House of Representatives
23 May 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



Small Arms- Factory5019

House of Representatives.

Thursday23, May

Mr. Speaker (the Hon-. Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5019

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL TRANSACTIONS

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Honorary Minister (Mr. Greene) be good enough to consult the Minister who controls the Wheat Pool as to the possibility of obtaining for publication acomplete summary of all the transactions of the Pool in the wheat-growing States similar to the account of. the doings of the South Australian Pool, which appears in this morning’s newspapers ?

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

– I shall endeavour to get the information asked for.

page 5019

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Payments to Employees

Mr NICHOLLS:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Department of Defence pay to the employees- of the Small Arms Factory the money due and promised to them, in the shape of a war bonus, and will the men. who came to Melbourne on a deputation be refunded their expenses’, which were promised to them some two months ago ?

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

– I shall submit the matter to the Minister for Defence.

page 5019

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Will the- Acting Prime Minister lay on the table a paper stating, or make a. statement concerning, the contracts which have actually been entered into for the building of ships in Australia?

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

– My colleague who has charge of shipbuilding’ has now in course of preparation a full statement, which, I think, will be sufficiently advanced’ tomorrow to be given to the House then.

page 5019

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Another War Precautions Regulation - Statutory Rule No. 132 - has just been issued. It deals with the censorship, and reads as follows : -

Regulation 28a is. amended as follows : -

  1. By inserting the words “ Regulation 27a or “ before the words “ Regulation 28 “ in the last line, of sub-regulation (1).
  2. By inserting after sub-regulation (1) the following new sub- regulation : - “ (1a,) An order under this regulation addressed to- the editor, the printer, and publisher of a newspaper or- periodical shallbe deemed to have been served on the editor, the printer, and the publisher of the newspaper or periodical if served on any. one of them..”

Is this one of the ways in which the Government is loosening the censorship? Is not the censorship being tightened by this alteration ? The Prime Minister stated at the Governor-General’s Conference that the arrangements decided on at the Press Conference concerning the censorship would begiven effect, and that if they did not go far enough he would meet us in other ways. Is this regulation an honouring of the compact? It is dated the 15th May, and the GovernorGeneral’s Conference finished about the 19th April.

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The regulation seems not. to affect the matter which the honorable member has in mind, namely, what censorship regulations under the War Precautions Actshould stand. This regulation is merely an alteration of practice in regard to proofofservice. It merely says that instead of it being necessary to serve a notice on three persons connected with a printing office, service on any one of them will be effective.

Mr Tudor:

– Will the honorable gentleman see that the regulation is loosened a little?

Mr WATT:

– My honorable friend knows that at his request the loosening of the War Precautions Regulations generally is under the consideration of the Acting Attorney-General and myself. He had a considerable length of time in which to frame his list of suggestions, but I have not had half an hour since that list was received to give attention to it. However, the Acting Attorney-General is looking into the matter, and we shall let the House know as soon as possible the result of our investigation.

page 5020

QUESTION

SHIPS PURCHASED IN AMERICA

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister in charge of shipbuilding furnish a return as to the ships which have been purchased in- America, their classification, and the amount paid for each ?

Mr POYNTON:
Honorary Minister · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I shall endeavour to do so.

page 5020

QUESTION

WAR AIMS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– Yesterday, in reply to a question, the Acting Prime Minister said that he considered the retention of certain islands in the Pacific vital to the

Bafety of Australia. Evidently the retention of this territory is one of the war aims of the Government. Will the honorable gentleman give the House and the people a statement of the full war aims of his Government, so that we may know where we stand?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The views of the Government in this matter remain unchanged. They have been expressed on several occasions by the Prime Minister. Should the House desire their restatement before the close of our sittings, I shall give it; but the honorable gentleman cannot plead ignorance of our views on this or any other point connected with the war.

page 5020

QUESTION

VISIT OF AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS TO BRITAIN

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) make a statement to the House concerning the information given in the press on Monday last, to the effect that twelve Australian journalists were being invited by the British. Government to visit Britain; and can he say whether any intimation has been received from the British Government in connexion with the matter?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– A question to the same effect is being asked, on notice, in the Senate to-day; but, for the information of this House, I may say that a cablegram has been received during this week, intimating the deBire of the British Government that twelve owners or editors of newspapers should visit Britain at the request of the recently established British Ministry of Information. The Government are now considering the best means of giving effect to that request. It is, apparently, the wish of the British Government that the visit should be made at an early date.

page 5020

QUESTION

REPATRIATION SCHEME

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Government consider the advisableness of arranging for the Minister for Repatriation to explain in this House thescheme with which he is associated?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I do not know of any constitutional means by which the honorable member’s suggestion could be given effect to, but I will consult my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation, andsee whether a’dditional matter may not be placed before the House, framed by himself as author of the scheme and chief administrator of it.

page 5020

QUESTION

LEGISLATION DURING PRIME MINISTER’S ABSENCE

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is there any understanding, expressed or implied, between the Acting Prime Minister and his colleagues on the one hand, and the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Navy on the other hand, that no legislation will be effected in regard to industrial matters or the Tariff during the absence of our representatives at the Imperial Conference ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– No such understanding exists.

page 5021

QUESTION

WHEAT SILOS

Mr PIGOTT:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Acting Prime Minister say when the wheat silos which are in course of erection will be completed, and whether they will be in readiness for the use of farmers during the coming harvest?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I am not able to give the honorable member the information he requires. If he will place his question on the notice-paper, I will see that my colleague who is charged with the duty of co-operating with the State Governments in regard to this matter will have the information available next week.

page 5021

QUESTION

RE-REGISTRATION OF UNIONS

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Acting Prime Minister any further information with regard to the matter of the re-registration of unions, concerning which he was asked a question by me yesterday ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I have no further information to give to the honorable member.

page 5021

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’ S CONFERENCE

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Is the fulfilment of the conditions embodied in the resolution adopted at the Conference convened by the Governor-General optional, or is it enjoined on all parties to that Conference that they shall be carried out ? Further, are the concessions to be made by the Federal Government to be carried out irrespective of whether or not the conditions all round are fulfilled honorably by the parties to the Conference?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– If the honorable member will read the report of the deliberations of the Conference, he will see that therewas no bargain struck between the parties represented there. I was not a member ofthe Conference, but, as I read the report, I gather that the procedure adopted was as follows : - Objections were lodged by those who may be regarded as representatives of the Official Labour party at the Conference to certain practices and regulations which they claimed to be hindrances to recruiting. The representatives of the Government, headed by the Prime Minister, considered those representations and gave their answers, showing what the Government were prepared to do. There was a great desire on the part of the Government to conclude the Conference with an amiable contract, but that was not secured. In the mean time, Ministers, in the utmost good faith, are going on with their part of the bargain, and they propose to appeal to those who are responsible for the movement which is represented by honorable members opposite to fulfil in the same good spirit their undertakings or obligations, moral or otherwise.

page 5021

QUESTION

DISTRESS IN NEWCASTLE DISTRICT

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the sudden distress that has been brought about in the district of Newcastle owing to the cutting off of vessels and the consequent slackness of work in the coal mines and on the water side, will the Government take into consideration the advisability of giving some sort of relief to those who have been thrown out of work by commencing essential Commonwealth public works, as has been done on similar occasions ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I think that noticemight be given of the question, but at this stage I may say that I know nothing of the distress mentioned by the honorable member. At the present time, the Minister in charge of shipbuilding is dealing with a proposition regarding the coaf trade ; and, if his scheme is accomplished, it will mean a more regular distribution of work in given collieries. I hope that this may be achieved as a result of the conferences that are to follow shortly.

Mr Watkins:

– There will still be a shortage of employment on the water frontage amongst those who are not working in the collieries.

Mr WATT:

– If the honorable member will supply me with the particulars, I will consult with the Minister for Works and Railways, and see how far that unemployment may be relieved.

page 5021

QUESTION

WOOL CLIP

Mr PIGOTT:

– Has any arrangement been made to purch.nse the ensuing wool clip?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– No arrangement has been made so far.

page 5021

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOD FOR AEROPLANES

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Assistant Minister for Defence.

Mr Richard Foster:

– About the Tariff?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! It is not only desirable, but very essential, that I should hear questions which are submitted without notice; but it is impossible for me to hear some owing to audible conversations and interchanges across the chamber. There is also growing up among honorable members generally a habit of interjecting a reply as soon as an honorable member rises to ask a question of a Minister. I ask honorable members to cease this practice, and allow proceedings to be conducted in a manner which is more in accord with the dignity of the House and the rules which govern its procedure.

Mr FENTON:

– Owing to the proved suitability of Australian timber, will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence see that an endeavour is made to use Australian woods in the manufacture of aeroplanes?

Mr WISE:
NAT

– I will submit the matter to the Minister for Defence.

page 5022

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ CABLEGRAMS

Delayed Delivery

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– In the absence of the Postmaster-General, I wish to ask the Assistant Minister for Defence whether it is not possible to do something to prevent the very unsatisfactory delay in the delivery of soldiers’ cables? I have one case where a cablegram left london on 22nd March, and arrived at Nanango, Queensland, in my electorate, on the 11th May, and a letter confirming despatch of the cable reached its destination the same day. I have had several cases of this kind brought under my notice, in one of which it took nearly three months to transmit a cable to the Commonwealth Bank, London, authorizing payment of £30 to a wounded soldier.

Mr WISE:
NAT

– On a recent occasion I answered a similar question, to the effect that the Defence Department has no control over the sending of cables. That rests with the cable companies, who explain that the delays are due to pressure of business. I shall, however, undertake to see what can be done in the way of expediting cablegrams to and from soldiers.

page 5022

QUESTION

ANNEXATION OF FIJI

Policy of the Government.

Mr J H CATTS:

– In view of the fact that a statement has appeared in the press to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Cook), after their arrival at Suva on the 5th May, were making inquiries among the residents as to the feeling there regarding the annexation of Fiji by Australia, I should like to know whether it is part of the war policy of the Government that there should be a kind of Imperial domain, or greater Australia, in the Pacific? Has the matter been considered by the Cabinet, and, if so, does it form part of the business of the delegation to London ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I know nothing of the rumour to which the honorable member refers. The matter of Australia’s relations with Fiji has not been considered by the Government.

page 5022

QUESTION

TAXABLE INCOME OF AUSTRALIA

Press Comment

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– An article appeared in yesterday’s Argus commenting very trenchantly on a statement by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) with regard to the taxable income of Australia. I should like to know whether the honorable gentleman proposes to make a statement, either reconciling his remarks with those comments, or correcting his own figures, so as to relieve the public from a great misapprehension as to the percentage of income which has been contributing to the war expenditure?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I do not propose to make such a statement. If Ministers generally were to reply to every newspaper comment upon their utterances they would have very little time for anything else. The article I read with my customary haste, and I know that the writer was guessing with regard to certain statements I had made, and, in order to furnish pabulum for the article, had guessed wrongly. I have no occasion to reconcile either of the statements, because they are not mutually conflicting.

page 5022

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Dismissal of Married Men

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Has the Acting Prime Minister considered that the dismissal of temporary employees from the Defence Department, who are married men, and nevertheless eligible for active service abroad, to make room for single men, whether returned soldiers or others, is consistent with his policy of opposition to economic conscription?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I know nothing of the practice in the Defence Department to which the honorable member refers. I should like notice of the question, so that I may make inquiries.

page 5023

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF SPINNING YARN

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– Has any decision been arrived at with regard to the more equitable allotment of spinning yarn arriving in Australia, and the supply to the various patriotic organizations at cost price of the wool necessary for their work?

Mr JENSEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BASS, TASMANIA · NAT

– I hardly think that question comes within my Department, tut I shall endeavour to ascertain the information for the honorable member.

page 5023

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Erection of Cottages

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Works and Railways aware that a number of persons think there is an adroit movement to be made presently to move the Seat of Government from Melbourne to Canberra? Does the honorable gentleman know that that idea has been created by the fact that a village of cottages is being built at Canberra, and that people are speculating what these are intended for? Will he explain why these cottages are being erected?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– There is a question on the notice-paper referring to the matter.

page 5023

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATIONS

Mr BRENNAN:

– About three weeks ago I asked the Assistant Minister for Defence a question relating to Public Service examinations.Seeing that the question involves the honour of a member of this House, as well as the purity of the examination system, will the honorable gentleman, without further delay, supply an answer?

Mr WISE:
NAT

– Inquiries are being made, and I told the honorable member yesterday that I thought I would be in a position to give a reply to-day. I shall obtain the information as quickly as possible.

page 5023

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS

Mr FENTON:

– Is the Acting AttorneyGeneral in a position to inform the House what action his Department is taking to deal with landlords who are raising the rents of dependants of soldiers and also evicting them from houses ?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– This question was raised by the honorable member yesterday, when he cited specific cases, and, as I promised, I am having inquiries made.

page 5023

QUESTION

CONDEMNED TEA : ALLEGED RELEASE

Mr JENSEN:
NAT

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) yesterday asked a question in reference to the alleged re.lease of some condemned tea. The facts are as follow : -

A consignment of 250 chests of tea from Hong Kong, which arrived in November, 1916, was found upon examination not to comply with the standard prescribed by the Customs regulations, in that it was deficient in aqueous extract. The goods were accordingly seized as forfeited. On 6th December, 1916, a request was made for permission to re-export the tea to Russia. As this particular shipment appeared to be deserving of somewhat more lenient treatment than some of the previousshipments dealt with by the Department, and also in view of the extreme desirability of avoiding economic waste, the ComptrollerGeneral, on 7th March, 1917, decided to permit . the re-shipment of the tea to Russia. At a later stage permission was given for exportation to the United States of America, it having been shown that tea of similar quality had been admitted into that country as being of the standard required. Shipment was effected in February, 1918. The delay in exporting the goods was due to inability to obtain space on vessels.

page 5023

QUESTION

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS FOR SOLDIERS

Mr WISE:
NAT

– On Wednesday last the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) asked: -

Are the Ministry aware that the Defence Department are discharging members of the Australian Imperial Force who have lost their limbs at the Front before the men have been fittedwith artificial limbs? That is not the practice in England. There, men are not discharged until they are supplied with artificial limbs. Will the Government undertake to see that no man who requires an artificial limb is discharged from the Australian Imperial Force until he has been fitted with one?

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

In some instances men who have lost a limb nre discharged from the service before they have been fitted with an artificial replacement.

In all cases returned wounded men are discharged not later than six months from date of arrival from overseas, when they are placed on pension ‘if necessary. All amputation cases are placed on pension. The provision of an artificial limb is made as soon as the amputation stump is ready to receive it and the limb can be provided. It is not proposed to extend the period of six months referred to above, the adopted procedure having been found to work well in practice. Further, I am advised that renewals and repairs are provided by the Repatriation Department, which utilizes the services of private limb makers until such time as the Commonwealth Limb Factory is in a position to supply all requirements with reasonable promptness.

Directly a man is discharged, whether he has been fitted with a limb or not, he is entitledto the benefits of the Repatriation Scheme, which provides sustenance until the applicant has been given reasonable facilities for re-establishment.

page 5024

QUESTION

LITHGOW SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Housing of Employees

Mr NICHOLLS:

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government will submit the matter of housing the employees at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory to the Public “Works Committee before the House adjourns?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– It is the intention of the Minister for Works to propose such a reference.

page 5024

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Racing, 1918-19- Cabinet Decisions as. to Regulation of.

Ordered to be printed.

The War-

Report onthe Transport of British Prisoners of War to Germany - AugustDecember, 1914. (Paper presented to the British Parliament.)

page 5024

QUESTION

LAND RESUMPTION AT LEICHHARDT

Mr WEST:
for Mr. Mahony

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Have any arrangements been made by the Commonwealth with the Government of the State of New South Wales for the resumption of certain lands and buildings known as “Killoween” and “Broughton Hall,” in Leichhardt, Sydney? 2.If so, will the Minister give the House full details of the arrangements made?
Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The State Government of New South Wales is at present negotiating for the purchase of these two properties, originally estimated to cost £18,000.They will be utilizedby the De fence Department for special medical cases until after the war, consequently the Defence Department has agreed to advance the purchase money to the State, which will be refunded by the State when the properties are no longer required by the Defence Department.

page 5024

QUESTION

NAVY DEPARTMENT

Appointment of Mr. Latham:

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that whilst Mr. Latham was in the employ of the Navy Department he continued to receive remuneration from the practice of his profession?
  2. Did he continue to lecture on the Law of Contracts to law students at a remuneration of £200 per year?
  3. Was it the practice of Mr. Latham to accept one-third of the fees received by other barristers under a system whereby a solicitor delivered to a barrister, say Mr. A.B., a brief marked “ Mr. A.B. for Mr. Latham, 15 guineas,” and Mr. A.B. would have to appear in the case and hand over one-third of the fee to Mr. Latham ?
  4. If Mr. Latham enlisted to fight, why did he not go to the Front?
Mr POYNTON:
NAT

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

  1. No. At considerable financial sacrifice, Mr. Latham ceased practice at the Bar when he joined the Navy Department.
  2. Yes.
  3. No such arrangement is known to the Department.
  4. He was withheld from going to the Front because the Navy Department urgently asked for his services for war work.

page 5024

QUESTION

BADGE’S FOR SEAMEN

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Commonwealth Government have issued special badges to be worn by disabled merchant seamen?
  2. Have any badges been issued to seamen disabled as the result of the Commonwealth steam-ships Australdale and Australbush?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. No.
  2. No.

page 5024

COAL MINING INDUSTRY

Payments to Mr. C. A. Willis

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

asked the

Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What was the total amount paid by the Commonwealth during 1917 to Mr. C. A. Willis, secretary of the Coal Employees Federation?
  2. For what services were the payments made?
Mr WATT:
NAT

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

  1. £192 3s.6d.
  2. Fees and travelling expenses as assessor in connexion with compulsory conferences on coal mining industry.

page 5025

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND CYCLONE

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Acting Prime

Minister,upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the people of theMalay States have subscribed a sum of one hundred and twenty-eight thousand pounds (£128,000) for the relief of those who suffered by the recent floods and cyclone in Central and Northern Queensland?
  2. If so, is this money to be placed to the credit of the Commonwealth Government for distribution ?
  3. Will the Acting Prime Minister be good enough to arrange that those residents of Rockhampton District, who have suffered, and are still suffering, through the devastation caused by recent floods; get their fair share of the relief fund?
Mr WATT:
NAT

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

  1. No. The High Commissioner in London advises that the British Minister at Bangkok states there is no foundation for the report, the alleged fund having been apparentlyconfused by a section of the press with an amount collected for the relief of the sufferers from floods in Siam. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

page 5025

QUESTION

SUPPLICATION FOR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS

Prayer in Parliament.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will consider the advisableness of adding to the prayer used at the opening of the sittings of the House a supplication for the soldiers and sailors engaged in the war?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The suggestion will receive consideration.

page 5025

QUESTION

WOMEN’S VOLUNTEER CORPS

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps, Sydney, have been asked to accept duty at the new Concentration Camp being constructed at Canberra?
  2. If so, what duties are women required for at such Camp?
  3. If he is not fully informed re above, will he make inquiries and inform the House of the result?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The Department has no information on this subject.

  1. Inquiries are being made into the matter.

page 5025

QUESTION

INTERNMENT OF ENEMY ALIENS

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many internees are to be provided for at the new Internment Camp at Canberra?
  2. What is the estimated cost of such Camp?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– The information for which the honorable member asks is confidential, but will be supplied to the honorable member privately.

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he make a full statement regarding Germans or other aliens being brought to this country for internment?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– No statement can be made for publication at this juncture.

page 5025

QUESTION

WHEAT POOLS

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Assistant

Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. How many bushels of wheat were pooled in the 1915-16, 1916-17, and 1917-18 pools respectively?
  2. What amount has been paid per bushel for the years mentioned up to 30th April, 1918?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

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

page 5026

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Assistant

Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What is the estimated quantity ofbags required for Australia in 1918-19?
  2. What is the quantity for each State?
  3. Is it a fact that certain firms having credits in India for the purpose of purchasing bags, or who purchased bags in previous years, are to be allowed certain sums on the bags imported for 1918-19?
  4. What are the names of the firms in question ?
  5. What service are they rendering for such payment ?
  6. What is the amount of such payment?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

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

  1. 200,000 bales. “2. Victoria, 65,000 bales; New South Wales, 50,000 bales; South Australia, 57,000 bales; Western Australia, 23,000 bales; Queensland, 3.500 bales; Tasmania, 1.500 bales.
  2. No. 4, 5, and 6. See answer to No. 3.
Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What charge or allowance is to be made by distributors of bags imported by the Government for 1918-19 and added to the selling price?
  2. Is it a fact that John Bridge and Company, Sydney, are willing to undertake the distribution in New South Wales for 2d. per dozen ?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

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

  1. This matter is at present under consideration.
  2. Not that I am aware of. The Government’s intention is to distribute the bags as widely as possible through the usual trade channels.

page 5026

IMPORTATION OF MOTOR CARS

Mr.TUDOR asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will the Minister please furnish a return giving particulars of complete motor cars and chassis of the following makes imported into Australia since the date of the order prohibiting their importation: - Ford, Maxwell, Buick, Chevelot, Studebaker, and Overland?

Mr JENSEN:
NAT

– The information desired cannot be supplied, because no record is kept of the individual makes imported.

page 5026

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP OF LABORCALL

Mr TUDOR:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Labor Call was passed by the censor at 4.45 p.m. on the 15th May, 1918?
  2. If so, notwithstanding that it is alleged that these papers were posted at the Spencerstreet Bulk Docket Office at 5.15 p.m. that day (15th May, 1918), is it a fact that they were not delivered to the news agents until 17th May, 1918?
  3. Is it a fact that, although the censor passed the paper on the 15th May, 1918, heagain held it up in the Post Office on the 16th May, 1918, or was the delay due to the fact that the censor had neglected to advise the postal authorities thathe had passed it?
  4. If so, as such delays mean a considerable loss of subscribers and excessive returns of papers, also the nullifying of important advertisement notices and a monetary loss, will the Minister take such steps to prevent a similar delay in future?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The censorship authorities are unable to say.
  3. No. The mail censor, after passing the paper, at once advised the postal authorities, between 4 and 5 p.m. on the 15th May, 1918, that the paper had been passed and could be sent through the post.
  4. There was no delay by the censorship authorities.

page 5026

QUESTION

WHEAT FINANCE

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Where is the £4,750,000 to be paid towheatgrowers coming from - is it being imported from oversea?
  2. If it is not being imported, what institution or authority has created it, if it has been created ?
  3. Is such money being provided by financial institutions in Australia?
  4. If so, what are the institutions, and what are the amounts?
  5. Have such institutions any reserves of Commonwealth Bank notes in their possession; if so, what was the face value of such notes on the last known dates?
  6. Will the Minister name the institutions referred to, giving the face value of notes held and the dates of such holdings?
  7. Has it been necessary to ask the institutions referred to in previous paragraphs (3) and (4) to make available the £4,750,000?
  8. Was a meeting of such institutions held to decide the matter; if so, give the date and place of meeting?
  9. Did the Commonwealth Government make its request to such institutions verbally or in writing; if so, will it give the text of such verbal request or communication?
  10. What amount is being paid to such institutions for their services?.
Mr WATT:
NAT

– Much of the information sought would take a considerable time to compile, and would have little bearing on the problem of wheat finance. The provision of the sum named was arranged by my predecessor as a part of the agreement made between the Commonwealth Treasury and the banks of Australia in relation to the financing of the primary products for the current year, estimated to total £76,000,000.

page 5027

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 3)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd May (vide page4976), on motion by Mr. Watt -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Tudor had moved -

That after the word “ That “ the words “ this House condemns the action of the Government in enlisting for service abroad youths of eighteen years, who have not obtained the consent of their parents,” be inserted.

