House of Representatives
2 October 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

THEWAR
- Cablegram to British Government
QUESTION
- ARBITRATION LAW AMENDMENT
QUESTION
- BUDGET PROPOSALS
PAPER
QUESTION
- CENTRAL WHEAT BOARD
QUESTION
- PRICE OF MEAT
QUESTION
- SUGAR SURPLUS
QUESTION
- TINS FOR HONEY
QUESTION
- SALE OF COPPER
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- JAM FRUITS
QUESTION
- TARIFF ALTERATIONS
QUESTION
- ASSOCIATION OF SMELTERS
REPATRIATION OFFICES, BRISBANE
- Payment of Clerks
QUESTION
- INSURANCE OF SOLDIERS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- IRISH INTERNEES
QUESTION
- PRICE OF COAL
PUBLIC SERVICE
- Temporary Employees
QUESTION
- THE JOHN MURRAY
QUESTION
- SHIPPING CONTROL
QUESTION
- RETURNED SOLDIERS
SOLDIERS IN BRITAIN
- Educational Facilities
NATIONAL EMBLEMS
- Usedfor Advertising Purposes
QUESTION
- CENTRAL WHEAT BOARD
AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- SPINAL BEDS
QUESTION
- RETURNED SOLDIERS AND UNIONISM
IMPORTATION OF JUTE
QUESTION
- THE. WAR : HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEBATE
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Dr. Maloney,
ADJOURNMENT
- Cadet Midshipman Rubie - Railway Leave Passes- Wages of Returned Soldiers: Pension or Repatriation Allowance

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 6539

THEWAR

Cablegram to British Government

Mr. WATT (Balaclava- Acting Prime

Minister and Treasurer) [3.1]. - (By leave) - I wish to acquaint you, Mr. Speaker, and honorable members, that His Excellency the Governor-General, on behalf ofthe Commonwealth Government, to-day despatched the following cablegram to the Secretary of State for the Colonies -

The Commonwealth Government sends its congratulations to the British and Allied Governments on themagnificent successes that are crowning the Allied arms in all theatres of operation,and particularly on the surrender of Bulgaria, which these successes have undoubtedly brought about. The Government hails these victories as indications of the early ultimate success of the Allied efforts in the cause of liberty and civilization.

I am sure that the message rings true to the sentiment of the House generally. Although the official information possessed by the Government is not so full as the news that has been published in the press, there is every reason for a feeling of profound satisfaction with the dramatic change in the war situation, and I think that we have done well to express as quickly as we could the national gratification and gratitude.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- (By leave) - There can be no two opinions about this matter. We all hope that this is the beginning of the end ; that we may soon see the conclusion of the war which has afflicted humanity for now more than four years. To use the words which you, Mr. Speaker,read each day in the opening prayer, we hope that we may soon have “ an honorable and a lasting peace.”

page 6539

QUESTION

ARBITRATION LAW AMENDMENT

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House when an amending Arbitration Bill will be introduced to rectify the anomalies in the law, and to deal more effectively with the continuous and disastrous develop ment of scientifically conceived industrial disputes ?

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

– The honorable member wishes to know when a measure to amend the arbitration law will be introduced. The Government had such a measure in preparation when a recent judgment made it necessary for us to deliberate on the matter yet further, and it is still under consideration.

page 6539

QUESTION

BUDGET PROPOSALS

Amusement Tax

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the House to under stand that the taxation proposals outlined in the Budget speech are the wellconsidered and deliberate determinations of the Government? Does the Government propose to stand by them, or will it permit any alteration of them? Would it, for example, permit the alteration of the proposal to tax 3d. amusement tickets?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– For an ex-Treasurer to attempt in this fashion to impale his unfortunate successor on the horns of a dilemma is unusual; but, in reply to the honorable gentleman’s moderately expressed, but evidently deeply premeditated, question, I may say that had not the proposals alluded to expressed the considered judgment of the Government, they would not have appeared in the Budget. As to what we may do as to the details of any particular measure, my honorable friend will have full information when that measure has been introduced.

page 6539

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

River Murray Waters Act - River Murray Commission - Report for year 1917-18, with Appendices.

Ordered to be printed.

page 6539

QUESTION

CENTRAL WHEAT BOARD

Mr PIGOTT:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Acting Prime Minister let the House know how matters stand regarding the election by farmers of representatives on the Central Wheat Board ? Will the honorable gentleman consider the advisability of appointing to the Board only bona fide wheat-growers, not mere holders of wheat. scrip?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The Cabinet determined to give to the wheat-growers direct representationonthe Central Wheat Board, andconveyedthe intimation of its intention to the four States concerned. I am not aware whether replies to our communication have or have not been received.

page 6540

QUESTION

PRICE OF MEAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Applications for Release

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have received from several members of the Australian Imperial Force applications for release. Most of them are from men who left Australia in the early stages of the war, and one applicant bears the regimental number 3 . Three brothers in one family enlisted; one has been killed, and another has returned to Australia on furlough. He is a married man and has a family. When he enlisted he let his farm on the share system, and, on his return, found that all the work he had done upon the property over a course of years was going to ruin. There are other cases somewhat similar in character. Would it not be possible to appoint a Board, or, some other tribunal, to deal with applications of so serious a character?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– Unfortunately, I am not able to answerthe question, because it relates to a matter under the control of the Defence Department. If the honorable member will frame a proposition, either in a letter or by way of a question on notice, I shall see that the suggestion is considered by the Defence Department.

page 6540

QUESTION

JAM FRUITS

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Have the Government yet considered the advisability of giving effect to the recommendations of Mr. Commissioner Martin in regard to the fixation of the prices of jam fruits for the coming season ?

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

– The matter is still under consideration.

page 6540

QUESTION

TARIFF ALTERATIONS

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– In connexion with the recent alterations to the Tariff, will the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether any member of the Inter-State Commission was consulted and asked to submit recommendations ; and, if so, were such recommendations given effect to?

Mr JENSEN:
NAT

– No.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

– I could gather no other meaning from the language employed by the Prime Minister.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member referred to. was the author of the Act.

Mr BLAKELEY:

Referring to recent industrial trouble, Mr. Poynton remarked that a decision had re- cently been given against him in the Arbitration Court. His colleagues, however, had agreed to stand by him, and necessary legislation would be introduced to make shipbuilding in Australia a war work, “ and we’llcontract ourselves outside the Arbitration Court.”

The latter part of the last sentence is in inverted commas. No doubt, the, honorable member has seen that statement, as attributed to him by the Age, and he hasnot contradicted it. Mr. Bavin, barrister-at-law, and a leading authority on Commonwealth arbitration matters, in referring to the High Court judgment with respect to Arbitration Court awards, has said -

The effect of the judgment is, in my opinion, not to invalidate the awards of the Commonwealth Arbitration Courts ; only to make it necessary for the Federal Parliament to vest the duty of enforcing those awards in other Federal Courts - that is, either the High Court or State Counts vested with Federal jurisdiction, or inferior Federal Courts.

Mr.F. A. Russell, barrister-at-law, and also an authority on arbitration matters, has said -

I am disposed to agree that an amending Act could give authority to enforce awards in special or inferior Commonwealth Courts, or confer the necessary powers upon existing State Courts.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– I must ask honorable members to cease these continuous interjections. There is a habit growing up in the chamber every time an. honorable member rises, especially if he be a Minister, of harassing him with interjections, which make it almost impossible for his remarks to be heard.

Mr WATT:

– If the practice to which you refer, sir; were to be allowed to continue it would be impossible to conduct an orderly debate. I am endeavouring, in a few moments, to deal with the phases of the question to which the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) made reference. The fact that we are drafting a Bill, or contemplate the introduction of new legislation, does not justify the supposition that we seek the overthrow of a system to which this Parliament has committed itself. That is all I shall say on that point at this particular time. In a more definite way, and at a more appropriate time, I shall be able, with the aid of my colleagues, to announce the policy of the Government, which is not now in question.

As to whether this decision of the Court to which the honorable member for Darling more particularly refers threatens arbitration at its source - for that is the point, and the only justification for submitting an urgency motion - I shall give the facts so far as the Government know them. In the meantime, I desire to quote from a report in the Age of a speech by Mr. Justice Higgins after the judgment had been given. Mr. Justice Higgins, who presides over the Arbitration Court, said this for the information of the public -

It may help parties who are interested in cases actually pending or to be brought forward to know that the Arbitration Court goes on as before.

– I am aware that the decision of the High Court, as the Acting Prime Minister has pointed out, was given, not on the case originally before it, but on the Waterside Workers’ case. The official law reports, as a rule, are not much fuller thanthose contained in the Argus, and I have read carefully the judgments of the High Court bench as reported in that newspaper. We have heard before in this country of “ yes-no “ decisions ; that of the High Court is certainly one. The first question which the full bench was asked to answer was -

Is the Constitution of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration beyond the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and in particular . as to (a) the arbitral provision, (&) the enforcing provisions?

To that question the answer was (a) No ; (b) Yes. The second question was -

Is the award invalid by reason of the appointment of the President for seven years only?

To which question the answer was “ No.” The third question was -

Is the award enforceable by the said Court?

To that, also, the answer was “No.” Therefore, apparently,, the Court can sit and hear evidence and make an award, but has no power to enforce that award. The Chief Justice said that the Arbitration Court - was invested with ample” and complete jurisdiction to declare and enforce the mutual obligations of the parties. The exercise of the power to impose penalties was admittedly an exercise of the judicial power. If the Court had not the power to impose penalties, then that power would be non-existent elsewhere.

If the Arbitration Court had not the power to enforce its awards, no other Court could do so. Mr. Justice Barton’s opinion was that -

The power of adjudication was combined with the power of enforcement.

Mr. Justice Isaacs read the judgment of himself and Mr. Justice Bich. In it occurs this passage -

Once an award was made the dispute was settled, and the arbitral function was at an end. Enforcement by a Court was an entirely separate matter.

They therefore - held that the arbitral provisions of the Court were within the Constitution, that the enforcing provisions’ were beyond it, that the award was not invalid by reason of the appointment of the President for seven years, but that it was not enforceable by the Court.

Mr. Justice Higgins, the President of the Arbitration Court, said that he considered - that the’ award was not invalidated by reason of the term of the appointment of the President, and was enforceable by the. Court.

He also thought that the awards “ should be enforced by Courts of summary juris diction.” Mr. Justice Duffy, too, “ held that the question should be answered on investigation of section 72 of the Constitution.” He gave the same answers to the questions as Mr. Justice Higgins. Mr. Justice Powers said that -

The awards could be enforced in the State Courts, and Parliament could give power of enforcement to the High Court. If Parliament gave (hat authority, the President, or Deputy President could, as a High Court Justice, enforce the awards.

As I read the judgments, the Chief Justice and Justices Barton, Higgins, and Duffy think that the Court has complete power to enforce its awards. If the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) finds that the Court has not that power, and that the power can be given to it by an amending Act, the law should be amended so as to leave our arbitration jurisdiction where it was believed to be. We have been told that during the war no action should be taken by the workers to alter the position. Of course, that advice waa not offered to the doctors who were on strike. If it should be found that the workers are in a different position in regard- to arbitration from that in which it was thought that they were, the Government should put matters right. If the workers ought not to try to change matters during the war, the employers should not do so bv an appeal to the High Court. I ask the Acting Attorney-General whether many of the awards have been enforced by the Arbitration Court itself, or whether their enforcement has been left to other Courts. I have no faith in some of the local Courts in matters of arbitration. In saying “this, I do not reflect on the honour or_ integrity of our justices of the peace in general, but they would be naturally biased in respect to some arbitration matters. While not interested in a case directly before them, their friends, if they were employers of labour, might be interested, and their turn might come next day or next week. The Victorian Government have decided not to allow a Wages Board to sit to deal with matters which arise from time to time. They have said that no trade or calling that has appealed to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court shall be allowed to appeal to a Wages Board. That decision affects the employees of the leather industry, who have obtained an award from that Court, but new businesses have come. into existence since the award was obtained, to which it does not apply, because those concerned in those businesses were not named as parties, and an award applies only to the parties to the case before the Court. We, on this side, were desirous of giving the Court power to make a common rule which should apply to the whole industry in which a dispute arose. We all wish to see the multiplication and extension pf businesses, but it will be wrong if arbitration awards are not made to apply to all whom they properly concern. If the decision of the High Court that the Arbitration Court cannot enforce its awards is to stand, what is the alternative? In this chamber, and out of it, I have advocated arbitration as opposed to direct action.

