were willing to co-operate with the Government and the party on this side in any way that might be devised without any breaking of pledges owed by them to their party outside. I cannot get it out of my mind the impression that honorable members opposite are not entirely free in this matter. At any rate, I understand that alliances or coalitions with any other party are not permissible to them. It is not my desire to stir up conflict, rather do I seek to still it, if possible; but, assuming that I have stated the position of honorable members opposite correctly, I would like to know from their leader “whether, despite all that has been said during the heat of the recent debate, it is not still possible to have-some form of co-operation, short of coalition, for i this purpose 1 I have already suggested a meeting of all members who are anxious to find a way out. The Government are obliged to go into the question of trying to find recruits, and the only bar to honorable members opposite joining in the same task is, as one gathers from their own expressions, the fact that they cannot co-operate with this Government. It is unfortunate that we have had no statement from the Leader of the Opposition that his party will be ready - within certain limits - to meet ourparty for the purpose of considering what means may be taken to the end of securing reinforcements, and for the prevention of a humiliating disaster to this country, which seems possible if, through our failure to provide our men with sufficient reinforcements, our divisions have to be broken up. Surely it is not too late for the honorable member to give some indication of co-operation of a limited kind - whatever it may be - in the future, even to the extent of sharing in a National Government. At any rate, for the present, an announcement from the honorable member that his party will share in the task of attempting to arrive at some effective policy of getting recruits will be most acceptable.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I desire to draw the attention of the P rime Minister to a peculiar position which has arisen in Victoria. I refer to the dispute between the British Medical Association and the friendly societies. It may be said that this is not a matter of Federal importance, but, as friendly societies play a great part in the community, and have been the means of alleviating more suffering than has any other form of organization, it behoves all Governments to see that the good work which they are carrying on is not discontinued. I have no desire to go into the merits or demerits of the case, because I do not wish to prejudice any action that I would like the Federal Government to take. The British Medical Association has made a demand on the friendly societies for payment of 6s. per annum in excess of what has been paid in the past under certain agreements. The friendly societies have agreed to give 50 per cent, of the advance asked, and there the matter rests. The State Government appointed a Judge to consider the matter.

Mr Watt:

– They asked him to preside at a conference between the parties to the dispute.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The trouble is that, on the 31st of this month, the whole of the members of friendly societies in Vic toria, with the exception of a few whose doctors are not members of the British Medical Association, will be left without medical attendance for themselves and their families. Of the members of the friendly societies in this State, 19,000 have enlisted. These men are practically made free members of the lodges, but their payments to the doctors are still maintained, and their lodge fees are kept up for them. This responsibility has placed a considerable expense on the societies. At the same time, funeral allowance payments have been greater than would otherwise have been the case, and sick payments have also been greater than would have been the case if there had been no war.. I mention these matters in order to show that this is a question of national importance. The Federal Government should have some degree of responsibility, because these societies relieve the Treasury of considerable disbursements which otherwise would have fallen on the Commonwealth finances.

Mr Hughes:

– When will the agreement terminate?

Mr MATHEWS:

– On the 31st instant, I am a trustee of two or three of these societies. In one case there are sixty men at the Front, and many of the men have left dependants here who will be without medical attendance at the end of this month. Seeing that it is a matter of national importance, could not a regulation be framed under the War Precautions (Moratorium) Regulations deferring the resignations of the doctors for another month so that some arrangement may be come to between the two parties ? But for the war having depleted the number of eligible men available, the friendly societies of Victoria would not be in their present position, as they would have been able to secure other doctors to take up their work. Let me say that there was a truce declared between the societies and the doctors until the war was over. I mention that as another justification for action by the Prime Minister, because it goes to show that the difficulty is one which has arisen out ofthe war. A statement appeared in the press that the legal representative of the British Medical Association, Mr. Stanton Crouch, asserted that there was no truce; but I have seen a letter from this gentleman, dated some time back, charging a certain friendly society with having broken the truce. Such a letter could not have been written if Mr. Crouch had not recognised that there was such a truce as I have referred to. It may seem a somewhat strange request to ask the Prime Minister to compel medical men in Victoria to attend members of friendly societies, and give them professional advice; but I am not asking the right honorable gentleman to say that ti e doctors should continue to render their services to members of friendly societies for the fees they are getting “ now, but ‘ that a definite break between the medical men and the societies should be postponed for another month, to give time for an amicable settlement of the difficulty. The State Government have signally failed to deal with the matter. Perhaps I should not have said that, but there can be no doubt that their efforts in that direction have not been successful. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has been watching the press references to the matter, or has given it, so far, any consideration; but if he will take action to postpone the breach for another month, to give time for a friendly settlement of the difficulty, I can assure him that the whole of the friendly societies of Victoria will be keenly appreciative of h:s services.

Mr. SAMPSON (Wimmera) [3.551-1 shall not refer to recent incidents arising from the Federal situation further than to say that my attitude towards the Government in connexion with the Bendigo pledge is well known. I regretted very much, indeed, and I think the bulk of the honorable members of this Parliament, and probably the majority of tha people of Australia, equally regret that Ministers should have given such a pledge.

I have been pleased to hear the statement made by the Prime Minister tL t during the recess it is the intention . of the Government to consider questions of prime national importance, and that when Parliament meets again, the Government will be in a position to make a declaration as to their policy. I trust that their policy will include satisfactory proposals for providing reinforcements which will relieve the Administration from the serious criticism directed against it in connexion with the Bendigo pledge. I hope that the policy will have regard, also, for the promise made at Bendigo prior to the last general election, when the National party was returned with such a large majority. Consideration must be given to the relations between i capital and labour, and every effort must be made to enable Australia to increase its production if we are to get back to normal conditions after the war without delay. I shall not attempt to discuss details of industrial legislation, but I suggest that representatives of the Labour organizations and of capital in Australia might be brought together to consider how far it is possible, not only to introduce a fair system of piece-work, as has been proposed in connexion with the shipbuilding scheme, but also to secure cooperation between capital and labour in connexion with all primary <»nd secondary production. There is no country in the world in which the conditions are more favorable for the adoption of satisfactory industrial legislation, and the Government led by the Prime Minister will earn the lasting gratitude of the legislators of the world if they are able to bring about industrial harmony in the way I suggest, and so provide for increased production generally, with better conditions for the industrial section of the community.

I hope that during the recess action will be taken by the Cabinet to relieve the Prime Minister of some of the duties that he is now called upon to carry out, and particularly that some other Minister will be called upon to relieve him of the work connected with the shipbuilding, scheme.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has referred to the question of primary production, because it is so closely associated with transport. I believe there are good possibilities for the extension of trade in the Far Eastern countries and in the United States. By associating the shipbuilding proposal with the matter of primary production, the transport of our products may be provided for in such a way as to enable us .to finance our obligation in connexion with the war, and to be of great assistance to us when the war is over.

I trust that when Parliament re-, assembles the Government will come forward with proposals which will justify us in giving them such combined support as will enable Australia to carry out her part in the great war both at home and abroad. Action should be taken to bring about better terms between the present

Ministry and the Opposition in order that justice may be done in the matter of providing recruits for our Forces, and the stimulation of our industries. I am sorry that Parliament is to be in recess for so long a period. I should have preferred that the important legislation that has been foreshadowed, and some of which has been already delayed too long, should be undertaken immediately. We are informed that we are to go into recess for two months, but I trust that it will be possible for Parliament to meet earlier than is at present anticipated in order to deal with the important legislation indicated by the Prime Minister this afternoon.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

.- The statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon was one of the most surprising statements ever made in this House. I wish to refer to it in somewhat the same spirit as that adopted by the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine). It is impossible that we should fail to realize the extraordinary seriousness of the present position. We must all feel that the position of our own country and of the Empire demands the most serious attention. Whilst the Prime Minister was speaking, I could not help the recollection of a statement he made in Bendigo in April of last year, to the effect that the question of conscription having been decided by the people it would not be resurrected or revived. At that time the Government were consequently faced with the necessity of finding a policy to carry on the war without conscription. Yet at this time of the day, after an interval of nearly ten months, the Prime Minister tells us that the Government are going to consider their policy. It is the most damaging admission of bankruptcy in government that, I think, Australia has ever been faced with. The Government set out to win the war; they announced themselves as being ready to proceed vigorously with measures for winning the war last April.

Mr Heitmann:

– And have they not done so?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– They have done absolutely nothing to win the war. There is not a single thing to the credit of the Government in connexion with winning the war, but there is much to their discredit, and they have done more to lose the war, so far as Australia is con cerned, than any other set of men in the country.

Mr Gregory:

– Do not talk nonsense of that sort!

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is not nonsense. I can prove what I say.

Mr Heitmann:

– You do not care, anyhow !

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is what we would expect from a German, and I take no notice of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member should not make such a remark.

Mr Heitmann:

– You are a cad ! You would not’ say outside what you have said here.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) to withdraw the imputation against the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Heitmann).

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member for Kalgoorlie now to withdraw the word “ cad.”

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I do not care what the honorable member may have said.

Mr Heitmann:

– I withdraw the word. It is not a question of whether the honorable member cares or not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask honorable members to cease these interjections, which only lead to personalities.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I point out, with considerable regret, that the conduct of the Government, particularly in connexion with the last referendum, has created such an unfortunate division in the country - such regrettable differences of opinion, and the severance of the most friendly relations - that they have done more to prevent Australia doing its full share in the war than anything I know of.

Mr Gregory:

– The Government hope to get parties to come together.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is the point; but how are we to bring it about? The honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) directed most of his attention to the Leader of the Opposition, but I think he might with more effect - certainly there was more necessity - have directed his requests to the Government.

Sir William Irvine:

– The Minister for the Navy adopted the suggestion in the House.

Mr Tudor:

– Headopted the suggestion in the House ; but what about the alteration in Hansard of the offer that the Prime Minister made?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The Prime Minister, on the face of it, made what appeared to be a most generous offer, namely, that he would stand aside if he were the person in the way who prevented the cooperation of all parties, but he qualified that by saying that the Oppositionmust be willing to adopt a policy acceptable to the National party.