Mr NICHOLLS:
Macquarie

.- I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor), with the sentiments expressed by whom I am entirely in accord. The honorable gentleman has taken this course, not with the object of holding up the Government to public ridicule, but to protect the young male population of Australia. After the amendment had been discussed for some time, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) announced that the whole question was to be considered at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning. It is singular that the Government should not have made that announcement until the last moment. Honorable members opposite assert that they are opposed to any system that would enable the child population of Australia to break away from parental control, but they plead that they cannot support this amendment since its adoption would prevent the Government from raising the loan of £80.000,000 to be authorized by the Bill. There is no justification for that plea. The amendment could be carried without interfering in the least with the desire of the Government to pass this War Loan Bill. I am confident that if any honorable member opposite had a boy of eighteen who desired to enlist, he would not allow him to do so at that age, nor would he compel him to enlist against his will. I do not know whether the Government intend to propose any modification of the system under which it is no longer necessary for youths between eighteen and twenty-one years, of age to obtain the consent of their parents to their enlistment; but we shall not be satisfied with anything less than its complete withdrawal. It would be far less harmful to the community to permit men over fifty years to enlist than it is to allowthese lads to go to the Front without their parents’ consent. A youth of eighteen or nineteen years of age is. physically unfit to bear the strain of active service. He is not sufficiently developed to be able successfully to undergo the hardships associated with actual warfare. If we have reached a stage when Great Britain and its Allies are dependent upon the child population of Australia to pull them out of the mire, then it is nearly time that some one in authority cried, “ Stop the war.”

One aspect of this question which must not be overlooked is the fact that there is a very serious possibility of these lads not being able to bear the strain of hospital treatment. Should any of them be seriously injured or wounded, there is every reason to believe that many of them would not be sufficiently developed - would not have the heart - to carry them through a severe operation. That, in itself, is another serious objection to the Government’s proposal. No one can object to youths of eighteen or nineteen being allowed to enlist with the consent of their parents ; but when it is proposed that they shall be free, to enlist without such consent the position is altogether different. Many boys of eighteen would be glad to break away from the control of their parents, and to enlist under any condition. At no time in life is a youth more in need of the advice and guidance of his parents than when he is between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, and if our lads be free from all parental restraint in this regard, there is a possibility of their being led into the greatest of temptations. I do not say that will happen in every case, but in many instances it will, and the training which their parents have given them will be thrown to the winds.

After the war had been going on for two years, Germany found it necessary to call up lads of eighteen, and to that action the people of our Empire took very serious exception. It was said that Germany was murdering its young population by putting such boys in the firing line. But while we condemned as brutal this action on their part, we are now proposing to do the same thing. Parents will not be content to allow their boys to be enticed away by any military inducement, and they will seek the first opportunity of giving practical expression to their views. I have heard of cases where mothers are sore afraid that this decision on the part of the Government will lead to their boys of eighteen disregarding parental control. It is, to say the least, remarkable that this, of all Governments, should have come to the conclusion that, while a lad of eighteen is not sufficiently developed to be intrusted with the franchise, he is well enough developed to shoulder a rifle, and to protect those who are far more capable of fighting than he is. If lads are permitted to enlist at the age of eighteen, they will break down in the firing line. They maystand the strain of training and transport, but they cannot stand the strain of actual warfare, because their hearts are not sufficiently developed, and their physique is not good enough.

Mr Gregory:

– I know boys of eighteen who have hearts good enough.

Mr NICHOLLS:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My views on this matter are as likely to be right as those of honorable members opposite, who are painfully anxious to clear Australia of its manhood.

Mr Gregory:

– A lot of those who are here would be better out of the country. They are not worthy to stay in it.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– Honorable membersopposite do not say much for the rising generation of Australia when they say that the country would be better without them. That is why they are anxious to see lads of eighteen put into the firing line - led to the slaughter-house unconditionally.

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

– I ask the honorable member not to address himself to the House in terms reflecting on other honorable members. It is against the rules of debate to do so, and his sense of what is right and proper will show him that he should not do it.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– I am sorry for the expression, but honorable members keep interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have several times called on the House to keep silence, and do not wish to resort to other measures, but if honorable members will not obey the Chair I shall have to put the Standing Orders in force to secure order.

Mr Considine:
Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member interrupts again I shall be under the painful necessity of asking the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) to take a certain course of action. It is highly disorderly to interrupt the Speaker.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– I wish to deal with this matter without bias. I do not say that no one should leave Australia to fight for the British Empire. I have never attempted to prevent any person from enlisting, and, under the voluntary system, I would give encouragement to any one who deemed it his duty to go. But I would not encourage a lad of eighteen to enlist, and I take the gravest exception to the offering of inducements to such lads to leave their homes to go to the war. The position of parents should receive the gravest consideration. Many parents have got their eldest sons at the war, and they do not wish to lose their whole family by sending away the lads of eighteen or nineteen years of age still at home. When all the sons have gone, the happiness of a home vanishes, and the pleasure of the parents in their home life disappears. Recruiting has been very successful during the past two or three weeks, for which we must give credit to the strenuous efforts of the Minister for Recruiting.

Mr Charlton:

– And of Captain Carmichael.

Mr Blakeley:

– And of Mr. Mackinnon.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– Yes. If, however, we continue to offer inducements to youths of eighteen, the number of volunteers will decrease, because parents will be embittered against the recruiting movement. At the present time there is a scarcity of agricultural labour in the. country, and lads who are not capable of shouldering a rifle can take the place of absent agricultural workers. We cannot afford to dispense with the services of all who are accustomed to farm life. Then, again, there are scores of lads of eighteen who are apprentices, their parents having incurred considerable expense in giving them the opportunity to learn a trade. If they are enticed from the factory Or workshop before they have served their articles, the money of the parents will have been spent in vain. Under the present arrangements, however, lads of. eighteen can leave their workshops, and go straight to the recruiting officer. They know that if they do so their fathers can say nothing to them. In many cases when lads of eighteen or twenty have been wounded they have died of a broken heart, crying for their parents. I do not say that all of them would do that, because the average Australian does not cry for anything, but there are lighthearted lads who, finding that they have left the shores of Australia and the parental home, practically die of a broken heart. Many of these lads have never been away from home in their lives before, and the new life which they are called on to lead is wholly strange to them, and they cannot stand the strain of it. Nothing has been said to show that the enlistment of lads between the ages of eighteen and nineteen will serve the interests of the Empire. Indeed, the Empire would be better without them as soldiers. The figures show that during the past two or three weeks the recruits offering have been numerous enough to make it unnecessary to take lads under the age of twenty-one years. The Government might, perhaps, take lads into camp and keep them there until they became twenty-one years of age, if they wished to become soldiers^ but even in a camp a boy is away from parental control, and cannot benefit by the advice of his parents, and it is to lads of eighteen and nineteen years of age that parental control and advice are most valuable. At that period lads are mostly easily led into temptation. A young man of twenty-one or twenty-two is not so easily taken into bad company. It is a deplorable thing that boys should be asked to shoulder a rifle while robust men remain behind.

Mr Richard Foster:

– That is the best thing that you have said.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– There are few men in this House who are not better able than lads of eighteen to shoulder a rifle. One or two of them may have reached the time of senile decay, but most of them are fitter than lads of eighteen. Yet they sit back and offer inducements to lads of eighteen to enlist. The man of fifty or fifty-five, and even the man of sixty, is better able to fight than the lad of eighteen. The older man goes on a platform and says, “I would to God that I were only twenty-one years of age,” but in his heart he is glad that he is over fifty. That has been the attitude of honorable members opposite since the beginning of the war.

Sir Robert Best:

– What is the honorable member’s attitude?

Mr Richard Foster:

– Not to go.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– Quite right, and many honorable members opposite are in the same boat, although they are loud in their talk about the need for recruits. They have given no valid reason for not enlisting, but when a person on this side whose responsibilities are as great as theirs does not go, he is termed a disloyalist.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Who has said that?

Mr NICHOLLS:

– You have said it all through. Honorable members opposite are beginning to recognise that they made a mistake when they called us disloyalists and pro-Germans.

Mr Jowett:

– They do not do that.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– They have done it, and they are doing it to-day. At the same time they are asking us to assist recruiting to the fullest possible extent. Honorable members on this side of the House have done considerably more in many instances than honorable members opposite in the matter of recruiting. We have never shirked our responsibility in regard to the war. We are just as anxious to see Great Britain come out of the war victorious, and to see the war brought to a speedy and most effective settlement, as are honorable members opposite. We have done everything possible to advance the interests of Great Britain, but we will not suffer any indignity or injustice to be cast upon the parents of Australian youths, nor, if it can be avoided, will we permit those youths to be offered inducements to break away from their parental control. When this amendment is put to the vote honorable members opposite will say, “ We cannot vote for it, because we need the £80,000,000;” but there is nothing in the world to stop them getting the money. There is not one honorable member on the Government side of the House who would consent to his own child enlisting at eighteen years of age.

Mr Jowett:

– Do not say that.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– There is not one reasonable-minded man who would do so.

Mr Jowett:

– Not one of us would refuse our consent.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– If the honorable member would be desirous of consenting to his son’s enlisting at eighteen years of age, at any rate there are 199 men who would not do so, knowing that children cannot stand the physical strain that is placed upon the members of our Forces overseas.

Mr Jowett:

– I have a nephew who will not be eighteen years of age until August next, and he is trying his best to enlist.

Mr Gregory:

– My son went away at eighteen years of age.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– That is all right; but there are not too many parents who would give their consent to their sons enlisting at eighteen years of age. Is there one honorable member opposite who would compel his son to enlist at eighteen years of age?

Mr Jowett:

– Of course not.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– Then if honorable members will not compel their sous to enlist at eighteen years of age, why should they offer an inducement to children to enlist at that age? They know very well that these children cannot successfully carry out the work that they would have to perform. If one man’s child has enlisted at eighteen years of age - and unfortunately many have paid the supreme sacrifice - it is not a sufficient guarantee that the child of another parent should enlist at that age. If it is a good proposition to enlist these lads, why did Sir William Irvine make the astounding statement that under no circumstances would he permit a child under the age of twentyone years to go into camp for the purpose of training or enlisting for service overseas. Honorable members know wellthat the people of Australia will not tolerate an iniquitous regulation which will permit children to break away from their homes at the age of eighteen years, and I cannot understand why the Government have even attempted to introduce it. Possibly they had a certain motive for their action, but they must see now that the regulation is not acceptable to the people, and I sincerely hope that they will withdraw it in the very near future. If they do not do so there will be serious trouble. I do not know what form that trouble will take.

Mr Jowett:

– It is not a threat, is it?

Mr NICHOLLS:

– No; but there will be serious trouble. If I had a son eighteen years of age, I would not allow him to enlist, no matter what the conditions of the war might be.

Mr Pigott:

– Would you allow him to enlist at twenty-one years of age?

Mr NICHOLLS:

– He could please himself then.

Mr Pigott:

– Would the honorable member use his influence against his son enlisting before he. reached the age of twenty-oneyears ?

Mr NICHOLLS:

– I would. If he were twenty-one years of age, I would assist him if he desired to do so; but I would prevent him from enlisting before he ‘reached that age, and I would deem it a most iniquitous law that would permit him to do it, despite my attempt to prevent him. I protest against the introduction of any system that will deprive parents of rights which they have enjoyed since the establishment of a White Australia. Never previously in the history of this country have the people been confronted with such an iniquitous regulation. Parents have always held’ it as a sacred right that they can advise their children until they attain the age of twenty-one years. They have always been responsible for the actions of their children who are not twenty-one years of age, but now we find that their responsibility is wiped out of existence, and the moment a child reaches the age of eighteen years he is to become his own master, and do as he likes. No matter what advice his parents may tender to him, he can refuse to obey their will and their wishes. A child of eighteen years of age may take exception to certain advice tendered to him by his parents, and. although at the time he may not have had the slightest intention of enlisting, he can now turn round, and say to the parents, “ I do not want your advice. I will enlist, and go off to the military camp, and you will no longer be my bosses.” If this regulation continues in force, there will be disruption from one end of Australia tothe other, and recruiting will not continue to flourish as it is now doing. Possibly the interest displayed by the people of Australia in regard to the war will diminish to some extent. I hope that such will not be the case, but those parents whose sons will enlist without their consent must display hostility towards the rules and regulations laid down by the Defence Department. I hope that the amendment willbe carried.

Mr WATT:
Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

– May I, toy leave, claim the attention of theHouse for a few moments. (Leave granted.’)

I am under theunfortunate necessity of having to ask for leave to speak because late last night, in order to avoid a misconception of what would occur to-day, I felt obliged to make a brief statement, and I intimated to the House, with its full concurrence, that as soon as the Cabinet had finished its deliberations on this matter I would make a full statement concerning it to-day. I wish to do this before the debate proceeds further.

Before dealing with the matter which has been more particularly occupying our attention, I wish to wipe away two mutually conflicting arguments that have been used by honorable members opposite, doubtless in the best faith. I refer to them particularly because of the closing utterances of the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Nicholls). On several occasions lately, we have been told that, as a result of the Government’s new procedure - allowing boys between eighteen and twenty-one years of age to enlist without parental sanction or consent - we have been increasing the recruiting figures ; in other words, we have been told that all the new spirit of recruiting has been due to the fact that what one man described as “ war babies “ are being enlisted.

Mr Considine:

– That was Captain Burkett.

Mr WATT:

– That was a statement which originated with Captain Burkett, and has found support from honorable members opposite. On the other hand, the honorable member for Macquarie says that we do not require this new system, because the recruiting figures are quite good enough without these youths. Both statements cannot be true. I draw the attention of the honorable member for Macquarie, who has been responsible for the use of the last illustration, to the two statements in order that he may see that he has not solved the problem at all, be cause he collides violently with some of his colleagues opposite who hold the opposite view.”

I wish to explain very briefly to the House why the Government felt obliged to take the steps which it has taken, and before I sit down I wish to explain to what stage the Government has arrived as a result of its deliberations on the matter. It is perfectly plain from proofs beyond any doubt whatever that reinforcements of a minimum amount per month are needed for our own Armies abroad. The examination by the Chief Justice that was recently undertaken has sent to rest the number of phases of disputed figures that used to confront us at every point, and I think now we meeton common ground. Whether we believe in the war or not, so long as our troops are there and take part in any offensive, in all human probability we can assess the minimum number required for a given month or several months.

Mr McGrath:

– That is provided you keep to the original number of divisions.

Mr WATT:

– Provided our troops are maintained in the same number of brigades and battalions as were formed when the war started. I do not wish to worry honorable members with any analysis of past problems as to whether so many men are required per month or not, but, having determined that there isan irreducible minimum of men required to maintain our divisions at their fighting strength, it is perfectly plain that we have to secure those numbers. Many a time and oft, as honorable members could see if they had an opportunity of perusing some of the correspondence and cables that have passed between Australia and Great Britain, the British war authorities have drawn attention to, as it is their bounden duty to do, and stressed, the urgency of keeping up the numbers necessary to maintain our divisions at their full fighting strength. We know that several battalions have already been “ scrapped,” to put it plainly. They have been withdrawn from brigades in order to form reinforcements of other battalions; and we are also informed - and I ask the House to take this as authentic, and, if any honorable member doubts it, to apply to me for information privately - that further withdrawals of battalions are in contemplation. These are the influences that induced the Government,in view of the Recruiting Conference of His Excellency the Governor-General, to consider the necessity for all the activity we could bring to bear in order to secure sufficient recruits. The position to us is serious, and it is our duty to act; and in acting we have apparently come into collision with the views of a large number of people in the community.

Mr Brennan:

– Including your supporters, which is the important thing!

Mr WATT:

– My honorable friend opposite is uneasy at finding himself this time in the company of one of the finest bodies of women in the country.

Mr Brennan:

– I am a bit uncomfortable about it.

Mr WATT:

– I thought so ; but I ask him to bear the association for a little while. But without considering what particular sections are for or against it, it is plain that this decision of the Government has met with resistance, misunderstanding, and opposition in some sections of the people of Australia. Let me be clear beyond any possibility of misconception as to the position, because my honorable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday received my interjection with considerable surprise.

Mr Tudor:

– I did.

Mr WATT:

– I wish to make it as plain as I can - and the facts are checkable by honorable members - that it has been almost the immemorial practice for Great Britain, in recruiting for the regular Army, to take boys of eighteen without parental consent. Long before this or any recent war, boys of eighteen could enter the British Army, and certain legal rights were given to them as majors, while certain other rights, for purely legal purposes, were retained by the parents. That was the old recruiting system; and all through this war, both before and after conscription, it has been the British practice. Here, in one of the Dominions which is fighting the man power problem in quite its own way - probably a wrong way, but we have to do it - we have followed the lead of the mother of the nation from whose loins we came. When we are accused of endeavouring to destroy parental responsibility and control, I ask honorable members to recollect that probably parental control is stronger in the land from which our kinsmen came than in any part of the world.

Dr Maloney:

– The Eastern nations teach us in that respect.

Mr WATT:

– I may probably be reflecting on parental control in some of the patriarchical nations of the East, and I have no desire to do that. But Britain hangs her head to no other nation in the appreciation of family life and parental control.

Dr Maloney:

– If we may judge by the tombstones in the cemeteries of Europe the honorable gentleman could be disillusionized on that point.

Mr WATT:

– That interjection is rather too recondite for me. At any rate, the English have a way of hiding their grief in a way not observed in other nations. Another view which the Defence Department felt bound to stress for the consideration of the Government was that all through the war there have been young men enlisting under the age of twenty-one, in some cases lying, in a generous spirit of patriotism, about their parents’ consent. These young men have gone into camp, and have frequently been taken away by indignant parents after months of training, all the time devoted to them thus being wasted. . This has proved a vast expense, and of no good really to the parents, to the home, or the enlisted soldiers. On one occasion a boy enlisted four times, and remained in camp until almost the maximum time, when he was taken away by his father. On inquiry, there was reasonable ground to believe that the father, who was not as patriotic as his son, had allowed this to be done because the boy’s wages were bigger in camp than they wereoutside, and the father was feeding on them. The boy desired to enlist and go abroad, and yet at the last moment the parent exercised his control, and withdrew him.

Mr Brennan:

– That illustrates the folly of taking boys.

Mr WATT:

– It illustrates the neceesity of dealing with cases of the kind, especially if they show any definite tendency on the part of the parent in the direction I have indicated. This was given to me by the Defence Department as, perhaps, the most conspicuous case. Another instance was that of a family of two sons, one over the age of twenty-one, who had offered for service and been rejected, the other eighteen years and seven months old. This latter youth, who was employed at fair wages, enlisted, but he was withdrawn by the father on the plea that the latter desired to enjoy the benefit of the boy’s earnings, the boy having no power to serve against the decision of his father. Close inquiries were made into the circumstances of the family, and it was found that the father was in steady employment, with no financial difficulties, and the Defence Department regarded the treatment of the son by the father as improper, and hurtful to the true recruiting spirit.

I have given the facts as to the British practice, and as to the Australian tendency that induced the Government to arrive at its- decision. I speak very plainly when I say that representations against the proposal have come to the Government from men and women in all quarters, who are helpful to the nation’s cause, and anxious to help it. We realize as well as anybody could that we are driven back to the ^voluntary system, and must operate it as our only system. We are doing so in the best spirit; but it cannot thrive unless it has the general concurrence of the people. If in its operation we make an error of judgment, or go further in stressing the needs of the war than the people themselves are prepared to approve, voluntary recruiting will inevitably be prejudiced. As we have said unmistakably to the people at the Recruiting Conference and elsewhere, we propose to operate this system as far as possible, and the Government would be wanting in its sense of responsibility if it did not take into account representations that indicate a strong feeling among the people.

This very week, on Tuesday and today, the Government have considered the matter, having before it all the facts the Defence authorities have at their disposal, and we have come to the conclusion that we ought to modify the system in three distinct respects. I ask honorable members on both sides to notice what these modifications are. First of all, we propose that, instead of allowing young men to enlist without parental consent at eighteen, they shall not be able to do so until they are nineteen. Then, instead of keeping the enlisted soldier out of camp for six months, as originally proposed, until he has attained the age of eighteen and a half, he may, on enlistment, go straight into camp. The ques tion then arises as to how soon such a soldier is likely to reach the firing line, and, in regard to that, we are dependent to a great extent on the records of the Defence Department. As honorable members know, shipping is difficult and slow, and the whole desire of the CommandersinChief of the Army is to get our men into training elsewhere as soon as possible, so that they may learn modern methods. In this way many months sometimes may elapse before men are shipped; but, assuming that two months’ training takes place before the men are sent away after recruiting, and assuming, which is a low average, that it bakes them two months to reach their camp at the other end of the world, there are inevitably seven to eight months’ training, which under the conditions of modern warfare-

Dr Maloney:

– Not in France!

Mr WATT:

– I am referring to British troops, and I speak from the latest information. I was about to say this means that none of the young men thus enlisted will reach the firing lino until they are twenty years of age.

The other condition which I desire to explain is that where there are two or more sons in a family, and one of those sons is now serving with the Australian Imperial Force, while the other is under age, between nineteen and twenty-one - we do not propose to accept the remaining son without parental consent. Where the family has made its offering in fair proportion, we retain the condition of consent. If there are three sons, and two are serving, then parental consent will be necessary in the case of the remaining one.

There is another proposal which, perhaps, honorable members may consider as going too far. We make it, however, with the object of showing that the military authority itself, against which so many people in the community seem to be turning, is not to decide some of the issues connected with the matter. Where, subject to these’ two other arrangements, a person between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one enlists without parental consent, the parents may lodge with the District Commandant within ten days of the soldier entering camp, an objection, with the grounds thereof. The objection will be sent to the State Recruiting Committee for decision, and if the Committee upholds it on any of the grounds submitted, the man concerned will not be trained without the consent of the parents.

These are the three amendments which, we think, willbring the system into line with the sentiment of the people and aid recruiting. We must get recruits, or fail in our war aims. I was glad to hear from the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Nicholls) that he is not against obtaining recruits, although I admit that his speech would lead one to believe that his attitude has been very negative. True, he has not adopted anything like the militant attitude against the war that some honorable members opposite have attempted, and. his spirit is also that of his leader, Mr. Tudor. The latter gentleman has stood on the platform scores of times all through the war, very often with men like myself, and has strongly appealed to that impulse of duty and patriotism which young men should feel.

Mr Tudor:

– I get credit for that at all times except election times.

Mr WATT:

– I am quite sure my honorable friend never heard any other sentiment fall from my lips.