Mr Mathews:

– I never did. Strikes are the best.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is not my opinion. I favoured Wages Boards when there was no opportunity of getting an Arbitration Court, but there are objections to the. Wages Board system. In many cases an employee has jeopardized his position by sitting opposite his employer on a Wages Board. Many employees have been dismissed for their action in regard to Wages Boards. I gave several instances on one occasion when an Arbitration Bill was being discussed in this chamber As a believer in arbitration, I say that the Government should declare, if the Arbitration Act has been weakened, that both employers and employees will be put again in exactly the same position as they occupied before the High Court gave its decision. It is the duty of the Government, if it has the constitutional power, to repair the damage to the Arbitration Court which I conceive to have been done by. the decision of the High Court, and to give the Arbitration Court all the powers that it was believed to have before its validity was questioned.

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

.- I should not have risen but for the direct attack that has been made on the Pastoralists Union, with which, although I am not connected with it now, I have been intimately connected in the past. It- is not true that the ‘Pastoralists Union has tried in any way to break down the Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Spence), when president of the Australian Workers Union, advocated arbitration; and after we had had a taste of it, we managed to carry on our industry with great success. However much credit we may give to the President of the Court, there is undoubtedly the feeling that he is not altogether unbiased.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– The honorable member is not in order.

Mr FALKINER:

– I. shall not voice any sentiments of opposition to that Justice; I have never yet done so, and I do not intend to do so now. But if the position is that he cannot enforce penalties himself, it will, instead of creating industrial unrest, bring peace and satisfaction into the pastoral world. On one occasion, when I appeared before Mr. Justice Higgins, he alluded to the unhappy mess that we had made in framing the rules that we had to work under; but his own rules were so bad that we had to go to him for an interpretation of them, and he had to alter them to make them intelligible. The pastoral industry is a very large one, and it is difficult in some instances to’ say what new awards mean. We are not allowed to put in a contra account against the men. Pastoralists have been fined heavily for merely technical breaches of the law. Mr. E dolls was fined £100 ; Mr. Kelly, £50 ; Mr. Whitty £20; the Eureka Estate, £50; and the Gurley Estate, £50; for mere technical breaches of the law ; and Mr. Justice Higgins has said that he could fine up to £1,000 for such breaches.

Mr Brennan:

– Is not that the law?

Mr FALKINER:

– If a man is to be fined as much as £1,000 for a technical breach of an award, I do not know what the honorable member would do to him if he committed a more serious offence. I believe that the Arbitration Act can continue; and that redress for any breaches of awards can be found. I am also of opinion that it would be in the best interests of industrial peace, in the pastoral industry, at any rate, if Mr. Justice Higgins were allowed to not only make the awards, but to also mete out the punishment to any offender.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- The Acting Prime Minister appeared to argue that in the majority of arbitration laws the arbitral functions are distinct and apart from the responsibility for, or the power of, enforcing awards. But the honorable gentleman waa dealing largely with Wages Boards proceedings. In New

South Wales there is a system of Wages Boards similar to that in Victoria, but there is also an Industrial Court to which appeal may be made from the decisions of the Boards. In these matters the Industrial Court is supreme. Similarly, the Federal Arbitration Court hitherto has had power to enforce its awards. In my opinion, the antagonism of many honorable members on the Government benches, and a large section of the outside public, is not so much to the Arbitration Court as to the gentleman who at present presides over it. Certain honorable members have been loud in their denunciations of Mr. Justice Higgins; and, as the honorable member for Darling mentioned, the President of the” Federal Arbitration Court has been attacked by no less a personage than the Prime Minister pf the Commonwealth. We have also heard honorable members inquiring as to the duration of Mr. Justice Higgins’ appointment, and as to whether any action was being taken by the Government in regard to the renewal thereof. The whole of the criticism of honorable members opposite who have spoken has been directed against the President of the Court. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that he favours arbitration. I do not agree with my leader upon that point, because my opinion is that there is nothing to arbitrate about. But Parliament ‘ has established an Arbitration Court, and the workers are lucky in having as its first President a gentleman of such high character as Mr. Justice Higgins, who, according to his idea of justice, has endeavoured to mete out fair play to the workers.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member not to discuss the Judge.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The judgments given by Mr. Justice Higgins in the past have given rise to a considerable amount of comment. Now, by a decision of the High Court, his powers in regard to the enforcement of awards have been limited, and it is proposed that some other Judge or magistrate shall deal with breaches of awards. The experience of the workers has been that in the majority of cases they get anything but justice from those gentlemen. In ‘regard to the present state of affairs, it seems to me that we are approaching the lamentable conditions that exist in the United States. When the eight-hour law was passed in that country, an appeal was made to the High Court of the United States, and the law was found to be unconstitutional. Now, in Australia, when the workers succeed in gaining benefits of any value from the Arbitration Court, questions as to the con- ‘stitutionality of the Court and its actions are raised. It is noticeable that a lot of American methods are being introduced into the industrial affairs of this country.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Industrial Workers of the World, for instance.

Mr CONSIDINE:

-We on this side often suspect that honorable members opposite know a good deal more about the Industrial Workers of the World than we know. There is a growing tendency on the part of the employing classes to question the judgments delivered by the Arbitration -Court when such judgments confer benefits on the workers. They are following the policy adopted in the United States of appealing to the High Court upon questions of constitutionality. Not believing that an Arbitration Court can be of any lasting benefit to the working classes, I am not much perturbed by such actions ; but I know that the.re are certain sections who are not yet able to help themselves, and that it is necessary for them to approach the Arbitration Court. It is an open secret that a committee of employers has been drafting a new Arbitration Bill which will safeguard the interests /f their class. The Acting Prime Minister has stated that the Government had briefed some of the leading lawyers in order to safeguard the Arbitration Act.

Mr Groom:

– He stated that they appeared in Court as representatives of the Commonwealth to sustain the provisions of the existing law.

Mr Watt:

– We briefed distinguished counsel.

Mr CONSIDINE:

Court-. They have openly stated their objection to him and to the Court over which he presides.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under the terms of the motion and under the standing order, which states that a motion of this character can be moved only to deal with a definite matter of public importance, the honorable member cannot discuss .generally the principles of conciliation and arbitration and matters incidental thereto.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I understood that on the point of order raised by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) at the outset of this debate the ruling given was that the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) had not gone beyond the terms of the motion, and I must certainly draw attention to the fact that this question opens up the whole phase of conciliation and arbitration.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes; under an ordinary motion to discuss conciliation and arbitration it would do- so. But it cannot be done under the standing order which limits a special adjournment motion to a definite subject.

Mr MATHEWS:

– After quoting Mr. Justice Higgins, the Acting Prime Minister said that “ we would still go on as before.” What has been the position so far ? Not only could the Court arbitrate, it could do all that was necessary to see that its decisions were carried into effect. Seeing that it no longer has the power to see that its decisions are carried into effect, we cannot be going on as before. There has been an alteration. There is evidently a desire to interfere with the Arbitration Act, because the Assistant Minister for /the Navy (Mr. Poynton) proposes to* contract shipbuilding out of the Arbitration Court. If that can be done, then the Government can contract the whole of its activities outside the Court, and thus defeat the intention of the Act. -Personally, I hope that it may be done, but I represent men who think differently, and in their interest I wish to see the Arbitration Act .maintained -as it is. Mr. Knox, chairman of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, has said that the Act must go, because the employers cannot afford to pay ‘the wages given under the awards of the Court, If it has to go, let it go fairly and squarely,and let it not be juggled away, as, apparently, the Government are attempting to do.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- 1 do not quite agree with the remarks of the honorable member who has just resume:l his seat. What was the use of Parliament passing an Arbitration Act, and appointing’ a Justice at a huge salary, a man of integrity and honour, to pres.de over the functions of an Arbitration Court, and saying to him, “ You can give judgment, but you must stop there “ ? It seems to me to prove1* the old adage that “the law is a ‘hass.’ “ We pass Bills with and without penal clauses attached to them, and then we employ at great expense men with legal learning, to pile up costs like mountains which the workers are called upon to pay. 1 welcomed the words of the Acting Prime Minister when he said that there was no desire on the part of honorable members opposite to absolutely destroy conciliation and arbitration. I believe that he and his Government are prepared to bring down a Bill to clear up these matters. If this is done, Ministers will merit the good-will of the community at large. Surely no costs should be incurred by any citizen who appeals for justice in a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Next to the Court of Heaven, a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is one in which men are surely placed in a high position to administer justice. How, then, is it that we find the fool game played, and wonder expressed that certain men get judgment? _ It is simply because the man with the most wealth can’ employ legal minds to twist sentences, or shift a stop in a line, in order to give it a different meaning, against equity.. Gronlund’s The Cooperative Commonwealth, speaking of the Courts of Conciliation in Denmark, says-

Denmark will furnish us a model of popular administration of justice in her so-called “ Courts of Conciliation,” which have been in existence in that country since 1828, and during that period have given immense satisfaction, so much so, indeed, that similar Courts have to a certain extent been adopted by other countries in Europe. The ‘distinguishing feature of these courts is that no lawyers are allowed there. All suits whatsoever, without regard to the amounts- involved, - must, in the first place, be brought before these Courts. The judge takes down the oral complaint of the plaintiff and -the oral defence of the defendant, and renders judgment accordingly. If, however, either of the parties is dissatisfied with the judgment, the Judge refers the case to the regular Courts, in which Courts, however, no other evidence is allowed to- be introduced . but that which was laid before the Judge sitting in the Court of Conciliation.

In other words, they may have legal assistance in the second Court, but no fresh evidence can be introduced. That is why such a small percentage of cases, three or four out of every hundred, is carried to the second Court. The average cost of a civil case in circumstances such as I have just quoted is under 10s. per case. Compare that figure with the £3,500 spent by the unions in the tramways case before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, owing to the incompetence of the law. I regret deeply that employees or employers are put to so much unnecessary expense in quibbling about points of law. What is the duty of the average barrister but to sit in his chamber and turn up old books seeking for points, caring nothing about justice, and striving only to win his case upon a technical point!

I have always been opposed to strikes. My brain could not conceive, my lips utter, or my heart desire, the promotion of a strike; because behind the striker, as behind the soldier in time of war, I have always seen the suffering of the women and children. But if the worker cannot get justice in the Courts, the strike is his last resort,- and then it has my support, but only as a last resort. The vast majority of the workers of Australia do not want to lose the right to approach the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. After years of the working of arbitration in Australia, and when we have one Court controlling the whole of the Commonwealth, a legal technicality is brought forward, and an infamy is placed on the whole of the people. I hope that the Cabinet will deal with this question immediately, because there is grave reason to fear that unless it is settled much trouble and turmoil will come upon us. Have we not enough trouble as it is with this cursed war upon us? Who wants industrial trouble in Australia? So far as I- am aware, no one does. If there are any who do, they are few in number, and have no influence with the people. Let us insist, in connexion with every law we pass, that the Judges administering it shall have power to enforce their judgments, since, with all the facts before them, they must be best fitted to do so.

Dr. Maloney.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– My remarks will be very few, because this is a matter that evidently, and particularly since the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) has stated the intentions of the Government, can be discussed properly and fully only when an amending Bill comes before the House. I desire to express the view that this country has accepted the application of conciliation and arbitration to industrial matters aa a principle of government. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth Parliament is given explicit power to pass laws providing for conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. I have repeatedly heard in this chamber leaders of various Governments express the view that, in respect of this principle, we are simply at the experimental stage, but that we are proceeding along a line which bids fair to achieve some satisfactory result in’ the direction of preventing the recurrence of strikes and lock-outs. We are all of the opinion that anything that will insure continuity of industrial operations is something that we should all attempt to achieve. Industrial disputes and strikes - all interruptions to the continuity of industrial operations - are destructive in every direction. They are destructive, not only of the industrial welfare of the community, but of the individual. I know of nothing more demoralizing to the efficiency or morale of the workers than continual interference with and interruption of their industrial operations. Having established this principle the question is how best to make it effective. The Conciliation and Arbitration Court in its operations has not been a success. No one will claim -that it has accomplished what, even allowing that it was, at the best, but an experiment, we hoped it would do.

Mr Blakeley:

– Even so, it is more successful than is the principle of the strike.

Mr FINLAYSON:

The position of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court is not a sinecure; it is not one to be envied. It is, perhaps more than any other judicial position, one that calls for ‘the exercise of very clear judgment and considerable patience. On the whole, I think Mr. Justice Higgins has acted - and that the decisions of the Arbitration Court generally have operated - in a fair and impartial way. If it is a fact that the awards have in most cases been in favour of the workers as against the employers, that is not an argument against either the Court or the Judge. It simply shows that the employers have not been dealing fairly with their employees, and that it was necessary to invoke the assistance of the Court to compel them to do justice to them. I hope that honorable members opposite, who attack the Court and its President, do not object to the employees securing a fair deal. It would be easy to establish the point that their objections to the Court and the President arise from their objections to the awards. They think that the President has given the workers too much. Do they think that the workers are getting too much, and that the President is biased in their favour? They are not prepared to say that, although they suggest it by all kinds of innuendoes against the President of the Court.