Mr Tudor:

– I could have been in the Ministry in the last eighteen months if I had swallowed my principles. ‘

Sir William Irvine:

– I think the Prime Minister’s offer was in regard to a coalition and National Ministry, and not in regard to minor matters.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The National party did their best to defeat us. They placed their policy against ours last May, and they won, and, therefore, are entitled to fully and freely carry out their war policy. We put forward our war policy, but the country preferred that of the Nationalparty. From that day to this we have not had the war policy of the Government put before us ; there has been nothing to indicate on what lines they propose to proceed in winning the war. When the policy of the Government is declared will, I suggest, be the time for the Leader of the Opposition to be called on to say whether he is prepared to support it or not. He is not now in a position, and it is unreasonable to. ask him to propound the conditions under which he is prepared to support the Government.

Sir William Irvine:

– The Labour party barred the door which the Government wished to open.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am inclined to think that the honorable member is exaggerating that particular aspect of the barring of the door. I heard clear and explicit offers made from this side during the no-confidence debate.

Sir William Irvine:

– What I mean is that, by negativing conscription, you barred the door that the Government desired to open.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Certainly. If conscription is to be in any way a part of the bargain, there is nothing doing.

Sir Wiiliam Irvine:

– The honorable member still misunderstands me; I mean that the great responsibility of getting recruits by the voluntary system rests on you, because you barred the compulsory door.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I entirely dispute that. It is the responsibility of those who voted for conscription to find reinforcements.

Mr Sampson:

– How can you reason that way?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Those who believe in sending other people to fight should themselves show the example of recruiting.

Mr Fenton:

– We have been told that the introduction of conscription did more than anything else to hinder recruiting.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– We have that on the authority of the Director-General of Recruiting.

Mr Tudor:

– And the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Leckie), who is chairman of the Recruiting Committee of Victoria, said the same thing.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is so. I believe that the honorable member for Flinders is quite right in saying that these hysterical appeals from the recruiting platform are not helpful to recruiting. Only the other day I heard a gentleman in khaki, on the platform at the Town Hall, Melbourne, in the lunch hour, addressing to the (public arguments with which we have become familiar, and calling his auditors cowards, shirkers, and slackers because they did not enlist. I will join any party to stop that kind of thing. Let conscription die and be buried; and I suggest, with diffidence, to the honorable member for Flinders that he should not even suggest that at the back of his mind is an idea that there is yet the possibility of conscription being introduced in Australia.

Sir William Irvine:

– I believe that conscription will yet come into force in Australia if the war lasts, but there is no reason whatever why we should not meet and discuss the matter on a voluntary basis. Why should that belief of mine bar any reasonable discussion of a voluntary effort?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I see no reason why it should. If the Ministry are prepared to come forward in the House openly with a policy in regard to recruiting, I am certain that we on thisside will give it the most sympathetic and favorable consideration. We will not criticise it with any hostile, but rather with a helpful, desire to do the best we can for Australia.

Mr Gregory:

– Why not within the next three months?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is for honorable members opposite to say.We on this side do not desire that the House should adjourn, and see no reason why it should. We are quite prepared to go on with the business.

Mr Gregory:

– It is a question of the parties meeting.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The parties cannot meet until the Government move. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Wise) has said that there are nine members of the Government party favorably disposed, and I was wondering if we could apply the Scriptural reference, and ask, “ Where are the nine?” There is only one honorable member opposite who has any concrete proposal. But until a proposal comes from the Government, or from some one with a following behind him amongst honorable members opposite, I do not see that it is worth anything. If the honorable member for Flinders can show that he has a backing on that side we are prepared to listen to him.

Sir William Irvine:

– I suggest you should listen to the Government’s proposals to meet in conference.

Mr J H Catts:

– Why not in public conference in this House?

Sir William Irvine:

– You know that would not achieve anything.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I now desire to refer to another matter. To-day I asked some questions in regard to the position occupied by Captain Glossop; and I was informed that he is an officer of the Royal Navy lent to the Australian Navy, that he is not on leave, and that he holds the appointment of Captain-in-Charge of H.M.A. Naval Establishments, Sydney. Captain Glossop is reported in the Argus of 22nd December last as having addressed a meeting at Sydney in the following terms: -

It is with very mixed feelings that I am taking part in this ceremony. You all know the great referendum has taken place. What can be my feelings on the subject? You have again decided on “No.” Do you still refuse to reinforce your men at the Front? By your votes yesterday you decided “No.”

The Government put the proposal before you, and you have turned it down. The feelings of every naval rating and, every military rating are the same. They are ashamed that you have turned it down and have said “ No.”

I wish to enter my most emphatic protest against the impertinence of Captain Glossop in interfering with the political affairs of Australia in this public manner. I previously protested against General Birdwood being allowed to interfere, and called his conduct an unpardonable impertinence.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Captain Glossop is a resident and a voter.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I understand that he is an Imperial officer, and is only lent to us.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Of course; but he is here for three years on a definite engagement.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– If he had been an Australian officer, I should not have raised any objection to his statement.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He commanded the Sydney in the Australian Fleet.

Mr Fowler:

– He interfered in Australian affairs very advantageously when he smashed the Emden.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am making no reference to his position in the Australian or Imperial Navy, but am complaining of an Imperial officer, who is only here on a temporary engagement, interfering in the political affairs of Australia. We Australians think we know how to run our own affairs.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is not stating the position quite fairly. Although an Imperial officer, he is a resident. of Australia, and has just married an Australian girl.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The Minister just told me that he was lent here on an engagement for three years. I am offering no objection to that, although we are far too free with our appointments to men who come from the other side of the water, when we have men in Australia who could do the work equally well.

Mr Fowler:

– Does that apply to the representation of Brisbane?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am talking about experts and technical officers.

Mr Maxwell:

– You are an importation, occupying a position that an Australian should occupy.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The proper parallel would not be as put by the hon- orable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), but would exist if I interfered as an Australian member of Parliament in the affairs of the British Navy. That would be a stupid thing for me to do, and it is equally stupid, unnecessary, and impertinent for Captain Glossop to interfere in Australian political affairs. There is too much of that among both military and naval officers.

The position of . Australian civilian prisoners in camps in Germany has for a considerable time been most unsatisfactory. I have brought the matter repeatedly before the Prime Minister with very unsatisfactory results. I was told by the Government to-day that it is proposed to defer any action until the High Commissioner’s letter of 7th December is received. The Australian civilian prisoners in Germany found their position so intolerable, and the conditions under which they were placed so unpleasant, that they sent a statement to the High Commissioner pleading for his assistance. They received no reply, but I understand that the Government have been informed by Mr. Fisher that the Central PrisonersofWar Committee now desire to place all overseas civilians under the care of their respective Governments. I am informed that the committee mentioned in London have undertaken to look after the welfare and comfort of the civilian Australian and other prisoners in Germany - will honorable members notice the difference between prisoners of war and civilian prisoners? - but ask that £2,500 per year should be allotted to them to cover their necessary expenses. That is where the difficulty seems to have arisen. Mr. James O’Connor, a returned Australian, made the following statement to the Sydney Morning Herald of 5th November last: -

The treatment of the civilians interned is wicked. If they depended upon the food the Germans supplied, all would have been dead long ago.

The Australians, he says, should be permitted to have the food which their friends supply, and not be forced to rely entirely on the goods Bent by the Prisoners-of-War Association. The Kew Zealanders, who are supplied through the High Commissioner, are faring much better than the forty-eight Australians. Three out of five prisoners at Ruhleben are barefooted.

Mr. O’Connor says that civilians in Germany are without petrol. The civil population have no wool or linen, and women are wearing paper underclothing; but the organization of the army is so wonderful that it will take three’ years to knock it out. The Germans hate thevery name of Australians and Canadians, who’ are regarded as the most doughty fighters in the Allied armies.

The Government should give favorable consideration to any proposal, even if it costs £2,500 a year, that will secure comfort, as far as possible, to the civilian prisoners now in Germany. They are suffering severely. . I know one gentleman in Sydney whose son, unfortunately, happens to be there. Through mutual friends in Holland he has been able to send his son a parcel of food regularly every month. I have here the invoice of one lot of goods sent on 3rd June, and amounting in value to £1 3s. 7d. We are all anxious to do the best we can for people so unfortunately situated.

Mr Fenton:

– Did that food reach its proper destination ?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Yes; the young man has acknowledged the receipt of the parcel. There are certain restrictions on the sending of parcels, but there is an organization ready to do the work if the Australian Government will assist it financially. The expenditure proposed would be more than sufficient to accomplish all we desire, giving us at any rate some satisfaction, and giving these unfortunate men and women the care and attention they deserve.

Mr BOYD:
Henty

– I wish to speak of the situation that developed here .last week, and the attitude that I, with a number of other men, took up. I should not have spoken but for the violent outburst of antipathy on the part of the Argus newspaper against the men who were prepared to move an amendment to the no-confidence motion. We had given a certain definite pledge to the country, and wanted to see that pledge carried into effect. We only did exactly what the Argus said on the 22nd December should have been done.

Mr Bamford:

– Did you -do it for the same reason?

Mr BOYD:

- We did not do it in the . same manner. The leading article in the Argus of that date said -

The pledge has been given, and it must be honoured as soon as the result of the voting is finally established. Every member of the Ministry will then fall back into the party which is charged with the direction of the affairs of the country, and is restricted only by the votes of the people against compulsion, and by the pledge which shuts Mr. Hughes out from leadership.

On Saturday last and on Tuesday of this week a number of members who were prepared to honour that pledge were charged with having, in common with Germans, an antipathy to Mr. Hughes and the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. A great deal of fuss was made as to an allegedconspiracy that was going on; but the statement made to the press by the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine), the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Sampson), the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Leckie), and myself was an exact and complete recital of the whole facts of the case. It was not until after I had spoken in the House on Friday morning that we thought of doing anything at all in the matter. A consultation took place between us after luncheon.

Mr Sampson:

– And for the first time.

Mr BOYD:

– Quite so. When we were sitting in the gardens after lunch on Friday, the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Rodgers) came along and remarked that he did not wish to intrude. We told himat once that there was nothing secret or private going on, and that if he chose he could remain. He did remain with us, and disagreed with the attitude we had adopted. But he was not in the position that we occupied to participate in the amendment, and we did not ask for his adhesion to our proposal in any shape or form. All that we desired was to do what we had pledged ourselves to do, quite irrespective of who might support us or what the effect might be.

Mr Fowler:

– But you are charged with having intrigued with the Opposition.