Mr Fenton:

– No man has done more for recruiting than has the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WATT:

– I think that is right; at any rate, he has done his full share, and any one who questions that statement will receive contradiction from the Government. That is the spirit in which I ask honorable members to accept the proposals of the Government. There is still a little of that feeling which was visible for months when the Prime Ministerwas in charge. Why should there be, after the Conference that was held? The Government is depending on the spirit which actuatesthe more moderate and sensible amongst honorable members opposite. We have no undertaking of co-operation from any of those gentlemen, but we go on hoping that they will do as the Government are doing. If they do, I have no doubt the people will see that, in the matter of recruiting, there is unity in Australia, and that the old division has been wiped out for the purposes of the war. If that spirit continues to actuate us we can keep our Army reinforced - if not, we cannot do so. Having been refused the right to adoptany other method, the Government loyally accepted the present one. I ask honorable members not to make this a party question. I have not endeavoured to do so. All the representations that have come to me from members of this House have been treated regardless of party, and, if possible, I desire the whole question to be dealt with absolutely on a non-party basis. I have been particularly careful - I do not say this in my own praise, but to emphasize the attitude of the Government - not to say one word since the Conference, that might lead to a recrudescence of the antipathies and antagonisms which absolutely disfigured our attitude in the middle distance of the war. If honorable members opposite will grip that point of view, and help the Government, I feel certain that, in the absence of further political differences, we shall be able to get sufficient recruits by the voluntary method.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.We all feel a degree of satisfaction after hearing the announcement that the Government have modified to some extent their policy in regard to the enlistment of lads between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one years. We give the Government credit for the alteration they have made, but, at the same time, their concession will not, in my opinion, be satisfactory to the people of Australia. We all agree that recruiting is a question above party considerations. It is a matter that affects, not only all Australia, but the whole of the Allies, and in those circumstances we are all anxious to do what is best for the causewe espouse. I quite realize the position in which the Government are placed. The Acting Prime Minister has said that the Government have received advice from the War Office to the effect that certain battalions are being broken up for the purpose of reinforcing other battalions. That is a very serious development, but, though I am anxious to see the strength of our Forces at the Front fully maintained, I feel that I would be lacking in my duty if I were to agree to deprive parents of the right of veto in regard to the enlistment of lads under twenty-one years of age. Up till the present, parental consent for the enlistment of minors has been necessary, and the Acting Prime Minister has stated that some people have taken advantage of that condition. He mentioned a case of a father who was opposed to the war, but permitted his lad to remain in camp until he was nearly twenty-one years of age, because he was getting more pay as a soldier than he received in his previous employment. Then his parent refused his consent. Any man guilty of such an action is unworthy to be an Australian citizen. That case was probably exceptional; I believe there are few parents who would ‘ sponge ‘ ‘ on the Commonwealth to that extent. But the occurrence of such cases does not justify us in adopting a policy which will not meet with the approval of Australian fathers and mothers generally. The Government’s amended proposals are an improvement, because in future a lad must be nineteen years of age before he is enlisted without the consent of his parents. The Acting Prime Minister has said that in the event of him being two months in camp in Australia, two months on the voyage, and eight months in camp in Europe, he would be twenty years of age before he entered the firing line. It is a fact, however, that many lads have reached the firing line in a much shorter time than twelve months, and that is just as likely to occur in the future. There may be some men whom the authorities consider sufficiently trained after three months to take their places in the firing line, and if there was an urgent need for reinforcements they would not hesitate to send them to the Front. It is quite possible that some men may reach the firing line within five or six months of enlistment.

But even if it be true that they will not reach the Front before they are twenty years of age, I contend, despite my strong desire to reinforce our boys, that that age is too young. I have held that view from the commencement of the war. One upon whose judgment I place great reliance wrote to me from the Front saying, “Whatever yon, as a representative man, do, be sure not to allow lads under twenty-one years of age to come here. Many young fellows have already failed because they are physically unable to do the work that is required of them.” We know that many young men under twenty-one years of age failed on some of the marches in Egypt during the hot weather. Those incidents prove that those men had not a sufficiently developed physique to enable them to withstand the hardships of the campaign.

Mr Story:

– The same failure occurred with some men over twenty-one years of age.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. The gentleman whom I have already quoted said that many men over thirty-six years of age, like the boys under twenty-one years of age, were unable to stand the strain. They developed certain troubles, and, in consequence, were returned to Australia. We know that many men between the ages of forty and forty-five years have been returned. Some of them never reached the Front. Others did arrive in France, but the severity of the winter before last brought on rheumatism and other troubles, and rendered them’ unfit for further service. Some honorable members have had considerable trouble in regard to the pensions of such men, because it has been contended that they did not become incapacitated through military causes. Our past experiences should make us very careful, notwithstanding what the Acting Prime Minister has said regarding the British Government enlisting lads of from eighteen years upwards. We in Australia have not to follow any precedent. I hope we shall make our own precedents in matters of this kind. We have always realized that the young men and women of this country should be subject to parental control until they are twenty-one years of age. That principle is recognised in our legislation, and in many other ways.

Do not honorable members realize that lads between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one are often led away by a spirit of adventure? After hearing certain speeches, or reading war literature, they come to the conclusion that they would like to be at the Front, just us many boys who attend picture shows are carried away by some “ Deadwood Dick “ drama. They decide to take their future in their own hands, and they escape from parental control. That is not the best thing that can happen for the future of the lads, or of the Commonwealth. After all, the future of a man depends on the extentto which he has the advantage of sound parental control. Once he is removed from that influence no one can say what will happen to him. What need is there for us to take away from parents the right to give or withhold their consent to the enlistment of minors? The new policy will not make a great deal of difference to recruiting; it has not done so in the past. I say, unhesitatingly, that Captain Carmichael has done more to promote a revival of recruiting than has any other man in the Commonwealth. I wish to give him every credit for what he has done. The Governor-General’s Conference has had good results; and the present Minister for .Recruiting (Mr. Orchard) is doing valuable work. If we continue along the lines at present being followed, with a view to promoting a better feeling and understanding in the community, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be able to get a large number of men for reinforcements without depriving parents of the control of their boys.

It may be said that already many young fellows under twenty-one years of age are serving at the Front. The answer is that, in those cases, the consent of the parents was given. After all, a mother knows more about her boy than does anybody else. She knows his constitutional strength or weakness; she knows the extent to which he is able to withstand cold weather ; and she is well able to judge whether he is strong enough to endure the rigours of a severe winter in France. A mother may refuse her consent, not because of any lack of patriotism, but because she feels that by allowing her son to go to the Front she would be doing something which will probably .prove detrimental to his future health, without helping the Empire, inasmuch as he might never be fit to render any service. By the time he reached Europe, he might develop sickness, and be returned to Australia, having involved the Commonwealth in considerable cost, without having given anything in return. Many mothers have consented to the enlistment of their boys under twenty-one years’ because they have known them to be sufficiently strong to endure the hardships of a campaign, and to efficiently discharge the duties of a soldier. I think the Government can do no better than abide by the judgment of the parents.

The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Nicholls) referred to the position of apprentices. Many lads under twentyone years of age are apprenticed to some trade, and if they are to be permitted, on reaching twenty years of age, to enlist without the consent of their parents, their apprenticeship will be broken. When they return after two or three years of openair life, . will they be likely to return to the trade which they were learning? Even if they are still inclined for it, they will have become men by that time, and having received a soldier’s pay for some years they will not consent to complete their apprenticeship at possibly 15s. per week. In professions also are many lads whose parents have incurred considerable expense in connexion with their education or articles. Possibly the parents have had to pay a premium of £100 to article lads to some profession for a term of five years. Having served for about two years, they may be getting 5s. a week, with the prospect of £1 a week in the fifth year. If those lads enlist and return after two or three years, the difficulty then will be to get them to resume their studies. If they will not do that, the parents will have lost the money they have paid, and the lad’s professional prospects will have been blighted. There are many reasons why lads between nineteen and twenty-one years of age should not be permitted to judge for themselves. The decision ought to be left to the parents, a great majority of whom, I believe, if they think that the lad will be of service to his country without detriment to his health and future, will willingly give their consent. That has been our experience up to the present time. In those circumstances, why should we at this stage introduce a regulation to dispense with the preliminary consent of the parents? Honorable members will argue that the Government intend to permit parents to object within ten days of a lad’s enlistment, but in many cases the parents will have no knowledge of what has happened, and will not be able to lodge any objection within the prescribed time. But even if they do know, and are able to object, within ten days, that objection would have to be dea’lt with by the State War Council. In some cases, the Council may consider it valid, and allow the lad to be discharged; in others, it will’ decide that the reasons are inadequate, and refuse to grant discharges. We shall then have one set of parents saying, “ How is it that So-and-So’s boys, who are no younger than ours, were discharged, while our boys have been compelled to go to the Front?” Bad feeling is likely to be created in this way, and it certainly will not help recruiting. I believe, on the contrary, it will do considerable harm. A mother’s feelings are easily hurt; and’ once the mothers of these lads of eighteen are roused by the action of the Government in permitting them to enlist without the consent of their parents, the movement will spread to the case of young men over twenty-one, and the result will be disastrous to recruiting. We have been working very, hard to put recruiting on a better level, and the position to-day is better than it was. We should be careful, therefore, to do nothing that will put a damper on the movement. It is unfortunate that so much trouble should have been created in the community because of certain differences of opinion; but since an effort has been made to smooth away those differences, I shall make no further reference to them. I repeat, however, that this matter demands the very closest attention. It is not a party question, and I, hope honorable members opposite will not treat it as such. The Government have certainly modified their original proposal, but to me it is still unsatisfactory; and it would be in the interests of the recruiting movement if the Government abandoned it altogether. Once the mothers understand that they are to have no control over their lads, so far as enlistment is concerned, we shall have public meetings all over the country to protest against the action of the Government, and immense harm will be done to the general principle of recruiting.

I want, now, to make a brief reference to the financial position. We are now asked to grant authority for the raising of a further loan of £80,000,000. The Treasurer (Mr. Watt) is acting wisely in making his arrangements early. To insure success, it is well that the people should have ample opportunity to subscribe; and from that point of view, therefore, the Treasurer is well advised in proposing to get his loan on the market as soon as possible. He is also to be commended for his decision that the income from this loan shall be liable to taxation. Had Parliament followed the advice offered by the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Poynton), who was then Treasurer, no part of the last loan would have been exempt from taxation. We have discovered, at last, that we have made a mistake; but for that mistake I am not going to find fault with any one. When we set out to raise our war loans locally, we did not know what were the financial possibilities of the Commonwealth. We were launching upon an unknown sea, and it was felt that it would be well to offer some special inducement to the people. We, consequently, determined that income from the first war loan should be free from taxation, and that system has since been followed. Up to the present time, the Government have received authority to raise £168,000,000; and of that amount £149,325,058 has been raised, leaving £18,674,942 still to be raised under the existing authority. This Bill will give the Government authority to raise a further sum of £80,000,000, and it is estimated that our war expenditure for next year will reach that amount. I venture to say that for the following year it will be considerably more, even if the war is soon brought to a close. When the war is over, we shall have to incur much expense in bringing our men back to Australia, and every week, by reason of the increased enlistments, will bring with it fresh demands upon the Treasury. The longer the war continues, the greater will be the cost; and, even if it ends shortly, we cannot hope to get away from the present rate of expenditure upon it for some two or three years. I anticipate that our war loan indebtedness will, at the very least, reach £400,000,000.

Mr Palmer:

– That must depend entirely upon the duration of the war.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Quite so; but we can see so far ahead of us as to be sure that our loan raisings must amount to at least £400,000,000.

Mr Poynton:

– It will take two years after the war to get our men back.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It will.

Mr Jowett:

– And we shall be lucky if our total war loans fall below £400,000,000.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I think so. This is an enormous load for the Commonwealth to carry, but it is inescapable. It is imperative that we should be very careful in dealing with our finances, and, for that reason alone, I think the Treasurer is justified in proposing that the income from investments in this loan shall be liable to taxation. Our total war loan debt is £197,507,169, and the income derived by subscribers, taking the rate of interest at 4£ per cent., is £8,880,000 per annum. That is a very big sum, and a tax of 6d. in the £1 upon it - which would be a very moderate rate - would yield a revenue of £220,000 per annum. “We are losing that revenue, but we shall avoid further loss of the kind if, in the case of all future borrowings, we do away with the exemption from taxation. In connexion with the last loan, subscribers had the option of accepting 4£ per cent, free of taxation, or 5 per cent, without such an exemption. But, of the £42,500,000 raised, only £6,500,000 was taken up at the 5 per cent rate. There can be no doubt that that. £6,500,000 was taken up by people who, if they pay income tax at all, come under the lowest rates, and that the bulk of those who put their money into the loan at 4£ per cent, are in receipt of high incomes, and would have had to pay a high rate of income tax had they not been exempt. We have thus lost a very considerable amount of revenue.

I have no time for those who are urging the repudiation of the agreement into which we have entered in regard to the exemption of previous war loans from taxation. Parliament, having solemnly entered into such an agreement, we must carry it out, irrespective of what the cost to the country may be. To do anything else would be to violate the honour of Parliament. As to the method of financing the war, I have a different view from that held by the Government; but I shall not refer to it to-day. The community is not going to be helped in the prosecution of the war by the encouragement of the feeling that there is a disposition on the part of. any section of the community to urge the repudiation of what has been done. That is a point that we need to emphasize. We have to finance the war, and money is just as essential to its prosecution as men are. That being so, we have a right to stand by the compact made, no matter what may be our view to-day as to the proper method of raising the money we require.

In addition to our ‘war loan indebtedness, we owe the British Government £30,560,000 for the maintenance of our troops. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) told us that he has informed the British Exchequer that in future he is going to promptly pay the amounts due to it under this heading. That seems to me a very big undertaking. I do not say that it should not have been given. I think it should have been, but I cannot see how we are going to give effect to it. It means that our present war expenditure of £80,000,000 per annum will be increased by another £10,000,000, and it is questionable whether we can raise that amount of money. The last loan was undoubtedly a huge success; it was double that of the previous loan, but even now we have only sufficient money in hand to meet the requirements of the next six months.

Mr Poynton:

– There is also the disadvantage that the bulk of the money that we pay the British Government for the maintenance of our troops is expended abroad, and, consequently, does not come back here so quickly as when it is expended locally.

Mr CHARLTON:

– There is a lot in that point. The great bulk of the money we have been borrowing has gone into circulation here, and has consequently returned quickly into its usual channels, so that it has been soon made available for the next loan. But to the extent that we spend our money abroad we must diminish the amount available for local loans. I hope we shall succeed with our local borrowings. It is the duty of every man, at a time of national crisis, to put his money into the war loans,, and I have no time for the man who abstains from subscribing to a war loan because he is able to obtain a higher rate of interest in other directions.

Mr Poynton:

– Another difficulty is that in connexion with the last loan many people pledged their credit so that they might invest in it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is so. Manypersons availed themselves of the offer of the banks to advance money at a special rate of interest for investment in the loan. We have met that position by legislation, so far as we could. Probably most of those who could advance money under these circumstances have already done so.

Mr Poynton:

– They are tied up for eighteen months.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. And probably we shall not .get as much money when next we float a loan from persons prepared to mortgage property to make advances. Those who have been patriotic enough to do that cannot do it a second time. Consequently, that source of revenue is a diminishing one. Where, then, are we to get what is required ?

Mr Jowett:

– Prom the savings of the people.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That source is becoming more and more circumscribed. A great deal of money is going away to Great Britain.

Mr Poynton:

– The deposits in the savings banks have increased by many millions since the war began.

Mr Jowett:

– Still, there is a colossal amount of money being wasted.

Mr Poynton:

– The increase is from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000.

Mr CHARLTON:

– We need to get those who have made the deposits in the savings banks to subscribe- to the war loans. If they were ready to put all their money into the war loans, we should have over-subscription, but Parliament would always indemnify the Government for taking more than it had authority to borrow. It is to be hoped that those who have money will realize that it is necessary for them to lend it to the Government. If they do not lend it, they must expect heavier taxation. In any case, the taxation must increase. The Treasurer has told us that our interest bill is now over £10,000,000 a year, and if within a couple of years we double our debt, it will be £20,000,000 a year, which is as much as prior to the war we required for carrying on the affairs of the Commonwealth. On this reasoning the expenditure of the Commonwealth will be twice as much two years hence as it was before the war. We have lost a large source of revenue by exempting from income taxation the interest on earlier loans. That will not he done again, but we must seek ways and means for meeting our interest hill and sinking fund. My view1 is we shall have to increase the income taxation. J have always urged that the exemption should not be less than £200, but there should be a substantial increase in the taxation on large incomes.

Mr Poynton:

– The taxation on incomes up to £600 is only about 6d. in the £1. There should be room for an increase there.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I would not have taxed incomes below £200 a year, but T would have increased the taxation on incomes above that amount.

Mr Poynton:

– The great bulk of incomes range between £200 and £1,000 a year.

Mr CHARLTON:

– But the recipients have to feed, and dress, and house a great many more people than are provided for by the larger incomes. It would have been fairer to allow a £200 exemption.

Mr Poynton:

– The exemption is now £156, with an allowance of £26 additional for each child under a certain age.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is to be remembered, however, that the cost of living is 33 r>er cent, higher now than it was before the war began. Certainly the taxation should be heavier on incomes above a certain amount. It is not enough . to levy a tax of ls. 6d. or 2s. in the £1 on incomes of £800 or ‘£1,000; their taxation should be higher. Furthermore, our taxation law should be simplified. Very few persons can understand it, however carefully they may study the explanation and curves.

Mr Jowett:

– How many persons in this House understand it?

Dr Maloney:

– Not one.

Mr Boyd:

– Even the Minister who introduced the original measure did not understand it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Our system should be simplified so that it should be clear that the taxation for certain incomes is a certain amount.

Mr Boyd:

– Parliament is being run financially by the Commonwealth Statist and the Commissioner of Taxation.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. We have it on the authority of a University professor that it is impossible for an ordinary person to follow the method adopted in calculating the tax. I hope that when an amending Bill is introduced the system will be simplified.

Although I approve of the modification made in the regulation dealing with the enlistment of minors, I cannot support even this modified arrangement; I do not think that it is in the interests of the community, or that it will encourage recruiting. Parents will complain that their boys are being taken away from their control whilst still under age. 1 hope, therefore, that further consideration will be given to the matter, and that before the debate concludes, Ministers will be able to see their way to allow things to remain as they were before the regulation was framed.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- I regret that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor)has moved the amendment, because his action will prevent the discussion on its merits of the question that he wishes to have discussed. He might have had considerable support from members on this side of the chamber had he moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter.

Mr Blakeley:

-Would the honorable member then have supported it?

Mr PALMER:

– My action then would have depended to some extent on the nature of the debate;. but, broadly speaking, I agree with honorable members opposite that parental control should not be weakened. However, they have not gone to work in the way that I think they should have done, and therefore, as a Government supporter who knows the absolute necessity of passing this War Loan Bill, I must vote against the amendment.

The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) has put before us a set of very valuable figures, containing a great deal of information. It would not be my intention to traverse them now, even if I had the schedule before me. What has impressed itself on my mind is the enormous indebtedness of Australia, which amounts to something like £609,000,000, taking Commonwealth and States obligations together. Under these circumstances it is almost criminal to contemplate the continuance of large expenditure on new works. I have neverlent a kindly ear to the enticements of the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Cook) regarding expenditure on Naval Bases. From many points of view Naval Bases must be regarded as necessary, but expenditure on them cannot be of any value during the war, unless the war is to outlast the longest calculations. Therefore, an effort should be made to reduce this expenditure. Wherever expenditure can be discontinued without interfering with the prosecution of the war, the Government should discontinue it until the piping times of peace come again.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Unnecessary expenditure should be discontinued, partly because we cannot afford it, and also because materials now cost twice as much as they did before the war.

Mr PALMER:

– That is so. The honorable ‘ member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) said that a solemn promise had been made by Australia regarding the finding of money for the prosecution of the war. A promise binding on the Commonwealth has been made in regard to the finding of both men and money. But while we are committed to voluntary effort for the finding of men, we resort to compulsion for the finding of money. Those who have money must contribute to the revenue, whether they wish to do so or not. Under the altered loan conditions, we have to see that those who have money have the position presented to them in terms which will induce them to subscribe. It must be made clear to the wealthy, and to others who have money which they should contribute to the war loans - many of these, unfortunately, have not yet contributed - that they must choose between two alternatives. Money must be obtained. We must carry this fight to a finish, and for that we require money. Therefore those in the community who have money must lend it to the Government. We should say to them, “ You must either contribute to the war loan, and receive a fair interest for your money, or foot the bill in the shape of taxation.” I am satisfied that people, who have money and have not contributed to the war loan, would do so if this alternative were presented to them. If I had money available, it would be infinitely better for me to have war bonds in my possession than to pay a lump sum in the shape of taxation, and part with it for ever. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) has referred to the solemn pledge given by Mr. Fisher, that is, in regard to the last man and the last shilling. We cannot afford to lose this war. If we do, we lose everything which we prize most highly.

Mr Tudor:

– Did the honorable member hear what the Treasurer said the other day, namely, that not more than 10 per cent, of the accumulated wealth of Australia had gone into the war loans ?

Mr PALMER:

– I do not believe it.

Mr Tudor:

– Nor do I believe it, because not more than 8 per cent, has been contributed.

Mr PALMER:

– Much of the 90 per cent, to which the Treasurer referred is not a realizable asset.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Most of it is the working capital of the country.

Mr PALMER:

– If we levied on that percentage we would simply reduce ourselves to beggary. There is nothing like 90 per cent, of the wealth of Australia which can be levied on by taxation or by way of loans.

Mr Boyd:

– Nothing like 50 per cent.

Mr PALMER:

– Another ground of appeal to the people who have money to lend is the law of self-preservation. If we fail in our obligations to the Empire at large, the moral effect of our action will be to weaken other parts of the Empire, and this we should avoid if we possibly can. The honorable member for Hunter asks whether we can get the money. I am satisfied that if wo are judicious we can raise the money. That brings me to another point. I am sorry that the Treasurer is not in the chamber just now.

Mr John Thomson:

– He is receiving a deputation.

Mr PALMER:

– I object to certain means which were adopted for raising money on the last war loan flotation. We must popularize our loans if we wish to make them a success, and in order to do that we must appeal to the most solid and best-thinking people in the community. If our loans do not commend themselves to the judgment of such people, they will be failures. But a method was adopted in connexion with the last loan to which serious objection was taken by a large section of the community, and I was one of a deputation representative of that section of the people which protested against the introduction of a lottery system of cash prizes for investors in the loan. The more we appeal for contributions in that way the more we shall be compelled to do so. Previously people were asked to lend their money from the highest and most patriotic motive, namely, for the good of the Empire; but now a certain num ber of people are asked to do so from selfish reasons. It is encouraging the gambling spirit to ask a man to put £1 in with the chance of drawing out £1,000. Before this debate concludes I hope that we shall have some statement from the Acting Prime Minister as to his intentions in this regard. If I had my way I would have a clause attached to this Bill which would render it impossible for the Treasurer to appeal for contributions in this way, because anything that tends to weaken the moral conception of the people is wrong. *

Mr Richard Foster:

– What does the honorable member suggest?

Mr PALMER:

– I suggest that we should revert to the previous system of appealing to people to. subscribe to the loans on their merits, and not in the expectation of receiving cash prizes for their investments. Another objection to the system which has been adopted is that it is only available to large traders and mercantile people. The Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that if anything is of a commercial advantage to one section of the community, it should also be of equal advantage to those who are in a small way of business. In regard to the last loan, what was done was to go to large, well-known wealthy firms.

Mr Tudor:

– Did the Treasurer go to them?

Mr PALMER:

– I cannot say whether he did or not. At any rate, an arrangement was arrived at whereby these large firms were made venders of bonds.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It was a mere peppercorn.

Mr PALMER:

– It was a mere peppercorn so far as the result was concerned; but the practice may grow, and that is why I want to have it killed before it has a chance of growing. The more we do this sort of thing, the more we shall be compelled to do it. Why should I put my money into a war loan on the conditions prescribed, which give me no possible advantage, while an appeal is made to other people to put their money into it under conditions which give them the possibility of securing a substantial cash advantage? It is a wrong principle to adopt, and it will operate against the success of our future loans.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The honorable member cannot condemn that system unless he also condemns the income taxation of 10 per cent. which is imposed on cash prizes paid by Tattersall’s lottery.