Since the High Court has declared that the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court has no power to enforce his own awards - that the Court has no power to enforce awards made by it - this tribunal has been stripped to a large degree of its usefulness. I am one of those who entirely favour the principle of conciliation and arbitration. I believe it should be applied not only to industrial, but to international, disputes. The whole world is fast coming round to that view. What, however, would be the position if an international Court of Arbitration had power to make an award, but no power to enforce it? The whole world just now is discussing the question of a league of nations to establish that very principle, so as to avoid resort to war as a means of settling international disputes. But if that league of nations is to be’ placed in the same position that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court has been - if it is to have power to consider a case, and to arrive at a verdict, but no power to enforce its decisions, the whole scheme must collapse. In such circumstances the purpose and effect of a league of nations would be absolutely futile. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the Government must consider .this question, not merely as a passing phase of industrialism, but as an urgent matter demanding immediate and serious attention. I hope that, for the safety of industrial affairs in Australia, for the sake of the peaceful development of the Commonwealth, and in order to avoid the industrial chaos to which the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) has referred, and which seems to be apparent, the Government will take this matter into their early consideration. We all desire peace in Australia. We desire that it “shall have peace in its development, and peace amongst its people; that they shall all work together for the one end, and be, in fact, one people with one destiny. And can any one suggest a better plan - is there anything be’tter than a. Conciliation and Arbitration Court clothed with the fullest possible power to preserve peace in our industrial operations ?

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

.- If there was one thing, more than another that brought me into the Federal Parliament at its inception, it was the desire to secure the application of the principle of conciliation and arbitration to the industrial affairs of the whole Commonwealth. I looked forward to the realization of one of the dreams of the leaders of the Labour movement in Queensland in those days - the complete abolition of strikes. Some honorable members have been’ through a strike. I have passed through two, and I hope I shall never see again what I witnessed in connexion with those two industrial upheavals. I saw children practically starving and women wanting food. The women, however, were better unionists than the men proved to be in the two strikes in which I was involved.’ The Commonwealth Constitution provides unmistakably that the Parliament

Shall have power to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State.

Mr Higgs:

– That was one of the great arguments in support of Federation.

Mr PAGE:

– It was one of the strongest arguments used in the western portion of Queensland in support of Federation. There we had passed through a couple, of strikes, and their effect had been such ihat the workers were prepared to go to any lengths to prevent any recurrence of the conditions which prevailed in connexion with those strikes. If the section in the Constitution means anything, it means that we have the power to enforce the laws made under it. Yet we have some of the originators and f ramers of the Constitution, including the Chief Justice (Sir Samuel Griffith), Sir Edmund Barton, and others, as High Court Judges, declaring that we have not the power we all thought we had under that Constitution. It is just as though we were presented with a gun of the largest calibre to use against those who were opposed to the arbitral powers of the Constitution, but ordered not to load it; in short, that while we may arbitrate and conciliate, we have no power to enforce the decisions of the Court. In my peregrinations throughout Australia I have come across good employers, and also some of the very worst. After the Queensland strike of 1S91 the pastoralists, not. content with ‘beating the men to their knees, desired the “State Government to deport the leaders from Australia, and, further, they blacklisted, every man who stood up for a living wage for his fellow-workers. As a matter of fact, I reckon that the pastoralists of Queensland owe me a lot of money, seeing, that jobs for which they then paid me 12s. 6d. they have now to pay 30s. However, as in the case of the Arbitration Act, although I could send them in a bill, I have no power to enforce the demand. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), in his manifesto to the people ‘of Australia, said, that if his Government were returned to power the unionists and workers of the country might rest assured that none of the arbitration or industrial legislation would be interfered with” or altered during the currency of the war. When that promise was made there were those of us on this side who prophesied exactly what Mr. Hughes and his supporters would do if they were returned to power; and our prophecy is coming true to-day. It is proposed to alter the maternity grant, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the Electoral Act, and that is just precisely what we anticipated. The present Government sold the people a “pig in a poke”; but sooner or later the Government and their supporters are going to face their masters, I should advise them to induce thePostmaster-General (Mr. Webster) to write another poem about the “writing on the wall.” What we are now faced with in regard to the Arbitration Act is judge-made law, and nothing else. I venture to say that when that Act was passed not one man who took part in the debates had any other idea than that the Constitution gave us power to enforce awards when they were once made. I hope the Government will do something toredeem the promise to which I have referred, and find some means to avert trouble on this score, particularly in such times as these.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr. JUSTICE HARVEY.

Officesand Duties.

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether Mr. Justice Harvey occupies any official position under the Department of Defence?
Does Mr. Justice Harvey pay periodical visits to the Concentration Camp at Holds- worthy, New South Wales?
If so, for what particular purposes are those visits made?
Are internees allowed to interview Mr. Justice Harvey and seek consideration of their cases by him?
Has Mr. Justice Harvey power to hear and determine appeals made by internees?
Does the Department of Defence receive periodical reports of his visits, with recommendations re individual cases?

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

Yes, an honorary position. As official visitor to internment camps.
Yes.
To inspect the camp and receive complaints from internees.
Yes.
Mr. Justice Harvey submits his recommendations to the Defence Department.
Yes.

page 6556

QUESTION

ASSOCIATION OF SMELTERS

Marketing of Tin

Mr PIGOTT:
for Lt.Colonel Abbott

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whetherhis attention has been drawn to press reports that it is proposed to form an association, controlled by smelters, to limit the marketing of tin, and to give the Australian consumers cheap tin?
Whether, in the opinion of the Acting Prime Minister, the proposed limitation of free marketing, throughout Allied countries will not cause accumulation of supplies in Australia and financial difficulties to thousands of small producers, and prevent free competition, and, consequently, a lessened price for the metal to the working miner?
Whether a conference has been held between the smelters and the Government to discuss the preliminaries in respect of the formation of an association which is being urged by the Australian consumers, and not by the actual tin producers ?
Whether any arrangement to curtail the open market, by making producers sell their bin in London only, will not have serious results as far as the producer is concerned?
Whether, in view of the fact that America is a non-producer of tin, its proximity to Australia, the lesser freight, and the avoidance of the submarine danger zone, could not a market be found in America at a better price than in London?
Whether the proposed arrangements will not cause the immediate effect of accumulating supplies in Australia?
Whether the proposal will not create hardship to the working miner, to whom the question of prompt realization is of paramount importance?
Whether the press reports of the contemplated action have not had the effect already of closing the tin market, and stagnation in certain centres; if this is so, what pronouncement is the Government prepared to make, so that miners may reap the fruits of their industry ?
Whether, in the event of further conferences and the formation of an association, the primary tin-producing industry will be asked to supply representatives?

Mr WATT:
NAT

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

The formation of a Tin Producers’ Association on the lines of the Zinc Producers’ Association and the Copper Producers’ Association has been approved. It is being formed for the purpose of protecting and encouraging tin production and fordeveloping the tin-plate industry in the Commonwealth.
The Allied Governments have formed an Inter-Allied Tin Executive for the purpose of acquiring and distributing the Allies’ output of tin,and when the executive takes control there will be, after the Commonwealth requirements of tin have been satisfied, only one buyer for the exportable surplus of Australian tin.
Conferences have ‘been .held, at which the interests of the producers and the consumers were duly considered. 4 to 6. See answer to 2.
No. The result should be greater security to the industry.
Interested parties have spread misleading rumours, which appear to have caused a certain amount of discontent among producers; but the Government is confident that when the true position is realized the discontent will be removed.
The Tin Producers’ Association will be a purely co-operative concern, and any producer of more than one ton per week is at liberty to join. The interests of the smaller producers will be safeguarded by the appointment of a Government representative on the board of directors.

page 6556

REPATRIATION OFFICES, BRISBANE

Payment of Clerks

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Acting Attorney-General, upon, notice -

Whether it is a fact .that returned soldiers engaged in clerical duty in the Repatriation Offices in Brisbane were promised an increase of pay by the Minister for Repatriation when he was in Brisbane recently?
Has this promise been carried out?
Have the employees concerned threatened to go on strike unless the promise is honoured?
What action has been taken to have the matter satisfactorily settled?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

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

No.
See answer to No. 1.
The Minister has seen some press references to the threatened strike, and has asked to be supplied with the names of the officers concerned.
See answer to No. 3.

page 6556

QUESTION

INSURANCE OF SOLDIERS

Mr TUDOR:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he make inquiries to ascertain if the Government of the United States of America, through its Insurance Bureau, makes the following provisions for its soldiers and officers, viz.:- Insurances to the- maximum of $10,000 (£2,000) and the minimum of $1,000 (£200) at a cost of premium during the war averaging $8 (33s. 4d.) per $1,000 (£200), thus it is stated bringing the maximum of £2,000 practically within -the reach of every private, the premium, it is understood, being only $80 (£16 13s. 4d.J per year?
Also, whether, where no application is made within 120 days after enlistment, it is arranged .that $5,000 (£1,000) insurance shall be deemed to have been applied for by every man and officer?
If the above be correct, will the Acting Prime Minister request the Cabinet, to consider whether the Government should insure every Australian private and officer for, say, half the above amount at the same rates of premium?

Mr WATT:
NAT

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

Information has now been obtained from the United States .Government regarding its naval and military insurance scheme, and the particulars mentioned by the honorable member are substantially correct.
The Act of Congress authorizing the creation of the insurance scheme was approved on 6th October, 1917. It provides that the time within which persons in the United States Military and Naval Service may apply for Government insurance is 120 days after entry to service. To meet the case of persons who had entered the service prior to the passing of the Act, a. further provision was made by which persons on active service on and after 6th April, 1917, were automatically insured by the Government until 12th February, 1918, unless they had applied for insurance to take effect at an earlier date.
The Parliament of the Commonwealth has provided a War Pensions Act and a Repatriation Act, which are another form of insurance of the soldier and his dependants in case of death or incapacity.

page 6556

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Professional Officers’ Award: Preference to .Soldiers

Mr TUDOR:

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

What is the reason why the award of the Arbitration Court relating to the professional officers of the Commonwealth Public Service has not been applied to the officers of the Commonwealth Railways Branch?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– The award only classified certain stated positions, and only deals with members of the claimant organization, which, it is understood, does not embrace any Commonwealth railway officers. In any case, Parliament, in the Commonwealth Railways Act, has vested in Che Commonwealth Railways Commissioner the power of determining the salaries, wages, and allowances of Commonwealth railway employees

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. Boyd

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether an examination is to be held by the Public Service Commissioner to enable men in the .General Division of the Public Service to qualify for entry into the Clerical Division?
If so, will the Government undertake that, in fulfilment of its policy of preference to re-, turned soldiers, no men eligible for active service shall be promoted to the Clerical Division while there is a returned soldier available to fill any position that may become vacant?

Mr WATT:
NAT

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

Yes.
The published conditions of the examination provide that preference for appointment is to be given to returned soldiers who qualify.

page 6557

QUESTION

IRISH INTERNEES

Mr TUDOR:
for Mr. Brennan

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the finding of facts presented by His Honour Mr. Justice Harvey relating to certain internees, in the absence of other than formal evidence on behalf ot the detained persons, will the Prime Minister take a course which will enable the defence to be entered upon and put the mcn concerned upon open trial; or, alternatively, will he release them?
Does the Government propose to release Mr. Frank McKeown, against whom the learned Judge reported that the evidence was “ very slight.”

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 and 2. The internment of the persons referred to is not intended as a method of punishment, but is undertaken solely as a precautionary measure, for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare of the country. It is not intended to release the persons referred to. As regards the question of the absence of other Wran formal evidence on their behalf, it may be mentioned that at the recent inquiry Mr. Justice Harvey gave the internees an opportunity to give evidence on their own behalf, and promised that they would not be required to answer any questions which they feared might tend to incriminate them; but they did not avail themselves of the opportunity.

page 6557

QUESTION

PRICE OF COAL

Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– Oh the 27th September the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) asked the following question : -

In the Argus of Tuesday, Admiral Clarkson is reported to have said that there are 277,460 tons of coal in Victoria - I presume imported from New South Wales - and that the present cost of the coal is 35.46s. With the appliances which lie intends to erect, the cost will be reduced to 28.77s. Do the figures refer to the cost of coal delivered in Melbourne? At Newcastle the coal costs only 15s. per ton f.o.b.