Mr BOYD:

– I shall deal with that point. The very moment the proposed amendment was drafted, I gave the Government Whip an intimation that we intended to move it. Yet, forsooth, the press comes out with the statement that “ the plot was discovered.” In the first plaice, there was no plot to discover; the only “ discovery “ made was the intimation made to the Government Whip by me, one of the supporters of the Government, that we intended to do a certain thing. Not one of the four honorable members concerned had any communication, in any shape or form, with any mem ber of the Opposition. I make that statement in the presence of my three honorable friends, who agreed with me as to the submission of the amendment.

Sir William Irvine:

– There was no communication with any member of the Opposition either before or after.

Mr BOYD:

– Either before or after.

Mr Fowler:

– Did you send anybody else to the Opposition?

Mr BOYD:

– We did not.

Mr Sampson:

– Neither directly nor indirectly.

Mr BOYD:

– Nor did we ask one member of our own party to support us. No one was asked, except the four who had agreed to the proposed amendment being submitted, to do anything, save that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman), who had not spoken during the debate, was requested to move the amendment. Since this refutation was made by the four honorable members concerned, it has been alleged that some other plot was afoot.

Sir William Irvine:

– It was necessary for them to find some way out of it,

Mr BOYD:

– Quite so, and in this other plot the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) and the honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts), it is alleged, were consulted. It is further said that the honorable member for Cook, in some mysterious way, had remarked to an honorable member on this side, that “fourteen and nineteen would do the trick.”

Mr J H Catts:

– That is quite untrue.

Mr Watt:

– What is quite untrue - the doing of the trick ?

Mr J H Catts:

– The statement itself.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What did the honorable member for Cook say ?

Mr J H Catts:

– Nothing that had relation to that matter.

Mr BOYD:

– In politics it is easy to manufacture mystery, and there is evidently some mystery in regard to this incident,

Mr Watt:

– Hear, hear!

Mr BOYD:

– We were perfectly frank and open. Some one has asked, “ Who wrote the amendment?” I wrote it, and told the Government Whip so. I told him he would find that it was in my handwriting, but I wrote it in full collaboration with the three other members concerned, who, with myself, assumed the responsibility for it. Again, I say that we had no communication about it with any member of the Opposition or any member of our party, save the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman), who had not spoken in the debate, and who was asked, therefore, if he would submit the amendment.

Mr Watt:

– Does the honorable member know whether the honorable member for Eden-Monaro had any communication with any member of the Opposition?

Mr Fowler:

– He said he had not.

Mr BOYD:

– He said in a communication to the press that he had not.

Sir William Irvine:

– And there is no reason to believe that that is not so.

Mr BOYD:

– That is so.

Speaking for the four honorable members who signed the communication that we made to the press, I desire now to say that we had no hostility to the Government at all.Our only concern was that we should honour our own pledge. If we had desired to engineer some scheme, then, from what I can hear, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to do.

Mr Bamford:

– It was “ all very well to dissemble your love,” but why did you try to kick the Government downstairs?

Mr BOYD:

– I expressed my view of the Government at the meeting upstairs. I did not hide my light under a bushel. I never ‘do. It may be only a rush-light, but such as it is it flickers. I said on the floor of this House what I had said of the Government upstairs - that the Government, having given a pledge, should honour it, and should not take their old positions again.

Mr Watt:

– Yet the honorable member says that he has no hostility to the Government.

Mr BOYD:

– Certainly, we had none. The honorable gentleman surelydoes not consider that such advice indicated hostility to the Government.

Mr Watt:

– What was it?

Mr BOYD:

– If a man backed a bill for you, and you asked him later on to meet it, surely such a request would not be indicative of your hostility towards that man. The man who had to pay the cash might regard it as hostility, but, having put his name’ to the bill and assumed the obligation, he would naturally be expected to pay. That was our position.

I want only to say that in the action we took we were not animated by any feeling of hostility to the Government. We believed that the vote on the proposed amendment would probably be determined by the great majority of the House against the view we put, but we did not concern ourselves with that point at all. We would have been perfectly satisfied to clear our positions by submitting the amendment we had prepared.

Sir William Irvine:

– But if it had been carried we would have accepted the responsibility attaching to it.

Mr BOYD:

– Certainly; we could not have done otherwise.

Mr J H Catts:

– According to the press, the moment you thought it was likely to be carried you dropped it.

Mr BOYD:

– That assertion is untrue.

Mr Sampson:

– It is quite wrong.

Mr BOYD:

– What occurred may be stated in a very few words. It was put to me personally and, I think, to some of the others, that, having regard to the stage of the debate which had been reached, and to the fact that a promise had been given that honorable members should be allowed to get away by 3.30 that afternoon, it would be unfair to spring such an amendment on the Government, and, further, that the Government had not had an opportunity to consider their position.

Sir William Irvine:

-Or their policy.

Mr BOYD:

– Or their policy. That we regarded as the strongest argument advanced as to why we should not go on with the proposed amendment. As declared this afternoon by the honorable member for Flinders, we were prepared, in view of the arguments that were put to us at that time, to await a declaration of the Government’s policy, which would be framed during the recess, We considered that to be reasonable.

Let me explain the point at which I find fault with the Government Whip (Mr. Greene). Knowing the circumstances, so far as we were concerned, he ought not to have kept his mouth shut when the newspapers were making bitter attacks upon us, but should have explained the position of those responsible for the proposed amendment. If he had any knowledge that other members of the party were scheming for the downfall of the Goment, he should ‘ have named them straight out. I lay particular emphasis on the fact that we did not at any time have any communication with any person whatsoever, except with the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, throughout the whole proceedings, which commenced after lunch and finished at 3.30 o’clock.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- It is to be regretted that, since the Government have had a week to consider the discussion which took place in this House as to whether some means could be devised to secure co-operation outside of contentious matters, some further effort has not been made in this direction.

The Prime Minister threw out a casual offer. It had all the appearance of never having been considered, and, since then, it has been covered up with a considerable amount of doubt and suspicion. He said that, if he were in the way of that effective cooperation, so much desired at the present time between members of this Parliament, he would get out.

As a result of the discussion that took place in this House last week, it is apparent that a majority of honorable members hold the belief that the Government can be better led than by the present Prime Minister.

Surely Parliament is not so bankrupt of resource as to be unable to arrive at a better understanding. If honorable members had great private interests of their own at stake, they would not merely introduce an important matter such as this, and then dismiss it in a casual way, as has been done by the Government in regard to this suggested co-operation. The mere fact that the proposal has not been followed up consistently shows that there is nothing behind it. The Prime Minister, after making this casual offer in an offhand manner in Parliament, went outside, and did not hear a solitary speech from either side of the House during the whole of the debate. We were told by the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Watt), by way of interjection, that he would read it in Hansard. Very well, he has since had an opportunity of having the statements as they appear in Hansard dissected.

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

– I must ask the honorable member not to traverse the grounds of the recent “no-confidence” debate.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am not doing so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid the honorable member is approaching the subject in that way.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Prime Minister has had an opportunity of examining the several speeches made on the subject, and if he had been in earnest he could have carried the discussion a stage further today. This course would have been adopted by any Government or body of men in earnest about the matter.

Coalition with honorable members on this side of the House is impossible.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member said himself that honorable members on his side of the House would not coalesce.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am saying that now.

Mr Bamford:

– No; the honorable member is putting it the other way.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am saying that coalition is impossible between the parties.

Mr Bamford:

– From the honorable member’s point of view.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Coalition is impossible, because the two parties represent fundamentally different principles of political and social economy. Further, could it be supposed for a moment that if any negotiations were possible with the Government, the party on this side of the House would be offered equal representation with the Ministerial party, which has nearly twice its strength? We know perfectly well we would not, and that there would be in Cabinet a majority dominated by members on the other side of the House, with, the result that the Labour party would be burdened with responsibilities for decisions arrived at by a Government in which the majority was against its representatives. This party could not accept a situation of that kind. A coalition is, therefore, impossible both on the grounds of principle and expediency.

We do not want office unless we can be in a position to carry out our policy. But, whilst we do not want office, we never have, and never will, shirk our responsibilities; and there is no doubt in the world that, had the GovernorGeneral accepted the assurance given him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor), and had we been called upon, we would have met this House as a Ministry, and have placed a war-time policy before the country. It would then have been for this House to reject that policy if it were thought to be unsuitable. This party, also, would have submitted measures, short of any infringement of party principles, which I believe would have secured the co-operation of members on both sides, but, as I said, we did not have that opportunity.

Mr Leckie:

– Can the honorable member not put forward part of the party programme now?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I could introduce one or two matters for consideration, but whilst I know the general mind of the party I could not, until specific decisions were reached, lay down its programme in detail.

I believe that, outside of a few vitally contentious subjects, we could have obtained the co-operation of all honorable members in conserving Australia’s most vital interests at the present time. There are, however, one or two questions which should be out. of the way before there could be any sort of co-operation by honorable members on this side. There must, for instance, be a guarantee -

  1. That conscription shall be finally and absolutely abandoned for service upon foreign battlefields, as well as a guarantee against industrial conscription in Australia.
  2. Therestoration of industrial organizations and trade unions by reestablishing the legal rights and privileges of which they have been deprived since the conscription referendum of 1916.
  3. 3 ) The restoration of victimized workmen to their employment.

There has been some talk of cooperation in regard to the voluntary system, but it seems to me that we have reached that stage when there would be a constant suspicion, especially in view of the qualified utterancesof Sir William Irvine, and in the absence of any direct statement from the Government. There is a suspicion that manoeuvring will take place to have another shot at introducing conscription. Until conscription is finally and definitely abandoned, and an assurance of sufficient force given to the public that they can believe it, it seems to me that there cannot be close and active cooperation between the parties. Honorable members know quite well that a large number of industrial organizations have been badly damaged, and some of them smashed altogether, by administrative actions of this Government, which got votes from the soldiers overseas on the pledge that not one stone in the temple of Labour would be disturbed.

Mr Leckie:

– How did the Government overturn the unions?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Not through the Courts after investigation in the proper way, not by legislation in Parliament, but by regulations under the War Precautions Act. The Government have, in a number of cases, destroyed preference to unionists, which the unions had legally won in the Courts. . That is the act of the Government who pledged themselves to the trade Unionists overseas that if they would vote for the Prime Minister and those supporting him not one stone in the temple of Labour would be disturbed. There is a suspicion that the power of the Government under the War Precautions Act is to be used to smash organized Labour.