Mr PALMER:

– I condemn the system of Tattersall’s altogether. , I have presented these views, ‘ not as my own, although they do represent my own, but as those of a very large section of people in the Commonwealth. I feel justified in saying that the persons who are to be relied upon to make the launching of a loan a success are those who have a higher conception of their duty to the Commonwealth and the Empire as a whole than to put their money into a loan with the hope of getting a cash advantage out of it. “We ought to be able to finance the war without appealing to the lower feelings of the community - to selfishness, or to the desire for sordid gain. Of course, an appeal to such sentiments might enlarge the number of subscribers, but I question very much whether many people will be drawn in as subscribers in that way who would not otherwise be subscribers. However, I view it as a matter of urgent and of great importance. The war will not be completed until the people of the world arise to a higher conception of their moral obligations; yet here we are pandering to the gambling spirit of the community. I deprecate the running of spinning-jennies in our streets. It is a vicious method of raising money. The further we get away from that sort of thing, the more we shall elevate the race, and make it worthy. I hope that my remarks will be brought under the notice of the Treasurer, and that, in due course, some statement will be made which will satisfy honorable members that a system which is objectionable to thousands of people, and an offence to them, will not be continued in regard to future loans. These people did not ask that any steps should be taken in regard to the matter in connexion with the last loan. The system was in active operation when it came under their notice; but they immediately took steps to express their resentment, and ask that there should be an alteration in regard to future loans. On behalf of these people, I ask the Government to give some assurance that there shall be no further con tinuance of a system which is in itself an inherent evil, and which cannot possibly have any good effect on the community at large.

Our financial obligations are very serious. As the Treasurer pointed out last night, we have raised the following loans : -In 1915, £13,000,000; in 1916, £44,000,000; in 1917, £42,000,000; and this year, £43,000,000. All these loans will be maturing at an early date, as well as the new flotations which are ahead of us, and for which provision will have to be made. The renewals of these loans will have to be liquidated in some way or another, probably at higher rates of interest. We cannot, therefore, view the financial position ahead of us with any degree of equanimity. It must cause every seriousminded man in the community a considerable amount of concern. I have been told by traders, more particularly those in the clothing and boot lines, of the tremendous extravagance of individual people in dress and other commodities in every-day use. People have not yet awakened to the fact that if there is urgent need for public economy there is also need for private economy; but the time will come when we shall find ourselves up against a wall. Up to the present we have enjoyed an entirely fictitious prosperity, due to the free circulation of money - principally war expenditure - in the shape of allowances to the relatives of soldiers at the Front. This, as I say, cannot last indefinitely, and we shall soon have to face the cruel facts. The public expenditure should be reduced by the Government wherever possible, whether in connexion with the Federal Capital, Naval Bases, or any other public utility. Every penny ought to be conserved, not only by the Government, but by the individual members of the community, because, while we have escaped the many disabilities under which the people of Great Britain are suffering, we shall, if the war continues, begin to know something of them. In the meantime, we ought to prepare our minds to meet the conditions which must obtain in the near future.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I rise to support both the motion and the amendment. It is much to be regretted that the Government have made any such proposal as that dealt with in the amend-, ment, and for which I do not think that the Government could obtain the approval of any father of a family. How would honorable members, especially those who are prepared to go on the recruiting platform, answer the question, should it be put to them, as to what must be the effects of a loosening of parental control in Australia? Personally, I am very fortunate in having most dutiful children, who have the greatest respect for their parents; but, in any case, I cannot see any reason for the action of the Government. As hitherto, boys of eighteen could be permitted to enlist with their parents’ consent, and then no harm could, be done. I should like to bring under the notice of honorable members the brutal and unjustifiable treatment by the Government of those concerned when it is sought to withdraw a minor from service. In a case which came under my notice, two boys, both under age, enlisted and went to the Front without their parents’ consent. The eldest boy was killed before he was twenty, and the second son, just over eighteen, was wounded in the same action and removed to hospital in England. The father, who was= a good Presbyterian, had highly disapproved of the lie which the lads told to the recruiting authorities, but finally decided’ that it would be better to let them go. When one had been killed, he suggested to me that he thought it was time he had the wounded son home again ; and he was the more moved to this attitude by the fact that, in the meantime, his wife had died. When I wrote to the Department representing the views of the father, I received a reply to the effect that if a telegram were sent to Great Britain, and the boy recalled, all the moneys due to him at the time of his leaving the Old Country, and from then onward, .would be forfeited.

The other day the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney), in the course of his remarks, made some reference to the Ten Commandments; and as one who has always endeavoured throughout my life to observe them, I regret that the Government are disposed to ignore them so sadly. If the community as a whole paid more attention to the Ten Commandments it would be much better, not only for ind.ivid.ual progress, but for the progress of civilization generally. The

Government, however, in their disregard of the feelings and wishes of parents, do not show any keen appreciation of the holy commands ; and I think they would be well advised, now that they have- modified their proposals so far, to abandon them altogether. This, I think, would prove of advantage to recruiting, and at the same time remove a stigma from the fair name of Australia. Of all countries in the world, there is none in which there is more necessity for- the exercise of parental control than in Australia. Here boys of eighteen are full- of activity, intelligent, and, thanks to our grand educational system, educated, and fairly able to cope with the world; but, however that may be, parental control is highly necessary for the energetic youth of the country, and the Government would be carrying out the wishes of Australia as a whole if they reverted to the old system of recruiting. After all, the parents, and those who advise them, are the best judges of a boy’s fitness for service, not the boy himself.

As to the Loan Bill, what I say may not meet with the approbation of some honorable members, but it is said in the interests of Australia ; and if the Government do not place the finances on a proper footing, I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that I endeavoured to suggest what ought to be done. I do not rely entirely upon my own opinions, but shall quote authorities and figures, and shall cite the example of the British Government in war finance. If Australia had followed, on the same lines, we should now have been in a state of financial stability, instead of running on to the rocks. . The Government in these financial matters ought not to rely entirely on their own knowledge, but seek the advice of others more expert than themselves, just as is done in private business. I suppose honorable members will he surprised to learn that Great Britain defrayed half the cost of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars out of revenue, and that at a time when the creation of wealth was not nearly so easy as it is to-day. When the present war started, Mr. McKenna was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the first year of war his Budget showed a surplus of some millions of pounds, which had been raised by additional taxation.

Mr. Bonar Law, who succeeded him, seems to have departed from the policy of his predecessor. After all, something more is required in war-time than mere expenditure of money to carry on the government as in times of peace. But in Australia we have done no more than that. We have made no special provision for the extraordinary circumstances created by the war. We have acted just like a child who, having been given a penny, spends it in “the first lolly shop, and thinks no more about it. There does not seem to be anybody who realizes the financial position in which we are placed,

and the necessity for maintaining a balance between income and -expenditure. Nor does anybody seem to fully grasp the need for devising further means of raising revenue to meet the exceptional disbursements connected with the war. There is, apparently, a belief on the part of some people that there is some mysterious fund which can be tapped by borrowing, not by taxation. That view, however, is disproved by the revenue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain. The Economist of 9th March of this year contains the following summary of war-time finance : -