The reply is as follows : -

On the 27th September the honorable member for Hunter asked me a question in. regard to a statement which appeared an the Argus, wherein the Controller of Shipping was reported to have said that there were 277,460 tons of coal in Victoria, and that the present cost of the coal was 35.46s., and that, with the appliances which he intended to erect, the cost would be reduced to 28.77s. I have since been advised by the Controller of Shipping that he made no such statement. The honorable member has apparently confused the figures, which, instead of being shillings, are pence, and evidently refer to the cost of handling, and not to the cost of the coal. The remarks in the press relate to figures supplied by the Melbourne Harbor Trust, and not by the Controller of Shipping.

page 6557

PUBLIC SERVICE

Temporary Employees

Mr WATT:
NAT

-On the 27th September the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) asked -

Can a statement be furnished, without undue labour and expense, showing the total number of temporary clerical employees in the service of the Commonwealth as on the 30th June, 1918?

The answer is as follows: -

On the 27th September I informed the honorable member for Batman, in reply to a question, that information was being prepared showing the total number of temporary clerical employees now in the Commonwealth service as on the 30th June, 1918. I have now ascertained that the total number of temporary clerical employees on the date mentioned was 1,087.

page 6557

QUESTION

THE JOHN MURRAY

Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– On the 20th September, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) asked -

Honorable members know that the sailing ship Jahn Murray, purchased by the Commonwealth from the Government of Victoria, was wrecked; Did the Government insure the vessel, or are they carrying their own insurance? If it was not insured, will any action be taken as regards the person responsible for that not being done? If the Minister has not a reply ready now, will he, on the next day of sitting, give me the information which I desire?

The reply is - i

On the 20th September, the honorable member for Yarra asked the Acting Prime Minister a question as to whether the John Murray was insured. I have since ascertained that the John Murray was included in the insurance scheme under which the Commonwealth Government line of steamers carries all the risks of the vessels owned and managed by that line. An insurance fund was inaugurated for the purpose.

page 6568

QUESTION

SHIPPING CONTROL

Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– On the 27th September, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams) asked -

Is the Acting Minister for the Navy able to give us the names of the Inter-State traders which are to be taken over by the Commonwealth, and the terms on which they will be taken over?

The answer is -

On the 27th September, the honorable member for Franklin asked me a question in regard to Inter-State vessels requisitioned by the Commonwealth. I now lay on the Table of the House a list showing the names of the Inter-State vessels which have been requisitioned by the Controller of Shipping under Statutory Rules No. 87. The terms upon which these vessels were taken over are contained in the schedule to the Statutory Rules referred to.

The following is a list of the vessels: -

Ashridge, Arawatta, Aramac, Age, Alabama, Aeon, Auchinish, Beulah, Bulga, Barwon, Buninyong, Burwah, Bombala, Camira,Chillagoe, Corio, Ceduna,Cantara,Chronos, Cooma, Dilkera, Dimboola, Excelsior, Five Islands, Gabo, Goulburn,Hexham, Hobart, Iron Monarch, Junee, Karitane, Koonya, Kapara, Kadina, Kilbaha, Koonda, Komura, Kooyong, Kooringa, Lammeroo, Leura, Maianbar, Morialta, Macedon, Mallina, Moira, Moorabool.Monaro, Melbourne, Marjorie, Nardoo, Omana, Paringa, Perth, Period, Rupara, Saros, Tarcoola, Time, Taviuni, Tintenbar,Urilla, Victoria, Wallarah, Wyandra, Wodonga, Werribee, Woolgar, Wear, Yankalilla, Yarra

page 6568

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS

Employed at Reduced Wages.

Mr WATT:
NAT

– On the 20th September, the honorable member for the Barrier (Mr. Considine) asked me a question, on notice, in regard to the employment of returned soldiers by private employers at reduced rates of wages. I then promised to make inquiries in the matter, and have now obtained the following information from the Minister for Repatriation:-

A number of men have been placed for training in private workshops who receive an amount of money made up in the manner suggested by the honorable member. This arrangement was arrived at by a conference, convened by the Minister for Repatriation, between representatives of the Chambers of Manufactures and the Trades Halls of the various States, to consider the conditions under which injured soldiers could be trained in industries to which their incapacity offers no bar, or a temporary one only.

Under this arrangement, returned soldiers may now, subject to the approval of the Department of Repatriation, enter industrial establishments for training in the proportion of one to six of the fully-paid journeymen continuously employed at the trade in the establishment concerned.

The Department of Repatriation guarantees that the minimum wage will be paid to all trainees. The trainee’s efficiency is re-assessed at regular intervals by a district committee, consisting of a chairman appointed by the Minister, two representatives of the employers in the trade of the trainee, and two representatives of the union covering the trade or calling concerned, and the employer pays on this assessment.

In case of the absence of a trainee from duty, if an employer decides not to pay his own contribution, that of the Department of Repatriation also stops. If a trainee feels aggrieved at a decision in this regard, he has the right to appeal to the Soldiers’ State Industrial Committee, which is composed of representatives of the Manufacturers’ Association and the Trades Hall and an independent chairman appointed by the Minister.

The amount paid by the employer is the full value of the trainee’s labour, while the man is taught a trade which enables him eventually to become a full-wage earner. Employers derive no advantage from the presence of trainees in their establishment, but the co-operation of employersin the provision of training facilities lightens the cost of the vocational scheme to the Commonwealth, while at the same time it broadens the area of opportunity for the maimed soldier.

page 6568

SOLDIERS IN BRITAIN

Educational Facilities

Mr WATT:
NAT

– On the 20th September., the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) asked -

Whether a definite scheme has yet been approved to provide that Australian soldiers abroad may enroll for a course of training at British universities or other educational institutions ?
If so, will the Minister inform the House at an early date of the details of the scheme?
Is it the intention of the Government to extend practical andefficient support to enable our soldiers to take every advantage of the opportunities afforded under the proposal?

The reply is as follows: -

No; but negotiations are proceeding for the adoption of such a scheme.
Yes, when approved.
The question concerns the Department of Repatriation as well as the Department of Defence. Finality has not been reached with reference to the training arrangements during demobilization, but it is proposed to provide assistance within the limits of the funds that can be provided.

page 6559

NATIONAL EMBLEMS

Usedfor Advertising Purposes

Mr WATT:
NAT

– On the 20th September, the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) asked -

In view of the replies given to the questions of the honorable member for Brisbane by Mr. Fisher, as Prime Minister, on the 16th July, 1915, and by Mr. Hughes, as Prime Minister, on the 14th March, 1917 -That the practice of using the national flag and national emblems for trade and advertising purposes would be investigated -

Whether any definite action has been taken by the Government in the matter?

Has the attention of the Minister been called to the fact that the following trade advertisements, amongst others, are at present being published, in which the national flags and emblems are used: - Lippett’s Wines, Foster’s Lager; Johnnie Walker Whisky, John Bull Oats, Fluxite?

Does the Government propose to put a stop to this?

The answer is that the matter was fully considered by the Prime Minister, but it was found impracticable to frame any legislation or regulation to prevent the use by traders of advertisements suggesting loyalty and zeal for the Allied cause.

page 6559

QUESTION

CENTRAL WHEAT BOARD

Statements by Mr. Clement Giles.

Mr WATT:
NAT

– With reference to the question asked by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr, Sampson), on the 18th September, regarding the statement made by Mr. Clement Giles, the wheatgrowers’ representative on the Australian Wheat Board - that he was informed, while in London, in August or September, 1915, that an offer of over 1,000,000 tons of freight had been made at 75s. per ton to the Federal Government and refused - I have received the following report from the manager of the Australian Wheat Board, with an indorsement by Mr. W. J. Young, of Elder, Smith, and Company, that the report correctly sets out the position as regards the regulations -

At a recent Wheat Board Conference, an allegation made publicly by Mr. Giles, that 1,000,000 tons of freight available for wheat in 1915 had been “ turned down,” was discussed. Subsequently Mr. Giles exonerated the Wheat Board from responsibility for failure to secure the alleged freight, but stated that a definite offer of 1,000,000 tons at 75s. per ton had been refused.

When the question was asked in the House as to the correctness of the statement that 1,000,000 tons had been refused, I consulted Mr. Alfred Bright, of the chartering agents, and the Prime Minister’s Department; neither Mr. Bright nor the Prime Minister’s Department had heard of the alleged offer, nor was there any record, or had anything been heard of it, in this office. I, therefore, telephoned the Prime Minister’s Department that the statement was quite incorrect (or used words to that effect). In answering the question in the House, Mr. Hughes gave the allegation an emphatic denial.

Mr. Giles afterwards informed me that his informant was Mr. Clark, who was in charge of Elder, Smith, and Company’s Chartering Department in London.

I consulted Mr. Walter Young, who then gave me the following information, of which Mr. Bright was ignorant, as the’ negotiations had occurred before the establishment of the chartering organization: -

Elder, Smith, and Company, on their own behalf, started negotiations- entirely on their own account - with freight contractors in Great Britain.

The best proposal obtainable was to charter 1,000,000 tons, subject to liners (not then under requisition) and all Government transports being controlled and brought into the venture.

Freight proposed was 82s.6d. net.

Contractors were to have first refusal of supplying further tonnage at same rate.

Contractor’s profit or loss was to be limited to 10 per cent.

In the event of loss, contractors were to receive 2½ per cent, commission for services rendered.

Where out and home-time chartering was necessary, whole voyage was to be taken into consideration, including financing and expenses. 8.Mr. Young put the result of the above negotiations verbally before Mr. W. M. Hughes (then Attorney-General), who decided that there was no basis for consideration.

page 6559

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Mothers of ex-Nuptial Children.

Mr WISE:
NAT

– On Friday last the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) asked for information as to the intention of the Government with regardto placing the mothers of exnuptial children on the same footing as widowed mothers. The rule of the Defence Department is as follows : -

Separation allowance is payable at. the rate of 2s. per diem for a woman who stands in the same relationship as a wife to the soldier concerned, provided that the woman has been entirely dependant upon the soldier for her maintenance and would otherwise be destitute. In such cases proof is required that the soldier- was living with the woman to whom payment is to be made on a bona fide permanent domestic basis. Separation allowance at the rate of 6d. per diem is also paid for each child under the age of 16 years of a soldier and his unmarried wife when in charge of its mother. In these cases, the soldier must allot two-fifths or three-fifths of his pay respectively to his unmarried wife.

page 6560

QUESTION

SPINAL BEDS

Mr WISE:
NAT

– In reference to a question asked on Thursday last by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) about the equipping of military hospitals with proper spinal beds, I have ascertained that at every hospital where proper spinal beds are required these can be obtained without difficulty, and have been obtained wherever necessary. The beds have been provided by the Red Cross Society and private donations, but, if any difficulty should be found in this respect, can be obtained from Ordnance Stores.

page 6560

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS AND UNIONISM

Mr WISE:
NAT

– On Friday last the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) asked -

Whether it is a fact that a question was asked in the Queensland Legislative Assembly by Mr. Whitford, member for Burrum, as to the correctness of a, report that on returned soldiers applying for employment at the Acetate of Lime Factory, Bulimba, they were asked if they belonged to a union, and on replying in the affirmative, were told that they were not wanted?

I have been informed that the manager of the works at the Acetate, of Lime Factory, Bulimba, advises that returned soldiers are engaged by him on their likely suitability for the work. No question as to their belonging to a union or not is ever asked by him of the applicant.

page 6560

IMPORTATION OF JUTE

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

– Some days ago the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) asked me if I would lay on the table, of the Library the papers relating to an importation of jute , by the s.s. Durban. I have consulted with the Minister who controls the importation of -jute, and have laid the papers on the Library table.

page 6560

QUESTION

THE. WAR : HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEBATE

Omissions From “Hansard.”