The outstanding principles which I enunciated are recognised by a number of honorable members on the Government side. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman), in a press interview published in Sydney, stated distinctly that it was necessary that conscription for overseas should be definitely abandoned, and that industrial harmony should be restored in the manner I have indicated this afternoon in order to enable that co-operation which is so desirable in dealing with the great problems that confront the country.

The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) stated this afternoon that from his observations it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have displaced the Government last week. That admission supports the statement that I have made that the majority of members in this House are being led by a Prime Minister, if not by a whole Government, in whom this House has no confidence, but the operation of the party machine on the Ministerial side prevents the voice of the dissentient minority of Nationalists being heard.

We have read in the press that those honorable members who have gone to the extent of allowing it to be thought for. a moment that there is anything serious in their objections to the manner in which the country is being governed to-day will run the risk of having the party rule run over them, and they must either knuckle down and support the Government or leave the party.

Mr Boyd:

– There is no authority in this party that can punish in that way any member of it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– We shall see. I have seen men like the honorable member for Flinders(Sir William Irvine), the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Bruce Smith), and Mr. Robert Harper brought to book. I have heard gentlemen stand on the floor of the House and say positively that they would take a certain course, but a quarter of an hour later, after the party Whips had followed them outside and warned them that they would be opposed at the next election they returned to the chamber as meek as lambs. And the same thing will happen again.

There is a means by which this country can be led in a way acceptable to Parliament and to the great majority of the people outside, and in a way that would give us better opportunities to co-operate on non-contentious matters than is possible under existing circumstances. Some honorable members on the Government side pledged themselves on the hustings to what are known as elective Ministries. Why not let us have an elective Ministry now? The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Joseph Cook) have said that they are prepared to go out of office. Let all the Ministers leave office and let us substitute an elective Ministry chosen by every member of Parliament, but confining the portfolios to members of the National party. We on this side do not seek any office. Let the Government party have all the portfolios, but allow Parliament itself by a majority vote to choose its Ministers.

We should certainly get a different Prime Minister, because already the majority of the members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to him as the leader of the country.

Mr Maxwell:

– They have not.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) stated this afternoon that from his observations it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have removed the Government last week.

Mr Boyd:

-I said that that was my impression from what I heard. I do not know whether that impression is right; I made no. inquiries.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member spoke of what he had heard from members of his own party, and if he, without making any inquiries, arrived at the conclusion that it would have been an easy thing to have removed the Government last week, how much easier would thedefeat of the Government have seemed if he had made inquiries ?

An elective Ministry formed without interfering with the party principle, and without depriving the Ministerial party of one portfolio, would give us a Government with which there would be some chance of co-operation on all business other than those contentious matters upon which it is impossible for the two parties to reach an agreement.

Furthermore, why not give Parliament an opportunity of considering the proposals which honorable members would like to bring forward. Not since the commencement of the war has there been in this Parliament an untrammelled- discussion of war-time measures. A Minister comes before Parliament with some proposal, and we are told that we must take that or nothing. Quite the majority of honorable members have no say in formulating the ‘ legislation. Any suggestions made from this side of the House are treated with ridicule and contempt. On the Government side the majority of honorable members have simply to do what they are told or they will be made to toe the mark.

Have we not tried a measure of co-operation on this side, for instance, in connexion with the Repatriation Bill?The Labour party, after consideration in its conferences and on the part of individual members, brought before the House a repatriation scheme. Amendment after amendment was moved, and not even to the extent of a comma would the Government allow any alteration of their Bill.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member moved only two amendments, which were both of a minor character and the same in principle, and they were defeated. Why does the honorable member repeat that misstatement?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Everything we attempted to move was treated with ridicule and contempt.

Mr Groom:

– That statement is abso- lutely inaccurate.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Will the Minister bring the matter of repatriation before the House in such a wayas will allow of members of the party on this side moving amendments? The treatment we received in this chamber was repeated in another place. In both branches of this Parliament every suggestion brought forward by Labour members was treated with contempt. The Government kept this House sitting all night in order to weary us out.

We sat till the small hours of the morning, and owing to sheer physical exhaustion on the part of honorable members, the Government worried their proposals through. If our complete policy in respect of repatriation was not put forward on that occasion it was because we had no opportunity of putting it forward.

Mr Groom:

– Was the whole of the honorable member’s complete policy submitted that, evening ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– No. The Assistant Minister is merely endeavouring to sidetrack me. He knows that when a clause in a Bill is under review, it is competent for honorable members to move only amendments which are relevant to it. As there was no clause in the Repatriation Bill dealing with the substance of repatriation we were prevented from moving amendments, because no amendment would have been relevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must remind the honorable member that he is now traversing debates which have already taken place, and questions have already been decided.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That is one of my complaints against our Standing Orders. But I did not know that they were so tight as to prevent an honorable member referring to a previous debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is perfectly at liberty to make an incidental reference to any former debate, but not to discuss it in detail.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I have pointed out time after time that our Standing Orders are really designed to gag Parliament. People- outside this building imagine that we have an opportunity of transacting business here. As a matter of fact, the whole parliamentary machine is designed to prevent us transacting the business of the country.

There are twenty-five notices of motion on the business-paper to-day, many of which have been there for months. Yet Parliament adjourns from time to time without considering them. We have pleaded with the Prime Minister to give us an opportunity to consider these proposals, but all our appeals have fallen upon deaf ears. ^ To-day I again ask the Government, instead of closing Parliament for two months, to afford us an opportunity of discussing proposals of urgent public importance which have emanated from both sides of the House. But nothing is al lowed to come before us, save through the mouthpiece of some half-a-dozen men.

If it be the desire of honorable members that a Ministry should be formed with which the entire Parliament can co-operate, Parliament should be afforded an opportunity of electing that Government. Honorable members upon both sides of the House would then be able to submit their proposals and to secure their discussion in a non-party atmosphere. The Prime Minister has referred to some of the matters with which the Government propose to deal when the House re-assembles. . He spoke of the organization of industry, and of a scheme of industrial legislation. Are the Government going to use ‘their majority - a majority gained on a win- the- war policy - for the purpose of reorganizing the industrial legislation of this country, whilst practically excluding from their councils representatives of the industrial sections of Australia? Before this proposed legislation is submitted to Parliament, no industrial representative will see it. When it is presented for our consideration, the rules of Parliament will again be enforced, to support the tyranny of a majority, and to suppress those who really represent the workers. Apparently, the power of the Government is going to be used to overturn the stones in the temple of Labour, which the Government have pledged themselves shall not be done. Representing, as I do, a large industrial’ centre, I say that upon those matters which are outside of party controversy, I deplore that there is contention in this country.

I believe that the questions which are of non-party concern in Australia to-day are greater than those which are of party concern. They include the defence of Australia and recruiting for service overseas. The trouble is that there is in Australia an imperialistic domination which is willing to entirely disregard the future of the country so long as the last man can be dragged out of it for service overseas. Whilst I would do everything possible to assist Great Britain and the Empire to win the war, I hold that any action we can take in that direction must be based upon a consideration of the country’s vital needs. If this Parliament were afforded untrammelled opportunity of considering the problems with which we are confronted, I would join heartily in giving effect to the decision of tie majority. But by denying us a chance to discuss these matters in Parliament, it is impossible to “coerce a minority. If we had an opportunity of considering our position this Parliament would very soon reach an agreement.

Mr Groom:

– Whatever arrangement might be arrived at in respect of recruiting, the honorable member would do all that he could to assist it?

Mr J H CATTS:

– If Australia’s position is considered I am prepared-

Mr Groom:

– What does the honorable member mean ‘by saying, “ if Australia’s position is considered” ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I believe that if the majority of honorable members knew the facts of the position there would be very little difference of opinion between us regarding what ought to be done for Australia and Great Britain. But we are not allowed an opportunity to reach an understanding. If we could go into Committee, where each honorable member is at liberty to make several short speeches, I believe that we could, by a free interchange of ideas, arrive at a complete understanding.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member is more optimistic than I am.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am optimistic. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) may not desire to come to an agreement upon anything. I, however, think better of him than that. If there are in Parliament members who do not desire to reach an agreement, it will be impossible to do anything; but I believe that on each side there is a majority desirous of co-operating in matters of supreme importance to Australia that are far outside the scope of party. To believe anything else would be to believe that members generally are absolute traitors to the country, and I do not think that of any member. The main obstacle to cooperation upon vital matters is the want of opportunity to reach an agreement, and it seems to me that the Government does not desire that an agreement shall be reached. I am convinced that there is at the disposal of the Government, and of members, means for arriving at an agreement for dealing with matters of vital concern to the people of the country.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

.- I had not intended to speak, and feel less inclined to do so after the unusually moderate speech of the honorable member for Cook; but as I know something of what transpired last week-end, I think that I am justified in giving my version of the matter introduced by the honorable member for Henty. It was not my intention to speak of it here or now, though I should have spoken of it on another occasion. At about half-past 3 last Friday afternoon - I cannot give the hour exactly - I and other members now in the chamber were sitting in the little room generally known as the quarantine room. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) was one of the party, and the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) came in and whispered something to him. Evidently they did not desire that we should hear what was said, as they went out to finish their consultation in the little interviewing room outside. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) said that the Whip was informed of what was done. The division was to have been taken at half:past 3, but it was only at 10 past 3, that is, only twenty minutes before the time fixed for the division, that the Whip was informed of what was being done. It is no secret, because the facts have been published in the press, that there were only two dissentients when, at a meeting of the National party, it was moved that Mr. Hughes be leader of the party. Sixty-nine members of this party, out of a possible seventy, were present, you, Mr. Speaker, not being there.

Mr J H Catts:

– It was said that a, number of those present did not vote.

Mr BAMFORD:

– They had the opportunity to give expression to their dissatisfaction if they desired to -do so. At a subsequent meeting, which was not quite so well attended, though nearly so, the course that the Government should adopt was dealt with, and there were then only nine dissentients. I take no exception to the attitude then assumed by those nine gentlemen. They were justified in voting as they did, and the facts have been published. But. I decline, under any circumstances, or on any occasion, to be identified with trickery such as that of last week; because it was nothing else. For men to descend to such practices as were followed is not fair. What was to” be done should have been done openly and above-board. Why should not the whole of the members of the party have been consulted ? This is supposed to be a united party. There are questions on which we do not all think alike; but we are pledged to stand shoulder to shoulder during the war for the promotion of the interests’ of the Empire. It is a singular thing that not a member of the old Hughes party was approached by any one from the dissatisfied coterie.