The expenditure includes loans to Allies and Dominions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Vote of Credit speech on 7th March, 1918, to amount to £1,444,000,000, made up as below -. - Those are staggering figures. Had the war ended on the 2nd March last, there would have been owing to the British Government by the Dominions and the Allies an amount of £1,444,000,000. The Government raised by revenue since the war commenced, £1,691,694,913; so. that over and above the advances . to the Dominions and the Allies, the Government raised £247,694,913 for war purposes, and upon which they will pay no interest. By the smallest computation, the money-lender will be drawing £250,000,000 in interest from Great Britain when the war ends. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- What has that to do with this Bill? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST: -- The Treasurer told us that the total National Debt of the people of Australia is over £600,000,000, of which £375,000,000 was borrowed by the States. I ask honorable members to recollect that much of the State borrowings have been invested in public utilities, which furnish revenue to pay the interest and sinking fund ; but war expenditure is altogether unproductive, and there is no income to meet the interest except that obtained in general revenue from the taxpayers. Those figures are my justi- fication for saying that in war-time more money ought to he obtained from the people by taxation than is being obtained at the present time. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- I call attention to the state of the House. *[Quorum formed."]* {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST: -- Whether a quorum is present or not, there seems to be a lack of interest in the nation's welfare, so far as finance is concerned. Even though I am an advocate of higher taxation, I am prepared to admit that the war cannot be entirely financed out of revenue; but when we find the Government raising huge sums by loan, the people outside become curious as to where all the money is coining from, and why more is not available, through taxation, for the needs of the country. The raising of money by loan, and the neglect to increase the revenue from taxation, is creating discontent amongst the working classes. The belief that, under the present system, many people are fattening on the war, naturally gives rise to discontent among the working classes. There is good ground for that belief. In Great Britain, war revenue to the extent of £1,691,694,913 was raised by taxation between 1st August, 1914, and 2nd March last. Nearly 20 per cent, of Great Britain's war expenditure is being provided for out of revenue. That is something more in the nature of sound finance than anything done by the present Commonwealth Government in financing this war. In respect of the State debts, there are many revenue producing public utilities to show for the outlay, but in respect of the greater part of our war loan indebtedness no revenue is derived. I have endeavoured to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity for the imposition of additional taxation to find the revenue necessary to pay the interest on our borrowings. Before the war, we had an expenditure of about £26,000,000 a year. That was what it cost us to conduct the affairs of the Commonwealth in peace time, and honorable members opposite were continually complaining that the expenditure was excessive. Since then, however, we have increased our ordinary expenditure by £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 a year for interest, and the. Government are doing nothing to provide for that increase. I maintain that long before now the Government should have taken steps to raise additional revenue. Their delay in this respect is due to ulterior motives which are not commendable. While the war is going on, many people in our community are becoming exceedingly rich, and now is the time to obtain more revenue by direct taxation. When the war is over, the wealthy classes will urge that additional revenue should be obtained through the Customs- House. They will be prepared in this way to squeeze the industrial section of the community in order to save their own pockets. Our income tax ought to be higher than it is. Those in receipt of an income of £500 per annum should be paying 2s. in the £1, and incomes between £500 and £1,000 per annum should be taxable up to 6s. or 7s. in the £1. In the case of all incomes in excess of £1,000 a year, there should be a super tax of 4s. 6d. or 5s. in the £1. Such taxation would not cripple industry. Those who wanted to produce would be able under it to get some return from their labours, while at the same time they' would be making a reasonable contribution to the cost of the war. As it ls, we shall have to go in for intense culture, and take care to speed up our industrial activities. The present position is wholly unjustifiable, and it is no wonder that the industrial section of the community is suspicious in regard to it. We have the most intelligent Democracy in the world, and when a Government plays fast and loose with an intelligent Democracy, something is sure to happen. "Unlike the Commonwealth Ministry, the British Government are not content to simply bring in a Bill to authorize a loan of £80,000,000, to put it before honorable members with a few well-chosen remarks, and to rely on Providence to do the rest. This is the sort of finance in which South Sea Island cannibals might indulge. I well remember what was done in my own State some years ago in regard to the raising of revenue by the selling of Crown lands, and in other directions, but I thought that, . in the National Parliament something approaching a sound system of finance would be secured. I sometimes think that I would better employ my time if, instead of remaining in the chamber hour after hour, I were to remain in one of the ante-rooms, and read a book; but I have determined, if possible, to rouse honorable members to a true appreciation of the dangers of the present financial position. We cannot go on for all time as we are to-day. The slip-shod financial methods adopted by the Government must have an effect on the general public. If we were getting in by direct- taxation, what we ought to be raising, there would be more economy outside, and we should not be leaving to posterity a financial load which they cannot possibly carry. I recognise that we cannot finance the war wholly out of revenue, but I think we should at least endeavour to raise as much as possible by way of taxation. Taxation of course, is not popular, and the party that could go before the electors at election time, and say, " If returned, we will reduce the taxation by one-half," would be sure of victory. We know, however, that it is impossible to avoid additional taxation, and honorable members should have the courage to tell the people that additional taxation is necessary. After the war, we shall have a slump. Some time must necessarily elapse after the war before the men who are fighting for us are able to return to their former avocations, and to become income producers. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Only last week the honorable member was advocating the policy of borrowing. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST: -- I think I did say to the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Boyd)** that a nian would be justified in raising a loan if, by doing so, he could improve his business, and so increase his income. I have never said anything against the policy of borrowing. Loan money can be put to good use in both public and private enterprises, but the point I wish to emphasize to-night is that we cannot afford to go on borrowing, and at the same time to disregard legitimate opportunities for taxation. It seems to be thought that untold wealth is stored away, to be advanced to the Government at 4 or 5 per cent. I have put these matters in my blunt way. Some may say that I do not understand the subject; I am prepared for such criticism. It is the duty of Ministers to see that the ship of State does not run on the rocks, and to apply to Parliament for money when it is needed. But I am not a believer in the "boom, borrow, and bust" policy of some public men. I shall vote for the Bil] as well as for the amendment. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- How can you do that? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST: -- There will be uo inconsistency in that; the amendment provides for the insertion of certain words dealing with the recruiting of boys of eighteen, and the voting for it will not prevent me from voting for a Bill which is necessary for the raising of money for the carrying on of the war. {: #subdebate-40-0-s8 .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Before addressing myself to the amendment, I should like to know from the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** whether, having heard the statement of the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt),** he proposes to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Wait and see. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I assume fromthe interjection that it is the honorable member's intention to force the amendment to a division. I strongly object to that course. In my opinion, the amendment should not have been moved. How can any of us conscientiously vote for an amendment the carrying of which would mean the putting aside, at all events for a time, of a Bill necessary for the prosecution of the war ? It is unfair of the Opposition to try to entrap members in this way. The Leader of the Opposition could have brought forward for discussion on the Defence Bill the enlistment of boys of eighteen. This is a Bill to authorize the raising and spending of £80,000,000 for war purposes, and in connexion with it we have to ask the questions, " Are we going on with the war, or are we to pull out? Are our men, who have done such excellent work at the Front, to be properly equipped and reinforced?" One might think, after listening to the speeches of the supporters of the amendment, that the Empire was not at war, and that things were not so critical as they are, when not one of us knows what the position may be tomorrow. For the first time in the history of Great Britain the Prime Minister of that country has appealed to the Dominions and every section of the Empire to give it what help they could. Honorable members opposite are trying to prevent help from being given. I cannot understand their actions. They pretend that their desire is to protect the youth of the Commonwealth, and to support parental respect. There is not a man on this side who is not desirous that the young persons of the community shall obey and respect their parents, though honorable members opposite would have the public believe that that is not so. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- And they will believe it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- They -will not. I regret that I have to speak as I shall speak to-night. When the war started, I dropped party politics. The honorable member for Wentworth and myself were until then bitterly opposed in politics, and said hard things of each other; but we are now on the same side. Since the war began I have not uttered an unkind word in this House. For twelve months the Liberal party supported the party led by **Mr. Fisher,** because they said, " We are at war, and we do not wish to cause any trouble under such circumstances." I have pursued the same line of conduct. The most bitter abuse and. misrepresentation have been turned upon me by some of the members of the Opposition, but I have made no complaint from my place in the chamber, because I have feared that by speaking harshly I might prevent men from doing their duty in the' getting of reinforcements. But what is the present position? Regardless of consequences, the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment the effect of which, if carried, would 'be to delay the action necessary for the proper prosecution of the war. Does he not care a jot whether the men at the Front are supported or not, or whether the good name they have won for Australia is maintained *1* Is it no concern of his that the admiration which the French have for Australia - shall continue ? We read that the French peasantry return to their homes directly the Australians appear on the battlefield, and that the roads travelled by our men are. bestrewn with flowers, scattered by the grateful people who have suffered in this war in a .way which many of those sitting on the opposite benches cannot realize. I am of the opinion, and I shall support my remarks with the evidence, that the Leader of the Opposition is not heart and soul in favour of the amendment. I exempt from what I am about to say the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. Charlton),** a man who has sent his only son to the war; a man who represents hundreds at the Front, and who has done much to secure recruits, realizing that our men are fighting in the interests of the Empire and of Australia. The honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Tudor),** too, has a son at the Front. He has been forced into the action that he is now taking by an outside irresponsible body, the body that expelled from the Labour party the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes and *we* of the Labour party who now support him. This outside body has called on the honorable member for Yarra to move the amendment, as I shall prove before I sit down. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Any one might think that the honorable member was in earnest. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I was never more in earnest. I regret that I have to speak like this of a man with whom I sat for so many years. He knows that I have never departed in the least from the Labour platform, that I have stuck to all my pledges. It is for that reason that I feel so keenly the action that was taken against me. Honorable members opposite see the light, they know what is the right thing to do, but they dare not do it because of the pressure that is put on them by the Trades Hall, by those who say, " We shall fly over our building, not the Australian flag, but the red flag," the flag " that is now flying over Petrograd, where society is in a state of anarchy. It is those who insist on flying the red flag who have given their instruction to the honorable member for Yarra. With what object ? So that more men may not be sent to the war. The amendment has been moved to prevent the Government from getting money to send men to the Front. I must speak to-night as I have never yet spoken since I was forced to leave the Labour party. I aim forced into speaking as I am doing to-night, because the honorable member or some of his emissaries will come into my electorate, as they have done previously, and try to side-track this issue, and say, " Smith voted to get your son sent to the Front when he will not go himself." That sort of talk will not go down. That parrot-cry will not appeal to the people of Denison. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I have not said it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The taunt has been thrown at me repeatedly by men on that side of the House. It was said today. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Have I said it at any time ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- No; and thatis why it is so hard for me to say what I have to say to-night. This horrible war broke out on the 4th August, 1914, and I was forty-five years of age on the 15th September of the same year, otherwise I would have been at the Front fighting side by side with my brother, who has just returned severely wounded. The bones of my blood relations whiten the plains of France ; their blood has made red its snows, and they are the bone? and blood of one boy who was under eighteen years of age when he was killed. The honorable member for Melbourne **(Dr. Maloney)** laughs. I have yet to learn that be has one there. Has he any love for the men who are there? He cannot feel as those feel who have sons at the Front. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. I throw back the laugh in the honorable member's teeth, and say that there is nothing to laugh . at when I speak of the lads of my flesh and blood whose bones are lying in the snows on the plains of France to-day. The honorable member may jeer, and he may keep on jeering if he chooses to do so. I have made a statement which I shall endeavour to prove from the manifesto used in connexion with the recent Flinders by-election. It is the manifesto which **Senator Gardiner** tried to deny in another place. He is reported to have stated that he was not responsible for its contents. Let us go into the history of the matter. This is what the manifesto said - >The Labour party stands for the immediate cessation of fighting, and for the calling of an International Conference to settle peace terms. Such terms must include - > >Withdrawal from invaded territory, and reparation by the invader. > >Self-government of all small nations. > >Right of the people of the disputed territory to a vote on their own future government. > >International control of captured possessions pending agreement. > >No annexations and no indemnities. > >Means of reducing the number of future international disputes. This is what they sent around the country. " Immediate cessation of fighting." How can they stop that fighting? By hot giving us the sinews of War; by not providing the money by which men can be sent to the Front. If honorable members do not vote for this Bill it will not be possible for men to be sent to the Front. In reply to **Senator Gardiner, Mr. A.** Stewart. secretary of the executive of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labour party, made a statement to a reporter of the Mel- bourne *Herald.* That journal's issue of the 2nd May, 1918, contains a lengthy report of an interview with him which I shall have to read at length in order to prove the truth of what I have said. It is as follows : - >That **Senator Gardiner,** the Leader of the Labour party in the Senate, if correctly reported, had repudiated the resolution of his own State Conference, was the allegation made by **Mr. A.** Stewart, secretary of the executive of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labour party, in the course of a statement today in regard to the comments made by **Senator Gardiner** in the Senate yesterday on the manifesto issued by the Victorian executive to the electors of Flinders, and signed by **Mr. Stewart.** Resolution Recalled. " **Senator Gardiner** is reported," **Mr. Stewart** said, " as having said yesterday : ' He wished emphatically and firmly to repudiate that the Labour party stood for an immediate peace.' If correctly reported, **Senator Gardiner** repudiated the resolution of his own State Conference last year. A resolution on peace passed by the New South Wales Conference was later adopted by the Victorian Conference of last year. Relevant portions of that resolution are as follow: - >Apparently existing Governments are making no sincere efforts to obtain a speedy peace, but are devoting their whole endeavours to the continuance of a disastrous struggle. We are, therefore, convinced that peace can only be accomplished by the united efforts of the workers of all the countries involved. > >We are of opinion that a complete military victory by the Allies over the Central European Powers, if possible, can only be accomplished by the further sacrifice of millions of human lives, infliction of incalculable misery and suffering upon the survivors, the creation of an intolerable burden of debt to the further impoverishment of the workers, who must bear such burdens, and the practical destruction of civilization among the white races of the world. > >We, therefore, urge that immediate negotiations be initiated for an International Conference for the purpose of arranging equitable terms of peace. {: .speaker-K4W} ##### Mr Nicholls: -- Are you opposed to that ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I oppose it, because it is practically the same ruling as that which was submitted to the Bolsheviks in Russia, and because the fate that Russia has met with would fall upon Australia if we accepted the same proposals. We are told that these views were sent to England. The report in the *Herald* proceeds - >Then followed the proposed principles for peace. At the request of **Mr. Arthur** Henderson, M.P., and the British section of the International, and with the approval of every State executive, this resolution was transmitted to England as representing the Labour party's views. Contrast that paragraph with the utterances of honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Nicholls)** would have us believe that he would pursue this war to the utmost, with the object of winning it, despite this statement of the controlling body outside. The *Herald* report continues - The Grampians by-election was fought by us upon this issue, and the manifesto then put forth contained the statement to which **Senator Gardiner** is reported to object. The Flinders manifesto does nothing more than state and expound the resolutions approved by the Australian Labour party through the only persons who have power to frame that party's policy - the Annual Conferences - a majority of whom, to say the least, have approved of this resolution, whereas no counter resolution has been carried by any Labour organization. No Federal Conference has sat since the State Conferences of last year. A perusal of the agenda paper' for the forth-, coming Federal Conference shows that out of the 418 proposals not one supports the views reported to be held by **Senator Gardiner.** The triennial Federal Conference of the Australian Labour party is to be held at Perth in June. The Victorian delegates elected by the annual conference of the Victorian branch of the party are **Senator J.** Barnes, and Messrs. M. M. Blackburn, A. Stewart, J. H. Scullin, E. J. Holloway, and C. J. Bennett. Should the Labour executive take the view that **Senator Gardiner's** speech yesterday requires explanation from the Labour standpoint, action in the matter would rest with the New South Wales executive of the party, **Senator Gardiner** being a member of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party. Any action which might be taken by the New South Wales branch, however, would be subject to revision by the Federal Conference next month. I want honorable members to listen carefully to what follows. For party purposes, it was stated in Tasmania that certain members on this side of the House were not expelled from the Labour party, yet here, according to the report in the *Herald,* the highest authority in the Labour ranks of Australia said - It is interesting to recall that the conscriptionist members of the Labour party, including **Mr. W.** M. Hughes, the Prime Minister, were expelled from the party by the State executives in their respective States, and the action taken by the State executives was indorsed at a specially summoned Federal Conference of the party. In the face of this interview, cannot we see that there is something more behind the amendment than appears on the surface of it. Is that the reason why the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. Finlayson)** last night made such an apologetic speech to the boys who might enlist contrary to the wishes of their parents? In order to further substantiate my case, I can quote from what has been done in New South Wales. Our friends opposite say, " President Wilson is with us " ; but let us see what President Wilson said. Writing to Bishop Henderson, he said - German power - a thing without conscience, honour or capacity for a covenanted peace - must be crushed. Our present immediate task is to win the war, and nothing shall turn us aside until it is accomplished. President Wilson is not in sympathy with the statements that are falling from our friends opposite. What has taken place in the State of New South Wales ? A meeting was held to deal with measures brought forward at the Recruiting Conference convened by the Governor- General. The *Argus* of 17th May last contains the following paragraph : - Sydney, Thursday. - After two full nights of discussion, the Trades and Labour Council of New South Wales this evening further debated the reports of delegates to the GovernorGeneral's Recruiting Conference. At the previous meeting the president of the council **(Mr. Morby).** had moved a motion to the effect that the council adopt the terms of resolution of the Conference. To-night **Mr. Judd** moved as an amendment - Whilst fully expecting anti-Labour forces to misrepresent and calumniate our action, we refuse to take part in any recruiting campaign, and call upon the workers of this and other belligerent countries to urge their respective Governments to immediately secure an armistice on all Fronts, and to initiate negotiations for peace. The chairman held this amendment to be a direct negative of the motion; but the meeting dissented from his ruling by 79 votes to 75. When **Mr. Storey,** leader of the State Labour party, attempted to address the meeting, he was subjected to considerable interruption, and was unable to conclude his remarks. The meeting thereupon broke up in great disorder, although the chairman had previously declared a motion for the adjournment of the debate agreed to on the voices. Is that the state of things that has influenced the other side of the House? Is that the reason the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** did not wait until the Defence Bill was before us. but rushed in with his amendment? The honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. Finlayson)** may laugh jubilantly, but he does not realize the seriousness of this war. I have yet to learn that he has been taught to realize it, though, perhaps, he may before it is over. When the war broke out, many of us thought that' it would not last long ; and I may say that when a meeting in London was addressed by Lord Roberts men laughed when the distinguished officer said there was likely to be war.No doubt the honorable member has read works similar to those which crucified Robert Blatchford for sharing the opinion of Lord Roberts. And what do such men as the honorable member for Brisbane care about the terrible sacrifices that are being made? He cares not one iota so long as the red flag floats over the Trades Hall. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member says, " Hear, hear," and apparently it does not matter to him what flag flies there. In times of peace, we may fly what flag we please, but when the best blood of the community is being shed at the Front, the Union Jack and the Australian flags should be the only flags. He no doubt is very thankful to be in the safety afforded by Australia. He simply smiles while thousands are losing their lives in order that he and I may live in security. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- You ought to be ashamed of yourself ! Youare a dirty skunk ! {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- We are so far removed from the seat of war that we have not yet felt the effects of the conflict. Here, men in humble positions will to-night eat a meal such as the King himselfwill not have; and that is simply because the men we admire so much are holding back the enemy at the Front. Mothers are giving son after son to the service of the country. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- How many sons have you at the Front ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I am in the unfortunate position in which thehonorable member wasso long, and if I were he, I would not say too much about that. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- I have a son at the Front, and you have not ! You are a dirty skunk ! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have to ask the honorable member for Brisbane to withdraw the objectionable expression he has used to the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith).** {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- With all due respect, I shall not allow the honorable member for Denison, or any other honorable member, to say what he has said about me. I shall not withdraw the expression. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I hope the honorable member will reconsider that" determination. We all are apt at times, in the heat of the moment, to say things which in cooler moments we regret, I admit that, perhaps, the honorable member may have received considerable provocation from thenature of the remarks of the honorable member for Denison ; but, at the same time, there are certain rules by which the House is governed, and which the honorable member for Brisbane knows as well as I do. I ask the honorable member to obey those rules, and withdraw the expression of which he has made use. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- There is one thing that influences me in addition to the appeal of yourself, **Mr. Speaker,** and that is the desire to take a vote to-night; I should not withdraw under any other circumstances. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I ask the honorable member not to take up that attitude.' {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- The honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith)** has said that which discloses that the expression I used was justified. However, in response to your appeal, sir, I shall withdraw the words. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- If I have said anything that hurts any one's feelings I certainly withdraw it. *Several honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I shall have to insist on honorable members not interjecting. I have appealed several times, and honorable members must see that interjections, especially those of a personalnature, only lead to disorder. In accordance with our Standing Orders, when the Speaker is addressing the House, absolute silence must be observed, and it is disrespectful to the Chair that honorable members should be commenting when the Speaker is trying to explain the position. I ask honorable members to remember the dignity of their own institution. A certain respect is due, not to me personally, but to the office I hold, and that respect I must insist on being observed. I therefore ask honorable members to cease interjections, especially those of an offensive 'and personal character toward one another, which can only lead to grave disorder. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- There is ananother quotation I desire to read in order to substantiate what I have said. In the *Herald* of the 20th of this month there appeared the following: - {: .page-start } page 5051 {:#debate-41} ### LABOUR SPLIT BEGINS Council Delegate Resigns, Denouncing Extremists. . . . One of the first men to break away from the Labour Council is **Mr. J.** Mostyn, delegate to the Council, and president of the Electrical Trades Union. In a letter to the press, **Mr. Mostyn** says that the disgraceful scenes witnessed at last Thursday night's meeting of the Council, when the question of assisting recruiting was being discussed, had compelled him to send in his resignation as a delegate. **"Mr. Mostyn** says that the action of the Council *in* rejecting the motion of **Mr. Morby** the president, in favour of assisting in recruiting, was disgraceful, seeing that **Mr. Judd,** the mover of the amendment, that the Council refuses to take part in the campaign, was opposed to Labour on every occasion that suited bini..... {: #debate-41-s0 .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- 1 am glad to say that that is so - that there have been protests from good Labour men of many years' standing, who, like myself, believe, and always have believed, in unionism. These men have withdrawn from a movement controlled, not by the old Labour party, but by men who have wormed themselves in, and are bringing disaster on the Labour cause. With all the emphasis at my command I repeat that it is cruel to ask the House to vote on the amendment before us. The motion is for the second reading of a Bill to authorize the raising and expenditure of £80,000,000 for war purposes, and the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** is - >This House condemns the action of the Government in enlisting for service abroad youths of eighteen years who have not obtained the consent of their parents. I remind honorable members that any one voting against the amendment tonight will not be voting in favour of the boys concerned disobeying their parents, but for the second reading of the Bill before us, which, as I say, is to raise money in order to carry on the war. Any member who votes against the motion for the second reading will vote against the carrying on of the war. If we do not raise money we cannot send men to the Prout; and I intend to vote for the Bill, because I desire to see this war carried on to the finish, and, I pray Almighty God, victoriously. I know Germany as it is, and I, for one, unhesitatingly say that I do not desire to come under German rule. However, if we do not use our best endeavours to come out victorious, we shall certainly experience that rule. I have offered my services at the Front, and I ask the honorable member for Brisbane whether he has done the same? *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.J/.5 p.m.* {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Before the adjournment I was asked by the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Nicholls)** what I had done to help in winning the war. I have done everything that lay in my power to assist every Government that has been in office since the commencement of the war. I intend to continue that attitude, because I realize the seriousness of the position, and because it behoves each one of us to do his utmost to insure the success of the Allies. I do not wish to state in detail the circumstances governing my course of action. I am willing to tell any honorable member privately what I have done in connexion with this war, but I do not wish to give my actions publicity in the House, and so provide some honorable members with an opportunity of charging me with egotism. There would be no need for the amendment that i3 before the House if the mass of the people had realized the seriousness of the position, and had done their duty to Australia and to the Empire. If the men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five had responded to the .call of duty as they should have done, we should not have been called upon to discuss this question at all. No doubt before the Government made the regulation in regard to the enlistment of minors, they gave the matter very careful consideration. They have no desire, as the majority of members on this side have no desire, to send to the Front young men under twenty-one years of age if they can get in other ways the necessary reinforcements. We cannot do that, and are we, therefore, to allow our army to disappear? Are we to break up one division after another in order to reinforce the others? I hope not. I trust that we shall do our utmost to send to the Front as many men as Australia can spare. The honorable member for Macquarie asked this afternoon, "What about our industries?" Where will be our industries if the Allies lose and Germany wins this war? If honorable members understood what Germany was doing before the outbreak of war, we should not hear such remarks as fell from the lips of the honorable member. I urge him to read a book that is available in the Library, and which explains how, for many years past, Germany had been penetrating every country and ousting local industries. The circumstances of one Italian bank furnish a case in point. Speaking from memory, of 1,000,000 shares in the institution, only 180,000 were held by Germans. Yet the bank was controlled by Germany because of the wonderful commercial and financial organization of the German people. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- That is a nice thing to say about one of our Allies. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Our Ally had no chance, because Germany was doing things in trade which our Ally would not do. I have been informed by a gentleman, who is in a big way of business in Melbourne, that, because we gave a preference to British goods, Germany actually sent goods in an unfinished state to Great Britain, where they were finished and sent out here as British goods, in order to get the advantage of the preference. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- What about the Broken Hill concentrates? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- We know the power that Germany exercised commercially before the war. We know that the ambition of the Prussian military caste was to govern the world as they governed Germany, to spread their so-called "kultur" world-wide. Because of that ambition they precipitated the present war. I do not think I take this matter too seriously. I have read much and thought much, and I heard the Prime Minister speak as never man spoke before, when he addressed the then Labour party on his return from Europe. He told us what we were up against, and what we should prepare for'. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Did he not tell us also that we should send 16,500 men per month ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- He told us that the reinforcements required were 32,000 men in the first month and 16,500 men in every subsequent month. Would that we had been able to send that number! What a part they would have played in this war at the present time! Do honorable members think the Germans would have been as successful as they were in the recent drive? Think how close we were to defeat and to the destruction of the Empire. Will honorable members say that the number of men mentioned by the Prime Minister was not required? I was prepared to help to send the reinforcements that he said were necessary, just as I am prepared to vote money tonight for the one purpose of winning this war. Did the Prime Minister give that estimate on his own initiative? Decidedly not. He was guided by the advice of the War Council of Great Britain. Those experts in war told us that so many men were required, and have not subsequent events proved that their estimate was correct? Every man must realize the value which those men would be at the Front to-day. We read with delight that the Germans dread the Australians. We are told that the Australians, when raiding at night, are able to find their way in the dark in a marvellous fashion, that the Germans look upon them with horror, but that the women of France rejoice when they know that Australians are protecting them. We have read in history how the people besieged in Lucknow during the Indian mutiny heard with joy the strains of " The Campbells are Coming " from the bagpipes of the relieving Army. I predict that some day a poem will be written, the theme of which will be the joy of the people of France when they heard that the Australians were coming - not as aggressors, not as men desirous of acquiring wealth for themselves, or of altering the Government of any country, but as men desirous only of giving freedom to all peoples and retaining the freedom which they enjoy in this great and glorious country of Australia. Yet to-day, politically speaking, we are at each other's throats, and are trying to work all kinds of points against one another. The Opposition is intent upon discrediting the Government, who are working as no Government ever worked before. I should say the same if a Government composed of honorable members opposite were in power, because the work of Ministers of State has grown out of all proportion to what it was before the Avar. Ministers and their officers are working strenuously with the one object of doing their best for Australia. Yet honorable members opposite are trying to block a measure that will provide the Commonwealth with the wherewithal to continue the war to a victorious end. Their object is not to insure the winning of the war, but to provide themselves with political capital to be used on the public platform in about two years' time. The time will come when the Leader of the Opposition will realize, as possibly he realizes now, that the step he has taken is not a good party move. The Opposition made a mistake in proposing such an amendment on this measure. I can vote conscientiously against the amendment and for the Bill, because I do not wish to embarrass the Government at the present time. The Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt)** put the matter in a nutshell when he said that it would be impossible for the Government to carry on if this amendment were carried. The Leader of the Opposition heard the Government's explanation, and I begged of him to withdraw his amendment. I may assure the House that the members of this party have not been consulted on this question at any party meeting. For the regulation in regard to the enlistment of minors the Government alone are responsible. Members on this side are as free as air to vote as they like on this question; but are they going to embarrass the Government by supporting this amendment, simply because honorable members opposite desire to tell the people that they were opposed to sending boys of eighteen to the Front ? The Government have made a very considerable concession. In the circumstances, the statment made by the Acting Prime Minister should receive at least fair and reasonable consideration. The Government's action should not have been condemned as it has been by some honorable members. Realizing the critical position in Europe to-day, surely the Opposition would he justified in withdrawing the amendment. I have explained the reasons for my attitude. It. was with keen regret that I deemed it necessary to hit hard honorable members with whom I was previously associated. One honorable member was called to order earlier in the proceedings on account of a statement he made, and I wish him to realize that my attack upon him was provoked by his interjections, and from a feeling of consideration for my sick wife. In conclusion, I heartily congratulate the Acting Prime Minister on the very clear statement he made to the House last night regarding Australia's financial position. He pointed out the .serious condition of our finances, and impressed upon all of us how essential it is to encourage every industry, and not to penalize a going concern. He showed that we ought not to take a shilling more from the taxpayer than is required by the Government to' pay for the cost of administration and provide interest and sinking fund on the money we are borrowing. To adopt the policy some honorable members have suggested would be disastrous to this country. I once warned a former Treasurer that if he introduced a certain tax his action would be equivalent to that of a man who took two bags of seed from a farmer whose land was already tilled and prepared to receive four bags of seed. To impose more taxation than is required is to take away capital that should, be used in the production of wealth. Let us by all means take as much of the wealth of the country as our needs demand. Let us take it in a way that will be least injurious to the poor of Australia, for whom we on this side are just as solicitous as are honorable members opposite. Let us tax those who are best able to pay, and the great majority of whom are willing to go on paying in order that we may hold this glorious country of ours. But do not let us take by way of taxation a shilling more than is actually required, since to do so would be to interfere with that great machine which, guided by the skilled hands of capable men, is producing our wealth. Capital and labour must go hand in hand. That fact is being realized to-day by the people of the Old Country, and Great Britain will never return to the conditions that prevailed before the war. Its people, as a result of the war, have been brought into closer touch than ever before. They have become as one, and big class distinctions are being completely swept away. The table of the King to-night is no better than that of the humblest man in the Empire. The people of Great Britain are working as one solid body with only one object in view. And so with the people of that great Democracy, the United States of America. Who would have thought after reading *Canada As it Is,* and *America at Work,* a few years ago, that the great division between capital and labour, so clearly set out in those works, would so soon be bridged over? Who would have thought a year or two ago that that great leader of men; Samuel Gompers, would have spoken as he has within the last few months. He has said to the workers of the United States, " We are in this war and must play our part. The capitalist will help to pay for the wax, and all classes must unite with the one object of keeping the United States as it was before the war broke out." The workers of the United States realized indeed that it will be better after the war than ever it was before, and hence we have the great labour leader, Samuel Gompers, backed up by every trade unionist in his de- mand that labour shall play its part in the great conflict. He is not condemned as old Labour men have been condemned here. And we, after all, have not been condemned by the rank and file of the trade unionists of Australia. I believe that the great majority of trade unionists here are as loyal as are their American brethren, and that they are simply longing for a leader to take them out of the wilderness. We have no alternative but to go on. We must find the men and the money necessary to prosecute this war, and we shall do that best, not by hampering the Government, but by the cooperation of all parties both inside and outside Parliament in the one great effort to consolidate this Empire of ours, and to keep Australia free. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- You cannot beat a renegade. {: #debate-41-s1 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (the HonJ M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- The honorable member must withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- I withdraw it. {: #debate-41-s2 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne .- The honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith)** who has just resumed his. seat, declared that the Government had carefully considered its proposal to allow youths of eighteen to enlist without the consent of their parents. The fact that since the tabling of this amendment they have backed down, shows that they could not have given it every consideration. They have backed down by raising the age from eighteen to nineteen. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The Cabinet was considering the question before this amendment was tabled. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- I know that that is so, because I asked a question on the subject. Honorable members opposite think that the people outside will not judge them harshly if, in the circumstances, they vote against this amendment. I would remind them of the statement once made by one of Victoria's keenest politicians, the late Duncan Gillies, that " it is very easy to explain away a speech, but difficult to explain away a division." The honorable member for Denison evidently thought I was laughing at him when he proceeded to attack me. As a matter of fact, I was laughing at the thought of something that occurred to him when he and I were in London together. Perhaps I should not have laughed, but now that he knows the circumstances I am sure he will forgive me. He stated that while he had a brother at the Front I had no one to represent me there. I am sure that, in cooler moments, he would not have made that statement. How does he know what relatives I have at the Front ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I said that I had yet to learn that the honorable member was represented at the Front. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- I did not hear that qualification. The honorable member spoke of being represented at the Front by blood of his blood and bone of his bone. I have yet to learn that that phrase can be applied except to one's own children. My honorable friend was referring to his brother, who certainly is not blood of his blood and bone of his bone. If he had said that both had sprung from the. same loins he would have been right. He proceeded to attack the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. Finlayson),** who has a son at the Front. Who wants to shelter behind his little brother or his son? I am sixty-four years of age, and am .willing to enlist if the honorable member for Denison will do so. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- I will go with the honorable member. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- My honorable friend must have his little joke. The honorable member for Denison said he was forty-five years of age when the war broke out. As a matter of fact, I was over sixty, but I offered my services; I have yet to learn that he did. The honorable member has criticised my leader, **Mr. Tudor,** in the most unjust way. I would remind him of a speech that he made in this House on the 20th September, .1916, when the Military Service Referendum Bill was under consideration. As reported in. *Hansard,* page 8732, he said - >I believe it lias been said in my electorate that I it-ill be opposed, and that in a three-cornered fight the Liberals will win. There will be no three-cornered fight- and there was not - because if I am not selected by the Labour party to stand in the Labour interest I will simply go back to my calling as a worker. If, for example, the election is on a Saturday, I shall, if I am not nominated, go back again on the Monday to work at my trade. If I am not selected to support Labour, that is not my fault; but I shall not come back here supporting anybody else. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- The honorable member has come back, but he is not representing the Labour party. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Yes; I represent " the old Labour party. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- The Nationalist Labour party. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- It seems to me to be a shandy-gafF political mixture. The Government and their supporters say that we must make use of our boys. Do they realize that by voting against this amendment they will vote to send boys of nineteen *to the Front* in opposition to the wishes of their fathers and mothers ? Have we no regard for the Ten Commandments? It is said that Moses once asked Satan what his opinion was of the Ten Commandments, and that Satan replied that they would be all very well if he were allowed to omit from them the one word "not." The decision of the Government in this instance means that the commandment " Honour thy father and thy mother" is to be thrown to the winds. It is an infamy to send boys of eighteen to the Front. One would think that Australia was fighting the whole battle of the Allies ! I am ashamed to hear men of the British race crying out for boys to go to the Front. The Allies re* present a population of 1,170,000,000, whereas our enemies, dominated, unfortunately, by brutal Prussia, have but a total' population of 140,000,000. If we take white races only, the Allies represent 471,000,000, banded together in the same cause, but, unfortunately, not all enjoying the same liberties that we possess to-day. If you deduct the 191,000,000 of Russians, Roumanians, and Servians, you still have 280,000,000 of white people fighting against the 140,000,000 of white and other people in the Central European Empires. I am ashamed when I hear honorable members on the other side speak as though the British race were decadent. I am not afraid about that. During the Continental wars that silver streak, the English channel, saved England, but she then stood alone against tie world, and ultimately destroyed the armies that were led by the military genius of Napoleon. Sometimes one might think from "his reading of the newspapers that it was the Australians alone who were fighting the battles of the Allies. When addressing recruiting meetings I have had, in justice to the Tommies, to show that their divisions have lost more than our divisions at the Front. I know how bravely they are fighting, yet their conditions are not as good, as the conditions of our own men, though I hope that in future they will be so. If I thought for a moment that that brutal, blood-thirsty tyrant, the Ger7 man Emperor, and the equally brutal blood-thirsty system of Prussian militarism, were likely to win the Avar, I would make honorable members go with me to fight, even if I had to shanghai them. We would do our little bit. I say that in all sincerity. Genera] Joffre, when he visited America with the Commission from Great Britain, and France, was received more warmly than any other member of the Commission. He advised the Americans not to train their soldiers in America, but to send them to France, where they could learn the new conditions of trench warfare in a few months, because things have changed since the war commenced. As 1 have already told the House, I was informed by the representative of the Chambers of Commerce of the United States of America, whom I met by accident and *to* whom I rendered a small service when travelling over the East-West railway, that in December there were 960,000 Americans training in France, and a gentleman connected with the Defence Department, when he heard the source of my information, admitted that there were 1,000,000 Americans there. Under these circumstances, it is ridiculous to say that our boys should be kept here until they reach the age of twenty-one years. If transport facilities are few, why not send our men Home *viti* America. A steamer can make two and a half trips between Sydney and San Francisco for one trip between Australia and Europe. Allowing for delays in port, one ship -could carry as many men to America as "two ships could carry to Europe. In -America our men would meet brothers of their race, men speaking the same tongue. It would be a fine thing to have our Australian soldiers crossing America by the 3,000 miles of railway that span that continent. By adopting that route for our transports we could concentrate our defences against the submarines in the 3,500 miles of ocean that stretch between America and France. I understand that only one transport has so far been torpedoed. We could also economize in transport if we sent Home foodstuffs in the shape of flour instead of as wheat, because 3 lbs. of wheat grind down into 2 lbs. of flour. If we sent flour Home, we should not only save in freight, but would have the bran, pollard, and other waste as fodder for stock. Therefore, I ask, why not send everything by way of America ? We are told of what has been done for our soldiers, but again I ask, why cannot we treat the women and children who are the dependants of soldiers as well as the dependants of New Zealand soldiers are treated? In proportion to population, the Dominion has as much loan indebtedness as we have to face, and has sent as many men to the Front. Yet for every child left in New Zealand by a soldier, the sum of 10s. 6d. per week is paid, whereas we originally allowed for the housing, feeding, and clothing of soldiers' children 4id. per day, the amount being subsequently increased to 6d. Would any one of us like his child to be brought up on an expenditure of only 6d. per day? A child, as a future unit of the State, has the .right to be reared into a healthy individual. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- There is the separation allowance of the mother in addition to the allowance for the children. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- In New Zealand a woman with five children gets £4 14s. 6d. per week; in Australia she was asked to live on £2 4s. 0½d., and now on £2 12s. 6d. per week. It is impossible to rear a .child properly on a paltry 6d! per day, and when the country is borrowing money in millions it is contemptible to give such an allowance for the rearing of children. No medical man would say that a child can be properly fed for that sum. Our calves and pigs are better fed than a child could be fed for 6d. a day. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The Government which the honorable member supported for so many years fixed the allowance. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- The honorable member does not know what a fight I put up for a larger allowance. I wish to have the pensions of soldiers' dependants made as large as that of officers' dependants. I want to see the soldiers getting the same pay, the same food, and the same pensions, and wearing the same uniforms, as officers, and I would pay the dependants of officers and men alike. Perhaps the honorable member is not aware that there are 100 officers in the Defence Department and at the Front receiving more than the CommanderinChief of the Swiss Army in time of war, when he commands 300,000 men. Fifteen of our officers draw more in pay and allowances than Von Moltke received when he led the Prussians through France. Any one who looks at the *Age* of the 3rd May will find that the figures that I am giving are correct. I regret that inaccurate answers were returned to me regarding New Zealand. I asked if we paid as much as New Zealand, and was told that we did. But I am sorry to say that the answer was wrong, though I do not accuse Ministers of untruthfulness in the matter. How many soldiers' widows are there in Victoria who need not fear the landlord's knock at the door, having cottages rent free, or for a pepper-corn rental? I know of only one. Yet in New South Wales, on the 15th February last, there were 790 soldiers' widows possessing four-roomed brick cottages with bathrooms, for which they were being charged ls. per year, and where the Government did not possess houses, rent was being paid up to 10s. per week. We should have a few hundred such houses in Victoria. This Government and, the Government of Victoria are not doing their duty in the matter. If a soldier is in receipt of a pension, and gets paid employment, he is fined. The man who wove the cloth that I am now wearing did not know how to weave three months before that cloth was made. The man who teaches soldiers to weave has shown that any man who can move his wrist can become a good weaver. But a single man drawing a pension of 15s. per week is allowed to earn, only 27s. a week at weaving, and a married man only 10s. 6d. more. What a paltry and contemptible arrangement that is! Why do not we do what they do in New South Wales - that is, pay the men 2s. per yard double width? At that rate, men could earn fair wages. Let them also keep their pensions. No one wants soldiers to be fined because they are drawing pensions. The rate I have mentioned would prevent the undercutting of union rates. At 2s. a yard for weaving, 3s. 6d. for -wool, 6d. for dressing, and ls. for overhead expenses, the cost of a yard would be 7s. This is saleable retail at *£1,* or at 15s. in Flinders-lane. If the Government would supply the whole of the cloth to Flinders-lane there would be no trouble; but they want to supply it to the tailors and others. Why should not any citizen have the right to buy so many yards for a suit of clothes? A difference of 2s. 6d. per yard between the wholesale and retail prices of the cloth should be sufficient. We have heard the remark that " France is being bled white " ; but it is an untruth. The head of the Commission that went to America from France, said in a letter to the Secretary for War, **Mr Baker,** that France in March of this year was stronger at the Front than she had ever been, and that, she had nearly 1,000,000 more men. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Unfortunately, we do not. know how much of that statement isbluff. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- It is not bluff. Thehonorable member can see the statementin *Current History.* {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- It is not all bluff, but part, of it is. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- The honorable member cannot say that it is. A map was published in the Melbourne *Argus* duringMarch showing that the Americans were holding 50 miles of the Western Front, and we read only a few days ago that they are holding double the width of Belgium. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- But that is in mountainous country, where a less number of men is required. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- I would rather have the explanation of the American General than that of my friend the Admiral. According to the *Herald* on the 10th May last, **Sir J.** F. Frazer has stated that France is not " bled white," and that she is stronger and better equipped than at the beginning of the war. This bears out what I am speaking of. It is amusing, although it is sometimespathetic, to hear the causes for which many of our soldiers have been punished. One man has been punished for " unlawfully firing at the King's enemies. ' ' I caz> understand that punishments are necessary in order to maintain good discipline. I know that many men smuggled themselves on board for Gallipoli, some of them in their pyjamas, that they fought well, that some of them were killed, and that others were brought back and severely punished. However, it is tomfoolery to punish a man for unlawfully firing' on the King's enemies. I have nopatience with such things. No one can tell what is going to happen in regard to our finances. I have read the opinions of some of our leaders of financial thought, and I candidly admit that I cannot see the light. The agricultural labourers working in the UnitedKingdom received in wages before the war from 14s. to 18s. per week; and themajority of the cottages in which they lived were damp and not fit to bring upchildren in, as is proved by the fact that England is now making arrangements to build 1,000,000 fresh cottages. Thepoint is that every cup of tea that waa- drunk in thos© humble homes, and every teaspoonful of sugar that was used, paid a minute fraction of interest on the debts incurred during the Napoleonic wars. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- This is very ancient history. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- But it shows how the cursed cross of interest will be branded on future years. I have already said in this House that my brain could not conceive, nor my lips utter, any vote which would brand the cursed cross of interest on the untold millions of the future. Last year, the expenditure of Great Britain was £2,198,000,000. The taxation was £573,000,000. We cannot conceive of Great Britain coming out of this war with a smaller expenditure than £9,000,000,000 or £10,000,000,000. This amount, at 4 per cent., will mean the annual payment of £400,000,000 by way of interest - more than £1,000,000 a day. Surely it calls for an alteration in our system of finance. I think I can see a' way out, so far as Australia is concerned. I believe that it was John Stuart Mill, or one of the other economists of his time, who suggested that a Doomsday Book should be taken of all property in Great Britain and Ireland, and that any increase of value from that -time onward should belong to the State. It will be necessary for us to have a similar book in Australia. Every owner should be permitted to 1 raise or lower his value if he thinks fit to do so, but as a .check against any attempt to fix upon, an unjust value for the purpose of escaping taxation, the shire council, the State or the Commonwealth should have the right to resume any person's property at his own valuation. Furthermore, the owner should be prepared to pay taxation upon that valuation. The adoption of that policy would wipe out a large proportion of the huge debt that will have -accrued at the end of this War. In ten or twenty " years' time the natural increase of wealth will tend to remove that debt, and save future generations from a great deal of taxation. The honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. Charlton)** has said very justly that it is difficult to understand how to make up an income tax return - I suppose that he will allow me to add a land tax return - under the Commonwealth system. In *Bradshaw' 8 Guide* the State income tax rates are set out in thirteen simple lines. Any honorable member could tell an inquiring citizen the amount of income tax he would be required to pay to the State, but there is no honorable member here who could tell him what he would be called on to pay in the shape of Commonwealth income tax or land tax without a glance at a Ready Reckoner, which contains something like 6,000 lines as against the thirteen lines in *Bradshaw' s Guide.* I do not know of any other country which has such an idiotic system as is that scientific curve of ours, which seems to have been conceived for the purpose of worrying the lives of honorable members, who have many constituents coming to them and asking them how much taxation they really ought to pay. The State system is a common-sense one, and it is the height of absurdity for the Commonwealth Government to continue our foolish system. In regard to the question of unemployment, I am sorry to say that in the city of Melbourne, the least taxed city of its size in the world, which is freed from the responsibility of paying for its police protection, though every city of America or Europe of the same size has to pay for its own police, has been mean and contemptible enough to dismiss up to fifty men who Were engaged in cleaning the streets. Instead of removing the garbage tins from Carlton and West Melbourne three or four times a week, they propose to do so twice a week. I resent this action, particularly at a time when diphtheria is spreading. When **Sir David** Hennessy was Lord Mayor, and was unwise enough to close the baths, I headed a deputation of Federal and State members of Parliament which waited upon him, and I said to him, " Not only is Melbourne the dustiest city of its size in the world, but you are trying to make it the dirtiest." There is no city in Europe of the size of Melbourne where one cannot have a swim every day in the year. I am speaking of this matter because unemployment disturbs credit, and once credit is destroyed our loans will be a failure, which I do not want them to be. Whenever there is unemployment the first to suffer is the small landlord. The next to suffer are the small shopkeepers. Then the larger shopkeepers suffer, and so it goes on. Everything should be kept in full swing at the present time. When the Broken Hill mines were afraid that they would have to close down, they were able to keep them at full swing. When the Government of the day, which I supported, were foolish enough not to accept the splendid offer that **Mr. Baillieu** empowered me to make, namely, that the work should be carried on in full swing, no man being dismissed, and that the Commonwealth Government should purchase all the minerals at 30 per cent. below the London price before thewar, silver was 2s. an ounce, and the Government could have bought every ounce in Australia for1s. 4 4-5d. Since then silver has gone as high as 5s. an ounce. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- It is 4s.07/8d. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- That is the price at present, but it has been as high as 5s. One of the head men of thebiggest shipping company trading with the East assures me that the Chinese dollar isat 6s., though when I was in Hong Kong it was only1s. l0d. The present price of the Chinese silver dollar shows the reason why silk can be purchased cheaper in Melbourne to-day than in China. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- A silver currency is not governed entirely by the price of silver. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- In the East one always exchanges one's money according to the advertisement in that morning's newspapers, so that if silver goes up 2d. not so many dollars are given in return for the sovereign. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- That is true of Chinese currency. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- And it was true in India until comparatively recently, when fifteen rupees were calculated to the sovereign. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Where there is a gold standard, the silver currency keeps its value, which is much above the market value of silver. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- That is so, and the silver dollar in America is 4s. 2d., while in Manila it is 2s.1d. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- That is only a difference in name. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- It is the American dollar. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- It is legal currency in America, whereas it is not legal currency in Manila. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- That is not so. We cannot go on raising loans, the interest on which is free from taxation. If I repeat myself in this matter, it is because I think it is necessary to emphasize the position. I will have nothing to do with repudiation, but by means of evolution we may reach the desired end in a slower and safer way. We might appeal to patriotic men, who have invested money in the loans to an amount of £100,000 and over, to permit the country, in its hour of need, to have the use of it without interest. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Oh, you make me laugh ! {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- This is a serious matter, and I am deeply in earnest. If I remember rightly, the Minister in charge at the present moment **(Mr. Poynton)** gave me a sympathetic answer when I asked whether it would not be possible to present a certificate to investors who acted in this patriotic way, just as a certificate were given to every man and woman who voted for Federation. If that idea were acceptable to the Government, it could be flung broadcast throughout Australia, and I think that there would be a generous response. Patriotism does not altogether lie with the young bloods when they feel the rich red blood coursing through them, and offer their lives to help their country. Old fogies like myself and others are just as patriotic, and I always recall the words of a Consul-General for America' who, when we were speaking of a contingency, which at that time was feared in the East, said that if elderly persons like he and I could not go to fight, they could always give what they possessed to support the cause, and he emphasized his idea by pointing to a splendid gold watch which he then wore. What are we going to do when we have to face the crisis? At one time I thought that we could get through the war with an expenditure of £300,000,000, and, as I indicate in a motion on the notice-paper, that we might get an indemnity, not permitting the German flag to fly upon the ocean until it had been paid, even if it were for 100 years; but I am afraid it is hopeless to think of that now. Be that as it may, what are we going to do ? Are we to allow the cursed Kaiser to put the load of interest on the untold millions of future generations? We are here the creatures of a moment, while the earth is here for ever; in other words, I submit that land, buildings, and. property generally should hear the hurden. I do not mean that we should unjustly tax, but, at the same time, we are not taxing as we should - not as the people in England and the United States of America are being taxed. For four years the war has been in progress, and we are hot yet taxing rich incomes. I again thank **Mr. Baillieu,** who is a millionaire reputed to be making a second million, for pointing out that the War-time Profits Tax Act does not touch men like him; and we ought to accept that signal from a quarter where we could hardly expect to see it. Then, again, as I said before, **Sir John** Grice did not speak as Chairman of Directors of the National Bank merely to give Labour men a peg on which to hang an argument when he said that those with large amounts invested in the loans receive nearly 7 per cent, in interest, while small investors receive only 4-J per cent. Say there is £300,000,000 invested in the loans, on £200,000,000 of which interest is paid at 4^ per cent, free of taxation, it might be made known throughout the land that on the 1st January, 1919 - when we all hope the war will be over - those who had invested £100,000 and upwards would have the opportunity to leave it with the Government free of interest, or with the interest subject to income tax, or be paid in full in Commonwealth Bank notes. Those who took the notes could pay them into the various banks, by which it could be advanced to help commercial and industrial enterprises. This would make the currency more fluid, increase our credit, and show us who are the real patriots in our midst. If there are scrolls of honour for those who have given their lives at the Front. so there should be scrolls of honour for those investors who are manly enough to lend their money free of interest, or willing that the interest shall be subject to taxation. I do not like the word " scheme," but if some such plan could be adopted, the Government and the country would save its face, and honorably meet its responsibilities, so that no one could point a finger of scorn at it. I shall vote for the amendment. If it is desired to increase recruiting, there is a simple way. In all great wars, especially in the last American war, in which, up to that time, there was a larger army than in any war between modern nations, sumsof money have been paid to men for serving their country; and I may say that in, the war I have just mentioned some men. were bold enough to risk the deserved fate of the traitor, and accepted payment from both sides. In Australia at the present moment it might be advisable to place £50 'in the bank to the credit of every man going to the Front. in order to enable him to pay little debts, and so forth, before his departure. We are thankful to the insurance companies for what they have done, though I do not think they aredoing all they ought to do. In the case of the National Mutual Company, those who insured before the war do not havetheir premiums increased, but those who have insured since have to pay an additional £10 for every £100; and in the case of the Australian Mutual Provident Society the extra payment is £7 10s. L read only yesterday that in America, something like 2,000,000 men have been insured by the Government for am average sum of £1,000 each. A glance at the immense figures of the Australian Mutual Provident Society will reveal thehuge profits made in the life insurance business. When I was a. member of the State Parliament I. had prepared a return of the premiums paid by the Railway Department for the insurance of employees. Noexpense was incurred by the insurance' company, yet though nearly £300,000- was collected in premiums, the companiespaid out some £30,000, leaving a profit of about £250,000. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr Boyd: -- Strictly speaking, that; was not a profit; it was an overcharged, premium. . {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- Most of the £250,000* was profit, because it is evident that all the time premiums were being received in. excess of the losses. I hope the Government will embark on a policy of life insurance for soldiers. Surely if- men are> willing to risk their lives it is the duty of the Government to insure them for the benefit of their dependants. We know that some dependants have been left in miserable circumstances. As a member of the State Recruiting Committee, I knowthat some wealthy men have made most generous offers to insure the lives of soldiers going to the Front. But under that system a few give in that and every other way, and other rich men do not give at all. Again, only a few fortunate men benefit; whereas if the insurance were done by the Government all soldiers would be helped, and the burden would be distributed over the whole community. I urge the Minister to telegraph to the United States of America for information as to the insurance system which has been adopted ' by the Government there, and he may discover an example so good that Australia, democratic as it is, may be inclined to follow it. {: #debate-41-s3 .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr BOYD:
Henty .- A question which, before the amendment was moved, was quite simple, has .now become complicated. The object of the Bill before the House is to allow £80,000,000 to be raised for war purposes. Every honorable member realizes the necessity for passing that measure, but when the Bill had been, advanced to the second -reading stage the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment condemning the Government for enlisting for service abroad youths under eighteen years of age who had not obtained the consent of their parents. I believe in the object of the amendment; I also believe in the Bill introduced by the Government, but the two questions are so interwoven that the carrying of the amendment would mean the cancellation of the Bill. The view I take of the amendment is that no Government, no matter how strong they may be, have any right to give to boys under the age of twenty-one years, up till which age they are infants in law, the right to defy their parents in spite of the moral law embodied in the Ten Commandments. I do not pose as one appealing to Divine authority in this matter, but I say that it is against the general instinct of the race to give to infants at law power to defy their parents. I do not care what Great Britain does. This step may be necessary in the opinion of the men who are conducting the affairs of the Mother Country; I have no responsibility for what is done there. But I have some responsibility in connexion with the introduction of that principle in Australia. I am a representative of the people, and if this policy is carried into operation it must be either with or without my consent. I am glad that the Acting Prime Minister has announced a considerable modification of the original proposal. How the decision to allow boys of eighteen years of age to enlist without the consent of their parents was arrived at I cannot say, but I believe that if the responsible authorities had known the opinion of the country, they would never have assented to such a proposition. I am glad that the Government have realized in time the danger of pursuing the course on which they started. But the Acting Prime Minister would have done better if, instead of announcing a modification of the Government policy, he had stated the Government's intention of reverting to the original condition, under which no boy under the age of twenty-one years could enlist without the consent of his parents. We do not desire to recruit our Expeditionary Forces with men who are going to the Front in defiance of their parents. They are not the sort of men from whom we may expect the highest service, and I believe that it would be very much better to do without the few extra recruits we may get under the new regulation rather than continue a policy which is approved by hardly anybody in the community. If the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition had been brought forward, not as an amendment to a Bill of which I approve, but as a specific motion, I should certainly have supported it, hut as it has been moved as an amendment on a Bill which I regard as absolutely necessary, I intend to vote against it. At the same time, I wish to place on record my emphatic opinion that the Government were absolutely wrong in introducing the regulation to which exception has been taken, and I hope that even now they will see the wisdom of making it impossible for a boy under twenty-one years of age to enlist in spite of the opposition of hia parents. If they will retrace their steps I am satisfied that the country will thoroughly approve- of their action, regardless of whether the number of recruits is increased or decreased. How to deal with boys who enlist by wrongly claiming to be twenty-one years of age is a difficult problem. I intend to bring before the House next week the case of a lad who enlisted before he was sixteen years of age. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I know of a lad who served two years at the Front before he reached the age of sixteen years. {: .speaker-JRP} ##### Mr BOYD: -- Such cases are difficult to deal with. But when hoys who are living at home have been refused their parents' consent, it is morally wrong for the Government to create conditions which will enable those lads to defy their parents. I am quite sure that if the Government sit back and think hard when this debate is concluded, they will come to the conclusion that they had better revert to the conditions which obtained before the making of this mistaken regulation. {: #debate-41-s4 .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling .- It is very amusing to hear honorable members on the Government benches asserting that they are opposed to the principle of baby-snatching, but apologetically stating that they cannot vote against the Bill. If those honorable gentlemen are so moral as to be opposed to the immoral principle propounded today by the Acting Prime Minister, they should at least be prepared to fight for their principles. I have not much faith in honorable members who tell us what they would do in different circumstances. One honorable member said to-day that if the amendment were moved at *some other* time, and the debate did not involve too many party considerations, he might support it. That is as far as his principles go. The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Boyd)** knows perfectly well that by voting for the amendment and defeating the Bill the immoral regulation will be wholly withdrawn. It is the members of the Ministerial party who are making the Government squirm. Not the speeches made in this House, but the attitude of the women of Victoria, made the Government modify their attitude. I raise my hat to the women of Victoria for the action they have taken against the immorality contemplated by the babysnatching Government. If honorable members are in earnest about preserving parental control and insuring that none shall go to the war who may become physical, mental, and moral wrecks through being placed in conditions where their youth is a factor against them, they will do something more than merely blither about principles, and then vote against those principles. I and my colleagues are opposed to the Government proposition, and our opposition is not due to party considerations. It will be found that a very large proportion of those who vote for the Government, and their supporters, object to it, and as the scheme becomes more generally known, there will be such a public outcry against it that I am sure it will be withdrawn. Having regard to the modification of it that has been made within the last twenty-four hours, it is not difficult to calculate how long it will be before the scheme as a whole is abolished. It will be a good thing for the youth of Australia - for the potential fathers of the Commonwealth - if it is dropped. I wish now to deal with a matter which I think should be ventilated, and should claim the attention of the Government. It relates to enemy trading - to the exploitation of the Australian people by an enemy firm, whose profits will go to Germany. I refer to the operations of what is known as the Standard Woollen Company. So far as I can learn, this firm was established some twenty-five years ago by a German named Johann Wulfing, under the name of the Wulfing Woollen Company. Some years later a man named G. Hardt came from Germany, and bought out the business which was thereafter carried on under the firm name of G. Hardt and Company Limited. That trading concern was among the first to be gazetted as an enemy firm. Thereupon, apparently, a transfer of the business took place, and it was carried on under the style of the Standard Woollen Company. Early in 1916, the Standard Woollen Company, the manager of which at that time was a **Mr. E.** Schroeder, was declared to be an enemy firm, and an official liquidator named Sherlock was put in by the Government. Acting in conjunction with **Mr. Schroeder,** who is still the manager of the company, he has been doing a good business in the exploitation of Australians for the benefit of German shareholders in that company. I do not say that this has been done with the cognisance of the Government, but it has been carried on with the cognisance of a Government servant. It is a scandal that the stock of this company has been held until like stocks in Australia have become depleted, and that its prices have been increased to the extent of 300 per cent. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Who is the Government servant referred to? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Sherlock, the official liquidator put in by the Government, and who is acting in conjunction with E. Schroeder, manager of the company. The company's stock is now valued at about £40,000, although two years have elapsedsince it was declared an enemy firm. {: #debate-41-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The DEPUTY SPEAKER:
the Hon. J. M. Chanter -- How does the honorable member propose to connect this matter with the question before the Chair? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- One of the Government war measures is the fixation of prices, and the prevention of profiteering. This is clearly a case of profiteering, not by a British, but by a German firm. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- Is war loan money used in connexion with it? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Yes ; £10,000 of war loan money baa been used for the purpose. It is shown that, in connexion with stocks recently disposed of by the firm in South Australia, the London invoice price of Mahony's Blarney tweed, in 1914, was 4s. lOd. per yard, and that the Government liquidator, acting in conjunction with E. Schroeder, had valued that same tweed at 25s. per yard. The whole of the London invoices are for 1914. Is this exploitation on the part of a declared enemy firm to go on for the benefit pf German shareholders? {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- The honorable member is referring to imported tweeds ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Solely to imported tweeds. I have the whole of the stock sheets for the South Australian part of the business, and have obtained from an expert valuer in the trade the approximate invoice values of these goods. The estimated value of lot No. 1 is 8s. 4d. per yard, whereas the price put upon it by **Mr. Schroeder** and **Mr. Sherlock** is 25s. per yard. Lot No. 2 has an estimated value of 8s. 4d. per yard, but Messrs. Sherlock and Schroeder have valued that also at 25s. per yard. The estimated value of lot 5 is 8s. per yard, whereas Messrs. Sherlock and Schroeder have valued it at 24s. per yard, and the estimated value of lot. 10 is 10s. per yard, as against a valuation of 30s. per yard put upon it by Messrs. Sherlock and Schroeder. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- They are extraordinary values even for to-day. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- If the honorable member knows anything of the woollen trade he will admit that prices might very well have increased during the last two years, and that in respect of many lines there has been an increase of over 500 per cent. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Have these goods actually been sold ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- I shall deal with some goods that have recently been sold, and which are on the list from which I have been quoting. Messrs. Sherlock and Schroeder value the South Australian portion of this company's holdings at £4,305 17s. 4d., whereas, taking' the invoice price in 1914, it is worth less than £1,500. This inflation of prices would be bad enough if the exploitation of the people were being carried on by a British firm, but the position is much worse when we find that these profits are going into the pockets of Germans. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- The honorable member means to say 'that Germans are still the actual owners of the transferred property r {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The honorable member knows that when the goods of enemy firms are seized by the Government they are not actually confiscated, so that the result of this exploitation of the people of the Commonwealth will go to the original German owners of the stock. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Is the liquidator holding as trustee for the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- He is acting in conjunction with the manager of the company, who occupies in Sydney a position like that of any other business man. 1 have assurances from at least four firms in Sydney that they are prepared to take over the whole of the remaining stock of this company with certain qualifications. There is something like £40,000 worth of tweeds, woollens, and other goods still in the hands of the company. These four firms will pay cash for the lot, and will undertake to sell to the retailers of Australia, in not more than £500 lots, at a maximum profit of 20 per cent. They are prepared to add to the 1914 invoice cost an amount sufficient to cover general charges and a fair margin of profit, but not to allow for a profit of 300 per cent. Experts are also ready to value these stocks for* the Government whenever asked to do so. I am sure that honorable members generally will' join with me in objecting to the exploitation of the Australian people by a German firm under any circumstances. -Another war question is the' supply of foodstuffs to the British Government for hospital and other purposes. The supply of rabbits comes within that category. A mysterious phase of the contract made between the British Government and the Meat Board of New South Wales for the supply of rabbits has recently been discovered. When we tried to ascertain a few days ago who was responsible for the making of that contract, we elicited from **Mr. King,** the Chairman of the New South Wales Meat Board, that the main reason why the contract was made with the Meat Board was that the previous contract was mishandled by the Commonwealth Government, with the result that a very large quantity of the rabbits shipped to England arrived in a faulty condition. Some eight months ago I said that when the 1917-1918 pack came to be opened in London 40 per cent, would be found unfit for human consumption. The reason given by the Honorary Minister **(Mr. Greene)** for the making of the contract with the Sydney Meat Board is entirely different from that supplied by **Mr. King,** and inquiry should be instituted in regard to the whole question. Coming to the supply of rabbits for the Australian Imperial Force, sinister rumours are still current in regard to 2,000 crates which were shipped for the use of our soldiers in Egypt. I am informed from a fairly reliable source that before they reached Suez these crates had to be dumped overboard because ' of faulty freezing preparation on the part of the rabbit combine, who supplied the rabbits to the Commonwealth Government. The allocation of the 600,000 crates, much of which will go to our hospitals in London, was carried out by the Rabbit Combine, through its representatives on the Advisory Board. There are three of those gentlemen - **Mr. Curtis,** of Curtis and Curtis, Ltd.; **Mr. J.** Paterson, of J. Paterson and Co. Ltd., a Victorian firm; and **Mr. McKinney,** of a country freezing company of New South Wales; together with **Mr. Butler,** who is chairman of the Advisory Committee and one of the inspectors. Representations have been made to the Meat Board, which has in some instances permitted certain firms not in the Combine to have 1,000 crates of rabbits. What I contend, even at this late stage, is that, providing the rabbits are passed, by our Government graders, anybody who desires to pack should have the right to do so. The allocation of the present pack is based upon the pack of 1916-17. When one considers that the Rabbit Combine had a practical mono- poly of the pack of that year, it is quite clear that the allocation on the pack of 1917 would result in the combination again getting the whole? of the contract. To-day there are many freezing companies which have deliberately closed down their works in order, if possible, to act detrimentally to the best interests of Australia; that is, to prevent men from getting a fair share of the profits accruing from this contract. The Commonwealth Government, under the War Precautions Act, have power to say that any rabbits brought in, no matter who brings them, must be accepted by the New South Wales Meat Board. That power should be exercised. Another question very intimately connected with the Bill before the House is that of the wool acquisition scheme - an essentially war-time measure, and one on which loan money has been expended. I refer specially to the Czar-like action of the Central Wool Committee in issuing a regulation preventing small woolbuyers in various country towns from pursuing their calling. There are several hundreds of them in New South Wales alone, and thousands of them throughout the Commonwealth. Many possess extensive plants, large buildings, and waggons and horses, or motors. They regularly make collections of wool and skins and country produce; and the total plant and outfit probably represent hundreds .of thousands of pounds. All. this is lying idle, and for no known purpose, unless it be to make the business more profitable for those inside the scheme, acting as. agents for the Central Wool Committee. Under the regulation issued by the Central Wool Committee, any man who deals in one shilling's worth of wool over £10 worth - the statutory limit - is liable to a fine of £100, or six months' imprisonment, or both. That is a ridiculous penalty for carrying on businesses which have been established from the time when first the selectors and farmers began to keep a few sheep in their spare paddocks. These small producers have not an opportunity to grade and prepare their wool for market, and even if they could do so in. the best possible way, and could send it down to the average wool-selling firm, it would receive no consideration, for the reason that it is in small lots. Thus, the country wool-dealer fulfils a valuable mission in classing the wool ofAustralia. He goes to numerous farms collecting small quantities; then he classes them, sorts, and bales them, and thus small items from many sources are compiled into marketable parcels. That is a direct saving and benefit to the community. At present many hundreds of men are idle because of this infamous regulation passed by the Central Wool Committee. I desire to touch upon one other matter - one which has relation to a scheme recently inaugurated, and which concerns the Bill before us. That is as to the pooling of jute goods. It is necessary, in the interests of Australia, that the Government should take over the whole of the importation and distribution of jute goods. At present I understand this is confined to wheat sacks. Not only should the Government be very careful as to the distribution of wheat sacks, but they should immediately take steps not only to supply farmers with cornsacks, but pastoraliste with woolpacks, and the community with bran bags. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The Indian Government, although we requested them to do that, refused to do so on our behalf. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Who is going to do it? Does the Minister mean that no woolpacks or bran bags are available for the Government? {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The Indian Government refused to carry out the deal through the Jute Controller for India, who was the only channel through which we could go, except in regard to grain sacks. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Cannot, or will not, this Government go through the channels that are used by private individuals ? {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I do not know that we should gain much if we did. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- If during the coming year we have to use the secondhand bags and sacks left over from last year, it will be most unfortunate. This Government has stood idly by and looked on while the farmers have been robbed by firms that were well-informed enough, or cute enough, to know its intentions and actions. The Government fixed the price of new cornsacks, but not of secondhand lags. The price of secondhand bags was not fixed until certain firms had cornered them, and later were able to charge 10s. and l1s. a dozen for them. The Government has full evidence of exploitation last year, and should be careful of the distribution of wheat sacks. Many firms are prepared to take on the distribution of sacks, but the Government should control it absolutely. Last year the distribution was in the hands of private persons, and although there were plenty of sacks in Sydney, many farmers could not get them, and had to pour their wheat out on to a cleared space of ground, private enterprise holding the sacks for greater profit. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Last year the price of bags was fixed. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The price of secondhand bags was fixed. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- Such bags were not allowed to be used for wheat. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Millions of bushels of wheat are now stored in secondhand bags. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- Not one secondhand bag was permitted by the Government to be used in South Australia. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Certain firms knew that secondhand bags would be used, and they cornered them with the cognisance of the Government which the honorable member supports. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- I speak of what I know. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** is making a statement that he cannot prove. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Where was the corner? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Let my honorable friend ask his farmer constituents, if he has any. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- I have plenty. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Then the honorable member does not go about among them. The distribution of woolpacks and bran bags should be undertaken by this Government. If private enterprise is permitted to rob the community this year as it did last, many of the small pastoralists, and many of the farmers, will suffer. The Government should make an effort immediately to use the channels that are used by private enterprise. If they cannot get supplies through the Indian Government, they can do so through the manufacturers of jute, or through the agents of the manufacturers. What can be done by Messrs. Dalgety and Co. and other importing firms can be done by the Commonwealth Government. {: #debate-41-s6 .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot .- The honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** said that last year sacks had been cornered, and when asked in what part of Australia, could only make the insulting remark that I do not look after the interests of the farmers in my constituency. That is a matter between them and me, but he can go to my constituency and make the .statement there if he likes. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Bags were cornered in New South Wales and in Victoria. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr ATKINSON: -- On Friday last I thought that I had said all that it was necessary for me to say in connexion with this Bill, and that I could defer until after the delivery of the Budget what I had to say about the finances of the Commonwealth. But the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** yesterday moved a peculiar amendment. He is anxious to gain political kudos for his party, by making it appear that they alone desire that boys of eighteen shall not enlist without their parents' consent. The matter could have been raised more properly in connexion with the Defence Bill, or some other measure, but the honorable member was afraid that the Government would revoke the regulation to which he objects. I do not approve of that regulation, and I hope that Ministers may go further in amending it than the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt)** has promised to go. I think youths under twenty-one years of age should not be allowed to enlist if their parents have solid and reasonable objections to them doing so. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Would the honorable member vote for that? {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr ATKINSON: -- If the question is put straightforwardly before the House, I would, but I am not to be drawn into voting for an amendment which has been moved as a political dodge, and which, if carried, would defeat a Bill of which I approve. I know what games are played at election times, and how such votes are misrepresented. Damaging statements are circulated behind one's back which there is no chance to explain. Therefore I shall state my present position. I would have supported a straightout motion affirming the desirability of preventing boys of eighteen from enlisting without their parents' consent, but I shall not vote for an amendment which would defeat a Bill which is necessary for the proper conduct of the war, because unless we raise the money asked for, our soldiers cannot be properly equipped and paid, nor can the necessary reinforcements be provided. Therefore I shall vote against the amendment. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- But the honorable member is against the principle that is involved". {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr ATKINSON: -- I am not, There is not much principle about honorable members who accuse one of all sorts of things, without producing any evidence in support of their charges, and then lea ve the chamber before one has an opportunity to reply to them. I am not here to bolster up the Opposition by supplying them with political food. The Government are seeking authority in this Bill to raise a loan of £80,000,000, to enable us to prosecute the war to a successful issue. We are in this struggle, and we must see it through. That being so, it behoves the members of all parties to pull together, and to make the best of the position as we find it. Reinforcements, we know, must be provided; and if the Government say it is necessary to provide them in this way, I am quite prepared to accept that position. But until they show that this necessity exists, I hope they will prevent the enlistment of youths without their parents' consent. {: #debate-41-s7 .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier .- I rise to support the amendment, and to join my voice and vote with the voices and votes of any honorable members opposite who take a similar view of it to myself, no matter whether they favour the so-called pacifists' position, or the attitude which has been taken up by most of the supporters of the Government in regard to conscription. No matter what may be our views in regard to winning the war, or the methods that should be adopted to win it, no honorable member opposite can truthfully say that he believes the Government did right in abolishing the consent of parents or guardians in order that youths might be encouraged to enlist for service overseas. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Of course, we do not believe it. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do not believe that any honorable member opposite believes it. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Hear, hear ! None of us believes it. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- That is all the more reason why the regulation which the Government has sanctioned should be wiped out. It is not for the Acting Prime Minister to come down here and offer us a compromise. Let us wipe the thing out in its entirety. Apart from the methods adopted by the various schools of thought in regard to the conduct of this war in Europe, the fact must impress itself upon honorable members upon both sides of the chamber that it is now proposed to take the undeveloped youths of Australia and to put them into the most damnable position in which humanity has ever been placed. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- They are going to fight for you, old man. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- The cheap gibe of the Assistant Minister for the Navy is worthy of him. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I said that they are going to fight for you. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- They are fighting for me no more than for the honorable gentleman. Indeed, it is not my opinion that they are fighting for me at all. No doubt it is their opinion; but upon this matter I claim the right to express my opinion. It is proposed to take these youths in their undeveloped state, and to force them to go through all the hardships incidental to modern warfarehardships which break up the strongest men physically and mentally. In the absence of their parents' consent, I say it is a crime to take the undeveloped youths of this country and to cripple them mentally and physically by subjecting them to the horrors of modern warfare. The honorable member for Grampians knows that when he was seventeen or eighteen years of age, he was a bit more romantic than he is at present. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- The honorable member himself is still romantic. He has not advanced from the romantic stage. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- Possibly I have not. But whether I have advanced from the stage of romance or not does not now concern me. I am merely pointing out that youths are more filled with the love of adventure than are men of mature years. The Government have removed the necessity for these lads obtaining the consent of their parents or guardians prior to enlisting, and they have done so deliberately, in order that they may play upon their youthful ardour. The truth is that Ministers have been forced into that position in order that they may maintain themselves in office. Owing to the attitude taken up by the people of this country in regard to conscription, the recruits offering have not. been up to the standard required by the Government, and consequently Ministers have been forced to do something; but, to my mind, they have gone to the wrong end of the scale. Of course, it is quite open to honorable members opposite to say to me, " If you are so concerned about these young men, why do you not enlist yourself?" I have no desire to shirk that position. I say that I am not at the Front because I do not believe I ought to be there. I do not recognise that we are fighting for the conditions that prompted Australia to enter this war. In the early days of 1914- {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Why did not the honorable member go then ? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- For the same reasons that I do not go now. I will tell the honorable gentleman in the course of my remarks why I did not go then, and why a considerable number of the people of this country did not go. The Acting Prime Minister has informed the House that the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Navy have gone to England to urge with all their power that the German Colonies in the Pacific shall be retained by Australia. Ministerial Members. - Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- According to statements made We went into this war because the neutrality of Belgium had been violated. We said that we did not want territory, and that we did not want to extend our already great Empire. Will any honorable member opposite say that the people who volunteered in their hundreds of thousands on the understanding that they were going to fight because of the breach of Belgium's neutrality, and for the rights of small nations, expected that they would be asked to fight so that the win-the-war gentlemen could have territory in the Pacific Ocean .added to Australia's already large possessions? If Australia is going to attach the Pacific islands to its sphere of control, this very fact will be utilized as an excuse for increased military and naval expenditure in the future in order to protect those added possessions, and maintain our hold on them. An Honorable Member. - A much greater force will be required if Germany holds them. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I am no advocate of returning the islands or the other possessions to Germany, but in harmony with the decision arrived at by the Australian Labour Conferences, and by the British Labour party, the question of the ownership of these territories can be very easily determined by placing all disputed lands under international control, unless honorable members opposite seek to carry out their policy, which has been disclosed by the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt),** that very old policy which we used to see displayed on cards in our windows and decorating our walls, " What we have we will hold, and what we have not we are after." The instructions given to the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Navy to insist upon Australia's retention of the Pacific territories which belonged to the enemy prior to August, 1914, are in keeping with other agreements that have been entered into by the Allies, about which we. were not allowed to know anything. The treaty of. 1915 with Italy provides, among other things, that Italy shall receive the district of Trentino and the Southern Tyrol. {: #debate-41-s8 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I have allowed the honororable member a great deal of latitude, but now he is certainly going outside the scope of both the amendment and the motion. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I understand that I am entitled to discuss the Expeditionary Forces and the purpose for which they are employed. {: #debate-41-s9 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I did not call the honorable member to order on that account. He is proceeding quite beyond that point, and is discussing the treaties which are in existence between Great Britain and some of her Allies, with which we have nothing to do, and for the observance of which the Bill makes no provision whatsoever. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- With all due respect I claim that I can discuss the ob jects for which the war is being fought. Seeing that Australia is part and parcel of one of the Allies who are pledged to secure the carrying out of these treaties, and seeing that our troops are being employed to see that they are carried out, I think that I am entitled to discuss this particular treaty. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is not in order in doing so. If he proposes to dissent from my ruling he must take the usual course. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I move - That the Deputy Speaker's ruling - that I am not permitted to discuss the treaty obligations of Great Britain to her Allies in connexion with this war, in which Australian troops are being employed, the financial provision for which is being voted by this Bill - be dissented from. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- In his motion the honorable member has conveyed neither the reason that I gave for the ruling nor the ruling itself. I ruled the honorable member out of order because he was proceeding to discuss treaties between Great Britain and Italy and the other Allies. This Bill is a short one. Practically it is all comprised in one clause, which states the purpose for which the loan of £80,000,000 is sought. It is provided that - the amount borrowed shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for war purposes. That is, for the war purposes of Australia. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- They are the same as those of Britain. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member has no right to' intervene when the Speaker is on his feet. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- We shall have no right to speak here at all presently. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member is entirely disorderly. This is the second time I have asked him to desist from interrupting. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Then stop the interjections on the other side. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- If the honorable member does not obey the Chair I shall have to take steps to compel him. If the honorable member for the Barrier will alter his motion of dissent from my ruling he will meet my objection. When I called him to order he was discussing peace treaties or alliances with Italy, and I ruled that that was outside the scope both of the amendment and of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. In this form the honorable member's motion of dissent is not a correct interpretation of my ruling, and I therefore refuse to accept it. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- With all due respect to you, sir, I claim that the dissent from your ruling which I have handed in to you correctly expresses what occurred. There is no peace treaty with Italy that I wish to discuss, nor have I attempted to address the House on it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The matter cannot be debated. I have pointed out to the honorable member, and I shall submit to the House that the motion of dissent does not tally with the ruling I gave. If the honorable member proposes to go on with it in that form, then, under the standing order, the discussion on it will stand over until tomorrow. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- May I, on a point of order, ask if the honorable member is entitled to speak on the lines he has laid down in his motion of dissent?. So long as he does not go outside these reasons, will he be in order? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Not at the present stage. The standing order is perfectly clear, and ought to be well known to the honorable member and every other honorable member. Standing order 287 says - >If any objection is taken to the ruling or decision of the Speaker such objection must be taken at once, and in writing, and motion made, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon forthwith adjourned to the next sitting day. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but I understood you to rule that I was out of order in bringing before the House in connexion with this Bill - which authorizes the raising of loan money to be utilized for war expenditure to accomplish the aims for which Australia is fighting in common with the rest of the Empire - any arrangements come to between the Allied nations, of one of which Australia constitutes an integral part. There is no peace treaty with Italy, and you misunderstood the treaty I wished to discuss, consequently my motion of dissent correctly states -my position. Shall I be in order now in proceeding, or must I move the motion of dissent after I have explained my position ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member will be in order in proceeding to discuss anything relevant to the Bill or to the amendment. I have ruled that the discussion of treaties or alliances in which we have no part, and for which no part of the money proposed to be borrowed is to be applied, is not in order. So long as the honorable member confines himself to any purpose for which the money raised for the war purposes, of Australia is to be applied he will be in order, and I shall allow him to proceed; but if he proceeds on the lines that he was about to follow, the responsibilities; of my office cast on me the duty of palling him to order, and of asking him to confine himself to the question. If the honorable member is willing to take that courseI shall not intervene. It is, therefore,, for the honorable member to say now whether he will proceed with his motion; of dissent or not. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- If I understand that ' I am free to discuss the objects for which Australian troops are being used, and for which we are asked to vote £80,000,000 to be utilized to secure those objects, then I have no reason to dissent from your ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member will be in order so long as he confines himself to those lines. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Then there is no necessity for me to dissent from your ruling. Motion of dissent withdrawn. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- One of the objects for which we are in the present war is the securing to Italy of the Trentino and the Isonzo, and also that province of Austria known as Dalmatia. By agreement between Italy, France, England, and Russia, that territory was to be secured to Italy at the conclusion of the war. The full rights secured to the Sultan of ' Turkey in what is known as Lybia, in North Africa, by the treaty of Lausanne, were to be taken over by Italy, and another strip of territory in Africa to the north-east of Abyssinia was to be granted to Italy, with the stipulation that if Britain and France increased their possessions in Africa at the expense of Germany, Italy was to be accorded equal rights, too. These agreements, which have been entered into by the methods of secret diplomacy, without the consent or the knowledge of the peoples who constitute the Allied nations, were not the objects which the Australian people believed their Forces would be utilized to attain, nor were they the objects for which men volunteered, and are still volunteering, to go from Australia. There was another agreement granting Constantinople and the Straits to Russia. At the time the Australian troops were scaling the heights of Gallipoli they were being utilized because it was necessary to secure to Russia the right to occupy Constantinople and the Straits. When the Russian revolution occurred, the documents which were in the possession of the Czar's Government were unearthed and made public. The *Manchester Guardian* published telegrams and correspondence forming part of thenegotiations between Russia, France, and Great Britain. Amongst these telegrams was one from the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated 5th March, 1915, as follows: - >The French Ambassador, on behalf of his Government, announced to me that France was prepared to take up a most favorable attitude in the matter of the realization of our desires as set out in my telegram to you, No. 937, in respect of the Straits and Constantinople, for which I charged you to tender Delcasse my gratitude. > >Inhis conversations with you, Delcasse had previously more than once given his assurance that we could rely upon the sympathy of France, and only referred to the need of elucidating the question of the attitude of England, from whom he feared some objections, before he could giveus more definite assurance in the above sense. Now the British Government has given its complete consent in writing to the annexation, by Russia, of the Straits and Constantinople, within the limits indicated by us, and only demanded security for its economic interests, and a similar benevolent attitude on our part to the political aspirations of England in other parts. For me, personally filled as I am with most complete confidence in Delcasse, the assurance received from him is quite sufficient; but this Imperial Government would desire a more definite pronouncement of France's assent to the complete satisfaction of our desires similar to that made by the British Government. (Signed) Sasenoff. > >Confidential telegram, dated 7th March, 1915. from M. Sasenoff to the Ambassador in Paris (or London), No. 1265 : - " Referring to the memorandum of the British Government (Embassy) here of 12th March, willyou please express to Grey the profound gratitude of the Imperial Government for the complete and finalassent of Great Britain to the solution of the question of the Straits and Constantinople, in accordance with Russia's desires." {: #debate-41-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I am trying to connect the honorable member's remarks with the Bill before the House. The honor able member seems to be discussing the foreignpolicy of other nations, and 1 am afraid he is going beyond the scope of the Bill. He must confine himself' to the purpose of the Bill. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- We are dealing with the question of raising and spending £80,000,000 for, amongst other purposes, the payment and maintenance of the Australian troops who are now fighting for the objects of the Allies; consequently, I claim that these objects come within the discussion on the Bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I see nothing in the Bill that indicates that this loan is to be used in any way for the assistance of other nations in the war. I understand it to be in connexion with war purposes so far as Australia is concerned, and the honorable member will certainly not be in order in traversing the whole war policy of other nations. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- I draw your attention to the fact that on page- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have given my ruling, and the honorable member must abide by it. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I rise to a point of order. I do not know, sir, whether you have read the Bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have read the Bill. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I am pleased to hear it. The last clause of the Bill expressly refers to the fact that the amount borrowed shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for war purposes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That is so. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I submit that the war purposes of Australia are clearly involved in the war purposes of the Allies. Certainly the war purposes of Australia are involved in the war purposes of the Empire, in connexion with a great many things, such as territorial expansion, and so forth. I should feel justified in claiming the right, subjecttoyour ruling, in addressing myself to anything which may be considered one of the war purposes of ourselves and our Allies, unless, of course, you propose to say that the war purposes of Australia have nothing to do with the war purposes of the Allies. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- My ruling is that any discussion on the lines the honorable member for Barrier has just been following is distinctly not within the scope of the Bill. Mr.Considine. - Am I in order in drawing your attention to clause 3 of the Bill? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have read it, and I see nothing about the diplomatic relations of other countries. I ask the honorable member to confine himself to the lines I have indicated, and not argue with the Chair. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -i should like you, **Mr. Speaker,** to indicate what I can say that will be in order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must not take that attitude towards the Chair - an attitude of attempting to involve the Chair in argument or debate. It is not for me to tell the honorable member what to say; I am concerned only about what he may not say. If he is not prepared to continue his speech on the lines I have indicated he must discontinue. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Very good; I shall discontinue. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -We must find some other way- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I call on the honorable member for Cook to apologize for his reflection on the Chair. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- I am afraid, **Mr. Speaker,** that you must have misunderstood my words amid the noise in the chamber. If you will tell me to what you take exception, I shall gladly withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I understood the honorable member to make a reflection on my ruling just now by stating that there would have to be found some other way of dealing with the matter. If, however, the honorable member assures me that he had no such intention, I shall accept his statement. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -What I meant to convey was that we should have to find some means of discussing the matter referred to by the honorable member for Barrier - that if we could not discuss it on this Bill, we must find an opportunity on some other Order of the Day. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I am sorry if I misunderstood the honorable member's in. tention, and I apologize to him for any misapprehension in regard to the tenor of his remarks. I would also point out that the honorable member will have a wider general range of discussion on the Defence Estimates and. other business. Neither the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** nor any other honorable member may open a discussion on the lines he was following in connexion with thisparticular Bill. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- If an honorable member is dissatisfied with what he understands to be the war aims of the Allies, may he not refer to them, and take exception to them, on a proposal to spend £80,000,000 for war purposes? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- So long as he does so within the scope and purpose of the Bill he will be in order; but if he goes outside the purpose of appropriation he will not be in order. {: #debate-41-s11 .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Werriwa .- The fact that we are called upon to deal with a Loan Bill of this magnitude shows what vast responsibility is accumulating on the country. Last September we staggered the public of Australia by authorizing a loan of £80,000,000, and today we are asked to authorize another similar loan. As a people who desire to retain our sovereignty, and to whom the very word " repudiation '' is abhorrent, we must carefully take account of our responsibilities. We had yesterday a very clear statement of the financial position of the Commonwealth and the States, and the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt)** showed us that at present our interest liability is nearly £11,000,000. I am sure that when we realize the fresh responsibility we are taking on, and the impossibility of determining just when this war will end, together with our indebtedness for pensions, the support of dependants, and repatriation, it is not an outside estimate to say that, if the war ends in another twelve months, the Commonwealth will be called on to provide at least £25,000,000 more in taxation than in previous years. That is a tremendous obligation to come upon a people who as. taxpayers of the States have in the past failed to carry on their businesses for even one year without resort to loan money. The position is one which must cause us the gravest apprehension. Perhaps at this stage it is very difficult for us to say how we can reduce our war expenditure. No member of this House, and no man in this country, is more inclined to pacific methods than I am ; but I say straight out that it seems utterly impossible to bring about peace without a humiliating surrender and the laying down of all those precious liberties and privileges which have been our heritage. This war evidently cannot at present be accelerated to a great degree or stopped by any action of the Commonwealth of Australia. We are too insignificant in such a mighty struggle; but by a cowardly and unconditional surrender we would, I think, militate against the realization of our hopes as far as the maintenance of a free Australia is concerned. I believe that honestly, and I say that whilst I am prepared to vote for the Bill, it is simply because I can see no alternative for a man who loves his country but to take up all the responsibilities which the war has thrust upon us from the beginning. If we are not prepared to do that, we must consider the question of absolutely withdrawing our men from the Front, setting up on our own, and taking upon ourselves the national responsibilities at a moment when there is no security for people situated as we are. If we had not the foundation principles of true patriotism, if we had not love for the country from which our fathers have sprung, if we had not regard for those principles of liberty given to us by the Constitution which we possess; if we had not regard for all these things, we would be confronted with the necessity of taking a determined stand in regard to this war. Evidently there is nothing else 1 for it. I am confirmed in the belief that war can never bring true freedom or higher civilization to this world of ours. But what it can do is to preserve for us the liberty at least of retaining arid, improving our existing institutions, and perhaps enable the nations of the world engaged in this struggle to evolve a system of free institutions which at all events will make Avar impossible iu the future. To say that, sim,ply by war itself, we can establish that principle of freedom which comes from the recognition of true justice in our every relationship with our fellows is, to my mind, an absolute impossibility. But there is no reason why we should not face the conditions as they appear to us, however cruel they may seem to the idealist. Therefore, since this money must be obtained, we should approach the question of how it is to be made avail- able. I think the Government are wise, even at this belated moment, in doing away with a principle which, in my judgment, should never have been introduced, namely, the exemption of bondholders from taxation. That principle never appealed to me, even when the then Prime Minister **(Mr. Fisher)** incorporated it in the first Loan Bill, and when the ex-Treasurer (Lord Forrest) was dealing with a similar measure last year I supported **Mr. Poynton's** amendment to substitute the payment of a higher rate of interest, with the object of making bond-holders subject to taxation. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- All the war loans issued by the United States of America are exempt from taxation. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- I think it is a wrong principle, and that it panders to " boodledom"' pure and simple, by making it possible for people whose wealth is in a liquid form to invest it in the name of patriotism in war loans with perfect safety, thus leaving the weaker horses in the team to pull the load when the aftermath of the war comes upon us. That is a policy I cannot subscribe to. I am pleased to know, however, that the Government are determined for the future to make subscribers to war loans subject to the ordinary laws of taxation. In my references to this matter I would like to make a suggestion to the Treasurer **(Mr. Watt),** although I know it is one which will not find favour with a number of people. We are told that out of the £241,000,000 of total income .derived by the people, about £114,000,000 is returned by people whose income exceeds £156 but is under £1,000; and that £34,000,000 only is paid by people whose incomes are over £1,000 a year. Seeing how necessary it is for every section of the community to put money, in large or small amounts, into our war loans, itappears to me that we can only expect to secure an* appreciable addition to the sums already provided by the people, by offering inducements so as to increase the number of bond-holders. I see no reason, therefore, why we should not have Commonwealth lotteries with war bonds as prizes. I see no reason why any people who in the past,have been in the habit of having gambling transactions with Tattersalls sweeps, should not be able to pay their 5s. and 10s. at any post-office throughout Australia and have a chance in a lottery in which the prizes would be war bonds. I suggest to the Treasurer that the experiment of at least a lottery of £1,000,000, with £800,000 of war bonds as prizes, should be launched and be continued according to the appetite of the people for such lotteries. There is nothing in such a principle that can offend the susceptibilities of people who now readily engage in all sorts of lotteries for charitable and patriotic purposes, and I am sure that the principle will commend itself to a large number of our people who do not pay taxes, but who believe in engaging in a game of chance, and endeavouring to make a short cut to fortune. If we had a lottery of that kind, the cost in connexion with it would be very small. The greater part of the 20 per cent. could be paid into a war debt liquidation fund, and the interest on the £800,000 worth of bonds allotted as prizes should be fixed at 5 per cent., the Government having the first right to purchase if the stock were being sold. In this way we should disseminatewar bonds throughout the length and breadth of the country, and any man who had 5s., 10s., or £1 could invest it in the lottery. We hear a great deal about the evils of Tattersall's sweeps, whereby boys are tempted to rob the master's till. I am suggesting how we may institute a system that will be more profitable to the Government, and offer greater advantages to the investor than does Tattersall's sweep, having regard to the very heavy claims made by the people conducting it, and by the Government in the form of taxation, as well as other deductions, which are very serious to the winners of large prizes, for " squaring " owners, jockeys, and trainers. I know that a section of the community will say that my proposals represent the legalizing of gambling; but as I walked down the street to-day, I purchased a ticket for a raffle, in which the first prize is a £100 war bond, and the second prize a £50 war bond, and there are 988 other prizes varying in value from £20 to 5s. Who would take exception to those ladies selling lottery tickets as they sell tickets for the Red Cross raffles ? People who would adopt such a pharisaical attitude are those who place their best goods in the shop windo w, use all sorts of attrac tions to deceive the unwary, and invest their money in speculative enterprises with which patriotic principle has nothing whatever to do, and yet hold themselves blameless. As a native-born Australian who has never been a gambler, except as a farmer gambling with the seasons, I see no harm in a system such as I am suggesting, and which would implant in the minds of the people who thoughtlessly rush for profit the fact that they can gratify their speculative taste by investing in a war-bond lottery ticket, and at the same time render substantial assistance to their country. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- The honorable member is on the wrong track. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- The honorable member and those associated with him see no wrong in confiscating the property of other people, and wiping out their businesses because their existence is inimical to the public good. Those gentlemen may be ultimately confronted with the claims of people who will advocate the repudiation of the public debt of Australia on account of the huge load of interest to which I have called attention, and who will say, " It certainly will be hard on the bond-holders, but, in the interests of the vast majority of groaning taxpayers, it should be done." The principle is the same in both cases. If it is right that the property of certain people should be absolutely confiscated, I, as a man who is utterly opposed in principle to giving all sorts of licence and liberty to people to debase themselves through drink, as one who has never indulged in intoxicating drink, and has no interest at all in the liquor trade, say that those who may advocate the repudiation of the public debt for the sake of the common good, will have just as solid a justification behind them. There is no equity behind the claim of either, in my opinion. I am suggesting to the Treasurer a means by which he may wipe out purely gambling businesses, and at the same time help to foster the spirit of patriotism amongst the vast majority of the people of Australia. As. well as collecting money for the war, and doing all that is humanly possible to provide reinforcements for sending overseas, we have other duties to perform, the pressing necessity for which the war has brought home to our doors. Is it not a reflection upon the people and Governments of Australia that in this country, which produces the most and best wool of any country in the world, we should have to pay an almost fabulous price for any article of woollen manufacture? If we require a pair of boots, or any other leather goods, that ought to be made in this country more cheaply than in any other country, because of the raw material being so plentiful, we are asked to pay exorbitant rates. Yet, notwithstanding that nearly 300,000 of our men have left the country, a large number of the people are out of work, and we are seeking employment for returned soldiers. Cannot we do something to develop our industries, and give the people cheaper goods? It is true that machinery may be lacking, but are we using tothe fullest extent the machinery that is available? We are not. We are endeavouring to meet our tremendous obligations in this war by simply juggling with the small amount of production that we carried on in normal times, and by mortgaging posterity. There is no reason why we should not make some real attempt to establish industries in Australia. We must do so or else we shall perish financially, our people will remain unemployed, and our position become untenable. As a farmer, and one whose living has chiefly been obtained from growing wheat, meat, and wool, I have not joined in a claim made by a large section of my class for impossible guarantees, such as 5s. per bushel net for wheat to the farmers. I realize that even if it were possible to get a Government to so embarrass itself as to accede to such a claim the effect would be to make the position of the consumers of Australia, in which farmers are deeply concerned, much worse than it is at the present time. It would mean that the Australian consumer would be compelled to pay 5s. 6d. or 5s.. 8d. per bushel for the wheat used in the manufacture of the bread he consumes - a much higher price than we can hope to get for the bulk of the crop when sold overseas. Every section of the community should be called upon to make some sacrifice in connexion with the establishment of our industries. Some attempt was made in this House in the case of the two wool-top manufacturing indus tries that have been so successful since the beginning of the war, and have earned profits in which the Commonwealth has equally participated, to make those carrying on the industry pay a better price to the wool-grower than is paid by the British Government. I believe that an advantage of 10 per cent. is given to other woollen mills in Australia. That is a good principle. and it ought to be extended. Now that we are making big profits on wool, meat, metals, and so forth sent overseas, we should be prepared to make concessions to these industries, upon which we must depend after the war. I hope that some sincerity will be exhibited in this House in standing up for Australian productions. In voting for this very necessary measure for supplies for our troops and the conduct of the war, I am placed in a difficult position by the suggestions which have been made through the amendment in connexion with the regulation relieving minors, desiring to enlist, of their obligations to their parents. I am certainly rot in favour of that regulation, but I do not feel disposed to permit the Opposition to take charge of Government business, and I am not prepared to fight even for this principle in which I believe in order to assist the Opposition to belittle the Government in dealing with a measure of this kind. The members of the party on this side whose votes are not controlled by the Government will surely find a means of giving expressions to their will when it is ascertained. It is clear from the important concessions already made in this connexion in the speech delivered by the Acting Prime Minister, that the desire of the majority on this side will prevail. I am not prepared to permit honorable members opposite to compel honorable members on this side to accept even principles in which they believe in a manner distasteful to us, and intended to humiliate the Government we support. From the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister, it now appears that only a few disobedient lads over nineteen years of age will be able to enlist against their parents' will, and even in their case, if the parents have good reason to offer against their enlistment, they have only to go before the Recruiting Committeein each State and present their case to them. If it be true that foreigners who have become naturalized in our country are being forcibly deported, that, in my opinion, is an injury to the freedom of the people of Australia and the policy of voluntarism, to which this country is wedded, and which I have always espoused, and would be an immeasurably greater offence than would be the enlistment of minors even against the will of their parents. It is stated that no naturalized subject has been deported, and I hope that statement is true. I trust that good and sufficient reasons can be given for the action taken by the Government to give effect to the desire of the Government of an Allied Power in regard to subjects of that Power who are not naturalized in Australia. I shall not take up time in referring to what other speakers have said, more particularly with respect to the farmers. But I wish to say, as a farmer who has grown wheat for the last twenty-seven years at an average of 2s. 9d. per bushel on the farm, that we are not so destitute of backbone or of true patriotism as to desire to exploit the Australian consumer or our Allies, who are looking forward longingly to the time when our wheat and other food supplies may reach them. We are willing to make large concessions in their favour, but we ask in return that we shall be protected from the robberies that are perpetrated under the system of profiteering that is in existence. We ask that we shall be protected in regard to the things that are necessary for our production, and in return we shall be prepared to make large concessions in regard not only to wheat, but also in regard to meat and wool. There seems to be a catchascatchcan business going on. As one who believes that the systems of production and distribution that have gradually been evolved in this very imperfect world of ours have been shown to be utterly rotten and false in the test of the present great war, I trust that after all our sacrifice of blood is over, and when the world comes to reason again, a better system will be evolved under which that selfishness which is such a factor in bringing about war between individuals, nations, and empires will be eradicated from the world . Debate (on motion by **Mr. Mathews)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 5075 {:#debate-42} ### ADJOURNMENT Recruiting Conference : Reregistraition of Unions - Raid on Italian Club and Seizure of Papers: Right of Petition - Badges for Female Relatives of Soldiers. {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr WATT:
Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT -- I move - That the House do now adjourn. I should like to give honorable members generally the substance of a telegram I have received from the Premier of New South Wales bearing upon a matter which has been the subject of questions two or three times this week. I cannot do better than read **Mr. Holman's** telegram, which is as follows: - Have resolved to-day to submit to Monday's Cabinet proposal to call Parliament together forthwith to pass necessary legislation for reregistration of nineteen de-registered unions, subject of unsuccessful application to Arbitration Court. Have already circularized members of National party, informing them of intentions and soliciting their support and assistance. Government anxious to demonstrate absolute *bona fides* of offer made at Recruiting Conference. Accepts judgment of Arbitration Court as absolutely good in law. but will not allow matter to rest there. At Conference Arbitration Court's probable refusal was clearly anticipated by our delegates, and legislation foreshadowed in such an event. Begging that you will make this known amongst those who are assisting resuscitating the recruiting movement. Holman. I am sure this will be welcome news to honorable members generally. The problem is beyond the powers of the Federal Government, and is apparently to be tackled by the Parliament of New South Wales in abona *fide* and business-like way. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Cannot **Mr. Lawson** be induced to do the same thing in Victoria? {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr WATT: -- There is no such problem in Victoria. I hope that honorable members will take this as another evidence - and I am speaking generally to the House - of the desire to push to completion the undertakings given and arrangements made at the Recruiting Conference called by the GovernorGeneral. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Yarra .- I am pleased to hear the news contained in the telegraphic message just read by the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt).** I am glad to know that the definite promise made at the Recruiting Conference is to be honoured. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Only yesterday the honorable member accused certain people of doing nothing in regard to it. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Any undertaking I have given has always been honoured, and I expect the same line of conduct on the part of other people. We learn now that **Mr. Holman** is proposing to call the State Parliament together forthwith, and I trust that the legislation necessary to give effect to the promise made at the Recruiting Conference will be passed. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The honorable member ought to apologize for what he said yesterday. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I will apologize to any one the honorable member likes to name, if that will please him. I am anxious to do my best to restore harmony, but some people seem to find it difficult to do anything in that direction. I need not have risen to speak to-night had I desired to evade this question, and I can only express the hope that, as the result of the deliberations of the New South Wales Cabinet, the State Parliament will soon meet and pass this necessary legislation, which will remove one of the obstacles to successful recruiting in the largest State of the Union. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier -- I desire to bring under the notice of the House a petition which the Italian residents in Australia sought to bring before the Federal Parliament, but which has been seized by the military authorities. The military have cut off the printed heading to the petition, leaving only the signatures in the possession of the people who held copies of it. I have read the petition, and see no reason for the action taken by the military authorities. I propose to make the House acquainted with the facts of this petition. I have a copy of the heading- {: #debate-42-s3 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: -- The honorable member will not he in order in reading a petition on a motion for the adjournment of the House. The time for the presentation of petitions is at the beginning of the sitting. When petitions are called on, any honorable member may present oneif it isin properform, and move that it be read. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have no intention of presenting a petition. {: #debate-42-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I understood the honorable member to say that he was about to read a petition. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I said I proposed to give the House a copy of the heading to the proposed petition. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member will not be in order in reading or discussing a petition, or a copy of one, to the House at this stage. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have no desire to discuss any petition. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I understood the honorable member to say that he was about to read the heading to the petition mentioned by him. Any discussion of petitions at this stage would be out of order. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- On a point of order- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I cannot permit my ruling to be discussed. If it is objected to it is open to the honorable member to move that it be disagreed with. My ruling must either be obeyed or proper action taken to move that it be dissented from. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- I desire to ask, on a point of order, whether, on a motion for the adjournment of the House, an honorable member would not be in order in complaining of the seizure of a document by the military authorities. I submit that' it is not the question of the petition itself that is involved. The honorable member desires to refer to action on the part of the military authorities in seizing the petition, and he would not be in order in doing so when members are asked, on the House meeting to-morrow, whether they have any petitions to present. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Petitions can be dealt with only in a certain way and at a certain time. The honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** indicated that he intended to bring under the notice of the House a petition which, he said, had been seized by the military authorities. He cannot do so in this irregular way. He will be in order -in making a general reference to the matter by way of complaint against any departmental officer, but he will not be in order at this stage in reading either the heading or any portion of the petition itself. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I do not wish to discuss your ruling, **Mr. Speaker;** I must accept it, since 1, can do nothing else. The attitude of the Government and of honorable members opposite in regard to this Italian petition is calculated to arouse, in the minds of the people outside, the suspicion that our parliamentary institutions have been used to prevent them from learning the truth. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- There is no justification for that statement. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I have considerable justification for it. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I have answered quite freely all questions relating to the matter. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- This petition was seized by the military, and the heading to every copy of it cut off. The signatures were left in the possession of the petitioners without anything to indicate the subject-matter of the petition itself. What is the use of bringing in a petition which consists simply of a heading, and of presenting that to Parliament, only to find that the machinery of Parliament is utilized to suppress the facts? As for the heading itself, there is not one word in it, so far as I am able to judge, that is in any way calculated to hinder the winning of the war, or is detrimental to recruiting. The position is on a par with the action taken by honorable members opposite throughout. There is one place which is supposed to be available to the people when all other resources have failed, where they may be able to ventilate their grievances. That is in Parliament, through their parliamentary representatives. But now we find that, apparently, every point possible is utilized against the representatives of the people by those in power to prevent the expression within Parliament of what is going on outside. We find to-day that the press is well muzzled, that members of Parliament, too, are well muzzled. Their *Hansard* speeches even are subject to censorship. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- They will have you in gaol yet. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- And now they are utilizing the military authorities to seize petitions to prevent the public from presenting their prayers to Parliament. The whole thing is a scandalous shame. It only needs a little more of this, and the people outside will have lost all respect for parliamentary institutions. As it is, their respect is not great at the present time. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- Hear, hear ! What is the good of making arrangements with you folk on the other side when you abuse it in this way ? {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I know of no arrangements. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You are a party to them. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I know nothing about them. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- Every time we endeavour to rise in order to suit your party it would seem that this sort of thing is sprung on us. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I can only say that I know nothing about it. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You cannot be the odd man out all the time. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I am the odd man now in respect to this. It is all very fine for the Acting Prime Minister to complain about being kept here. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I am not. I am endeavouring to suit the views of both sides of the House. Put it always seems that one man can come along and obstruct the whole arrangement. It is done frequently. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It is necessary for one man sometimes to do things which are considered objectionable by a good many others. I am more concerned with the unfair treatment meted out to people outside than with the convenience of members inside the House. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- If thehonorable member will give me the facts I will undertake to have them examined. He knows that. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- You can have the heading itself, and see whether there is anything objectionable in it. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- There is no occasion to take up the time of the House with a matter of this nature. I will answer the question any time the honorable member cares to put it. He may ask me tomorrow morning. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- How can you, answer the question when I am not allowed toput it? {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You may do so at the proper time. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- The Acting Prime Minister knows full well that, so far as ventilating public matters is concerned, the motion for adjournment is the opportunity provided for bringing forward our grievances and representing to the Government the desires of the public. This is the first time within my experience that any honorable member has been pulled up in such a way. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- The House has expressed a desire, since it is to meet again early tomorrow morning, to rise at a reasonable hour to-night. Yet honorable members are kept here to try and retain a House. It is certainly not reasonable. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- I know. I have already had one experience. I tried to ventilate a censorship matter, and honorable members were too tired to keep a quorum. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You only make yourself to blame for that sort of thing. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr CONSIDINE: -- It seems to me that the whole process of government now is designed to prevent the people from ventilating their grievances at all. I protest against it. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- You will learn later on. {: #debate-42-s5 .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST:
East Sydney .- I desire briefly to draw attention again to the question of the issue of medals to women relatives of soldiers. The Minister, when I asked my question early in to-day's sitting, advised me to place it on the business-paper. I am sorry that I have not done so. For that reason I again ask if he will do something in the matter. The Minister knows the subject well; a deputation has expounded it to him. I have been asked again to-day to move in the matter. Women have written me letters asking that I should press for something definite. The Jewellers Association are annoyed that the contract is to be given to persons outside the trade which is causing so much delay. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- I will speak to the Minister about it to-morrow. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST: -- Then I shall be satisfied on that point. With regard to the matter to which the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Con sidine)** has just referred, I hope the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr. Watt)** is not side-tracking it. He must know that the presentation of a petition to Parliament is regarded as a great privilege. It is one which every wellconducted citizen should be able toavail himself of, so long as his prayer is drawn up in respectful manner. It is a privilege that should not be lightly played with. The Acting Prime Minister, I feel sure, will assist the honorable member for Barrier as a matter of justice. {: #debate-42-s6 .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS:
Cook .- I join with the honorable member for Barrier **(Mr. Considine)** in lodging an emphatic protest against the action of the Military Department in interfering with the free right of citizens to protest to Parliament against what they consider a grievance of the administration. I would have been satisfied with the statement of the honorable member had it not been that he has found himself in some confusion as to how to meet the Standing Orders. Very often one finds that theStanding Orders and the forms of theHouse appear to be devised for the purpose of suppressing speech and the freedom and liberty of honorable members in the discussion of subjects which they should be permitted to ventilate. A petition which has been seized by the military, and is not allowed to be circulated for signature, cannot come before Parliament, and, consequently, one finds oneself under a difficulty in dealing with the matter. If the motion for the adjournment of the House does not afford an opportunity to speak on the subject, it is hard to imagine what item of business would provide the occasion for ventilating what is a real grievance. The petition is one of five clauses, setting forth the grievances under which certain Italians feel that they are suffering. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- Are they citizens of Australia ? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Are they naturalized? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I do not know. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- The right of petitioning Parliament belongs to a citizen of the country. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- If a man has been residing for twenty or thirty years in this country, has he no right to petition Parliament? {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- If a man is not naturalizedhe is, in law, an alien. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- It was citizens of Australia that were signing the petition. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- If the honorable member will give me a copy of the headings ofthe petition, I shall discuss the matter with the Military authorities. I have not seen the petition. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- The Acting Prime Minister, when instances of the outrageous and intolerable tyranny of the Defence Department are brought forward, promises to make inquiries, and tells us that he knows nothing about the matter. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I cannot know about all these things. Is not my attitude the proper one? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- The Government should accept responsibility for the constant irritation that is caused by the action of the Defence Department. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I have done so, and have smoothed away a number of difficulties connected with the censorship, as the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** will tell you. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Is there no way of preventing the recurrence of these troubles ? {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I require to know what has happened. It is useless to occupy the time of the House with these matters unless Ministers are informed regarding them. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- The matter could have been dealt with- in ten minutes, but half-an-hour has been occupied with it, because members have been compelled, under the rules of the House, to adopt a roundabout way of dealing with the matter. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- If a member fails to get. satisfaction froma Minister it is to Parliament that he should complain. But you have not triedto do so. I have not seen the petition complained of. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- Questions, on notice, were asked concerning it. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- And I answered those questions fairly. {: .speaker-K4F} ##### Mr Considine: -- You made no inquiry. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I made an inquiry about an alleged petition. I have not seen this petition. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I can see nothing in the form of the petition contravening the rules of censorship applied to newspaper and other printing. The petition ought to be put on record. It seems to me extraordinary that the Standing Orders should not permit of record being made of the tyranny which is being exercised by the Defence Department. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: -- I have not said so. There is a right and a wrong method of doing so. I suggest to the honorable member that on the Defence Bill, or the Defence Estimates, matters could be discussed fully over a very wide range of policy and departmental administration. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I shall accept the suggestion. I did not know, but I am glad to have the information, that there is an opportunity for wider discussion on the Defence Estimates than on the motion for the adjournment. {: .speaker-KXG} ##### Mr Watt: -- I have explained two or three tiroes this week that there would be an opportunity for discussing matters on the Estimates. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Although I have been a member of the House for many years, this is the first occasion on which it has been brought under my notice that a grievance connected with the administration of a Government Department could not he discussed on the adjournment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have given no ruling to that effect. I merely suggested that the honorable member would have plenty' of scope for discussing such matters in connexion with Defence measures and Estimates. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -In addition to the present opportunity ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I understand that the petition will be handed to the Acting Prime Minister for his consideraton, and I suggest to him that there should be a Committee of Ministers, or some other authority, which could review these matters, and prevent the continual pinpricking and irritation which arises out of the censorship, and is continually producing complaints. With reasonable administration there should be no complaint. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 May 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19180523_reps_7_85/>.