Debate resumed from 27th September (vide page 6497) of motion by Mr. Groom -

That, during the progress of the present war, Mr. Speaker be, and is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to direct the omission from Hansard of any remarks made in the House of Representatives in the course of debate, or in any other proceedings in. the House of Representatives, to which his attention may be directed by the Law Officers of the Crown as being calculated to prejudice His Majesty’s relations with a foreign Power, or the successful prosecution of the war, or to imperil the safety of the Commonwealth.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I am surprised at the indifference of Ministerial supporters to a motion, which has for its object the curtailment of the privileges of members. At the present time a member has the right to express freely his views and the views of his constituents. As the views of the constituencies differ widely on various questions - there is, for instance, often a difference on many questions between city and country constituencies - the views to which utterance is given in Parliament also differ widely. But hitherto a member has been at liberty to express any view which he desires to make public. Should the motion be carried, this liberty of speech will be taken away, and some members will be prevented from stating their own convictions and the opinions of their constituents. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) strongly opposed the motion, arid he was followed by the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best). The constituencies which these gentlemen represent differ widely in character and in their political views j but it seemed to me to be in bad taste for the honorable member for Kooyong, remembering what his opinions are upon a certain question, to reply to the honorable member for Batman as he did. One objection I have to the motion is that it provides for the censoring of parliamentary speeches by the Law Officers of the Crown. I have nothing against these gentlemen personally, but I hold the opinion that a legal man is the most incompetent person that could be chosen to act as a parliamentary censor. The law is a profession which makes a man very Conservative. With the lawyer everything is settled by precedent; he is opposed to anything that seems to him new. Again, the motion places Mr. Speaker in an invidious position, because it compels him to order the elimination from a speech of any passage which the Law Officers of the Crown may think should be eliminated. I look upon the motion as an insult to this Parliament. It will go forth to the Empire that in Australia the representatives of the people are not thought fit to be allowed to give free expression to their opinions, and their speeches have to be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown in order that passages considered out of accord with the sentiments of the electors may be struck out. We boast of our Democracy, and yet it ia proposed that the Crown Law officers shall say what in our speeches is” to be published. There was a long Caucus meeting of Ministerialists just before the resumption of our sittings, and I feel confident that many of them were not in favour of this proposal. But they have to remain dumb dogs ; they cannot bark now. How are public questions to be dealt with if the views of members are not to be permitted free expression ? No Opposition has been more loyal to the Presiding Officers, although these were chosen by its opponents, than the present Opposition, which has unquestionably complied with every decision of the Chair as to what was or was not within the rules .of debate. No Opposition has ever been more ready to help the Government in the conduct of public business. If there must be some tribunal to decide what shall, and what shall not, appear in Hansard, it ought to be, not the Crown Law Department, but men who, by reason of their parliamentary knowledge and experience, can judge fairly” what remarks ought to be censored. Every honorable member who votes for this motion will regret it some day. The representatives of the people above all others should have the fullest opportunity of expressing their thoughts. Without that liberty what is Parliament 1 Already under existing powers some speeches in Parliament have been censored, and in some cases rightly so. Therefore, there is no necessity for this motion. Whenever any measure or proposal is brought before Parliament, the Minister introducing it states the reasons for so doing, but the Minister who introduced this motion did not say one word or quote one concrete case in justification of it. When Parliament is asked to take action there should be some justification in either past or prospective circumstances. No honorable member who is anxious to preserve the rights and privileges of Parliament can vote for a motion of this character. If the Government could convince me that such power as they are seeking is necessary, I might be induced to concede it, but not to the Crown Law officers. The Speaker even now has power to remove from Hansard anything which, in hia opinion, should not appear. Or it is competent for the Staff to represent to Mr. Speaker that certain matters should not be published, and Mr. Speaker can then submit the matter to the House. In this way Parliament would retain control of its own affairs. I guarantee that not one member of the British Parliament would give t to an outside authority power to censor parliamentary debates. Certainly, men.’like the late Charles Cameron Kingston would have availed . themselves of every Opportunity provided by the usage of Parliament to resist a motion of this character. What is the value of an Opposition unless it has power to criticise the actions of the Government? Do we not know that things are being done to-day by the Government, which, but for the war, the Opposition would not permit to be done? Is the object of this motion to prevent us from criticising the Government’s expenditure proposals, or the flagrant injustices they are allowing to be perpetrated on some of our soldiers ? What is the object of the motion if it is not to stifle the voices of honorable members on this side? It cannot be directed against the Ministerial supporters, because they are silent; they have not the courage to criticise the Government, and but for the speeches of Opposition members, Hansard would be a very small production. Honorable members “ opposite follow behind the Government as a lap dog follows a lady. There is some ulterior motive behind this proposal. There are very few statesmen amongst the Ministerialists, but there are a few politicians, and politicians always keep their minds on the next election. It appears to me that one of the objects of the motion is to enable the National party at the next election to bring a charge of disloyalty against any honorable member who, in his desire to preserve the privileges of Parliament, and to see justice done to the people, votes against the Government’s proposal. No honorable member will submit to the whip, and if injustices are perpetrated, this motion will not prevent us from exposing our view of such things. Nobody is less acquainted with the functions and privileges of Parliament than are the officers of the Crown Law Department, and we shall be placing Mr. Speaker in a humiliating position if we give to those officers the power to direct him to have removed from Hansard any portion of an honorable member’s remarks. Whether publication of a particular utterance or passage is wise or unwise must always be a matter of opinion. One member of the Ministerial party told me that one of the objects of this motion, as explained at the party meeting, was to. enable Ministerialists at the next election to bring a . charge of disloyalty against those who opposed it. Honorable members ought to know what statements are to be erased from Hansard. I have noticed in the press a report of a meeting held at Eaglehawk in connexion with the price of meat, at which it was said that it was not possible for the Government to interfere with the pastoral industry, because of the support they were getting from it. That statement was perfectly true; the Government dare not do anything to offend the pastoral interests who are so much behind them; but if I made it in this chamber it would be struck out of my speech because it would be considered to be detrimental to the conduct of the war. The Law Officers might consider it to be detrimental to recruiting. They must act in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day.

No honorable member should record a vote which will deprive him of privileges. I am quite satisfied that the Government are acting in a party spirit in submitting this motion, otherwise they would have advanced some valid reason for it. Possibly it has been brought forward with a view to testing the feeling of honorable members of the Opposition in regard to another motion, which has for its purpose the curtailment of the time to be allowed for debate. Our Standing Orders have been framed with the object of giving every honorable member a fair opportunity of being heard; but the Government propose to curtail that privilege, and by the motion now under considera tion they seek to take the control of Hansard from the House and Mr. Speaker, with whom it has rested since the establishment of Federation. This is the first occasion on which any step has been taken to detract from that privilege, and no valid reason has been advanced for it. Of course, every Government likes to rush its measures through; but there should be a limit to the means of giving effect to that desire. An honest Government does not fear criticism. No Government is perfect, and no Government Bill is perfect. There is no measure which is so much in the interests of the people as that which has been subjected to criticism by an Opposition. It is only when a Bill is subjected to fair criticism that anomalies can be discovered in it. It is only by the criticism of Bills that a Government’s want of capacity can be determined. Every measure brought forward in the British Parliament has to be submitted to the ordeal of criticism from the Opposition.

Mr Brennan:

– There is nothing like this in the British House.

– Well, the motion is to apply to language likely to imperil the safety of the Commonwealth. Suppose that I, in the House, point out that it is against the interests of the country to introduce any form of military conscription, a Government servant in the Crown Law Office may immediately direct the attention of Mr. Speaker to my remarks as calculated to imperil the safety of the Commonwealth. This interference with f reedom of speech seems to be the real reason for the motion; the Government has given no other reason. What evidence is there of disloyalty ? What utterances have been heard in this chamber calculated to imperil the safety of the Commonwealth, to interfere with the prosecution of the war, or to do any of the things spoken of in the motion?’ Do not Ministers see that the motion is a serious reflection on them? Is it not equivalent to a declaration that they have allowed disloyalty to become rampant; that for four years they have permitted statements calculated to imperil the safety of the Commonwealth to pass unchallenged?

Could a greater condemnation of their conduct of the affairs of the country be uttered by any member on this side than that conveyed by the motion itself? The war has been raging for now over four years, but no necessity has been shown to exist for interfering with the traditional rights of a British Parliament. Before the House takes such a serious step as to carry the motion, the Government should give strong reasons for it. I have shown that in the Mother of Parliaments it has not been attempted to pass any such motion.

Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 745 p.m.

Mr MAHONY:

– The Government have absolutely failed to make out a case for the adoption of this motion. They can refer to no parallel in any British Parliament. The Mother of Parliaments - the British House of Commons - has not seen fit to adopt this course. The Canadian Parliament has not found such a censorship’ necessary, although there are in Canada more diverse political and racial elements than are to be found in Australia. Statements likely to interfere with the successful conduct of the waT, or imperil the safety of the nation, would be more likely to be made in a country with a mixed population such as Canada has, but the Canadian Government have not proposed to interfere with the traditional rights of Britishers to decide in Parliament that which they believe to be in the best interests of the people. Honorable members are familiar with the. circumstances existing in South Africa, and one would naturally think that there, if anywhere, such a proposal might be required. Yet, even in that country, notwithstanding great differences of opinion - to use a mild term - the Government of the day respect the traditional rights and privileges inherent in the British parliamentary system. In no. British community has the adoption of such a motion been considered necessary, and it has remained for the Government of the Commonwealth to propose that the official records of Parliament shall be submitted to a censor. We know from bitter experience how the censorship has worked. Ordinary electioneering propaganda has been stifled by the censor, and, knowing that, how can we expect, if we adopt this motion, to get anything like a fair deal from the censor. No British Parliament would submit to the censoring of its proceedings. Surely this Parliament is capable of managing its own affairs, and of controlling the conduct of its own members. The Government supporters, with the generous assistance which the Opposition are always prepared to give to enable them to do that which is right, are surely capable” of conducting their business without the interference of some jack-booted military autocrat. The proposal reeks of the mustiness of past ages. In fancy one can almost hear the clanking of the old-time chains. We are back in the dark ages when to speak one’s mind was a crime, and when the reward of the reformer, or any one who was opposed to the powers of the day, or who stood for progress, was the dungeon or the gallows. This proposal strikes at the very root of our system of parliamentary government, and, in all seriousness, I ask honorable members to pause and consider carefully before they attempt to interfere with the traditional rights of Parliament. The Government say that it is necessary to prevent the publication of seditious utterances. I am prepared to agree that disloyal utterances should not be allowed to go broadcast while the country is at war, but the Government’s motion reminds one very forcibly of the story of the Chinaman who burnt down his house in order to roast a pig. The censoring of dangerous utterances in Parliament can be easily and simply dealt with by the House it-‘ self. If we are not careful of what we are doing, the people will become disgusted with the parliamentary system; they will say that no longer is the system” of any use to them, and we may find ourselves in the position of many European peoples who have no parliamentary system or constitutional methods of bringing about reform. Such people are forced to adopt other methods to obtain that which they believe to be in the interests of their country. The Government might well reconsider these proposals, in order to discover if some other way cannot be found to deal with disloyalty, if such a thing exists in this House. If it does exist, surely the House is capable of coping with it without allowing outside interference with the traditional rights of Parliament. Not one speaker has mentioned an instance of disloyal utterances by any honorable member in this House. Before the Government can justify the carrying of this motion, they must show that disloyalty does exist, that honorable members are engaged in promulgating seditious ideals, and are expressing opinions that will undermine the stability of the Empire and imperil the safety of the Commonwealth. The Government have utterly failed to do that. I believe that if the Government will calmly reflect upon this proposal, bearing in mind the history of the achievements under the British parliamentary system, they will recognise the wisdom of withdrawing it. What is to become of the expunged matter if the motion is adopted? Are the censored speeches to be destroyed, or will they be kept and incorporated in the permanent records after the conclusion of the war? The official records of Parliament cannot be correct if any portion of them has been deleted. If the Government, in their foolishness, are determined to pass this motion, I seriously ask them to at least see that the true records are preserved, so that after the war is over, and it can no longer be said that their publication can .be injurious, they may be incorporated in the permanent reports. If that is done, students of Australian history, who may desire in later years to learn what happened in the. Commonwealth during the war, will at least have complete and faithful records to guide them. I move as an amendment -

That the words “ at his discretion,” in line 3, be struck out, and the following inserted in lieu thereof : - “with the unanimous concurrence of the whole House.”

– On a point of order, is the amendment in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The amendment-has not been seconded, and is therefore not before the House.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I speak upon this motion with some reluctance, because I am inclined to the opinion of a very eloquent honorable member that, seeing that the Government are determined to abandon all the customs and traditions of Parliament, they might just as well be left to do as they jolly well please on the principle of “giving certain men enough rope.” The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Palmer) has made a reference to Russia and an honorable member of this House. I am reminded that the House of Commons has not attempted, nor is it likely to attempt, to do anything such as has been proposed by the Win- the-war Government. I hold the view that no honorable members have the right to suppress any of the reports of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. Speeches delivered by honorable members belong to their constituents. We have no right to come here representing constituencies and making speeches of which we are ashamed: Honorable members of the Win-the-war party are getting an undue sense of their importance; they hold the idea that what takes place in this House is likely to influence the great battles which are raging in another part of the world. It is only a member of the Win-the-war party who could imagine that a speech delivered by any honorable member in this House would be likely to endanger the relations of theBritish Government with our Allies. In order to show the difference between the treatment extended in this Democracy to honorable members and that which is given to opponents of the Government in the Old Country, I may mention that a speech delivered in the House of Commons by Arthur Lynch, M.P., was issued throughout Great Britain in a pamphletentitled “Lloyd George’s Failures, and the Cry for New Men,” issued by the Society for the Study of Republican Institutions. The pamphlet states -

The objects of the society are -

The study of Republican institutions.

The promotion of good relationship between the Democratic Republics of the world.

The propaganda of Republican principles and ideals.

The work of the society is strictly constitutional.

The pamphlet adds -

For further information write to -

The Secretary, 59 Sarsfeld-road, S.W., 12.