Mr Boyd:

– No one was approached except the four men concerned.

Mr BAMFORD:

– The honorable member said a little while ago that he knew nothing about it. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. J, H. Catts) leant over the shoulder of an honorable member now present and said, “ Fourteen will do.”

Mr J H Catts:

– I did not. That is absolutely untrue.

Mr BAMFORD:

– There is an honorable member present who will contradict that denial. Is not the inference clear that that remark was a reply to the question “ How many do you want? “

Mr J H Catts:

– That is absolutely untrue.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– The interjection of the honorable member for Cook is unparliamentary;, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr J H Catts:

– I withdraw it; but I ask that the honorable member for Herbert be made to withdraw his offensive statement regarding myself, namely, that I said to a member in this chamber that “ fourteen would do.” That is an absolute misstatement. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The statement may be incorrect, but there is nothing unparliamentary in its language. The honorable member will have an opportunity to set himself right by means of a personal explanation.

Mr J H Catts:

– May I ask that the honorable member for Herbert be compelled to accept my denial ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is the practice for an honorable member to accept another honorable member’s denial.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I accept the denial, with this qualification, that there is a gentleman now present in the chamber who will indorse my statement.

Mr J H Catts:

– He cannot, unless he tells a lie.

Mr BAMFORD:

– When the figures are analyzed, support is given to the inference that I have stated. On the division there were 43 “ Ayes “ and 19 “ Noes,” or 62 voting altogether. Four teen added to 19 would have given 33, or morethan half of 62; that is, a majority of 4 to oust the Government. If a section of a party is dissatisfied with its leadership, or with the administration of those it is ostensibly supporting, it is perfectly justified in attempting to alter things, but why should it not have been done above board and in an open manner ? That is my complaint.

Mr Boyd:

– Does the honorable member say that the action taken last week was a secret one ?

Mr BAMFORD:

– Yes.

Mr Boyd:

– Then the honorable member does not know the difference between open and secret.

Mr BAMFORD:

– The honorable member declared that it was kept a secret. If he was anxious to do everything above board, there was a proper method of doing it.

Mr Boyd:

– It was done above board. It was done in the House. What more could the honorable member wish for?

Mr BAMFORD:

– The method taken might meet the views of some honorable members as to what “ above board “ may mean, but it certainly did not meet mine. The proper course for honorable members to follow was to have had a meeting of the’ party convened, at which they could have said, “ We propose to do this, support it or turn it down as you please.”

Mr Considine:

– You need to watch the honorable member, he is at work again.

Mr BAMFORD:

– Perhaps the honorable member knows. He may be in the game. If we are to be handed over to the Bolsheviks, let us know. So far as coalition goes, the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton), speaking here the other day, declared that a coalition was utterly impossible, not because there was any high principle at stake, or anything of that kind, but because honorable members opposite were not allowed to enter into one. “ We are hot allowed to do it “ he said - not actually in these words, but in words to that effect - “ What would happen if I did ? I would not get the indorsement of the party.” For purely personal and selfish reasons the interests of the Empire and of the country are sunk. That is what the honorable member’s words mean. And the same feeling animates honorable members opposite. They do not participate in a coalition because their principles are against such, an action, nor because they do not believe in what is being done on this side; they refuse to join with us in trying to do something in the Empire’s time of need simply because their own seats are aD stake. When the honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts) was speaking, the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Groom) interjected, “ What do you mean by Australian interests.” What does the honorable member mean? Does he mean that we are to sink the Empire’s interests entirely and have regard only for those of Australia. The honorable member is reported to have said that if Australia was attacked we would have to go behind the Blue Mountains.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is not true.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I do not say that it is true, I merely say that the honorable member, is reported to’ have said it. However, that is by the way. On one occasion there was a little arrangement fixed up by a member of this House who is no longer on earth, and few of the Labour party knew anything of it. Yet a paragraph appeared in the Argus on the following morning, stating that the Labour party had arranged to do so and so, the object being to embarrass the Government. I stood in this, chamber and said that I dissociated myself from it entirely, and would have nothing to do with the intrigues which were making their presence known in this House to tlie detriment of the honour of the members of Parliament. Upstairs afterwards the gentleman who had arranged the intrigue threatened to punch my head; and had i,t not been for the presence of another man, a better man than he, I would have been given a hiding. I deprecate anything of this sort taking place. If there is any desire to oust the Government, let it be done fairly and in the daylight, so that every one will know what is taking place.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I do not think that the honorable member for Herbert had any desire to do an injustice to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton), who is absent today

Mr Bamford:

– His speech is in Hanford.

Mr FENTON:

– But it does not bear the interpretation that the honorable member has placed on it. No one acquainted with’ the many fine personal and political qualities enjoyed by the honorable member for Hunter will say that he is prepared to do anything underhand.

Mr Groom:

– It was not suggested.

Mr FENTON:

– I heard the honorable member for Hunter “deliver that speech, and I could not place on any sentence in it the interpretation which the honorable member for Herbert has given to it. I rise now, in justice to the honorable member, because I feel certain that if he had been present he would have made some reply to my friend opposite.

Mr Bamford:

– I made no charge against the honorable member for Hunter.

Mr FENTON:

– I am quite sure that the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Bamford) appreciates the services rendered to this country and to this Parliament by the honorable member for Hunter.

Mr Bamford:

– I do. I think highly of the honorable member for Hunter.

Mr FENTON:

– No one has a higher regard for the honorable member for Hunter than I have, and I rose chiefly to say that I did not think the interpretation put upon his speech by the honorable member for Herbert was justified. Since the honorable member for Herbert has. ceased to be associated with some of us politically, he is fond of saying that everything done by this party is dominated by outside organizations. We have a platform to which we have pledged ourselves, and we know what we may expect if we violate it. For that reason more reliance can be placed upon our pledges than upon words uttered on the public platform by other parties. The honorable member for Indi (Mr, Leckie), who disputes my statement, cannot complain, seeing that he suffers from the effect of pledges given by men whom he professes to follow. I know that he is thoroughly dissatisfied with his position.

Mr Leckie:

– I am not professing to follow them.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member sits behind the Government, and I presume that he was one of those who went into the Caucus meeting and gave that overwhelming vote which was reported to have been given for the present Ministry.

Mr Leckie:

– Does the honorable member not think that if I sat -1.:-/ him my. position would be worse?

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member claims not to be bound by any pledge given by Ministers. If I were in his position, I would certainly take some drastic action in order to show my electors that I disapproved of what Ministers had done.

Mr Leckie:

– What about the pledge given by your party as to the last man and the last shilling? Have you not broken that ?

Mr FENTON:

– We have not broken it. In any case, it was merely a figure of speech, similar to that given on the same night by the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Joseph Cook), who was then Prime Minister.

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

– Figure of speech or pledge, it secured the return of your party at the elections.

Mr FENTON:

– It did not. One of the main reasons actuating the people of Australia in returning the Labour party with a majority at the elections held in 1914 was the fact that the party, in matters of defence, both naval and military, did not only talked, but acted. There have been frequent interjections to-day relating to the attitude of Labour parties in other parts of the world, and particularly to that of the party in Great Britain. The attitude of the Labour party of Great Britain to-day concerning the war and its general conduct is very different from what it was at the commencement of the war. 1 will men-‘ tion two prominent members of the Labour party in the Old World - Mr. Thomas, ex-Minister for Munitions in France, and Mr. George Henderson, an ex-member of the War Cabinet, and a leader of the Labour movement in Great Britain. They are just as earnest as ever in regard to the successful prosecution of the war, yet both of them, particularly Mr. Henderson, are engaged in preparing for the next election. At present Mr. Henderson is not only leading in the great Labour Conferences in England, but he is seeing to the selection of at least 300 Labour candidates to contest various British constituencies at the elections which he considers are quite likely to take place in May next. No one lean ‘doubt that there will be a general election in Great Britain before the war ends, and probably at a much more critical period in the history of the war than the present. Elections have taken place in all parts of the British Domin ions during the; progress of the war, and in my humble judgment the only way of clearing the atmosphere in Australia today is to permit the constituencies to express their views as to the persons by whom they shall be represented in this Parliament.

The Prime Minister has this afternoon outlined a programme as extensive as any ever submitted in a Governor-General’s opening speech. Having mentioned a variety of important topics, he said that these were matters of great importance, demanding our immediate attention, and he then proceeded to move the adjournment of the House until the middle of April. We are returned to this Parliament to do the work of the country. We look to the Government to prepare the necessary legislative measures, and yet they are asking now for an adjournment of two months. There might be some justification for the proposed adjournment if it were asked for by an absolutely new Administration. I suppose that in tile records of Parliament the present Ministry will be referred to as a new Government; but we know that it is the same old Government, composed of the same men occupying their old offices, those which they have held for the past eleven months. In spite of this they are pleading for more time for the consideration of the vital measures upon which Australia and our boys at the Front depend so much.

I repeat that there is one question, and only one, dividing this Parliament and the community at the present time, and that is the question of conscription. The blame for the introduction of that contentious question must rest on the shoulders of the party opposite. If it had not been introduced we would now be in a far better position in regard to the part which Australia is taking in the- war than we are. So much has been said and done since the introduction of that question that it will take the united effort of all the members of this Parliament to compose the feelings of the people outside, and bring them into a mood to take the same active part in the matter of recruiting that they were taking at one time.

We may differ materially in our political ideas, but every man knows that it is impossible to take a step in advance with any hope of success unless the sympathy and support of the workers of the country have been secured. Take the workers, men and women,out of the community, and the British Empire would crumble up to-morrow.

Mr Maxwell:

– We all recognise that.

Mr FENTON:

– Yet we find gentlemen like the honorable member for Fawkner endeavouring to defeat a man who was one of the finest representatives of the workers who ever some into this House.

Mr Maxwell:

– Endeavouring to defeat him ? I did defeat him.

Mr FENTON:

– If the honorable member took his courage in both hands and advised the Government to do the correct thing at the present juncture, he would shortly have another opportunity to measure swords with the gentleman he defeated at the last election, and the result would probably be very different this time.

I have my own ideas with regard to the prosecution -of the war under the voluntary system, and since the beginning of the Parliament of 1914 I have had ideas with regard to the organization of industry in this country - a matter of the greatest importance which has been absolutely neglected by the present Government. Most of the members of the Ministry in this chamber, and in another place, are Free Traders, and the bulk of their followers are either Free Traders or fiscal atheists. What could be expected in the way of Tariff reform from a mixture of that kind ? It may seem a contradiction of my previous statement, but I say that, in respect of some of our Australian industries, no mere increase of the Tariff would be sufficient to prevent them going out of existence, and the men engaged in them being thrown out of employment, because the competition with which they are confronted is impossible for them to meet.

Mr Gregory:

– What nonsense, in view of the present freights.

Mr FENTON:

– If the honorable member will consider many of the businesses being carried on in this community - and what J say probably applies with greater force to the Western Australian community, in which he lives - he will find that the statement I am making is perfectly true. He will find goods in nearly every business place in Melbourne, and the other Australian capitals, that are practically driving articles of Australian manufacture out of the market.

Mr Gregory:

– That shows how bad the policy adopted has been.

Mr FENTON:

– It shows that our policy of Protection has not been sufficient to protect the manufacture of those articles. At present, there isno hope of saving some of our Australian industries by taking any action short of absolute prohibition of goods which we can produce and manufacture here. I would make the prohibition apply to imports from the Mother Country and New Zealand, as well as from other countries. I say that our first duty is to look to the preservation of Australian industries.

What have the Government done in this matter ? Some time ago the Prime Minister, with a great flourish of trumpets, said, “ I have established a Science Bureau.” From that was to be evolved a great revival of the industries of Australia. I want to know, here and now, two years after the establishment of the Bureau of Science, what it has done for the industries of Australia. What are we, as a Parliament, going to do for those industries? If we are prepared to throw men out of employment, and let our soldiers come back to find their fathers out of work, they will say, “ This is not how we left the country.” They will want to know what their parliamentary representatives have been doing whilst they were fighting for the country abroad. There is no doubt that the returned men will be very emphatic in asking that question. A good deal of attention has been turned to the settlement of soldiers on the land, but not more than15 per cent, will desire to be provided for in that way; and the question is, What are we goingto do with the other 85 per cent. ?

Mr Heitmann:

– Have you done anything in the matter yourself? -

Mr FENTON:

– I have raised my voice on the subject, but I have found myself like a pelican crying in the wilderness. I brought the subject under the notice of Mr. Fisher when he was Prime Minister, and also under the notice of the present Prime Minister on more than one occasion since 1914. If the honorable member who interjects cares to turn up the Hansard report of the 21st October, 1914, he will find that certain suggestions I then made were favorably received by the then Prime Minister, who said he would invite the Premiers of the various States to collaborate with the Commonwealth Government in ‘ some scheme to give Australian industries an impetus so that we might be prepared for the aftermath of the war. Employment is becoming scarcer every day, notwithstanding the fact that over 300,000 of

Borne of the best of our manhood have gone overseas. This I regard as a serious reflection on the Legislature of a free country.

The Minister for the Navy announced yesterday that the American shipbuilders would turn out the first ship for Australia by March, presumably ready for business, and the question now is - When are we to i have the first ship built in Australia? What is the use of the Prime Minister spending time in endeavouring to make this or that arrangement? Why not start straightway with the building of ships ? We all know that nothing is so much needed by the Empire and her Allies as tonnage, and there ought to be no further delay. Instead of adjourning for two months, we ought to be engaged in passing measures to assist Australian industries, to rescue those which are now practically dying, and to establish new avenues of employment. It is about time that the Government woke up; and I hope, with the honorable member for Flinders and others, that the recess will not be so long as has been indicated, but that we shall be called together at an early date to discuss the measures outlined this afternoon.

Great and necessary schemes have hitherto been carried on practically under the sole control of the Prime Minister; and, in this connexion, we are entitled to much more information than we have yet received. We have not had a full balancesheet in regard to the purchase of the fleet of fifteen mercantile ships, so that we are in ignorance as to the relation between their cost and their earnings. In the case of all the Commonwealth factories we have annual financial statements, and similar information ought to be afforded in connexion with shipping, with the sugar industry, the Wheat Pool, and other commercial undertakings in which we are interested. Such information is only our due, seeing how much the Commonwealth is doing in financing the schemes; but members of the Commonwealth Legislature are left in ignorance of what is being done, although, as a matter of fact, we are the first who ought to be informed. It is left to the AuditorGeneral to find out and tell us of serious leakages here and there; and it is undeniable that the greatest care ought to bo exercised, because, in the future, every penny will count much more seriously than it has in the past.

Mr Gregory:

– Would the honorable member abolish the baby bonus?

Mr FENTON:

– That is another matter altogether. At present I am merely pointing to the many great undertakings that are being conducted by the Commonwealth, and urging that greater care should be exercised in the future than has been exercised in the past. I do not say that the present is the only Government to blame; but the time has arrived when something should be done, because the disclosures of the Auditor-General are a serious reflection on the various Departments.

I hope that shipbuilding, will go ahead, not only in one or two places, but practically all over Australia. Let us do more and talk less. Honorable members may smile, but so long as I am here as a representative of my constituency, and, I hope, of the people of Australia, I shall raise my voice in the cause of efficiency and vigorous prosecution of necessary works. I hope that this Parliament will meet earlier than the middle of April.

Mr J H Catts:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I regret that tittle-tattle in the House should be made the subject of discussion; but when the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Bamford) mentioned my name as that of one who had possibly intrigued with somebody on the other side, I gave the suggestion the most emphatic denial. I have since been puzzling my mind as to how any idea of the kind could have originated. The honorable member for Fawkner indicated that he knew something about the matter, and I saw him in regard to it. That honorable member assures me that I walked over the chamber, and, across him, said Something to an honorable member in the Government corner. I had no recollection of any such thing, but something has since come into my mind that may clear the position. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) was speaking from that corner at the time, and I should like to be allowed to read a few words from his remarks, which may be found on page 3106 of the current Ilansard. The honorable member said -

The one thing that overshadows everything else, to my mind, is the obtaining of reinforce- ments 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.

It is of no use to close our eyes to the fact, for it is impossible for any man to go into any portion of Australia and notfind that the hostility existing between the Labour organizations and the present occupants of 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.

I remember now that, when the honorable member for Franklin sat down, I walked across to him, and, though I do not remember the exact words, said, in effect, that if there were sufficient men on his side of his way of thinking there could be some business done. It may have been that I did mention the number - fourteen; but I gave an emphatic denial to the suggestion made this afternoon, because I had never calculated how the numbers would show on a division, and I could not understand how I could have mentioned that figure.

Mr Boyd:

– What day was that?

Mr J H Catts:

– On the 17th January, Thursday. It does not matter to me one bit what is said on that side of the House on a matter of this kind; but, in justice to honorable members opposite, it is only fair that I should mention this casual remark - so casual that I had forgotten it - so as not to place the honorable member for Franklin in a false position with his party. I should say that I said nothing else to the honorable member for Franklin, outside the House, either before or after he made the speech. The honorable member had made a speech’ with which I largely agreed, and I really crossed the House on my way out of the chamber to congratulate him, and did then say something of the kind I have indicated.

Mr Mathews:

– That was the day before the trouble.

Mr J H Catts:

– I walked across and said it quite openly, as I was going out of the chamber.

Mr Watt:

– That does not make the matter any better.

Mr J H Catts:

– It does not matter what it makes it. It is only fair to the honorable member for Franklin, who is not present, that I should state what happened.

Mr Boyd:

– That was the thing that was magnified to fit the Friday’s case.

Mr J H Catts:

– The thing has been absolutely magnified and distorted. I heard the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey), who was sitting at the table here, when the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) was speaking, shout across the floor “ Fourteen will do it,” and the honorable member for Henty answered, “Do you see any green in my eye ? “ The interjection of the honorable member ‘ for Bourke was not recorded in Hansard; but I heard him shout the statement, playfully, across the floor. If I did say something of the kind, it was quite a casual remark, and had nothing whatever to do with what some honorable members opposite are pleased to call scheming. I said openly in my speech, and say now-, that if there are sufficient members on the other side prepared to support a new National Ministry on that side, I believe it would be in the best interests of this country if the present Prime Minister was retired from office. There is no question of intrigue or underground engineering about that.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- I was exceedingly pleased to hear the explanation of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts). Had he made it earlier in the debate, a good deal of bitterness might have been prevented. I was the person over whom the honorable member for Cook leant on Thursday, when without any qualification whatever he remarked “Fourteen will do it.” That is the remark I heard. I paid no attention to it at the time, as it had no significance for me, and it was not until I heard of the proposed amendment on the following afternoon that what seemed to be a very innocent casual observation the day before began to assume somewhat significant proportions.

Mr Leckie:

– You are responsible for all this, then?

Mr MAXWELL:

– I am responsible to the extent that I certainly mentioned it. The first thing I noticed was that on the Thursday, the day on which the re- mark was made, nearly every speaker on the Official Labour side pointed out how desirable it was that the present ‘Government should be ousted from office, and another Government from the Nationalist party substituted. That suggestion came practically from every speaker on that side, and on the back of that came this intimation from one of the leading members of the Official Labour party to one of the malcontents on the Nationalist side, “ Fourteen will do it,” which implied that fourteen from this side, plus the number on the other side, would just about do the trick. It was after that that the amendment, about which we have heard so much, was proposed, which amendment, had it been put to the House, would probably have been carried.

Mr Watt:

– Was that on the morning or the afternoon of Thursday?

Mr MAXWELL:

– I do not know. 1 paid so little attention to it, that I only know it was on Thursday. We have been told this afternoon by the honorable member for Cook, that a majority of the members of the House had lost confidence in the present Leader of the Government.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is, judging by the speeches made.

Mr MAXWELL:

– The honorable member could not gather that from the speeches, because the majority of the speakers on this side signified no such loss of confidence in the Prime Minister. It, therefore, looked very significant to me that a leading member of the Opposition should make such a remark which involved a knowledge on his part of the way in which his party’ would act. The vote of his party, acting in conjunction with fourteen on this side, would mean . the defeat of the present Government. I had no idea that this matter would be introduced to-day, but it is as well that it has been, because I am exceedingly pleased to hear from the honorable member for Cook that his remark was a casual one, and that no communication had previously passed between him and any member on this side of the House.