Would the representatives of the Government permit speeches delivered by myself or by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), or by the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine), or any honorable member on this side, to be circulated throughout Australia?

Mr Kelly:

– Does the honorable member say that a speech of his has been prevented from circulation?

Mr HIGGS:

– The Censor cut so many passages out of a speech which I wished to circulate that I didnot think it worth while issuing the remaining portion of it. It is depressing to some of us who have been asking for free speech for a quarter of a century to find that in this Democracy of ours there is so little liberty of speech or action, and that the men who are responsible for this state of things are children of the Democracy. I refer to the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Hector Lamond), to the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Archibald), to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster), and to others I could name who in the old days helped to build up the Labour movement in Australia, and ondozens of platforms, dozens of times, demanded that the public of Australia should have representation in the Parliaments of Australia; that every one should have one vote, and that no person should have more than one vote.

Mr Archibald:

– We did not go in for rebel wash in those days.

Mr HIGGS:

– Is it rebel trash to ask that leave should be permitted to have the speeches we make in this House reported in Hansard and circulated amongst our constituents and the general public? I do not think it is, and I am surprised that any one should be prepared to support the Government proposals.

I should like now to quote a brief passage from the address by Mr. Arthur Lynch, M.P., in order to show honorable members the class of criticism that is permitted in the House of Commons.

Mr West:

– It is a free Parliament.

Mr HIGGS:

– Quite so. There we have a free Parliament. Mr. Lynch, in his speech, delivered in the House of Commons, discussed the failures of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, and, looking through the records, I find that he was by no means the only member who has discussed the incompetence of British Cabinet Ministers and the failures of some of the British Generals. He said -

The disasters which we are now suffering the Prime Minister has imputed to the defection of Russia, and that is treated in some quarters as in the nature of what, in coroner’s language, is called an act of God. The defect of Russia was not even an accident. It was in great part brought about by that same kind of incapacity which has always presided over the acts of our successive Governments. The defection of Russia was in part brought about because, upon the first mutterings of the storm in that country, instead of showing that prevision which we have a right to demand, instead of being accurately informed, our representatives saw and heard nothing, knew nothing, except their own rooted prejudices and their own reactionary ideas. They saw Russia struggling in the midst of a mighty movement, and the Government sent the worst Ambassador they could have chosen, one who almost ruined South Africa when it was ready to accept conciliation, by his reactionary notions, his firmness in wrong ideas, and his incapacity to see the light. I refer to the ruinous persistence in the ruinous ideals of Lord Milner. That was no accident. The feeling of Russia against this country was brought about by the revolt of the people against Lord Milner’s interference.

There was no attempt to censor that statement, nor was there any attempt to omit from the records Mr. Lynch’s criticism ofField Marshal Haig, whom he described as a failure. Mr. Lynch some months before had criticised General Haig, and had asked that he might be recalled. In this speech he proceeded to say-

I will deal with the records of Field Marshal Haig. Months ago in this House I suggested that he should be retired. I say that suggestion stands to my honour to-day, for had he been retired then the military situation could not have been worse, and the lives of 500,000 men would have been saved.

The loss of all these lives was attributed by Mr. Lynch toField Marshal Haig’s incompetency. That statement, however, was not cut out of the House of Commons record. Mr. Lynch then proceeded to discuss other appointments made by the British Government, and he accused the Prime Minister of incapacity. Does any one believe that anything we might say would be likely to prejudice “ His Majesty’s relations with a foreign power” ? By the way, I wonder why the word “friendly” was hot used in the motion. Why did they use the word “ foreign “ ? I have no doubt that the Government carefully studied every word used in the motion. Are honorable members so timid that they fear to give utterance to any statement which might offend a foreign or enemy power? I cannot understand the objection of the Government.

Certain actions of the British Government have been mentioned in this House. Recently I mentioned something which appeared to me to be singular, and that was the arrangement that had been made with regard to wool, and which had the effect of preventing Japan from obtaining wool except by purchasing wool tops from the Colonial Combing and Weaving Company. I suppose that statement will be cut out of Hansard. I observe, also, that the British Government have asked that their metal contracts shall not be discussed in this Parliament. Why should they not be discussed? Some of us are coming to the conclusion that the producers of various commodities in this country ought to discuss the contracts that are being proposed. Why should we not discuss them? Honorable members ought to realize that a man on entering this House takes the responsibility of his utterances. If they are calculated to injure his country his constituents will deal with him.

Mr Gregory:

– There are so many irresponsibles.

Mr HIGGS:

– Our constituents are not irresponsible. If the Government are foolish enough to take a wrong action, honorable members should be free to criticise that action, and to have their utterances recorded. Such criticism cannot do any injury to the Empire. The whole of our history goes to show that the freer and more open our discussions the better it is for the safety of the Empire. One of the objects of this very war is said to be to put a stop to secret diplomacy, but we have the Government proposing that we shall meet in this House and enter into a secret combination, and that our constituents shall not be allowed to know what we say here regarding matters of public concern. The Government, however, do not appear to care. Their programme is so reactionary and tyrannical that they would appear to have no regard for the traditions of public life in this country, and I suppose, therefore, that we shall have to put up with this action until the nextFederal election.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– In view of the announcement made this afternoon by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) as to the unconditional surrender of Bulgaria, we are all hopeful that the seriousness of the situation in Europe is almost over, and I would ask the Government whether they think it worth while, in the circumstances, to proceed with this motion. The only reason for it is the fear that some statement made in this House might, if published, cause dissension amongst the Allies. What harm could possibly be done by any statement made here ? The Acting Prime Minister will admit that statements appear in the official report of the House of

– Unless the Government desire in some way to curtail the ventilation of facts of this character, I fail to understand why this motion is proposed. The war situation to-day is certainly not what it was when the motion was introduced. The Government, in the whirligig of time, may be on this side again, but I feel sure that our party would never attempt to prevent the Opposition ventilating their views. Of course, if members’ speeches were too protracted they might be gagged by our party, for I have always held that the majority should rule, and the minority not be permitted to retard the business of the country. However, as I have said, British newspapers and the British Hansard are full of material of which we are not allowed to speak and have printed here. Is it worth while the Government besmirching themselves by placing this motion on the records ? If I desire to explain to my constituents the true situation with regard to our Allies, and their association with Britain, with its effect on Australia, I ought to be allowed to do so. The Government possess great powers now in this connexion, and I- cannot see what further powers they require. Have they proposed this motion because they have found that in the past they have been using their present powers unconstitutionally ? Where is the necessity to still further buttress the ,powers relating to the suppression of speech 1 If there is nothing in the motion beyond what appears oh the surface, then this seems to be a very foolish act on the part of the Government and anything but statesmanlike at this time of day.

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 14

Majority … 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 6572

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Debate resumed from 26th September (vide page 6448), on motion by Mr. Watt: -

That the paper be printed.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- This is the first opportunity I have had to lodge my protest against many actions of this Government. While one may conceive that in the fixing of prices the Government have met with some difficulties, their explanations are of very little use to heads of families and mothers of children who have not the wherewithal at the present time to satisfy the right of all Australian children to sufficient meat, bread, and groceries. However, before dealing with that matter, I should like, in a pleasant way I hope, to refer to the trouble about the flying of the red flag. If we look into history we find that that great superman, JuliusCaesar, used the red flag once on behalf of right, and for the benefit of the plebeians, who were the workers of ancient Rome. I hope sincerely that the efforts on behalf of the Seventh War Loan will result in subscriptions amounting to four times the amount needed; and further, that some of the rich patriots of Australia will follow the example of two unions who have lent £100 each free of interest, and hand over some of their thousands on the same terms. What is this loan flag ? There is no such flag flown on the seas, but it is curious to observe that the Government in advertising the Seventh War Loan, and as an inducement to people to subscribe, are issuing an honour flag, and that this flag consists of the Australian flag shown on a red flag. And, still more curious to relate, the Government are not content with that, but in the picture of this honour flag show the very halyards as coloured red. It will be seen that honour is paid to the red flag by making it the principal portion of the honour flag, in much the same way as the Union Jack - God bless it - is formed of three combined crosses.

I take it there is no member in the House whose heart does not beat in unison with the prayer of the Speaker at the opening of our proceedings for an honorable and lasting peace. But how are we treating the men who come back from the Front? How are we treating their dependants, women, and children? I say that their treatment is an infamy and a disgrace. This is not altogether blameable on the Ministry, but there are some men who ought to be dismissed when they make inexcusable mistakes. There can be no need for cases such as I am going to mention. The first is that of a woman with three children, who received sudden notice that no more money would be paid to her, as her husband, who is at the Front, had been absent without leave. These are the sort of cases I have to meet every time I ask for volunteers. In the one under notice, after a cablegram had been sent out and inquiries made, it was found, through the Commanding Officer some nine months afterwards, that this man had not been absent one day from the fighting line. Why is not an example made of those responsible for these mistakes?

To come to another matter. When God grants to any woman the sacred gift of motherhood, and she brings a child into the world whose father is cowardly enough not to acknowledge him, and that child grows to man’s estate, and the mother gives him to fight for his country, she is treated differently from the married mother. This Parliament, to its honour, has struck out from every Commonwealth law the word “ illegitimate,” using in its stead the word “ ex-nuptial.” Does the Minister for Defence think that the hearts of the mothers of ex-nuptial children do not bleed like other mothers’ hearts when their sons are killed or wounded ? Yet these mothers are not to receive pensions ; and in this way a few paltry pence are saved ! It is contemptible and un-Australian. The people of this country desire that our soldiers and their dependants shall all be treated alike. I hope that Parliament will say to the Ministry that every mother who has given a son to the war shall be treated in the same way.

To-day I asked the Acting Prime Minister the following questions: -

Willhe make inquiries to ascertain if the Government of the United States of America, through its Insurance Bureau, makes the following provisions for its soldiers and officers, viz.: - Insurances to the maximum of $10,000 (£2,000) and the minimum of $1,000 (£200) at a cost of premium during the war averaging $8 (33s. 4d.) per $1,000 (£200), thus, it is stated, bringing the maximum of £2,000 practically within the reach of every private; the premium, it is understood, being only $80 (£16 13s. 4d.) per year?
Also, whether where no application is made within 120 days after enlistment, it is arranged that $5,000 (£1,000) insurance shall be deemed to have been applied for by every man and officer?
If the above be correct, will the Acting Prime Minister request the Cabinet to consider whether the Government should insure every Australian private and officer for, say, half the above amount at the same rates of premium?

I was told that my statement of facts was substantially correct; but the Minister was misled, I think, by. one of his officers in the answer he gave, which created the impression that the Americans are doing for their soldiers only what is referred to in my questions. Every one knows that, in addition, they are giving pensions to the injured and to widows and other dependants. I ask only that half what the Americans do for their soldiers and soldiers’ dependants shall be done for our Australian lads and those dependent on them. While on the subject of insurance, let me read a letter which I have received from a lady whose husband is known to all but, perhaps, some of the newest members of theHouse. She writes -

Dr. Maloney,

Sir, I think you will like this fine piece of patriotism. If a man doesn’t go to the war they brand him disloyal and a shirker, and, if he goes, just see their bounty to his dependants on a soldier’s pay re insurance. - insured his life three years ago for £250, paying £11 l1s. 8d. per year; he goes to fight for his country, and leaves a wife and six children, the youngest 8, 11, 13.

The insurance company rate is now -

so I had to pay £381s.11d. in ten months; if he were here it would be only £1111s. 8d.

I obtained from the State Accident Insurance Office of Victoria the information on which I based my questions to the Acting Prime Minister. The cost of insuring an American soldier or officer for £1,000 would be about £8 6s. 8d. per year; but the rate based on the charges referred to in this letter would be £152 7s. 8d. a year. Am I wrong in asking for our men only half what the Americans give to theirs ? Will any one say that we should not do as much for our soldiers as the Americans do? It is all very well to say that we provide pensions, but so do the Americans.Facts; like those stated in the letter that I haveread make it difficult to get recruits, and I wonder that so many volunteer.