Mr J H Catts:

– Surely the honor*able member does not think that a remark shouted openly across the chamber, that everybody could hear, showed that any scheming was going on.

Mr MAXWELL:

– The remark I heard was not of that character. It would not go beyond the one honorable member, I should think, in the immediate vicinity. The honorable member also knew that I was politically unsophisticated, and that he might safely communicate that little confidence in my hearing.

I am sorry the honorable member for Cook, in frequently making what seem to me to be valuable suggestions, should so often destroy their value by his hesitancies, qualifications, and, at times, exaggerations. The one question on which we are all agreed is the immediate importance of finding sufficient reinforcements for our men at the Front. I do not suppose there would be one dissentient from that proposition on either side. That being so, I agree with the honorable member for Cook that in the future, if the best is to be got out of the voluntary system of rebruiting, we must as a party recognise that conscription in Australia is dead, and ought to be buried. I adopt that position, and think it is quite futile for the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine), who seems to be obsessed with the idea of conscription, to drag it in on every occasion. I am sorry that when we have had such’ an emphatic pronouncement from the people he should persist in the suggestion that it may yet be necessary to bring the question up again. I should think that after two such pronouncements as we have had from the people on the subject, we ought to be satisfied. In the recent campaign I took up this position: I said, “This question has been discussed from every point of view by the people, and whatever may be the result on the 20th December, I am bound as a true Democrat to accept the decision of the people. I intend to accept it, and if in the future I find any attempt being’ made by the Government to bring in conscription by a side wind, it will receive my most uncompromising opposition.” If we are to get the best out of the voluntary system, we must bury Conscription. I have done my utmost on the voluntary platform, and did my utmost on the conscription platform. I recognise that’ conscription has been put out of of the way, and that we must go back to the voluntary principle. It was quite impossible at any time to induce the people to accept conscription unless we made a united appeal to them. Had we been unanimous, or anything like it, in the House on the necessity for conscription, I believe we would have carried it, but as matters stand, it is, and has been, and -will be, absolutely impossible. If we are at one as to the necessity of raising recruits, and are thrown back on the voluntary system, then I say, without any qualification, “Let us make common cause.”

I urge honorable members of the Opposition not to be scared away from the voluntary platforms by the action of the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) in again holding up the bogy of conscription or the possibility of it in the future. Let us come together and make common cause. That is tie suggestion I offer. I intend doing, in my constituency, everything I can to renew interest in recruiting from the voluntary point of view. The way to make the most effectual appeal is for honorable members representing both parties in this House to come before the people and to show them, by such an object lesson, that we are at one on this most important matter.

Let’ the Opposition pair with members of the National party, and go out upon a voluntary campaign, saying to the people, “ We are at daggers drawn on a large number of questions. We are constantly at one another’s throats in regard to all kinds of matters that we deem important; but here is one about which there is no difference of opinion, about which we are agreed. There is no room for any difference of opinion. That being so, with united voice we make our appeal to the manhood of Australis,” if that be done I believe the result will be all that can be desired.

Mr LECKIE:
Indi

– I am glad that the real source of the reported intrigue has at last come to light. We who have suffered some of the blame - who have been called pro-Germans in the newspapers of three” or four capitals - are glad to know now that the story of this intrigue was the result of a chance remark made in front of an honorable member who describes himself as “an unsophisticated politician,” and who did not really understand the force of it. We know now that it was a mere chance rumour.

Mr Watt:

– A chance rumour ! It was definitely confessed by an honorable member.

Mr J H Catts:

– Have a bit of sense !

Mr Watt:

– This honorable member declared that he made one statement whereas the honorable member for Fawk ner Bays that it was another statement he made.

Mr LECKIE:

– The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), who for many years has been charged with the responsibility of convincing juries that circumstantial evidence is not the best on which to convict a man, should remember that circumstantial evidence on this occasion does not necessarily convict honorable members either of intriguing against the Government or of being pro-German.

Mr Maxwell:

– My duty has been quite the opposite ; circumstantial evidence is the best of all evidence.

Mr LECKIE:

– I am afraid that my honorable friend has had a great deal of ‘ success in persuading juries that it is unwise to convict a man merely on circumstantial evidence. There are at large in Australia to-day a number of men who would probably be within prison walls if he had not been able to persuade juries ti i at circumstantial evidence is unreliable.

Mr Maxwell:

– It is the gaps in circumstantial evidence that we condemn.

Mr LECKIE:

– I confess to a feeling of resentment at’ the tone of some of the remarks made in our leading newspapers as to last week’s incident. From the very inception of this war I have been doing my utmost to assist recruiting, and in every way to help on the prosecution of the war. It is, therefore, unfair that at a time like this I should have such terms applied to me. I have said in this House, as well as at the party meetings, that I believe a pledge honorably given by the Government ought to be honorably kent. and I fail to understand why I should be called a pro-German or an intriguer for expressing such an opinion. If the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Bamford) was acting as the mouthpiece of the Government in cracking the party whip over us, I can only say that the way he put the case was rather unfortunate.

Mr Bamford:

– No one knew what my intention was until I rose to speak.

Mr LECKIE:

– I am glad to have that assurance. I hope that the views that have been expressed as to our party being pledged to vote according to the decision of the majority in Caucus are purely per.sonal. If we are expected to vote in the way that the majority of the party decide, I am no longer a member of the party. I am not going to be bound by the decision of the majority of any party. I shall keep my pledges to my constituents. They need have no doubt as to my attitude.

Mr Mathews:

– What does the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Watt) think of that?

Mr Watt:

– I am thinking of Indi.

Mr LECKIE:

– I know that on this occasion Indi is behind me.

Mr Mathews:

– We know of another man who said that, but lost his seat.

Mr LECKIE:

– I care not whether I go out of public life or not because of what I have done in this matter. I repeat that a Government that has given a distinct pledge to the people should keep that pledge, and it will not worry me whether I go out of Parliament or not for giving expression to such a view. If the Minister thinks the people of Indi differ from me in this matter, I am quite prepared to test their feeling.

We are now to adjourn for a couple of months, and in the interim the Government will have time to decide how they will keep their pledge, or a semblance of the pledge they gave the people. Their pledge that they would not continue to govern if conscription were not agreed to will not be kept by merely drifting along and not actually governing the country. Such a course of action would be one way of appearing to keep the pledge that was given, but it would not be satisfactory to the people or the Parliament. The Government must have a definite policy.

I am glad that the Prime Minister put in the very forefront of his speech the question of the importance of securing reinforcements. That duty is one of the greatest placed upon this Parliament, yet it has not been taken over by any one Minister. The responsibility for recruiting has been handed over to a gentleman who is not even a member of this Parliament. The Government are placing in the very forefront of their programme the question of reinforcements, yet they have handed over the direction of recruiting to a gentleman who is not responsible to this Parliament, and has not a seat in the Cabinet. We can well imagine a Cabinet meeting to consider this - the greatest of all their duties - and one Minister saying tothe other, “ How is recruiting get ting on ? “ Not one Minister would be able to answer the question, however, without ringing up Mr. Mackinnon. I have nothing to say against the DirectorGeneral of Recruiting. He has done his work in the most excellent and satisfactory way, and if we were looking for a man to put in the Cabinet to attend to the work of recruiting, he would be one ‘ of the best we could find. The point I wish to make is that since the question of reinforcements is in the forefront of the Government programme, we should have a Minister directly responsible for the work.

Mr Bamford:

– Could any Minister do the work as well as Mr. Mackinnon is doing it?

Mr LECKIE:

– I think so.

Mr Bamford:

– I doubt it.

Mr LECKIE:

– At all events, the Government say theyregard the obtaining of reinforcements as their first duty, yet they leave to some one outside the Government and the Parliament the work of obtaining reinforcements. I admit that the Government have not stinted the Director-General so far as money required for the work is concerned. But many recommendations that have been made to the Minister for Defence by the Director-General of Recruiting, and much of the advice of the different recruiting committees, have been turned down. The man who is directly responsible for the work of recruiting should have a seat in the Cabinet. He should be able to discuss with Ministers the different systems that be wants to resort to in order to increase the supply of recruits. He would thus have avery much better chance of carrying his schemes to a successful issue.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House. Returning to the reported intrigue. I wish only to say that everything said by the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) and the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) as to the proposed amendment is within my own knowledge. My only desire was to give the Government an indication that there was within their own party a considerable body of men who believed that, in the interests of th e party and of the country, they should at least give a semblance of keeping the pledge which was so plainly and unambiguously given to the people.

Mr Bamford:

– By way of personal explanation, I desire to say that if the interjection made a little while ago by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) as to a “ fiscal atheist’” was directed ‘to me, in declaring myself in this House many yearsago to be a fiscal atheist, I also said, “Iama Protectionist, and always have been, but I believe fiscalism is merely an expedient, and not a principle.”

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

.- I wish to make a few observations as’ to the suspicion which certain honorable members of this party have been under for some days. My attitude was mentioned by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) as being in opposition to anything in the nature of an amendment to a motion which I believed to be vital to the Government. The honorable member for Henty, as well as the honorable member for Flinders (Sir William Irvine), the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Leckie), and the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Sampson), all knew my views on this particular subject. I was utterly opposed to the suggestion, and I did all I could to discourage it. I told the gentlemen concerned that it was a wrong step to take. There was nothing secret about the proposed action, so far as I was concerned, because it came to me while I was moving about in the garden. At my party meeting, and in this chamber, on Thursday last, I made a statement practically to this effect: My personal views are that had the Government merely resigned and straightway again resumed office, I could not, and would not, have supported them ; but when the Prime Minister resigned unconditionally, and tendered no advice to the Governor-General - who was thus quite unhampered in his choice of a successor, I felt I could trust His Excellency, in view of his long and distinguished career in the House of Commons, to take all steps that were possible or necessary to insure a stable Government before again sending for Mr. Hughes.

Mr J H Catts:

– That was a very unsophisticated statement to make.

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

– In my opinion, it was quite the constitutional view of the position. That is the attitude I took up on Thursday in this chamber. From that course, I could not be dissuaded, nor, indeed, was any attempt made to dissuade me’. All I want to say now is that I believe that it was wrong on the part of our party managers and Ministers, relying, as they were, upon the loyal support of members of this party in a trying time - and while I do not speak for myself, because it has never been any strain upon me to support my party, I know some honorable members strained their individual positions to stand loyally by the Government - to allow it to be rumoured about, seeming to inspire information for the benefit of the press, that a number of members of this party were associated with the movement. One of our later members, Mr. Maxwell, has limited knowledge of the individual members of this party. It was a mistake, I repeat, to suggest that there were fourteen men in this National party ready to combine and support any movement at the instigation of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts), or some disgruntled member - if there be such - on this side, to overthrow the Government. If it were desired to damage the National forces in this community, I could conceive of no more deliberate way of doing it.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member for Fawkner did not make that suggestion. Mr. RODGERS. - I have never known a case in which responsible Ministers, who were relying upon the united support of their party to carry on, allowed any members of their party to remain under this suspicion. Lists were flying round this House ; lists containing the names of thirteen men - men who, I believe, were quite innocent, and had no thought of doing what was suggested. It is up to the Government and the party managers to take action; and, if they believe any member of this party has been guilty of political corruption, to indict him.

Mr Watt:

– It is not corruption to vote against a Government.

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

– The Minister is now watering down his attitude on this subject.

Mr Watt:

– What does the honorable member mean by corruption?

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

– In my judgment, any member who had promised his adhesion to the National Government would be guilty of political corruption if, on a censure motion, he allowed a suspicion to be engendered that he was con- . cerned in a move to overthrow the Government. If there are such, they should be charged. Ministers are charged with certain obligations with respect to this great National party, and the forces we represent outside. It is part of their responsibility to keep this party intact, and by so doing make it possible for the Government to prosecute the war in a manner desired by the people.

Mr Watt:

– We endeavoured to contribute to the party solidarity by keeping silent, even in the face of speeches such as that made by the honorable member for Indi.

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

– I do not know that anybody has ever had occasion, either in this chamber or out of it, to feel doubt concerning statements that I may have made. I have always been open and candid; and I put it to the Minister that/ the Government were not adopting the wisest course by allowing fourteen men of this party to be under suspicion for days and days, and the constituencies outside to be disturbed.

Mr Watt:

– What does the honorable member suggest we should do?

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

– It is the duty of the Ministers, with the information the party managers have collected, to go into the party room and indict him.

Mr Watt:

– Indict him ! The honorable member should wait till he has been through a few more crises.

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

– I am glad to see the Minister has somewhat watered down his attitude, as disclosed in a recent newspaper interview; because I remember he said then that it was up to some members of the party to express .themselves, and not to remain silent.

Mr Watt:

– So it was, and so it is now.

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

– And that being so, it is up to the Minister, if he believes there is anybody in this party seeking to overthrow the party, to have it out; and, by Jove! if what is charged against them is correct, they would be better out of the party. I did not intend to speak on this matter, and should not have done so but for some of the speeches made here to-day on the subject.

I rose, particularly, to ask the favor-, able consideration by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence of a request on behalf of those racing clubs concerned in a recent Regulation further limiting the number of race meetings per annum. I believe it is necessary that in war time racing should be restricted; but-

I say, also, that this course of action does not produce the results looked for. It is quite right that a large number of people should not be allowed to spend too much of their time during the war in an over-indulgence in racing; but I point out that many country clubs, which have been holding race meetings for forty and -fifty years, are now unable to arrange for the usual meeting because of the Regulation issued recently by the Defence Department. These clubs, moreover, are prepared to devote all the proceeds to patriotic purposes ; and several have done so up to date. Not long ago a conference was held between representatives of the Government and racing authorities, and the result, I understand, has been that seventy-nine race days have been allowed metropolitan clubs, and the balance allotted to country clubs. The object is two-fold - to prevent commercialism in racing, and the too frequent attendance of young men at such gatherings. Both objects are perfectly legitimate, but I point out that the Regulation absolutely cuts out way-back country race meetings which are held only once a year. They have not held these meetings in a spirit of commercialism. They have bred some horses in the district, and the racecourse is their place of meeting. They bring their hampers and fraternize.

Mr Groom:

– Are these unregistered meetings ?

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

– No;. they are the ordinary meetings of country clubs. The Government have cut out those fixtures altogether, and have asked the Victoria Racing Club, as one of the bodies governing this sport, to say where the holding of races would be most likely to promote horse-breeding. How do the Government advance war interests by prohibiting these country meetings? Young men do not hang about a district all the year through because of the races. These engagements do no more than provide the amount of pleasure necessary to distract the minds of the average people from the worry of the war. We approached the State Commandant with a request that he should allot us a day for a meeting. His reply was that the number of race meetings had been fixed, and that he could do nothing in the matter. We went before the Victoria Racing Club, and the reply of that body was that it had been consulted only as to what dates would be best for the holding of the prescribed number of meetings. Now we have been told that we may hold our race meetings, but only on an unregistered course. What difference does it make whether the meeting is held on a registered or an unregistered course if it brings the same people together for the sarner, purpose? To begin with, meetings cannot be held on an unregistered course, because every country course is registered; Secondly, every person who participates in racing on an unregistered course, whether as owner, trainer, jockey, or bookmaker, is disqualified from participating in a registered meeting. ‘ Cannot the authorities see that they are merely throwing dust in the eyes of the country people ?

Mr J H Catts:

– .Surely the present Government would not throw dust in the eyes of anybody

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

– I do not blame Ministers; it is the military authorities who are responsible. I make- an appeal to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to interest himself in this matter at once. It will be of no use his telling me that he can do nothing. The Government can undo what they have done. They can allot more’ days for racing, and, in the interests of decent, clean, country sport, I ask them to review their decision. Many of these clubs have, by means of working bees, made their own race-courses, and the people in the district have bred horses. The holding of country’ races ‘ will not interfere with the war, and will give pleasure to people who have far too little opportunity for recreation. What I should like the Government to do is to place a further limitation on the proprietary racecourses. The men who pocket the profits of racing have been allotted more dates than the big clubs, which,’ on one day, raised over £20,000 for repatriation. I ask the Minister hot to merely pass this matter on for an official investigation and report, but to act at once, otherwise the whole of the country club fixtures for the year will be wiped out.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.- Because of the reports which have been in circulation regarding intrigues against the Government I desire to say a few words in explanation of my position. Owing to somebody having given to the press a report of a meeting of the National party, I have been regarded as one of those who have been trying to cause trouble to Ministers. I knew nothing whatever of the suggested amendment to the no-confidence motion until 3.30 on Friday afternoon last. I condemned the proposal at once, because I took the view that we should adjust . our differences upstairs in the party room and not in this chamber. On the other hand, I was not satisfied in regard to certain things that had happened, and I had made up my mind that I would not vote on the want of confidence motion, I did not vote, but I say candidly that I would have done so if the life of the Government had been in danger. Having regard to the reports which have appeared in the press concerning the war policy of the Labour party, I” could not afford to allow the conduct of the war to be intrusted to honorable members opposite.

Mr Finlayson:

– Does the honorable member judge us by newspaper reports?

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not. From the many conversations I have had with him, the honorable member knows well how desirous I am of bringing all political parties together for the sake of a more effective effort in regard to recruiting. I indorse the remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) in that regard. It is our duty to do all we possibly can to stimulate recruiting, and I would sacrifice almost everything to the one great- aim of getting sufficient reinforcements for our men at the Front. I know members on both sides are strongly desirous that we should put our best foot forward in recruiting and all I desire is’ that we shall do something to bring parties into co-operation in a vigorous recruiting campaign.

Parliament is to be adjourned, and the Government have told, us of the matters that are to be considered between now and the date of our re-assembling. So far as the abandonment of conscription is concerned, I make no promise. The honorable member for Fawkner has asked the Government to give a definite promise that the conscription issue will not be revived during the life of this Parliament. But what is to happen if recruiting again fails? I believe that we lost our opportunity through the wretched promise made by the Prime Minister before the last elections that this Parliament would not endeavour to enforce conscription. From the very commencement of thecontroversy Parliament should have dealt with the matter. I do not believe there is another country in the world, having the same franchise as the Commonwealth that would have polled so creditably as Australia did in the first referendum. ‘ But conscription is an issue which appeals to everything that is selfish and bad in human nature, and should have never been submitted to the people. I ask the Government not to give any promise that conscription will not be proposed in future. What shall we do if again voluntarism proves a failure?

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member has said that voluntarism has failed already.

Mr GREGORY:

– Let us combine and give the system a further chance. I know the honorable member has done good work for recruiting in the past. .

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member for Dampier would not go on the platform with men who are called proGermans and traitors to their country.

Mr GREGORY:

– Since the war commenced I have travelled all through Western Australia with Labour men. For the last election 1 signed the nomination of Mr. Buzacott, although year after year I had fought him on the gold- fields. But I told the people that during the progress of the war all political divisions were ended, although they might be revived after the war had been brought to a successful conclusion. I hope the Government will see if some arrangements cannot be made to bring honorable members opposite into co-operation with members on this side of the House in a joint policy for raising the necessaryreinforcements without conscription.

Mr Mathews:

– My own opinion is that the honorable member’s proposal comes eighteen months too late.

Mr Finlayson:

– Why did not the honorable member make that proposal before the present Government took office!

Mr GREGORY:

– The honorable member knows that I was one of the foremost in advocating the formation of a National Government. However, we do not desire to revive those issues now. The position is serious enough for anything. I hope that the Government, during the little breathing time that will be afforded them by the recess which they need badly - because I hold that we get too much politics and too little administration - will see whether it is not possible to get both parties in Parliament to work together for the purpose of aiding the voluntary system. On the other hand, I trust that they will not give any pledge again, because, if the voluntary system fails, there must be a further appeal to the people. Should the Ministry give another pledge, I will do my best to aid in burying them as soon as possible.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- I have been requested to bring under the notice of the Government a telegram which had been received by the honorable member for South Sydney, who is unavoidably absent. It is therein stated that Messrs. Whiddon Brothers have put off forty hands on account of the shortage of wool. The telegram is signed by Mr. McKenzie, secretary of the textile workers, and I desire to bring it under the notice of the Ministry.

Mr Watt:

– I will have inquiries made into the position to-morrow morning.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 January 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19180125_reps_7_84/>.