In regard to the price of meat, I should be wrong if I did not recognise that the Government have to contend with difficulties; but I can imagine an astute -Prime Minister with a big love of humanity, tinged with a good deal of common sense, deciding to fix the price of meat on the hoof. If that can be done for a nation of 100,000,000 people like the Americans, it can be done in Australia. Then, in order to prevent the charging of exorbitant retail prices, the Government could open meat shops in all towns having a certain population. They could instal cold storage, and arrange for the Queensland Government to send down beef at the price at which they are selling it to our kindred overseas and the Homeland. That meat could be sold by the Government retail at an increase of fd. or Id. per lb., representing the difference between the cost in Queensland and the cost in other States. The people have a prejudice against frozen meat. When a butcher asks his customers whether they will have fresh meat or frozen, they almost invariably prefer the fresh meat. As a medical man, I tell the people that if meat has been properly frozen it is as healthy as any meat that can be had. Moreover, only the best meat is frozen. I am informed that a Victorian squatter, who was a member of the State Parliament, and a director of a cold storage company, has sent to the freezers as many as 400 sheep from which 200 have been culled and the rejected sent back to the station. The same thing happens with lambs - only the best are frozen. That squatter, when returning to his station at the weekend, always took with him’ a frozen carcass for his home consumption. ‘ I remember when in England dining at the Artists’ Club with Professor Owen, and he asked me if I could tell him what special quality there was in a four-year old wether saddle of mutton.- I replied that I knew nothing about the matter. “Well,” said he, “we had a dinner at the Forty Club the other night, and the piece de resistance was a four-year old wether saddle of mutton, and every member of the Forty declared that he had never before tasted a saddle of mutton equal to it.” Therefore, I urge the Government, if they really have the welfare of the people at heart, to open shops for the sale of frozen meat. I guarantee that the cost will not amount to more than Id. per lb. above the selling price in Brisbane. If they .’do that, they will enable the Australian people to buy meat at the prices at which it is being exported.

I turn now to the wheat question. How is it that through bad management we prefer to allow countless thousands of bushels of wheat to be destroyed by weevils and mice rather than sell it at a cheap price to the people? I have a photograph of a pyramid of 3,000,000 mice which were destroyed at a wheat depot; yet a man engaged in raising poultry can only get wheat for his fowls by paying an increased price. I look forward to the time when the people will take a hand in the government, as they will be able to do if we have the initiative referendum and recall, and will say that the farmer must have a fair price for his wheat, say, 4s. at the station. Allow the wheat to be supplied to the miller. The cost of gristing is not more than 25s. per ton. Compel the millers to supply flour to any baker. The percentage of profit has been mathematically ascertained. Allow the baker to sell bread over the counter at a fair price, and send to prison any miller who will not supply a baker because he does not belong to the. ring. If the Government were to adopt that policy, they would show that they have sympathy for the majority of the people. They are not the majority who are well-to-do and live in plenty. The men of wealth can always look after themselves; their money helps them to do that.

I regret very deeply nhat the Government of the day did not adopt the suggestion I made in 1912 in regard to the conversion of the State loans, and so save an immense sum of money. At the time I was afraid to tell the House that I had calculated the profit at more than £20,000,000. No Australian State has ever failed to meet its loan obligations. Bonds may fall as low as £73, but as the time for redemption approaches they rise towards par. If a person invests in bonds merely for the purpose of getting an income, it does not matter to him whether the price of the bonds rises or falls; but, if bonds are bought for speculation or in order to have liquid assets which can be easily converted into money, how gladly would such holders convert their State stock into Commonwealth bonds, which would have greater stability. The axiom of Euclid that “ The whole is’ greater than its part “ is as true to-day as when it was uttered, and the Commonwealth, ‘as ia whole, is a much greater security for a loan than any single State. My proposal was not adopted, although it did bring forth complimentary letters from almost every House of Parliament under the British flag, with the exception of Newfoundland.

Surely there is room for economy! Standardization is a word to conjure with in every factory to-day. Any firm which is able to standardize the parts of its machinery is sure of larger profits. I believe that the Government have gone in for the standardization of the Commonwealth motor cars - a very wise step. Why do they not standardize their Taxation Departments? There is an Income Tax Department for each State and an Income Tax Department for the Commonwealth in each State. In each there is a large number of public servants. The State Taxation Department does not bother me nearly as much as the Commonwealth Department does. I do not mean to say that the officers in the latter. Department are not able -to do their work. Perhaps they lack experience. “Is there any honorable member who can make out Ids income tax without looking up the ready reckoner which is supplied? There is no need for a ready reckoner in America, or in Great Britain, or’ in regard to any State income tax. But I had to obtain one, because, if any constituent of mine came to my office, and asked me what his income tax was likely to be, I could not give him the information without reference to one. Those wonderful curves ! _ Why cannot the tax rise by graduations, so- that any one <ian understand it. Let us standardize the Income Tax Departments, and have only one return, and only one set of officers, and let us apportion to the State its proportion of the revenue, the Commonwealth retaining the balance. The same arguments apply in connexion with the land tax. It is a great absurdity to go on as we are now doing.

It came out in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee that at one time, if a post-office up country had to be repaired, three different officials had to go and examine the work: There ought to be economy in avoiding duplication of work.

Let < us abolish the State Legislative Councils. They are useless, and generally represent one class of the community only. In Victoria no one can become a member of the Legislative Council unless he is a land-owner. It is idiotic. When Benjamin Webster returned to America he described to an intelligent American audience the franchise as he found it in England. It was a property qualification. He said that if a man owned a donkey worth £50 it was his qualification to vote, but if the , donkey should happen to die on the day before the election, he asked that intelligent American audience who held the vote - the man or the donkey. These silly old fossils in Victoria threw out women’s suffrage thirteen times and manhood suffrage fifteen times. They wasted over £70,000 of the money of the people of Victoria, and then had to pass the reform in the end.

Let us abolish State Governors. What good are they to the community ? If they give dinners, they give them to people who never feel hungry. They do not go about the highways and the byways, as the Old Book says, gathering in those who may be hungry.

Let us abolish the State Agents-General. If we have common sense, let us make them General Agents on a minimum salary, with a commission for the business they send to Australia. It was a reform which was promised before Federation was brought about.

Then. I come to our refreshment-room. We could afford to give 12,000 meals at 2s. 6d. per meal to honorable members outside, and yet not lose as much money as we are now losing upstairs. It would pay us to give 30,000 meals at ls. per head to hungry people outside, and not lose more than we are now losing on the dining-room. People outside seem to think ‘that honorable members eat at the country’s cost. I am merely pointing out that the dining-room is costing the country that needless amount of money. Honorable members cannot get meals upstairs as cheaply as they can get them in the city. I can get a meal at the Cafe Francais for 2s. 6d. that I cannot get upstairs for 5s. We are not saving money by having our meals in the House, but we are the means of the House losing money. My proposal is to get rid of some of the gilt feathers who are bossing affairs upstairs, and allow a co-operative company of stewards, waiters, and cooks to supply honorable members with meals, or to let an outside restaurant do so, which would have the opportunity of making some use of the food that now goes to waste when the House rises suddenly before a dinner adjournment. Under the advice of the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson), or one or two other cheerful individuals, honorable .members, are becoming so teetotal that the consumption of alcohol is not more than 4½d. per member per month. What is the use of keeping a bar open for that amount of revenue ? ‘Refreshments cost no more than 4½d. per month per member. However, people cannot say that we are not temperate. If an honorable member asks a friend to come to Parliament House to have a meal, he is charged 6d. extra. The press reporters have to pay 6d. extra. If that is not contemptible cheese-paring, I do not know what is. The dining room pays no rent ; there is no charge , for light, linen, cutlery, crockery or glassware, and possibly none for firing. This is a direction in which economy could . be brought about.

Next I come to the excessive payments to officers in the military service. We have 150 men in Australia and at the Front who draw more money than is paid to the Commander-in-Chief of the Swiss Army. There are ten -to fifteen men drawing more money than Von Moltke was paid when he led the victorious Prussians through France in the Franco-Prussian War. He drew £1,500 per annum, whereas one officer in the Australian Army is paid £40 per week, and also draws a field allowance of £5 5s. a day. We are building up generals who have never smelt gunpowder at the Front. General Cuscaden is a man who has the lowest diploma of any medical officer in the Australian or British Forces. There is not a man in the Imperial Army who’ is not his superior in the matter of surgical diplomas. Has he ever gone to the Front, or smelt gunpowder there? No. He has stayed at home polishing the handle of the big front door of the Defence Department. He was educated in Ireland, but he had to go to Scotland to get his diploma. He would not be permitted to go into the Melbourne Hospital, or the Alfred Hospital as an inpatient surgeon. The Women’s Hospital? Yes. Belonging to the Government House push, I suppose he got shoved along.

I now come to the foolish expenditure at Canberra. I thank the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Falkiner) for asking the Government whether the men in control to-day are those who were condemned by Mr. Wilfred Blacket, who sat as a- Royal Commission inquiring into the” Federal Capital Administration. What were his findings against the men who, with the malignity of a departmental conspiracy, sought to crucify the genius who, against the whole of the world, had won the prize for designing our Capital, and endeavoured to bring in a hotch-potch design by stealing the brains of one man and taking the ideas of another? Had their object been carried out, they would have stamped that design permanently Upon Australia, but they were prevented by the action of the Government controlled by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Joseph Cook). I thank him and his Assistant Minister (Mr. Kelly) for having been manly enough to send to America to ask that genius who had submitted the prize design to come to Australia. The Commission would not have been issued to Mr. Wilfred Blacket had it not been for the splendid action of the present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Webster). One man who was chosen by .Mr. Griffin to devote his time and ability to the plans, of the future Parliament House was accused by the head of his department in the

Patents Office of being absent without leave, despite the fact that the Minister had asked him to do the work, and had provided him with a room for the purpose. Because he was an Australian who had graduated through a workman’s drawing school, and had gone to Scotland to learn his business there; because he was an honoured member of the State Service who had been transferred to the Commonwealth, he was not class enough for these gentlemen in the Home Affairs Department who held no diplomas they had won for themselves. When I read the findings of the Royal Commission, honorable members will see that it needs no words of mine to indicate the vast amount of money that has been wasted at the Federal Capital through inability and ineptitude. The Commissioner’s findings were -

Upon all the evidence, and particularly upon that which has been stated or referred to in this report, I find that the reasons why Mr. Griffin, between 18th October, 1913, and 15th November, 1915, performed no substantial part of his duties under his contract with the Commonwealth are as stated in four of the five charges advanced in his behalf, viz., charges 1, 2, 3, and 5, and are as under: -

That necessary information and assistance were withheld from him, and his powers were usurped by certain officers; (2) That he and his office were ignored, his rights and duties under his contract denied, and false charges of default made against him;

That the Honorable W. O. Archibald and members of the Departmental Board endeavoured to set aside his design and to substitute the Board’s own design; and

That there was in the Department a combination, including the Honorable W. O. Archibald and certain officers, hostile to Mr. Griffin, and to his design for the Capital city; and that the Honorable W. O. Archibald and the officers mentioned in my references to the evidence under these charges are severally responsible to the extent already indicated by me for this result. But I think it necessary that I should emphasize the fact that after Mr. Archibald’s accession to office it must have been perfectly clear to all the officers that the Ministerial policy was directed against the carrying out of Mr. Griffin’s design, and any acts they did in frustration of Mr. Griffin’s efforts were therefore done in furtherance, as they believed, of the Minister’s desires. I cannot say that this excuses them; still the greatest responsibility in respect of the obstruction to Mr. Griffin is with the Minister. Holding the views that he did as to the “grave mistake “ that he considered had been made in the engagement of Mr. Griffin, he should have adopted one of two alternatives - either to have cancelled the contract and reverted to the design of the Departmental Board, or else to have allowed Mr. Griffin’s contract to be performed and his design carried out.

As to the fourth charge - “ That in order to prevent Mr. Griffin’s design from being carried out, wilfully false estimates of its cost were given,”

I find that it wholly fails, and that no such false estimates were made.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member is confusing two different matters.

Dr MALONEY:

– I am not. Upon this .petition the present Minister for the Navy, to his eternal credit, turned’ down the composite design, and sent to the United States of America for Mr. Griffin.

Mr Bamford:

– Mr. Griffin does not pose as an architect.

Dr MALONEY:

– Does he not? There was no architectural journal in Australia or the world but held the departmental composite design up to contempt; but it would have been forced upon this country if.it had not been for the action taken by the present Minister for the Navy. He saved Mr. Griffin’s design.

I understand that the Government have raised only some £400,000 by means of the War-time Profits Tax. Compared with the taxation of war-time profits in England and the United States of America that is a mere bagatelle. Mr. Baillieu, who is reputed to be a millionaire and to be making his second million, - asserts that the tax does not touch men like him; yet the Government are placing a tax of one penny on the threepenny tickets issued to little children who desire to patronize the moving picture shows, which are a means of education.

Mr Fenton:

– A tax of 33 per cent, is to be put on the children’s tickets.

Dr MALONEY:

– That is not fair. The Government should tax in an honorable, straightforward way the profits made by picture show people. Those responsible for the proposal to impose a tax of one penny on these threepenny tickets ought to be detained on Pinchgut Island. I have not discovered one company that has made a loss since the war ; I have not seen a single balance-sheet in the weekly issues of the Bulletin in which the profits made were not greater than those for the pre-war years. The Vacuum Oil Company in 1912-13 had a paid-up capital of £600,000. In 1915-16, the second and third years of the war, it increased its capital by £800,000, and in 1917 it increased it to £1,600,000.

Mr Fenton:

– Is it a branch, of the Standard Oil Company?

Dr MALONEY:

– I think so.We are not allowed to understand how the Standard Oil Company operates its business, but I have no doubt that the two are connected. Would not those who have been obliged to flee from the devastated portions of France, Belgium, and other Allies which the Germans have overrun thank their Creator they could return to their businesses, their manufactories, or their holdings, notwithstanding that they had to forego all that they have lost during the war? Is it not infamous, then, for the Commonwealth Government to allow huge war-timeprofits to be made in Australia ? If it were known definitely to-morrow that it would not be permissible to make any profits in excess of the average profits of peace-time, would any firm increase its prices? Would we have increases in the prices of bread, meat, groceries, clothing, boots and shoes? I think not. ‘ Unjustifiable profits are being made by the war profits monger, who is a greater enemy than is the enemy who comes outagainst us openly in the field. I hope the Government will deal with this question of taxing excess profits.. Do not let us be mealy-mouthed in discussing the subject. Let us say boldly that there shall be no profits over the average profits made in pre-war years. Let us put a stop to the increasing of rents, and let the Government open shops for the sale of frozen meat.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 6580

ADJOURNMENT

Cadet Midshipman Rubie - Railway Leave Passes- Wages of Returned Soldiers: Pension or Repatriation Allowance

Motion (by Mr. Watt) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- By the courtesy of the Minister for the Navy the papers in connexion with the discontinuance from the Naval College of Cadet R. J. H. Rubie have been placed on the Library table, and I venture to trespass on the attention of honorable members for a moment or two in order to call attention tocertain facts. This midshipman had a seizure at the College, according to the Navy doctor, and certainly he had some sort of fainting spell. He was recommended for what they call a “survey” by a Board of Naval Surgeons in Sydney. He went to Sydney, and the survey was in the lad’s favour. It was recommended that he be sent back to the College. The Naval Board then took a hand, . and said he ought not to be sent back to the College. An appeal was made to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator was against the doctor at the College ; but it was said by the Naval Board that he should not be sent back because a predisposition to epilepsy was too dangerous- to have about the Navy. There was no history of epilepsy in the boy’s family, and I never saw a healthier boy. After that, owing to the protests of the family, who knew what the decision of the Board in Sydney was, the Naval Board began to consider a way out, and suggested getting an outside expert to give them the benefit of his advice. Admiral Creswell, I think, suggests in the papers that it was excellent to get an outside expert’s advice, but held that, in any case, it would not be followed against the decision of the naval non-medical Board in Melbourne! The doctor at the College, who had decided against the boy on one fainting spell, described him as having a narrow and high palate, which was the only indication in an otherwise healthy boy of, perhaps, an abnormal mental condition or predisposition. The doctors in Sydney who had the boy in front of them, said that that was a mistake, for the boy’s palate was broad and entirely normal! If the doctor at the College could make so flagrant a mistake on a matter under his notice, one must be very careful about accepting his decision when the whole future of the lad is at stake. This matter was referred to Dr. (now Colonel) Jones, who is in charge of the lunatic administration of Victoria.

Dr Maloney:

– A very able man.

Mr KELLY:

– A very able man. He did not have the boy in front of him, but merely the file of documents, and, while he appeared to think the attack might be epilepsy, he went so far as to say that the boy should be taken back to the College and observed during a further term. What happened to Colonel Jones’ report?

It was pigeon-holed, and the boy was still kept from the College. There are some interesting features in these papers worth the passing attention of honorable members. If honorable members cannot believe in the truth of answers supplied to them by a Public Department, the control of this House over Public Departments has gone for ever. In these files we find, in the first place, Admiral Creswell pointing out - I presume, to his Min,ister, though I am not quite clear as to that- that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence is in favour of epilepsy, and that, therefore, the boy should not be continued at the College. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming evidence is in the other direction - in other words, that the boy should be kept at the College. There was only one doctor and the non-medical men in Melbourne who thought that the boy should be sent away. That is one instance of a lack of candour on the part of a prominent person at the Navy Office. Another instance of lack of candour came within my own experience, and I protest to the Minister in charge of the Department against that sort of thing. I saw the Secretary to the Navy about the matter. At that time I did not know that the evidence of everybody, except the doctor at the College, who made the initial blunder about the configuration of the lad’s palate, was in favour of his retention at the College, and I urged that outside evidence should be got, in the absence of any history of epilepsy in the family or anything in the appearance of the boy to suggest such a thing. The Secretary to the Navy, in a very frank and kindly way, said that outside expert evidence would_ be got, but after about a fortnight or so the lad was dismissed. I then asked by letter if the outside evidence I had suggested had been obtained, and the reply I re’ceived was as follows: -

In reply to your letter of 1st August regarding the case of Master Rubie, late Cadet Mid- shipman at the Royal Australian Naval College, I am directed to inform you that’ tha most careful consideration was given to the medical evidence in this case, and expert opinion was taken.

– He asked for leave of absence, without pay. It is understood that this pass was intended to be used for union organizing purposes; and there is no such practice elsewhere, except in Western Australia and in South Australia, in a very modified form.

Mr Tudor:

– The climatic conditions under which the men work, and what they suffer by reason of the lack of population, make their position worse than that of men on any other line in Australia.

Mr GROOM:

– I spent four or five days on an inspection of the line, and had an opportunity for an examination of their conditions, and I ‘think that the honorable member must admit that no other Railway Department makes better provision for supplying the needs of its employees than the Commonwealth makes for the men on this line. I consider that the housing accommodation must be improved, but while ballasting operations are proceeding, and the permanent position of stations is uncertain, it is impossible to erect permanent homes at all stations. It is incumbent upon us to take every care of the comfort of the men employed on the line, and to do what we can for the education of their children. The Commissioner is not to blame for the present stoppage of the trains. I do not wish to discuss the matter, because negotiations are in progress. The Government is doing its best ‘ bo arrange for trains to leave from both ends of the line to-morrow. I expected to get a communication this afternoon, but it has not yet come to hand.

Mr.Blakeley. - Are the trains to be manned with non-union labour?

Mr GROOM:

– I am not aware of the exact conditions; but the Commissioner is’ doing his best- to keep the traffic going. That is an obligation upon . us, seeing that the railway is practically the only means . of communication between Western Australia and the other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not wish to say anything to prejudice the matter at this moment.

Mr GROOM:

– I think that honorable members can trust the good sense of the Commissioner. No consideration was shown to the Department by the men. They went straight off duty.

Mr Tudor:

– They gave you over a week’s notice. I spoke to the Minister over a week ago.

Mr GROOM:

– “We have had no official intimation from the men that they intended to take action, nor has there been any official intimation from the representatives of the union as to the reasons for their action. A threat was verbally conveyed to the Commissioner a few days since that if a free stationtostation pass for a period of from six to eight weeks was not issued to Driver Wittorff, the local secretary, to travel over the railway on organizing work for the union, the men would cease work to attend a conference. That was the only communication that the Commissioner had, and the next thing that happened was that the men stopped work. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case further at this stage. The Commissioner is now awaiting a reply to communications. Our desire is to bring about a resumption of the traffic as soon as possible. In the meantime, we must consider what steps can be taken to keep the traffic going.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

:- I have a few words to say regarding an answer given by the Acting Prime Minister to-day to a question asked by me respecting the employment of returned soldiers under an arrangement whereby the pension or repatriation allowance of the soldier is regarded as part and parcel of his wages. The Acting Prime Minister’s reply dealt exclusively with the cases of returned soldiers who were learning a trade. The case I have in my mind is one which I endeavoured to bring under notice when the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) moved the adjournment to discuss another matter. A returned soldier was sent to the Zinc Corporation “Works at Broken Hill to fill the position of cleaner, purely a labourer’s job, for which labourer’s wages are paid. The South Australian Branch of the Repatriation Department arranged that 60 per cent, of his wages should be paid by the Department and 40 per cent, by the Zinc Corporation. To his credit, the soldier refused to take the job under those conditions, and reported the matter to his union. I read an account of the case in the Barrier Daily Truth, and, after I had received a letter regarding it from the Barrier Branch of the Austratralian Labour Party, I wrote to the Repatriation Department concerning it. Although a considerable time has now elapsed since my letter was sent, I am still waiting for a reply to it. The Minister’s answer to my question was unsatisfactory, as it did not touch upon the position of unskilled labour. One of my questions was -

Is it a fact that a returned soldier working under this scheme loses a day’s work, and is docked by the employer, and is the Repatriation Department credited with the proportionate deduction of the day’s wages ?

In reply, the Acting Prime Minister said that, in the case of the absence of a trainee from duty, df an employer decides not to pay his own contribution, that of the Department of Repatriation also stops. It would appear, therefore, that the soldier’s pension stops, so far as the Repatriation Department is concerned, from the date on which he ceases work. Like other honorable members, I know the scheme under which, for the purpose of helping injured returned soldiers by assisting them to learn some trade and calling, certain arrangements are made for their payment, but the position of a soldier who is employed on ordinary work, such as that of a cleaner or mill hand, for which no great knowledge, skill, or length of training are required, is different. I want from the Government an assurance that returned soldiers will not be employed with the advantage to their employers that the Repatriation Department, or, rather, the Commonwealth taxpayers shall meet the difference between the amount the soldier is actually receiving and the amount which the employer is contributing to his wages. I want to have that system of employing returned soldiers wiped put. The Repatriation Department should cease to send unskilled workers to Broken Hill, or to any other place under those conditions. It can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a benefit to the returned soldier that his employer shall be able to secure his services at 40 per cent, or 60 per cent, less cost to himself, the difference being made up by the general taxpayer. It is, however, of great benefit to the employer to have such a practice adopted. This is a matter which- the Government should sit up. and take notice of. I can quit© understand some provision of the kind being made in the case of a soldier who is being taught carpentering, fitting, or some skilled trade, because an unskilled man would be of very little use to an employer in such trades. But there is absolutely no reason why a returned soldier employed at an unskilled job and able to perform it as well as any civilian should have 60 per cent, of his wages made up by the Repatriation Department. I fail to see how that practice can be justified. I should like to add that when an honorable member communicates with a public Department to bring a matter under notice, he should be treated with the courtesy to which a member of this Parliament is entitled, a courtesy which, I may say, I have received from other Departments with which I have communicated. The Repatriation Department absolutely ignored the representations and facts I brought under its notice. It is time that the Government took the matter to which I have referred into consideration, because the practice adopted is giving rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction and, as I have shown in the case to which I have referred, is not satisfactory to the soldiers themselves. I hope that the Acting Prime Minister will reconsider the matter in the light of what I have said to-night, and will give some’ definite reply to the questions I submitted.

Mr POYNTON:
Acting Minister for the Navy · Grey · NAT

– I do not intend to occupy much time, but I think it necessary to reply briefly to what the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) had to say in connexion with the lad Rubie. I clearly remember the case, which was brought under my notice, and that it was distinctly stated that this lad had had an epileptic fit. If that were so, it was of no use to continue his service in the Navy. I shall make further inquiries and see what can be done in the matter, but I do think that the honorable member has done an injustice to Mr. Macandie. I find from the correspondence ./hat the honorable member for Wentworth asked whether he could have an acknowledgment of his letter of the 26th June, and an immediate reply to the simple inquiry he made. Mr. Macandie replied to that letter by saying -

In reply to yours of the 1st, in regard to the case of the lad Rubie, Cadet Midshipman of the Royal Australian Naval College, I am directed to inform you that most careful consideration was given to the medical evidence in this case, and expert opinion was taken.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 October 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19181002_reps_7_86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 2 October 1918

THEWAR

Cablegram to British Government

Mr TUDOR:Yarra

QUESTION

ARBITRATION LAW AMENDMENT

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WATT:Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

BUDGET PROPOSALS

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:NAT

PAPER

QUESTION

CENTRAL WHEAT BOARD

Mr PIGOTT:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

PRICE OF MEAT

Mr MAHONY:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Mahony:

QUESTION

SUGAR SURPLUS

Mr PALMER:ECHUCA, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

TINS FOR HONEY

Mr JOWETT:GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

SALE OF COPPER

Mr HIGGS:

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Mr GREGORY:DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

JAM FRUITS

Mr McWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

TARIFF ALTERATIONS

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr JENSEN:NAT

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

Mr BLAKELEY:Darling

Mr Webster:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Livingston:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Livingston:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Jowett:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Pigott:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr Mahony:

Mr Poynton:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Watt:

Mr BLAKELEY:

House of Representatives
2 October 1918

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr PIGOTT:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr MAHONY:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

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

Mr JOWETT:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA

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

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

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

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr JENSEN:
NAT

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

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

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

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane