House of Representatives
17 December 1918

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 9428

SPIRITS BILL

Assent reported.

page 9428

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the

Acting Prime Minister what business it is proposed to deal with and complete before the House rises for the Christmas vacation, and as to whether the order of business as set out on the notice-paper today will be as far as possible adhered to? Will he state also when it is anticipated that the House will rise for the Christmas holidays?

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

– The business paper conveys a very clear idea of the desire of the Government with regard to the measures to be passed this year. After the introduction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill we shall proceed with the debate on the first item of the Estimates and then with the consideration of the Estimates.

Mr Higgs:

– To be passed before Christmas ?

Mr WATT:

– Most decidedly. There need be no doubt in the honorable member’s mind as to that.

Mr Tudor:

– Does that statement apply also to the fourth item on the businesspaper in regard to the debate on the Ministerial statement respecting the report of the Royal Commission on Navy and Defence administration ?

Mr WATT:

– That depends on circumstances. Other matters depend more or less on the progress made.

Mr Tudor:

– The Government propose to pass this session the Chief Justice’s Pension Bill?

Mr WATT:

– Yes. The honorable member, having sat for many years on the Treasury bench knows that the number of items which we can discharge depends to some extent on the progress made. I am hopeful that we shall be able to rise by Thursday or Friday next, at the latest.

page 9428

QUESTION

WHEAT GUARANTEE

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the

Acting Prime Minister state to-day when the first payment for the coming season’s wheat will be made, and what the amount will be?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I dealt with that question yesterday in reply to an inquiry by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Sampson). I then intimated that negotiations were proceeding with the financial institutions concerned with regard to the payment of the guarantee money. I hope to be able some time this week to make a statement on the subject.

page 9429

QUESTION

SALE OF COPPER

Mr HIGGS:

– Can the Acting Prime Minister give the House any further information as to the position in regard to the sale of Australian copper ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I have no more recent cable messages than those to which I referred on the occasion of the last inquiry by the honorable member.

page 9429

QUESTION

ARTIFICIAL CANE-MAKING MACHINERY

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

– I was informed last week that on behalf ofthe Repatriation Department some artificial canemaking machinery, intended for the employment of returned soldiers, had been purchased. The sum mentioned to me as having been paid for the patent rights and for two machines, which I understand have never been tested in any country, was so large-

Mr Tudor:

– Fifty thousand pounds, was it not?

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

– I am told that that was the price paid for the patent rights, in addition to nearly £20,000 paid for the machinery. In view of the rather murky atmosphere in which we are living just now, will the Acting Prime Minister have the papers laid on the table for the information ofhonorable members?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I do not know to what the honorable member is referring when he speaks of a “ murky atmosphere “ ; I can only assume that it is a descriptive statement.

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

– We have had some trouble lately.

Mr WATT:

-But I beg leave to say that the honorable member has no right to allude to that matter in connexion with this question.

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

– Certainly not. I merely want the matter to be cleared up.

Mr WATT:

– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) made a full statement to the press last week on the matter to which the honorable member refers. If my honorable friend desires to see the papers relating to it, I will confer with the Minister concerned.

Later

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

– As a matter of personal explanation, I should like to assure the Acting Prime Minister that I had no desire to associate the term “murky atmosphere” with the subjectmatter of my question. If the honorable gentleman will study the phraseology of my question he will see that I used the expression as a justification for clearing up these rumours the moment they are circulated.

Mr Watt:

– Perhaps the honorable gentleman did not see the full statement on the subject made by the Minister last week.

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

– No, I did not. I want to dissociate my use of the phrase to which the honorable gentleman took exception from the subject-matter of my question. It is as well to clear up such matters as soon as reference is made to them in order to prevent the circulation of such rumours.

page 9429

QUESTION

BONUS FOR PARLIAMENTARY SERVANTS

Mr FINLAYSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the fact that the State Government have announced that to all employees of the State Parliament House who are receiving less than £200 per annum a bonus of £10 will be given at Christmas, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the position of the lower paid assistants and messengers on the House staff has received any consideration, and whether the House Committee will consider the desirableness of granting them a bonus at Christmas?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have had under consideration something of the nature suggested by the honorable member in view of the increased cost of commodities due to war conditions during the past year, but am not prepared to state off-hand what will be done. Speaking generally, the officers of the House have not very much reason to complain of their remuneration or the conditions of their employment.

Mr Tudor:

– Does your promise, sir, apply also to the Parliament House gardeners ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– They are under the Joint House Committee.

page 9430

QUESTION

SPANISH INFLUENZA CASES ON THE BOONAH

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Some rather serious statements appear in to-day’s newspapers in regard to the treatment of returned soldiers now in quarantine in Western Australia. It would appear that messages have been sent to a member of the Government with regard to the position of these men, which is said to be most deplorable, and I ask the Minister in charge of quarantine whether any official inquiries have been made?

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

– If the honorable member refers to statements that have been made in regard to the men on the Boonah, now in quarantine, I can tell the House exactly what the position is.

Mr McWilliams:

– Hear, hear.

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

– The Boonah arrived at Fremantle with something like 400 cases of influenza on board. Every step was taken to immediately transfer the sufferers to the shore. The rest of the men, in their own interests, were left on the Boonah until such time as we could clear up the case. It has been suggested that it would have been very much better to take them off the vessel and to place them on an island, on the ground that the ship itself is infected. Our medical advisers tell us that this disease differs materially from the plague, in that while the plague may be conveyed by inanimate objects on a vessel, Spanish influenza cannot. It has to be conveyed bycontact with a person who is actually suffering from the disease. The medical officers say that by means of an inspection made twice daily - which they ean adequately carry out on board, with the men under control - they can clear up the disease far more rapidly than would be possible if the men were given liberty on an island, where they could not be rapidly collected. The experience we have had so far in dealing with various ships that have been quarantined upon arrival in Australia has borne out that statement. In every case within three or four days at the outside we have been able to clean up a ship, and there have been no further cases. The course followed is, further, in the interests of the men, in that as soon as we arrive at astage - which in the case of the Boonah we expect will be reached to-morrow or the next day, if our experience of that vessel is the same as that of others - when there are no further cases reported, the ship will be immediately sent away from Fremantle in quarantine to the other States, and it will be possible for the men to be released in time to get to their homes by Christmas. If we were to adopt the course suggested, of taking the men off the vessel, it would take longer to clear up the case, and there would not be the slightest chance that the men would be able to reach their homes by Christmas.

Mr TUDOR:

– I ask the Minister whether it is correct, as has been stated, that a number of these men broke quarantine by seizing boats, and that they were subsequently captured by tugs on their way to the shore with the boats in a very leaky condition? If the statement be true, the Minister will recognise that it is serious on two accounts - the breaking of quarantine, and the fact that the men were jeopardizing their lives.

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

– We have some information in regard to the incident referred to, but itwas connected, not with the Boonah, but with another vessel, which arrived at Fremantle and had to undergo a short period of quarantine, as I explained to the House yesterday to clear the case up. There was no case of influenza on board that vessel, but it was thought well to make certain that none of the men on board were carriers of the disease. Every ship that comes to Australia under present circumstances, is put through a short period of quarantine to enable that to be done. The men referred to were arrested on their way to the shore; they had been duly quarantined, and there is now no further trouble in connexion with that incident.

page 9430

QUESTION

BUTTER POOL

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for

Price Fixing if he is in a position to make any report to the House in the matter of the payment of balances for butter by the

Imperial Government at the arranged rate of 19s. per cwt. ?

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

– I have received a cable to the effect that the Ministry of Food in England notified the High Commissioner that the amount of 19s. per cwt. as the surplus profit on last season’s butter would be paid over almost immediately. The whole of the shipments of last season’s butter have been approved. Application has been made by the Treasury for immediate payment. We have not yet received payment, but I anticipate that we will do so shortly, and that we shall be In a position to pay over, through the Butter Pool Committee, the balances due to the various factories early in the new year at the latest.

page 9431

WAR TIME PROFITS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Mr BOYD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether he intends to ask the House to complete the Estimates before he takes up again the consideration of the War Time Profits Tax Assessment Bill?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– That will depend on. circumstances.

page 9431

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Norfolk Island. - Administrator’s Report, for the year ending 30th June, 1918.

Ordered to be printed.

page 9431

QUESTION

TRANSPORT BARAMBAH

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for the Navy, in connexion with the complaints that have been made as to the condition of the Barambah at the time of her departure from Australia, whether it is proposed to appoint any committee of investigation to make inquiries here to supplement any inquiries that might be made later into the condition of that boat when she left Australia?

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

– The vessel was examined on her arrival in England, where the complaints were chiefly made, and it. is reported from there that everything was found to be satisfactory.

Mr Gregory:

– There ought to be other than a departmental inquiry.

Mr POYNTON:

– No decision has been arrived at as to any further inquiry. All the reports we have had point to the fact that everything was done that it was necessary to do before the boat left Australia. It is not considered that any further inquiry is necessary.

page 9431

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Embargo on Postage of Newspapers to Soldiers.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether the embargo upon the postage of newspapers to members of the Australian Imperial Force abroad still operates, and if so, when it may be expected to be removed ?

Mr WEBSTER:
Postmaster-General · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is a matter which rests with the Imperial authorities. As soon as they indicate that the embargo is removed, I shall have much pleasure in resuming the conditions which obtained previous tothe imposition of the embargo.

page 9431

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Balance-sheets : Commonwealth Line of Steamers.

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

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he can inform the House whether further progress has been made in obtaining the balance-sheets of the Commonwealth Commercial enterprises, and especially of the Commonwealth line of steamers ? We have not had a real balance-sheet, such as an actuary or accountant would provide, since the Prime Minister bought the Commonwealth steamers some years ago.

Mr WATT:
NAT

– Speaking from memory, I do not know what state of preparation has been reached in connexion with the balance-sheet of the Commonwealth line of steamers. I shall refer to the office and ascertain the position. Most of the balance-sheets of the other organizations referred to have already been laid down on lines recommended by outside accountants, who are specially qualified. The Government will see that the promise made in this connexion will be observed.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Copper Market.

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

– I have received from the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ the failure on the part of the Prime Minister to keep the Government informed as to the position in regard to copper.”

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I assure honorable members that only the extreme urgency of this matter prompts me to occupy the time of the House in this way at such a late hour of the session. Honorable members will recollect that for many months past. I have endeavoured to get, through the Acting Prime Minister, relief for the copper producers. I asked the honorable gentleman if he would ascertain from the Prime Minister if Australian copper producers would be allowed to sell their product to Allied markets if the British Government declined to buy after the 31st December next. The Acting Prime Minister endeavoured to get the information, and he either told the House on his own account or conveyed an intimation from the Prime Minister that it would be time enough for the producers to ask to be allowed to sell their copper to Allied countries when the British Government definitely refused to buy after the 31st December, 1918. About a week ago, the Acting Prime Minister told us that the Prime Minister was endeavouring to sell copper to the British Government up to the 30th June next year, or for three months after the war, whichever period was the longer. This morning I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether he had anv information in regard to copper, and he replied that he had received no word from the Prime Minister since that intimation came to hand. I read in this morning’s press information which will have proved very profitable to some people, and very unprofitable to others. In the Age appears this statement -

The latest London metal quotations show

A fall of about £12 per ton, to £112 per ton, in the rate for “ standard “ copper on both positions, while electrolytic has dropped £11, to £134 per ton. It is stated that this is due to “ official control of the metal having been released.” Upwards of 800 HampdenCloncurry shares changed hands at the lower price of 13s. 6d., while Mount Cuthbert, after free quittance between 2s. 9d. and 2s.6d., finished upon offers at 2s. in a wide market.

The Mount Cuthbert shares have fallen during the last two weeks from 12s. to 2s., due largely, I admit, to labour troubles and the presence of Industrial Workers of the World wasters on the mines of Northern Queensland, but due partly to the uncertain position in regard to copper. The Prime Minister in London is supposed, in conjunction with Sir Joseph Cook, to be attending to the interests of Australian metal producers, but the Government know absolutely nothing about the fact that the Imperial Government have released control of copper, and that there is apparently a free market all over the world. Does not that disclose a serious state of affairs ?

Mr Watt:

– How?

Mr HIGGS:

– It is serious that people on the Stock Exchange can get information which ought to have come as soon as possible from the British Government to the Commonwealth Government so that everybody interested Avould be in an equally good position. As it is, some men have had the opportunity of selling their shares to unsuspecting people.

Mr Watt:

– That would have happened? no matter how the information came through.. The cable shows that when the British Government made the announcement the market at once fell.

Mr HIGGS:

– The Argus says-

The announcement that the Imperial Government had released its control over the market for copper, and that the electrolytic metal had fallen £11 in price, to £124 per ton, was contained in a cable message received during the afternoon by the Australian Metal Exchange.

It is apparent that somebody in Australia can receive cables regarding the position of copper before the Australian Government could get the information. Can the Acting Prime Minister defend that position ?

Mr Watt:

– However the announcement was made, the fall in price would be instantaneous.

Mr HIGGS:

– - Information regarding the copper position ought to be known by the Commonwealth Government as soon as possible, and the Acting Prime Minister ought to have been able to inform all holders of shares in copper companies at once, so that they could please themselves as to whether they sold out their shares or held them. But certain people have been able to get this information in advance, and being in doubtas to the future of copper, and as to whether the mines would continue to ,pay at the lower prices, they have been able to sell their shares to unsuspecting people, who were not possessed of that information.

Mr Watt:

– I understand that the information was posted as soon as it was known.

Mr HIGGS:

– How has the Acting Prime Minister discovered that?

Mr Watt:

– I believe that- is the practice of the Stock Exchange.

Mr HIGGS:

– The fact remains that when I asked the Acting Prime Minister a question this morning he did not know anything about the copper position. I say that is wrong. I may be complaining too much of the actions of the Prime Minister, but I feel that he is responsible in this matter, and that it is my public duty to call the attention of the House and the country to his neglect.

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

.- I find very little to object to in the earlier remarks of” the honorable member; they were a brief resume of what has taken place in this House from time to time. With him, I lament the fact that we have not been able to persuade the British Government to extend our copper contracts to 30th June next. But I am. satisfied that the Prime Minister has done Iris best, in difficult circumstances, to get an extension, beyond the 31st December. To ask him to do impossibilities when the war is over, and the control is not in Britain’s hands - for America controls the copper market - is absurd. I have sent to the Department for the latest information. I have not vet received the papers, but as far as 1 am aware, no information has reached the Government within the last few hours. During recent months, we have been constantly compelled to take our information from the newspaper cables, which have, in certain cases, been subsequently confirmed by cables sent from the Secretary of State for the Colonies through the ordinary channels, or by direct cable from the Prime Minister. The cable lines are in a very congested and unsatisfactory state. Frequently three days have elapsed between the despatch and the receipt in the case of cables sent by the Prime Minister.

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

– Many private cable messages are three weeks in transit.

Mr WATT:

– I am aware of the position in regard to private cables, but Ministerial advices are supposed to be “ cleartheline cables”; that is,’ Government messages of importance are supposed to be given a certain amount of priority. Nevertheless, whether coming by the Eastern or Pacific route, it is not uncommon for them to take three or four days from the time of lodging to the time of receipt at their destination. It is all too frequent for it to take .a week or more to get a . reply now to a cable. We have had numberless cases of that kind in the past, but we are not responsible for it, nor can we control it. The British Government, through its press bureau and its method of publicity, is responsible for the way it sends its information abroad. Frequently we get it through the press first, and lately that method of public announcement of news has been increasing in frequency. No one can blame the Prime Minister for that. It may be that there is a cablegram en route, but the last wire which I had made it perfectly clear that he was doing all he could, and expected to succeed, in connexion with copper. If the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) so desires, I shall be glad to show him the copper file, showing exactly what cables have been exchanged, because there is nothing to hide about the matter. All the Government were interested in doing was to stabilize the industry during the war, and, if possible, to get a contract which would project itself into post-war times, until the market attained normal conditions, and the copper producer knew exactly where he stood.

Mr Higgs:

– Would it not have been a graceful act on the part of the British Government to inform the Prime Minister that it could not make the contract, and so give the copper producers ample notice of the intention to make a free market in copper ?

Mr WATT:

– I do not know whether the British Government have done so or not, but I do not propose to reflect on the grace with which they have done their work. They appear to be surrounded by pressing problems of immense and farreaching importance, with all kinds of new prospects opening up on the termination of these controls. No man can predict what will happen when they do terminate. In the case of lead, the reverse result followed, because, as soon as lead was freed, it jumped in the market by from £11 to £14 per ton. When copper was freed, having apparently been kept at too high a level, it fell in equal and opposite ratio. I do not think that for this the head of this Government, or the British authority, can be blamed. I should certainly prefer, if it was possible, to get information here that could be published by the Government simultaneously with the publication in Great Britain, but that we cannot control. If the honorable member for Capricornia suggests that the interests of the copper producer, or of the holder of copper shares, have been neglected or hurt by the action of this Government, or by any carelessness on the part of the Prime Minister, he is doing both the Prime Minister and the Government an injustice. All we have been anxious to do is to help the industry, and we have gone so far during the three months since the Prime Minister left, before the June to December contract extension was made, as to arrange an advance for the whole of the copper producers of Australia, and I am doing that now for the first three months of 1919. We are going to take arisk in that regard. We are doing the same thing also in regard to tin, our desire being to sustain these industries, as it were, until the producers of these metals can see what post-war con ditions mean to them, and are able to make their own arrangements accordingly.

Lt. -Colonel Abbott. - Has there been any development in regard to tin ?

Mr WATT:

-I have no recollection of fresh cablegrams in the last few days. Surely the honorable member for Capricornia will see that, were the Government ever so wise, and ever so well-informed, they could not avert the dislocation or change upward or downward which will be the inevitable result of the release of these metal and other controls ?

Mr Higgs:

– That goes without saying. It is the lack of information that I am complaining of.

Mr WATT:

– I have my own ideas of the cause of the difficulty in the copper situation, and do not mind expressing them. I think the British Government were powerless to combat the American influence. I have said that to my colleagues all the time. If the British Government had been in possession of the bulk of the supplies, they could have exercised a more potent influence on the market and on the purchasing arrangements for the war, but America supplies the bulk of the copper production of the world, and the nation that supplies only a minor proportion cannot exercise the influence which it otherwise would.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– America rules the copper market.

Mr WATT:

– Put plainly, that is the fact. I sorrow with the honorable member for Capricornia regarding the information coming as it has done, but that is a matter beyond my control, and beyondthe control of the Prime Minister.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EdenMonaro

– As I have been making some representations to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the copper producers, I must say that he has done a good deal towards helping the industry along, so far as we have gone, especially in the guarantee that he has given on behalf of the Government, although I do not think that entails any risk. But the very fact of the press getting this information first from overseas seems to me to prove one thing. We are now in a transition period, and a number of these things which are of great importance to the commercial andmining world are bound to occur. I would, therefore, ask the Acting Prime Minister to consider the desirableness of instituting better business arrangements on the other side of the world. I know his hands are pretty full with the making of business arrangements on this side, but if he made a suggestion on these lines to the Prime Minister he would probably find that, as we have a High Commissioner and a big staff, they could do something in a business way to supply us with information. The Prime Minister has done well in big things in England, but he has never been looked upon as a champion in matters of detail, and it is desirable, in the interests of a great many industries, particularly the big mining enterprises of tin and copper, which are the life-blood of this country, that we should have first-hand information. The only way that we can get it is by some system on the other side such as I suggest. Surely we have enough people in the High Commissioner’s office to see that our interests are properly safeguarded. I have no objection to the press getting information first, because it gives the information out again right away, and everybody sees it ; but it seems an anomaly that the British Government should take an important step like this, and that we should get the news of it in a second-hand way. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to have something done on the lines I have suggested. While I believe that the Acting Prime Minister has done everything possible to help and safeguard this great industry, yet, unless we have proper arrangements on the other side of the world, I fear that some terrible difficulties will arise here owing to the want of business arrangements in detail, for which the Prime Minister is not famous. Perhaps a word of warning such as has been given on this -motion will have the effect I am aiming at.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 9435

QUESTION

HOMES FOR SOLDIERS’ WIDOWS

Mr TUDOR:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he give the following information to the House: -

The numbers of homes that have been provided for the widows of soldiers by the Commonwealth and State Governments, showing the numbers severally in the various States?

The numbers of widows of soldiers in the various States who have had their rent paid in lieu of such homes?

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

– The information is being obtained by the Repatriation Department, and will be available to-morrow.

page 9435

QUESTION

TAXATION OFFICE

” Slowing Down “ by Employees.

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a number of employees in the Federal Taxation Office have been brought before the Commissioner of Taxation because of their conduct of slowing down in their work, and for advocating that policy in a typewritten journal, named by them The Aubrey, prepared by >them, and to which their signatures are attached?
  2. Will the Minister produce the copy of the journal referred to for the information of honorable members, and which is now in the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury?
  3. Will the Minister inform the House if one of the ringleaders of the party responsible for the production of this journal was . dismissed from the Public Service some twelve months ago, and was reinstated quite recently?
  4. Is it a fact that the employees referred to have been reported to the departmental heads for slowing down?
  5. Have they been still further reported for hostility to other departmental employees, particularly returned soldiers, who were endeavouring to do a fair day’s work?
  6. How many signatures are attached to The Aubrey, and will the Minister disclose the names?
Mr WATT:
NAT

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

  1. The position is not as stated. The officers in question were called before the Commissioner to explain their attitude in connexion with the issue of the journal The Aubrey. Pending determination of the action to be taken by the Department, the officers were given the opportunity of stating in writing any grievances which they may consider they may have against the administration
  2. I do not see what good purpose would be served by so doing.
  3. No. The officer referred to was suspended, but subsequently reinstated.
  4. No report of slowing down has been made against any of the officers referred to.
  5. No. Representatives of the returned soldiers have spoken of an attitude of veiled hostility on the part of certain unnamed permanent employees.
  6. There are no signatures. The articles are signed by noms de plume.

page 9436

QUESTION

SPELTER ZINC : TREATMENT

Mr FOWLER:
for Mr. Gregory

asked, the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has any part of the £500,000, or other sum, promised by the British Government for the purpose of fostering the treatment of spelter zinc or other metals in Australia, been allotted or promised to any person or company, or has the Government, in view of the promise of the British Government, granted or promised to grant any financial assistance to any person or company for the treatment of zinc or other metals?
  2. If so, to what extent, to whom, and under what conditions?
Mr WATT:
NAT

– I shall have inquiries made.

page 9436

QUESTION

LONDON PAY OFFICE: DEFICIT

Mr TUDOR:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What is the deficit unaccounted for at the pay office in London? 2, Is it a fact that hundreds of A. officers in England are heavily overdrawn, and that some A. officers died before working out their overdrafts?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– The information is being obtained, and will be supplied later.

page 9436

QUESTION

HOSPITAL SHIP MILTIADES

Allotment of Accommodation

Mr TUDOR:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that on the hospital ship Miltiades, which arrived in Australia in August, 1917, with approximately 800 men on board, mostly invalids, military police were used to keep the men off one side of the promenade deck, the same being used for seventy officers and sergeants?
  2. Is it a fact that, on the same ship, onelegged and otherwise disabled men had to go up and down several flights of companion ways to bunks and meals, while the officers had almost the whole of the cabin accommodation to themselves?
  3. Is it a fact that there were 400 cases of ptomaine poisoning through dirty tea-boilers or some other preventable cause?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– Inquiries will be made, and replies will be furnished to the honorable member’s questions as early as possible.

page 9436

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Cost of Administration

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
for Mr. Pigott

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Whether he will inform the House as to the cost of administering the Electoral Act for the years 1916, 1917, and 1918, separately?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The cost of administering the Electoral Act (exclusive of the cost of taking the poll at elections and referendums) during the financial years 1915-1916, 1918-1917, and 1917-1918, was. as follows: -

The cost of taking the poll at elections and referendums was as shown hereunder : -

page 9436

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Publication of Battalion Colours

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether instructions were issued to the press by the Censor that details of the battalion colours of the Australian Imperial Force were not to be published?
  2. If so, is it a factthat, in defiance of these instructions, the Melbourne Argus did recently publish those details ?
  3. Is it proposed to take any action against the Argus in connexion with the matter?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Argus has been asked to furnish an explanation. Pending the receipt of this explanation it is not intended to take any action.

page 9436

QUESTION

SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND : DEATHS

Mr FENTON:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice-

How many Australian soldiers died in England between 1st September, 1916, and 31st. March, 1917, at Fargo, Tidworth, Sutton Veny, Salisbury, and other hospitals?

Mr WISE:
NAT

– This information is not readily available. To obtain it would necessitate an individual examination of nearly 60,000 files of deceased soldiers, and would necessitate the services of three employees being diverted to the work for not less than three days. It is felt that unless good reason can be shown, the Department would not be justified in incurring this expenditure.

page 9437

QUESTION

INTERNED IRISHMEN: RELEASE

Mr CONSIDINE:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Cabinet has yet taken into consideration the advisability of releasing the Irishmen now interned in the Commonwealth?
  2. If not, will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the Cabinet to consider this matter at an early date?
Mr WATT:
NAT

– Cabinet recently decided to release these men, with the exception of Dryer, whose case is to come up for consideration later.

page 9437

QUESTION

BLACKBOY CAMP, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Pay of Discharged Recruits

Mr FOWLER:
for Mr. Gregory

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that those who had enlisted for the Front, and who were in Blackboy Camp, Western Australia, last month were ordered to hand in uniforms on the 18th November, received leave passes to 16th December, and were paid up to 1st December?
  2. Will the Minister favorably consider the request that these men be paid up to the 16th December ?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– I will have inquiries made, and supply the honorable member with particulars later.

page 9437

QUESTION

RED CROSS SCANDAL, BRISBANE

Mr FINLAYSON:

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

  1. Whether, in reference to previous questions to the Minister by the honorable member for Brisbane re certain Bed Cross scandals in Brisbane, the Minister is aware that a Commission appointed by the State Government has reported and stated, inter alia, “The con clusion we have come to in regard to this subject is that a commission was paid by William Brooks and Company Limited, and accepted by Mrs. Anderson, without due appreciation of her position. We feel both Mrs. Anderson and the company are deserving of censure for their conduct?
  2. Was the Commonwealth Government represented on the Commission ?
  3. Does the Government propose to take any action against either William Brooks and Company or Mrs. Anderson, or to require that the amount of commission paid shall be returned to the funds of the Bed Cross Society?
  4. Is it a fact that one of the managers in the employment of William Brooks and Company was dismissed by the firm because of his conduct in connexion with the payment of this secret commission ?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Inquiries are being made.

page 9437

QUESTION

EXPORT OF TIN SCRAP

Mr FOWLER:
for Mr. Gregory

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to continue the embargo on the export of tin and other metal scraps?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– Yes.

page 9437

QUESTION

DARLINGHURST DETENTION BARRACKS

Appointments and Suspensions

Mr FINLAYSON:

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. On what date was Lieut. G. W. Rickwood appointed Officer Commanding Darlinghurst Detention Barracks?
  2. What was his record of service in the Boer War and during the late European War?
  3. For what reason was Sergeant Simpson suspended from duty on 10th December?
  4. What is Sergeant Simpson’s record of military service?
  5. Why has Lieutenant Rickwood been called upon to resign, and on whose report?
  6. Of what nationality and religion is Lieutenant Rickwood?
  7. Has the suspension of Sergeant Simpson been removed, and is he to be continued in the employment of the Defence Department?
  8. What were the strength and classification of the staff at the Darlinghurst Detention Barracks prior to 12th December?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– The information will be obtained, and the honorable member informed as soon as possible.

page 9438

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Advances to Purchase Businesses

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

– With reference to a question asked me in the House recently, by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Nicholls) , I am in receipt of the following reply from the Comptroller, Department of Repatriation: -

Presumably the form of assistance referred to is that provided for under regulation 60 of the regulations under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1917-18, which reads: -

A State Board may make advances by way of loan for the purchase of approved businesses, plant, stock, and live stock, not exceeding £150 in each case to -

Widows with one or more children;

Married soldiers, incapacitated to the extent of being unable to engage in their usual employment; and

Soldiers who, prior to enlistment, were dependent for their living upon businesses which they owned and conducted.

Provided that, where an application involves an advance exceeding £150, but not exceeding £250, the Board shall refer the application with a recommendation to the Minister for determination.

Provided further that advances for live stock will only be made whenan applicant is not eligible to secure such assistance under the land settlement schemes of the State in which he resides.

Whether or not applicants, previous to enlistment, possessed the same amount of property they apply for is quite immaterial to the determination of any application under this regulation, and, therefore, no” applications would be refused on this ground.

With regard to the statement that a man who applied for a horse and dray was informed that as he did not possess a horse and dray previous to enlisting, the Department could not assist him, the answer is that the man was probably informed that under regulation 60 (c) he was not eligible for that particular form of assistance. In accordance with the Department’s practice he would have also been informed in what other manner he could be assisted.

page 9438

QUESTION

INFLUENZA OUTBREAK: S.S. SARDINIA

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

– On 13th December, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Pigott) asked some questions in reference to an outbreak of influenza on the transport Sardinia. I have received informa tion that the Sardinia is due in Fremantle to-day, and that there are no cases of Spanish influenza on board.

page 9438

QUESTION

PRICE FIXING DEPARTMENT: REVENUE

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

– On the 27th November the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Atkinson) asked the following question : -

Will the Minister for Price Fixing furnish a short return setting out the sources from which the revenue of his Department, as mentioned by him a few days ago, is derived, or will he give the House the information in any other form?

I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

The sources from which the profits of the Price Fixing Department were obtained are -

page 9438

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP STAFF

Mr WISE:
NAT

– On the 13th December the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) asked whether the services of members of the. censorship staff in any State have been dispensed with, seeing that it is now over a month since the armistice was signed? I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information: -

Yes. A reduction has been made, and the services of several members of the Censorship Staff have been dispensed with.

  1. M. MENDRIN.
Mr WATT:
NAT

– On the 29th November, the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) asked the following questions : -

  1. Whether he will give the House the benefit of any information he may be in possession of with reference to the following questions concerning one Anatole Melentrevitch Mendrin altos Toboletz alias Ivan Semenovitch Medrindieff: -

    1. Is this individual a German or of German parentage?
    2. When did this person enter the Commonwealth ?
    3. Have the Commonwealth authorities any information as to whence he came prior toentering the Commonwealth?
    4. Is it a fact that this person was a member of the Okhrana or Russian secret police system of the Czar?
    5. Is it a fact that because of such services he obtained employment on the Russian Consular Staff at Brisbane?
    6. Is it a fact that this person has been used by the Commonwealth police for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the Russian residents of Queensland ?
    7. Is it a fact that a passport or permission has been granted to this person to leave the Commonwealth?
  2. In view of the mystery surrounding this person’s antecedents and movements in war time, and his previous employment as a spy by the pro-German Czarist Government, will the Acting Prime Minister prevent this person from leaving the country pending a search inquiry as to his movements and origin?

I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following information : - 1. (a) According to departmental records, Mendrin was born at Kherson of Russian parents.

  1. No official record of his entry is available; but Mendrin states he came to the Commonwealth by the Kimaru) Maru in 1011.
  2. No information beyond the statement of Mendrin that he came from Russia, viâ Japan.
  3. I am unable to say.
  4. I am unable to say.
  5. Not so far as I am aware.
  6. Mendrin was granted a passport by the Imperial Russian Consulate in June, 1916, and he went to Japan, returning to Australia by the Tango Maru on the 29th June, 1916, and is still in the Commonwealth.

    1. No.

Since the above reply was prepared I have received the following telegram from Mendrin : -

Referring certain questions asked in Parliament concerning myself, I offer you the following answers: -

Am neither a German or German parentage.

Arrived in Australia about 1911 from Russia, viâ Japan.

See (b).

Am not, nor ever have been, connected with the Okhrana or Russian Secret Service.

Have never been employed on Consular Staff in Brisbane.

Have never been employed by Commonwealth police whatever.

No passport has been issued.

I might add that I belong to a well-known Russian family, and am carrying on a legitimate business in Brisbane as manager of a firm of Russian merchants. There has been no mysterious movements. As I do not belong to any Bolshevik or unlawful organizations, and as my movements have been only business ones, I think you can hardly call them mysterious. All the above statements can be satisfactorily -substantiated if necessary. My name is simply Anatole Letivitch Mendrin, without any alias whatever.

page 9439

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Mr GROOM:
Acting Attorney-General · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a secondtime.

This is a Bill to make certain amendments in the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration legislation. It maybe regarded as more or less in the nature of a temporary measure; it is not intended as a review of previous legislation or to meet the need for amendment generally. The Bill practically deals with three points - the position of the Deputy President of the Court, the enforcement of awards, and the position of returned soldiers in relation to awards or agreements made under the Act which accord preference to members of organizations. Under section 14 of the existing Act the President of the Court has power to appoint a Deputy with capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of the President, such powers and functions of the President as the latter may think fit to assign to him. The appointment of the Deputy does not in any way affect the exercise of the functions of the President himself. By section 14a power is taken to appoint a Deputy President whenever the President is out of the Commonwealth, or is for any reason unable to appoint a Deputy. It is proposed by the Bill to repeal both section 14 and section 14a. Litigation is in progress with respect to section 14 as regards the validity of appointments made under it. Mr. Justice Powers has been acting as Deputy President.

Mr Tudor:

– Has the litigation reference to the Journalists case in Western Australia?

Mr GROOM:

– It was raised in the Journalists’ case. Mr. Justice Powers considered that his position was so seriously in question that he did not feel justified in continuing to act as Deputy without an amendment of the law as is now proposed. Clause 2 provides -

  1. The Governor-General may, by instrument under his hand, appoint any Justice of the High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court of a State to be the deputy of the President in any Part of the Commonwealth, and in that capacity to exercise’ such powers and functions of the President as the Governor-General thinks lit to assign to the deputy.
  2. The deputy so appointed shall be entitled to hold office during good behaviour for the unexpired period of the term of office of the President for the time being, and shall be eligible for re-appointment, and shall not be removed during the said period except by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying . for such .removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
  3. The appointment of a deputy of the President shall not affect the exercise by the President of any power or function.

This only deals with future cases. It was not considered advisable to do more than is now proposed.

Mr Tudor:

– It is quite possible, then, that the decisions given by Justices Powers, Rich, and Isaacs will be upset.

Mr GROOM:

– I do not want to make any comment upon that aspect of the position. The question of the enforcement of awards having arisen in connexion with the Waterside Workers Union versus J. W. Alexander Limited, a series of questions were placed before the High Court. The questions asked were: (1) 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 provisions, and (b) the enforcing provisions? (2) Is the award invalid by reason of the appointment of the President for seven years only? (3) Is the award enforcible by the said Court? The case was fully argued, and the judgments were carefully considered. I do not propose to quote from the long and elaborate judgments delivered in that case, but, perhaps, I may conveniently summarize them by saying that the majority of Judges held that the arbitral provisions of the Arbitration Act were valid, but that the provisions relating to the powers of the Court as to the enforcement of the awards were invalid. Mr. Justice Higgins gave a short summary as to the effect of the judgments which, perhaps, I might be permitted to mention’. After the decision of the High Court was given, he said -

I am told that a great deal of misapprehension has arisen as to the effect of the decision given by the High Court last Friday in the case of the Waterside Workers Federation versus Alexander, that the decision referred to has the effect, as I understand, and I have no doubt about it, of preventing the Arbitration Court from applying penalties for breaches of awards. .But” the decision of the High Court in no way interferes with the power of this Court to make compulsory awards as before. The only point of difference is that after an award has been made, this Court has no power to enforce it. Enforcement of awards must be done by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or otherwise, as the case may be. 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. -

That means that the Arbitration Court can go on making awards and giving decisions which are binding on the parties concerned, but that difficulty has arisen with ‘regard to the enforcement of such awards, and for the purpose of clearing up the position it has been thought advisable to introduce the amended provisions now under consideration. Section 44 of the original Act states -

  1. Where any organization or person bound by an order or award has- committed any breach or non-observance of any term of the order or award any penalties which the Court has power to impose may be imposed by any Court of summary jurisdiction constituted by a Police Stipendiary or Special Magistrate.

Different opinions were expressed by the Judges of the High Court with respect to this section, and difficulty has arisen with regard to the words “ any penalties which the Court has power to impose.” It has been held that the Arbitration Court itself has no power to impose penalties, and therefore, a Court of summary jurisdiction cannot, because it has only the same power to impose penalties as the Arbitration Court. In order to inform honorable members of the difficulty that has arisen from the conflicting judgments, I shall read three extracts from opinions dealing with these particular sections. The Chief Justice said -

The exercise of the power to impose penalties is admittedly an exercise of the judicial power. If the Court has no such power, the provision is, of course, of no effect. Any penalties which the Court may itself impose, but no others, may be imposed by State Magistrates’ Courts (section 44).

Mr. Justice Isaacs and Mr. Justice Rich gave a joint opinion, from which I take the following: -

But here striking out the enforcing powers of the Court, there is still left so much of section 44 as relates to Courts of summary jurisdiction with regard to penalties. It is suggested that in section 44, the words “ any penalties which the Court has power to impose,” mean that if it be found the Court is invalidly invested with the power to impose the penalties referred to, the Courts of summary jurisdiction are not to be so invested. We do not so read the words. It cannot be denied it is not impossible to read them so, but we consider that such a reading is less reasonable, and less consonant with the scheme of the Act, than another reading which we shall state.

Mr. Justice Powers said

A doubt was raised during the argument as to whether State Courts’ can enforce awards if the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is held to be unable to do so, because of the words which appear in line three of section 44 of the Act, namely, “which the Court has power to impose.” It is said the only power given to the State Courts is to impose penalties which the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration can impose, and if it is held that that Court cannot impose penalties, a State Court cannot do so. It is not necessary to decide that question, but it might very well be held that the words in section 44 are only used as a concise description of the class of penalties or orders that can be enforced by State Courts. The omission of the words in question by an amendment of the Act would clear away the doubt.

It is for the purpose of clearing away that doubt that the amendment to section 44 is proposed. We are adding a new jurisdiction to section 44. The original Act provides for the imposition of penalties by any Court of summary jurisdiction, constituted by a Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate. By the amendment we propose to give jurisdiction in this regard to any District, County,or Local Court, or Court of summary jurisdiction, which is constituted by a Judge, or by a Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate. The County Court or District Court is an exceedingly useful tribunal. Its Judges travel all through the States of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, where such Courts are established, and the Judges are generally men of considerable standing in their profession.

Section 45 provides -

Where the Court, or any Court of summary jurisdiction, imposes any penalty for any breach or non-observance of any term of an order or award, it may order that the penalty, or any part thereof, be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or to such organization or person as is specified in the order.

It is proposed to repeal that section, and insert in lieu thereof the following provision : -

Where any Court imposes a penalty in pursuance of the last preceding section, it may order that the penalty, or any part thereof, be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or to such organization or person as is specified in the order.

The words “any Court” refer to the tribunals mentioned in the previous section of which I have just spoken.

It is proposed to amend section 46 by omitting the words “ the Court “ - referring to the Court which has been held to have no enforcing jurisdiction - and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ a Court “, one of the Courts mentioned in the proposed amendment to section 44.

Section 48 is to be amended by omitting the words “ the Court,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ a County, or District. Court, or a Local Court of full jurisdiction.” This is the section which deals with the power of the Court to make an order on the application of any party to an award in the nature of a mandamus or injunction to compel compliance with the award, or to restrain its breach under pain of a fine or imprisonment; but the section seems to be invalid. This power has been reserved in the past to the Arbitration Court, but as it has been held that the Arbitration Court has no power to enforce any of its awards, it is now proposed to invest the power in a County Court, a District Court, or a Local Court of full jurisdiction As County Court Judges travel all over the various States in which County Courts are established, a wider area of jurisdiction is given for the enforcement of awards.

Clause 7 proposes to add a new section to the Act. At present the Court has power to direct that preference shall be given, and although it has very rarely exercised that power, preference is conceded by some agreements which have been filed under the Act. The effect of the proposed new section is that nothing contained in any award or agreement which gives preference to members of organizations shall prevent the employment of returned soldiers. The section reads as follows : -

After section 1 of the principal Act the following section is inserted in Part VII. : - “81a. - (1) Nothing in any award or order made under this Act, or in any agreement relating to industrial matters, shall operate to prevent the employment of returned soldiers or sailors.

For the purposes of this section -

’ returned soldiers ‘ means persons who-

during the war which commenced in the year One thousand nine hundred and fourteen served abroad as members of any Military Force raised in Australia, or

prior to that war resided in Australia, and during that war served abroad as members of a Military Force raised in any other part of the British Dominions; and

’ returned sailors ‘ means persons who -

during the war which commenced in the year One thousand nine hundred and fourteen served abroad as members of any Naval Force raised in Australia, or

prior to that war resided in Australia, and during that war served abroad as members of a Naval Force raised in any other part of the British Dominions.”

No employer will be liable to a penalty if he employs a returned soldier in an industry in which any award or agreement provides for the giving of preference to any organization. In other words, the returned soldier is put on the same basis as the man who is given preference under any award or agreement.

Mr Tudor:

– It is only right to say that preference has been given in very rare cases only.

Mr GROOM:

– I do not think that there is an award in existence which gives preference to any organization, but I am informed that several agreements do so. The object of the proposed section is to remove the possibility of any disability being imposed upon returned soldiers in consequence of preference being given in any award or agreement.

Mr Considine:

– What is the difference between a Court of summary jurisdiction and a Court of full jurisdiction?

Mr GROOM:

– As I have explained, Queensland, New South “Wales, and Victoria have District or County Courts, but in South Australia they have Local Courts, with jurisdiction somewhat analogous to that of County Courts. They are Courts of higher jurisdiction compared with ordinary inferior Courts of summary jurisdiction, and when they exercise that higher jurisdiction they are termed Courts of full jurisdiction. In South Australia, aSupreme Court Judge is vested with jurisdiction in these Local Courts. I am not quite sure as to the status of the Western Australian and Tasmanian Courts, but I am having the matter further looked into with a view to effecting a slight amendment, if necessary, in Committee.

Mr Considine:

– Will there be any possibility of the jurisdiction of those Courts being questioned in the future?

Mr GROOM:

– No. Under our Constitution the Commonwealth is empowered to vest judicial power in any State Courts. The amendments proposed in this Bill are really an exercise of that power. We are vesting in State Courts jurisdiction for the enforcement of arbitration awards. The Bill is merely intended as a temporary provision, pending fuller consideration of the whole subject, of conciliation and arbitration. In the meantime we do not wish parties to be deprived of the right of applications for the enforcing of awards.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Tudor) adjourned.

page 9443

QUESTION

BUDGET (1918-19)

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from 25th September, vule. page 6355, of motion by Mr. Watt) -

That the first item in the Estimates under Division I, The Parliament, namely, “ The President, £1,100,” be agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- In view of the long period that has elapsed since the delivery of the Budget statement, it is rather difficult to deal with the matters that are embodied in the Estimates in the way that they ought to be dealt with. The Treasurer delivered his Budget speech on the 25th September last - almost three months ago. At that time a -number of the questions which> were dealt with by him, were fresh in the minds of honorable members. But since then many of those matters have been disposed of. Now the real object of a Budget statement is to afford the Treasurer an opportunity of outlining proposed taxation measures, of forecasting expenditure during the financial year, and of allowing honorable members a chance to discuss these questions, in order that the Government may derive whatever advantage is to be gained from such an interchange of ideas. I am not one of those who imagine that all the ability of this Parliament is centred in the occupants of the Treasury benches.

Only the other day I remarked that in all probability the Estimates, which provide for an expenditure of nearly £100,000,000, would probably be dealt with in the early hours of the morning, when there were perhaps only a halfadozen members present. To-day we are witnessing the fulfilment of my prediction. The lack of interest which is taken in the discussion of the Budget is reflected in the poor attendance in the Chamber at the present moment. By postponing the consideration of the Estimates until practically the eleventh hour of the session, the Government are not doing what is best in their own interests, or in the interests ‘of the’ community, and they are certainly not affording honorable members the opportunity to which they are entitled, of discussing the very many questions which arise out of the Budget statement. In short, Parliament is being denied the exercise of that con trol over our finances which is one of its functions.

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

– -Why does every Government do the same thing?

Mr TUDOR:

– I can say without fear of contradiction that no Government has ever delayed the consideration of the Estimates until within two or three days of the close of the session.

Mr Richard Foster:

– There was one year in which they were not brought forward till the close of the session, but on that occasion, they were merely discussed, not passed.

Mr TUDOR:

– I have already said that if the Government were wise they would bring down a Supply Bill to cover the period over which they desire, to adjourn - say some two or three months - and allow us an opportunity to exhaustively debate the Estimates when we re-assemble. One of the most important matters demanding our consideration is the control of the Northern Territory. Will the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Laird Smith), who has visited that Territory, tell me that two hours is sufficient time in which to discuss the estimates relating to the Northern Territory, or the Repatriation Department, or the Defence Department ? Yet that represents the period over which their consideration will extend if the whole of the Estimates are to be dealt with during the course of the next couple of days. I ask the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) whether he thinks that two hours are sufficient time to allocate to the debate of the Estimates for the Federal Capital site, which is only one of the many matters connected with the Works and Railways Department? I am satisfied that in the end the procedure which has been adopted throughout the war will be again followed in connexion with the present session of Parliament. I mean that within the next two or three days we shall be asked to adjourn until such time as the President and Mr. Speaker may see fit to call us together again. Indeed, the adoption of that procedure is absolutely necessary if we are to avoid rendering illegal the collection of the whole of the revenue which has been derived from the Customs and Excise Bills that were introduced in 1917 and in September, 1918. The increased Excise of 6d. per gallon upon beer has probably yielded a revenue of more than £100,000 during the past three months. Similarly, the advance ‘ of the import duty upon whisky from 18s. to 25s. per gallon, has also resulted in the collection of a considerable sum. The Excise duty upon tobacco has also been advanced from ls. to ls. 8d. ; upon cigars, from ls. to 2s.; and on cigarettes, from 4s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. There has not been so much importation of beer, because that has been a prohibited item as from 8th August last year. . The importation of spirits is being permitted to the extent of 70 per cent, of the importations in the previous year. Import duty on tobacco has gone up from 4s. to 4s. 8d. With regard to unmanufactured tobacco, I am under the impression that about 12,000,000 to 13,000,000 lbs. weight was imported for the purposes of manufacture in Australia.

At the time when the Budget statement was delivered honorable members had the whole subject fresh in their minds. It was presented in this House six weeks before the armistice had been signed. Since then the position has become entirely altered. It would have been wiser for the Government to withdraw their Estimates of Expenditure, based upon a full war year, and to have brought down a modified set of Estimates, dealing with the position as it now stands. For example, in respect to Defence matters, expenditure is bound to .be curtailed, Every ship-load of Australian soldiers returning home means a decrease in Defence expenditure, for the reason that those troops will be paid off. We aTe given to understand that many transports will .be arriving fairly early next year. A cable message in last night’s press -related that General Monash is busily engaged upon demobilization, and that it is expected that some 15,000 of our men will return to Australia each month. One of the objections raised by our boys in Great Britain has been that sailings are to be so limited that greater numbers than those I have just indicated will not be able to return during any one month. The Government realize, of course, that it would be unwise to throw larger numbers upon the labour market at any one stage. The fact remains, however, that as the men steadily return, and are paid off, there will be hugely less expenditure in the Defence Department.

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

– The difference would be shown under the heading of “ Unexpended balances.”

Mr TUDOR:

– No doubt. And the Treasurer would do as all Treasurers have been careful to do ; that is, he would take care that the various Departments curtailed expenditure to the utmost limit, in any circumstances. But the trouble is that if a certain amount of money is available for departmental expenditure, there is always difficulty in preventing the Departments from spending up to their limit.

Take price fixing, for example. And, in regard to that phase of our war measures, honorable members recently were interested to read in the press an official notification that, so far as some halfadozen articles were concerned, there was no longer necessity to deal with them with the price fixing machinery of the Government. I am not sure whether those six items included galvanized iron; but there were such articles as paper, soda, tartaric acid, and cream of tartar. What joy there must have been in the households of Australia when our women folk learned that such an enormous domestic item as cream of tartar, was to be freed from the clutches of the price fixers ! At the same time, housewives, who have to purchase boots and shoes, and socks and stockings, know only too well that there has been jio price-fixing machinery set in motion with respect to those highly important items. They are still aware, to their sorrow, that prices are about double what they were before the war.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member must accept a certain amount of responsibility for not dealing with matters such as those himself.

Mr TUDOR:

– I agree that that remark is pertinent; but the Treasurer will recall that I resigned from the Government only about a month after it was learned that the Government had power to fix prices of various commodities. I refer to the decision given in the Bread case. Prior to that, the Government were not seized of the fact that they had the power to impose price fixing. I might he permitted to add that to-day a person, if he were prosecuted for not selling goods at the prices fixed, would probably be able to show - having read a recent decision of Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith - that the Government held the power to fix prices only during the state of war. I am of opinion that, the state of war having virtually passed away, the whole matter of price fixing will have to go by the board. Last September the Acting Prime Minister informed us, in setting out a statement of Government business, that it was intended to put price fixing upon a firm basis, and to deal with it by means of an Act rather than under War Precautions regulations. I was hopeful that we should have an opportunity of dealing with it, but the official answer is that, since the armistice has been signed, it is not intended to proceed with it. The Treasurer, in his Budget statement, said -

It is a matter for regret that the Commonwealth lias relied upon the British . Government to help in financing Australia’s share in the war. The prosperity of Australia is remarkable, and at least we should arrange for tlie future that the current expenses of the Australian armies shall be met by Australian money. That is the basis upon which the Estimates for this year have been framed, and there is reason to believe that the British Government will agree to fund the arrears of £38,345,000.

I share the honorable gentleman’s regrets. When the late Lord Forrest was Treasurer I urged that, since we were enjoying phenomenally good seasons and our producers were obtaining better prices than they had ever secured before the war, the income tax should at once be increased as a means of assisting us in financing the war. When, in 1914, Mr.. Fisher, who was then Treasurer, imposed an income tax running up to 5s. in the £1, such a rate was undoubtedly high. Even in Great Britain I do not think the income tax then reached that level. We imposed this gradually increasing tax by means of the remarkable system of curves which the present Prime Minister loves so much and which we have never been able to get away from.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– And which no one understands.

Mr TUDOR:

– Practically no one understands this system, and very few agree with the results obtained by means of it. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. Poynton), who succeeded Mr. Fisher as Treasurer, proposed and carried an increase of 25 per’ cent, in the income tax, but from that time until the present Treasurer took office, no further increase was made. The income tax, to my mind, is the fairest system of taxation that could be imposed. During the last few days we have been dealing with a Bill to amend the War Time Profits Act. I do not know what the position is in regard to that Bill to-day, and I do not think that even a Ministerial supporter would hazard a guess with respect to it; but I do know that the Treasurer’s attitude “is causing some consternation amongst his supporters. By means of the amending Bill an attempt is being made to patch up the principal Act; but, as I said the other day, if some other means of reaching those who have been making extraordinary profits during the war could be devised, I should be prepared to accept it. In my view they can best be reached by an additional income tax. Previous Treasurers have made the mistake since the war - of failing to obtain additional revenue by means of the income tax, and I agree with the Treasurer that it is unfortunate that we should have fallen into arrears to the extent stated by him in financing Australia’s share in the war. We should have obtained more revenue than we have done from those who have been enjoying magnificent seasons, and who have secured, during the war, better prices for their produce, both here and abroad, than were ever previously obtainable.

As to the cost of living, there are many products the cost of which could not have been affected by the war. The produce of market-gardens, for instance, has not been affected by the war, save, perhaps, that on account of the number of enlistments skilled labour is not so freely forthcoming as it was before. Cabbages which, in the pre-war days were obtainable for Id. each, have since been costing from 6d. upwards.

Mr Atkinson:

– The market-gardeners have had a bad season or two, and have also suffered damage by reason of floods.

Mr TUDOR:

– I know that they have suffered fromthe ravages of the fly pest, but that is no new experience, while the damage done by floods was mainly on the upper Yarra. There has been a steady increase in the price of vegetables.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that the market gardeners deserve all that they get? We see them coming into the market at all hours of the morning.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not say that they do not deserve all that they can get. I am merely pointing out, in dealing with the cost of living, that the price ofsome commodities cannot be said to have been affected by the war.

The Treasurer no doubt is on the lookout for new methods of taxation, and I direct his attention to the following telegram from Washington, published in the SanFrancisco Bulletin of 10th July last: -

page 9446

LUXURIES HARD HIT IN TAX BILL

WASHINGTON, July 10.- Preparations for framing the new war revenue Bill went forward in the House Ways and Means Committee to-day, with attention centering upon the list of suggestions for new or higher taxes on luxuries and necessities submitted yesterday by the Treasury Department.

Members of the Committee indicated that the list would form the basis for consumption taxes in their draft of the Bill.

Besides doubling present taxes on liquors and tobaccos, quadrupling soft drink levies and making general increases in other existing rates, the Treasury suggestions include : -

Taxes of 50 per cent. on retail prices of jewellery, watches and clocks (except those sold to army or navy men).

Twenty per cent. on automobiles, bicycles, musical instruments, &c.

Ten cents a gallon on gasoline, to be paid by the wholesaler.

Ten per cent. on hotel bills for rooms over 2 dollars 50 cents a day or American plan over 5 dollars.

Ten per cent. on all cafe or restaurant bills and taxes of unstated amounts on men’s suits selling for more than 30 dollars, women’s suits over 40 dollars and coats over 30 dollars; men’s hats over 4 dollars; shirts over 2 dollars; pyjamas over 2 dollars; hosiery over 35 cents; shoes over 5 dollars; gloves over 2 dollars; underwear over 3 dollars; all neckwear and canes; women’s dresses over 25 dollars; skirts over 15 dollars; hats over 10 dollars; shoes over 6 dollars; lingerie over 5 dollars; corsets over 5 dollars; and all furs, fans, &c., children’s clothing, including suits, over 15 dollars; toilet articles over 2 dollars.

In addition to all these taxes, which would be levied directly upon the consumer, the list proposes doubling the present motion-picture admission tax and imposing a tax of 5 per cent. on moving-picture theatre rentals, with the present film tax eliminated.

A 10 per cent. tax on “ wire leases,” in tended to apply to telegraphs and telephones and other wires whose use is leased, is another of the Treasury proposals.

The retail tax principle is new in the United States tax law, although it has been levied in England, France, and Germany. The Treasury suggested that 10 per cent. basis for this plan would be too low, and that any one wanting the retail goods would pay as high as 20 per cent.

The Treasury proposed a license tax of 10 dollars a year on soda fountains.

The suggested tax on domestic servants would allow an exemption of one female servant. Others would be taxed as follows : -

First servant, 25 per cent. of wages paid; second servant, 50 per cent. ; third, 75 per cent.; and on more than three servants (not counting the one female servant) 100 per cent. of wage paid in each case.

I understand that under that system, if a man purchased a watch at a cost of £5, the retailer would levy another £2 10s., as a contribution to the national revenue. Again, the purchaser of a motor car costing £600, would, if the tax were at the rate of 20 per cent., have to pay an additional £120 as a contribution to the cost of government. It may be said that it would be impossible for the Commonwealth Government to collect such taxation, but if it has been possible to collect it in Great Britain and the United States of America, there ought not to be any insuperable difficulty in the way of ite collection here.

Mr TUDOR:

– Whether that is so or not, I know that Treasurers are anxious to obtain as much information as possible as to new methods, of raising revenue, and I think this statement will interest the Acting Prime Minister. I have been very anxious for a long time that certain commodities should no longer escape taxation. I do not mind sharing with the Government, if necessary, the responsibility for the tax that has been imposed upon colonial wines. I urged, both publicly and privately, the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Watt), and the ex-Minister (Mr. Jensen), to levy such a tax. I can see no more reason for imposing an Excise duty of 6d. or 7d. per gallon on colonial beer, than there is for imposing au Excise duty on colonial wines. Because of information that came to my knowledge when I was administering the Customs Department, I suggested that an Excise duty should be placed on spirits used” for fortifying colonial wines. The effect of that would be that the greater the quantity of spirit used in wine, the higher would be the tax on the manufacturer. That duty, besides yielding increased revenue, would encourage the production of a lighter wine, which, I think, would be a very good thing for the community. I do not think that the Excise duty has been fixed high enough, being equal to only about 8d. per gallon. The price of beer at the brewery would be about ls. per gallon, or, with the tax added, 2s. per gallon. The. price of wine at the vineyard would be very much greater - probably 4s. to 6s. per gallon - and there is no reason why the tax on wine should not -be at least equal to that on beer, namely, ls. per gallon.

Reverting to the importation of luxuries, I have complained1 ever since August, 1917, that the list of articles, the importation of which was prohibited by the Government, was not large enough. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce) has stated that the luxury tax in England has never been enforced. Perhaps the Imperial authorities thought it better to deal with that problem through the income tax, or by some other means. The prohibition of the importation of luxuries into Australia was referred by the Government to a Committee, which included Mr. Mcintosh, the manager of Ball and Welch. As far as I know, no honorable member of this Parliament has ever seen the report of that Committee. But the. Government, acting on the Committee’s recommendation, prohibited the importation of - (1) ale and other beer, porter, cider and perry, spirituous, in bulk or in bottle; (2) potable spirits ; (3) perfumed spirits and bay rum; (4) biscuits; (5) confectionery; (6) eggs, in shell or otherwise; (7) fur apparel; (8) perfumery; . (9) jewellery, imitation jewellery and imitation precious stones; and (10) bodies for motor vehicles, whether imported separately or forming part of a complete vehicle. The prohibition, so far as ale, porter, cider and perry were concerned, meant practically nothing. In regard to potable spirits, which, of course, included brandy, whisky, gin, and schnapps, the Minister decided that the merchants should be allowed to import a quantity equal to 70 per cent, of the importations in the previous year. The importations in the previous year had been extraordinarily large, and honorable members will find that, as a result of that permission by the Minister, the importation of .spirits to-day is practically as large as it was in pre-war years.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member refers to the value?

Mr TUDOR:

– No, to. the quantity. I think that statement will be proved by reference to Knibbs’ Customs Statistics, which show both the quantity and value of the imports. The reasons for the great increase in the value of spirits were, firstly, the commandeering by the British Government of an enormous quantity of spirits for munition purposes, and, secondly, the increase of the Excise duty.

Mr Watt:

– And decreased production.

Mr TUDOR:

– To some extent. The prohibition of the importation of perfumed spirits and bay rum was to have been absolute. Bui as a result of complaints made by the importers, the Minister decided to allow those articles to be brought in to the extent of 50 per cent, of the previous year’s importations. So far as I know, that permission is still in force. The importation of biscuits has always been very small. I believe that 90 per cent, of the biscuits consumed in Australia are made locally. The only importations are a few fancy biscuits by some of the well known manufacturers of the United Kingdom’. So far as the prohibition related to confectionery, it .was of great importance to local industries. Even to-day one can see imported confectionery in the window of every first class confectionery shop. But I am pleased to say that as a result of the prohibition, and the resultant diminution of competition from abroad, local manufacturers are producing confectionery of as high a quality as was ever imported. I do not desire to give an advertisement to any particular firm, but I do say that the “Old Gold” and “Violet Ray” chocolates, made by opposition firms, are of the very highest quality. I believe that that prohibition of the importation of confectionery did an immense amount of good in stimulating local production, and I hope that it will be the means of encouraging Australian manufacturers to make a high grade article. I often think that in prohibiting the importation of eggs the Government must havehad in mind the unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) at Warwick. The prohibition of the importation of fur apparel was not very important. I suppose that every Minister for Trade and Customs who has brought forward an amending Tariff has realized very soon afterwards that mistakes have been made. It is impossible to avoid errors when dealing with a Tariff of 400 items, many of which are subdivided under sixty heads. I admit that a mistake was made in fixing such a low duty on fur apparel, and I hope that when an amending Tariff comes before the House a higher duty will be imposed. The prohibition in regard to motor bodies has been held in abeyance from time to time, and I do not know whether or not it is absolute to-day. There is no reason why motor bodies should not be manufactured in Australia as in other parts of the world. I hope that if the Government find it necessary to repeal the prohibition proclamation they will in the amending Tariff deal effectively with such imports as interfere with Australian industries. If persons desire fancy biscuits from abroad they should be prepared to pay a high price for them. And if the fixed duties, and the alternative ad valorem rate, are not high enough to discourage the importation of confectionery, the rates should be increased. The same remark applies to the duty on imported motor bodies. We can make them in Australia, and if the present duty does not give sufficient protection to local industry we must increase it.

Mr TUDOR:

– The Treasurer, in his Budget speech, referred to the Wheat Pools, the Metal Board, and the general financing of the primary products of the country; but so much time has elapsed since we discussed those matters that I do not intend to deal with them to-day. He referred also to the proposal to establish a Bureau of Science and Industry, to do which a Bill has been passed through the Senate and is now before this Chamber. If there is anything which requires discussion it is that proposal, but sufficient time is not being given to us to deal with it. Shipbuilding is another matter on which the House is to be asked to legislate before the end of the year. According to the Budget-papers, the Government has under construction twentyfour steel vessels - six at Williamstown, six at Walsh Island, two at Cockatoo Island, four at Maryborough (Queensland), four at Adelaide, and two in Tasmania. Of wooden vessels, it has six under construction in Sydney. They are being made by Messrs. Hughes, Martin, and Watson Ltd., and are auxiliary schooners. Six more are being made at Fremantle by the Western Australian Shipbuilding Company.

Mr Poynton:

– The building of that six has been cancelled.

Mr TUDOR:

– Do all the other contracts stand ?

Mr Poynton:

– Yes.

Mr TUDOR:

– The other wooden vessels that are being constructed are twelve barquentines, of which six are being built at Sydney by the Wallace Power Boat Company, and another six by Messrs. Kidman and Mayor. The twenty-four wooden vessels are to be constructed for about £1,536,000.

Mr Poynton:

– For £26 per ton.

Mr TUDOR:

– If we get the wooden vessels for £26 per ton we shall have a good bargain, and if we get the steel vessels for £29 per ton we shall do very well.

Mr McWilliams:

– What was the prewar price?

Mr TUDOR:

– Before the war you could get vessels like those of the White Star, Orient, or Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, first-class ocean-going steamers, with all fittings and engines, ready for sea, for about £8 per ton. During the war the price went up to over £60 per ton.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That was a rascally shame.

Mr TUDOR:

– It is difficult to know how it could have been prevented unless by the Government taking over complete control. Everyone can be wise after the event; the difficulty is to be wise before a thing happens.

Mr Sampson:

– Even Great Britain had to go into foreign ports and purchase shipping at prices going up to £50 per ton.

Mr Poynton:

– The most recent information we have, regarding prices is contained in an offer from England to build ships for about £27 a ton.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is a modest price. Freights jumped up enormously during the war. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs, I did my best to keep track of these matters, because I wished to know the effect of freights on the price of commodities. At that time the freight was £20 per ton from the Pacific slope to England, and about £7 10s. per ton from the Argentine to England. Subsequently rates went still higher. In three months, with freights at £10 per ton, a vessel doing a trip and a half would make £15 per ton.

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

– What was the freight to Australia during the war?

Mr TUDOR:

– That was kept a secret, but I understand that it was something over £7 perton. Soon after the war started we were offered freight at £5 per ton, but the price jumped considerably. Before the war you could bring kerosene as deck cargo on a sailing ship from New York to Australia for 6d. per case, and before I left the Customs Department that rate had risen to 6s. per case, while the steamer rate had increased from 2s. to 3s. per case to 12s, per case. In Australia kerosene is in general use, and this is the only country in the world, I believe, in which it is purchased regularly by the case or the tin. Before the war it used to cost 6s. or 7s. per case. Honorable members can see how the rise in freight must have affected its price. I hope that with the building of ships all over the world that is now taking place freights may drop. Recently when the subject was under discussion here, a member stated that freights would keep at their present prices for some time to come.

Mr McWilliams:

– They have fallen 25 per cent since then.

Mr TUDOR:

– In Great Britain they have fallen 25 per cent. since the armistice was signed; but if they do not fall more than 50 per cent. it will be a bad lookout for some of our exporters. We can afford to pay a freight of1d. per lb., or £9 6s.8d. per ton, upon meat, which is worth 5d. per lb., and upon butter, which is worth from ls. to ls.6d. per lb., and upon wool, but not upon commodities worth only1d. per lb., such as wheat and fruit. It is most important that the shipbuilding programme of the Government should be carried out, and that the vessels should be built at as moderate a rate as possible.

I do not think that we shall ever get back to the working conditions that prevailed in other parts of the world before the war. The Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Lloyd George), in his first electioneering address, recently stated that the physical condition of Britishers was worse than that of any others engaged in the recent struggle, and that that was on account of the industrial conditions which had prevailed. In 1901, when I sat on the Ministerial cross-benches, I described the conditions which prevailed in England when I worked there. Havi ng come to England from Australia they appalled me. I saw children in Lancashire and Yorkshire going at 6 o’clock in the morning to work in the mills, their afternoons being devoted to their schooling, while other children had schooling in the mornings, and worked in the afternoons. It made my heart bleed to see children of twelve and thirteen years of age treated in this way, when they should have been free to play like other children. I believe that the industrial conditions inthe jute mills of Scotland are as bad as those in the cotton mills of Lancashire, or the woollen mills of Yorkshire. I hope, however, that the war has aroused England to a knowledge of her industrial conditions, and that these will be improved. I have known mothers to be at work in factories two days after bearing a child. Twelve or fourteen years ago Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, soon after Booth had published his Life and Labour in London, and Rountree had made his investigation of the industrial conditions of York, said that the industrial conditions of England were awful. I am glad that Mr. Lloyd George has stated that they must be improved. I certainly do not think they will remain as they are. Some 5,000,000 men went from England to fight, in addition to those who left other occupations to engage in the manufacture of munitions. A great number of the muni-don workers will return to their former industrial life, and the munition factories can be devoted to other work. It is most important to the Australian producer to be able to have the primary products of the country taken overseas at the cheapest possible rates. No one desires to see these vessels con,structed at such a rate that those employed on them will be sweated in order that goods may be carried across the seas at cheap rates.

There are many other points of interest touched on by the Treasurer in his Budget speech, but I do not desire to refer to all of them now. There is, however, one matter on which I should like to say a word. Two or three weeks ago I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) a question in regard to the premature publication in some newspapers of the report of the Repatriation Board. This is a matter that has “ been referred to in another place, where it was stated that, although the report had been issued to the newspapers in confidence, to be held by them until permission was given to publish it, two newspapers had broken that confidence. I well remember in 1914, when a new Tariff was introduced, that copies were sent to all the newspapers in Australia, right around from Cairns to Geraldton, under similar conditions. This procedure, of course, is desirable and necessary, particularly in the case of the Tariff, when the protection of the revenue has to be considered; and it is a great convenience to the newspapers, inasmuch as they are able to have the information set up for printing when the time comes, and all journals are placed on the same level. Unless some arrangement of the kind is made, the Melbourne newspapers, or the newspapers of whatever place is at the time the Seat of Government, obtain a great advantage; and that, of course, is not. desirable. In the case to which I am immediately referring, I understand that the Sydney Baily Telegraph, and the Adelaide Advertiser broke the trust that was reposed in them. Sir Langdon Bonython, the proprietor of the Adelaide Advertiser, is a member of the Repatriation Committee, and I acquit him of all blame in connexion with this unauthorized publication of the report. That gentleman is so much away from Adelaide, on repatriation business, that I feel sure that he had nothing to do with the breach of trust. The other two daily papers in Adelaide, the Register and the Daily Herald, honorably observed the conditions under which the information was supplied to them ; but those who did not do so ought to be punished in some way; for if a newspaper will publish a report of that kind, they will publish any other information obtained in confidence. Yesterday, I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) if he would obtain for me the report of the Repatriation Board before the Estimates were disposed of, so that I might ascertain whether any action had been taken in regard to ‘the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Adelaide Advertiser.

There is another matter in connexion with repatriation to which I desire to refer. In connexion with the- employment of returned men in various trades and callings, it has been decided to appoint committees representative of employers and employed to watch over the interests of those concerned. When the value of the work done by disabled or invalid returned men is less than the ruling rate of wage in any calling, the Government make up the difference, and the representative of the employees is on the Board to see that fair play is observed, so that not only the ordinary workmen, but the taxpayers, may suffer no injustice, and the money not be made use of for the purpose of helping certain businesses. ‘ The following letter was addressed by the Deputy Comptroller of Repatriation, Major C. S. Cunningham, to Mr. De Gruchy, the Secretary of the Tinsmiths and Sheet Metal Workers Union, Melbourne, on the 26th July -

The regulations of the Department of Repatriation provide, inter alia, for the setting up of a Soldiers’ District Industrial Committee which shall govern the training and employment of returned disabled soldiers in various trades or callings to which they may be trained. Regulation 30 lays down that a Soldiers’ District Industrial Committee shall be formed as directed by the Minister, and shall consist of a chairman to be 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 of the trainee.

It is desired that such a Committee shall be formed forthwith for the regulation of training, &c, in the tinsmithing and sheet-metal working trade, and I would bc glad to receive at your earliest convenience, the nominations from your union, of its two representatives for this Committee.

I attach hereto a copy of regulation 31 which outlines the functions of the Soldiers’ District Industrial Committee.

Regulation 31 is as follows -

A Soldiers’ District Industrial Committee shall -

Consider opportunities for employment of soldiers or their dependants;

Decide after trial as to the suitability of applicants for particular callings;

Assess the efficiency of the trainee after the commencement of his training;

Re-assess the trainee’s efficiency every three months;

Periodically review the facilities for training in workshops and technical schools;

Deal with disputes between persons entered for training in private workshops under regulation 42, and the employer, in particular disputes arising as to what is the ruling rate of wages in any industry; and

Have power to call for and take evidence when necessary.

The union held a meeting and appointed representatives, and on the 16th August wrote to the Repatriation Department stating that Mr. R. C. West and Mr. de Gruchy had been chosen. This letter was acknowledged by Major Cunningham on the 19 th August, in the following terms : -

I beg to acknowledge yours of the 16th instant, informing us that Mr. R. C. West and yourself have been nominated as representatives on the Soldiers’ District Industrial Committee.

You will be notified in due course the date of the first meeting. Thanking you for your assistance and courtesy.

That is the last that the union has heard of the matter, and the Board has not been called together, although there are returned soldiers working in the industry. Mr. de Gruchy, in a letter he sent to the Repatriation Department, dated 16th September, says -

At the present time returned soldiers are being employed in a certain factory, and have been for several months, where the employer is only paying the men 40 per cent., and the Department of Repatriation is paying the balance, 60 per cent.; and I can assure you from information we have received, the employer should be paying the men at least 80 per cent, for the class of work they are on, which shows the necessity for this Committee to meet in the best interests of the Repatriation Department.

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

– Does an officer of the Repatriation Department visit this factory ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not know, but it is only right that, in the interests of the returned soldiers, the union, and the taxpayers, the Department should not pay too large a proportion of the wages involved. I am quite prepared to take the word of Mr. die Gruchy that the employers should pay at least 80 per cent. of the wages.

Only recently, along with several honorable members, including the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) and the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney), I had the pleasure of visiting the Working Men’s College, where a number of returned soldiers are being vocationally trained. We there saw one man who had lost his right arm, but who, with an artificial limb, was able to hold metal, and turn out first-class work. If that is possible in six weeks under tuition at the College, I think it will be found necessary to re-assess the value of such work, not only every three months, but at much shorter intervals. I understand that it is a rule in Government Departments for someone to go through the Hansard reports and collect such portions of the debates as are of interest and importance to the Minister of any particular Department; and I hope that this matter will be brought under the notice of the repatriation authorities. I am extremely anxious that the returned men should be properly trained, and, secondly, that the workers and the taxpayer should receive a fair deal.

Mr Poynton:

– Would it not he as well to send on the letter you have read to the Minister for Repatriation?

Mr TUDOR:

– I shall be very pleased to do so. Last week I brought under the attention of the House the treatment which the wife of a wounded soldier is alleged to have received from one of the officers of the Repatriation Department. I not only wrote to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen), but saw that gentleman in regard to the matter, and he promised that if the lady would go down to his Department and identify the man, and if the facts were as she had stated, he would do all in his power to see that such a thing did not occur again.

I would like to bring under notice the case of Major Carroll, in connexion with which the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) asked a question on the 3rd October last. I should not refer to the case on the present occasion if it were riot that Major Carroll is to retire within a few weeks. Honorable members who have been in the House for a few years will remember that in 1914 a Select Committee was appointed by the Senate to deal with this case. In reply to the question asked by the honorable member for Capricornia, the Crown Solicitor has given an opinion upon the case, evidently as submitted to him by the Defence Department in 1916. Turning to the report of the Select Committee on the 14th. Sep- tember, 1914, page 6, question 89, it would appear that the facts upon which the Crown Solicitor gave his opinion were inaccurate. The following is a portion of the evidence to which I refer : -

Are you “ Captain “ Carroll or “ Major “ Carroll? - I am Major Carroll, according to the Gazette, according to General Orders of the Commonwealth Military Forces, and according to Army Orders issued in South Africa. On my return from South Africa to Queensland, Colonel Ricardo would not recognise my rank as major, on the ground that to do so would be to put me over the heads of other officers. When I was retrenched in Queensland, and sent temporarily to New South Wales, I continued my correspondence on the subject of the recognition of my majority, and I was so certain of my rank that I asked that the matter should be referred to the highest military authority in Australia. I take it that that is the Governor-General. I wrote to the Chief Staff Officer in New South Wales, calling attention to the fact that I was addressed as “ Captain,” though I had been promoted to the full rank of Major, and although that rank was recognised in the Commonwealth Military Forces in a General Order published in the Gazette No. 29, 1902.

Major Carroll is to be retired, as major at the age of fifty-five. He has obtained his promotion, and he contends that he should have had it in 1901. His case is important, in view of the fact that we shall have many men returning from the Front holding various ranks; and it may prove an object lesson, and prevent officers who have stayed at home taking precedence over those who have served abroad. Captain Carroll was not serving with the Queensland contingent, but was serving with the 20th Battery Royal Field Artillery, as can be seen from the following extract from Army Orders, South Africa, dated the 14th October, 1901: -

Appointments. - Subject to the approval of the Queensland Government, Capt. J. W. M. Carroll, Queensland Permanent Staff, to ba Major, supernumerary to establishment. Dated 7th July, 1901.

It is also proved by the following memorandum, which is Exhibit 23, to the Report of the Select Committee: -

Captain J. W. Carroll, C.M.F., was attached to the Royal Field Artillery (20th Battery R.F.A.) on the departure of his contingent (the 1st Q.I-P.) to Australia in. 1901. He was appointed Major in Army Orders, South Africa, dated 7/7/01 (certified extract attached). He commanded the 20th Battery R.F.A. during that period of 1901 when Major King was in command of a column. - H. A. Coddington, Major, CO. Natal District.

Lord Kitchener cabled to Queensland asking if the Government would consent to this promotion to the rank of major. This was granted, as can be seen in Queensland Government Gazette dated 29th November, 1901. The - King then promoted Captain Carroll to the full rank of major. He continued to serve with the 20th Battery Royal Field Artillery as a major of .the Queensland permanent staff until his recall in 1902. The following is an extract from Cape Colony Orders, dated 27th March, 1903: -

Major J. W. M. Carroll, Queensland Permanent Staff (attached R.F.A.), is granted leave of absence in Cape Colony for six weeks from 1st January to 11th February, 1902, instead of as therein stated CB., No.

page 9453

A- 2830/1844

The Commonwealth acknowledged the promotion in. South Africa, because, on Major Carroll’s return, as shown in General Orders dated 10th April, 1902, the name of Major Carroll appears among the commissioned officers mentioned as being due to arrive at Albury on the 20th April, 1903.

As Major Carroll is to retire/ before this House may meet again, he is putting forward his claim, which I am voicing. He has been deprived of his position, and men who have not had the service he had in South Africa, or service in the present war, have been promoted over his head. As he will be fifty-five years of age next year, he will have to retire, this being the age of retirement for majors. He claims that he is entitled to the full rank of major from the 7th July, 1901 ; and that as promotion comes every five years, he should have attained the rank of lieut. - colonel in 11906, and colonel in: 1911. He would not then have had to retire at the age of fifty-five.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question as to whether the officers and servants of this Parliament had received consideration in the matter of promotions and increases of pay, said that their claims had been given consideration. The increased cost of living has affected every one. House rents have gone up, and the price of clothing, food, and every necessity has increased. In every arbitration award provision has been made for increased wages. The Estimates show that the foreman gardener attached to this building was paid £168 last year, and receives the same amount of wages this year. I admit that it is promotion, because, unfortunately, his predecessor passed away last year. Three other gardeners were employed last year, and were paid £445. There are only two of ‘them employed this year, and the item has been reduced to £313. I appeal to the House Committee to consider the position of these men, with a view to granting them an increase of wages on account of the increased cost of living.

Mr TUDOR:

– T am glad to hear the honorable member’s statement. My ignorance on the point shows positively that the men have not spoken to me in regard to the matter.

About a fortnight ago J asked the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Wise) whether the services of members of the censorship staff had been dispensed with,” and this morning he informed me that the services of several members of the Censor’s staff had been dispensed with. I cannot see the need for retaining more than one or two censors in each State. I know that the Acting; Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) has told me that it is absolutely necessary that newspapers should be prevented from saying anything likely to reflect on an Ally, and that care should be exercised in regard to financial matters, and I agree with him to that extent ; but beyond retaining one or two censors in each State, I think we should throw the whole of the responsibility on the newspapers themselves. I do not know of an instance of any newspaper having published one of the orders issued under the censorship regulations, and there have been hundreds of them issued. Some newspapers have published matter which’ was not permitted to appear in other pub-‘ lications, while members of the Censor’s staff have been practically living on the premises of other newspapers. It seems to me there is no need to retain the huge censorship staff which has been employed during the last few years. If we were to follow the recommendations of the Conference of Editors, which met in April last and dealt with the question of the censorship, I think we could do away with many of the censors.

I shall deal with the question of nonofficial postmasters and postmistresses and with the Defence Department’s treatment of dependants when we come to the respective items if the opportunity presents itself for doing so. I know what will be the Treasurer’s reply to any advocacy of an increase in the rate of pension paid to invalids and old-age pensioners. He will say that the matter was dealt with in 1916. I have not the figures with me, and I do not know what the increase in house rents and in the price of groceries and meat has been - those are practically all of the items that Mr. Knibbs deals with - but I know that there has been a greater increase in the cost of clothing than there has been in all the other items put together. This increase has not been included in Mr. Knibbs’ figures. It would be a difficult matter to calculate it. Suits of clothes vary considerably in price. A suit that could be bought for £6 6s. a little while ago costs double that amount to-day.

Mr Watt:

– It will be necessary for us to wear less clothing.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Some children have to go about without boots.

Mr TUDOR:

– If we have reached a condition of affairs in Australia in which children have to go about without boots because their parents cannot afford to buy them, it is high time that the Government took a hand in the matter. Evidence has been given before various Commissions showing that the cost of distribution of bootsis more than the cost of production. Allowing the cost of raw material at 6s. and the cost of manufacture at 4s., the cost of distribution, wholesale and retail, is very often as much as 5s. or 6s. At Port Pirie the smelting company, for the protection of its workers, has been compelled to establish shops for the distribution of goods, in order to avoid some of the charges imposed by middlemen. However, in regard to oldage pensions, I hope that the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) will be able to reconsider the matter, and see whether it will not be possible to give the pensioners an amount equivalent to the value of the 10s. per week they received when the pension was first established in 1909. If he says that the conditions obtaining to-day are not permanent, and that we are likely to get back to times when prices will be more normal, some temporary arrangement might be made by which these people who find it difficult to exist to-day will be able to live under more favorable conditions.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EdenMonaro

– I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee at any length, because we have reached such a late hour in the session. Estimates are brought forward under the old custom or practice, namely, that we should address ourselves to grievances before granting Supply. We cannot do that on this occasion; but such a disability is not unusual, since there has grown up amongst Governments the custom of living on Supply Bills and dealing with the Estimates at practically the last moment. We have had some shocking examples of that system, and, having regard to them, we have not too much to complain of to-day.

The circumstances under which we are dealing with these Estimates are unique, since they were submitted to us in time of war, and we are called upon to discuss them in time of peace. No one can say when the peace terms will be actually signed; but the position to-day is very different from that which prevailed when the Budget speech was delivered.I therefore think that we could not have a better chance of cutting down the Estimates than that which now presents itself. We cannot go on living at the present rate. I do not offer this criticism in a factious spirit. As one who does not enjoy good health, it would be better for me, from a personal point of view, to swim with the tide, and not to make statements to which Ministers object. But the general opinion is that we are living at too high a rate, and’ that we must either cut down the national expenditure or increase taxation.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– We shall have to do both.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– We should have a little of both. Taxation to-day is heavy enough; but I do not throw the responsibility for it solely upon the shoulders of the Government. They, after all, are only the servants of the people, and have to do the best they can in the circumstances. They have done very well, and I take no exception to their action. They naturally slip at times - even the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) occasionally slips ; hut no one wants to say an unkind word of him. The only complaint that I have to make against him is that he is attempting too much. It was never intended that the country should be governed by one man, and that is the position to-day.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Yesterday the complaint was that the country was being governed by Boards.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I would remind the honorable member that I am not prepared to take a punch in the eye without giving one back. If a man strikes, you on the left cheek you should turn the other to him, but never forget that the third blow is your own.

I am told that to attempt to reduce these Estimates would be to censure the Government. I do not share that view. In the New South Wales Parliament we used to send back the Estimates, and we have had them reduced by as much as £50,000. In those days we had in office men of the Parkes and Dibbs type, compared with whom recent-day Ministers are but political pigmies. Those men realized that they had to pay some attention to the desires of the people, and surely I am entitled, as a representative of the people, to express my views and to propose to reduce the Estimates without having laid against me the charge that I am seeking to censure the Government. I remember Lincoln’s advice, “ Never swap horses while crossing the stream.” We are crossing a turbid, swollen stream at the present time, but the reins are being held by men of experience, and they should know exactly what course to follow. The Acting Prime Minister, in answering questions put to him in this House from day to day, is a perfect political encyclopaedia, and displays a knowledge of detail and a grasp of the situation such as no ordinary man could be expected to have. When I say that he has taken too much upon himself, I do not wish to cast any reflection upon him or his colleagues. Some of his colleagues - especially some of the newer Ministers - have done very well.

Mr Watt:

– May I say that I did not take anything upon myself; the position was given to me ; I did not want it.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– No one will accuse the honorable member of wanting more power. He has done well, and can do well. But he must not take to himself the position of dictator of the Commonwealth. He must not say that it is for him aloneto determine what taxation shall be imposed, or what economies shall be practised. In that regard he has exactly the same rights that the humblest member of this House enjoys, and no more. He has to steer the ship of State, but he does not own it. The people do.

Mr Considine:

– This sounds like mutiny on the high seas.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– No; unlike the honorable member, I believe not in mutiny, but in observing the laws of the land. I prefer to live under the Union. J ack rather than the Red Flag.

Mr Finlayson:

– The honorable member is living under both.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– That is what the honorable member has been trying to do all the time. At the last election he nearly slipped, and at the next he may fall.

Mr Finlayson:

– I am under both the Union Jack and the Red Flag.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– The only part of the Union Jack under which the honorable member carries on is the red part.

Surely some attempt should be made to secure economy and to reduce taxation. The representative . journals throughout Australia are demanding the practice of economy in the government of the Commonwealth. We were returned with a magnificent majority, but I should not like to go before the people to-morrow, and to attempt to defend every item of our expenditure. We should try to cut down the Estimates. By whom are they prepared? They are prepared by members of the Public Service. We are told that the Treasurer cut down the draft Estimates by £2,000,000. In my twentyeight years of political life - and during four years of that time I was a Minister of the Crown - I have learned something as to the way in which draft Estimates are prepared. Millions are put on by Departments so that millions may be cut off by the Treasurer. That is an old game. While I give the Treasurer every credit for endeavouring to do his duty in cutting down the Estimates, I fail to understand why other Ministers should not have done the same. There is ample room for economy. Some of the items are appalling. There is, for instance, the item of £6,421 in respect of the Commonwealth Police Force. For what purpose was that Force created? We might very well abolish it. Its creation was never necessary. No one can say what useful work it is carrying out. Will any representative of Queensland defend its creation ?

Mr CORSER:

– I have seen some of them down here.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I have not. We deal with millions nowadays just as we used to deal with hundreds in days gone by. We have got into the habit of talking in millions. In 1901-2 the Commonwealth taxation was equal to £4 8s. per head of the. population. In 1912-13 it was £6 8s. lid. per head of the population. When I urge that economy should be effected, I do not suggest that men should be thrown . out of employment. That is the worst form of economy in which we could indulge. We must keep men in employment and see that their services are adequately rewarded.

Mr Corser:

– What items could the honorable member cut down that would not interfere with the working man ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I would cut down one item that the honorable member is defending, and that is the item relating to the Commonwealth Police Force.

Mr Corser:

– The honorable member has no right to make that statement. It is not true.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr Corser:

– I withdraw it, but I ask the honorable member to withdraw the statement that I defend the creation of the Commonwealth Police Force.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I withdraw it, but I gathered from the honorable member’s interjection at an earlier stage that he supported the creation of the Force. I have no desire to hurt his feelings, and I hope he will vote with me to strike out the item. In 1901-2, the Commonwealth taxation was £4 8s. per head of population. In 1912-13 it was £6 8s. lid. Since that date we have sent hundreds of thousands of our men overseas.

Mr Spence:

– .There were no old-age pensions in 1901-2.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– In 1917-18 the taxation was equal to £8 178. 6d. per head. How long can we continue that rate of increase ?

Mr Poynton:

– Does -not the honorable member recognise that there has been a war in progress ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I have already said that these figures do not include war expenditure. If the Minister does not know that, we ought to get a hammer and drill, and drive the fact into his head. If we could double the population to-morrow we could ‘reduce by half the taxation per head, and surely nobody will contend that we would require a greater number of post-offices, public servants, and Parliaments ! That is the most favorable light in which the expenditure can be put. We cannot go on increasing expenditure at the present rate. We have just escaped one of the most terrible disasters that ever threatened any people. Recently we have been permitted to know how near we were in April last to having the Huns for our masters. We have averted that calamity; but is there any thinking man or woman in the country who does not realize that right ahead of us lies terrible trouble ?

Finance is the fundamental principle of government, and if we’ reach a stage at which we are no longer able to pay our ‘way, what will be the result? We may progress a certain distance along the road we are travelling, but we shall, come to a turning at which we are face to face with bankruptcy. I defy any honorable mem- . ber to deny that if we continue along our present lines national bankruptcy will stare us- in the face. Another crisis is in front of us, and we ought to put our house in order. What are we to do? In my opinion, the answer is very simple. We should operate the country’s affairs according to common-sense business principles, and spend the people’s money with the same care as we spend our own. Indeed, we ought to exercise more care in the expenditure of money that does not belong to us. If a man is at all decent, he will always be more careful in the handling of other people’s money than in the handling of his own. We have not an inexhaustible reservoir of wealth from which to draw. We are at the limit of taxation, if, indeed, we are not beyond it. We are able to stand heavy taxation now because we have had bountiful seasons, and profitable arrangements have been made by the Government for the handling and sale of a number of our primary products. For what Ministers have done in that regard I give them every credit. . During the good seasons we have enjoyed we ought to have imposed more taxation, but we neglected our opportunity. Men and women, who have made hundreds of thousands of pounds, should have contributed more to meet our requirements when trouble comes upon the community. What will happen if we strike years of drought and depression ?

Mr Sampson:

– Are we not tapping now all the available sources of revenue?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– We have tapped a good many of them. The Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton) made an interjection regarding the war expenditure. Surely the honorable member knows that, on a population basis, our expenditure is nearly up to that of Great Britain, and we have not finished with it yet. Hundreds of thousands of our men are still overseas, and surely no honorable member will contend that we should not look after them when they return. But what provision are we making for them ? Our Federal and State debt bill, per head of population, is now £144, as compared with Great Britain’s debt bill of £157. Honorable members will see that we are very close to the border line; we cannot go much further. There are means of overcoming this trouble - why do we not utilize them ? I find that the Estimates include an amount of £6,421 for the Commonwealth Police Force. Will any honorable member defend that expenditure ? I do not wish to discuss the reasons as to why that Force was created. We were passing through strenuous times, and desperate cases demand desperate remedies. I can quite understand that in the stress of trouble some expenditure has been wrongfully incurred. But what is the proper thing for us to do to-day? We must use common sense, and realize that if we continue spending as we are doing now, we shall go headlong down the hill to ruin. We should realize that there is no need for the continuance of this Police Force. I read recently that Sergeant Kenny, who figured prominently in the Warwick incident, has been promoted. Does that fact suggest that he had overstepped his duty and had done anything wrong? I shall listen with pleasure to any honorable member who will try to convince me that the provision of £6,421 for the Commonwealth Police Force is a reasonably sane proposition.

We know that the Estimates are prepared by public servants. I have nothing to say against public servants as individuals. It is cowardly to attack men when they cannot defend themselves. But the Service, as a body, is overstaffed. In a community of 5,000,000 people there are 240,000 public- servants. I thank God that we have some good public servants, who will stand up to Ministers, and to anybody else, and fight for the interests of the taxpayer; but there are tens of thousands of them who are overpaid and underworked. On the other hand, many thousands of them are doing nothing. I say that a man is doing nothing when he merely sits in a room and writes a minute to an officer in the next room and sends for a messenger to register it. Thousands pf men are doing little more than that. We know that often a junior officer makes a recommendation which is initialed by a senior officer and placed before a Minister who is too busy to analyze it. Because of these red-tape methods the Commonwealth, has the huge number of 240,000 public servants. I am often told that, in criticising the Service, I am “ batting on a wet wicket,” because numbers of public servants and their relatives live in my electorate. But I tell them on the platform that the present state of things cannot continue. It is the officers who are responsible for many of the items which appear on the Estimates. Any body of business men would make such a change in these proposals that the Government would not recognise them.

Mr Sampson:

– No Department likes to diminish its own importance.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Every honorable member knows how a Department grows. I remember in the early days of Federation a statement being made by my old chief, Sir Edmund Barton - whose equal we have not seen in Federal politics-

Mr Page:

– What about Billy Hughes?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– The honorable member may fight for his joss, and I will fight for mine. I have nothing to say against the Prime Minister at this stage. He is well able to defend himself. If at any time I have occasion to criticise him I shall do it when he is present. We must all admit that William Morris Hughes did a lot for this country. In the hour of stress and trouble he stood out in bold relief, and the people looked to him to protect them from the noisy minority who might possibly become a majority. Sir Edmund Barton estimated that the new services of the Commonwealth would cost the country £300,000 per annum. Somebody at that time estimated that the expenditure would be nearly £750,000, and Sir Edmund Barton said that the statement was extraordinary. I wonder what he thinks to-day of new services costing £15,000,000. Has our population increased so wonderfully ? Have we progressed so very much ? Is the position of Australia greatly improved ? I do not think it is. We have read a good deal about the expenditure that has taken place in London. A previous Government provided for the building of Australia House in London at an estimated cost, including land, of between £300,000 and £400,000. The actual expenditure, including furnishings, has been nearly £1,000,000. We have read particulars of the great apartments 60 feet long, and the audiencechambers. It has been said that Australia House is better than Buckingham Palace. If so, it is “ some house.”

Mr Kelly:

– Should not Mr. Fisher be suitably housed ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Yes; but he should also be suitably worked. I have nothing to say against Mr. Fisher as a public servant ; but what is he doing ? We have two Ministers at Home in addition to him, and yet it is said that another Minister is to be sent, though when I and other members ask questions on the subject we receive no definite reply. If Mr. Fisher cannot carry out the demobilization, he should be recalled, even if we have to pay him compensation for shortening his term of office. It would be absurd to send another Minister Home while we have a High Commissioner.

Mr Page:

– You cannot blame Mr. Fisher if another Minister is sent Home.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– No. It is for the Government to give him a chance.

Mr Page:

– Yes, and then if he cannot do the work he should be superseded.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– In my opinion, Mr. Fisher did very well while in this country, and probably would do well if we gave him a chance to conduct the demobilization. I would as soon trust his cautious head and carefulness in regard to detail as get the services of any other man in this country. If we send Home another Minister it will mean more expense.

Mr Page:

– Australia can stand it.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I do not think so.

Our Public Service has been increased in the period between 1913-14 and 1917- 18 by 7,406 persons.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That is the increase in the Public Service proper. There are others who are being paid by the Governmentbut are not public servants in the strict sense of the term.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– In addition, there are some thousands of temporary employees who have been taken on largely because of the war, and whose services will be dispensed with when no longer needed. There are many persons in the employment of the Government whose salaries are not shown in the Estimates.

We have been told by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) that there is no need in this country for new industries. Imagine any one telling us that! The returned men are to be put on the land at a cost which is now estimated at from £2,000 to £2,500 a man. They are being put mostly on land in the Never-Never country, where 75 per cent. of them will fail. When they are put on decent land, it is frequently overcapitalized. How many members of this House would finance men who had no knowledge of rural pursuits and wished to go on the land ? Not one of us would take the risk. Those who would make a living on the land must have a knowledge of rural pursuits. I would back up men who have some knowledge, and who wished to go on the land, but it will be better if most of our men return to their old avocations. The Minister for Repatriation tells us that he will need £50,000,000. If 100,000 soldiers are to be put on the land at a cost of £2,500 each, he will need a much bigger amount than he has stated. We cannot borrow the necessary money, because we are very nearly at the end of our borrowing possibilities. If, instead of putting all the men on the land, we put a large number of them into industries it would cost less than £300 a man - between £254 and £264 a man. I favour decentralization and the opening up of the country, but men should not be put on the land and starved. In 1914 our importations were sufficient to have found employment for 300,000 persons in industries that would not have been affected by drought or fire, or the one thousand and one causes of failure which menace the man on the land.

Mr Livingston:

– But if you have not men on the land, how will your industries be supported ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– We need both. An artisan population would make the best market in the world for the man on the land. The present splendid prices of primary produce are not likely to continue, and it will be necessary to increase the home market for the farmer.

Mr Sampson:

– We send too much of our raw material overseas.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– 1 agree with the honorable member. We shall have to put a stop to that. I do not know why we should send our wool to the other side of the world to be made into cloth when there are persons in this country wanting work.

Mr J H Catts:

– Why should we not export flour instead of wheat?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I think that we should export flour instead of wheat. People should be brought here and employment should be found for them in factories. If we doubled or trebled the population of the country the success of the farming industry would be assured, because of the big home market that would be established. The repatriation methods that are now being proposed will be a failure. I have not .a word to say against Senator Millen, who is an able man; but recently Major Cunningham, who has a good reputation, resigned a snug billet in the Repatriation Department on the ground that letters on important matters which he had written to the central office in June last had not been replied to. It is not often that men in snug permanent billets . have the courage to take a stand like that. Of course, there are two sides to every question, and I admit that the Minister must control the Department. But centralization is a curse in a country, like this. About half the population of New South Wales is in Sydney, and about halt’ the population of Victoria is in Melbourne, and we ought not to increase the centralization.

I wish to know what will be done for those who .went across the sea to fight for us - who left the farm, the mine, and the workshop at the risk of their lives and of everything that they possessed ? Unfortunately many of them’ will never return. Bat what of the others? Are we going to tell them that while acting as their trustees we have allowed the country to drift into a state of chaos t I know what I would say if I were in their place. The opportunities for getting work in this country are not good at the present time, and many men will go hungry this Christmas. It is easy for us to say that that is their fault, but I know from experience that many good men cannot find employment. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) mentioned some cases yesterday, and every one of us is acquainted with, similar cases. Is it fair for Parliament to vote away the money of the country without consideration* The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) is as capable as any man here, but we are entitled to have our say on proposals for expenditure. In 1914 the value of our manufactures was double that of our agricultural produce. The agriculturists are the backbone of this country, but they must have a market.

I should be sorry to see a change of Government now, because the men in power, although all of them may not I* as good as others who could replace thora, have a knowledge of details, and keep the machine going round, though very slowly. Still, we on the Ministerial cross benches have as much right to express our view* of what should he done as have the members of the Opposition.

I have no axe to grind, because there are no industries and hardly any mines in my constituency. Mining has been starved out there. Under our present arrangements the people are being charged twice and three times as much for the necessaries of life and for the implements which they use in their daily work than they should be charged. Are we not to have some change in that respect?

In 1913-14 the note issue was £9,979,568, and to-day it is £59,676,401. I do not know as much about finance as many other honorable members, but the other day I heard of a man being asked by his banker why he did not apply for part of the Seventh War Loan. His reply was that the bank already had a “ plaster “ on him. Nevertheless, the banker fixed him up with £1,000 in notes, with which he was able to go to the Commonwealth Bank and make a contribution to the war loan. The Government pays 5 per cent, interest on that little parcel of paper. Where does that sort of financing lead us? We know the banks have behaved well. People rail at them. But God knows where we should be were it not for their generous business spirit. The banks belong to the rich and poor people of this country. A great number of poor persons hold bank shares, which are their only means of support.

Mr Considine:

– I should like to know that that was true.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– If the honorable member had his way this state of things would not continue much longer How are we going to repay our loans? They have been of service to us, and I take no exception to them, so long as they are handled on proper - lines ; but they are growing to an alarming extent, according to my idea of finance. The Commonwealth Bank is, I believe, well conducted, and has some of our brainiest officials in the conduct of its affairs; but, on the word of men who ought to know, I have no hesitation in saying that the Bank, to a large extent, lives on Government business. Look at the millions of Government money lying in the Bank with mo return in. the shape of interest. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I am speaking of this matter. I do not blame the Treasurer (Mr. Watt), though I hope he has made some alteration. All I can think is that he must be too busy, because, from the little I know about him, he is too “ keen “ to stand that sort of business. As to the officials of the Treasury, I know how “ keen “ they are. I am most thankful, that in some of our big public servants we have men who are all for the interests of the country; and if an honorable member lays before the Treasury officials some pitiful case they think deserving of assistance, the officials always take the side of the country, and use the public money as carefully as if it belonged to themselves. They are always ready to stand up against Ministers, members, or anybody else ; and that is a good thing. But the Bank should not be able to issue great balance-sheets, principally at the expense of Government business, and attempt to show successful results on such a basis.

I find that the State and Federal debts now run into more than £700,000,000. That is not much when you say it quickly, but it will take some paying for; and I should be very glad to hear some honorable member outline a method. I object to our indebtedness keeping on increasing in this way with these, as with all other, Estimates. Many of my constituents are hardworking people, who rise before daylight to milk their cows, and face cold, rain, and snow; and I do not wish their load to be made any heavier. We are told that in this country we are gradually changing our attitude, that we are becoming a community of “ leaners “ - that we are all propping up against the Government. If that be so, the country will simply topple over with its growing expenditure. I do not blame the Government for much of the past expenditure to which I have referred, but I do blame them for the present expenditure. The Treasurer understands finance, and has had time to get “ into the saddle,” and it is time he “ took a pull “. He is a popular man, in whom the people have faith ; and if he uses his ability, and consults what I believe to be the people’s interests, by cutting dows expenditure, and introducing commonsense legislation, he will do a great deal of good. Indeed, that is my object this afternoon - I wish to reform the honorable gentleman a little. I do not wish him to take a dictatorial attitude towards me, or towards honorable members, because those retorts and interjections of his look very ugly when in the cold print of Hansard. I think he is regarded as the champion interjector of the country.

Mr Watt:

– This is, indeed, the “ pot calling the kettle black “ !

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– There are people who do not wish him well, and who prophesy that his facility for saying smart things will prove his downfall. I must say that if I had his power in this respect, I would use it oftener ; but, then, the honorable gentleman must remember that he has more responsibility than I have. When I read in Hansard one of the honorable gentleman’s interjections to me, I thought that it looked, as I say, very ugly. Many of my constituents have a good opinion of me, and I am afraid that when they see these remarks of the Treasurer, they will say, “ See what he thinks of Chapman.”

Mr Watt:

– Will the honorable member permit me one interjection ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Interjections are disorderly!

Mr Watt:

– You do not seriously say that I attempt to be dictatorial to you or any other honorable member ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– You have been getting a bit that way lately.

Mr Watt:

– Now you are hedging.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– My own personal opinion is that we have too many Governors, too many Parliaments, too many public establishments altogether in Australia; and I only mention this because some of these establishments are provided for in the Estimates. The honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Hector Lamond) is evidently of the same opinion as myself, because in my absence he asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) to give time for the discussion of a motion I have on the notice-paper to call a convention, with a view to cutting down the number of governmental authorities in Australia. However, the honorable member accepted the bland statement of the Acting Prime Minister that he would consider the matter. The honorable gentleman considers many things, and that is the end of them. There is too much duplication all round, and in this connexion I should like to take the Acting Prime Minister to task. On one occasion, in a speech, he said that this duplication must be stopped ; but I ask him, what about the Income Tax Department and the Land Tax Department? I remember that on one occasion he offered a State to collect its income tax for one-third of what the collection is costing to-day.

Mr Tudor:

– And said it would save £1,500,000.

Mr Watt:

– I said the people would save that amount, not that it would be saved on the Estimates.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– The same people have to find the money. Why not have one Taxation Department? Why not follow the example of little Tasmania, and have one electoral roll for both Commonwealth and States? The duplication is simply awful - we have two taxing Departments and two electoral branches, two of everything. There are even two sets of Savings Banks, and the State Governments are building fine banking premises all over the country in order to compete against the Commonwealth Savings Bank. There is too much of this, and we ought to have a change - we ought at least to try to give Australia a chance, which is not what we are doing at present.

Presently we shall be having a great number of arrivals in Australia, and I believe that the outlook is not dark if we exercise common sense. Our soldiers across the sea have given this country a great advertisement, and Australia is known as it was never known before. I remember, when I was climbing Mount Vesuvius on one occasion, in 1902, our guide asked me where I came from, and I proudly said that I came from Australia.

Mr Kelly:

– He possibly thought you came out of the volcano.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– At any rate, he caused me to wonder whether he had come out of the Ark. When I said I came from Australia, the guide questioned, “Austria?” “No,” I said, “ I come from Australia,” and his reply was, “ I never heard of it.” That was from a man who gets his living by taking tourists up the mountain. But never again will it be possible to meet such ignorance. Our soldiers have written their deeds in words of gold all over the world, and for this we owe much to them, for I believe it will be the means of doing great good to this country. We have suffered great losses at the Front; but the fame of the Australians will cause people in the older countries to ask what sort of a country it can be that sends such men to the Front, and what sort of a country is it in which so much consideration is extended to the poorest of the poor? My own opinion is that, in’ the future, we shall see ships crossing the ocean, crowded like motor buses in the street, bringing hundreds of thousands to Australia; and that is our hope, for the more people we have, the more easily we shall be able to meet the inevitable taxation. No one can say that there is no room for new industries, for we must have them if we are to prosper. I do not object to a large expenditure if it is reproductive, and gives the people a chance. I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to “ get a move on,” and reduce some of our enormous expenditure. What about the Northern Territory mess? A little while ago the Government “took a pull,” but where was it effective? At Canberra; and the Treasurer has told us that the revenue now has almost come up to the expenditure.

Mr Watt:

– That is due to the’ action we took last year.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– What has the action resulted in? Some years ago, I wrote to the then Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Cook) and pointed out the extravagance that was going on at Canberra and Jervis Bay. I did not do that to benefit myself, for my electors are only human, and do not object to large expenditure in their district. Naturally they objected to my calling for retrenchment, but, all the same, I did so, for w«» could have big expenditure without extravagance. I offered, if a Commission were given me, to prove, free of expense. the true state of affairs, including facts to which the honor able member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) has called attention. However, I got the stereotyped reply, after a while, that nothing could be done in the matter. At that time, I pointed to two places in my electorate, where, since then, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted; and this only shows our inefficient system of government. I remind the Acting Prime Minister that there was a Royal Commission appointed after £1,000,000 had been misspent, and that Royal Commission made some very strong reports, which I do not desire to read on this occasion. The evidence then given was astounding; but what did the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) do? He stifled the whole thing, though I do not say that he did that in an improper way.

Mr Watt:

– I did not do that as Acting Prime Minister, but as Minister for Works and Railways.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– That does not matter; you are responsible.

Mr Watt:

– I carry the responsibility.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Did the honorable gentleman not promise to have a further inquiry made?

Mr Watt:

– I did, too.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Then why did we not see the result?

Mr Watt:

– All the papers are put on the table.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– They are not.

Mr Watt:

– They have been put on the table.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Then I have not seen them, and I have been asking for them. How many honorable members have got the printed reports of that Royal Commission ?

Dr Maloney:

– I got them after a lot of trouble.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– -There is a curious history about this Royal Commission. Where are the printed reports? What is being done at Canberra to-day? Sixty miles pf the best built roads in Australia are going to waste, and houses are falling into disrepair; and this is called economy. What about the waterworks at the Federal Capital? There is an unfortunate dispute amongst some of the officials of the Department, and I take neither one side nor the other, for they can very well defend themselves; but I do say that the action by some of the officers will probably have the effect of driving out of the country the man who designed the Federal Capital; indeed, I believe that is what they are aiming at.

Mr J H Catts:

– There is a conspiracy.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I do not say that there is a conspiracy, but the action of these officers would lead one to think so.

Mr J H Catts:

– Commissioner Blacket’s report says so.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Let us see what will happen when Mr. Griffin’s term of engagement is up. I believe that the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom) is responsible for carrying out the works at the Federal Capital.

Mr Groom:

– Yes.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Then hi/w does he explain the present position ? The honorable gentleman is following the footsteps of his predecessor. Mr. Griffin, we know, is a great genius at laying out towns, and in the case of the design for the Federal Capital competed and won against the best men in the world.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Royal Commission reported that he was for twentysix months prevented from carrying out the duties of his office.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– The honorable member will Ve able to tell us all about that presently. Nevertheless, I believe he is right, and that Mr. Blacket was right. We have Mr. Griffin here, a man who can command a great deal of private work, a man who is quite different from many Americans, who, prior to the war, were looked upon as dollarchasers; a talented man, who made great financial sacrifices when he left his country to come to Australia; yet when the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom) wanted a little township laid out at the Arsenal, he did not do what any business man would do who had in his employ one of the best landscape architects in the world; he did not utilize the services of that man, but borrowed the services of Mr. Morrell, a man from a State Department.

Mr Groom:

– As a matter of fact, he was selected by the Defence Department.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

- Mr. Morrell has been engaged in this work. Will the Minister deny that some one has also sent for Mr. Reed, of South Australia, in connexion with the same work? Why is Mr. Griffin not intrusted with this work? What does this Minister, who is such a pronounced opponent of Socialism, do in regard to the building of nouses? When I asked him a civil question as to what would happen in connexion with the building of houses at other centres besides Lithgow, he answered, “ It depends upon the requisition the Department receives.” Of course, it might be regarded as a clever answer.

Mr Groom:

– It was not clever. It was a statement of the fact.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– It is not one of the facts that will help the honorable member over the stile. It is useless for him to “ fence “ the question in that way. He must toe the mark and say whether he believes in this socialistic principle or not.

Mr Watt:

– It is useless for the honorable member to attempt to bully Minis-

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I am not bullying Ministers. I believe that if it’ had not been for the action of the Acting Prime Minister the Arsenal would have been going ahead now.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member is quite wrong. I was one of. the driving forces for the building of the Arsenal until the close of the war ended the immediate necessity for it.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I am glad to hear the Acting Prime Minister say so. ‘ I ask him to read the report of the Committee which selected the Tuggeranong site. What happened when that site was first selected ? Apparently some honorable member in the Ministry sent a Committee all over New South Wales to look at Bathurst, Tumut, and other places for an alternative site; but it kept coming back again and again with the same report, that each place it had inspected was a very good site, but that there was no other suggested site equal to Tuggeranong. Then two extra men were employed to lay out a township alongside the Arsenal, and the Public Works Committee was sent to Queanbeyan to make inquiries about building a railway to the site. But after all this had been done the Ministry “ took a pull.” It is quite extraordinary that they could not “ take a pull “ in regard to the Northern Territory, Naval Bases, or some other expenditure. I did not advocate big expenditure at Canberra during the war period, but it is a scandal that during eighteen years we have made practically no advance in the establishment of the Federal Capital there.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– We have torn up a scrap of paper.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Yes, a dozen times. The Federal Territory ought to have been put on a paying basis. We should have established a Trust on the lines of a Harbor Trust and given it a certain amount of money to go on with. We could have made good money by doing so. We have resumed a large area of land, but there is still a lot more to be resumed. The unfortunate owners cannot get compensation even for property which was resumed on values fixed in 1908, and we know that values have considerably increased since then. There are cases of hardship in the Territory because of the lack of action on the part of the Government in this respect. Yet what have Ministers done? The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) takes credit for having stopped work upon the Arsenal. Of course, if he thinks that expenditure at Canberra is all waste, which ought to be stopped, he would not be worth his salt if he did not stop it; but the people will not permit any Government to stop the development of the Federal Capital for ever. We have invited architects all over the world to send in designs for Parliament House. I believe that 126 designs have been sent in. Yet something prevents their consideration. I am told that the desire is to give the young architects who have been at the war an opportunity to submit designs. It is an absurd proposal. Children would not talk in that way. We ought to shift the Capital to Canberra and get into & Federal atmosphere. It would be an economical step. We are paying high rents for the buildings we occupy in Melbourne. We could put up our own buildings at Canberra. A Trust could make the development of tho Territory a paying concern. I do not know much about finance, but I should? not be afraid to be standing in with ment who were allowed to put up publicbuildings and Parliament House for theCommonwealth and be paid by results. I know that it would pay them to> do so. Does the Acting PrimeMinister (Mr. Watt) propose to allow the roads to get into a state of disrepair?’ It is all very well for the Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton) to smile. Let him go to Cockatoo Island and see the scandals there. ‘ I must be fair to the honorable member. I know that, he is not responsible for many of them, and that he has done good work there; but when I drew attention to theaffairs at the island I was told that there* was nothing wrong. However, the Minister visited the island immediately afterwards and cut down some of the outrageous expenditure there by at least j£30> per week, and I believe that if the Minister would visit the dock again he could cut off a little more unnecessary expenditure. It is not an isolated case of extravagance. We have heard thestatements of the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) and others who are members of the Public Works Committee concerning Naval Bases. It is like reading Jack the Giant Killer to peruse some of the extraordinary statements made by honorable members concerning expenditure on Naval Bases. ThePublic Accounts Committee has also reported on similar lines. There must bea change. I am told that it is essential that the work at the Federal Capita? should be suspended. I have no desire to censure the Acting Prime Minister. I am merely telling him these things so that he may follow the right course. T am not handing him any bouquet when I say that there is no man in this country who knows better than he does that what I say is true. He is a practical man. Hehas had great experience - Ministerial experience - and he knows something about the commercial life of Australia. Welook to him to do what ought to be done. He can count on me to the last word and to the last moment that 1 can sit in this House to help him. I have no ulterior motive. It is well known that I look for nothing from the House. I am a sick man.. I know that soma have been kind enough to say that I am looking for something. If I could put my finger on the man who has made that statement he could look for something from me. Men who have no ambition are not worth a dump. Is it any crime for any of them to aspire to get on to the front Government Bench ? It is not. There are many men sitting in the Ministerial corner who could occupy a seat on the front Bench, and when they possessed the knowledge of details that Ministers have they could render good service to the people of this country. But I do not wish to be one of them. . I have no present ambition in that direction. In my present state of health it would be unwise for me to take on any strenuous task.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member is aware that Warwick did not wish to be King of England.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I am talking about Australia. It is necessary to have a change, and I shall be delighted if we can get a number of men on the front Bench who would put the same vim and go into things that the Acting Prime Minister himself puts into them, even though he may be misguided in many cases. I am delighted to have elicited one fact from him in regard to Canberra.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member wants less expenditure, and, at the same time, more of it.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I do not want extravagant expenditure. It is of mo use chucking money into the sea, but in many cases that is what has been done. I am a great listener to the Acting Prime Minister. I shall listen with interest when he is endeavouring to explain some of the items on these Estimates, particularly the item of £6,421 for the Commonwealth Police. It will be interesting to hear his explanation. I give him credit for standing up to his chief, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for him.

Mr Watt:

– I do not see any sign of that sympathy.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– If the honorable member were prepared to say that, as Prime Minister, he could do something, but that he can do nothing as Acting Prime Minister, or as caretaker,

I say that I believe that the people would welcome him as Prime Minister. But he would have to mend his ways. I do not object to the expenditure of money. When I talk about economy, I do not mean the wholesale discharge of men. What I want is economical expenditure on reproductive works. I do not want a repetition of the dreadful and glaring instances of extravagance that have been pointed out by members of the Public Works and Public Accounts Committees. One does not have to go far in order to find them. With a view to testing the feeling of the Committee, I move -

That the first item be reduced by £1.

I do this with a view to the Estimates being returned to the Government, accompanied by the express desire of the Committee that economy should be exercised, and that the Estimates should be reframed in a form more acceptable to honorable members.

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

– The honorable member has been alternately severe upon and complimentary to myself. He has been generally severe upon the poor unfortunate colleagues who row in the same boat with me. He has said that he is always a listener to the observations I make when I have the privilege of addressing the House. His statement is more or less true, and we are always glad to welcome him in the Chamber, because we know that he is a sick man, and that he attends to his duties, perhaps, more than his physical condition justifies. In return for the honorable member’s compliments, I say that I always listen to him with considerable interest. He possesses that dramatic quality which, whether he is talking sense or not, always interests friends or foes alike. I hope that he will not take any malice out of that remark, because he and I, in our best moments, when we are less weary, have each a little of the sporting instinct of politics. Although it is perfectly true that the honorable member may not wish to be king of his country, or to reign on the front Government bench, he does like, with his twenty-five years of political life, to wield an important influence in. the movements of his time. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and I am not at all convinced by one word that he has uttered. I propose to be quite plain with him, because I know that he will deal with me in the same way. Most of his talk is economic platitude which is not at all new. Most of us have practised the same kind of talk in season and out of season, particularly those of us who have been in office. If the honorable member could see where his conclusions would lead him, he would see that if we applied some of the generalizations he has seen fit to use to the projects he has in his mind, they would fare very badly. Whether he knows it or not, he is prejudiced on the Canberra question - I would blame him if he were not - and I am quite sure that he cannot look upon it in the dispassionate way in which Ministers are obliged to look at any proposal in relation to expenditure at Canberra during war time. On many occasions in this House he has been eloquently and trenchantly severe on Government after Government which has not conducted some enterprise there during war time with the vigour and pace he imagines necessary. When I took control of the Works Office, the Royal Commission to which my honourable friend has referred was just reporting, and I examined the whole matter as carefully as a man could do. I did not spend upon the subject as much time as the Commissioner did, but I gathered all. the information that I could, and I said to my honorable friend, as I did to others, “ No Minister should surrender his functions to a Royal Commission. Ministers are responsible to the Parliament.” With regard to the results of that inquiry, and the treatment which the report received, I, as a member of the Government, and the Government itself, took the responsibility ; but it is plain that the honorable member profoundly disagreed with the policy that followed. Accompanied by the honorable member and the Minister for Home and Territories, I paid a visit to the Federal Capital. It was one of the most enjoyable trips that I had ever had. I was surrounded by the honorable member’s hospitable friends, and charmed by his delightful stories, for nearly a week, and if ever a man ought to have been cajoled from the path of duty into the spending of money lavishly at the instance of an honorable member, my honorable colleague and I should have been. But what we did was to come back, and tell the Cabinet a plain, unvarnished story, with the result that when the next Estimates were framed the Cabinet plainly said that, with the exception of salvage works to maintain the undertakings already carried out at the Federal Capital, we ought not to spend any more upon enterprises in that region while the war continued. That decision met with the full approval of the people of Australia, with the exception, perhaps, of those residing within territory bordering on the Federal Capital. There was a lot of intriguing, irrespective of party - and I use the word in its descriptive, and not in its opprobrious, sense - to hustle the Ministry out of the track it had mapped out for itself, and to induce it to. spend more money on the Federal Capital. Many visits were paid to the Territory by members, old and new, in the hope of reviving the project during the war; but the effort died because human reason was too strong for it. As the result of the policy of salving existing works and marking time on new undertakings, we have been able to report, as the honorable member has suggested, that the Territory is not at the present moment losing much money for the Commonwealth. With the letting of lands there, it is almost a payable proposition. I am not against the building of a Federal Capital in due time.

Mr J H Catts:

-When will that be?

Mr WATT:

– Certainly not in war time. I speak now, not as a Victorian or as a financier - because I am not a financier - but as a plain student of public affairs, having certain responsibilities to discharge, and it is only when the war debt load that is now upon us is lighter than it is at present or is likely to be for some time after the war-

Mr J H Catts:

– Then it is good-bye to the Federal Capital for a generation.

Mr WATT:

– I do not know whether that is so or not. I am talking in terms, not of time, but of conditions, and I should not be frank if I did not tell the Committee exactly what I think with respect to the subject.

The honorable member for EdenMonaro suggested that these Estimates should be taken back. I do not know whether he has done himself the justice of reading them. If he has, he will recognise that if the Committee were to carry his amendment, the Government would not be able to save £10,000 on the Estimates as presented. That is not only my own opinion, but the opinion of the best judges in the Department who operated with me in the compilation of the Estimates. It does not refer to the back pages of these Estimates, and it is in respect of them that I think the honorable member - if I may say this of so old a Parliamentarian - is committing a blunder. From page 306 onward all these Estimates-

Mr Kelly:

– Have been passed.

Mr WATT:

– They have not been passed in the sense that I would use the word, but they have all been authorized. None of the items from page 303 onwards will appear in the Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bills will cover only the items to be found on pages 1 to 303 inclusive. As to them, after many months of work upon the Estimates, and after mature consideration, I venture to express the opinion that neither with the help of the microscope, nor the pair of scissors to which the honorable member referred, could he pare off £10,000.

Mr Gregory:

– That is a mere matter of opinion.

Mr WATT:

– Yes; and I am giving, not merely my own view, but the opinion of the men best able to judge of the facts. I have worked on the preparation of these Estimates with the responsible officers of the Department, and have checked this opinion, since this matter came up, with some of the most responsible minds in the Department, and I say that the Estimates could not be cut down to the extent of £10,000. With regard to the pages from 303 onwards, honorable members know full well that they appear merely as a plain statement, with no legal effect whatever, to show what the total expenditure of the nation is. The items appearing on those pages were authorized when our loan flotations were authorized, and at the present time, as honorable members know, in addition to the money which has been gathered in as the result of the last two loan operations, we still have the authority of this Parliament to raise and to spend another £54,000,000. Throughout the period of the war, whether wisely or not, authorizations for the raising and disbursement of loan moneys have been given en masse, and they are not affected at all by the items in these Estimates. It is true that in the case of these later loan Estimates there will probably be some shrinkages if the peace terms are signed at an early date. I know the basis of those items. I have already ticked off many of them in respect of which I think large savings in our loan expenditure will take place.

Mr Richard Foster:

– War loan expenditure ?

Mr WATT:

– Yes. There are many items paid out of loan account which, if they had to be met in ordinary times, would be provided for out of revenue. The Commonwealth Shipping Board, for instance, is provided for out of loan account. How soon we can scrap that machinery with safety to the producers of this country, I cannot now say; but of the £10,000 provided for that body, several thousands may, perhaps, be saved, although the provision made for one-half the financial year has already been expended. Then, again, there are items in respect’ of recruiting, for special audits of war accounts, and for other matters of the kind attaching to war expenditure.

Mr Poynton:

– Including the naval guards, with which we are rapidly doing away.

Mr WATT:

– The naval guards and the home service guards were required during the period of the war, but at the present time they are gradually being diminished. Those items will be saved.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to this very phase of the expenditure; and I want to assure him that the Treasury will take good care that the Departments are not allowed - merely because they have nominally obtained this authority under either, the Loan or the General Estimates - to spend beyond the absolute requirements of the month, or the quarter. The Treasury takes the responsibility for that, as the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) will realize.

Mr Higgs:

– I am listening, and I give the honorable gentleman credit for a very pious aspiration.

Mr WATT:

– My illustrious predecessor describes this as a pious aspiration.

Mr Higgs:

– Why attack me?

Mr WATT:

– I did not, unless my honorable friend says that by drawing attention to him I attacked him. The Treasury to-day - as it always will do, I trust, if properly run - will see that in matters of finance all other Departments are in close touch with it. Cabinet ought to know if Treasury orders relating to finance are disobeyed by any of the Departments. Without affecting any extraordinary “ piety,” but speaking with a long experience of this kind of thing, I say, without the slightest hesitation, that if I remain in the Treasury until the end of this financial year I shall require the Departments to see that their expenditure out of loan moneys shrinks as it should shrink. I do not think any Treasurer would be worth his salt if he f ailed in that respect.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Every one of the honorable gentleman’s predecessors for the last fifteen years has said the same thing, but has never carried out his promise.

Mr WATT:

– My honorable friend probably has not grasped what I have teen endeavouring to convey. Since the inception of the Commonwealth no predecessor of mine has been placed in circumstances such as now exist.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– But they have said the same as to all expenditure.

Mr WATT:

– No Commonwealth Treasurer has ever previously been placed in circumstances of this kind. No Commonwealth Treasurer has previously had almost unlimited authority to spend loan money. In addition to the eighty odd million pounds which it is expected will be spent this year - and for the spending of the bulk if not the whole of this amount we have carte blanche - we have an unexhausted authority to raise £54,000,000. No Commonwealth Treasurer has ever been in that position be fore; nor has any previous Treasurer of the Commonwealth had the responsibility for such a huge expenditure, curtailable probably in two quarters and at least in one quarter of the year. As honorable members are aware, from the inception of the Commonwealth our expenditure, instead of shrinking, has always been growing. On this occasion the reverse is the case.

My honorable friend (Mr. AustinChapman) is right from one point of view when he says that the people of Australia will not be content with the duplication or triplication of Government activities that have grown upon us, or the duplication, triplication, or multiplication of taxation that has grown upon us either as the result of inter-governmental or parliamentary action, or such action plus the war. I cannot imagine that the people ten years after the signing of the peace terms will allow the whole machinery of Parliament and Government to go on undisturbed at the present huge relative cost per head of the population. They will say to the Commonwealth and State Parliaments alike,” Simplify your mode of government. Economize in. your public expenditure and see that you. get 20s. value in the £1 for every bit of expenditure that is incurred. Above all, see that your expenditure is reproductive.” That has been my objective during more than one-half of my public life, and I certainly shall not make now in any other direction.

My honorable friend implied that I had been long enough in office to bring about all these economies. I went to the Treasury in March last, and had less than three months in which to consider and figure out these Estimates. I would remind my honorable friend and others who are interested in economy of what was done in that time. They may discount it as much as they please, but the more experience they have had of departmental expenditure the more difficult what was accomplished will appear to be, and the more advantageous the result undoubtedly will seem to be to those who are able to study it. I cut down these Estimates - and I claim no special credit for it; I speak of the Government operating as at whole- by £2,297,000.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Cut down tha departmental Estimates to that extent?

Mr WATT:

– The departmental Estimates as I received them. That is no easy task. It is a task naturally resisted by the Departments with all the command of detail that departmental officers have, and it requires considerable resolution and knowledge for a Government to accomplish such a work within the brief period of a few months. Of that achievement I am very proud; but, as I have told the Committee on several occasions, it is by no means complete. It is a preliminary step.

Mr Gregory:

– It was a reduction on what the Departments asked for.

Mr WATT:

– Yes.

Mr Gregory:

– But not on the expenditure in previous years.

Mr WATT:

– I am not dealing with that expenditure, but with the Estimates. If the honorable member will remember that he need not interrupt.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– This is the old spirit.

Mr WATT:

– It is the honorable mem”ber’s spirit. May I say to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) that he likes to flog round this Committee good and hard, and when he gets an answering interjection he resents it. The mildest mannered man in this Committee, the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Hector Lamond), he chewed up and spat out before an astonished audience in a space of three minutes. These Estimates are by <no means la final achievement, of course. Re-organization of expenditure cannot be done suddenly by a stroke of a pen. It can be done only after months and months of laborious endeavour. Ministers have not had time to go into the subject in detail, but the Government have appointed three of the ablest men we can get together to go clean through this business, so that when we get into recess we may be able to complete the job, and cut down to bedrock the unproductive expenditure of the country. The only thing I resent is that while I am engaged in doing work of this kind, and while the Government generally have set their faces ‘resolutely in that direction, there are some honor able members and other people outside, in the press and elsewhere, who seem to imply that we are neglecting this duty, and that they are demanding that it be done. The reverse is true. I resent the suggestion that the only man to save the country is the good-natured honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman). He can be a help to us if he will offer constructive suggestions when the Estimates are being dealt with, but he will be no help to us if he merely sets out upon a flogging expedition.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Why did not the Treasurer cut out the expenditure for the Commonwealth police?

Mr WATT:

– How can that be done at once when we have entered into engagements with these men ?

Mr Higgs:

– Were they not employed for only three months?

Mr WATT:

– To tell the truth, I do not know much about them. They are under the control of the AttorneyGeneral. I do not know the name of one of the policemen, or where any of them live. But in due order this expenditure, too, will be spokeshaved down to proper proportions.

Before I deal with the more serious aspect to which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) referred in his closing remarks, I wish to give to the Committee some information which the Clerk has been good enough to furnish to me. The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), an ex -Treasurer, has referred on many occasions to our irregular methods of dealing with business, particularly in’ relation to finance. I have asked the Clerk to supply me with the dates of the introduction of the Budget and the passage of the Appropriation Bill in each war year.

Mr Tudor:

– Tell us the length of time allowed for debate on each occasion.

Mr WATT:

– To dignify by the name of debate the opportunities that were allowed to us when the honorable member’s party was in power would be an improper use of the English language. In the financial “year 1914-15- of course there had been a change of Government and the war had broken out - the Budget was not introduced till the 3rd December, 1914. Half the money had been spent before the House received the Budget, and the Appropriation Bill was not passed till the 7th July, 1915. That was during the regime of the Fisher Government, in which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) was Minister for Trade and Customs, and one of the dynamic forces of the Administration.

Mr Tudor:

– We did not restrict the discussion of the Budget to three days.

Mr WATT:

– But it was held back for nearly twelve months. The Appropriation Bill was not passed until the following financial year had opened. I wish to put on record these facts, in order to show that we are getting back to better methods.

Mr.Kelly. - The evil past Governments did lives after them.

Mr WATT:

– And the good which many of us do is often interred with our bones. In the year 1915-16, a wonderful thing happened - as the novelists say - the Budget was opened on the 9th May, 1916, ten months after the opening of the financial year. At that time, I think the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) was Treasurer; and here is a more wonderful thing. The Appropriation Bill was passed on the 20th May, 1916; so that, from the time of the introduction of the Budget to the passing of the Appropriation Bill, only eleven days elapsed, and in that time the Budget was debated, the Estimates were discussed, and the Appropriation Bill was agreed to. More than ten-twelfths of the money had been freely expended without any other authority than was conferred by the vote of temporary Supply. In 1916- 17, something worse happened. The Budget was opened on the 14th June, 1917.

Mr Tudor:

– I think the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Poynton) was Treasurer.

Mr Poynton:

– No; I had left office. The late Lord Forrest was Treasurer.

Mr WATT:

– There had been changes of Ministries, and eleven and a half months of the financial year had expired before the Budget was produced; and, significantly enough, the Appropriation Bill was passed on the 12th July.

Mr McWilliams:

– Every one of those Budgets was passed as the result of allnight sittings.

Mr WATT:

– Mark the difference last year, when the present Government were in charge. The Budget was introduced by the late Lord Forrest on the 8th August, 1917, five weeks after the commencement of the financial year, which is about as early as any Treasurer can produce the Budget, no matter how he prepares it. The Budget was discussed at intervals on Supply Bills, and the Appropriation Bill was passed on the 15th June, 1918, just before the financial year closed. This year, I was not able to open the Budget quite so early; but I submitted it to the House on the 25th September last.

Mr Higgs:

– Where is the virtue in introducing the Estimates early if the Government do not allow time for the discussion of them?

Mr WATT:

– In order to regularize procedure, we introduce the Budget and Estimates early, allow reasonable time for discussion, and pass them before we rise. That is what we proposed to do this year. I ask the honorable member not to ransack his memory and his conscience too much regarding the Budget business, because the present Government have a clean, white sheet compared with the records of other Governments who have been in office during the war period.

Mr Tudor:

– Not at all. I wish I had an opportunity to reply to that statement The Treasurer occupied four hours in introducing his Budget, and now he is making another speech.

Mr WATT:

– I occupied only a little over two hours in introducing the Budget, which was a multum in paroo.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The honorable member did it well.

Mr Tudor:

– It was the most complete Budget ever introduced.

Mr WATT:

– I am suspicious of these compliments. When the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) stood up with his assegai, and commenced his onslaught, instead of preluding the operation by shouts of threat and warning, he cooed to me like a lover. I am very much afraid of him when he brings threats in that guise. I have only this to say in reply to him, that if he hopes to woo the Government he must do so in a different way. He must not imagine that, because Ministers are pigmies in comparison with the men of whom he spoke. Parkes and Dibbs, we do not understand constitutional principles. We do. When he tells us in his suave way that the Committee can refer back these Estimates, and order the Government to do its bidding, he makes a mistake. The Government will not do that bidding. I wish him to understand that plainly, not as a threat nor as a suggestion that he is not actuated by proper motives, but as a friendly intimation. The Government considered these Estimates carefully, and at the time they were introduced they were right. They are still right, and all the re-examination of them that the honorable member proposes will not save £10,000. With regard to other expenditure which will not be included in the Appropriation Bill, we shall save all the money that it is possible to save, but beyond that we cannot go. If the Committee decides to send these Estimates back for re-organization it must take the consequences. I wish honorable members to understand that.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- Every honorable member must have been pleased with the debate which has taken place between the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Chapman) and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt), but in justice to both of them I intend to reproduce in Hansard the finding of the Royal Commission which inquired into the Federal Capital administration. If ever a Commission was justified, it was that one; if ever a Commission’s findings were flouted, the findings of that Commission were. The inquiry was based mainly on charges made in the House by the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster) .

Mr Sampson:

– Some of the reports are not worth the paper they are written on.

Dr MALONEY:

– I would sooner believe them than I would believe the honorable member when he speaks in that way. I am confident that over £250,000 has been lost to this country, and I wish to read the report of the Royal Commissioner, so that the remarks of the honor able member for Eden-Monaro may be understood. The Acting Prime Minister, with all his eloquence, and ability, and charm of manner, tried to discount what the honorable member said. This is what the Royal Commissioner (Mr. Wilfred Blacket) reported -

Upon all the evidence, and particularly upon that which has been stated or referred to in this report, I find tbat 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;

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, andto 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 thatafter 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 didin frustration of Mr. Griffin’s efforts were tnerefore 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 with the Minister. Holding the views that ne 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.

The departmental plan was known throughout Australia and the world as the mongrel plan. Over 145 of the chief architects and engineers of Australia sent a petition regarding it to the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), who was at the time Prime Minister. What was this Board ? One of its members was Colonel Miller, who has left the Service, to the advantage of the community and the saving of expense. He was not an architect or engineer by examination. What examination did Colonel Owen, another member of the Board, ever pass? He possessed merely a complimentary title, given to him because he had filled the office of Director of Works in New South Wales. Is there not sworn evidence that he was the cause of the great waste at the Federal Capital ? In putting a question to a witness - Question 30424 - he said, “ Did not I ask you to play the game and stick by the officers that you have worked with for years?” Never mind the country or the expense : stick to the officers, and make out that they were right, even though they might be as wrong as- Hades ! Thomas Hill, another member of the Board, was a licensed survevor, and held a better qualification for the work than do the other two I have mentioned. Mr. Murdoch, another member of the Board, i3 an architect with a fairly good reputation, but it is not considered that he would win against the architects of Australia if he ever dared to compete against them. Mr. Bingie, also a member of the Board, is a man who lied to me, though I did not know it until the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly), who was at the time Acting Minister for Home Affairs, pointed out the fact. Colonel Owen, for what reason I do not know, was sent as a Commissioner to India, to inquire into the proper laying out of an Arsenal. Another Commissioner ‘was a University professor, and as he had proper scientific knowledge, his appointment was justified. But why, if plans for an up-to-date Arsenal were needed, did the Government send the Commission to India? Why was not the Commission sent to France, to England, or to Italy, countries in which war was proceeding ; or to neutral countries like . those of Scandinavia? When the Com- mission returned, it formulated plans which were turned down. I am informed that the buildings would not have supported the roofs. Then the Government sent to England for plans. Money would have been saved had that been done in the first case. The appointment of the Commission to India was an absolute waste of money. The fact shows that the country is ruled by a small ring of departmental heads, whose motto is “ Play the game, and stand by your fellow officers.” It is not playing the game, so far as the country is concerned; it is dishonesty. I feel bound to say so much in complement of the remarks of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman), who was cleverly answered by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt), but not clearly or decisively. The Acting Prime Minister has managed the House well. He has restrained his natural impulse to make sharp and biting retorts; and when the session is over, he will feel that he has added to his reputation by his abstention from the faults of the past, and has benefited by it.

One could speak for hours on the Budget and the evils of the present moment, but I shall confine my remarks chiefly to one subject. I fear lest when our 200,000 soldiers return there may be unemployment. I have had an experience of unemployment such as no other honorable member can equal, having been connected with every unemployed movement since 1889. I know the horrors that followed the crash of the boom. It was the banks putting an end to credits, and telling their branches throughout Australia to get in as much money as they could, that hastened the crash. Today, again, the banks are drawing in their money; but, “thanks chiefly to King O’Malley, we have now a Commonwealth Bank. It is the duty of the Government to say that they will stand behind the banks. If credit is shaken, the debacle will be worse than that which followed the boom, or the great maritime strike. Never in previous wars have the banks kept up their credit as in this war. If you glance at the balance-sheets of our various companies,, you will find that all have added to their reserves to strengthen themselves against possible difficulties. The honorable member for

Eden -Monaro justly said that it is not ‘ economy to sack the workers, because they are the spenders of the community, every penny that they earn going into circulation. We were willing to pour out millions for the conduct of .the war, and we should be prepared to spend hundreds of thousands in keeping our people employed.

Wool and wheat are the twin brothers of our natural resources. What are we doing with our wool? We send it across the sea to be made into cloth, and when we get that cloth back we have to pay, not only for the making of it, but for the freight across the sea and back. It is to the eternal dishonour of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) that he has said that we do not want any new industries in Australia. He has crucified the industry which produced the coat which I am wearing. The men engaged in this, industry are not getting a dog’s show. They have to sell their cloth at 15s. a., yard to Buckley and Nunn. Foy and Gibson have promised to do all that they can for them, but some of the yarn that is being supplied by the Government mills is worse than shoddy. Any one could easily untwist it so ‘that it would fall apart, being of such short staple. One of the weavers justly said to me, when I spoke to him at his loom, “If a suit of clothes were made for you out of yarn like that, you would not want to buy such cloth again.” I am proud of the cloth I am now wearing. One of the biggest experts that ever came from England, who is employed by the Commonwealth Government as an adjuster of wool, said that that cloth, although it cost only 15s. a yard here, would bring £1 a yard in England at the present moment. Yet, instead of hundreds of our men being employed in. weaving, only about a dozen are so employed, and men who have risked their lives at the Front, and have been injured, are fined the amount of their pensions when they take up this work. Is that the way to repatriate soldiers? Mr. Prendergast, the Leader of tie State Opposition, some’ members of the State Parliament, and others, have had suits made of the cloth that has been woven here, but we cannot get it now without going to Buckley and Nunn.

This cloth costs from 6s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. per yard, so surely the profit made on itis sufficient? Although the Commonwealth Government, together with theImperial Government, control the shipping that comes to Australia, the weaving industry has not been allowed sufficient machinery to deal with our wool’ in all the processes that are necessary toconvert it into cloth. I have here an article that I would commend to every honorable member, but there are so few present that I ask for a quorum. [Quorum formed.] Some £1,827,000 worth of textile machinery has been exported from England, and in placing these figures before honorable members - I am pleading for employment, not for a few, hundreds, but for thousands of people. To British East India the British Government allowed £624,942 worth of textile machinery to be sent. Of course,, in the East Indies there is any amount of cheap labour; but to Australia, where there is, perhaps, the highest paid labour, only £26,680 worth was permitted to be exported, in spite of the fact that manufacturers here were calling out for it. Russia, we know, at the present moment is in a most unfortunate position, but, the misfortune is not greater than the misunderstanding regarding her; and I am waiting patiently to find out the real truth of the position.

Mr Considine:

– Russia will be all’ right if the other Powers will let her alone.

Dr MALONEY:

– There may be much? in that remark, though, of course, onecannot say. At any rate, to Russia textile machinery to the value of £226,380’ was sent; and to Japan, which producesonly about £18,000 worth of wool, £202,000 worth. Japan is going to supply us with yarn, though we could make it here if we were allowed to have the machinery. Textile machinery to the value of £94,546 was sent to South America, or nearly four times as much as was sent to Australia. In the publication from which I am quoting there is aparagraph showing the relative quantities of wool raised and manufactured in the various countries. In Australia we produce over 540,000,000 lbs. of wool, and we manufacture only a minute fraction of it. America produces 300,000,000 lbs. of wool, but they manufacture 480,000,000 lbs., or a difference of 60 per cent.; New Zealand produces 130,000,000 lbs. and manufactures a few million lbs. ; Great Britain produces 120,000,000 lbs., but manufactures 482,000,000 lbs., a difference of 300 per cent., and slightly above the figures for the United States of America; France produces 64,000,000 lbs. and manufactures 540,000,000 lbs., or a difference of 600 per cent.; and Germany produces about 10,000,000 lbs. worth of wool and manufactures 460,000,000 lbs., or a difference of 1,669 ner cent. What do these figures mean? Australia is the greatest wool-producing country in the world, and it is the country in which there is the least manufacture of wool. If we had a Government strong and determined enough to see that we were enabled to manufacture our wool, we should command the world to purchase our goods. I believe that no less than about 6 per cent. of the wool imported into Europe and America is produced in Australia. Owing to our splendid climate we produce a wool of a very fine and high quality, and we are not taking advantage of our circumstances.

All through the dreary war years manufacturers here have been asking by deputation and otherwise, for machinery, and this Government has a Minister of Repatriation, in the person of Senator Millen, who says that he does not believe in new industries. What kind of aman is that to be at the head of the Repatriation Department? Does he expect all the soldiers to go on the land? Any one of any experience knows that they will have to be helped in more ways than by means of land settlement. We could build up here the greatest woollen industry in the world. We have the finest natural advantages and the finest raw material; and yet we send all that raw material Home at double cost, in order that it may be returned to us manufactured. My own opinion is that the difference in wages would not equal the difference in the cost of this process if we add the various commissions and other charges that have to be paid.

Mr McWilliams:

– Freight and insurance would more than double the difference in the wages.

Dr MALONEY:

– I should like to quote the following. letter, written by Mr. H. L. Wilkinson, vice-president of the Australian Protectionist Association, and, I believe, the president of the Hawthorn branch of the National Federation : -

New Buildings and Imported Luxuries

To the Editor of the Age.

Sir, - One would imagine, from the new regu lations restricting building in the Commonwealth, that the present Federal Government was really desirous of conserving the wealth of the community for war and repatriation purposes. Without any qualms, and notwithstanding it was pledged to prohibit the importation of luxuries, the same Government allowed the following (amongst other) sums of money to be sent right out of Australia during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1918, to pay for articles we could very well do without, if we could not make them ourselves: - £2,115,227, for silks. £1,010,025, for velvets. £470,868, for ornaments for hats. £500,991, for silk and wool stockings. £326,920, for fancy goods. £394,512, for musical instruments. £157,360, for perfumery. £410,778, for jewellery. £1,039,605, for whisky. £174,880, for brandy, gin, and rum. £127,174, for cigars and cigarettes. £853,925, for fish. £245,809, for fruit. £285,099, for nuts and pickles.

To restrict the erection of a building costing £251 will possibly help to “win the war,” but what of the above figures?

That expresses, in short, concise terms, the opinions of a man outside, who believes we ought to manufacture here everything required by man.

I should now like to read a further quotation from the article I previously referred to. It is written by Mr.C. T. Stephenson, in the Australian Industrial Mining Standard, of the 5 th of this month ; and I have to thank Mr. Ambrose Pratt for honouring me by bringing it under my notice. It contains the following:

The wool grown in Australia in twelve months is valued at well over £26,000,000, and the wool produced during the five years following and including the year 1912, was sold for £130,541,000. Last year’s (1917-18) clip was sold for £42,903,000. Every part of the Commonwealth contributes something towards this total, although New South Wales, whose share is 50 per cent, of the whole, is the largest contributor; Victoria produces 17 per cent.; Queensland, 18 per cent.; South Australia, 0.4 per cent.; Western Australia, C per cent.; Tasmania, 2 per cent.; the Northern Territory, 0 per cent.

If we multiply the value of the rough wool by three, we reach its manufactured value. That, however, does not completely explain the position, because there have to be added freight, commissions, and so forth. If the wool were manufactured in Australia, we would get its full value, and the money would be circulating amongst ourselves. It is as true to-day as when Abraham Lincoln said it, that if we manufacture in our own country, we have the locomotive and also the money that is spent in making it; but if we send elsewhere for a locomotive, our money goes out of the country, possibly never to return ; and, when the locomotive is worn out, we have lost both it and the money we paid for it. If the value of last year’s clip was £48,000,000, we can roughly put its value in the manufactured state at £146,000,000. But to this there has also to be added the original value of £48,000,000 ; so that, by doing all the work in this country, we would create wealth to the amount of £200,000,000. “We all know that, in Australia, 100 years ago, 5 lbs. of wool from one sheep was considered phenomenal, so much so that Captain McArthur recorded such an event as historical. To-day, however, 40 lbs. has been taken off a single ram, showing what can be achieved by careful breeding.

We have to remember that sheep are going to be raised in most countries in the world. In nearly every country there are large and suitable areas ; and it is only right that we should seize the opportunity, and, by manufacturing our own goods, be prepared to undersell those other countries in the open market, as I think we’ could do.

Some years ago an interesting comparison between the profits of the wool industry in Australia, South America, and the United States of America was drawn up for the information of the American Congress. The report showed the re ceipts per head of the sheep to be as follows:- In the United States of America, 10.67s., operating expenses, 8.77s., leaving a profit of 1.9s. j in Australia, 9.16s., operating expenses 3.95s., leaving a profit of 5.21s.; and in South America, 8.75s. operating expenses, 4.77s., leaving a profit of 4s. Although the receipts per head in the United States of America are higher than those in Australia, the profit -in the United States of America is only 1.9s. per head as against 5.21s. per head in Australia, where, during normal years, receipts from other sources often pay working expenses, leaving little, if any, charge against the wool.

The Australian Woollen Mills Limited at Marrickville, near Sydney, specializes in the manufacture of serges. In fact it is the only mill in Australia employed exclusively in the manufacture of worsted material. About 2,000,000 lbs. of greasy wool per year is purchased for treatment in this factory, and from this material is produced 1,000,000 lbs. of tops. The tops are spun into thread at the rate of 4,000 lbs. of hosiery and knitting yarns per week, and 10,000 lbs. of yarn used chiefly for indigo serges, cloth for the Army, Navy, railway, and tramway services, the balance of tops being supplied to the local manufacturers for spinning into hosiery yarn. Over 1,000,000 yards of 18-oz. khaki serge have been supplied for the Army, and 83,000 yards have been supplied to the Navy. Honorable members can see how easily this business could be increased. Already there are thirty -seven factories, the principal of which are controlled by the following firms: - Australian Knitting Mills at Richmond, in Victoria, Foy and Gibson’s, at Collingwood, in Victoria; the Australian Woollen Mills Limited, and Vickers and Company, at Marrickville, in New South Wales, and the Colonial Combing, Spinning, and Weaving Company, New South Wales. In every case these firms require textile machinery for spinning. Some mills have had to close their doors because this Government is not asking the Imperial Government to put textile machinery on the priority list. One firm sent to the United States in order to get the machinery it requires, only to find that all machinery for combing wool is made in Europe. I am sure that the Motherland, to which we owe so much, would rather let her child have the machinery for making the products, which she m.ay have to purchase from us in the future, than supply the requirements of the British East Indies, Japan, South America, Russia, or the United States of America in this respect. Why will not Ministers make representations to the Home Government? Deputation after deputation has waited on them with the request that they should do so. We are exporting thousands of pounds worth of wool, yet our manufacturers are crying out for machinery that may give sufficient work to our returned soldiers, and our men and women who are now out of employment. The manufacturers are not asking for bounties; they are simply asking for shipping space to bring out the machinery of which they stand so much in need. What greater instance of the unfairness of the present situation is there than the fact that during 1915, 1916, and 1917 only £26,000 worth of this machinery was sent to Australia, whereas £624,922 worth was sent to the British East Indies? I have been courteously permitted to make use of some notes prepared for Mr. C. S. Nathan, of Perth, by Mr. A. D. Rankin, a highlyqualified accountant. I strongly advocate that they should be printed and circulated throughout Australia, because they would show the need for some different procedure on the p’art of the Government more clearly than could any speech, rio matter how brilliant or how eloquently delivered. In the course of his notes Mr. Rankin says -

It was recently announced in the press that the Commonwealth Government had made arrangements for the establishment in the near future of a complete plant for the manufacture of yarn from raw wool; but I have since been informed on excellent authority that the Government will not proceed with this scheme, but will rather concentrate upon the creation of facilities for the importation of the necessary machinery or yarns in order to assist private enterprise.

That is what I am asking them to do. I would rather extend our factories so that they could manufacture right from the first stage of the taking of the wool off the sheep’s back to the last stage of turning out the very finest woollen goods. One stock argument which has been used to my knowledge for over twenty-five years is that we cannot expect to have the patterns for the tweeds and so on that would require to be made. I have shown that 66 per cent, of the wool that goes to America and Great Britain comes from Australia. If these tweeds are made in Great Britain or America, surely we can bring to Australia the artisans, the clever designers, and those who are skilled in manipulating the weft and the warp of the loom, so that we may secure a variety of patterns. It is true that we could not do a great deal if we had only the market of the 5,000,000 people of Australia to supply, but surely we can look farther afield. No other country in the world can grow wool so cheaply. America can only make a profit of 1.9s. per sheep, whereas we in Australia can make a profit of 5.2s. per sheep. There is already a large Australian market at hand, and wo have only to introduce Australian tweeds to the notice of the people of Australia to find them quite content to wear them. It was only to-day that a gentleman stopped me in the street and asked me whether he could obtain a further quantity of hand-woven tweeds made by returned soldiers. He was .willing to buy £50 worth for the requirements of his own family and for some of ‘his neighhours, hut he could not be supplied. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) has decreed that this industry is to die. There is a difficulty in regard to supply of yarn. Our stocks of yarn come from Scotland, but yarn and machinery are lying on the wharfs in Great Britain awaiting the removal of the priority list to enable it to be shipped to Australia. Some yarn is coming here from Japan, and if that country could manufacture textile machinery we could purchase it and have it brought here without any trouble, but it is incomprehensible to me that the Government will not try to stir up the British authorities and get them to put this class of machinery on the priority list. There is no bigger infamy than the list of nonessentials which are being imported and occupying cargo space which could be better filled by textile machinery and the yarn of which I have spoken. I purpose using a few of the arguments set forth in Mr. Rankin’s notes regarding the woollen industry. These are extracts he has made from various articles in the Industrial and Mining Standard of 18th April, 1918-

Strong complaints against Commonwealth Government.

There are. twenty-two woollen mills established throughout the Commonwealth, the largest of which is that owned by Foy and Gibson.

Threatened shortage of the wool yarn used for knitting, sweaters, jerseys, socks, and other woollen articles.

Australian companies practically on a wool ration, as British Government had commandeered all wool tops, and out of total quantity, had allotted a certain proportion for Australian needs.

All woollen yarn used by Australian knitting mills imported from Scotland.

Only mill in Victoria making wool yarn is that of. Foy and Gibson, who spin portion of their requirements.

Australian knitting mills would have put in a spinning plant eighteen months ago if it could have obtained the assistance of the Commonwealth Government in obtaining the necessary machinery from England.

The Lincoln Knitting Mills, . Carlton, would also have made a start some considerable time ago, and, in their anxiety to make a start, had despatched a representative to America to secure the necessary machinery. . . . found that the combing machines were made nowhere but in Europe, and the rest of the plant would be useless without these machines. . . are importing wool yarn from Japan at a price substantially higher than the same yarn could be manufactured here in Australia.

Has orders for tens of thousands of pounds of work, which it is unable to execute, owing to shortage of the necessary raw material, which raw material it could manufacture on the spot if the necessary machinery were obtainable.

What Australia is doing with the Wool Clip. - Sixty-five per cent, of the wool imported into Europe and North America is grown in Australia and New Zealand.

The value of the Australian wool clip, representing the value of the wool as it came from the sheep’s backs, and the amount that Australia receives for the wool, for most of the clip was shipped away in the raw state, only 4 per cent, being retained to be manufactured into clothing by Australian factories, was £26,899,000.

If the whole of the clip could have been dealt with . in our own factories, the factoryprice of the woollens produced would have been about £80,697,000.

The value of woollen piece goods imported into Australia is; per annum, £3,200,000.

And, in addition, there is a large quantity of hosiery and knitted goods that contain a certain proportion of wool.

I hope that we shall blazon the word’ “ Australia “ throughout the length and breadth of our continent, so that every man will be proud to wear clothing of Australian manufacture,- and we shall look with kindly pity upon those who are so unpatriotic as to refuse to buy Australian goods. The report continues -

In one year Australian wool to the value of £523,827 is made up into goods valued, at factory price, £1,500)000, also some. £548,000 worth of wool is made into “ tops “ per year and sold out of the country for £1,204,000.

The difficulty of Australian manufacturers has been greatly enhanced by the war conditions; manufacturers who had been in the habit of importing yarn for manufacture of underwear, &c, find their supplies cut off or limited, while those who desire to import extra machinery to meet the extra demand created by the difficulty of importing the usual quantity of finished material are unable to fill their wants.

I express my gratitude to Messrs. Foy and Gibson for the assistance they have given those of our returned soldiers who are engaged in hand weaving. They promised to supply them with yarn. I hope the Government will cease sending the rubbish they have recently supplied. I am sorry to describe in that way anything of Government .manufacture; but while the yarn furnished by the Government is not shoddy - if by shoddy we mean yarn consisting of other than wool - it. is so short in texture that it is worse than shoddy. This summary continues -

Messrs. Foy and Gibson’s Experience as Textile MACHINERY Builders.

Their difficulties . . . have centred round the shortage of machinery and the difficulty of securing shipments of plant from England . . . so great that they have started out to manufacture machines for their own requirements . . . excellent results obtained . . . high . . . skill of Australian mechanics. . . . Object of all this effort is to take the wool as it comes from the sheep’s back and transform it into a suitable covering for the human body.

The plant installed by Messrs. Foy and Gibson receives 5,000 bales of wool per year and transforms this raw material into - Woollen and worsted yarns, 1,260,000 lbs.; blankets and rugs, 65,000 only; flannels, serges, and tweeds, 750,000 yards; socks and stockings, 1,250,000 pairs; knitted garments, 800,000 only. Number of hands employed, 800. Horse-power required, 2,000.

Note. - The war conditions have evidently created a large increase in the demand, for the value of the yarn imported now is four times as great as it was five years ago.

If we only manufactured all our own requirements in woollens, employment would be found for 12,000 people, earning wages considerably over £1,000,000, while, if we manufactured the whole of the Australian wool clip into cloth, &c, in Australia, the work would employ 184,000 Australian people, whose wages would amount to about £16,000,000 per annum.

Dr MALONEY:

– I do. There is no. doubt as to the skill of Australian mechanics. A man with employment experience in Germany, France, America, and Australia told me that he had never had more intelligent workers than the women who were employed by him here. When the Lyne Tariff was under consideration, I visited practically every factory in Melbourne, and at nearly every one of them I heard the same story of the skill of the Australian worker. The report proceeds -

The experience of the factories already in existence regarding the skilfulness of the Australian operatives, the technical ability of the local mechanics, the high quality of the goods produced, lead us to the conclusion that a great development of the wool industry of Australia merely awaits the creation of the necessary machinery for taking the wool clip as it leaves, the shearing shed and transforms it into wearing apparel.

The difficulty - arising from the scarcity of yarn - the raw material of the knitting trade.

As a result, the organization of some of these factories has already undergone serious dislocation, and complete dismemberment is threatened.

The Australian manufacturer wishing to place orders for yarn on the British spinner, must secure the support of the British Government, as the British spinner will not accept orders without a guarantee that delivery will be permitted.

The alternative is to manufacture larger supplies here in Australia, and for some time efforts have been made to secure the necessary plant . . but without success … A notification dated 27th March, 1918, received to the effect that the High Commissioner “ had the matter in hand.”

In the meantime, Canada and America are both installing large plants for the manufacture of woollens, and it is presumed they are obtaining machinery from England, as that is the only source of supply for the best designs.

Japan is receiving grants of machinery so far in excess of her own requirements that she offers to sell us the manufactured yarn for 12s. 6d. per lb. that we could manufacture ourselves if we had the plant and sell at 6s. per lb.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– They must have done well out of the Red Cross yarn.

Dr MALONEY:

– They did well out of the machinery which the British Government allowed to be sent to Japan, but refused to allow to be sent to Australia -

Japan is obtaining facilities that are not available to Australia, and the present circumstances afford her people opportunities of establishing their industry in the position that will make it unassailable at the termination of the war. The increase in the export of yarn from Japan during the period of the war has been very great.

If it is desired to manufacture our requirement in Australia, two or three alternative methods present themselves.

We can secure the necessary plant for the complete processes of manufacturing yarn from from the crude wool.

We may save most . of the machinery required for these processes if the wool tops that we are exporting can be made available for use in Australia, and the necessary but comparatively simple spinning plant obtained abroad. . . making in Australia the machinery required for the spinning processes. This scheme could be carried out only with the assistance of the firms who are already spinning in Australia, and who have the necessary designs of spinning frames.

Of these three alternatives, the importation of spinning plants, alternative the first seems to afford the best prospect of quick relief. This plant is manufactured in countries other than. Great Britain, and Australian needs at present would be the merest trifle compared to the manufacturing strength of the producers.

The attractiveness of the scheme that provides for our own production of yarn is not dependent on the sentiment that attaches to local industry, thus - If top-making and spinning plants were made available for the use of our knitting mills, the supply of yarn for their hosiery departments would only cost 6s. per lb.

Ask any of the women, who even now are knitting for the soldiers at the Front, what they have to pay for the worsted used by them, and they will complain of the high price and the inferior quality nf most of it -

If the spinning plants only were made available, and the tops were purchased from the Australian top manufacturers, the yarn would be available for the use of the hosiery department at 7s. per lb.

A low estimate for the same material would be Os.- Od. in London, or lis. 8d. landed in Australia.

It is estimated that the yarn made in Australia saves 100 per cent, on the imported price, 20 per cent, of which is absorbed in freight, insurance, and war risk. Since the war, the cost of yarn in England has increased 200 per cent., and yarn that cost 4s. per lb. before the war ia now costing lis. 3d. per lb.

The tragedy of the circumstances . . . lies in the fact that whereas Australia is losing the present unexampled opportunity for establishing the industry, other countries are putting down plant, purchasing our sheep, and making all arrangements to strengthen their position as competitors.

This is no ordinary opportunity; this industry is not one of hundreds of others that can be developed in other countries equally as well as in this - it is our inheritance, an industry that belongs peculiarly to Australia, and can be had for the taking.

These facts will appeal to the calm reader, and from a perusal of them it will be seen that we are up against one of the biggest propositions that has ever confronted Australia. We have been concerned lately with three gigantic problems. First amongst these was the war which was forced upon us. Next comes the question of water conservation to provide for the settlement of not only returned soldiers, but every son of Australia who wishes to go on the land.

I am, perhaps, the only member of this House who voted as a member of the Victorian State Parliament for the construction of a railway line to Mildura, and I have a keen recollection of the troubles experienced by the early settlers there. The State Government handed over for £1 per acre splendid land running right up to the low-water mark of the River Murray, and it was sold for £20 per acre and more to settlers, some of whom were least likely to make a success of it. The captain, chief engineer, and second engineer of an immigrant ship, of which I was the medical officer, took up land at Mildura. After many years, the captain made a good living out of his 20 acres, and the chief engineer, after holding his 40 acres for some years and improving it, was able to let it at a rental of £400 per annum. If the Murray were properly bar raged - if that immense body of water were conserved and distributed, the settlements at Mildura and Renmark could be multiplied one hundredfold. I travelled down the Murray River to Mildura by boat in flood time in order to see the waste of water. If the waters were collected and utilized we could increase the settlement along the Murray enormously.

Mr Glynn:

– That work is in hand.

Dr MALONEY:

– I know that. Australia is supposed to be a dry country, but, so far as scientists know, it has the largest artesian and sub-artesian basins in the world, and they are comparatively untouched. They are mostly in Queensland, where the history of boring is really a romance of what can be done with our land. History stretching back into the dim ages shows that land which is most arid becomes most fertile when the lifegiving power of water is applied to it. In Egypt one can see on the one side fertility and teeming life, and on the other side, where the water does not reach, nothing but death and desolation. We have only embroidered the edge of our continent with cities, civilization, and cultivation. We shall have to extend development into the great interior of Australia.

The next important question is that of employment. We have poured out hundreds of millions of pounds through the cursed war, for the sacred cause of liberty. At all events, we should be prepared to spend an amount equal to one quarter of the war expenditure in keeping our people employed, in giving them a chance of life, and in guaranteeing comfort to the aged. The provision of employment will have to become the main policy ;>f any Government that occupies office in this Parliament. There is no scintilla or tinge of party about this question. The country in which the people are most happily employed is the happiest country, regardless of what flag flies over it, just as the laws that are best administered are the best laws for the community that must obey them. I wish to urge, with all the power I possess, that if unemployment on a large scale takes place in this country following upon a disturbance of credit, we shall have great trouble. The question of credit is only to a slight extent less in importance than the other great questions I have referred to. What’ has brought about the trouble which the Associated Banks are having at the present time? I speak as an ex-bank clerk, with five years’ experience of the business. Thank God, I got out of it. The smell of the filth of some of the Commonwealth notes recently brought back to my mind the days when I used to cancel old notes in the bank in which I served my apprenticeship. I know that when a message is sent forth from the head office of a bank, “ Draw in your money,” no order from a general to his soldiers is more literally and implicitly obeyed. There is no swerving from it; assistance even to justifiable enterprises is limited. What has been ‘ one of the primary cause3 of the curtailment of credit? I blame the system of floating the first war loan at 4A per cent, interest free of taxation, and I thank Sir John Grice, the Chairman of Directors of the National Bank - which, by reason of its amalgamation with the old Colonial Bank, has now become one of the three strongest banks in Australia - for having publicly said that a man who invested large amounts in those loans would receive a return on his money equal to 7 per cent, from an ordinary business investment. That advantage will not be reaped by those who invested small sums of money in the war loan. How are we to get out of that difficulty? By no thought of my brain, or word of my lips, would I advocate the breaking of any agreement, but £140,000,000 has been withdrawn from the ordinary commercial and business circles of the country, and the interest from it is removed from the arena of taxable wealth. Napoleon, in his famous Code, divided property into two classes - that which was movable, and that which was immovable. Of Australia’s movable or fluid capital, £140,000,000 is locked up in war loans. I make this suggestion to the Treasurer with no desire to reap a party advantage. When our financial matters are a little smoothed down, when we have reached the limit of our war loan flotations, and we can assess the total amount involved, the Government might appeal to the generosity and patriotism of those who invested large amounts in these loans at 4-J per cent, free of taxation, that on the 1st January, or any subsequent date, all holders of loan stock to the value of £30,000 and upwards should apply to have their bonds converted into interest-bearing bonds, which would be subject to taxation. Those who did not respond to that invitation should be paid in full in Commonwealth bank notes, with interest uptodate. To those who might complain that they desired the tax-free loans to run their full course, tie Government could say, “ We ask of your generosity and patriotism that you shall accept such payment in the interests of the general welfare of the community.” It would not be well to call in the whole of t_; stock in that way; but if, say, £10,000,000 worth of stock were bought up in this way, that money would not be placed in the vest pockets of the stock holders; they would naturally deposit it in the various banks through which it . would go into general circulation. Those institutions would then be able to open up their credits, and to advance on sound security, such as land for building, or manufactures, stock, and produce. After the lapse of six or twelve months a further amount of war loan stock could be called in, so that in the course of a year or two the whole of the tax-free loans - except small amounts up to £1,000, which would not count in this proposition - would be re-invested in interestbearing and taxable bonds. That would assist the various associated banks, and as money, like water, must find its level, they would advance more freely to the general community.

Mr Poynton:

– Nearly all of the taxfree loans will mature in about six years.

Dr MALONEY:

– I wish to avoid a possible debacle afterwards. Hyndman, the great leader of Socialistic thought in the United Kingdom, in a book, which is almost a classic in the Red Book series, clearly shows that the system of banking and finance was mostly responsible for the Nineteenth Century commercial crises.

Such: crises occurred in nearly every European country in cycles of about eleven years, and it is stated that Lord Rothschild, at the time of the crash of Baring Brothers, a firm in which Britishers took great pride, because it was an English firm which had stood up against the great Rothschilds, when finally disposing of the credit of that company, was alive only to the interests of those who sat at the table with him, and was absolutely callous to the interests of the shareholders whose credit and money he was voting away.

I wish to say a few words as to how economy can be effected. Let the Government take the people into their confidence. Let them ask the people, by a referendum, whether we shall have seven vice-regal representatives, seven Government Houses, seven Supreme Court Benches, six Agents-General, and a High Commissioner, and seven different agency houses in London, varying in size and expense from the £1,000,000 building in the Strand to the relatively humble offices occupied by the Agent-General of Tasmania. If our law were simplified on the Danish system, there would not be so much frill about the horse-hair divinities that sit upon the Bench. Economy could be effected in the administration of the Federal Capital Territory, and in the construction of Naval Bases. I have known from 30 feet to 40 feet of a mole to be washed away in a single night; loaf sugar could not have melted more rapidly. Yet the engineers were throwing in load after load of material that dissolved away, discolouring the water so that it resembled weak coffee. They might as well have been throwing sovereigns into the sea.

A super-dreadnought under present naval conditions is much like the old armoured knight of some centuries back, who, if he fell from his horse, required the services of two or three men to mount him again. Only one or two of the nations are rich enough to build these costly weapons of warfare. The defence of Australia must be intrusted to the aeroplane and the submarine. A superbattlecruiser or a super-battle-ship costs with its equipment about £4,000,000, and carries many valuable lives. For that sum we could get 10,000 aeroplanes; and if we standardized our aeroplanes, with a factory in each of the six States, they would cost only about £250 each. When an aeroplane is destroyed, it means the loss of two lives only; but it may sink a leviathan man-of-war costing £4,000,000, and carrying many men. One hundred and twenty stations are all that would- be needed for the defence of Australia, and six men would serve for each station, including mechanics and flyers, in addition to the. State centres. We can speak plainly now on these subjects, without fear of helping the enemy. We know that our mighty fleets were frequently bottled in for fear of the grey tin fish, as they were called. It was only by the magnificent energy and constant watchfulness of those serving on board them that our ships were able to go into the lone North Sea. When the battle of Jutland comes to be written, our Navy will receive more credit than it has yet received. At the beginning of the war I feared that it would be decimated. I did not dream that it was possible to protect it so Well r and to keep it afloat in the most dangerous sea in the world, through all the bitter winter, days and nights. If we decide to defend Australia with submarines acting in conjunction with aeroplanes, we may need different Bases from those that are now being carried out. Our boys have a temperament which makes them keen flyers, and their deeds in this war have proved their ability as flyers. Major Harrison spoke to me of the quickness with which the Australian youth learns to fly. T would say to Ministers, “ Keep a stern control upon the expenditure on the Naval Bases, and wait until we can get the best expert evidence on the subject of defence.” I think that with the aeroplane and the submersible, we should be able to defend ourselves in the future.

I hope that there will be a great increase of population here before long. Every soldier who has fought alongside an Australian - Digger, Aussie, or Anzac, they are all terms of honour - will be desirous of getting to a country which can pay its soldiers 6s. a day, and where the opportunities are so much greater than they are anywhere else.. I should like it to be possible for Australia to declare at the Peace table that in future every person must be granted the right to leave his country, if he wishes to do so. I hope that the middle and southern Germans, and even the workers of Prussia - because I do not blame them for what their accursed leaders have done - will be able to emigrate from their country in future, if they wish to do so.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon. J. M. Chanter) . - Before suspending the sitting, I wish it to be understood that I am allowing on the amendment a general discussion of the Budget statement, so that there shall be no repetition later.

Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– Whenever I have spoken on the Estimates during the last twelve years I have always prefaced my remarks by saying that I think we are not’ doing the business of the country properly, and not conducting the affairs of Parliament as they should be, in leaving the consideration of the whole of the expenditure of the year to the dying days of the session, when, we may fairly say, half the members have to absent themselves in order to get home by Christmas. It is regrettable that the Budget has to be discussed under present conditions. Personally, it makes no difference to me, but I think it is always better if these matters can !be dealt with on their merits, rather than that the Government should regard any adverse criticism as amounting to a motion of censure, though, perhaps, under our constitutional procedure, it is difficult to see how the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) could have adopted any other course. I repeat, however, that personally this does not make the slightest difference to my vote. If the question whether the Estimates should be reconsidered by the Government with a view to considerable retrenchment, had been discussed on its merits, I should have voted precisely as I intend to vote now. My somewhat long parliamentary experience has convinced me that it is the duty of a member to do what he thinks is right on the particular occasion as it arises, and leave ultimate consequencies to take care of themselves.

There is no doubt that the expenditure of this country has grown to an extent which was never anticipated when Federation was commenced; and I am quite convinced that there is a unanimous feeling throughout the constituencies to-day that there must be a reduction. If we require any examples, I think that the Nationalist party has two very good ones. The fact that the selected candidate of the National party and the Government was defeated by both candidates at the Swan election comes as an intimation that the people of Western Australia desire some change in the method of conducting the business of the country; and the recent figures from Corangamite, I say quite frankly, I regard as the handwriting on the wall. To me the meaning is that the people of Australia are rejecting the idea that the declaration that a man is either Nationalist or Labour is sufficient to return him to Parliament, and the electors of Corangamite will decisively say that there are other things beside the mere shibboleth of party. The system of election which we have just introduced, however fatal it may be to some members of the House - and I think it will be fateful to a good number - is a proper indication of the duty we owe to the electors of Australia to give them as wide a choice as possible of those svho shall represent them.

As to the general expenditure, let us take the position of the Federation today. For many years after the inception of Federation there was a rule - an unwritten law it is true, but one which stood - that the Federal Government should as far as possible, obtain their revenue from indirect taxation, and that certain avenues of taxation should be left to the States. But what have we done ? Although we have not nearly reached the taxation limit which this Parliament will have to impose on the people of Australia, we have invaded every avenue of taxation that was left to the States. We have imposed an income tax and a superincome tax, a land tax and a super-land tax, an entertainments tax, and probate and real estate duties. It is difficult to conceive any avenue of taxation that is now left as formerly to the States.

I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) that the fact that we omitted from State and Federal . taxation money invested in our loans will have a very serious effect on State finances in the very near future.

I must confess that I never heard the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) put up so weak a case as he did in reply to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman). The honorable gentleman said - and he not unnaturally took some credit for it - that he had reduced by £2,000,000 the Estimates presented to him ; but what of that ? Every Treasurer, either State or Federal, has had to very materially reduce the estimates of expenditure as presented by the Departments, and nobody knows that better than the Departments when they set out to prepare them.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– They leave room for reductions.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Of course they leaveroom for reductions. The heads of Departments know there is no Treasurer who can possibly give them the money they would like, and, therefore, they add a few millions in the sure and certain knowledge that a considerable proportion will be struck off, and in the hope that some of the excess will be allowed to remain. There is no worse possible guide that Parliament could take in determining the annual expenditure of the Departments than the Departments themselves.

Mr Jowett:

– Does the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Webster) say that?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I guarantee that if the Postmaster-General states his view he will tell us that he has had very materially to reduce some of the estimates presented by his officers to him.

Mr Webster:

– In some cases.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It has to be done. There is another statement by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) worthy of attention. I interjected when he made it that I had heard the same statement made by every Treasurer, either State or Federal, in discussing and defending his Estimates. The honorable gentleman told us that it would not be possible to take £10,000 off these Esti mates. I do not think there is an honorable member in the House who will agree with that statement. I shall presently quote some figures showing how expenditure has increased; but the House cannot, and, I am sure, will not, accept the statement that, in a Budget like this, providing for such an enormous expenditure, it would not be possible to retrench to the extent of £10,000. As the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Chapman) said, we could start with the Federal police, and save very nearly that amount; and when that item comes before us it is my intention to move that it be eliminated. I have not heard one reason given yet why there should be a Federal police service. We know that it was proposed as the result of a very regrettable electioneering incident. The price is too heavy for the people of Australia to pay, when they are asked to contribute £6,000 or £7,000 a year for a staff, the value of whose services no one has been able to recognise in the faintest degree.

If we look over the Departments for the lastfive years we see that every one has shown a very considerable expenditure. We remember when the Prime Minister’s Department was created, and how some of us opposed its creation, believing it to be unnecessary. The argument then was that the Prime Minister’s Department would take over one or two smaller branches, such as Audit, the Public Service Commissioner, and the High Commissioner’s Office, and that the object was to provide the Prime Minister with an office in which he could carry out his great and important work, with, at least, a secretary of his own. The cost of this Department in 1912-13 was £57,559, and this increased to £155,797 in 1916-17, just multiplying itself by three. In 1917-18 the expenditure had reached £222,000, and for this year it is £187,000. Included in that is the High Commissioner’s Office, which costs over £30,000 a year.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What for?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That is exactly the question which the people of Australia are asking. As one who always sat in opposition to Mr. Fisher, I looked on him, not as a brilliant man, but as a sound, common-sense, practical man.

Dr Maloney:

– And honest.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– And honest. That was the opinion formed of him, I think, by every one who sat in opposition to him for so many years. But here is the absurdity of the position: If Mr. Fisher had not gone Home as High Commissioner, the great probability is that he would have gone, as Prime Minister, to do the very work which it is said he is unable to carry out now. That is a fact which it is impossible for us to deny or to disguise. I say, deliberately, that if Mr. Fisher is not competent or able to carry out this work, the sooner he is returned to Australia the better.

Mr Boyd:

– He has a five years’ appointment.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Then it would be better to make some arrangement by which he may be practically compensated for loss of office, because we have come to the point that whenever anything important happens in England, we feel it necessary to send one, two, or three Ministers to perform the necessary work. I was one who opposed the increase which was made in the salary of the late Right Honorable Sir George Reid as High Commissioner. It will be remembered that an increase of £2,000 a year was given to that officer, on the distinct understanding that he should not only carry out the ambassadorial functions of the office, but should also make his office the business centre for Australia - that he should, in consultation with the AgentsGeneral, provide a centre in which the affairs of Australia should be conducted, not by the High Commissioner himself, but by the costly and valuable staff with which he is provided. What do we hear on all hands ? Several gentlemen who have returned to Australia have told me that, so far as they have been able to see, the High Commissioner has been practically superseded, that military officers have taken possession of his office, and that the Ministers who are at present in London are doing Australia’s work there. For all practical purposes, the High Commissioner evidently does not exist. Surely that state of affairs, is wrong. Surely Australia cannot afford to pay £5,000 a year to an officer whose duties have been practically taken over by other persons.

Mr Jowett:

– What does the honorable member suggest in regard to the High Commissioner ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– He should be called upon to do the work which he was sent to England to do. I have no desire to detract from the work that is being done by the Ministers who have taken charge of the trading transactions in London ; but I think that the High Commissioner and his large staff ought to be in a better position to attend to these matters than are Ministers visiting England from time to time.

Mr Boyd:

– Do not forget that the Minr isters went to England in connexion with the war and peace business, and not in connexion with trading matters.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Before our Ministers went away from Australia it was stated that some of the matters they would attend to, and which they would be called upon to deal with, were those relating to the sale of our wheat and minerals and kindred products of Australia. But it was to attend to those very duties that Australia created the position of High Commissioner, for whom we have erected an enormous and costly building, and provided a very costly staff. Now we find that the High Commissioner has failed to fulfil the functions he was appointed to deal with, namely, to represent Australia in the political and ambassadorial section, and to establish an office in which the whole of Australia’s trading and commercial relations with Great Britain would be carried on.

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

– Would the honorable member give the High Commissioner power to commit the Commonwealth to expenditure in Great Britain?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If we cannot trust Australia’s highest official to carry out the work which he was sent to London to do, the quicker the office is abolished the better. But I would be prepared to give the High Commissioner more extensive powers. When Ministers go from Australia to Great Britain, it is quite impossible to supply them with a printed list of duties to perform. It is necessary to give them an almost completely free hand. If the High Commissioner had any seriously important business to attend to, especially anything affecting a matter of policy, he would not commit Australia without first communicating directly with the Prime Minister here.

While the expenditure in the AttorneyGeneral’s Department was £56,917 in 1912-13, it amounted to £94,925 in 1916- 17. In the Department of Home Affairs, the expenditure was £66,517 in 1912-13; in 1915-16 it was £484,274, an increase of £417,757. The expenditure in the External Affairs Department, afterwards included in the Works and Railways Department, was £539,722 in 1912-13 ; in 1915-16 it was £868,660, an increase of £346,942. In all the Departments there has been a greater or less increase continuing year after year, which we have permitted, and for which we must accept the responsibility; but the manner in which we have deliberately agreed to discuss the annual expenditure as contained in the Estimates makes it practically impossible for any retrenchment to be effected during the passage of those Estimates through Committee. What chance has any honorable member to discuss the matters dealt with after sitting in the Chamber for twelve, fourteen, or sixteen hours at a stretch, and, perhaps, at 2 o’clock, 3 o’clock, 4 o’clock, or 5 o’clock in the morning, when we are practically bludgeoned into accepting the Estimates by physical disability to give them the consideration they deserve? No business concern would ever dream of conducting its operations on the lines followed by this Parliament ever since its inception. As far as I can see we are to have two all-night sittings upon these Estimates, whereas usually they are bludgeoned through at one all-night sit ting, so that on this occasion we may have a better chance of discussing them.

Another item of expenditure which keeps growing year by year is incurred in connexion with our administration of the Northern Territory, which is most unsatisfactory. While the revenue of the Territory is only £102,980,, the expendi ture is £699,400, showing a loss of £596,420. These figures include interest and redemptions amounting to £339,819,. and the startling item of £415,000 for “ Miscellaneous.” Our expenditure on the Northern Territory is increasing, but the population, which was 3,301 in 1911, when we took over the Territory, has increased to only 3,554. We are spending nearly £700,000 annually on 3,554 people. The accumulated deficit on the Northern Territory since 1911 has amounted to £1,576,000. The total cost of the Territory to the Commonwealth since it was taken over is £6,324,000. Another Territory, Papua, has a revenue of £63,568, with an expenditure of £83,740, the loss being over £20,000.

I find it exceedingly difficult to get figures relating to the Customs Department, because they vary so materially. The fluctuations of the commercial, arrangement made in connexion with sugar render it almost impossible to get at anything like a correct estimate of the growth of expenditure in this Department Tor the last four or five years.

I have omitted war expenditure in all the items which I have mentioned. I am dealing with the general expenditure only, but there are some items which may be called war expenditure in connexion with the Treasury Department. In this Department the expenditure was £762,000 in 1917-18. This year the proposed expenditure is £994,000. For the Shipping and Mail Service to the Pacific it is proposed to pay a subsidy of £32,850 per annum, an increase of £10,000 on the amount previously paid. The giving of this subsidy is one of the most idiotic arrangements into which any sane Parliament could enter. It has been going on for many years, but while we have subsidized vessels to trade with the Pacific Islands, we have imposed such a Customs Tariff on the produce of those islands that it has been impossible for them to trade with us. As a matter of fact, we have absolutely forced the trade of the Pacific away from us.

Mr Corser:

– Does the honorable member wish to have the black-grown produce of those islands brought to Australia free of duty?

Mr mcwilliams:

– No. The honorable member has put his finger on one of the difficulties, but it should be possible to enter into some arrangement by which we can trade with the islands without the black-grown produce coming into Australia and competing unfairly with the white-grown produce of Australia. Ifit is not possible to trade with the islands we ought not to spend £32,000 on subsidizing vessels to visit them, because the value of the goods that we send to them from Australia is certainly not commensurate with that expenditure on our part.

No doubt the indebtedness of Australia is a very serious problem. It may be news to some honorable members to learn that our indebtednessper head in 1916-17 was considerably greater than the indebtedness per head in Great Britain. The debt of Great Britain in that year was £4,064,000,000, or £80 per head of the population.

Mr Mathews:

– Great Britain has borrowed more than that during the war.

Mr Mcwilliams:

-I got these figures from the Statistician to-day. The Commonwealth and State indebtedness of Australia was in that year, roughly, £108 per head of the population.

Mr McGrath:

– As against that, we have many assets in the shape of railways, and so forth.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The value of the railway asset is to be determined by its earnings over and above the interest paid on cost of construction, maintenance, and working expenses. Put to that test, it will be found that the Australian railway asset is not what some of us imagined it was before we began to look into the figures.

Mr Corser:

– What about the millions of acres of Crown lands? Are they not an asset?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Certainly they are. I am not trying, however, to draw up a balance-sheet; I am simply giving the Committee the result of many hours of study, and I think these figures will be of interest. The public debt of Canada last year was a little more than £21 10s. per head of the population, as against our indebtedness of £108 per head.

Mr Higgs:

– That seems to show that we did more in the war than Canada did.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Canada dealt with the war on a very different basis from that adopted by us. She made, roughly speaking, from £125,000,000 to £150,000,000 worth of munitions for Great Britain.

Mr Mathews:

– And she made her profit on that undertaking.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– My only regret is that we did not turn out munitions to the same extent and also make a profit on the enterprise. Canada manufactured munitions-

Mr Mathews:

– And saved her people.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Exactly. Great Britain was buying munitions from J apan and the United States of America, and surely it was well that she should obtain supplies as far as possible from one of the Dominions rather than from foreign countries. In addition to supplying munitions direct to the British Government, she carried out portion of the contract which the United States of America had entered into with the Home authorities; and the amount received in respect of that work does not appear in the details of her direct transactions with the Old Country. She also lent Great Britain £100,000,000. In other words, she manufactured munitions of the value of from £125,000,000 to £150,000,000, and allowed most of the money due in respect of those munitions to remain on loan to Great Britain.

Mr Mathews:

– She allowed Great Britain to support the Army that she sent to theFront, while Australia paid for the support of her own men. Why does hot the honorable member state that side of the question ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member’s interjection compels me to say that, so far, we have not paid the Imperial Government very much of what is due to it in respect of the maintenance of our Forces overseas.

Mr McGrath:

– But we owe the money all the same.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Undoubtedly.

Mr Boyd:

– Our policy appears to be to borrow, boom, and bust.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– To parody Tennyson’s beautiful lines, it may be said of the policy of Australia that -

Ti s better to have boomed and bust

Than never to have boomed at all.

Before we shall have cleaned up the war our war indebtedness alone will amount to about £300,000,000, which will mean a permanent interest debt of £15,000,000 per annum for which we shall have no return, and to provide for the payment of which the people of Australia must be taxed.

In regard to many of the problems that confront us, some of us will have to start anew. Australia for the first time has entered the troublesome sea of national politics. Prior to the outbreak of the war our national life had been the most placid and successful ever enjoyed by any country. The whole of this magnificent continent had been handed over to us as a gift. All that we had to do was to people it and to govern it in our own way. Ours was a wonderfully rich heritage, and we had merely to tax ourselves to provide for our own conveniences, emergencies and pleasures. We are now face to face with an entirely new aspect. We have not only a war debt of £300,000,000, but we shall have for many years to come a permanent debt in the shape of the provision to be made for war pensions and the maintenance of those who have suffered in fighting for our protection. No matter how strong the demand for economy may be, we must never unduly retrench in regard to the treatment of those who went overseas to fight for Australia and to preserve our liberty. When our men went away we promised them that we should care for them on their return. It is up to us to keep that promise, and I hope that it will be fully observed.

A rather serious feature of the present situation is that production in Australia has not increased as some of us would like it to have done. There are not many lines in respect of which Australia can compete with the outside world. I would ask the representatives of metropolitan districts to examine the return showing what the agricultural and pastoral interests have done for Australia during this war. But for our great exports of wool, wheat, minerals, and other primary products, the rate of exchange which has been and still is disastrously heavy against Australia would have been very much higher than it is to-day. The export of Australian produce in 1915-16 - the last financial year in respect of which the complete figures are obtainable-was of the value of £67,387,000, and our export of minerals was valued at £23,000,000. Our pastoral, agricultural, and mineral exports accounted for £90,000,000 out of a total export value of £95,000,000.

Australia is beginning to recognise more and more what we owe to the great pastoral industry. I hope I may be wrong, but my reading leads me to the conclusion that the wheat export trade of Australia after the war will not be a very important and flourishing industry. The production of meat and wool, however, will be for many years a constantly expanding industry. I have never been able to understand why in some quarters hostility should be displayed towards the man who goes into the interior and risks every penny he has in the effort to put our waste lands to productive uses. Practically only a small portion of Australia has been alienated. The greater part of the pastoral areas of Queensland, Western Australia, and New South Wales still belong to the Crown, and are a constant source of revenue.

Turning to our stock returns, it is unsatisfactory to find that the number of sheep per head in Australia from 1860 to 1916 has been falling away to a very disastrous extent. In 1860 we had 21½ sheep per head of the population, and the maximum was reached in 1890, when we had 31½ sheep per head. Ever since then there has been a steady falling off, and in 1916 we had only 153/4 sheep per head. The cattle industry of Australia must grow in importance, because year after year the country available for the raising of cattle is becoming less and less. For instance, the United States of

America, which a few years ago was the greatest exporter of beef, is to-day growing scarcely enough beef for its own people. South America and Australia must be the principal sources from which Great Britain and the other countries of Europe will draw their meat supplies more and more as the years go by. The number of cattle in Australia in 1860 per head of population was 3.45, and in 1915, 2.16. A matter that requires serious consideration by this Parliament, and by those interested in the pastoral industry, is the fact that Argentine, with practically only half the area of Australia, carries 21,000,000 more sheep, and nearly one-third more cattle, and the population of that country has increased from 3,900,000 in 1895, to 7,880,000 in 1914. The increase in the population of Australia has been comparatively small.

There is another serious aspect of the social conditions in this country, which, if it does not receive early attention in the near future, will land us in great difficulties. According to Knibbs’ latest labour and industrial bulletin, taking 1911 as a basis, with a mean of 1,000, and allowing for unemployment, the purchasing power of the sovereign had decreased to 923 in 1915, showing that, although wages haverisen materially since 1911, the position of the wage-earner is considerably worse than it was then. Turning now to the relative productiveness of labour, we find that the standard was highest in 1909; but from a mean of 1,000 in 1911, productiveness had decreased to 925 in 1915. These two facts demand serious attention : Although the wages paid to the labourer have increased materially, he is worse off to-day than he was, and his effective productiveness has decreased. Whether that is the result of the go-slow policy or of some other influence which we have not been able to discover, it is a fact of grave significance that the productiveness of labour should have decreased by nearly one-tenth since 1911.

Mr Poynton:

– Yet there is more money in the Savings Bank per head of population than ever before.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That is absolutely correct. More money has been afloat in the Commonwealth during the last four years than at any time in its history. Why? Because we have been spending from £100,000 to £300,000 per week of soldiers’ money, which had been borrowed.

Mr Falkiner:

– And paper money.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The issue of paper money has reached the absolute limit of safety.

Mr J H Catts:

– We were told that the present Government was absolutely safe in finance.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– For many years I have tried to form, to the best of my ability, my own opinions, and I take the responsibility for them. There can be no doubt that it has been the abnormal issue of paper money which has had the effect of decreasing the value of productiveness in Australia and increasing the price of living. There is no royal road in these matters. France, Great Britain, and four or five States of the American Union, when they started the lavish creation of paper money, produced cheap money. And as money becomes cheaper, the articles it buys become dearer. That is very largely the reason why the price of living has continued to increase in Australia. There have been other reasons, I admit, including the extraordinarily high freights on goods coming to Australia, and a considerable amount of profiteering in internal trade. But, apart from those facts, Australia is just ploughing the same furrow as has been ploughed by every country in the world which has issued paper money to any considerable extent. In the very kindergarten of politics we learn what resulted in France, Great Britain, and some of the American States through the undue use of paper money. It will not be in the best interests of the Commonwealth to issue one more bank-note at the present time, because the effects which I have just related regarding the high cost of living and the decreased productiveness of labour are largely due to the abnormal extent to which the paper money has been issued. In that respect we have long ago exceeded the limit to which anybody ever supposed if would be necessary for us to go.

Mr Corser:

– Is not the issue of paper money limited?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member knows quite well that one may pass fifty Acts of Parliament on the subject, but they will not obviate the results which the over-production of paper money has given in every country in the world where it has been tried. In referring to the abnormal issue of paper money, I do not mean that the Government have exceeded the powers which Parliament conferred upon them. But it matters not what powers this Parliament may give, it will not be in the best interests of the commercial and social life of Australia to further increase the amount of paper money at the present time.

Mr J H Catts:

– What does the honorable member suggest is the limit of safety ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– We reach the limit of safety the moment the use of paper money begins to react on the trading life of the community. No barometer is more sensitive than the money market. Somebody has said that money is a shy bird, and if it be but scared it flies away. The moment the amount of paper money exceeds the figure which the commercial community thinks is safe, there is an inevitable decline in. its value, and a corresponding increase in the price of commodities.

I reiterate that we have reached the limit, and that any further revenue we may raise must be obtained by means of taxation. Already we have tapped practically every source of revenue that is open to us; we have a land tax, and a superland tax, an income tax and a superincome tax, an entertainments tax, probate and succession duties, and a war-time profits tax. The time is rotten-ripe for Parliament to set to work, before placing one penny of additional taxation on the people, to save wherever possible in our ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. If there is one thing which the people are demanding to-day, it is that we shall relieve them of some of the present burden of taxation.

Mr Poynton:

– We ought to place a tax on croakers.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– The present Government will have to pay that tax shortly.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Interjections such as that which come from the Minister cut no ice. Anybody can say those silly things. If the Minister desires to find the justification for croakers, let him study the figures in connexion with the Corangamite by-election. They tell the Government and Parliament plainly that the people are about sick and tired of heavy taxation and lavish expenditure. The Nationalist party and the Labour party both put into the field unusually strong candidates. Mr. Scullin was as good a man as the Labour party could have got, and Major Knox, the Nationalist candidate, had many qualifications, being a returned soldier and a land-owner, well known in the district. Yet both parties have been taught a sharp lesson by the electors.

Mr Poynton:

– Does the honorable member think that he is leaving a sinking ship?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member should be the last to taunt me with leaving a sinking ship. When I have done that as often as he has done it, the taunt will be justified.

Mr Poynton:

– Is there one thing that this Government has done that has pleased the honorable member.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

– The Minister is not in order.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is unreasonable to say that the Estimates, which have grown from year to year in every Department, could not be reduced by the sum of £10,000, and should the amendment be pressed, I shall vote for it, as I conscientiously believe that a material saving could be made. Is it in accordance with common sense to duplicate the names on the electoral lists by having in each State a Federal and State roll ?

Mr Poynton:

– Is not the present arrangement the fault of the States?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– In Tasmaniathe State from which I come - one roll has been used during the past eight or ten years for both Federal and State elections. Is it reasonable that in each State there should be separate staffs for collecting the Federal and State income taxes and the Federal and State land taxes? To my mind, a fair arrangement would be for the Federal Government to look after the electoral rolls and for the State Governments to collect the income taxes and the land taxes for both the State and the Federal authorities.

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

– New South Wales will not agree to that arrangement.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If any one State insists on standing out, let it bear the cost of doing so; why should the people of the other five States be penalized by being forced to pay for duplicate staffs? Is it reasonable that there should be both Federal and State Savings Banks? I am not concerned now with apportioning the blame for the present arrangements; but I say that the time has come when every effort should be made to simplify and thus to cheapen the administration. No reform will be effected so long as one party says, “ Fancy the Federation handing over its functions to a State!” while the other party takes the attitude that the Federation already has too much power, and cannot be intrusted with any more. There must be give and take on both sides. The one people pays for the whole machinery of government, and suffers by its unnecessary duplication. After a political experience of nearly twenty-five years, I say that the people of Australia are prepared to pay any taxation that they regard as necessary and know will be properly expended. We have gone through half the present financial year without passing the Estimates, and it would be in the best interests of the country were the Government, now that the war is over, to take them back with a view to reducing their proposals for expenditure. Had it not been for the attitude taken by some honorable members, the country would now be committed to a loan expenditure out of all proportion to its needs. Not one shilling should be spent on naval bases or arsenals until the Government have obtained expert advice, given in the light of the lessons of the war. Would it not be madness to continue enormously costly works which may become obsolete before they can te finished ? Besides, we do not know what agreements may be made at the Peace Conference. If there is anything in the opinion that the close of the war will inaugurate an era of peace and goodwill among the nations, these proposals cannot be tolerated. The aeroplane and the submarine will, in the future, play an important part in the protection of long coast-lines like ours. If the Government make the amendment a test question, that is no business of mine, and it will not affect my vote. A man must do what he thinks to be right, and take the consequences. The people, and also, I am sure, Ministers themselves, have more respect for, and confidence in, the representative who votes as his conscience dictates, than for the man who votes at the crack of the party whip. I feel that it is not right that we should pile heavy taxation on the people without making every reasonable effort to curtail expenditure.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) on having given us an opportunity to discuss the Estimates. This is an improvement on the practice of the last few years. I have always protested against allowing the Estimates to remain unconsidered until the financial year had practically expired. There is no reason for that, even in war time, because the ordinary departmental expenditure has not been affected by the war. It is a refreshing change to have an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates before the Christmas vacation. At the same time, I regret that the time allowed for their discussion is altogether too short. We are endeavouring to crowd too much work into a few days. Sound legislation is impossible when work has to be scamped. In addition to the Estimates, we are to be asked to pass this week a number of measures whose discussion should occupy a considerable time, and, even by sitting night after night, we shall be unable to complete our programme. It is not in the best interests of the country that legislation should be rushed through in this way. We ought to return in January to do the work that lies before us.

Much has been said about the need for retrenchment, and every one will agree that savings should be made where possible. In my opinion, a saving could be made in the expenditure incurred in connexion with the floating of war loans. We have borrowed £148,922,368 within Australia for war purposes, at a cost of no less than £358,322. I do not think that this expenditure can be justified.

Mr Poynton:

– It must be remembered that we have received 100 per cent, of the amount borrowed. In borrowing overseas, we do not do that.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is so. But there is now before us a Bill, which the Acting Prime Minister says that he intends to pass, which requires taxpayers to subscribe to war loans an amount based on the income taxation which they pay. Under this measure, more than enough money can be obtained for financing our war expenditure, and meeting the cost of bringing back our soldiers. If the voluntary system of contributions is also to stand, it will mean that, when the next war loan is floated, an army of speakers will again be commissioned to solicit subscriptions, and large amounts will be paid for advertisements in the various newspapers.

Mr Tudor:

– When the last war loan was being advertised, as much as 28s. an inch was paid to some newspapers.

Mr Boyd:

– What was the breadth of the inch?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Even if the advertisements ran right across the page the charge was too high.

Mr Tudor:

– The payment was per column inch.

Mr CHARLTON:

– In New South Wales 295 newspapers were paid £7,482 16s. lid. for war loan advertisements. In Victoria 231 papers were paid £4,316 8s. 8d., in Queensland 116 papers were paid £5,173 9s. 7d., in South Australia 58 papers were paid £4,200 5s., in Western A ustralia 48 papers were paid £1,731 . 4s., in Tasmania 11 papers were “aid £1,717 7s., in Papua one paper was paid £5 10s., and in the Northern Territory a paper was paid £8. This shows that 761 papers were paid £24,635 ls. 2d. Great saving could be made in connexion with the next war loan. All that is necessary is to dispense altogether with the voluntary system and advertise through the press and the Gazette that a new loan is in course of flotation, and that the compulsory provisions will be put into operation. I venture to say that if this were done considerably more money would be raised than would otherwise be the case.

Mr Lynch:

– It is only fair to say that the newspapers give an almost unlimited amount of space in helping the flotation of the war loan.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am not going to say that the newspapers did not give full publicity to the loan; but, if they did so, they were well paid for it.

Mr J H Catts:

– The picture shows advertised the loan for nothing.

Mr CHARLTON:

– So far as I know, that was the case, and there could be no better medium of advertising. As to the rates per inch in the various newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald was paid 18s. and 25s., and received a total of £708 15s. ; the Sydney Daily Telegraph was paid 15s., 20s. 10d., and 25s., and received £1,195 - I do not know how the Telegraph came to beat “ Granny “; the Evening News, of Sydney, was paid 12s., and received £669 2s. ; and the Sun was paid 6s., 8s., and 12s. 6d., and received £461 12s. It will be seen that 25s. per inch, the highest rate paid, was to the Sydney Morning Herald. Amongst the weekly papers of Sydney the Sunday Times was paid 7s. and 28s. - the highest rate of all - and received £261 18s. ; the Sunday Sun was paid 10s. and 12s. 6d., and received £136; the Worker, which is the recognised Labour paper, was paid 6s., and received £7 4s. as contrasted with the £261 paid to the Sunday Times.

Mr Boyd:

– If the Labour Government had been in office the Worker would have been paid 28s. an inch

Mr CHARLTON:

– At any rate, I believe the Worker would have got a squarer deal. So the list goes on, and it shows the very high prices the Government have been paying for advertisements. My point is that the flotation of our loans has cost £358,000, and that the present cost could be reduced by half if the suggestion I have made were adopted. The present system only means that certain people, who have money, are able to see how the barometer is going from time to time, and, perhaps the day before the loan closes, thev are able to know fairly well how much has been subscribed and whether or not they will be called upon. As honorable members know, under the compulsory subscription measure, if the amount is subscribed voluntarily those who have money, but are not willing to subscribe, are able -to escape their obligation.

Mr Bruce:

– The amount subscribed -cannot be known until a loan is closed.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Just before a loan closes it is pretty well known what amount has been subscribed. Supposing, however, that that may be correct, the practice has always been adopted of extending the time for some reason or other. By this means persons who have not done their duty are able to get in and -escape any penalty. . If, as I .suggest, voluntary subscriptions were done away with, I do not see why we should not be able to save £25,000 or £30,000; and that is a matter of some moment.

Sir Robert Best:

– There will have to be a measure altogether different from the Bill, which could not possibly produce the amount required.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Why ? What does the income tax revenue amount to ?

Mr Poynton:

– About £7,000,000.

Mr CHARLTON:

– And I am told that compulsion -would not produce the amount required, although the subscription .has to be six times .the amount of the income tax.

Mr Poynton:

– That is only in the case where a taxpayer neglects to subscribe to the loan.

Mr CHARLTON:

– A taxpayer has to subscribe six times his income tax, if that is necessary to raise the amount. Supposing a war loan was not voluntarily contributed to, every individual would “have to subscribe six times his income tax.

Mr Sinclair:

– The honorable mem- ber’s idea is absurd on the face of it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Whether it is absurd or not the Government have introduced the Bill, and no doubt the honorable member will support it, in spite of its absurdity. If we have no voluntary subscriptions at all, each person will have -to subscribe six times his income tax, which, on the basis of the present income tax revenue, would mean £42,000^000. That is on the basis of the income , tax revenue of last year, and the revenue for this year will be in excess .of that amount, because the tax has been increased. The war loans raised in Australia amount to £148,922,268, and the cost of flotation was £358,022. On 30th June, 1918, there were instalments not paid, £12,943,901, and balance in hand was £23,710,066, or a total of £36,654,563. Since then we have received about £43,000,000 fresh loan money, making a total amount in hand of £79,654,563. The estimated war expenditure for the year 1918-19 was £100,044,411, and the amount to be paid from revenue was £21,128,602, leaving £78,914,809 as the amount of loan money required for the year. When that estimate was framed it was on a war basis, because the Armistice had not been signed; and, with the £36,654,563, we have now in hand £79,754,000, or over £1,000,000 more than is required up to June next. The war expenditure ought to be a vanishing quantity now that there is an armistice. Every month sees more of our men back, and gradually getting into employment; and there are now not the same number of people employed in connexion ‘ with the production -of munitions, so that our expenditure is falling. We shall not require the sum I have mentioned by some millions, by the end of this financial year.

Mr Poynton:

– Do you think the Government will spend the money unless- it is necessary?

Mr CHARLTON:

– No, I do not; but I say that the Government will not require to borrow before June next, and, when they do, the chances are they will not need so much money.

Mr Poynton:

– That was indicated by the Treasurer in his speech.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then that is all right. In view of the lessened expenditure month by month, we shall have a lot of money lying idle. Last July there was £18,000,000. in the Commonwealth Bank, and .now that we have floated another loan, and our payments are less, there must be considerably more. It would be interesting to know how much, there is now in- the Commonwealth Bank not earning interest. There must be many millions more than there was in July of last year, the total amount is, probably, £30,000,000. In September last there was £12,000,000 of the last loan, on which interest has to Be paid, and there must be considerably more of the present loan. Seeing the outgoings are less than they were, and that there are the £18,000,000 and’ a substantial sum from, the recent loan, the amount in the Bank must have been considerably increased.

Mr HIGGS:

– You know there is a new arrangement with the banks.

Mr CHARLTON:

– No:

Mr Higgs:

– The banks1 do not put in all the money, but only as it is required.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then, the money is lying in other banks, and,, in any case, bearing, no interest. Something, ought to be done in the way of putting this money out on short loans, so as to get some return,, and thus help the taxpayers. Every million earned in interest in this way assists in paying the interest on borrowed money; and we might as well be receiving something as allow others to use the money, as no doubt the Commonwealth Bank is using it, and doing well. I have not a word to say against the Commonwealth Bank, which has done great service to the country, and we should be prepared to assist it as far as possible-; but w,e must not lose sight of the- fact that the Bank runs on lines of its own. The money earned by the Bank does not go into the ordinary revenue of the country, and some arrangement should be made by which the revenue shall benefit in the way of interest. The Commonwealth Bank, I believe, is paid 5s. per £100 to cover its expenses in the flotation of loans, but the country should also have a share. It is very satisfactory to know that the money is lying in our own Bank, but, at the same time, it is not assisting in the reduction of taxation.

Mr Poynton:

– Has the Commonwealth. Bank not been a great factor in keeping down the rate of overdraft?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes, the Bank has done wonderful service to this country, amd I am. net saying: one word against it. It was condemned when it was first established. I do not think that any honorable member would: say a word against the services rendered by* the Commonwealth Bank, and I have no- wish that my remarks shall be construed as being in opposition to that institution. I am simply saying that there are big sums of money lying idle in the Bank, upon which the Commonwealth is paying 4J per cent, and 5 per cent., and that it would be well if at least a portion of the money could be invested on short-dated securities, so that it might earn, some interest, even if it should be only lj per cent, or 2 per cent. Most of the money we have in the Old Country is interest bearing, but there are better opportunities there for investing money on short-dated. securities1 than we have in Australia. I think- that the Commonwealth Bank ought to be able to enter into an arrangement with the Treasurer by which the Commonwealth would benefit.

Mr Poynton:

– Portion of the money has been invested, but it is very difficult to invest the whole of it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Treasurermust be given credit for his proposal to. the different States to have co-ordination in the matter of public borrowing-. The sooner something is done in that direction, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr Tudor:

– I understand that all of the States except New South “Wales have agreed to the Treasurer’s proposal.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am not aware that they have all agreed to it. At any rate, the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments have borrowed a lot of money, and we are told by the Treasurer that the overseas money market will be closed to our borrowing for a considerable time to come. Of course, no one can say what may happen when peace is signed. The money market may be easier than it has been for the last few years, but if we have a large number of borrowers on any money market, local or overseas, we will not secure the best terms. We will do better by having only one borrowing ‘agency than by havingfive or six borrowers on the market competing against one another by offering:- better terms. I am pleased that the Government are endeavouring to do something in the direction of having coordination so far as Australian borrowing is concerned. It will be a big question in the immediate future, when a large portion of our loans will be maturing. These are the words which the Treasurer has used in this connexion -

The Government has taken into consideration the difficulties of the present and immediate future, and has promised to the State Governments that they should give to the Commonwealth full control of all State and local government borrowing for the three years ending 31st December, 1921.

If this proposal is agreed to, conversion operations overseas will be undertaken by the Commonwealth Government. The business in Australia will also be conducted by the Commonwealth, after conference with the State or States interested. Transactions with the Savings Banks will be left to the States to deal with, but market operations will be managed by the Commonwealth.

He goes on to point out that a large sum of money will have to be repaid within the next ten years. It should be our effort to get the money at a cheaper rate in order to pay off our loan indebtedness if we can possibly do so. “We are now paying 5 percent. for the last war loan ; we will probably pay 5 per cent. for the next war loan; and we are paying 4½ per cent. for the earlier issues. If it is possible for the Government to borrow the money at 4¼ per cent. we will save¼ per cent. in interest, and at the same time free a large amount of capital from the exemption of the payment of income tax. Most of the money tied up in our war loans pays no income tax, and it ought to be our policy in the future to pay back the money we have borrowed with that exemption attaching to it. Even if we cannot borrow for redemption purposes at less than 4½ per cent, the Commonwealth will derive advantage, because it will gain at least½ per cent. by freeing a certain amount of capital from the exemption in regard to income taxation.

We are told that our soldiers overseas are to be demobilized in the following order : -

  1. All married soldiers, according to the number of children, length of service, and guarantees of employment in Australia.

That is a fair proposal. The men abroad should heartily agree with it.

  1. Single soldiers of long service with guarantees of employment in Australia.

When we commence to give preference to any soldiers, our difficulties will begin. I think it would be far better to take the men in the order of service they Have rendered to the Empire. After the married men have been brought back, the single men who went away first should have priority.

Mr McGrath:

-Except where there is illness among the parents.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Of course, there are many exceptional cases, which must be provided for; but in the course of demobilization the principle should be observed that every one should return according to his length of service. If we set up preferences to this section or that section, some of our gallant boys may be compelled to remain abroad six months longer than they otherwise should. Very few of them will not be anxious to get back to Australia as quickly as possible, and those who have been away the longest should be permitted to return first. It is proposed that the third class to come home shall be -

Other single men, according to length of service.

There will be many men who can give guarantees that they will have employment to come to in Australia. On the other hand, there will be many who cannot say definitely whether or not they will have employment to come to. My opinion is that it is the duty of the Government to find employment for these men, and bring them back in the orderin which they have gone abroad. If we cannot find employment for them immediately on their return, it will be our duty to support them until employment is found for them.

Mr McGrath:

– We are not doing it now.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am sorry to say that we are not doing it. General Monash tells us that 25,000 are to be returned by February ; but that these are the men who are practically invalids, and are no longer fit for service. He leaves us to assume that the general demobilization scheme is not to be put into operation until some time later. In fact, he says that we cannot demobilize the men until peace is signed.

Mr Webster:

– HeaT, hear!

Mr CHARLTON:

– I do not agree with the Minister. These boys have done their part, and done it well. No one can make me believe that the Allied nations will keep a full standing Army in the field until peace is signed. It has been cabled to us that the Americans are making provision for the return of 1,200,000 men who went across to Europe two years after our boys went there; yet our men are to be kept on the German frontier ready to fight. I venture to say that Marshal Foch would say that less than half his full strength would be sufficient for all purposes at the present time - probably one-third of the Allied, Forces. If that be the case, why should not our boys come home? The soldiers of Great Britain can get furlough, and visit their homes occasionally. The soldiers of France can do the same. But our boys cannot; and yet they are to be expected to remain until peace is signed, when, perhaps, it may not be signed for three years. If the Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster) is expressing the sentiments of the Government when he says “ Hear, hear!” to the statement of General Monash that our soldiers cannot be demobilized until peace is signed, I tell him that I do not believe the people are behind them in that regard.

Mr Webster:

– Our soldiers may yet be required in Berlin.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Allies have plenty of men. The position is quite different now from what it was at the commencement of the armistice. The enemy is now thoroughly disorganized, we hold most of his fighting machinery, and we are in his territory. If he is prepared to fight again, the Allies have ample men available to put him in his place. I am sure that if the Commonwealth Government made representations to the Imperial Government, pointing out the time the Australians have been away from their homes, and the fact that they have been actually engaged in all the heavy fighting right through the piece, the reply would be, “ They have done well ; make preparations to return them to Australia.” I would like to know whether the Postmaster-General is expressing the sentiments of the Government. There has been no statement in the House in regard to the matter. People would be up in arms if they had. any idea that there was any likelihood of our troops being kept on the frontier of Germany for four or five years, until the articles of peace are signed. We do not know when peace will be declared. It may be five or six months hence, or it may be in as many years hence. But there is no necessity to keep our boys in Europe all that time. If hostilities should break out again, endangering the Empire, nobody would return to the Front sooner than the Australian boys.

Mr Fowler:

– There are million.) of Americans ready to fight close at hand.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is true. The statement that our boys may be kept at the Front until peace is signed has alarmed me.

Mr Richard Foster:

– We are filling the transports with our men.

Mr CHARLTON:

– We are bringing back 25,000 men who have been disabled or invalided. We are not bringing back the men who are fit to fight.

Mr Webster:

– Does the honorable member agree that the wounded should be left in Great Britain ?

Mr CHARLTON:

– No, I would bring them home. It ill becomes the honorable member to insinuate that I have said a word to the contrary. Certainly, the wounded should be brought home; but I say, further, that the whole of our men should -be brought home. The Minister had no right to twist my words. My sympathy for the men who have done so much for Australia is as strong as his. I would do my best to help those who have made the sacrifice of being wounded; but the point for which I am contending is that there is no need to keep our 100,000 men in the fighting line any longer. I am sure that the Imperial authorities will agree that they should be brought back to Australia as quickly as possible. We are told that there will be fifty-eight vessels in Sydney Harbor by April next. General Monash says that 25,000 men “will be here byFebruary next. It would appear that there is no dearth of shipping, but’ that no effort is being made to expedite the demobilization of our troops.. The time has arrived when this question should be seriously considered. Those who have dear ones at the Front are anxious to know when they will be home again. Every mother believes that her boy will be back, at the latest,, by Christmas 1919 ; b®t if we- are to keep our men overseas until the Peace treaty is signed, they may not be home for another two or three years. Many of our boys, when they left for the Front, were only eighteen or nineteen years of age, and while some were apprenticed to trades, others were articled to professions. These lads have broken their engagements, and when they return after an absence of four or five years, it will be very difficult for them to resume their former occupations. In justice to them, as well as to our Forces generally,, we should see that they are brought back as early as possible, so that they may resume the careers that had been mapped out for them at the time of their enlistment. The longer they remain away, the more difficult it will be for them to return to their former callings. “When they proceed to complete their indentures of apprenticeship, they will he entitled to receive only 10s., 15s., or at the most £1 per week; so that it will be recognised that it is a very serious matter to keep them overseas a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. Now that the enemy has practically surrendered, and the Empire has millions of men within easy call, surely our men can be spared to return home.

I come now to the question of penalties, to which I have referred on a previous occasion. A regulation has been issued which provides that regulation 13b is amended to read as follows: -

In the event of the death of a member on active service, any monetary penalty or forfeiture which has been incurred abroad may be remitted.

This amended regulation is to take effect as from 1st. July last. Why should it not be made sufficiently retrospective to cover all cases of the kind ? Every honorable member has had under notice cases in which deductions in respect of penalties imposed abroad have been madefrom the deferred pay due to the relatives of men killed at the Front. A woman loses her husband at the Front, and she has a family to support. The husband,, while on leave in England, perhaps overstayed his leave, and was heavily fined, and that fine was deducted from his deferred pay. He might, perhaps^ haveoverdrawn his account. Most married men allow themselves only ls. per day, and while on furlough they find that it is insufficient. If such a man is killed while on active service, it appears to meto be wrong for the Department te’ refuser to pay his widow and family the full amount of the deferred pay that was coining to him, irrespective of any fine that might have been, inflicted.

Mr Fenton:

– Why should such a deduction be made from the deferred pay of any man ?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Quite so ; but thi* system is particularly severe in respect of widows of nien who have been killed while on active service. I have a letter from a woman, in my electorate who says, ins effect, “ My husband must have been a. very bad man. while abroad, since themilitary refuse to pay me what I ought to receive in respect of his deferred pay.”” Every one in my district knows, as a matter of fact, that he was one of the best of husbands. Unfortunately, he was killed! while on active service, and his poor widow, instead of receiving the money she expected to get - instead of receiving ls. per day in respect of the whole period of his service - has been given only onehalf of that amount.

Mr Falkiner:

– I have had brought under my notice the case of a boy ore whom fines amounting to £144 have been imposed.

Mr Fowler:

– We all have had case;* of the kind brought under our notice.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is so. If the Government think it just to remit these penalties - as from 1st July last, they should be prepared to remit all penalties as from the beginning of the war. I put a question to the Assistant Minister for Defence in this House on 1st November last, urging the Minister for Defence to “take into consideration the advisableness of making the regulation retrospective as from the beginning of the war. The reply I received was as follows: -

This was considered by the Government, but it was decided not to do as suggested. It lias not been the policy of the Department to -make approvals of this nature retrospective, e.g., increases in the payment of separation allowance were recently approved to date from 5th April, 1918.

A great deal of work would be involved in investigating past cases if the approval were made retrospective, and it is doubtful whether adjustment could be made in respect of casualties which occurred during the earlier period of the war. No information is available which -would enable the amount of expenditure which would be incurred in back-dating the approval -to be calculated, but it is estimated that between £60,000 and £80,000 would be involved. Approximately, 40.000 cases will require to be investigated, and it is estimated that payments -will require to be made in about 10,000 cases.

Even if it would cost £60,000 or £80,000, this regulation should date back to the beginning of the war. These men took all the risks of fighting for our liberties, and they paid the supreme penalty. The least we can do is to see that their widows and families get the money which the Parliament intended they should receive. There is no justification for this attitude ©n the part of the Government.

I come now to the position of munition workers. Will any one say that a man who offered his services as a, munition worker should not receive some consideration % I asked the Assistant Minister for Defence the other day whether such men were to be provided with employment when they returned. Their contract extends from the day on which they leave until the date of their return. Immediately they land here they are paid off.

Mr Webster:

– They have not been receiving only 6s. per day.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I know that. Many of them have families to support, and, although while in England they received the ruling rate of wages, the cost of living was such that they were unable to .save anything. We should give them at least a fortnight or a month’s pay on their return, so that they may be able to support their families while they are seeking employment here. I do not know how many munition workers went to England, but there may be 10,000 of them. Under the* present system we bring them back and cast them adrift to find work as best they can. That is not fair treatment. I brought under the notice of the Minister the case of a man in my district who volunteered as a munition worker. He was a small settler, and on his little holding had ‘ a three-roomed house, in which his wife and two children resided. While he was in England his wife and family left their home one day, and on their return found that the house had been burned to the ground. They lost everything they had, and assistance could not be given them from any of the patriotic funds in New South Wales. The reply received in each case was that such funds could not be used to assist the wife of a munition worker. These different patriotic bodies extended their fullest sympathy to the woman, but that did not help her to get a roof over her head. She came to me a few months ago, and, after I had failed to secure any monetary assistance for her, she put her case in the hands of the secretary of the Newcastle Patriotic Fund. He got in touch with the State committee, and finally, after a sheaf of correspondence had passed between the different parties, the Minister for Defence, in July last, without admitting any liability, agreed to give her £50 to assist in the rebuilding of her home before her husband returned. Although that promise was made in July last, the woman told me a few weeks ago that the £50 had not yet been granted to her. I put the matter before the Honorary Minister (Mr. Wise), and to-day I received from the woman the following letter, which had been addressed to her by the Secretary of the Defence Department : -

Dear Madam, - With reference to your communication of the 26th ultimo, relative to the non-payment of the grant of £50 approved by the Minister in your case, I have to inform you that, before payment of the amount in question can be made, it is necessary to receive the authority of the Honorable the Treasurer. When approached in regard to your case, the Treasurer intimated that the amount could not be paid. The Minister has directed, (however, that the Treasurer he again approached in the matter, and that the special features of your case be brought under his notice, with a view to authority being obtained. A communication has, therefore, been addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury in this connexion, and on receipt of a reply you will be further advised.

We are all anxious to economize, but we do not want to retrench in that way. Surely this poor woman should not be deprived of the opportunity to rebuild her little home before her husband returns. She has been battling away in sparsely settled country beyond Dora Creek, and living with friends. It is just about up to the Government to give consideration to such cases. If our men are to be treated in this way I fear that, should it ever be necessary for us again to call upon our boys - and I hope it never will be - we shall not have such a response as we have had in the past.

Let me deal now with the Department of the Postmaster-General. I believe that the honorable gentleman has saved a good deal of money, but at the same time, it seems to me that some of the economies practised by him are not in the best interests of country residents. Almost every day I receive from important towns in my electorate complaints that a letter delivery has been cut off. For some reason districts have been suddenly deprived of a letter delivery which they have enjoyed for years.

Mr Webster:

– I do not think that is quite so. In most cases it is merely a rearrangement of the centre from which the letters are delivered.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I only know that people who formerly had a letter delivery have now to go to the post-office for their letters.

Mr Webster:

– I have received no such complaint from the honorable member,

Mr CHARLTON:

– I mentioned two or three complaints of the kind to the honorable gentleman. Two of these related to the towns of Charlestown and Stroud.

Mr Webster:

– In Australia letters are delivered to smaller centres of population than in any other part of the world.

Mr CHARLTON:

– We have had these postal facilities for years, and the people when deprived of them naturally resent the. action of the Department.

Mr J H Catts:

– Such facilities should be extended rather than curtailed.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Undoubtedly. Those, who go into the back country and turn our waste spaces into productive areas should receive every possible encouragement in the way of postal conveniences. If the Minister wishes to make his Department a paying concern he should see that the charges for city services are sufficiently high to make them payable. Once the Department cuts off telephonic, telegraphic, and postal services, great injury is done.

Mr Webster:

– No telephonic service has been cut off.

Mr CHARLTON:

– A few telephonic services have been refused in my electorate.

Mr Webster:

– A few applications for new services might have been refused, but no services have been cut off.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Minister would do well to give as much attention as possible to the requirements of country districts. In that way only we can hope to develop Australia. If the Government do not do that they will be assisting in a policy of centralization. To-day every capital city contains about half the population of its State. Our duty is to develop the country, and to provide opportunities for our people.

In regard to the shipping question, it has been argued that it was necessary to cut down the service on the coast as far as as possible, and for that reason a large number of boats have been taken off the coast and sent abroad. The Treasurer, in his Budget speech, made allusion to InterState and coastal shipping in these terms- h

The coastal shipping has also been greatly depleted by the transfer of Inter-State vessels to service overseas. No less than fifty-three of such vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of 195,017, have been taken off the coast. In addition, sixteen ships, of an aggregate tonnage of 77,017 - which in normal times served Australian coastal requirements- ;have been removed to other work, leaving their former services to be performed by the remaining fleet. The position in the coastal and InterState trade, as a consequence, became so acute that it was deemed advisable to appoint a Central Committee to regulate and secure the most economic use of the space available, the whole of the shipping business thus being brought under the administration of the Controller of Shipping. Despite the surrounding difficulties, the result of this arrangement has proved in the highest degree beneficial.

I believe the time has arrived when the Shipping Board should devote its attention to the policy of getting those ships back to the Australian coast at as early a date as possible. “We read in the press cables that a large number of vessels which have not traded to Australia for a number of years will be voyaging in this direction shortly. If that is so we should be able to get back our own ships to resume the Australian coastal service. If we can restore Inter-State trade to normal conditions we shall find employment for thousands of our people. For the last couple of years many parts of Australia have not been able to get the supplies of coal they needed, because there have not been sufficient boats to carry it. In consequence, many industries have not been working at their full capacity. If the Inter-State shipping service were in full swing again, and supplies of coal were available in all parts of the Commonwealth, those industries would resume their former activity, and would employ more hands. More men would be employed on the vessels, on the wharfs, and in the mines, and in that way we should be able to absorb a large number of our soldiers when they return. I know that it will be a big problem to replace in industrial life all the men who will return during the next year or so, but by restoring the shipping trade to normal conditions we shall be taking a considerable step in that direction. If only we can have the vessels to carry the coal from the mines a couple of thousand men could be employed on the northern coal mines immediately. That employment cannot be provided unless the vessels are available for taking the coal away, because even to-day the Government are simply tipping coal out of the mines in order to give work to the men who have remained in the district. If our ships were again back on the coast they would consume more coal, and would carry supplies to other parts of the Commonwealth; thus they would facilitate the employment of a large number of men in the coal in- dustry.

Mr Webster:

– We are urging the restoration of our shipping with all the force at our disposal.

Mr Poynton:

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has been engaged on that matter ever since the armistice was signed.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am very pleased to hear that. The Prime Minister is doing good work if he is interesting himself in that matter. I say with confidence that the restoration of the Australian coastal shipping to its pre-war condition will afford employment to thousands of men. I am very satisfied to know that the Government are active in that direction.

Turning now to the question pf repatriation, I believe that the Minister in charge is endeavouring to do his best. It is a very difficult subject to handle. Whoever controls repatriation, either now or in the future, will have a hard row to hoe. But there is a good deal of dissatisfaction, especially in country districts, in regard to the treatment of the district committees. The idea of the Minister was to divide each State into areas and to appoint Local Committees who could deal directly with the soldiers returned to those areas, and in that way give speedy relief. But those committees are becoming dissatisfied. A big public meeting was held in my district last week, and the burden of the complaint was that the Local Committee could get no satisfaction at all from the State Board in Sydney. The Local Committee is composed of men who are giving their services without fee or reward to assist the scheme of repatriation. Frequent application has been made to the State Board in Sydney for sufficient money to pay for the clerical work. The committee could get no satisfaction, or even a response, from the Sydney office. These gentlemen were left, not only to give their services, but to ‘ finance the work of the committee. They were not receiving any money with which to pay the secretarial expenses, and only after a great deal of trouble did the committee get from Sydney an amount of £50. The Government cannot hope for success in their scheme if men who have volunteered to assist repatriation gratuitously find their are to he hampered in their efforts, that they can do nothing, and that there is in authority over them a Board in Sydney which refuses to take any notice of their representations. That is the complaint I am receiving from my district. The present State of affairs must be altered, because very much depends on the operations of the Local Committee. If a soldier writes to rae for assistance, I at once advise him that a repatriation committee has been appointed in his district, and that if he represents his case to the secretary it will be dealt with by the committee. But the soldiers will not be content to go before the Local Committees if they find that those bodies are unable to do anything, because they are hampered by a higher authority in Sydney. I hope that this complaint will be conveyed to the Minister for Repatriation. If the repatriation scheme is to have that confidence of the people and the soldiers which is essential to its success, it must be operated on a basis satisfactory to all concerned, and we cannot submit to- having in Sydney a State Board that refuses to deal in a reasonable way with applications that come before it from the Local Committees’.

I hope that these Estimates will be cut down to the greatest possible extent. I believe that the Government admit the necessity for keeping down expenditure, and no doubt they have reduced the proposals of the Departments to a large extent. In regard to the claim of the Treasurer that he has already cut down the Estimates by £2,000,000, there never was a State or Commonwealth Government that did not cut down the Estimate”, even in normal times. Whenever Estimates are prepared by the Departments it is the Treasurer’s duty to go through them with the pruning knife. I recollect that in the New South Wales Parliament Ministers used to complain sometimes that the Treasurer had cutdown their Estimates by from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. That happened when times were good, and therefore there is not very much, in the Treasurer’s boast that he has cut down the Estimates of

Commonwealth expenditure at this time when economy is so essential. No doubt in every Department the tendency is to> make the draft Estimates as liberal as possible, in the hope that the Treasurer will not knock off too much of the proposed expenditure. I hope that the Estimates will receive further careful review, and that they will be reduced wherever practicable. As far as war expenditure is concerned, there will be a big reduction. Every month the amount of money required for war purposes should be a diminishing quantity; but that expenditure is specially provided for out of loans, and is not included in the ordinary departmental estimates. I trust that therewill be no unnecessary expenditure apart from the war. At the same time, we must not discontinue works that are necessary, and which will provide employment for the people. If we cut out works that are necessary, when men are returning from the Front, and we must find employment for them, we shall be throwing out of employment the men already in the Commonwealth, and an unemployment trouble will be created throughout the country. Possibly before next winter we may experience that trouble. I hope we may not.

Mr Webster:

– Next year members will be urging the Government to spend all the money they can get, in order toprovide work.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Evidently the. Postmaster-General thinks that the possibility I have mentioned will be realized. I quite agree that honorable members may be urging upon the Government that expenditure in many directions should be proceeded with, in order to provide employment. It is an axiom, of government that, in order to have a contented people, employment must be” given to them. Therefore, we should not abandon worksthat are needed; but unnecessary expenditure, that will not provide employment, can be reduced. I believe there are many items of expenditure which, after careful review, could be cut down, thus saving, considerable sums of money.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
asked by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman · Wakefield} [10.11]. - I wish to condense my remarks as much as possible, because I recognise that many honorable members desire to participate in this debate. Therefore, my remarks will be more in the nature of suggestions than an elaboration of details. I listened with great pleasure and interest to the statements of the Acting Prime Minister this afternoon. The honorable gentleman certainly deserves all the sympathy and assistance that can possibly “be given by this Committee. His work is exceedingly difficult. For months past he has had enough work to keep fully occupied two or three men of considerable capacity. A lot of the troubles he has had to grapple with are inherited ; and he is struggling under a number of legacies, some of which aTe not too pleasant. The Acting Prime Minister said that the Government have given every consideration to the matter of effecting economies, that lie has done everything that he considered possible to reduce the Estimates, and that he would be prepared to continue his scrutiny of them with the same desire. He definitely promised the Committee that from a certain point onwards every line of the Estimates will be again scrutinized very carefully. I find that on the page to which the honorable gentleman referred the war loan expenditure commences, and therefore the honorable gentleman’s promise of further scrutiny is no more than the Committee has a right to expect, because, so far as prospective liabilities are ^concerned, the conditions to-day are very different from what they were when the Treasurer delivered his Budget speech. It will be disappointing indeed to the Committee and the taxpayers if the altered conditions do not enable the Treasurer and the Government to make very extensive savings in war loan expenditure. The Treasurer said that he had done all that was possible to reduce the Estimates, and that in that effort he had been given the assistance of the best official minds of the country. He did not say who they were, but I took it that he referred to the officers of the Treasury, and, if so, I have nothing to say against the statement, because I believe those gentlemen to be very able, and to (earnestly desire to do all that they can to keep the expenditure of the country within reasonable bounds. The honorable gentleman said that he had managed to reduce the Estimates by £2,000,000 - not a big saving on an expenditure of £37,000,000. He told us, moreover, that he had appointed three of the ablest men in the country to go through the Departments ; very welcome information,- because Parliament of late years has not exercised any proper control of the public expenditure. I am glad that of these three men one is’ the accountant to the Post Office, Mr. Haldane. His knowledge of departmental methods will be of assistance to the two gentlemen with whom he is associated, and he is, in my opinion, one of the prizes of our Public Service. I do not know him personally, but I know him through his reports. In every contribution that he has made to the annual report of the Postmaster-General, he has shown himself a man of considerable capacity, and, as the result of his work, the Minister has been able to bring the accounts of the Department out of a condition of chaos, and for the first time has been able to present a balance on the right side of the ledger. When

the outcome of Mr. Blacket’s report on the Federal Capital administration, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) said that he, as Minister, took the fullest responsibility for what had been done, .and that subsequently the Government had accepted the responsibility for it. I do not complain of this assumption of responsibility,- but I say that the honorable gentleman should have reported to this House the action taken as the result of the investigation of the Commissioner. In every instance in which inquiries have been made by Royal Commissions and Committees we should have had a statement by the Minister concerned. These reports have been very disquieting. Parliament has not been told the outcome of them, so far as the officers whose carelessness or incapacity has resulted in heavy loss to the taxpayers were affected. The Treasurer has said that the re-ordering of the Estimates suggested by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro would not save, at the outside, £10,000. I shall not vote for the proposal of the honorable member to reduce the first item of the Estimates, because I do not intend to vote against the Government, but I shall urge Ministers to do their duty by reducing the public expenditure as much as possible. I do not think that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro realized the effect of his proposal, though, as a member of Parliament of long experience and an exMinister, he should have known that such an attack on the Budget could not be regarded by the Government as other than a direct motion of want of confidence. ‘At the same time, I retain to myself the right to vote for a reduction wherever I am satisfied that it should be made, because I sincerely and earnestly desire economy. In spite of the statement of the Treasurer that the criticism of honorable members on this side of the chamber had not led the Government to review the expenditure in different Departments, I think that it should have done so. The House of Representatives does not, and has not for many years, controlled the public purse. It has the right to do so, but has not exercised that right.

Mr J H Catts:

– There should be a quorum to hear this eloquent speech. [Quorum formed.]

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The present Government have gone nearer to seeking economy than any Government we have had for many years past, though what they have done does not satisfy me. At the same time, I am not ready to substitute for this Government one chosen from the Opposition. In the past we have become accustomed to the expending of public money without authority, and the exceeding of the Estimates with impunity, and without consultation with this House. The deplorable results of this kind of administration have been exposed by Royal Commissions and Committees, whose reports are a standing condemnation of Governments and Parliament. Almost entirely these exposures affect previous Governments.

Mr J H Catts:

– You took care not to have inquiries affecting later administration .

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I would have had more inquiries could I have got them. In the past even rudimentary precautions for eliminating blunders, minimizing extravagance, and obtaining efficiency have not been taken. After an agitation of years, the Public Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have been established, and we have now more means of knowing how public expenditure is conducted. After many years of agitation, a Supply and Tender Board, on proper lines, has, within the last few days, been established. But we have not as effective a public audit as we should have. That was shown by the report of Mr. Blacket, on the Federal Capital administration. The Acting Prime Minister who, when Minister for Works and Railways, was responsible for the Federal Capital administration, promised to see that the Audit Commissioner’s statutory directions should be amended, and made more complete. If those safeguards had been instituted years ago a lot of the trouble, and worse than trouble - disgrace - that has come upon this Legislature would not have been possible. I desire to give this Government credit for, in some of these respects, improving things very considerably. As to the cutting down of the Estimates, I am not satisfied by a long way, and the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) this afternoon has not altered my opinion one iota. To simply lop £2,000,000 off the civil side of Estimates amounting to £37,000,000 is a flea-bite. Everybody who knows anything of how Estimates are prepared by departmental officers knows that they are never expected to be accepted bv any Government. In the Federal Administration there has for years been a great tendencv to build up large Departments, and, as far as possible, trench on the preserves of the States, and by some Ministers with a view, at the earliest opportunity, to make it too hot for the States to exist. There has been no attempt at co-operation with the States in regard to the government of the country. There has been the adoption of day labour everywhere, and Departments have grown up like mushrooms. Men, plant, and equipment have been provided to run the day-labour system, and no one knows what that system has cost the country. Estimates have been exceeded to an enormous extent; and I need only refer to a few of the principal public undertakings. When the Treasury building was contemplated, the State Government of Victoria was asked to undertake its construction by contract, the work to be done by the State Works Department. That Department put in a tender, but it was turned down, and then the Fisher Government decided to construct the building with day labour. And what was the result? The building was constructed at a cost which exceeded the State Government tender by more than 60 per cent. The Federal Capital provides another instance, and honorable members know the awful losses which . occurred there. Then we have the Naval Bases and other Defence works, the East-West railway, the Northern Territory, and the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, all of which experiments have been carried out with day labour uncontrolled, and have meant the expenditure of millions. This Parliament has never taken the proper steps to put an end to that kind of thing, although day labour has proved a ghastly failure. There is no effective check against this disastrous system but the test of public tender; and a good many of us on this side of the House have done our best to insist on that test being applied, but have always found the numbers against us. I understand that this Government are introducing to a considerable extent the principle of public tender as a test of what public works ought to cost, and it is time the taxpayer “came in” somewhere, for he has not been considered for many years past. But while the Government are doing a . considerable amount of work after its submission to public tender, they are not doing half enough.

Let me draw attention to one particular item that came under the administration of the present Treasurer (Mr. Watt) when he was Minister for Works and Railways. I refer to the building up of a great Railway Department to run the East-West railway, a work which is a calamity to this country. I tried, without success, to have an investigation ; but if one had been made I think this work would have been shown to be as great a disaster as the Federal Capital, or any of the other experiments of the Federal Government in the way of day labour. The cost of the railway was nearly double the estimate that was sanctioned by a previous Parliament, the excess expenditure being allowed to go on by different Parliaments until an authorised expenditure of about £4,000,000 ran into £7,000,000. It is not finished yet. Then when the work was nearing completion and arrangement had to be made for running the railway, I asked, and entreated, the then Minister for Works and Railways to let the question of running the line be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, that Committee to interview the Western Australian Government and the South Australian Government, with a view to their jointly running the railway for the Federal Government in the same fashion as the Melbourne- Adelaide express is run. The reply by the Minister of Works and Railways at the time was to the effect that it was the Government policy-

Mr Jowett:

– To squander money?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Yes.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Who was the Minister ?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– The present Treasurer (Mr. Watt), who said it was the policy of the Government to have its own Railway Department to run the railway. The people of South Australia and of Western Australia know a great deal better than those in States far removed from the railway what has been the result. If the Treasurer wishes to look into the public expenditure to find opportunities to save money, and with the object of avoiding the disasters of the past, let him send the Public Accounts Committee to investigate the rollingstock, plant, and all belonging to this marvellous Federal Railway Department between Port Augusta and Western Australia.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– It would be a pretty ugly story!

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– It would be a mighty ugly story, and the men responsible for this enormous loss, who were appointed to manage the railway, manage it from Melbourne. Can there be any justification, in any shape or form, for these men being 500 miles away from their work?

Mr Jowett:

-What does the Railway Department cost per year?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I should like to know; and that is a job to which the Public Accounts Committee could devote their time very profitably indeed. South Australia and Western Australia have all their railway administrative staffs in operation, and there need have been no further overhead expenses incurred by their management of the eastwestrailway. Under the circumstances, could not these two States have managed the railway more satisfactorily, and at very much less expense, than could men living in Melbourne?

Mr Glynn:

– There would be the Northern Territory railway to manage.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– That could be easily managed without very great administrative expenditure, just as in the days when South Australia owned it. I would very much like the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into the Northern Territory expenditure, especially on railways, and see what the cost is as compared with that under the Railway Commissioner of South Australia.

Mr Glynn:

– The revenue is higher now.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– And so it should be ; but, so far, I do not think that the revenue, in its relation to the necessities and the expenditure, will bear the light of day. 1 should very much like to deal further with the Northern Territory, but I have not time now.

I should like to give honorable members two or three lines of figures to show how public expenditure has increased in the Commonwealth during the past eight years. In 1910, the Federal expenditure was £7,499,516, while three yearslater, in 1913-14, it was £15,458,770. In 1910 the revenue was £15,540,669, whereas in 1913-14 it was £21,741,745. It will be seen that in five years the expenditure increased by 100 per cent., and the revenue by 40 per cent. Most of that period was of unparalleled prosperity, extravagance and waste. It was a day of drift, day labour, and “ go-slow.” Discipline had disappeared; all control of public expenditure was gone. It is about time we got back to tie public test in regard to our expenditure. If honorable members do not take these matters seriously the day is not far distant when they will be compelled to do so. On the 30th June, 1917, the public debt of Australia was £621,612,933. I suppose that it will amount to £700,000,000 by the end of June of this year - a bigger debt than the national debt of Great Britain prior to the war. For the next ten years loans will have to be renewed by us at the rate of £22,000,000 per year, and we are now borrowing at the rate of £80,000,000 a year for war purposes.

Mr Pigott:

– That will stop soon.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– No; the Treasurer has informed the Committee that we cannot expect it to stop for some time yet. These figures are startling. Every loan raised in Australia means that a certain amount of money has been withdrawn from the working capital of the country, money that would otherwise be available for the development of the primary and secondary industries of the Commonwealth. To meet our enormous liabilities we must economize, increase our production, or impose taxation. We should have economy first ; we should tax last. There is not that concern about economy that there ought to be, and there is not much possibility of having increased production when we continue a policy of extravagance, and are forced to bleed the country of money that ought to be employed in private enterprises, by compelling its investment in Commonwealth loans. I hope that the Government will justifythe expectations raised by the statement of the Treasurer to-day, particularly in regard to submitting everything in the shape of public expenditure to the tender test.

Economy may be effected by a very necessary amendment, long overdue, of our Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under the existing law arbitration has proved to be a disastrous failure in Australia. During this war, when we should have had industrial peace, we had more industrial turmoil and strife than we have had in the previous history of the Commonwealth. Mr. Knibbs says in his last Year-book that there were 444 strikes in the Commonwealth, in the previous year, affecting directly or indirectly 173,970 people, who lost 4,599,658 working days, representing in wages £2,594,808. That was at a time when our brave Australian soldiers were fighting for our very liberties on the field of battle. There seems to be no sign of any improvement. We ought to m’ake a start by amending our industrial legislation to remove the control of our industries from the hands of one man. It is useless imagining that we can continue to bear our increasing burdens until we have our industrial matters put right.

Mr Considine:

– “What would the honorable member consider to be “ putting them right?”

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

-In the first place, the men who are a danger and a menace to the community ought to be put out of the country, and I shall be very much disappointed with the Government if they are not put out of the country instead of ‘being released and allowed to run at large to carry on their mischief-making designs by disturbing our industrial conditions, and destroying the very best interests of every true and honest worker in the Commonwealth. I do not believe in paying men poor wages; I would pay them well, hut I would make them earn their money. I would have no slowing down. I would follow that principle in which the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Page) believes, which he has practised, and to which he ascribes his success in life: that is to say, I would introduce a little bit’ of piece-work, not only in shipbuilding, but also in other directions. If it is a good principle to apply to the building of ships in time of necessity, it is an equally good principle to apply in the interests of the country for all time. I am pleased that the Government have dropped a good deal of the price-fixing business; I am sorry that they ever took it up. It is a policy that has never been successful anywhere. In America, where they generally know how things, ought to be done, when the authorities wished to make sure of getting as big a supply of meat as possiblefor war purposes, they did not fix a minimum price, but they offered to buy all” the pork that could be produced in America at a highly remunerative figure:. That is the way in which to increase production. When prices are lowered, stocks, are depleted and production is decreased-..

Mr Considine:

– Apply the same principle to the wage-earner.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I supposethat the wage-earner has been given asmuch consideration in this country as he has been given in any other country. Im this Parliament no other question has occupied a tenth of the time that has been devoted to the matter of the betterment of the condition of the wage-earner. It. is the leader, or the misleader, of theworker who makes all the mischief, and1’ gets all the plums. To-day men of intellect, heart, and character among thai workers are casting off their misleaders. It is a waste of ,public money to have a section in Parliament that is not a representative party, but is merely a body that receives instructions day by day from, irresponsible sources outside.

I want to follow these Estimates as-, closely as possible. If there are items in them which I have reason to believe can* be cut down, I am one to cut them down. E hope that the Business Committee whicli: is going through the Departments will: lead to a considerable reduction in theEstimates next year. I thought that thePublic Accounts Committee was to be* brought into existence to deal with suchmatters. The consideration of Estimates in the House of Commons is a reIdtively simple matter, because a Public Accounts Committee has previously giver them a more thorough investigation than a Committee of the whole House can possibly give them. Of course, in Great Britain the Committee of Public Accounts is really a Committee of specialists. Our Public Accounts Committee and our Public Works Committee ought to be Committees of specialists as far as it is .possible to make them such ; but I am afraid that members are appointed to those Committees more for Party reasons than from any desire to select the best men for the work, the Committees are expected to perform.

Mr Considine:

– The honorable member ought to have been on one of the Committees.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I was asked to be a member of the first Public Accounts Committee appointed by this Parliament, but as I have a good deal of private business to attend to, without which I could not afford to be a member of this House. I regret that I was unable to accept the position. I am sorry that I have not been able to gain the experience that members of these Committees have secured. I thank honorable members of the various Committees for the light they have thrown on a good deal of our public expenditure since they have commenced their investigations. Their investigations should be invaluable in explaining to the Parliament the way in which public expenditure in the past has been incurred. I sincerely hope that we shall have from them a good deal of information, born of their special direct knowledge of the works of which they speak.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- I have listened with considerable interest to honorable members opposite in their endeavours to point to the necessity for economy in the public expenditure of the Commonwealth. I also have been interested in an examination of the systems of government in operation in this country, and have taken out figures showing the extent to which the people are taxed in order to maintain the machinery of government in respect of both the Commonwealth and the States. From the Commonwealth Year-Book for 1916-17, I find that in New South Wales, for instance. £5,000 per annum is paid to the Governor, £400 per annum to his official secretary, £350 per annum to his private secretary, £350 per annum to his aidedecamp, £796 for orderlies, £1,653 for additions and maintenance of residences for the Governor, and £1,547 in respect of miscellaneous items of expenditure associated with the Governor’s service. This gives a total of £10.096, which is paid by the taxpayers of New South Wales for the privilege of having a State Governor. The following table shows the payments made by the Commonwealth and all the States for the privilege of having a vice-regal representative: -

Mr J H Catts:

– We ought to abolish the whole lot.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– That is what the taxpayers of this country will very likely conclude. The expenses of the Executive Councils of the Commonwealth and States, according to the Commonwealth Year-Book for 1916-17, are as follows: -

Ministerial salaries are as follows: -

I come now to the cost of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and States. The figures are as follows: -

Another interesting item is the cost of electoral offices, which is set out in the following return: -

In addition to the cost of electoral offices, the cost of elections is as follows: -

Then we come to Royal Commissions and Select Committees, the cost of which appears in the following statement: -

The grand totals of the cost of this varied machinery of government are as follows : -

I have also prepared the following return showing the cost of this machinery per head of the population.

The total cost of the whole of this machinery of government - both State and Federal - is £3 7s. 9d. per head of the population of the Commonwealth.

Mr Gregory:

– I do not think it costs so much in Russia.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I shall give the honorable member more than he wants to know about Russia. For this expenditure of practically £900,000 we have the luxury of a Governor-General and six State Governors, fourteen Houses of Parliament, and 686 members of Parliament. This is the burden that a population of 4,935,311 has to carry.

Since we are talking of economy, I would suggest that if we were to scrap six out of the seven Parliaments in Australia, and to do away with the whole of the Governors, who are not of sufficient importance to warrant the payment of so much money for their maintenance, we should benefit the taxpayers. We should give the people of Australia a Democratic system of government, suited to their necessities, and save the workers of the country an enormous expenditure. Instead of wasting so much money annually on the up-keep of these unnecessary and very expensive institutions, we should thus give the people what is in every sense of the term a popular form of government.

The honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) interjected that the cost of government in Russia was much less. Owing to the paternal care exercised by the Government which the honorable member for Dampier supports, we are not able to ascertain what the mode of government in that country costs the people. When the Russian Republic has been made safe for Democracy in much the same way as the rest of the world has been made’ safe for it, no doubt, we shall be able to ascertain what the total cost to the people of Russia is.

Mr Gregory:

– It is not too safe for Democracy now in Russia.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I have here an authority on the subject who cannot be accused of having any bias on the side of the Russians. Colonel W. B. Thompson, the head of the American Red Cross Mission to Russia, and a multi-millionaire, “speaking in New York, said -

We talk about patriots in this country, but we dp not know what patriotism is until we see in Russia examples of what I should call the patriotism of mankind. While in Russia, I met some real patriots. There I met men and women who, for the benefit of their fellows, had spent three-quarters of their lives in prisons and chain gangs. There I met the heads of the revolutionary groups, who for fifty years or more had been risking their all for Russian freedom - Madame Breshkovsky, Thaikovsky, and Lazaroff. Think of Bresh kovsky, the Grandmother of the Revolution, seventy-four years old, a prisoner and an exile for thirty-four years, still working night and day, with might and main, for the benefit of her fellow Russians. This group surrounded Kerensky, who believed in working out the social problem by the Russian Labour classes, in conjunction with the property-owning classes. Then’, again, I saw the workings of another group, equally patriotic, who believed that ultimate freedom and the possession of the land could only be worked out by the working men and the peasants. I can easily sec how Marie Spiridovna, now a leading figure in Russian fife, believes that freedom is only to be realized by a Government of working men alone. The Russian revolution, only a few months ago, released this young woman, now only in the thirties, from fifteen years’ solitary confinement in a Siberian prison. I will say right here, that if at any time during my travels I was a witness of deeds of wanton destruction and violence, it was not in Russia. If at any time I was in danger, it was not in Russia.

Mr Gregory:

– I think there ought to be a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The gentleman I have quoted is a better authority on Russian affairs than is the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory). If the honorable member desires further testimonials to the Russian people, I quote the following remarks made by the Japanese Ambassador on his return to his own country from Russia on the 29th March last-

The Soviets are gaining enormous power in Russia. The people really feel that they are the rulers of the country, and it is wonderful to observe them. Germany might destroy the Lenin Government, but Bolshevikism will permeate the world. Any other announcements would be false.

Every foreigner who has not large interests of a commercial nature leaves Russia fairly committed to the Bolshevikist view of life, and all the Germans and Austrians who may return to their country will most certainly be propagandists.

The truth of that statement can be seen in the cable messages that are daily being published regarding Dr. Liebknecht and the Spartacus group in Germany. Here is another statement that the honorable member for Dampier might contemplate in his spare moments. Mr. Arthur Ransome,’ the Russian correspondent of the London Daily News, writing from Moscow, said -

No one contends that the Bolsheviks are angels. I ask only that men shall look through the fog of libel that surrounds them, and see that the ideal for which they are struggling, in the only way in which they can struggle, is among those lights which every man of young and honest heart sees before him somewhere on the road, and not among those other lights from which he resolutely turns away. These men who have made the Soviet Government of Russia, if they must fail, will fail with clean shields and clean hearts, having striven for an ideal which will live beyond them. Even if they fail, they will none tlie less have written a page of history more daring than any other which I can remember in the story of the human race. They are writing it amid showers of mud from all the meaner spirits in their country, in yours, and in my own. But, when the thing is over, and their enemies have triumphed, the mud will vanish like black magic at noon, and that page will be as white as the snows of Russia, and the writing on it as bright as the gold domes that I used to see glittering in the sun when I looked from my windows in Petrograd.

And when in after years men read that page they will judge your country and mine, your race and mine, by the help or hindrance they gave to the writing of it.

What is it that arouses the ire of honorable members opposite, and makes the honorable member for Dampier and others rise’ in their wrath whenever Bolshevism is mentioned? I propose to now place on record the system of Government that is in operation in Russia today. These are the general provisions of the Constitution of the Russian: Socialist Federal Republic -

The fundamental problem of the Constitution of the Russian Socialistic Federal Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship over the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry, the power of the PanRussian Soviet authority, the crushing of the bourgeoisie, the abolition of the spoliation of men by men and the introduction of Socialism in which there will be neither a division into classes nor aState authority.

The Russian Republic is the free Socialistic society of all the working people of Russia, united in the urban and rural Soviets.

The Soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character will be united into autonomous regional associations ruled by the sessions of the Soviets of those regions and their executive organs.

The Soviet associations of the regions participate in the Russian Socialistic Republic upon the basis of federation, at the head of which stand the Pan-Russian session of the Soviets and, in periods between the sessions, the Pan-Russian Central Executive Committee.

page 9509

III

page 9509

CONCERNING THE RUSSIAN SOVIETS

Section First : Concerning the Suffrage.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The particulars continue -

  1. Soldiers of the army and navy of the Soviets.

    1. Citizens of the two previous categories who have to any degree lost their capacity to work.
    2. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:
    3. Persons who employ hired labour in order to obtain from it an increase of profits.
    4. Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, and so on.
    5. Private merchants, trade and commercial intermediaries.
    6. Employees of communities for religious worship.
    7. Employees and agents of theformer police, the gendarmerie corps, and the Ochrana; also members of the dynasty that formerly ruled in Russia.
  2. Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also deaf and dumb persons.
  3. Persons who have been punished for selfish or dishonorable misdemeanors.
Mr Wise:

– What has all this to do with the Estimates?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Charlton:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Great latitude is allowed to honorable members in the general discussion of the Estimates, but I do not see how the honorable member can connect these particulars of the Rus-. sian Government with the Estimates of this country.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I was alluding to the immense expenditure incurred by the people in maintaining an excessive number of Legislatures and the paraphernalia of government generally. The honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) made an interjection about the expense of government in Russia, and I am quoting particulars of the system of government at present in operation in Russia as an indication of how the multiplicity of Parliaments in Australia might well be dispensed with.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member would be in order if he connected his remarks with the Estimates, but he is going into too much detail regarding the form of government adopted in Russia. He is perfectly at liberty to make comparisons between the systems of government there and here, but I ask him not to carry his references to Russia too far.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– As I am not allowed to quote from an authority on the constitutional system now in operation in Russia, I shall content myself with saying that if Australia, instead of being divided into States, with a multiplicity of Governors and Parliaments, and all the expenditure that their upkeep involves, were divided into provinces or districts, and the people, possessing the full franchise that they have now in the Federal arena, were to elect representatives for municipalities and shires, and if those municipalities and shires were to send representatives to the various Provincial Congresses, which would be the supreme authority of the various provinces or districts, and if the provinces were to select delegates to a convention like that which drafted our Federal Constitution, we should have a system resembling the Russian system. The members of the Convention would elect an Executive Committee, who would be similar to our members of Parliament, whose business would be, not to discuss projects of legislation as we do here, but each to govern a subdepartment. Each member of Parliament or member of the Executive Committee would thus have his definite work to do, and the Parliament would be an administrative machine. This arrangement would considerably benefit the people of the country, and make its “government less expensive.

Lt.-Colonel Abbott:

– It would be a sort of unification.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Yes; and at the same time, decentralization.

Lt.-Colonel Abbott:

– The powers of self-government would be extended.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Yes. There would be great local autonomy. The local governing centres would have more power, and there would be a democratizing ‘ of the franchise. The people would control the Government more directly than they do now, and whatever was the public opinion of Australia at any given time would be at once reflected in its government, because there would be in operation the recall, the initiative, and the referendum.

Mr Mathews:

– We should have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The system of government that I have outlined would confer more power on the general body of the electors. I wish to see the people in a position to control the respective institutions of the country. The subject is one to which those who have economy at heart should give attention. The people will not long remain content to maintain seven Parliaments with fourteen Houses of Legislature and 686 members and seven Governors, at a cost of £900,000 per annum. These unnecessary Parliaments and Governorships could be wiped out. Furthermore, considerable saving could be effected by abolishing ‘Departments which might be called the by-product of the various Parliaments. At present the people get very little for their expenditure. It is the workers who find the money to pay for these unnecessary institutions, and as the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) said tonight, they are relatively worse off than they were, in spite of the nominal increase in wages. In addition to having the purchasing power of their wages reduced, they ,are compelled to pay directly or indirectly the whole cost of government.

Mr Pigott:

– ‘How would it be to have non-payment of members of Parliament?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– So long as I am here, I should like to be paid, and I doubt whether the honorable member would bother about serving’ his country if there were no payment attached to the position he occupies. The people would be better served if the payments made to the members of six unnecessary Parliaments were abolished. The ridiculous position in which Australia is placed in this regard can he realized after a moment’s consideration. We are less than 5,000,000 people, and’ yet we have fourteen houses of Parliament, with 686 members to govern the country. Then there is a High Court to stop one portion of the country from getting at loggerheads with another upon some constitutional point about which the workers do not care a “tinker’s continental.” What does it matter to the workers whether they live in Victoria, Tasmania, or New South Wales ? Their object is to feed their families, give them a decent education and a better chance than their fathers had. We should not be concerned about maintaining the rights of Tasmania, Victoria, and New South Wales, but in building up an Australian Democracy with one Parliament, in whatever form that suggests itself as the best.

Mr Poynton:

– Why not wipe out the Federal Parliament and let the States have a chance?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Because I believe that this country is able to manage its affairs with one Parliament, and that the National Parliament. If the question were put to the people by referendum I am quite sure they would be in favour of wiping out these numerous Parliaments in favour of a National Parliament, and not on the bicameral system, but with one House. I should like to see, not only the Upper Houses, but the State Parliaments done away with, because I consider they serve no useful purpose. The people ought to have a broad democratic franchise, supplemented by the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, at which the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Sinclair) sneered a little while back.

Mr Sinclair:

– I did not sneer, but simply said that you were “ stealing the thunder” of the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney).

Mr CONSIDINE:

– You said, with a cheap sort of sneer, that the idea was that of the honorable member mentioned. But if a principle is good, it does not matter by -whom it is enunciated. If the people had the powers I have mentioned they would soon make short work of the numerous Parliaments and the unnecessary officials the country has to carry.

Mr Jowett:

– What do the Bolsheviks do with unnecessary officials?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Put them to work. How would the honorable member like to follow them ? If the people had those powers we would be concerned with administering the industrial life of the country instead of providing pensions for unnecessary Judges, and so forth. As to the High Court, it is my opinion that Parliament should be supreme. We might apply the words of Cromwell to tho High Court, and say that it is not only unnecessary, but dangerous, and ought to be abolished. .

Mr Poynton:

– That is a real “ Bill Sikes “ argument ! .

Mr CONSIDINE:

– This is the first time I have heard Cromwell described as a “Bill Sikes.” In this country the laws that are made in the interests of the workers are pronounced on and their constitutionality decided by the High Court. There should be no higher authority than the electors of the country, acting through their representatives ; and the High Court is in no way representative of the electors. With the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, the representative body elected bv the people would be divided into administrative Departments, and each member would have a Department, or sub-Department under his management. The Parliament would then be representative of the people, and members would not be sent here to discuss Estimates and Bills of the nature we have lately had before us, but would be a body controlling the administrative machinery of the country.

Mr Webster:

– What, would you administer without laws?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member must have been asleep, and dreaming that he was in Utopia or Plato’s Republic. I am not talking about doing away with laws, but of doing away with a great deal of unnecessary lawmakers.

Mr Webster:

– You were talking about members administering Departments without laws.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I was talking about this Parliament being less of a talking shop and more of a working administrative machine. Every man who believes in the right of the people to govern their country must believe in the initiative, the referendum, and the recall - in a democratic representative organism that functions in an administrative, instead of a legislative sense. The ,people themselves, under such a system, would make the laws through the initiative arid referendum, and we should simply be the machine through which the people would function. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster) smiles- o

Mr Webster:

– Well I might !

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Of course, if you cannot find anything more intelligent to do.

Mr Poynton:

– You are stealing “ the Doctor’s “ lightning.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I do not know that it is worse to steal “ the Doctor’s “ lightning than to steal some other fellow’s job:

Mr Tudor:

– You might explain that remark.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I will leave the explanation to the imagination of the Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton). I do not know that the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) has an exclusive title to advocacy of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall; hut I do know that ever since I have taken an interest in politics, and before I ever saw this House, I was a firm believer in those political expedients, which are practised in all our industrial organizations.

Mr Poynton:

– No, they are not.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Speaking as a union official, I know that they are.

Mr Poynton:

– I was a union official long before you were.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– But the honorable gentleman has gone back lately.

Mr Poynton:

– I was a union official for longer before you were born than you have been since.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I know that you are older than I am, very much older, and that is the reason your arguments are so bad. The initiative, referendum, and right of recall are part and parcel of the machinery of government in any country that claims to be a Democracy. When we are talking about Estimates and reducing taxation, which I believe is £3 6s. 8d. per head; when we are discussing war expenditure, which means something like £15,000,000 in loan interest, or another £3 per head, we should give the people an opportunity of saying whether they are not in favour of making this the only governing institution in the country.

Sitting suspended from midnight to 12.45 a.m.(Wednesday).

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I propose now to refer to some matters connected with the Commonwealth Police Force. On the 29th November I asked the Acting Prime Minister a number of questions regarding a man named Anatole Melentrevitch Mendrin, and to-day received certain answers. In reply to my question as to whether this man was a member of the Okrana, or Russian secret police - the spy system of the late Czar’s Government - the Acting Prime Minister said he could not say; and in answer to my question whether his services had been utilized by the Commonwealth Police Force for the purpose of obtaining information regarding Russians resident in Queensland, the ActingPrime Minister said thathe did not think so. The Minister also read a telegram which he had re ceived from Mendrin declaring that he was neither a German nor of German parentage; that he had arrived in Australia about 1911 from Russia by way of Japan; that he had not, and had never, teen connected with any Russian secret service, and had never been employed in the Consular Office in Brisbane or by the Commonwealth Police. He added that he belonged to a well-known Russian family, and was carrying on a legitimate business in Brisbane as manager for a firm of Russian merchants; that he did not belong to any Bolshevik or unlawful organization, and that his name was simply Anatole Letivitch Mendrin, without any alias whatever. I asked the questions because there had come into my possession a translation of issue No. 201 of the official organ of the Bolshevik Government, the Isvestia, dated 22nd January, 1917. In that organ there appeared certain correspondence dealing with the secret police system of the late Czar’s Government. It was published by a Russian named Augaski, who had been a political exile in New South Wales. I propose to read the telegrams so that honorable members may see for themselves whether Mendrin was connected in any way, as I have alleged, with the Russian secret police.

Mr Poynton:

– You could easily bring this matter to a head if you said this outside.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I prefer my own way of dealing with it. The translation of the correspondence is as follows : - (1st.)

Telegram to the Chief of the Vladivostock Secret Service: - “(Personal). - Do you agree to employ as an agent a man capable of enlightening the Military Administration in Vladivostock, Nikolsk, and Khabarovsk, consideration in case of satisfactory work, one hundred, in any case not less than seventyfive roubles? Wire answer.” (Sgd.) Colonel Posnansky.

Irkutsk, 2nd October, 1910

No. 5103. (2nd.)

The Colonel of Gendarmes Posnansky. “ (Personal). - I agree. Please put yourself early at the disposal of the Captain of Cavalry.” (Sgd.) Khootzieff.

Citadel of Vladivostock, 2nd October, 1910

No. 45. (3rd.)

To Captain Khootzieff, Vladivostock. “(Personal). - Did Mendrin arrive, and when ? Under what name will he work?” (Sgd.) Colonel Posnansky. 30th October, 1910.

No. 5593, Irkutsk. (4th.)

To Colonel Posnansky. “ (Personal). - He arrived, but does not know anything. Has no connexions here. I sent him to Harbin to try and get the connexions enabling him to work here.” (Sgd.) Captain of Cavalry,

Khootzieff. 1st November, 1910,

No. 52, Citadel, Vladivostock. (5th.)

To the Chief of Vladivostock Section, Secret Service, 13th January, 1911, No. 1 Citadel, Vladivostock, numbers 5103 and 52. Absolutely confidential To His High Nobility, M. I. Posnansky. “ Dear Mr. Michel Igntatovitch, - The agent who came to me in October, Anatole Melentievitch Mendrin, known as Toboletz, as reported by me in Despatch number 52, proved himself entirely unacquainted with the local revolutionary movement, in consequence of which he was ordered to Harbin, where he is to get the connexions required to work in the radius intrusted to me. Toboletz has received from me 75 roubles for October salary, and 60 roubles for travelling expenses from Irkutsk, also a passport, number 275, issued by the Mayor of the Town of Riazam, on the 20th of August, 1907, in the name of Ivan Semenovitch Medviedieff. During his sojourn in Harbin the same man has written to me only one letter, from which I concluded that the objects set him in Harbin had not been reached. In consequence, he was ordered to remain there up to the 6th of December. At the same time, his attention was drawn to the mistakes he had made, such as sending letters by post with my name on the address, and on the necessity to send the communication required from him. It is probable that my letters stating exactly what was required of him as one of our agents did not please him, as up to now he has not come to Vladivostock, and he is no longer in Harbin. In reporting the above, I pray, should you possess tidings of his whereabouts to take from him and return to me the passport issued to him, and, if possible, get from him an explanation why he did not fulfil the service expected from him. I deem it necessary to add the following: - ‘When Toboletz came to Vladivostock he stated to me that he had been ordered to come here, not from his own desire, nor because that he had reported that he could throw light on the revolutionary activity in the Army throughout the. territory intrusted to my administration, but only in consequence of his own downfall’, the failure in the success. Secondly, in my own estimation, Toboletz came here (he is here a houseowner) to arrange his personal affairs, and to receive from the Procurateur Schultz, and from the President of Court Tribunal Goodzeveitch certain money lent to them, and to other officers of the Justice Department while they were residing, if I am not mistaken, in the district of Irkutsk. With deep respect and devotion.’ “

I am (Signed) I. Khootzieff.

Letter written from Harbin by Mendrin to the Chief of Okrana - Kootzieff: - “ Greetings. - My affairs begin to shape themselves, but so far only in one group. There is plenty of varied material which I cannot mention in this letter. I will do so when I see you personally, after having received your answer to this letter. I can soon go to Vladivostock or to Blagovie Schtchinsk, according with the conditions of my journey to the west, that is to P - . I have still my authority; certain officers and servants of the K-

Railway line, have formed a revolutionary organization. The instigators appear to be some of the ex-S.R., who have served their sentence. I shall, as stated above, give further and more detailed information in a personal interview. Two persons have been here unmasked - acting members of Okrana. I am waiting for an answer. I have included in my letter all the material which I have been able to gather. (Sgd.) Toboletz. 10th January, 1910.

Kharbin School, Str., No. 3, add. Karassick, for I am being here under the name Medviedieff, according to the passport, which I got from you. Write only the same name for transmission to me. I have not written for a long time, because without ground and material I reckoned it was not necessary to write.”

Letter from Brisbane, Australia, 23rd January, 1916: -

To the Chief of Gendarmes, Police Office at Vladivostock. “ Sir,- I have hereby the honour to most humbly pray you to attract the attention of the Chief of the Okrana at Vladivostock and Irkutsk on the following: - Entertaining the highest patriotic sentiments towards my native country - Russia - and sentiments of devotion to His Majesty the Emperor, also wishing to be in some way useful to my native country, I have hereby the honour to most humbly pray to be accepted in one of those sections, as one of the working agents. In 1909 I was such an agent, first in Irkutsk section under Posnansky, but I was unmasked and handicapped, and I left Russia to go abroad. Now I have good reasons to be here that my service may be of some use. My name > whilst I was in Irkutsk Section was Toboletz. Answer to this address, Confidential, Russian Consulate for the Bearer of Passport Book 275. The passport was issued to me by the Cavalry Captain Khootzieff in November, 1909. I work in certain cases in conjunction with the local police. I think I could work in central Russia, in (Siberia, and abroad. Correspondence may be carried on in Russian, Polish, English, and in cypher ( secret writing ) . I deem it my duty to add that if my offer of services is accepted, I pray you to inform me of it by cable, as I have important facts and information to communicate. My telegraphic address.

Brisbane Russian Consulate,

Mrs. Miedviedieff

These are the facts.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– It is claimedby the Russians here that this man is not a Russian at all. The name certainly savours more of German than Russian origin. He is the Australian manager for Popoff and Company, whose headquarters are in Harbin, China, and, as stated by certain correspondence in my possession, he is the man who cornered the tallow market in Australia in 1916.

Mr Jowett:

– That was a dirty thing to do.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I think the honorable member suggested a little while ago that he was a friend of mine, but probably now he will realize from his action in cornering the tallow market that Mendrin is a friend of his own. This gentleman is alleged by the Russian colony in Australia to have been employed by the Commonwealth Police Force to obtain information concerning Russians in this country. The official correspondence which I have read contains this admissionby Mendrin himself. In his letter from Brisbane to the Chief of Secret Police at Vladivostock he says, “ I work in certain cases in conjunction with the local police.”

Mr Poynton:

– In his telegram read to-day he denies that statement.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Yes, but the dates given in his telegram coincide with the date of his arrival in Australia.

Mr Lynch:

– What was the date of that letter ?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– 23rd January, 1916.

Mr Lynch:

– That was before the Commonwealth Police Force was established.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– This man states that he was working with the local police. The Brisbane Russians say that he has been used by the Commonwealth Police Force to obtain information regarding Russians there. His letter, then, is really in the nature of an application as a member of the secret service of a foreign country. I know that, according to his telegram, he is the most innocent man on the face of the earth ; but he admits that he is the manager of the firm which I have named, and he claims to be Anatole Melentrevitch Mendrin. The correspondence which I have read is published in the official organ of the Soviet Government, No. 201, of the 22nd December, 1917. It shows that this man came from Harbin, and that he was employed at Vladivostock as a police spy under the late Czar’s Government. He disappeared from Russia, and his whereabouts could not be located. He did not carry out the job that had been allotted to him, but came to Australia instead. Then he wrote from Brisbane asking that he might be employed here, because he was able to obtain information that would be of value. The Government are extraordinarily quick to use the powers conferred upon them by the War Precautions Act to deal with our own people who are supposed to have infringed the law, either by the publication of seditious matter, or by giving utterance to disloyal sentiments. I ask them to conduct an inquiry into the antecedents of this man, and to satisfy themselves as to what passports are in his possession, and who issued them.

Mr Gregory:

– He must have made himself a bit obnoxious.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– A spy is always obnoxious.

Mr Jowett:

– Does the honorable member suggest that we should appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter ?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I suggest that the honorable member should remain quiet until I have finished my speech. When it comes to investigating the antecedents of this individual, do the Government propose to mete out to him, because he cornered the tallow market a few years ago, and because he represents an international firm, different treatment from that which is accorded to our own people? When a man leaves his country, more especially when he claims to be in touch with those who are high in authority there, we should prove beyond doubt that he is what he represents himself to be. When I questioned the Government upon this matter, I was informed that it was the intention of this individual to leave Australia again within a month.

Mr Jowett:

– What did Ministers say in reply to the honorable member’s questions?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– They said that they had no information to give, in1 answer to some of those questions, and they produced Mr. Mendrin’s telegram. But how came he to know that I had asked the questions?

Mr Poynton:

– Did he not say that he had seen them in the newspapers?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I want to know why this person, who was undoubtedly a member of the secret service of the late Czar’s Government-

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member is not in a position to prove that, although he may think it.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The official organ of the Russian Government can be produced in support of my statement.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member will take all sorts of care not to make the statement outside.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– For goodness’ sake, try some other tune.

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

– Is the honorable member prepared to bring a definite charge against him?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– It is the duty of the Government, who are so ready to prosecute our own people, to investigate the statement of the Russian colonists of Brisbane to the effect that this man is really of Germanic origin; to ascertain the reasons for his visit to Australia, and for his trips to and from Japan. At the present time, he is alleged to be in Queensland collecting trade information for certain persons in the East. The Government are in a position to make him account for his movements. They can very easily ascertain through the British Embassy whether or not his statements are correct. They are in a position to determine whether he is in possession of the passports that he claims. This is the man who wrote from Australia, as late as 23rd January, 1916-

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member thinks that he is the man?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– British newspapers have charged the late Czar’s Government with being a pro-German Government. It has been stated that the late Czar’s Government had a wireless plant installed in the Winter Palace which was in communication with Berlin. If the German Government were in league with the late Czar’s Government, and if this gentleman was connected with the secret service of that Government, it is only reasonable to suppose that information relating to Australian defence matters may have leaked out.

Mr Jowett:

– No. They say that tho Germans were in league with the Bolsheviks.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– No ; they do not.

Mr Jowett:

– When the Kaiser was in Berlin, the Bolshevik red flag hung side by side with the German eagle.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– But it was not there with the approval of the Kaiser. Make no mistake about that. The Kaiser knows that he is looking for a job to-day because of the presence of the Bolsheviks in Germany. It has been alleged by one of the leaders of the Salvation Army, who recently returned from Europe, that a wireless apparatus was discovered in the Czarina’s apartments at Petrograd.

Mr Jowett:

– That was the Czarina. She sold the secrets of the Russian Government to Germany.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Here is a man who, in 1916, before the revolution broke out in Russia, stated that he was in possession of information which was of value to the late Czar’s Government.

Mr Jowett:

– The late Czar of Russia was never a pro-German.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– A prima facie case has been made out for Government investigation into this man’s antecedents. Who supplied him with the knowledge that I had asked certain questions here? Who got him to wire to the Acting Prime Minister?

Mr Poynton:

– Could he not see those questions in the newspapers?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Did the Acting Minister for the Navy seethem in the newspapers? This gentleman claims to be friendly with Senator Pearce and with Mr. H. V.. McKay.

Mr Poynton:

– Is that any disgrace?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– No. But it may supply a reason why his telegram was received so promptly, and why there is such a lack of information regarding the questions which I have asked. Seeing that our own people are clapped into gaol upon all sorts of charges of disloyalty and sedition, the Government ought to investigate this particular case, with a view to ascertaining whether the individual . to whom I refer has been responsible for any leakage of information.

Mr Poynton:

– It is quite evident that he is not a Bolshevik.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– No. Had he been one, he would not have been a police spy and an informer. The people of this country who take any interest in what transpires here, will not be satisfied to let this matter drop without a thorough investigation into it. Is it only the men and women of the working classes who are to have their antecedents inquired into, their loyalty questioned, and their actions spied upon? Are individuals who represent foreign business establishments to be immune from suspicion ?

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

– Some of them who were in business in Tasmania and Sydney are in internment camps to-day.

Mr CONSIDINE:

- Mr. Snow is not. The honorablemember mightpursue that subject with advantage also. Indeed, there are lots of cases which might be investigated with considerable advantage.

Mr Poynton:

– They have been investigating Snow’s case for more than two years.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– And they will continue to investigate it until the ‘honorable member and I are dead and buried, before Snow is dealt with. But if he had been a plain working man from Broken Hill he would have been sent up behind the barbed wire long before now. Why do the Government airily waive aside such matters as these? Is it for the reason that they are not interested in investigating the class of ease which I have put forward?

Mr Poynton:

– Why has the honorable member such ahatred of any man possessing a few more pounds than himself?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable gentleman has stated that he is a good dealolder than I am -a good deal older in experience. He says he has been connected, with trade unions and has had a lifetime of experience among the workers. I have had considerable experience, young though I am, among employers., I am only thirty-two to-day, but I have been for nineteen years working in this country. When I was about eighteen I was working for one firm in Sydney at a magnificent salary of £1 a week.

Mr Poynton:

– That might be as much as you were worth.

Mr.CONSIDINE.- Yes, and it would be a damned sight more than you were ever worth. I had a younger brother who was dying of tuberculosis of the throat; and I had a widowed mother. She had come to this country with four children. When I asked my boss for a rise because I had to pay my own board and lodging and had to help my mother, who was also working and had been working for twenty-seven years, trying to keep my invalid brother, my employer told me that he was not a benevolent institution.

MR Pigott:

– They are not alllike that.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– That is one experience of the employer.

Mr Jowett:

– There are good and bad ; and that was a bad employer.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Quite true! My widowed mother, with her four children, had to work for twenty-seven years. My youngestbrother died in the Old Men’s Home, in New South Wales, because I was not getting sufficient wages to keep him. My mother was not earning enough, either. And yet I am asked what I have against employers, what I have against the. social system, and why I do not want to fight for the flag and for the freedom enjoyed in Australia. What would honorable members think of the social system if they had had to go through the same experience?

Mr Poynton:

– When I was fourteen my father died, and I had to rear the family after that. I worked as hard as ever the honorable member did.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member should go through the same experiences as I haveknown, and he would not waste so much time in flag-flapping: He should ask the opinion of the workers who have had similar experiences. He would not want to know, then, why they have not volunteered to fight. He should ask the workers in Broken Hill, who run the risk of leaving their female relatives in the same position-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

– A lot of money has been wasted in the direction of printing Ministers’ speeches for dissemination. Sometimes I have received fifty copies of a speech made by the Treasurer, and I am glad I have not had to pay the postage.

Mr Jowett:

– They were good speeches.

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not agree with them.

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

-I have found them very useful. A good many of them have caught up with many untruths which have, been given utterance to in this House.

Mr GREGORY:

– If it is desired, todo a good turn along, the same lines now,, it would be well if copies of the speech whichhas just been delivered were sent out all over the country. They would do ‘ more good than any other speech which has been uttered in. this chamber during the past twelve months. I congratulate the. honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) upon having become, to some extent, a convert. I had always looked upon him with a shade of suspicion so far as this country was concerned. But now he is defending us. He believes he has “ got on “ to. some one who has been a spyout here ; and he wants the man followed up. The only thing that I am glad to realize in relation to that individual is that he is not in Russia to-day.. If he were, his name would not be “ Semenoff “ - or whatever it may be. It would be more like “ Popoff . “ The honorable member has pictured what would happen if he had his way, and, as he has been talking, I have been endeavouring to draft some idea of what would be the position in Australia if Bolshevik ideals were given full sway. Among the ideals portrayed by the honorable member for Barrier there is a love of freedom - a love of freedom for yourself, and “ to the dickens’’ with the other fellow! It is a case of “ rob everybody else, and shoot the man whoseeks to rob you.” There’ isa love of society about the Bolshevik principles - a love of society, allied, however, to the will to destroy all who dare to disagree with you. Bolshevik ideals would bring to this country fraud, robbery, murder, rapine, famine, and pestilence. That is what follows hard on the Bolshevik regime, if we are to judge by the history of Russia to-day. And yet we have such freedom in Australia that a member of this Parliament is permitted to stand up and talk Bolshevism of that character. In what country, in all the world, is there the same freedom ? Where are there similar electoral laws? We have universal adult suffrage. What more could one want than an expression of the will of the people as indicated in Australia’s system of government ?

But I wish to deal now specifically with, the subject before the Committee. It. is discreditable that at 1.30 in the morning there, should be only about a dozen -honorable members present to discuss an expenditure of approximately £120,000,000. “We were promised time after time that, in. connexion with these Estimates, full and ample opportunity would be given for their discussion. “What time is there for discussion now? “What chance have we to endeavour to force the Government to reduce expenditure?

Mr Jowett:

– Force them with argument !

Mr GREGORY:

– We have done it before, or with other form of pressure. I regret that we cannot make the public realize that at this hour a handful of honorable members should be dealing with Estimates which were submitted months ago. The debate, I dare say, will be pushed to its illogical conclusion, namely, the passing of the Estimates. I am sorry that I cannot congratulate honorable members generally on their efforts to do their duty to their constituents and the country by seeing that this enormous total of expenditure is not fully discussed, with the object of reducing it wherever possible. Undoubtedly, there is a drift going on. We hear honorable members talking about Unification. We hear them saying, “ Get rid of these other Parliaments. Give all power into the hands of the Federal Parliament.” We deserve it, do we not? The Government have said, “We are going to end this session in a few days. It does not matter what time has been wasted ; you must put the Estimates through in a few hours.” Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned! It is nothing to what is going on to-night.

The honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett) has been interjecting in a manner which does not suggest that he is impressed with the seriousness of the position. The honorable member may be very well satisfied with the Administration ; hut I am not. When we look upon the enormous expenditure, which was estimated before the armistice and with the expectation of a full war year ahead, it is reasonably fair to ask that the Estimates should now be reviewed with an idea of reducing expenditure in view of the altered situation. I would go further than the honorable member for

Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman). I am dissatisfied, not only with the enormous .expenditure and with the puny effort being made to stop the growth of extravagance in the Federal Service, I am not satisfied with the Administration. The administration of the Government at present has tended greatly to cripple the primary industries of the country. I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, and there are many honorable members on this side who also should support it.

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

– Who, do you suggest, should be sent for if the Government are defeated?

Mr GREGORY:

– I am trying to teach the Government the error of their ways’ We ‘have done so before. The Treasurer took credit for what the Government did in connexion with the Loan Estimates; but they were forced to do what they did. The honorable gentleman told us what he did when he was Minister for Works, but we never heard a. single word from him then about the gross extravagance of that Department, though I admit it occurred chiefly prior to his taking control. Instead of creating a new Department to operate the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, the State Governments of Western Australia and South Australia should have been asked upon what terms they would run it. Now we have a new Commonwealth Department for the purpose, and it is carried on at enormous expense.

I hope that the pressure from honorable members on this side, that was responsible for the reduction in the Loan Estimates, will be used to prevent much of the extravagance that is provided for in these Estimates. The Treasurer says that he struck out £2,290,000 which the different Departments had asked for. It was to be expected that within the last three or four years a certain increase in the cost of government would take place, but it is not reasonable that the estimates for this year should show a large increase upon the expenditure for last year. The Treasurer said that he could not reduce these Estimates further, but I see a vote of £20,000 for the Science Institute.

Where is the authority for the establishment of the Science Institute? It has not been given by this Parliament. In ‘ connexion with a matter of urgency, and particularly during war time, I should be prepared to give the Treasurer any sum he desired, but no one can say that the establishment of the proposed Science Institute at a cost of £20,000 for this year is a matter of urgency.

Let honorable members consider the vote for the Meteorological Bureau, which is proposed by this Government, who are going to save money. There is £2,500 increase set down for the staff of that branch, and a large number of increases are provided for. The salary of one officer is to be raised from £504 to £588; of another, from £466 to £522 ; and of three others, from £406 to £480. New appointments are also provided for. No one will say that weather reports are of such great importance that these appointments could not have been left for some future date.

Let honorable members consider again the huge expenditure upon the Northern Territory. Will any one dare to say that there is not an opportunity to reduce expenditure there? I have been looking up the Estimates of expenditure for the Northern Territory from 1913 onwards, and I find that it is like nothing so much as a huge mushroom growth. In view of the high taxation which the people are compelled to pay, and in view of the money which must be provided if our returned soldiers are to be properly looked after, it is only fair that we should demand that there shall be no extravagance in the government of the country.

I take the expenditure upon the High Commissioner’s Office,. I ask, in the first place, what is the High Commissioner in London for? There has been an expenditure of nearly £1,000,000 in connexion with the London Office. The High Commissioner was sent to London to look after the interests of Australia. He is there with a staff, but they are not permitted to look after the interests of the country. They are not assisting the State ‘Agents-General to promote the interests of Australian industries. The Government will be in recess in a few days, and may then send to the

Old Country any Minister they please. There are two Ministers there now interfering with the proper disposal of our products. What is Mr. Fisher in London for? If he is not competent to perform the proper duties of his office, he should be brought back here; and if he is competent, as I believe he and his staff are, his work should not be done by members of the Ministry. .

Mr Jowett:

– What would be done with Mr. Fisher if he were brought back?

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not say that we should bring him back, but we should give him the power to do necessary work, and he should do it, instead of having the Prime Minister butting in.

Mr Lynch:

– The Prime Minister is doing good work in getting ships for Australia, and quite a lot of other good work.

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not agree with the honorable member. Although we have two Ministers and the High Commissioner in London, the expenditure on the High Commissioner’s Office is increased this year from £8,925 to £10,650.

The expenditure of the States and of the Commonwealth has shown an enormous increase during the past four or five years. In 1913-14 the expenditure of the different Governments in Australia amounted to £69,000,000. This year it amounts to £173,000,000. The war is, of course, responsible for a great portion of the increase, but not for the whole of it.

In 1913-14, the taxation imposed by the States amounted to £6,304,000. This year it amounts to £8,984,000 or an increase of £2,680,000. The taxation of the Commonwealth amounted, in 1913- 14, to £16,587,000 ; at the end of the last financial year it amounted to £24,523,000. We must come to a stage at which the people will be unable to bear any further taxation. The taxation of Commonwealth and States amounted, in 1913-14, to £4 14s. per head of the population, men, -women, and children, and this year it amounts to £6 17s. 5d. per head.

In 1913-14, the public debt of the States was £294,000,000, and the public debt of the Commonwealth was £19,000,000, or a total of £313,000,000. In 1917-18, the public debt of the States amounted to £372,005,000, and of the Commonwealth to £246,000,000,. making a total public debt to-day of £618,000,000.

Mr Sinclair:

– How much of that isdue to war expenditure?

Mr GREGORY:

– I did not bother to take out the figures due to special war expenditure. The public debt of the States and Commonwealth has increased from £70 per. head of the population in 1913-14 to £125 17s. per head to-day..

This year, the Commonwealth revenueis estimated at £36,000,000, and the expenditure at £125,000,000, showing a deficit of approximately £85,000,000. No’ doubt this is a wealthy community; but the wealth of the country comes from its primary industries.

Mr Mathews:

– The industrialists can claim a little.

Mr GREGORY:

– Not so far as the actual wealth of the country is concerned. The industrialists must help, but if the primary industries do not progress, the other industries are useless.

Mr Mathews:

– And vice versa.

Mr GREGORY:

– Not at all, because the primary producer competes in the markets of the world, and the industrialist competes in the home market.

Mr Mathews:

– The home market is the agriculturalists’ best market.

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

– The McKay harvester can help the primary producer.

Mr GREGORY:

– Undoubtedly.

Mr Mathews:

-. - And so has the supply of cheap superphosphates.

Mr GREGORY:

– That has been due to Professor Lowry’s advocacy of their use. He was the man of genius and brains, who proved the great value of superphosphates to the agricultural industry. I realize that the best market is the home market, and desire to encourage home industries; but the great primary industries are those which are responsible for the wealth and prosperity of Australia. I say that the present Administration has not looked after those industries as it should have done. I have said that I am not entirely satisfied with the Administration. I am not content to allow the Government to go into recess for five or six months, when, during that time, we shall have all our boys coining back from the war. We are without a definite scheme of repatriation. The Government have not endeavoured to investigate complaints made of the conditions under which, our boys have been sent away from Australia. The Government should’ have at once had an impartial Committee appointed to investigate the condition of the Barambah when it left here. TheHouse would be quite justified in demanding that a Committee composed’ of members of both sides, acting in an honorary capacity, should be appointed. I and many other members would be only too glad to act honor arily to investigate complaints of that sort, so that if officers are wanting in their duty they should be punished, and, if not, it should be shown clearly that they have done their duty honestly and fairly.

I do not approve of allowing the Government, at a time like this’, tohave that supreme control which they will have probably until May next, when we mayhope for Parliament to be called together again. I have seen the methods of theTreasurer. I have seen quite enough of political life to know what is going to’ happen, no matter what promises he hasmade. He has made promises here with, regard to the War Precautions Act and other matters, but we know that he has. made other promises. One big promise was made to the country, and kept, tomy mind, very badly. It was kept in the letter, but. not in spirit. Iam saying that, because the Treasurer has been grossly impertinent to me time after time, and I want to give him back just about as good as he has given.

Are we to have a continuance of the reports in connexion with administrative matters that we have had during the past few days? What action do the Government propose to take ? They have nottold Us anything yet. A complaint was made in another Chamber by Senator Pratten in regard to tin scrap; and wehave an officer in the Attorney-General’s Department- dictating to the public the terms upon which it is to be treated. This is a most: arbitrary and improper thing-, and a disgrace to any Administration. The. worst feature is the nature . ofthe replies that are put in. the hands of Ministers. I am sure the. Treasurer would not have made the statement he made here if he was not satisfied that the answer he was giving was true. He told the House on two occasions, in answer to questions - one of them put by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Chapman) - that £4 15s. per ton was not the. ruling price of tin scrap here. Here is a purchase note from one of the biggest firms in Melbourne: Quantity up to 500 tons of 2,240 lbs. each; description, tin-plate clippings; quality, not rusty; price, £4 15s. per ton for 2,240. lbs. net, f.o.b. Melbourne; shipment, middle of July, 1918. That is dated 28th June, 1918.

Mr McWilliams:

– The answer given to me was that that price was not obtainable.

Mr GREGORY:

– There is the official sale note from one of the biggest firms in Melbourne, andI saw another one to-day. We asked the Acting Prime Minister if he was going to continue the embargo on the export of tin scrap, and he said, “Yes.” Why, and for whom is this being done? I read in a file in the Library to-day that large quantities of tin scrap were being sent by charitable people to some fund organized by the Lady Mayoress of Melbourne for the purpose of aiding Red Cross work, and the committee asked to be allowed to sell it for export. I believe it was a very large quantity, yet the permission was refused. They said they could get only 5s. per ton for it here. These people are practically told, “ You can throw it into the tip, as we cannot allow it to go outside Australia.” I am sure the Treasurer would not have given the reply he did in this Chamber if he had had the information I have quoted in that sale note. These prices could not exist without the Department having the information. What sort of Administration have we got that will permit an officer of oneof the Departments to give instructions that tin scrap can be thrown on to the rubbish heap as waste, when a demand comes from another country for it at a good figure ?

Mr Mathews:

– I think that is the fault of some of the great business Boards that we have appointed.

Mr GREGORY:

– It is the same administration as hasbeen controllingthe metal industry, and I do not like it. I have not liked it for the last two years.

Mr Mathews:

– You would have business men instead of officials.

Mr GREGORY:

– There are business men and business men. As a rule, business men can look after business matters very much better than politicians can. I approve of Business Boards; but we should have enough common sense in the administration to realize that what we want to-day is money. Does it not seem a scandal ; that the owners of scrap of this sort, that will produce even £3 per ton f.o.b. Melbourne or in other States, should be told that they can throw it into the rubbish tip? The regulation that deals, with this matter deals also with steel and other scrap. Permits have been given for the export of that scrap, and there have been exports since the regulation came into force.

Mr Mathews:

– I have a constituent who says that he is not allowed to export, and the iron men will not pay him for it.

Mr GREGORY:

Senator Pratten showed me the figures hehad taken out, -showing the quantities exported since the regulation came into force.

Mr Mathews:

– My constituent says they will give him only £2 per ton for scrap iron. Then they put it in and roll it and get about £18 per ton for it.

Mr.GREGORY. - That is the sort of thing that enables one or two favoured firms to manipulate the market, and I do not like it. I have dealt with the metal business on more than one occasion. I pointed out in connexion with the zinc industry that we had a Department controlling the formation of companies. The Department was mighty particular, if a man wanted to float a mine, or anything else, to point out that the public had to be protected and shares had to be put in escro until six months after the war. A boy who probably never saw a mine in his life insisted upon certain conditions. A Zinc Producers Association was formed under duress. The Broken Hill and Mount Lyell companies, protested, but were compelled to join. They were told that they would have fortyeight hours to join in, or something would happen. In the articlesof association appears a clause which gives the directors power to make gifts or pay commissions to any person who may not, directly or indirectly, do anything to the advantage of the company if, in the opinion of the directors, it is in the interests of the company to make or pay such gifts or commissions. ‘We have a Secret Commissions Act on our statutebook, yet articles of association containing a clause of that sort were forced upon the principal zinc producers of Australia. That is the sort of thing we are getting under the metal control. I know of tin mine after tin mine closing down because there has been no buyer for tin oxide. The smelters could not buy it, because there was no buyer for smelted tin. The only buyer for Australia was Elder, Smith, and Company, and they were buyers for the Inter- Allied Commission. We want to know if there is to be freedom in trade, or if we are to have a continuation of that sort of thing. I was given the name of one company which was compelled to close down owing to the impossibility of disposing of its products. Their shares were worth 21s., and now they are worth only 14s. As they could not get a buyer for their product, they had to dismiss all their hands. Are we to have a Tin Producers Association forced on us as in the case of zinc? There is a Copper Producers Association as well. I like these associations, providing there is absolute freedom, but the two biggest metal corporations in Australia were forced to join the Zinc Producers Association, to which they were compelled to hand over the absolute control of all their products, not for one or five, but for fifty years ! The Broken Hill Proprietary Company, the Mount Lyell Company, and the Broken Hill Junction Company have to give the Zinc Producers Association the absolute right to make all their contracts and fix their prices for the next fifty years! I do not want any more of that sort of thing. That kind of administration is not good enough for me.

We have had a good price for our wool, and the sale was a magnificent bargain for Australia; but I am not so satisfied with the administration as many other honorable members are. I have seen the efforts made to centralize, and a big effort is being made in that direction at the present time. I have been fighting this sort of thing for two years. At Geraldton we had £750,000 worth of wool last year and £1,000,000 worth this year, and we had an appraising centre there; but word has gone over that appraisement is not to continue there. I have been told in the West that this is because I have made myself so obnoxious in connexion with the metal business..

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

– The Wool Board is composed of independent men, apart from the Government.

Mr GREGORY:

– No; they are all brokers, and interested in the trade, except the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Falkiner) and the honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett). The Prime Minister urged the people to cooperate and organize. In Western Australia they organized and formed a cooperative association, with 5,000 members, most of them producers of sheep and wool. They asked for freedom to trade in wool, as they wanted their shareholders to send their wool to them, but the Central Wool Board said, “ No; you shall not trade. Certain firms have the right from us, and only those firms are. to be allowed to trade in wool.”

Mr Lynch:

– They have killed the small country wool-buyer.

Mr GREGORY:

– Why should he be killed? It is wrong and rotten. Only to-day Mr. Angliss told me that people in the country cannot get a market for pelts, and,- in some places in the back country, are actually burning them.

Mr Fenton:

– That is quite true; yet they are wanted badly in France. The members of the French Mission made a special point of that when they were here.

Mr GREGORY:

– Yet Mr. Angliss tells me that 90 per cent, of sheepskins1 and 80 per cent, of lambskins are unsaleable. The Central Board will not allow them to be exported, and will not purchase them.

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

– If the people are burning them,- is not that because there is no shipping available ?

Mr GREGORY:

– Why not let them find their own boats, if they can ? The war is over,- and the people in the Old

Country and in America are getting freedom in the different markets. We want that freedom here, also. Some of the things that were done during the war were preposterous, and lent themselves to the favouring of the monopolist and the manipulator.

The future of Australia depends on our pastoral and agricultural industries. In 1915-16 there were 12,484,000 acres under cultivation, hut the area next year was reduced to 11,552,000 acres, and last year to 9,698,000 acres, and I am afraid, that it will be further reduced this year. This reduction in the area of cultivated land is due largely to scarcity of labour, but coupled with the reduction in yields, constitutes a grave danger. There has also been a decrease, in our production of wool. In 1914, we produced 711,000,000 lbs. of wool in the grease; in 1915, 642,000,000 lbs.; in 1916, 550,000,000 lbs.; and in 1917, 547,000,000 lbs. There has also been a big reduction in the yield of gold, and notwithstanding the big increase in prices during the war, the value of our minerals in 1917 was hot greater than in pre-war, years. These facts show that something must be done to assist our industries to a greater degree than they Have been assisted in the past. It is time that the Government made an announcement of its intentions regarding the coming wheat crop. I impress upon Ministers, too, the necessity when a guarantee is promised in connexion with the wheat, for giving effect to it in its entirety. The Commonwealth does not give a guarantee wholly on its own, and when so much per bushel is guaranteed, the farmer, whose conditions are very hard, should not be kept out of his money longer than can be helped. It is a very difficult thing for him to carry on when he gets 3s. a bushel for his wheat to-day; another 3d. six months hence, and the promise of something more in the distant future. I know that there are difficulties in the way of winding up the affairs of the Pools, but the Government should endeavour to pay the full amount guaranteed as soon as possible after the wheat has been delivered. .

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

– The Government have tried to do that, as well as their finances have permitted.

Mr GREGORY:

– I cannot agree with the honorable member, knowing the way in which money has been expended in other directions. We have, approximately, 167,000,000 bushels of wheat in Australia to-day. The debit against that amounts to about £11,628,000, so that there are 167,000,000 bushels of wheat and flour in the control of the Pool at the present time worth approximately £40,000,000. Surely, with an asset like that the farmers could be paid the full amount guaranteed to them. The new harvest will shortly be garnered, and yet the amount guaranteed on the last crop has not been paid to the farmers.

Honorable members do not realize how badly the people in the back country are treated by the Postmaster-General. In one case, in which an application for a monthly mail service was made, the inspector informed the owners of holdings that they could get it if they paid £8 4s. a year for it. The other day I had a telegram regarding a service from Wyndham to Hall’s Creek, which is out in the Never-Never country, about which the local people were told that they could not have a service unless they made good 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, of the estimated deficiency on it. It is the same with regard to telephone services. The Government should provide those who are developing the back. country with some of the conveniences of civilization.

Mr Richard Foster:

– A mail service is necessary to persons in the back country.

Mr GREGORY:

– Yes. I feel sure that the city members would be glad to give assistance to those in the back country, and would vote for the spending of £200,000 to enable the PostmasterGeneral to provide them with proper mean’s of communication. Neither the Minister nor the Government sees that this is done, and it is no wonder that the people abuse the Government and Parliament. One has only to consider the action of . the Government in connexion with the war-time profits tax to know that it is the man in the city who gets all the consideration. The poor fellow in the back country, who takes all the risks, gets little consideration, whereas the nian who. lives on his wits, and has not the courage to put one penny into any venture, is not to be taxed.

I feel that we are coming to times of great financial stress. The note issue now exceeds £59,000,000, and. as part security for this, £10,000,000 in gold has been borrowed from the banks. Moreover, we owe the British Government £39,000,000 for the upkeep of our soldiers, in addition to our ordinary public debt. Not only have we not saved for the upkeep of our troops, but like a careless spendthrift we have gone to the Old Country for money in her time of need. In New Zealand, on the other hand, there is a surplus of about £10,000,000 In the. last five years the value of the Dominion’s exports exceeded that of her imports by £45,000,000. Then Canada, instead of going cap in hand to the Old Country for assistance, has been able to lend her help.

Mr Mathews:

– But Canada has paid nothing for the upkeep of her troops.

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

– I do not think that Canada has paid either for the equipment or for the upkeep of her troops.

Mr GREGORY:

– At any rate, Canada has not borrowed from the Old Country. On the contrary, she has supplied her with millions of pounds worth of munitions, and has lent her over £100,000,000. We shall require an enormous sum for our repatriation work, and we ought to recognise the’ need for effort to. reduce our expenditure. The one desire of the Government is to get into recess, but it is for members to consider whether they will allow themto do so, whether it is for the good of the country, the primary and secondary producers, and of our soldiers that they should do so. There is now the question of our returning troops to be considered. I am one of those who believe in short sessions for Parliament. I believe’ that better work, can be done if Ministers have more time to attend to their various Departments. But there are so many important questions to be dealt with just now, and. so many difficulties to be encountered in connexion with various- matters, that I consider Parliament should meet again in February or March,even for a short session, for the purpose of enabling members to express their views with regard to the conditions governing the return of our troops, and concerning repatriation matters. I am not content to let things drift as they are drifting at the present time so far as repatriation is concerned.

Mr McWilliams:

– Has the honorable member noticed that one of the Repatriation Boards has resigned ?

Mr GREGORY:

– I was not aware of that. I have a great deal of faith in Senator Millen.; but for the past twelve months I have been urging from public platforms that this work of repatriation should be removed outside of political control altogether.

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

– Would you be in favour of supporting three commissioners, and. paying them big salaries ?

Mr GREGORY:

– I maintain that the administration of the scheme itself should be removed from political control. Parliament could exercise authority by means of the regulations, but the administration itself should be removed as far as possible from political’ influence.

Mr Jowett:

– Does the honorable member realize that what he is advocating, now is what he has; been complaining about in regard to other Boards ?

Mr GREGORY:

– The honorable member knows my objection with reference to the Boards referred to. In my opinion it is essential that. Parliament should be called togetherin the near future to deal with questions affecting repatriation and the re-building of our industries. It is essential also that there should be economy in public expenditure, in order to make ends meat, because we know the enormous demand that will be made for repatriation, and we should endeavour, to the best of our ability, to provide ample funds for the purpose of looking after our returned soldiers.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- While listening to the honorable member who has just concluded his remarks, I could have imagined thatwe were discussing a no-confidence motion. I prefer to regard the amendment by the. honorablemember for Eden-Monaro (Mr-. Austin Chapman), in the terms rather than in the temper in which it waa submitted. The proposition is that the Committee should refer the Estimates back to the Government in order .that this ‘Committee might in some mysterious way obtain some guarantees of future economy. Honorable members have heard me on this subject before. I yield to no one in my appreciation of the urgent need for economy in Australia, but I doubt if we could arrive at a more expensive way of achieving this result than by demanding, at this stage, that . a large number of clerks and other officers of the Departments should be taken from their proper occupations and set to work to recast the Estimates, when all that is required is a guarantee that the Government will see that, so’ far as possible, no money is wasted.

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

– The Treasurer has given us that guarantee.

Mr KELLY:

– Yes ; and we have the satisfaction of knowing that quite recently this Government has given proof of its sincerity in the matter of retrenchment. It has met my views, or, at any rate, a. great portion of them, in connexion with expenditure on the Naval Bases. It has met my -views for a long time - and in this matter I was amused to find to-day that the views of the self-constituted leader of the Economy party in this debate seemed to be directly at variance) with my own, and I believe with those of every other student of economy in this chamber in connexion with the Federal Capital - in regard to steadying down expenditure there until we are in a position to know where post-war conditions will leave the Constitution and the Government of Australia.

Holding these views on this .matter, I cannot vote for the amendment; but if I might at “this late hour venture to place my views before the Committee, I would be grateful for the attention of such honorable members, as are awake. We have heard a good deal about the cost of running this country. The cost .is not only the cost of the various governing bodies. In ta truly ideal State, the Government, by wise provisions, guarantees that every citizen .is equipped in health, in mind, and in opportunity for the battle of life, and protected in the enjoyment of -the production that he helps to create. Anything that hampers a citizen in the exercise of these powers is a direct tax on hia energies, and harmful to the community over which the Government presides. In Australia to-day, not only have we State and Federal taxation hampering development, but we have also conflicting author*-, ties as between the States and the Federal Governments. You may take any industry you like, and you will find that the management pays far less attention to the’ taxes imposed on it than to the -various laws that govern it. Industrial restrictions, as a rule, take up half the time of the management. “ These conflicting regulations operate as a direct charge upon industry, and are actually a greater burden than Federal and State taxation combined. lt is difficult to live under the interpretation of all these restrictions. We have heard on every side, and recently from our own Prime Minister in England (Mr. Hughes), and others in authority here that lie best chance Australia has of meeting her war obligations lies in increased production; and if we are to achieve .this desirable result, we must aim at increased efficiency in government in both State and Federal spheres. I do not wish to stress the matter, but I -do ask the Government to remember that a Constitution and system of government good enough for Australia in the piping times of peace, .and before the. war .had made its ravages upon Australian .finance, and left its mark, probably for years to come on Australian industry through the loss of Australian producers through the war, must, under these altered circumstances, be changed. The Government must realize this. They must set aside the rested interests of .politicians, and apply themselves to a consideration of the real interests of the community. People say these changes are bound to come. The honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) has said that people will insist upon these changes. The longer I live, the more I realize how strong are the vested! interests of politicians. The general public are careless about these things; but it. is to the. interest of politicians to protect; themselves all the time. No man, either in this or the State Parliaments, wishes to abolish himself. I believe I can go so far as to say that honorable members of this Parliament are not quite prepared to abolish other Parliaments for fear of providing competitors for their own seats ; but if we are going to have economical administration in government for Australia in the future we must abolish the State Parliaments as sovereign powers with the right to create conflicting legislation. I urge this view upon the Govern-, ment, because I believe it is the only way by which the finances of the country can remain stable.

Mr McWilliams:

– That means Unification.

Mr KELLY:

– I do mean Unification. I ask the Government to look into the question of seeing that there is but one legislative authority responsible for the welfare of the Australian people; one authority responsible for seeing that every citizenhas a fair chance for the opportunities of life and for good health so far as the Government can achieve it, to enjoy those opportunities; and one authority for the protection of the fruit of his industry.

Amendment (Mr,. Austin Chapman’s) negatived.

Mr McWilliams:

– On a point of order, Mr. Acting Chairman, I point out that when you put the question, two honorable members rose to speak. The honorable member for Denison was on his feet addressing you, when you put the amendment in such a low tone that honorable members here did not hear it being put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Denison sat down, and the honorable member for Maribyrnong rose, but not to speak to the amendment.

Mr McWilliams:

– My point of order is that the honorable member for Denison was on his feet for the purpose of continuing the discussion, when you put the amendment. When he rose to speak, somebody asked him to refrain from doing so, but he insisted upon his right to address the Committee. While he was on his feet, you put the amendment.

Mr.Fenton. - May I say that when you first put the amendment, I was under the impression that you were putting the first item of the Estimates? Some dispute. took place, and I again rose and askedyou whether I was to be denied my right to speak upon the general question. You replied, “ Certainly not. I am merely putting the amendment of thehonorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Chapman.” That amendment was then put, and declared lost.

Mr Webster:

– The Chairman has given his ruling, and we do not want any more points of order.

Mr Considine:

– I submit that the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams) is correct in his statement of the facts. The honorable member for Deni son (Mr. Laird Smith) rose, and the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) was also on his feet when you put the amendment.

Mr Webster:

– He was walking out of the chamber.

Mr Considine:

– He was not. You, sir, then stated that you would put the question again. ‘ The honorable member for Denison resumed his seat, and thereupon you did put it again. In the circumstances, I contend that the point of order raised by the honorable member for Franklin ought to be sustained.

Mr Fowler:

– I have been waiting all night for an opportunity to speak, and when the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) sat down, I rose for the purpose of securing the call. The honorable member for Denison, however, was a shade quicker upon his feet, and consequently I resumed my seat, on the distinct understanding that he was about to speak to the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:

– I put the amendment twice, and declared it lost. The honorable member for Maribyrnong rose, and would have got the call but that he intimated that he did not wish to speak on the amendment. Thereupon, I put the amendment. The honorable member for Denison by that time had resumed his seat. I then put the amendment a second time, and the honorable member for Maribyrnongimmediately rose again. Mr. Considine. - What is your ruling on the point of order ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There is no point of order.

Mr McWilliams:

– There is a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have ruled that I do not sustain it.

Mr McWilliams:

– I wish to have your ruling on this point: The honorable member for Denison rose when the honorable member for Wentworth sat down. If you are going to give the call to’ an honorable member who resumed his seat while another honorable member was on his feet addressing you-

Mr Sinclair:

– He sat down.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member for Denison was on his feet addressing you, sir, when you put the amendment, which was not heard here. In view of that fact, I ask you to rule whether the amendment was properly put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I. have no intention of ruling on the abstract point. I ruled on the facts as they presented themselves to me, and declared the amendment lost. I intend to adhere to my decision. If the honorable member for Franklin is not satisfied with that decision, he must . take the course that is prescribed in such cases. The amendment was resolved in the negative, and I cannot go back upon that decision.

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

– I abstained from speaking upon two most important Bills which recently occupied our attention, namely, the Wartime Profits Bill and the War Precautions Bill, in order that I might not be accused of absorbing too much time, because I was very desirous of speaking upon the Budget. Yesterday the honorable member for Franklin was very emphatic in the expression of his views. As both of us hail practically from the same place, I cannot register a silent vote on this important question. I am bound to explain my attitude towards the Government, seeing that I intend to stand by them, at any rate during this session, because I believe they are justified in claiming my support. To-day I listened very attentively to the criticism of several honorable members, and subsequently I heard the reply of the Acting Prime Minister. In my judgment, he made a most excellent explanation of the position taken up by the Government. He displayed a great knowledge of the financial situation, and demonstrated that he was desirous of curtailing expenditure wherever it was possible to adopt that course without detriment to the Commonwealth. I have every confidence in the honorable gentleman, and I am of opinion that he also possesses the confidence of the great majority of the people of this country. We all know that he has experienced a remarkably trying time since he assumed the leadership of the Government, and every impartial critic must admit that he has exceeded all expectations by the way in which he has filled the office of Acting Prime Minister. That being so, I think that he is entitled to a fair deal, and that is all he asks for. I have never known him attempt to dictate to any member of this party. He has had, on occasions, to listen to most trenchant criticism, but he has never exhibited any bitterness as a result of that criticism. I think the honorable member for Franklin will admit that, because he and I have consistently striven to obtain from the Acting Prime Minister assistance to the fruit-growers of Tasmania in the direction of finding markets for them-, securing shipping space, and helping them in the evaporation of their product. Only last year we received an advance of 75 per cent. on the evaporated apples that we were unable to ship. The other day I experienceda good deal of pleasure when I heard a number of Tasmanians eulogize the Acting Prime Minister for what he had done in the interests of the primary producer. I cheered their eulogies and I believe that the honorable member for Franklin did likewise. The Government have done something during these strenuous times towards getting our products transported overseas. That being so, would it not be most unjust for me to assist in bringing about a change of Ministry, thus handing over the reins of government to the Leader of the Opposition ? But even if that object were accomplished, we should secure no stable Government at this critical time. How could a Treasurer from the other side of the Chamber obtain such a grip of the position in which we find ourselves to-day as would enable him effectively to deal with the financial problems which will confront us within the brief period that remains of the current session > And by whom would he be supported? By the same gentlemen who would have put this Government out? How long would they support an incoming Government? Just as long as it suited them, of course. Therefore, I contend that I am right in the attitude which I am adopting. 1 shall now give the reasons why I am supporting the present Government; - and I have nothing to gain by stating my case. Indeed, I shall have to take the responsibility throughout my electorate, and, perhaps, I shall have the press of Denison against me. Nevertheless, I shall give my explanation so that it may be recorded fully in Hansard, and in the hope that my attitude will be appreciated by the people of my electorate. There has been a great increase in expenditure, I admit, but if we are running an enormous business, and its scope vastly expands, the capital expenditure must be increased accordingly. Nowadays the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) can scarcely find an hour in which to remain in this Chamber, and participate in and listen to the debates. The reason for that is because he is so busily engaged in duties outside of the Chamber. He is meeting deputations from all over Australia, which are being introduced by honorable members. Tasmanian members, for example, had recently been waiting daily to secure an interview with Mr. Watt. We had a deputation to introduce regarding a matter of great importance, dealing with one of our primary products. The Acting Prime Minister was- most courteous. He indicated that he had gone to a great amount of trouble in communicating with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in England, with the sole object of placing one of Australia’s primary products on the English market. He demonstrated that he was doing all he could for us. “Then, at the request of the Tasmanian Government, the Acting Prime Minister again received representatives of - fruitgrowers, and heard their ideas, in the hope that he might be able to go further into the subject on Tasmania’s behalf. If the small island State has taken up so much of the Acting Prime Minister’s time, how much more do the interests of the bigger States demand his attention ?

Mr Jowett:

– It all shows how goodnatured he is.

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

– It does. We are wearing him out, body and soul; and then he has to listen to the most bittercriticism. Any one outside of Parliament might imagine that the Government were sitting down, doing nothing,, simply drawing their salaries, and letting;, matters drift. . I cannot conscientiously criticise _ the Government, notwithstanding that that may mean something to me> in my constituency.

The Government are doing splendid! work, and I am delighted that this present trouble . has apparently ended so> well. The amendment introduced by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) was a most serious matter.

Mr McWilliams:

– It was a most unsatisfactory decision which followed.

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

– It appears to> have ended well, at any rate. There* seems to have been no great desire to» carry the amendment. I do not complain of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro having gone away tonight, because he is practically always in an indifferent state of health. That is why I refrain from criticising him, and from interjecting while he is speaking. But there are other honorablemembers who were interested in hi* amendment, and where are they tonight? They left the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) to> stay here alone. He, at least, has stuck to his guns. If the other honorable: members were sincere, why did npt they remain with him? Are they out to do their best to put the Government in a. hole, apparently just to gain a littleaggrandisement outside? What is the meaning of their attitude? The honorable member for Franklin has stood by his guns; and the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) is present, but I cannot commit him, because I do not know how he intended to vote had s> division been taken. But those other honorable members have gone away, .and’ they have compelled me to speak at tenminutes to 3 a.m., when I. would, otherwise, have been in a position to address-, the Committee much earlier in the debate, and thus would have gained, if not space in the press, then, at any rate, the opportunity to have been reported. Here I am at this unearthly hour, while they are in their beds. Obviously they have not considered the situation to be serious enough for them to remain and record a vote. I cannot say, of course, that there were any other honorable members in this business; but surely the honorable member for Eden-Monaro would not think of moving a vote of want of confidence if he had no prospects of a following. As for the honorable member for Franklin, we have heard his remarks; and I can say nothing with regard to what he said.

Mr McWilliams:

– There are not too many honorable members’ on this side of the House present now.

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

– I cannot- expect them to be in attendance tolisten to me at this hour.

Mr Considine:

– I think we might as well bring these honorable members in to listen to what is being said about them. Seeing that they are being attacked, there should be a quorum. I want to know who is to get the vacant portfolio. [Quorum formed.]

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

-The honorable member for Franklin, in order to make good, his speech, referred to a matter which I certainly do not feel inclined to indorse; and I question very much if one particular argument which he advanced could have been calculated to win votes from the Opposition benches. What the honorable member said was, in effect, detrimental to Australia. He cited the war activities of another Dominion, namely, Canada. I askhonorable members who may have been intending to support him if they would care to indorse hie remarks derogatory of Australia. I am of opinion that Australia has done equally as well as Canada in this greatwar ; and I desireto put on record what Australia has achieved. Some people already appear to be forgetting. Personally, I. felt very keenly the remarks of the honorable member for Franklin, when he compared Canada with our vast and glorious country. And the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews), I feel sure, did not indorse the comparison with Canada. In fact, he drew my attention to that comparison, and what he then said has Induced me to counter the comparison with the particulars which I shall now place on record. I feel certain that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports would nothave been too ready to support the amendment of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro when it was being buttressed by an argument such as the honorable member for Franklin advanced. I desire to record the following particulars concerning the Australian Imperial Force : -

Strength of the fighting force 192,445 (30th June,1918), including men on duty at the Base, in training camps, and hospitals. Strength of fighting units is about 120,000; total embarkations (30th June, 1918), 321,040; total of men returned (30th June, 1918), 70,460; total in camp in Australia (30th June, 1918), 7,550; total discharged (30th June, 1918), 53,138.

Is not that a great record for our country - one of which we should all be proud ? It not only warrants and necessitates a great expenditure, but it also demonstrates the amount of work which Ministers and their officers have had to undertake during the past four years. The particulars continue -

No. 3 Squadron was raisedin Egypt, and Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 Training Squadrons in England.

In addition to the above, a total of 87 officers, 1,290 other ranks have been despatched as reinforcements to the above-mentioned units. The establishment of aeroplanes to a squadron is 18, making in all a total of 144 machines in use by the Australian Flying Corps at one time.

This again necessitated considerable expenditure and. most careful governmental and official supervision. Australia has demonstrated during the period ofthe war the natural ability possessed by officers of the Civil Service. In the course of the debate upon the War-time Profits Tax Bill reference was made to the fact that certain gentlemen were making £5,000 in one year in one industry, and, upon another line, which was only a side issue, they were making another £1,000 - £6,000 in all. Yet we are told that we should look upon officers of the Civil

Service who are drawing £1,500 per annum as being in receipt of a princely salary. I wilh give some figures now with regard to articles of uniform -

The total number of articles of uniform, underclothing, and kit, issued to 30th June,- ‘ 1917, is 31,242,220.

The following materials have been utilized: - Khaki cloth, 4,280,000 yards; khaki cord, 2,020,000 yards; denim or drill, 0,014,000 yards; flannel, 5,200,000 yards.

In addition, approximately 4,500,000 yards of flannel were issued to patriotic organizations, making 22,040,000 yards altogether issued by the Ordnance Department, or sufficient to reach from Melbourne to London.

These particulars should demonstrate the necessity f.or large expenditure. Australia has risen to the occasion, and has served, the Empire faithfully and well. Her work has excited the admiration, ‘ not only of Great

Britain and the other Dominions of the Empire, but of our Allies in the war.

Since the outbreak of the war the De fence Department has shipped overseas 39.2S5 military horses, acquired at a cost of £788,810, o’r an average of £20 ls. 7d. per head. . In addition, the Commonwealth supplied 95,000 horses for the Imperial Government in India and France. The quality of the horses supplied may be gathered from the fact that two Light Horse Regiments trekked from 160 to 170’ miles in thirteen days. The horses were ridden for fifteen hours, and were saddled up for twenty-five out of forty-eight hours. Of 900 horses only one knocked up, and all the rest finished fit and wellOwing to an expenditure of upwards of £750,000 between 1910 and 1913, the Commonwealth has been able to fully equip the Army sent overseas with small arms and field artillery. The small arms were made in Australia, and the artillery was sent from Australia. Our’ men were sent to the Front equipped as no troops were ever equipped before, and paid as no troops were ever paid before. All this is part of what the Commonwealth has done for the expenditure which has been incurred. It is said that Canada has done everything, and has sent munitions of war to England as. well as troops. But Australia has done something, as I have shown from the records of the Defence Department.

Mr Considine:

– Is this an attack upon Canada or a defence of Australia?

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

– It is a defence of Australia. I am an Australian all the time. If the honorable member has been unable to understand what I have said, the fault is not mine. I remember going with a man once to a meeting of a Shakspearian Society. This man said, , “ I cannot see anything in all this tommy rot,” but that was not the’ fault of Shakspeare.

The Commonwealth Cordite Factory has supplied the propellant for the greater part of the small-arms ammunition used by the Australian Military Forces until their arrival in France. . It has supplied New Zealand also, and during the SouthWest African campaign we supplied the South African Forces.

Mr Maxwell:

– What about the “Gregory” rifles?

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

– I am’ glad to have that interjection. I- expected that the- honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) would to-night have played the same old tune on the same old’ violin, but for some reason or other he did not do soWhat are the facts about the rifles to ‘ which he has so often referred? I was in the Defence Department at the time, and I know something about the subject. We equipped our men who went abroad with rifles made in Australia. They took the very best rifles made here. We got a report from an independent officer in Egypt, not an Australian, but an English officer, who pronounced our rifles to be first class. There was a very great demand at one time for rifles with which to train our men in Australia, and, to meet the demand, rifles of all kinds were collected. The 200 rifles sent to Western Australia were not all made in our Small Arms Factory. Some of those rifles were made in Great Britain, but it was never intended that they should be taken out of Australia. They were merely used for training purposes.

The honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) severely criticised the expenditure of one branch of the Department of Home and Territories. One would think from ‘what the honorable member said that the Meteorological

Branch, is’ useless to the Commonwealth. I have here a copy of a letter sent on behalf, of the Hobart Marine Beard to the Minister controlling the Meteorological Branch, in which the writer says -

I have the honour, by direction of the Board, to forward herewith copy of correspondence with the Meteorological Department, from which it will be seen that the supply of daily weather bulletins, maps, &c., is to be discontinued owing to no provision having been made to meet the extra cost of .paper and printing.

The Board trusts that the Government will see its way clear to reconsider the matter, and continue the supply of reports, which are of the greatest use to the shipping community, and aru very extensively referred to.

The Board’s offices are situated on the wharf, and the reports are exhibited in a case outside, specially prepared for the purpose.

The Board is of opinion that the, discontinuance of the reports .will cause great inconvenience to shipping agents and other interested persons, who are in the habit of consulting the reports and maps.

That will show the value of this branch, which was so much criticised by the honorable member for Dampier. I say that if the officers of the Meteorological Branch are entitled to annual increments, they should get them. I have never been able to understand the contention that when the country is in a bad way financially, the civil servants should be called upon to make good the deficit. If they are serving the country well, why should their salaries be reduced ?

Mr Fenton:

– They should not be reduced any more than are the salaries of other persons.

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

– Decidedly not; and I. shall never be a party to anything of the kind.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– The country is not insolvent yet. The Age showed the other day that there is an increase of £3,000,000 in the deposits of the local Savings Banks.

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

– Not only is there an increase of £3,000,000 in the amount of deposits, but the number of depositors has been enormously increased. I was delighted to find that so large a number of persons, took up war certificates for small amounts, and also the number who invested in £10 bonds. This shows that the country is not yet insolvent, or even in a bad way, as some persons would have us be lieve. What a mistake it is to let it go forth to the world that this country is on the verge of ruin, when we desire to attract people- to our shores. .Some of us Were of the opinion that the presence of our splendid men in Europe, and the splendid work they have done at the Front, would give Australia such an. advertisement that it would be difficult to find ships in which to transport the people who would be flocking to our shores after the war. - But if people in the Old Country took up our leading newspapers and read therein the speech of the honorable member for - Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams), aud learned from him that the people of Australia are taxed to a greater extent than are the people of any other part of the world; that they are on the verge of starvation, and homeless and helpless, while the Government are spending money like water, it is not to be expected that they would desire to .come to this country. It is because of these deprecating statements that I am speaking as I am to-night. I have been in other parts of the world. I have walked through parts of France, Scotland, and Switzerland, and I have never seen a country like Australia-. I have never seen in any other country such land as is to be found at Colac, at Bungaree, at Mount Gambier, and on the north coast of New South Wales. How differently Americans and Canadians talk of their country when you meet them. The Canadians say that Canada is the finest country in the world, though for seven months in the year that Dominion is snowed up. That is equivalent to a drought every year. But in Australia, though there may be a drought in one part of the Commonwealth, there is a bountiful harvest in other parts.

Why should honorable members, because they desire to save a little in public expenditure, belittle this country, or its leaders, or the Acting Prime Minister? We have had honorable gentlemen longing for the time to come when they would be able to discuss the Estimates.- They have persused them from end to end, and then the leader amongst them comes forward and assumes- the responsibility of moving a vote of want of confidence in the Government, whilst the only item upon which he can place his finger as justifying his action is a vote of £7,000 for a police force for this great country. We have the promise of the Acting Prime Minister that even that force will he gradually reduced. I was glad to find that the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) and the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) were careful not to indicate whether they would support the vote of want of confidence.

Some comparison has been made between the debt of Canada and. Australia. But honorable members should be very careful about comparing the debt of Australia with that of any other country but that of New Zealand. Canada has very few Government railways. Most of her railways are privately owned, and so are -her wharfs. Many public utilities which are administered with advantage by Governments here are not in the hands of the States in Canada. I could not understand why a wealthy Canadian who came to our island State of Tasmania, and in the beautiful climate -of .that State, is being restored to health, used always to vote for me, and even told the maids in his employ and others with whom he had influence to do the same. He said that the people of Australia are a great democratic people; and when I asked him why, he said, “You control transport, and when you do that you go a long way towards controlling the industry of your country.” I have seen the conditions in the two countries, and know what a difference there is. I said to him, “ I suppose you are . afraid of the socialistic ideas of the Labour party?” “ No,” he replied, “ you can go only just so far as some country that has got bigger guns than you outside will allow you to go.”

Mr Considine:

– -Was that before you left the Labour party?

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

– I did not leave it; I was pushed out. One section of that great party held a meeting down town, while we, who were not in . their confidence, remained here, and knew nothing about it. At - that meeting they found they had the numbers, and one gentleman was anxious to become Prime Minister of Australia. He thought he could become Prime Minister by moving the then - Prime Minister out of the chair. He did not know that if the Prime Minister tendered his resignation it meant the resignation of the whole Ministry. That discovery came upon them like a bolt, from the blue. The Prime Minister, whom they thought to put down, walked out, and we had the courage to follow him, believing in the principles that w<» enunciated then and have upheld ever since. Is the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine), having regard tothe things he says here and the policy hepreaches to his constituents, justified in. knuckling down under the Labour party, as he is doing now?

Mr Considine:

– Is . he knuckling down ?

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

– Of course. The honorable member is a changed man since he came here. They have taught him. He reminds me of what one of the Socialists said the other day about members of. the Trades Hall when they came to interview the Acting Prime Minister. They went back satisfied, and the Socialist said the Acting Prime Minister. had mesmerized them. The people of Australiaknow what this party stands for. We have been on this side for eighteen, months, and not a stone in the temple of Labour has been touched. The man whoopposed me at the last election said, “ If you put Laird Smith in again, he will not be there three months before the oldage pension and invalid pension will be gone, and the maternity allowance wiped out.” We have been .here eighteen months in the most critical time Australia has ever had, and there has been no attempt by any member on this side to remove any of that legislation. A duty was going to be imposed on kerosene and tea, which the poor working man would have to pay. It has not been imposed, but some men have to pay 68 per cent, of their incomes in taxation in order that the poor’ people’s tea may remain dutyfree.

The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) some, time ago asked for suggestions from every honorable member. I took up an hour of his valuable time onone occasion, and found him most courteous and willing to listen, but this was the trouble: When I suggested some industry, he asked, “ How will it interfere with an industry already established here?” He took into consideration the employees as well as the employers, and pointed out that men employed in established industries would be thrown out of work. He Said that we could not profitably establish an industry to throw other men out of work, and that we must get new industries. That was the difficulty. The Minister to-day is awaiting suggestions from any honorable member who will point out a new industry that can be successfully established. I am sure that the Minister will take it on at once. Every man who returns is not going away into the back-blocks. In Tasmania some of the finest land in the island has been purchased. Instead of finding fault, let us bring down a better scheme than the Minister’s, and prove to him that it is better. If he will not adopt it, then we can criticise. Two little nephews of mine recently pulled my watch to pieces. The father and I could not put it together again,. yet those little fellows could pull it to pieces. So, any one can pull a system to pieces, but it is not so easy to construct one. During the war it was my greatest delight to stand outside the Age and Argus offices and listento the local Kitcheners who could win the war in twenty-four hours. Yet they remained here, like the honorable member for Barrier, and bitterly criticised.

Mr Considine:

– Why didn’t you go to fight ? If I held your views, I would have gone long ago.

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

– Simply because I was born forty-nine years ago. I was not going to occupy a berth. on a transport, and fill a uniform, only to go into hospital when I got there, when a man like the honorable member, thirty-three years of age, was here. Why send a worn-out old man like me, when a big, robust man like the honorable member stays at home?

We have heard a great deal about the need for retrenchment, but I think the Treasurer has cut down the postal Estimates too much. Honorable members clamour for telephone communication, tut the Postmaster-General cannot give it, although he can obtain the material now, because he has not the money; and that is because the Treasurer desires to curtail expenditure. We hear nothing of it in the papers, nor are we told that, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, and probably in the history of any State, the Postal Department has been made to pay. If the PostmasterGeneral writes a poem, it, and the criticism on it, goes throughout the length and breadth of Australia, but we hear nothing about him making this great service pay.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Tasmanian Postal Department always paid before Federation.

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

– I worked in that service for about twenty-five years. It paid the lowest wages of all the States, and I never heard of the telegraph, telephone, or postal branches paying once in all that time. It is necessary to be very careful in cutting down the expenditure of a great Department like this, owing to the many industries, some of them highly technical, that will be affected. If the Estimates of the Postal Department are reduced, a great deal of important work may be interrupted. The engineer may have a scheme providing for continuity of employment and a steady progress in laying down cables, but finds himself suddenly brought up with a round turn because there is no money available. The unfinished conduits have to be closed up, and when the money is voted in another year, they have all to be opened up again and a staff has to be got together again. That means false economy all along the line. The Postmaster-General might introduce a system of purchasing stores in a big way. If the storekeeper sees a line of good copper wire, he should be able to purchase the whole of it. The smaller the quantity purchased, the greater the cost of the material. There are telephone services awaiting construction that will pay from the moment they are put up. We should consider not only the direct return but the indirect value to the Commonwealth. The telephonic system will play a great, part in the development of Australia; and it is false economy to cut down the Estimates of this big Department to save a few pounds. We had once a most able Treasurer, who made a name for himselfby reducing his expenditure. I am referring to the late Sir George’ Turner. He understood finances, but was unacquainted with the technicalities of the Postal Department, and reduced, the vote for that Department to such an extent that it became starved, and a veryheavy expenditure was afterwards necessary to rebuild it.

Mr Webster:

– It cost £2,250,000.

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

– That, of course, was false economy, which wemust be careful to avoid.

In my opinion a great saving can be made by a proper organization of production and distribution? The other day I traced a shipload of timber that came from Tasmania into a yard at South Melbourne. Some of it was taken to Northcote and unloaded from thecarts, but was afterwards reloaded and taken to Caulfield. That system of distribution involves an enormous waste of labour and unnecessary expenditure.I believe in scientific organization, and the payment of good salaries to the proper type of man. If our officials are not doing good work let them, get out and become engaged on other duties not involving the expenditure of large sums of money.

We must encourage in every way possible anything that will lead to increased production of wealth. Our producers must not be hampered. Only portion of a man’s income should be taken to meet the expenses of the Government. The capital itself should not be levied upon. In this matter 1 am totally at variance with the manifesto issued by Mr. Stewart on behalf of Mr. Scullin, the Labour candidate for Corangamite. He made the most ridiculous proposal. He said that he would make a levy on the capital, which, as a matter of fact, is employed in the production of wealth. In all our financial schemes we must be careful not to touch the capital of an industry. We shall then be on sound lines,, and be able to insure the development of this great country in a manner that we -all desire.

I want now to say a few words with reference to Papua. A gentleman well known to me - a man who was engaged in pioneering on the West Coast of Tasmania - is now similarly employed in

Papua. I understand that he has’ found gold, and believes that the country he is working on is likely to produce a good supply of oil, but unfortunately there are no roads. He has written me an urgent letter, appealing to me to induce some honorable member to visit Papua. He would welcome any honorable member, but ‘particularly a Minister, and he says that his launch will be at the disposal of any visitor who wishes to see the country. He is quite satisfied, he says, that if only ‘honorable members could see for themselves the nature of the country awaiting development, something would be done in this direction. I was in Papua for only a brief time, but I saw sufficient of the natives to convince me that, if properly treated, they could be made ‘successful and desirable inhabitants. I hope the Minister will be able to look into this important question dur- ing the recess.

The Northern Territory is another problem that urgently requires attention. I have been there myself, and I am not going to criticise unduly men who have tried to do something for the Territory, but failed. Anybody can criticise and pull down, but it is quite another matter to reconstruct. I think, however, that as other portions of Australia develop the pastoralists will eventually give more attention to the Northern Territory, where there is a vast area of wonderful country awaiting occupation. When I, in company with a few other members, visited the Territory, we travelled over areas which I suppose white men had not trodden before. We travelled down from the Katherine River to Willaroo Station, the manager of which informed us that it carried between 14,000 and 15,000 head of cattle and 1,000 head of horses. But, he said, if we went on to Delamere we would find there 75.000 head of cattle, and if we went still further down, we would get on to what he called “ good “ areas, known as the Victoria Tableland, and the Lewis country, about 10,000 square miles in area, and carrying I forget how many cattle. We then returned bo the Katherine River, and in one day we motored over 93 miles of beautiful land, only requiring water to enable it to be occupied. But this “ Do-Nothing Government,” as they are called, are putting down bores at a distance of every 20 miles, and I believe are getting good water at 200 feet, so that this country may now be utilized for stock-raising. Afterwards we went in a south-easterly direction to the Maranboy Tin Field, which we found was being developed in the most primitive manner. The men there were working with the hammer and drill,- and I found that the man at the winch, being of an inventive turn of mind, had loaded the windlass in order to make it easier to turn. But I have, been wondering ever since how the addition of 50 lbs. weight could have been of any assistance to him in winding up the stone, and have not yet been able to understand his action. The manager of the battery, Mr. Studdert, a man who had made a Tasmanian proposition averaging 0.6 of 1 per cent, of tin pay, gave evidence to the effect that the Maranboy proposition returned as high as 14 per cent. tin. I never saw stone like it. When it was placed on the dry table you could almost shake the tin from the stone. Properly equipped with air compressors, with the shaft properly sunk, and with an overhead railway to the battery to economize in working, that mine would be a wonderful proposition. There it is, waiting only proper development. We then went further down, to what is known as Bitter Springs, now- described as Matananka, where the Government have an experimental farm. We found there about 1,000 head of sheep. The ewes were lambing, and were doing splendidly under the care of natives. Right on through our trip we found splendid country, the development of which, I believe, can best be achieved by the construction of a railway. When the line reaches Newcastle waters, I have no doubt that the Queensland Government will want to draw it over the rich Barklay tablelands, which Mr. Kidman is reported to have said is the richest country in Australia. If we want to attract people to that country, we should run the line to Camooweal, and then, in justice to South Australia, carry a line down through the Macdonnell Ranges.

I wish to refer again to a matter connected with the Post and Telegraph

Department. . I find that, in the case of certain automatic public telephone machines at present in use in Melbourne, it is necessary for the user to press his foot on a lever ; and nine out of ten people, as soon as they begin to talk seriously, forget all about the lever. They lift the foot, with the result that the lever rises, and the connexion is broken, so that the user has to put -another 2d. in the slot before he can renew the conversation. These machines ought to be removed at once. *

Mr Webster:

– The machine is only on trial.

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

– It has been on trial for a long time. The value of our shale oil deposits should be carefully inquired into by the Minister. From the “Wild Cat” column of the Bulletin, of 88th November of this year, I extract the following : - “Good Australian”: - The good news. comes from Reno, Nevada (United States of America). A new process of treating oil shales has been perfected, not merely invented, for extracting crude oil from shales containing 30 to 40 gallons of oil, 30 lbs. to 37 lbs. of paraffin wax, 27 lbs. of ammonia crystals, 7 gallons of coal tar, and 45,000 cubic feet of natural gas. From the spent shale, after treatment, the inventor claims he can make a shale brick to be used as a solid fuel in place of coal. This br.ick gives 60, per cent, more heat than coal. The total cost of the treatment of the shale to produce these fuel bricks is less than 3s. 4d. per ton. This opens up a pleasant vista for Capertee and Murrurundi, and several other shale deposits in New South Wales. .It is claimed there is enough oil shale in the State of Utah to supply fuel for the entire United States for centuries.

I do hope that the Minister-for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) will inquire into this important question, with a view to utilizing the splendid shale oil deposits which exist in Tasmania. I have spoken at some length to-night, because I realize that I shall have a pretty hard row to hoe at the next election, owing to the misrepresentation to which. I have been subjected. Hence, I desired to explain the reasons underlying my attitude towards the Government. I shall support Ministers while they continue on present lines. I am satisfied that they are not prejudicially interfering with our industries, or preventing the development of this great Commonwealth.. They may have committed errors, but those errors are excusable, in view of the gigantic task which they have had to face. They have done much for Australia, and especially for Tasmania, by helping our fruit-growers to export their apples, their blue peas, &c. For the reasons which I have already enumerated, I intend to accord them ray hearty support.

Mr LYNCH:
Werriwa

.Having sat here throughout the night, and having travelled all the previous night, I feel scarcely capable of addressing the Committee.

Mr Mathews:

– This is the fifth honorable member on the Ministerial side of the chamber who has secured the call.

Mr LYNCH:

– Yet I cannot permit the occasion to pass without saying a word or two. I yield to no honorable member in my desire to see economy practised by the Commonwealth.

Mr Mathews:

– Next time, we shall go down on our bellies and crawl for a chance to be heard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bamford:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– The honorable member has no right to reflect upon the Chair.

Mr LYNCH:

– But I purpose dealing with the position as it presents itself to me. I suppose that four-fifths of the actions which I am called upon to take as a representative of the people consist of bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to get money expended in my electorate, chiefly by way of increases to persons who, owing to the increased cost of living, find that they have a very difficult row to hoe. That being the case, I have not the hide to come here and attack Ministers for failing to practice economy to a greater extent. The majority of honorable members are constantly asking the Government to increase expenditure. For men who have almost demanded concessions at the point of the bayonet to hold all sorts of threats over the Government, and to denounce their extravagance just prior to the passing of the millions of pounds contained in the Estimates, seems to me to be a very ungracious act. I would not stand behind the Ministry for five minutes if I did not feel that they are exercising all the caution that it is possible for them to exercise in regard to our public expenditure under the extraordinary conditions which exist to-day. But, unfortunately, owing to the way in which for generations past our country has teen handed over to foreign traders, we have not been able to face the financial trial which the war has imposed upon us in the way that other countries have faced it. Chiefly owing to that misfortune we are confronted with the necessity for resorting to expedients which injure our national pride. But I am not going to advocate the wholesale curtailment of salaries or the dismissal of public servants at the bidding of a few penny pilferers of the people’s liberties throughout the length and breadth of this country. If we could afford to spend £1,250,000 weeklyupon the war, surely we can continue to pay a living wage to our. public servants until we are able to adjust ourselves to our changed conditions, until we profit by our mistakes and choose a better path. Wholesale economy if put into immediate practice would only create fresh difficulties. I have been amongst the few who, from the very inception of the war, raised their voices in an appeal for high sacrifice on the part of our people. I desired that those who owned more than £2,000 net should earmark at least 10 per cent. of it to assist in defraying our share of the cost of the war, andof meeting the necessities of repatriation and the claims of our soldiers’ dependants. But we proved incapable of such sacrifice, and to-day we are all trying to juggle our way through, whilst still subscribing to the doctrine of selfishness, which was really responsible for the war. The terms upon which international relationships will exist in the future will have much to do with the question of economy in our naval and military expenditure. If that monstrous doctrine to which the world so long subscribed - the doctrine of the balance of power - be again resurrected, and if the old race in armaments be renewed, I say unhesitatingly that the millions of men who have died in this war will have died in vain. The doctrine of selfishness will again have triumphed, and a proud militarism, subscribing to no god but that of might, such as the militarism which has ju»t been humbled in the dust, -will again challenge the evolutionary progress of the world. At any rate, that is my conception of the position. We have been told that the Government, by some miraculous power, are to do something which none of us has told them how to do. They are to reduce our expenditure by tens of- millions of pounds, and at the same time are not to touch , any section of the community, but are to lend a willing ear to the everincreasing demand for fresh expenditure throughout the various Departments. Whilst I have the fullest sympathy with every section of the community which is willing to work, either with head or hand - and I regard all such persons as workers, no matter what may be their station, in life - I recognise that we have to give some hostages to sincerity by showing that we are capable of self-sacrifice, and of making the concessions which we so loudly claim for others. ‘ I have endeavoured, even at the risk of being misunderstood, to urge the farmers of this country not to listen to blind guides, but to realize the position in which we are placed. If every honorable .member quitted this House to-morrow, I suppose that I would be the only one who would go back to the actual work of wheatgrowing, in which I have been engaged for the past twenty-nine years. .But, notwithstanding much that has been done contrary to the interests of the genuine farmers of Australia, I affirm that, because of the broad principles that were laid down to assist us during the war period, we have been saved from absolute extinction. In addition, the values of our properties have been maintained, notwithstanding that, in regard to details of administration, much has been faulty, imperfect, and extravagant. Concerning the Wheat Pool, I desire to make a few observations. It was first claimed that the originator of the pooling idea was the Victorian Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hagelthorn). Later we were assured that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) was its author. Now I claim to have been a very close student of this matter. I was in the House when the idea was first promulgated, and I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition were present he would confirm my statement that its real authorwas a gentleman from whom I differ upon, many matters - I refer to the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. HolmanHonorable members will recollect that when the drought of 1914 was upon us, and it was clear that Australia was notgoing to produce sufficient wheat to feed her people - much less to provide seed for the next harvest - Mr. Holman put forth one of the most statesman-like ideas ever launched. And, strange to say, hehas been more cordially detested on account of that very action than in regard: to anything else he has done throughout his career. He realized that New South Wales had sufficient wheat, at any rate, to feed the people of that State, but that the other States had not sufficient for their needs. He vainly strove to- get the other States to engage in a co-operative system by which Argentine wheat could have been purchased for Australia to make up the 10,000,000- or 12,000,000 bushels of which we were short. At that time enemy raiders were in the Pacific. It was questionable whether the squadron of German, vessels might not cut us off from our food supplies, and immediate action was necessary. Mr. Holman, in his famous telegram of 18th October, 1914, asked theother wheat-growing States to join in at co-operative system - to purchase necessary wheat supplies at once, so as to makeup the quantity required in the Commonwealth. As a member of this House, in company with the then honorable member for Indi, Mr. Parker Moloney, I consulted some of the members of the Labour Government of the day, and we asked them to take that action which the wheat-growing States had refused to take. About November, 1914, we asked the Federal Government to purchase at least 10,000,000 bushels, and to land it in theports of Australia. The then Ministerfor Customs (Mr. Tudor) assured usthat the wheat could be landed in Australian ports for 5s. 3d. a bushel. Therewould be no difficulty about that, if theCommonwealth Government had the constitutional power. .There was no War Precautions Act in those days, and the then Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) said the Commonwealth Government had not the power to distribute one grain of wheat throughout the country. Thus, the opportunity to perform a statesmanlike act was lost to the Commonwealth. I regret the stunted nature of the powers of the Commonwealth Constitution, which deprived all Australia of the great benefit which would then have been conferred. Some of the States had to purchase huge quantities of wheat at tremendous rates.. Mr. Holman caused his Wheat Acquisition Act to be introduced - an Act which never would have been put on the statutebook had all the wheat-growing States co-operated as he had desired. I snail not discuss the merits of that Act, but at that particular time more than half the wheat growers even of New South Wales were absolutely without wheat, even for bread, to say nothing of seed. Consequently, an effort was made, under the Acquisition Act, which, however much it may have hit individual farmers, yet wholly conserved the interests of the consumers and largely’ the interests of the producers.. I was one of those farmers who parted with a certain quantity of our wheat for 5s. a bushel, and we thought it hard that in Victoria the few men who had wheat should be able to sell it for 7s. or 8s. a bushel . ‘ However, the situation had the effect of quite a number of farmers putting in infinitely more wheat in 1915-16 than they had intended, for the reason that they were allowed to retain any proportion of the crop, which they had indicated, for seed. It is not generally known that the Federal Government of the day, when passing the Freight Arrangements Act, did not intend to go further than to supply shipping to the firms which < had hitherto bought our wheat. The pooling was only decided upon’ when the said firms, after conference, announced their intention to do no buying of wheat even after shipping had been provided, until such wheat was subject of sale contract overseas. It is clear now they were wise in that decision because of the wholesale commandeering of shipping secured under the. Act and the ever-increasing uncertainty with- regard to oversea markets “and freight. But to leave matters in that ‘ hopeless condition meant death to us farmers. Ifr. *Lynch.

The pooling system was introduced, and a charge was lodged against it that when the ,price was altered to allow the Australian consumer to get wheat for 4s. 9d. a bushel, it meant that the consumer was eating bread which was not wholly paid for. We were told that Australian wheat was worth 6s. or 7s. a bushel. But the position is this, with regard to the three pools : Let us take the selling value of the certificates to-day, and take the sums already advanced to us under the three pools - sums which, so far as the net return to the farmer is concerned, vary according to distance from port. I ask honorable members to study the case of a man who, in my own instance, was 250 miles from port. We have received 4s. 2d. a bushel at railway siding for the 1915-16 pool. We have received 3s. 3d. a bushel, both upon the 1916-17 and the 1917-18 pool, for f.a.q. wheat. But, taking the selling value of certificates, and . adding it to the sum which we have already received, it means that- the 1915-16 wheat will pan out at 4s. 3d. a bushel, the 1916-17 wheat at 3s. 6d., and the 1917-18 wheat at 4s.. We have sold various quantities, I believe, up to 7s. a bushel in small markets which have been tapped by the Australian Wheat Board. Yet a close examination will show that as to the Australian consumer who paid cash in advance, through the miller, for the wheat consumed, his quota bore no interest. And for that portion received by the millers the ordinary 3£d. per bushel paid to outside handling agents was not paid to the millers. They received 1 1/4d a bushel. Therefore, the saving in interest and reconditioning charges, together- with the huge losses arising out of reconditioning, did not pertain to that portion safely conserved iri millers’ sheds. . The net result will go to show that the Australian consumer has been infinitely the best customer which the Pools and the farmers have had up to date. We should remember, too, that the Australian consumer controls the majority of members of every Parliament; and, consequently, the consumer could have prevented the system of guarantees from operating. And while I do not’ admit that we make money as wheat-growers under these guar- antees, yet they assure for us. that there shall be no actual monetary loss; and - a very important point - the value of our lauded property is being conserved.

An outcry was raised against what was really a fine idea of the Prime- Minister (Mr. Hughes) - to repeat his master-stroke of policy when he sold 3,000,000 tons of Australian wheat, and got the money without delivering a grain of it. That cry was uttered by false guides of the farmers who had sought, for reasons chiefly of a business nature, to antagonize the Australian farmer against the Australian Wheat Board and the pooling system. Those people know perfectly well that the Australian farmer is a very busy man, and has not the opportunity to learn the inner workings of huge business concerns. It is a great reflection on the Australian Wheat Board and the Pools that they have not taken the farmer more into their confidence. There, would have been a much smoother working of the whole scheme had that been the case. The real grievances under which farmers have suffered have not been voiced by these so-called friends of the farmers at all. My sympathy goes out to the farmer owing to the uncertainty of the future so far as the Australian wheat market is concerned, and because of the doubt about ships materializing to take away our grain and leave us a profitable price. Among the real grievances of the farmer which have never been uttered there is, first, the disastrous system of scrip-deal- ing which has been allowed to obtrude itself, and which could have been prevented had concerted action been taken to secure the consideration which this Parliament could have given to the subject. T purposally endeavoured to bring about means by which. security could have been afforded and robbery prevented. That was when I interviewed the then Treasurer, the late Lord Forrest. I will give an instance of how the robbery operated; and it will also explain to some extent how the suspicion developed, regarding which the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) so bitterly complained, in that it was being constantly exhibited towards the Government in their handling of the whole matter. This attitude was part of. the stock-in-trade of speculators through the country, when once freedom to deal in wheat scrip was permitted. They made it their business to belittle the efforts of the Wheat Pool, and to predict disaster. People of this character had a wondrous- field to operate upon because, unfortunately, the wheat-growers had met with a tremendous reverse in 1914. Then when the 1915-16 crop, came along, and a 2s. 6d. advance was made - which’ the Wheat Pool alone was able to grant - that amount was not sufficient to cover the expenses of two seasons. Especially hard was the case of small wheat-growers who had all their eggs in one basket - men who were not in a position, not having land enough, to go in for mixed farming. And the lot of the unfortunate share-farmer, who grows over one-third of the wheat produced in New South Wales, was doubly hard. The army of speculators had the rein held pretty tightly upon them for a while in New South Wales, but that was not the case in Victoria. They secured lists containing the names of every man holding wheat in the pool, and, profiting by the bitterness which had been evoked in New South Wales over the Wheat Acquisition Act, they planted the germs of discontent and suspicion in the minds of the farmers. They bought scrip, in many instances - after the half-crown had been paid upon it - for a few pence. I will cite the case of a poor man who had wheat in the pool, which, at 6d. a bushel, was worth £75. He bad received upon that wheat the half-crown advance. Then, being pressed for money, he gladly accepted 6d. a bushel, and got rid of his scrip. That wheat has already been paid for up to 4s. 2£d. a bushel, and will probably pan out at 4s. 3d. This man parted with the payable portion of his crop, and about £150 was taken out of his pocket for the benefit of one or more speculators who gambled in his scrip. I pointed out to the late Lord Forrest that if the Commonwealth Government made available to the Chairman of the Wheat Pool in each State every three or -four months, a sum of about £500,000, to be advanced to needy growers at a rate of 8 or 10 per cent. - a high rate being necessary to drive away “sharks” who could finance themselves on their own land values - in such instances as I have quoted, farmers would thus be able to save themselves from huge loss and robbery by an expenditure of £8 or £10 in interest, and even at these high rates would be saved from such parasites as the speculator who obtained a poor farmer’s crop profit of £150. But these common-sense proposals were not accepted, and there was not one voice raised’ amongst the alleged farmers’, friends in their support. I have depended for the last thirty years more upon wheat-growing than upon anything else for a living.. I have made a close study of it, and I realized two years ago, when travelling in New South Wales with the Rural Industries Royal Commission, that the position of the Australian wheat-grower would ‘be a eery precarious one at the close of the war. I have therefore advocated that every effort should be made to enable the unfortunate .share-farmers, who are now on the rocks, to take up mixed farming. They have received no aid whatever from the so-called friends of the farmer.

I heard -an honorable member last night depicting the fearful condition of the wheat industry of Australia at the preseij.it time. It is true that it is in a bad condition, but the reasons given by the honorable member were not quite correct. The area under wheat has diminished, but why has it diminished? One solid reason for it is that the majority of those growing wheat who were in a position to turn their ‘ lands to a more profitable use have engaged in the production- of meat and wool. These are the practical men, who realized the uncertainty of the future with regard to wheat and the shipping facilities for its transport to the overseas market. In many instances the unfortunate sharefarmers have been turned adrift, and the plants which they have spent eight and ten years of their lives in putting together, and which represented their only assets, have had to be disposed of at a sacrifice. Horses that were worth from £30 to .£40 each can now be bought for from £8 to £10, and their machinery is worth next to nothing. These are the men who are to be pitied, and no provision has been made to enable them to take up mixed farming. I want to say that the sooner the people realize how dangerous is the .position :in regard to wheat-growing, the better. We have to hope that we shall be able to keep our millions of tons of wheat fit for human consumption until ships materialize from’ some place or another by which we can transport it overseas. “ But the outlook is not too brilliant for us in view of the fact that America has a coming crop of from 700,000,000 to 900,000,000 bushels, and a crop of 2,500,000 bushels of corn. It does not seem as if any special facilities are likely to be afforded for shipping wheat from Australia to enable us to compete in the markets of the world with the highly guaranteed crops grown in America and elsewhere.

Whilst our position is not’ hopeless, it is sufficiently grave to excite in us the greatest concern. But, knowing the difficulties with which they are faced to finance the thousand and one ventures that are upon their hands, I decline to ask the Australian Government to guarantee to the wheat-farmers the impossible prices for their wheat which have been demanded, and to pay them on the spot. I realize that it would be absurd to ask the Government to give a guarantee in con,nexion “with out wheat which might ultimately land this community in losses amounting to tens of millions sterling. If the wheat-growers get justice and fair play, and are protected from the “ sharks “ who, without protest, nave been allowed to prey upon them since the inception of the Wheat Pool, their position may-not he so bad. They should he given a larger say as to the practical methods by which their wheat is to be conserved.

They should be ‘taken fully into the confidence of the Government, and if they are given a fair say in the practical administration of the Wheat Pool, they will be perfectly satisfied. If the farmers are protected in those things which are necessary for their production, they will receive much of the assistance of which they are in need. Paney a small settler having to pay to-day 30s. per cwt. for rock salt for his few sheep when, a few years ago, this article could be obtained for from 6s. to 7s. per cwt. The cost of everything else that the small farmer requires has increased in like proportion.

I ‘have dealt somewhat at length with the question of wheat, because I realize that’ there is a grave misconception con- cerning it in the minds of the people. Men who ought to know better are trying to poison the minds of the farmers. I have no objection to farmers having a party of their own in Parliament or elsewhere if they please. Owing to the unbridled desire to mop up the people’s birthright throughout the length and breadth of Australia, the genuine settlers have been relegated to out-of-the-way places, and have had to carry on their work under such conditions that permanent prosperity has been denied them. Is it any wonder that we should find opposition to systems and principles the adoption of which has robbed the people of their birthright? If we are going to weather the financial storm, we must develop truer and better systems of production and distribution. This is essential if we are to make this empty continent the home of freedom for tens of millions of people that it ought to be. If we are not going to make of this’ country a cockpit in which we shall fight in sections, to the detriment of true advancement, then sections of the community must realize that it is necessary to sacrifice a part at least of their privileges and the recognition of the rights of others must be maintained. I feel that the very necessities of our position begotten of the war will work the miracle, and will lead us from the path of selfishness which we have so long pursued.

I am not a slavish follower of the Government. I differ probably from honorable members on both sides in my ideas as to how production may be best assisted and scientific distribution effected. I may differ from a majority even Bf the people who have sent me to this Parliament, but T shall not toady to them or to any one else by denying the opinions. I hold. I feel that the Government have made many mistakes, and that the interests of sections of the community have been injured by the meddlesome officialdom that has been permitted to control important affairs. The Government can look forward to bitter hostility in consequence. I agree that they have made many mistakes; but I say that, with all their faults, no abler men can be found amongst the public men of Australia to day to carry on the affairs of this country. Whilst I think so, and. whilst I deem’ them worthy of my support, they shall have it. I do not think it is fair that men who were elected to support the Government at a crucial time should cut the thread of their allegiance at any moment they please. If members of the party on the Government side feel that they are wrong, there is a way in- which they can express themselves. They can maintain their promises in a way which will result, not in injury to the Government or to the country, but to the profit of both.

I believe that the members of the Government are not anxious to retain the tremendous special powers thrust upon them by reason of the exigencies begotten of the war. They are, I have no doubt, as anxious to be rid of those powers as we are anxious that they should be divested of them; but I differ from those who think that Governmental interference is not essential to production or distribution. We need to .evolve a system that will be truly scientific and which will induce every man and woman in this country to give the best that is in them to assist in the great work of establishing just systems of production and distribution that has been thrust upon this community.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.I am quite prepared to admit that criticism of the Estimates, after an all-night sitting, is not likely to be productive of very much improvement; but that is not my fault. It -is a necessity thrust upon me by the action of the Government, and I do not propose to set aside the responsibility I owe to the country and to my constituents on that acount. I remember that we were promised that this would be a financial session. We have dawdled through it for the greater part of the time in considering measures which have had nothing whatever to do with finance. Some of them have been of no great con. sequence to the country, and one or two of them have been, in my opinion, prejudicial to its interests. Now, almost at the last minute, we are expected to tackle these Estimates in the spirit in which they ought to be dealt with.

There is no doubt whatever that the present position is one of grave concern..

There has never been a time in the history of the Commonwealth when a more careful and anxious investigation of our general financial position has been so necessary. 1 regret, therefore, the somewhat airy way in which the Acting Prime Minister thrust aside his responsibility in the speech which he made. I fully recognise the anomalous and uncomfortable position which the honorable gentleman occupies as the acting head of the Government at the present time. I recognise that circumstances have thrust upon him a tremendous amount of work that should never be identified with his Department. I recognize, also, that a great deal of the responsibility he is shouldering at the present time in relation to our finances has come to him by way of a damnosa hereditas, to use a favorite expression of a past able and eloquent Treasurer of Victoria, and that, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the remarkable amount of expenditure that we are asked to put through our hands at the present time. But when all that has been said, I confess to a feeling of disappointment that these large Estimates have been thrown at us in this fashion, and that apparently we are expected to put aside our duty as representatives of the people, and allow another year to drift away in the somewhat aimless fashion that -has characterized the last twelve months. The people of Australia are at last face to face with the responsibilities of nationhood. Some observer of human affairs has said that no people has ever realized its collective duty and responsibilities except under the pressure of warfare. Then pressure has brought on them these responsibilities with which we are now face to face for the first time in our history. Until the outbreak of war, Australia had perhaps the most enviable posi- tion of any country in the world. It had a vast territory sparsely populated but entirely safe under the flag of the Empire from any danger of aggression. The people of the Commonwealth enjoyed opportunities of progress and prosperity under -that flag which, perhaps, had never been enjoyed by any other nation at any time in the world’s history. It is undoubted that we took advantage to some extent of those opportunities; but it may also be conceded that our circumstances were too easy and favorable for us. It is not always a good thing for a youth to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and it is not always good for a community to have the easy conditions and the absence of responsibility which it was the good fortune in one sense, and (lie bad fortune in another, which Australia enjoyed until the war broke out. That war has brought us face to face with many grim realities. The agony resulting from it has penetrated into hundreds of of thousands of homes throughout the Commonwealth. I sincerely hope that the effect of these dreadful four years will be tq deepen and sober our national life; for there is no doubt that it is one of the misfortunes of Australia that we have taken our duties and responsibilities somewhat too lightly in the past. We have also drifted, by reason of the war, right into the currents of international issues. We can no longer live an isolated and entirely indifferent existence to what is going on in the world around us. That Elysian state of affairs has come to an end with the war, and we are now involved in large, difficult, and delicate problems, not of our making, and not to our liking, but which, nevertheless, require to be handled by our public men with courage and ability, and to be watched by the people with intelligence and patriotism, if the. country is to be saved from dangers that undoubtedly threaten it even now, and are likely to become more imminent in the near future. It will be necessary for Australia, in view of these altered circumstances, to throw aside narrow sectional views such as have characterized many of our people in the past. . These will have to give place to broader and more national convictions of the duty we owe to each other, to our country, and to our Empire.

Party interests have in the past too often been mistaken for those of the State. We cannot afford to do this any longer, -and, above all, our public men must speak out earnestly and fearlessly on matters which, if allowed to drift a3 they have done, will involve the people of Australia in very grave difficulties. There is one stern fact from which there can be no possible escape. We cannot avoid it if we would. It will be before us morning, noon, and night, summer and winter,, year in and year out. It is the load of debt incurred by Australia on account of the war.- It will amount to £350,000,000 before we have squared everything up, and means an annual charge upon the country of more than the total net revenue of Australia in pre-war years. We shall bave at least to double our net revenue in order to meet these obligations; and to a community so small as ours, that is a very serious situation to face. It is not, however, a hopeless task, and I do not want to appear unduly pessimistic-about the situation. There would be no reason whatever to worry about it if the people were seized of the facts, and if the Government showed any indication of tackling the responsibilities T have just indicated. I do not want to attack the Government on this matter. I wish it to be understood that my criticism is intended to direct them towards those steps that they ought to take, but that they have not taken, and do not appear likely to take, so far as I am able to view the situation. One has only to look back on the last four years to realize that Parliament has failed miserably in the duty put upon it by the Constitution and the people, and that various Ministers have taken advantage of that condition of affairs to deal with their duties and responsibilities in a manner that is not creditable either to them or to us. I am afraid this state of affairs will continue so long as the Government remains the master, and not the servant, of Parliament. We have seen enough during these few years to justify a determined attempt by Parliament to revert to the true conditions of constitutional government, -and to insist that the Government shall not rule, but shall serve, Parliament. If the Government refuse to accept that situation, they should make way for those who are prepared to do the. right thing. In matters of administration, where we look to the Government for a lead to the country, we find, for the most part, a record of deplorable failure. The condemnatory reports on the administration of the Defence ‘and Navy Departments are of a character that we cannot afford to regard with indifference. To me it i3 a matter of very grave regret that Parliament has not asserted itself as it should, and, in the face of those reports, have demanded that a change should be made in regard to the administration of those Departments. For the last twelve months recruiting was an absolute farce and makebelieve. There was nothing but waste in the expenditure of public money with very insignificant results. During the last nine months of the war, the so-called recruiting movement cost the country no less than £316,000. And when one recalls the voluntary ballot one is almost ashamed to belong to a Parliament that tolerated . such a thing.

When we turn to the Naval Department we do not. find a much more satisfactory state of affairs. It is true that we have curtailed expenditure temporarily on the Naval Bases, where so much money has been wasted already, and in connexion with which there has been so much mismanagement; but it is singular that the curtailment of expenditure is in relation to those Bases which our adviser at the outset indicated as being the most important of all, and that work is being carried on at the third Naval Base, the most insignificant of the three, and where extravagance and waste has been most apparent. I have endeavoured for some time to find out the reason for the extraordinary selection of that little shallow backwater known as Hann’s Inlet, in Westernport, as a Naval Base. I heard ihe Minister for Defence put the responsibility on to Admiral Henderson, but Admiral Henderson had no more to do with it than I had. It seems to’ hav« been selected by some subsequent authority following upon Admiral Henderson’s general recommendations, and I repeat that the best thing that could be done now is to leave it severely alone, because we shall only be throwing good money after bad if we continue with the work there. Before Hann’s Inlet is made suitable for the functions which it is intended to perform, a much greater sum of money must be thrown into it than has been indicated so far. At any rate, I would remind the Government that their duty in connexion with these Naval Bases is to carry out work on the more important of them and to leave the minor Basesseverely alone’ for the present.

Both in the public press and in the House of late there has been a good deal of criticism of repatriation. The Minister in charge (Senator Millen) is an able man, and he works very hard; but, unfortunately, his Department is smothered in red tape. That is always the trouble with officialdom, and I am one of those who believe that repatriation can be carried out more cheaply and efficiently by two or three . business men dissociated entirely from political activity and interference. They should be given practically a free hand, limited, of course, by the general supervision of the Government. Until something of that kind is done, I think there will be general dissatisfaction and friction, with consequent waste and unnecessary expenditure. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) has challenged those members who have attempted the somewhat unpleasant duty of criticising the Government in regard to financial matters to show where, in these Estimates, any. very considerable sum can be saved. I am prepared to admit that perhaps there is no particular item of any great magnitude that could be struck out ; but the difficulty is not so much that there is any huge hole in the ship as that there is a large number of little leaks through which waste is occurring. I would have been very glad if the Government had taken the hint given by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro and had withdrawn the Estimates in order to discover some of the leaks and give a lead to the country in the matter of economy. As a rule, when a business is going back, the very first thing the responsible heads to do is to look around and see where the little leaks are, and there generally they find the real cause of all the trouble. That is undoubtedly our position as a Commonwealth to-day. Here, there, and everywhere throughout the Estimates are indications of leakages which, in the aggregate, amount to a very considerable sum indeed; but more important- than” the actual loss of money is the moral effect, because, as I have said, the Government ought to give a lead to the people in economical administration.

Ministers appear to ignore this phase of their duty altogether. When we look around and see the numerous Boards and Committees that have been appointed everywhere, the attitude of the Government appears to be the very abnegation of Ministerial responsibility. Some of those Boards are, of course, necessary; but little justification can be shown for many others, and there seems to be an absolute indifference on the part of Ministers as to the need for. economy and efficiency in administration.

There is a large fleet of Ministerial motor cars. I am quite sure that the country could be just as well served if we dispensed with the Government motor garage, with its chauffeurs and motor cars, and engaged cars from the ordinary . commercial garages when Ministers really require such conveyances. Some seven years ago I called attention to the commencement of this state of affairs - I might, indeed, refer to it as a scandal - and when, of course, the position was not so serious as it is at the present time. When we have reports of these cars being discovered in circumstances that undoubtedly indicate that they are not being used on the work of the country, it is about time the Government took the matter into serious consideration.

The appointment of publicity officers is another innovation for which there is no justification whatever. When I asked a question concerning the nature of their work, I was given to understand that they were engaged in the’ preparation of matter for publication in the press. But we know well enough that newspaper men, if they are given any chance whatever, are glad enough to publish all matters of public interest, and will lick any statement into shape for the public just as well as any publicity officer can do it. Representatives of the newspapers are in the Public Departments all the time looking for information which, we understand, these publicity officers are supposed to be handing out.

Mr Mathews:

– But the newspapers colour it as they desire, and do not give the truth.

Mr FOWLER:

– The newspapers will not colour statements given by heads of

Departments or Ministers in a particular form.

Mr Mathews:

– They do it every day.

Mr FOWLER:

– They do not. I have a higher regard for the newsapers and the gentlemen employed on the press than to agree with that statement. I have had a good deal to do with the press in one way or another during my political career, and I must say that I have never found pressmen outraging the canons of honour and public decency. The real trouble is this: There appears to be the necessity, in the opinion of Ministers nowadays, to advertise not the work they are doing, but themselves. And so publicity officers have been taken from their previous positions on newspapers to serve, not the interests of the public, but . to “boost” the Ministers under whom they are working.

Mr Fenton:

– How many publicity officers have been appointed ?

Mr FOWLER:

– We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) took one of these gentlemen when he went to London, and we know, also, that he appointed another to fill the position vacated by the first one when he left Australia. How many more there are I do not know, but that there should be any I entirely deny. I have in my hand an indication of the work done by these officers. It is headed “Prime Minister’s Activities. Abroad,” and it purports to give information as to what Mr. Hughes has been doing since he left Australia. I do not want to read it right through, but I shall give one or two extracts dealing with the alleged activities of the right honorable gentleman. The report states-1-

When Mr. Hughes left Australia he was prepared to inquire into a very large number of matters . . . the possibility of selling great quantities of Australian products are now occupying his attention.

The grammar is not very good, but the meaning will be apprehended. The statement continues -

Among other things Mr. Hughes is inquiring into the possibility of selling further supplies of Australian butter, and also of selling leather. ‘ Mr. Hughes is also dealing with the question of shipping control as it affects Australia. In this connexion he is now inquiring into the possibility of alleviating the serious position which faces the Australian trade in South Africa.

The next statement is -

The Prime Minister is also giving his attention, to the prospect of selling further quantities of Australian wheat abroad, and to the possibilities of lifting the wheat that has been purchased by the Imperial authorities, and is at present awaiting shipment from Australia. At the same time he is inquiring into the possibility of selling Australian metals, including copper and zinc, and also the rarer metals, such as molybdenite and- tungsten.

Other negotiations are pending. This list of activities proceeds -

The Prime Minister is also making inquiries into the supply of material for shipbuilding in Australia from America and Great Britain - inquiries rendered necessary by the delay that is taking place in the construction of ships here owing to the slow arrival of certain material from abroad. He is also looking into shipbuilding matters generally, and into the building of concrete vessels in Britain, .having already made some inquiries upon the latter point in America on his way to Great Britain. He is also investigating the issue of export licences in both the United States and Great Britain, in’ view of the fact that large quantities of goods and material are at present held up abroad which are urgently required by manufacturers and traders in the Commonwealth; while the possibility of obtaining- machinery, yarns, and other requisites for the expansion of the woollen trade in Australia is another task upon which he is engaged, in addition to questions relating to the general- organization of trade, industry, and commerce in the Empire, and the representation of the Commonwealth in the United States. -

That is a list of activities which it is quite impossible for any one man to undertake, and, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) was busily occupied in work of another kind during most of the time, one may take this as an instance of what a publicity officer can achieve in the way of boosting the honorable gentleman to whom he owes his position. But it is a state of affairs that is not creditable, either to Ministers or to Parliament, and it ought to be put an end to. We have managed to get along for a number of years without these publicity officers, and there is no reason for introducing them into the Commonwealth Service at the present time.

Mr Poynton:

– For a long time the Prime Minister has been endeavouring to get ships to come to Australia, and according to authentic cablegrams which came to hand yesterday, there are eightyfive of them coming here. It will also be seen in the newspapers that the very thing about which the honorable member is complaining - the issue of export licences - has been removed, allowing American goods to come here also.

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not admit that these activities are due ^entirely, or to any great extent, to anything the Prime Minister may be doing at Home.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member does not seem to give the Prime Minister credit for anything.

Mr FOWLER:

– I give as much credit to the Prime Minister as he deserves;’ but I am not prepared to accept him at his own estimate, or even at the estimate of him held by many of his admirers.”

During the last two years there has been an unfortunate tendency on the part of Ministers to imitate the- activities of other countries. America commenced building wooden ships, and we had to commence building them also, though I am at raid we have entered upon a somewhat unprofitable line of activity in that direction.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member did not protest against the building oi wooden ships. On the other hand, he was very eager to have them built in Western Australia also.

Mr FOWLER:

– I did my best to put the honorable member’s proposition on a business-like footing; but I still say there was a possibility that it would not turn out successfully from a commercial standpoint. I do not know whether we have yet commenced the building of concrete ships; but it was one of the ideas of the Prime Minister to do so.

Mr Poynton:

– Nothing has been done in that regard.

Mr FOWLER:

– I am very glad to hear the Minister’s statement. We cannot afford to make - these experiments. It is much better to leave them to other countries and follow safely in the rear. However, in some regards we are going one better than other countries. For example, let us take the strange and somewhat mysterious transaction in connexion with the Blythe River iron deposits. The Acting Prime Minister has given us to understand that he has some scheme in his mind in regard to that project, hut it is about time he told us what it is. In any case, the. coun try has been committed by the Government to an expenditure of £3,000 upon an option on a property which has been on the market begging for a buyer for many years past.

Mr Fenton:

– Is not’ an ‘ expert being imported to examine the deposits?

Mr FOWLER:

– Yes; but why an option should be rushed through in regard to a property which apparently no one else wanted is a mystery to me. As a matter of fact, there are other iron deposits which are being worked in Australia, admittedly better commercial propositions, which will furnish all the iron required in the Commonwealth for a very long time to come, and the Government ought to show more justification than they have so far if they seriously contemplate the pur-chase of this somewhat doubtful proposition at a cost of £100,000. So far, they will no’t give us any indication of what they propose to do with the property when they do buy it. The country should not be asked to expend money on a scheme about which there is so much secrecy.

There is another matter upon which I speak with a considerable amount of hesitation. All work carried on by the Government requires tightening up. There is no doubt that for some years past there has been a general slackness in the activities under Government .control. When we were supposed to be busily engaged fitting up transports to take our troops away, I was told by a gentleman who employs a considerable amount of labour, that a man whom he had known for a good many years came to him for a job. He said to the man, “ I thought you were working on one of the transports at Williamstown.” “ Yes,” said the. man, “ I was on one of the transports, and I stood it for four days, but I had to get out. You can believe me or not, but I am telling you the truth when I say that all I did in this four days was to scrub the top of a table occasionally when one of the bosses came along.” This man went on to explain that another man who was on the ship used to sweep the deck in similar circumstances, that is, when the bosses were about, and that when the bosses’ backs were turned he th 1 ew the sweepings all over the deck again, so that they might be swept up on the next occasion when attention was supposed to be directed towards his occupation. No doubt. this state of affairs has been fairly general. It is undoubtedly a disadvantage, not only to the country, but also to those men who are anxious to give a fair day’s Work for their wages. It puts them in a false position. In J;he interests of these honest workers, and in the interests of Australia, the Government should see ‘that supervision generally is ‘ tightened up all through the Service, and that 20s. .worth of work is given for 20s. in wages.

Civil servants in the outlying States do not enjoy the opportunities for promotion that are enjoyed at headquarters. It i3 a notorious fact that men have been appointed to responsible positions in the Commonwealth Service because they have been able to pull the coat tails of Ministers. This is a most undesirable state of affairs. Men closely associated with Ministers have a much better chance of appointment .than have - abler men at a distance from headquarters. It is a misfortune to men in outlying States that promotion does not come their way, while others less deserving secure it because they happen to be associated with Ministers, or are employed at head-quarters. All positions, without exception, in the Public Service should be under the control of the Public Service Commissioner. No Minister should have the right to appoint a man who may have ingratiated himself into his good opinion, but may not be by any means the right person for a position to be filled.

The failure of industrial legislation has become painfully apparent to the most indifferent. Many years back we made earnest efforts to create a condition in regard to our law that would secure industrial peace in the community, and secure to all the workers a court of appeal that would be satisfactory to them, and at the same time satisfactory to employers. There is no doubt we have failed. “We have erected a huge steamengine, in many cases, to crack the proverbial nuit, and’ even when cracked the nut has often been found to be empty.

That is to say, there may be a small dispute in which a mere handful of men are involved with a particular employer, but that dispute cannot be settled on the merits of its actual dimensions. It has to be regarded as a difficulty between a large union and a body of employers, and if it is to be dealt with in the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration it has to be in some artificial way slopped over from one State to another.

Mr Poynton:

– Since shipbuilding has commenced, we have settled about fortyfive disputes by the tribunal which has been .appointed.

Mr FOWLER:

– I know that there has been a rough-and-ready method of dealing with those disputes, and the Government are to be congratulated on the adoption of it. It is precisely on that particular principle that I make the suggestion that wherever there is trouble between an employer and employees, the dispute should be -regarded as concerning the immediate parties to it. If’ a body of twenty men have a dispute with an employer, that body of twenty men should be regarded for the purposes of conciliation and arbitration as a union. Of course the Court could have power to make a common award, if necessary. Let us make the Court cheap, and immediate in its action, and we shall confer a tremendous advantage, not only to the working man and his employer, but also to the country generally.

Mr Considine:

– In the case of a local dispute involving twenty men, should the local union be ignored ]

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not say so; but I say that the dispute should be dealt with as one affecting the men immediately concerned, and no others; and that the men who have a dispute with their employers ought to be regarded as an organization.

Mr Considine:

– Would it not meet the honorable member’s views if the matter was confined to the local organization?

Mr FOWLER:

– It would be better to do so than to have the present huge dimensions given to our industrial struggles. I. am not laying down any hard-and-fast ri, lb. I am merely suggesting the adopnon of a different principle in place of a method which has proved an absolute failure.

Mr Considine:

– I was anxious to know if the honorable member spoke of twenty men whether. they were unionists or nonunionists.

Mr FOWLER:

– I am. not concerned whether they are members of an official union or not. My concern is whether they have a legitimate difficulty with their employers, and if they have, I consider that they should be regarded as a union for the purpose of approaching the Court.

The drift of my speech is hot so much to attack the Government or challenge it, as to show the necessity for putting our house in order. I complain that the Government have not shown sufficient intention of doing so.

Mr Considine:

– “ In my Father’s house there are many mansions.”

Mr FOWLER:

– My mansion has not yet appeared on the horizon. , I do not think it. ever will appear. I have ploughed a somewhat lonely furrow in the whole of my political career, not to my personal advantage, but, I believe, to the advantage of my electors, and, perhaps, in some little degree, to the advantage of the country. I shall continue along that course as long as I take any part in public life. Not only should we put our house in order, but we should indicate to the State Parliaments that it is about time they carried out the implied obligation that was entered into when . Federation* was undertaken. When the Australian States federated it was understood that the State Parliaments would reduce their membership, their cost, and, perhaps, their activities precisely in proportion to the work taken over by the Commonwealth. Speaking generally, no such cutting down of expenditure has been made by them. They “have carried on practically with all their paraphernalia of sovereignty, with as many members as prior to Federation, with two Chambers, and with the same staffs of officials. In short, the adoption of Federation has made no material difference in the cost of governing the States.

Mr Considine:

– The State Parliaments all want scrapping.

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not agree with that, but it is about time that State Parliaments realized as well as the Federal Parliament that they have a certain amount of responsibility in this regard, and that while we must apply the knife to every item of unnecessary expenditure, it is their duty also -to do the same. But while during the next few years there will be a tremendous strain’ on our financial resources,, we must be careful to avoid an indiscriminate cheeseparing’ policy. We must deal not economically, but generously, with our returned soldiers who have fought our battles abroad so bravely and. unselfishly. That is one reason why I ask the Government at the present time to curtail expenditure in . other directions where% economy may be safely practised. We do not want any unnecessary increase of the Public Service. We do not want a continuance of purely ornamental functions; we do not want waste and extravagance in any direction. If the Government will look about, find these things, and deal with them wherever they are, I feel sure that the country will be thankful to them, and that it will turn the corner and reach once more the high road of prosperity, without any undue sacrifice being demanded of ,the people.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I was surprised to hear the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) take the Government to task for having tried to make the best of the circumstances in which we found ourselves by proceeding to construct wooden ships. My complaint, against the Government is that they did not make aa earlier start, with the work.

Mr Poynton:

– No one knew that the armistice would be signed as early ‘ as it was.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Exactly ; and I, for one, shall not condemn the Government for what they have done in the direction of building wooden ships. My only regret is that the ships are not now coming off the stocks so that we might put them at an early date to profitable use. I do not believe that wooden ships will prove useless, and, in any event, it is too late now to condemn the Government, since all parties were agreed that something should be done in the direction of building such vessels.

As to the demand for economy, I hope that the Government will not be led astray by the newspapers. The Age newspaper, more especially, has laid itself out to ruin Australia. That may not be its intention, but if its advice be followed with respect of public expenditure, ruin will undoubtedly take place.

Mr Poynton:

– If we are not very careful we shall have the biggest unemployed problem that we have ever had to solve.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Undoubtedy. The Age is largely read, and .is well conducted by capable literary men who know how to run a newspaper in their own interests. They care not what is the result of any policy adopted by them as long as it tends to the success of their own publication. They are prepared to take up any political party whose policy they are permitted to mould, and to attack any party that i3 not ready to allow them to do that. They charge the present Government with waste and extravagance. I ‘am not going to say that the Government have not made some very foolish mistakes. Waste of money is of no use to any country ; but I think that the Age should be fair, and that in dealing with the great increase that has taken place in public expenditure they should show that the war has been largely responsible for it. As it is, the Age is trying to stop expenditure even on reproductive works. If it succeeds, the result will be chaos.

I invite Victorians to recall what happened in the early 90’s, when the Patterson Government were in power. That was a .Government of economy. Public servants were dismissed in a wholesale fashion, and the expenditure of the State was enormously reduced. The reSUlt was that we had a city of empty houses and grass-grown streets. In New .South Wales, the effect of the land boom would have been felt to the same extent as in Victoria but for the action of the State Government. In the first place, the Go vernment of New South Wales came to the assistance of the ‘banks, and took steps to prevent them from -closing down. I have no .particular interest in the capitalistic section of the community. My support does not come from- that quarter, nor is it likely to do, but I know that in the early 90’s thousands of men were thrown out of work in this State, and the wages of first class tradesmen came down to about 5s. per day, merely because the Government followed an unusual .policy of public economy in public expenditure. In New South Wales, the old gentlemen of the Legislative Council actually stayed up all night to pass a Bill to prevent the banks from closing their doors, and the State Government borrowed money for reproductive purposes. Under that policy the crisis which followed the boom there was hardly felt, whereas in Victoria there was so much distress that fully 100,000 people had to seek employment elsewhere.

Mr FOWLER:

– There was not in New South .Wales the wild land speculation that took place here.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member is mistaken. At North Shore to-day is to be seen a great cantilever bridge stretching over an. arm of the harbor, and absolutely unused. That bridge was built during the old boom days by a land syndicate, of which the Duke of Manchester was a member, and which had the idea of creating a new Sydney in that part of the metropolis. That land company alone expended nearly £1,500,000. This illustrates my contention that land speculation was indulged in just as largely by the people of New South Wales as it was in this State.

Mr Gregory:

– The amendment was sp quietly disposed of in out absence a little while ago that I ‘desire to call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present. (Quorum formed.)

Mr MATHEWS:

– In the early 90’s I, with thousands of other Victorians, had to seek a livelihood in another State. The gold discoveries of Western Australia at that time practically saved Victoria from a complete smash. Those -who were attracted from this State to the West - by the discovery of gold, sent to their wives and families here hundreds of thousands of pounds in postal notes and money orders.

Mr Fowler:

– And thousands of big orders from Western Australia were also placed in Victoria.

Mr MATHEWS:

– That is so. I repeat that Victoria was practically ruined in the early’ 90’s by the so-called economy practised by the Patterson Government; and that if the Ministry and the Parliament of the Commonwealth are not strong enough to fight the press with regard to its demand for economy, we shall have a recurrence of what then took place.

The Age has put the case for economy most unfairly, and, as a matter of fact, should have been dealt with under the War Precautions Act for its unfair criticism of the Government. It blames the Government for failing to practise economy in directions in which economy should not be practised. During the last four years we have borrowed enormous sums to spend on the war, and have in this way created a situation that will require all the ingenuity of Parliament to overcome. If Australia is to return to normal conditions, we must, have a large public expenditure. If we practised the economy urged by some of the newspapers we should have chaos. . If it cost us £300,000,000 to play our part in the waT, we must be prepared, if necessary, to spend £300,000,000 on peace. It will not be necessary to expend that amount, but we shall find it imperative to incur a very large expenditure if a most serious depression is to be avoided.

Coming to the question of repatriation, will the Age newspaper and others urge economy in that direction? Will they expect from the returned soldier the same return that they demand from men who have not been incapacitated or had their industrial life disturbed? We understand repatriation to mean restoring the soldiers to the position they occupied before they went abroad.’ I believe they should be given even better positions. We know that prior to the war the majority of the workers were casually employed, working on the average not more than eight months in the year. Men were promised all sorts of things if they would fight for the Em pire. On their return are they to be expected to work only eight months in the year ? No honorable members will reply in the affirmative to that question. Our soldiers must be kept fully occupied, and fully paid for the work they do. If that is done, other men who did not go to the war, the fathers and elder brothers of the soldiers, may be given only about five or six months’ work in the year. It is the duty of a Government to find work all the year round for the wage-earning class, and that will not be done under the present system unless we continue the expenditure of money on reproductive works. But to-day we are economizing. There is no likelihood of losing money that is spent in proper directions. Consider the opportunities in the building trade alone ! Do not honorable members know that there are not enough dwellings in Australia to house the people as they ought to be housed ?

Mr Hector Lamond:

– We could easily spend £50,000,000 in housing the people.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Of course we could. “But we cannot expect the returned soldier to give at once a full return for the money he will receive, and the Repatriation Department must supplement his wages.

Mr Fowler:

– No one will expect a full measure of work from the returned soldier.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Then this Parliament will need to stand up to the silly cry of economy and fight those people who are trying to bring about- a recurrence of the disastrous conditions that obtained in the early nineties! I am certain that if anything of that sort is attempted a crisis will’ arise. We are talking of the housing system for the returned soldiers I hope it will be a comprehensive scheme which will give equal consideration to all soldiers. If that is done it will relieve considerably the housing problem.

Mr Gregory:

– I again enter my protest by calling attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Mr MATHEWS:

– I should like to draw the attention of the Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton) and the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Wise) to one phase of the housing, question. I have been led to believe that members of our permanent Defence Forces who joined the Australian Imperial Force, and who, on their return, will continue to be members of the permanent navy or army organizations,, will not be allowed to avail themselves of the henning scheme.

Mr Poynton:

– I think that statement is wrong.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have been informed that that is the case.

Mr Poynton:

– I shall make inquiries.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I hope the Minister will, because we shall not have an opportunity of dealing with this question for some time, unless the Housing Bill is passed before the House goes into recess. Both the permanent navy depot and the military depot are in my electorate, and I am naturally interested in this question. The proposed exclusion of members of the permanent forces from the benefits of the scheme seems unfair.

We are told that the Commonwealth Government cannot engage in any venture for supplying the public with commodities. If that is the constitutional position the sooner they acquire the necessary, power in that direction the better. Without that power they will not be able’ to repatriate the soldiers. The establishment of new industries and the extension of existing ones are .necessary, and if any money is to be lost in the initial stages of new industries it is better that the Government should lose it as part of the scheme of repatriation. I am afraid that the Government may yield to the popular cry for economy. Some sections of the public are led like sheep by the news- papers, which are putting increased venom into their articles because they fear that they are in danger of losing their hold on the public. If the people are misled by the press on the question it will be the duty of every Government and every member of Parliament to show that the economy cry is a foolish one, and that it will bring in its train distress and a repetition o of the serious conditions of the early nineties. I am sorry that some honorable members on this side do not agree with me and are assisting the Bolsheviks on the Government benches in demanding economy. . If those honorable members who think that economy in public expenditure is essential succeed in overawing the Government, trouble will arise. The soldiers will not- be repatriated as they ought to be, and the public will suffer.

I desire to say a few words regarding the War Precautions Act, especially in its relation to the censorship of the press and other publications and the imprisonment of individuals. I think it is time that the Government discontinued the silly pol:cy of gaoling . men who differ from them politically, and ceased the foolish cry of “ Stop these traitors to our country.” We have in our midst Mr. Peter Simonoff. He was. selected by the Russian residents- of Australia as their representative, but under the War Precautions Act his personal activities have been restricted. I do not think that restriction was necessary, even while the war was in progress; the Government thought otherwise. Simonoff was prosecuted and sentenced. His case will shortly* come up for review. I do not know whether the Government intend to vindictively punish that man because he broke the law, but no good end can be served by imprisoning him, especially as he is desirous of leaving Australia. In fact, as the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) explained, Simonoff paid portion of his -boat fare from Australia, but was prevented from leaving our shores, and the shipping company will not return his money. Surely no one desires that Australia shall be charged with some of the crimes of which we are charging other countries. We are told that some other peoples have done this sort of thing, but I do not swallow all that the press tells us. I do know that Simonoff is a good-living and peaceful man, and that he holds strong political views. The Government have no more right to desire to gaol him than I would have to desire to imprison some member on the Government side. The House will be adjourning this week, and there will be no further opportunity of dealing with this case. I hope the Government will not stain their character by sending this man to gaol. There can be no necessity for such a course. The war is over, and this man ought to be allowed to leave Australia, or even to remain if he desires to do so. Surely we can now allow the bitter feelings of the past to die out and adopt a saner policy.

In Sydney, between the years) 1893 and 1896, I worked- with a German named Hermann. He has a son, Paul Hermann. I knew Hermann, senior, well. He was born in Pomerania. This man left Germany because he detested the German laws and military system, and the boy, when he arrived, was only four months old. There were two other brothers, both of whom enlisted; but one “was afterwards rejected for some reason of which I am not aware. The elder brother is now in business in Sydney, and four weeks ago, after the war was over, somebody discovered that he had never been naturalized. His brothers, oF course, having been born here, are Australians ; but, he, despite the early age at which he arrived here, was arrested and interned as a German. In time of war, of course, the Government might be able to show some justification for interning such men, but we all know that some have been detained unnecessarily. I admit the possibility that amongst the men interned are those who were desirous of working detriment to the Allies and the Empire; at any rate, I know several suspicious cases. However that may be, by no -stretch of the imagination could any suspicion be attached to this man. He has a wife and family, and a business in Sydney, and by his detention his family will suffer, and his business will “go to the dogs.” I pleaded on his behalf with the Department, but I was informed that, although he was only four months old when he arrived, he is .regarded as an enemy alien, and must remain interned. I do not know where this sort of thing is going to end, but if it is continued it will show that we are not acting up to that standard of civilization at which we aim. It is useless, of course, to expect that the Government will alter their determination, in these matters, but I canno! help regarding the internment of this man as a positive crime. He is ruined financially, and impaired in health; and I suppose I must leave the matter as it stands. I have had an opportunity of visiting the internment camp at Canberra, and I believe the internees are looked after very well. Of course, they do not- live in up-to-date villas, and the privacy they enjoy is not what it might be, but still the accommodation is very fair. Several had nothing to say against the Government, but merely wished that the war was over in order that they might be free. They recognised that they were being treated, perhaps, better than might have been expected under the circumstances, but they felt the loss of their liberty. To keep these men longer than is necessary is not showing that good feeling that might be looked for under the. circumstances

It is useless for the Government to try to evade their responsibility in regard to the censorship. The other day I endeavoured to get an answer from the Acting Prime Minister-1 (Mr. Watt) in regard to a certain article which had been reprinted from an English paper in. the Argus and Age of the 16th of this month. We, on this side, from evidence in our possession, are of opinion that the war could have been over, earlier, and that Britain was one of the principal causes of the delay of peace. We ought to have been allowed to express that opinion, but were prevented. Now, however, in the article to which I refer, it is .said that when- the Allies were winning they would not hear of peace, and that when Germany, apparently, was on the victorious side, Ludendorf would not hear of peace. Why is the Labour and Socialistic press not allowed to print similar articles? The circulation of the Age and Argus far exceeds that of any Labour journal; and why this censorship of the Labour press is continued in this unfair way I cannot imagine. Some few weeks ago the Acting Prime Minister received a deputation introduced by myself, the proceedings of which had an unfortunate ending. The deputation showed the disadvantages under which the Labour and Socialistic press labours in this connexion, and pointed out that many works dealing with economic and industrial matters had been suppressed. Again, I cannot understand why the Government should withhold this literature, which is desired by many people in Australia. We are assured by the Acting Prime Minister that the Government does not desire to reap any political advantage from the War

Precautions Act, but still, as we know, this censoring is going on. It is foolish enough to prevent Labour newspapers from publishing original articles, but it is still more foolish, to prevent reprinting articles that have already appeared in the British and other press.

Mr Considine:

– Are the Argus and Age not British newspapers?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I do not know; there is such a thing as British fair- play, and that is what one does not get from, either of these papers, if one happens to disagree with them, politically or otherwise. I know we cannot expect the Acting Prime Minister to be here at this hour of the morning, in view of the strenuous time he has had, and, in any case, I know that anything I say would have very little effect. I should like, however, one of the Ministers to look into this matter of the suppression of literature, and have these books examined by some common-sense ;person.

Mr Poynton:

– I think instructions have been given for a number of these books- to be released. I fancy a letter was signed to that effect the other day.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I believe that some have been released; and I can’ assure the honorable gentleman that many of them are such as could be read and agreed with by honorable members on both sides of the House, and could not possibly be of any detriment to the Empire..

A question of some importance is the delay in handing the: returned soldiers their deferred pay.. In this regard I have received the following communication : -

Referring to the matter of the deferred pay as mentioned by you in tha House, per extract herewith, I beg to submit to your consideration the advisability of removing in the future one of the principal causes- of delay in these and other settlements with returned soldiers, namely, “ their pay-books, have not arrived.” This has been the statement very very often, and I suggest they should look ahead a bit, and insist that the books accompany the troops as they leave England, otherwise when the men begin to return in larger numbers-, the confusion and delay promises to be much, greater, and may - amongst a lot of men discontented and disappointed at their inability to obtain what is due to them in a reasonable time - lead to serious discomfort and. trouble.. It is a matter that would present no difficulty whatever to any ordinary business, firm.

Trusting to your good offices to ventilate the matter still further.

That letter is quite correct, for any business firm, if it did not send the money with the men, would forward it as quickly as possible. When the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) left Australia for England he said he would make a special effort in this connexion, and I believe that something has been done. That gentleman is just as interested as we are in the- matter, and will, doubtless, do what he can. No doubt the Government have been “taken down” in the matter of pay, but it would be better for the Government to be deceived, even to a greater extent, than that men entitled to money should ‘ have to go without it for so- long. I do not say that there is any ill-feeling on the part of the Department, the- officials of -which are, perhaps, as conscious as I am that £5 or £10 to a wage-earner is very handy at any time. I quite agree with my correspondent that when the men are returning in large numbers there may be trouble if they do not get a fair deal.

The next matter I wish to- deal with is one connected with the Navy. The Acting Minister (Mr. Poynton) knows, that many of us have received telegrams from reservist members of the crew of the Una, which is to go to Raboul, contending that they ought to be allowed to return to their civil occupations. They’ have been in the service for some time, and- now that the war is over, they feel, that they ought to be permitted to return to their families. Myself and others, however, . have been assured by the Acting Minister that it is necessary that the Una should proceed tq Rabaul,, and it cannot do so without a crew.

Mr Poynton:

– The Una will be coming straight back.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I hope so, but the difficulty is that the Una does not present the only cases. Men have been called up at Port Melbourne and Williamstown, both at the “training school and depot, and they also desire to return to their ordinary civil businesses. They are. at present earning only small money, and they could earn a great deal more in civil life, but, of course, being reservists, they had to obey the call.

Mr Poynton:

– I think we shall be able to lay off some of these boats shortly.

Mr MATHEWS:

– In my opinion the cases ought to he dealt with individually, because I know there are some men who do not want to leave the service.

Mr Poynton:

– -The Government have no desire to pay these men -unless it ia absolutely necessary. ‘

Mr MATHEWS:

– I quite believe that, but, unfortunately, the permanent men in the Navy have grown up in a certain environment, and are careless . of the feelings of these men ; no matter what the circumstances may be, discipline must be observed. Now that the war is oyer, the greater proportion of these men should be allowed to retire from the Navy and resume their civil occupations. But it canhot be done until the whole of the fleet is returned - to Australia. There is no longer any need for our fleet to remain in the North Sea. It is costing Australia money to keep our vessels there. The money might just as well be spent in Australia. Here is -a line of economy which the Government could follow. In peace time, the complement of a warship is nothing in comparison with what it is in time of war. I feel sure that we could discharge quite one-third of the complement of our fleet. Although drafts have replaced some of the men, many of them have been away from Australia for four years.

Mr Poynton:

– As soon as the appointment of the Admiral is made, which may be done at any time, I shall waste no Mme in getting .the fleet back.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Is there a possibility of dealing with individual cases of men who want to get back to their homes ‘?

Mr Poynton:

– As soon as the boat referred to by the honorable member returns, I see no reason why it should not be done.

Mr MATHEWS:

– There i3 another matter of pay and allowances, which I shall bring under the notice of the Minister personally.

During the progress of the war we have employed men on home service. Many of them are returned soldiers, others are men who endeavoured to enlist, but were over age or physically unfit for service abroad. These men were allowed three weeks each year on full pay. Their annual leave was due about November last,- and some of . them were away on their leave when the armistice was signed. Others were due to have their leave about that time. But the whole of the homeservice men have now been demobilized. The Government have treated them fairly by giving them a fortnight’s leave on full pay, but those who had not taken their three weeks’ annual leave were deprived of that advantage. They feel that they ought to be given what was due to them. I asked a question in the House in reference to the matter, but the answer given was not a reply to the question I submitted. The men who had taken their three weeks’ leave also drew their fortnight’s pay on demobilization, although some of them had just completed their leave period on the day that demobilization took place. The others seek to be placed in the same position. I do not think it is right for the Government to deprive them of their right to claim three weeks’ pay in lieu of the leave they did nob receive.

If the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) is sent to Great Britain for any purpose other than to give him a holiday, if he is sent there to carry out the duties of demobilization,- it will be a crime. 1 may be said to be biased against him, but I consider that he would be the worst man on earth to send Home to do anything which the officials of the Defence Department, in conjunction with the High Commissioner and his staff, cannot undertake. Undoubtedly the military officials in Great Britain would run the show. That has been our experience in Australia in connexion with Senator Pearce’s administration. But apart from the fact ‘ that the Minister for Defence would be unfit for the duties, it is quite unnecessary to. send any Minister Home. The press would do good work if they would select matters of this sort in order to show where unnecessary expenditure could be curtailed’. The honorable member, for Perth (Mr. Fowler) has read out a list of great undertakings carried out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), as reported by his publicity officer, but there is not one item in that list which the High Commissioner, Mr. Fisher, could not have carried out.

Mr Fowler:

– The Prime Minister cannot possibly attend to half of them.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is undoubtedly the duty of the large staff controlled by the High Commissioner to investigate all these matters, and it is also his duty, as well as that of the staff, at Horseferryroad, to see that our troops are returned properly. There will be no need for a Minister to go Home to attend to that matter. Extra men may be required in connexion with demobilization and embarkation, and in connexion with the matter of fixing up accounts and allowing our troops an opportunity to pay visits to friends in Great Britain, but the High Commissioner’s office ought to be able to deal with all those matters effectively. Otherwise the office would be useless. Mr. Fisher is as capable of dealing with this particular class of work as most men could be, and there is nothing to prevent him supervising any matter on the list of undertakings the publicity officer has prepared in regard to the Prime Minister’s activities. He ought to know the different markets by this time, and to be able to obtain all the ‘ information which the publicity officer says the Prime Minister is endeavouring to secure. The Minister for the Navy promised when he left Australia that he would endeavour to make a special effort to facilitate the return of our men, and the payment of their money as quickly as possible. If he has not been able to achieve success in that direction I am confident that Senator Pearce will be unable to do so.

Mr CORBOY:
Swan

.- It would be a mistake for us to economize at the present time by reducing salaries or wages to an extent that would prevent the public servants from being able to live in anything like reasonable circumstances. A great deal has been said during the progress of the discussion on the Estimates about the economies which have been brought about in the Postmaster-General’s Department. I have a number of statements made by postmistresses as to the conditions which have recently been imposed upon them in respect to post-offices in small country towns, where the Department has economized by removing the telegraph in- struments and installing telephones in their stead. In this way the necessity for employing trained telegraph officers has been avoided, and postmistresses have been employed at small salaries, whom it is only necessary to train in the use of the telephone, and in regard to the various charges for postal services. These women are called upon to sign an agreement to accept any increase or decrease which the Department may decree, and the result is that their payments are consistently reduced. I have before me the case of a country town in which a permanent officer was receiving £4 per week, with an allowance if 15s. per week for quarters, free fuel, and an allowance of 8s. per week for cleaning the office. The total value of the position per week was over £5.

Mr Poynton:

– What was the revenue of the office?

Mr CORBOY:

– I am prepared to admit that, in all these cases, the revenue is very small. This officer was replaced by a woman who undertook to carry out the duties of postmistress for £57 per” annum. She received no salary while she was being trained to fill the position. I understand from her that, out of the £57, she was to pay her own rent. At the end of 3 months her allowance was reduced to £43 per annum. Since then it has been reduced to £33 5s. per annum. During the fifteen months she has held the position of postmistress in that small town her allowance has been reduced by £25.- The women holding these positions, I am informed, are not permitted to carry on any other business. They are not permitted to take in lodgers in order to supplement their earnings, and although they are required to remain on duty eight hours per day, the Department assesses their services as being worth only £32 5s. per annum.

Mr Poynton:

– How many mails have they to attend to ?

Mr CORBOY:

– At the most only one mail per day, and, in some cases, only one per week has to be dealt with. The salaries of these women, however, are based upon the number of telegraph messages which they have to pass through the telephone. The Department overlooks the fact that they must be on duty for «sight hours, whether they have to transmit one or one hundred messages per day. In Western Australia these women are not permitted to engage in any other business. That, I understand, is not the position in other States.

Mr Poynton:

– In many parts of my district postal business is carried on by trades people in a part of a building used for other purposes.

Mr CORBOY:

– That is so, where, for instance, a storekeeper takes over the local postal work. In cases to which I have been referring these women have taken over departmental premises previously occupied by permanent officials,, and the Department will not permit them to devote those premises to any other business purpose. I have in mind the case of a woman who for this work is receiving £32 5s. per annum. While the timber mills of the district are closed her little girl has to travel 13 miles a day to attend school, and a pony has to be kept for that purpose. How is it possible foi her to maintain herself on such an allowance T

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– Has she not a husband ?

Mr CORBOY:

– I do not think so; I gather from the tone of her letter that she is entirely dependent upon the allowance she receives from the Department.

In another case that I desire to bring under notice, one of these post-offices has been taken over by a single woman, who is in receipt of a very small, allowance. She was rather nervous about remaining in these quarters alone, and when friends went into the district, with the object of commencing business there, she was glad to allow them to lodge with her. She was pleased to have their company, and they were glad of the rooms, for which she charged them 4s. per week. The fact that she did this was apparently reported to the Department, which called upon her in the first place to hand over the 4s. per week that she gained by sub-letting part of her premises, in respect of which 10 per cent, was actually deducted from her allowance. She agreed to hand over the money, but the Department then discovered that it would not be right to accept it, and she was informed that she would have to get rid of these lodgers. They were accord ingly turned out, and the rooms were left vacant. The Department will not permit these people to supplement their scanty earnings by letting rooms in the permanent premises occupied by them. When complaint is made the official reply is that local business people are quite willing to take over the work. If this is how the Department is able to show a profit, I can only say that the system is one of which we ought to be ashamed, and that it is time that the Department was again showing a deficit rather than a surplus. These women are practically .the slaves of the Department, and are dependent upon it for a mere existence. We have to-day war widows - women who are in receipt of a certain income by way of pension - and from what has been told me by men in a position to know I fear that the Department intends to put some of these warwidows into these positions and to set-off their pensions against the allowances paid.

Mr Fowler:

– The country would not stand that.

Mr CORBOY:

– A country that allows these women to be treated as they are being treated to-day will stand anything.

There is only one other matter relating to the Postmaster-General’s Department to which I desire to refer. On some branch railway lines in Western Australia there is not a post-office. There are many townships on some of our countrylines that have not a post-office. They have only one mail per week. A mail bag is carried on the train, and the Department is now forcing settlers to pay a late letter fee in respect of all letters so posted in these mail bags. This is the only” service which the people of these districts have, and yet they are called upon to pay a late letter fee when chey avail themselves/ of it. This is an unfair discrimination on the part of the Department as between town and country dwellers. These settlers are not receiving anything like the consideraton that is extended to city residents. If economies of this kind are helping to build up the glorious postal credit balance of which we have all heard, I can only say that the sooner we have a postal deficit once more, the better it will be for Australia.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler), who has indulged in a calm and well considered criticism of the financial position of the Commonwealth, naturally paid some attention to the construction of our Naval Eases. I understood him to say that previous Governments had displayed an anxiety to carry on Naval works that were not so essential to the defence of Australia as were others that should be proceeded with more expeditiously.

Mr Fowler:

– According to Admiral Henderson.

Mr FENTON:

– .Admiral Henderson in his report speaks of Naval Bases at Sydney and Fremantle; all others are referred to as sub-bases. I presume that the honorable member, when he made this complaint, had specially in mind the works being carried out at the Flinders Naval Base. There has ‘been there some departure from the scheme laid down by the eminent Admiral, and I believe it has been due to a desire to carry out more economically that portion of our Naval defence system. Admiral Henderson laid it down that certain training should take place at the Sydney and Fremantle Naval Bases, and that only a limited amount of training should be carried out at Flinders. It was subsequently determined, however, that Flinders should be the training centre for the seamen for the Australian Fleet, and that decision has naturally led to the Flinders Naval Base becoming a more important section of our Naval defence system. We are to have there a torpedo school, a gunnery school, as well as a wireless and other schools, which were originally intended to be spread over the other Bases. The idea is, I think, that Jervis Bay shall be the training place for officers, and Westernport the training place for the seamen of the Australian Fleet. In these circumstances, more buildings have been erected at Flinders than would have been necessary under the original schema Taking it as a whole, there is no better harbor than that of Westernport.

Mr Fowler:

– The deep water part ot it is satisfactory. The honorable member is not referring to Hann’s Inlet?

Mr FENTON:

– If the honorable member will but peruse Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice’s report he will not be so drastic in his criticism of Hann’s Inlet as he has been. Vessels of the deepest draught can be accommodated in Westernport.

Some critics have urged that Admiral Henderson, when he visited Australia, had grown so old in the service of the British Navy that he had become somewhat antiquated in his ideas. I know nothing as to his qualifications, but the general impression I have formed from a study of his report is that he was well qualified to express an opinion upon the subject with which he was called upon to* deal. Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice in a report, dated 11th December, 1913, dealswith the Flinders Naval Base, and says - -

As the Base is specially required for destroyers and submarines, it is necessary that still water should .be obtained, especially for the latter class of ship.

Mr Fowler:

– Is that not rather absurd in view of the fact that submarines, during the war have been working in* stormy ocean waters?

Mr FENTON:

– I am merely quoting Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice’s opinion as set out in this report, which goes on to state that -

It is clear that any point chosen for a Base south of Sandy Point would require heavy and costly protective works. The site, therefore, must be north off this point. A site on French Island or Phillip Island must be ruled out on account of the impossibility of railway communication. Any site on the east coast of Port Western is impossible on account of the amount of dredging which would be required, and the difficulty of railway communication. The north arm of Port Western therefore remains as the only place on which a Base is practicable. At Hann’s Inlet or some distance up Hastings Inlet a Base would be possible without pretctive works. Near the entrance to Hasting’s Inlet, at Watson’s Inlet or Rutherford Creek, the latter two being on the west and east sides respectively of Quail Island, some protective works would be required. At any other ‘point on the north arm protective works of rather costly nature would be necessary to form a workable Base for destroyers or submarines. Owing to the large extent of foreshore at all points in the north arm, it is necessary todredge a turning basin at whatever, site may he chosen for the Base. An examination of the chart will make this apparent at once. At Hann’s Inlet the dredging of the turning basin will cost over 40 per cent, of the total amount of dredging. If the cost of the turning basin is eliminated as being common to all sites, the question arises which of all the sites mentioned above is the cheapest for works other than the turning basin, bearing in mind the fact that, in some cases, the works would be dredging only, and in other cases dredging combined with protective works. I have, after roughly estimating the works at each place, come to the conclusion that Hann’s Inlet has been wisely chosen as the cheapest site for a Naval Base in Port Western, assuming that it is used for destroyers and submarines only. Quite apart from the question of the work at the Base is the question of railway communication, and in this matter Hann’s Inlet gives better facilities than any other site.

I have gone into the question of the position of the Base at possibly some greater length than necessary, and I feel sure that the same points as I have mention have been carefully considered by others, but I felt it necessary to satisfy myself that the best site had been selected.

I thought I was not mistaken in the statement I made about the Flinders’ Base, although I was in error in attributing the words I have just quoted to Admiral Henderson instead of to Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who visited the site some years later.

Thehonorable member for Perth mentioned also the item of motor cars. Their number has certainly increased, and there is a most peculiar brand on some of them. I have seen two or three standing at the entrance to this building, each bearing the brand I know that the broad arrow has a great significance when placed on clothes and other articles, and I have wondered whether the double “ D “ stands for “ doubly damned “ for those who ride therein. The cars are used by not only Ministers, but also a number of officials. Since the commencement of the war the Defence Department has bought or hired a number of additional cars.

Mr Corboy:

– The Department is selling them for £5 each in Perth.

Mr FENTON:

– They must be in a very dilapidated condition. . I do not object to the use of motor oars for Government purposes They certainly facilitate operations, but the number of them is growing rapidly, and I know that cars cannot bo purchased and operated without the expenditure of considerable sums of money.

Mr Fowler:

– Some years ago, I ascertained in answer to a question that’ the upkeep then was £10,000 per annum.

Mr FENTON:

– I believe that the Victorian Government some years ago operated the hiring system in connexion with motor cars, but, acting on expert advice, they purchased a number of cars and arranged for the housing of them in a Government garage and attention to them by Government employees. I understand that the comparison of the two systems favours the purchasing rather than the hiring of cars.

The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams), quite unwittingly, I think, seemed to cast a reflection upon the workers of this country. He stated that, according to figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician, the productiveness of labour has decreased in recent years, and, inferentially, that men are doing less work to-day than they did formerly.

Mr Poynton:

– That is so in the case of bricklaying, at any rate.

Mr FENTON:

– If any honorable member desires to criticise the workers, he should specify the culprits, and say whether inefficient work is being done.

Mr Corser:

– The inefficiency has been proved at Cockatoo Island.

Mr FENTON:

-I do not know that that has been proved. In the latest volume of Knibbs, for the years 1901-17, appear the following particulars regarding the output of factories in the Commonwealth during theyears 1911-16.

Mr Poynton:

– Those figures prove nothing.

Mr FENTON:

– There is another table which gives the output per head of mean population, and the figures in it also show an increase.

Mr Poynton:

– If a man is receiving 2s. per lb. for his butter, he must be getting a higher return from his employees than when he is receiving only1s. per lb.

Mr FENTON:

– These are the only figures from which the Commonwealth Statistician can make his deductions as to the productiveness of labour, and it is strange that this set of figures should show an increase, whilst figures quoted by the honorable member for Franklin show a decrease.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– The figures which the honorable member has just quoted are deceptive. A pair of boots costs about 5s. more to-day than it did in 1911.

Mr FENTON:

– These figures must be the basis upon which Mr. Knibbs makes the deductions which are published from time to time in the Labour Bulletin.

Mr Richard Foster:

Mr. Knibbs said the other day that his figures had been used erroneously in the Arbitration Court.

Mr FENTON:

– I know that at the request of union secretaries and the representatives of the workers in arbitration cases, he has provided special statistics for them to use in the Court. Those figures have been quoted exactly as they were supplied, and then have been handed to the Judge.

Mr Richard Foster:

Mr. Knibbs said that the Judges used the figures erroneously.

Mr FENTON:

– That is a serious charge. Surely if the honorable member obtained a return from the Commonwealth Statistician in regard to certain matters, and quoted it in the House exactly as he received it, he would consider himself on solid ground.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Much would depend on the interpretation I placed upon the figures.

Mr FENTON:

– I know that the union representatives have quoted accurately the figures supplied to them by the Statistical Office, and if a Judge places upon them a construction they do not bear, either the Judge is not very intelligent or the statistics are not clear.

Honorable members on both sides of the House are perfectly justified in making serious complaint of the manner in which they have been treated in this so-called financial session. The only time when the finances of the Commonwealth can be really analyzed is after the Treasurer has made his Budget speech , and the Estimates have been presented to the House. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster) will admit that in days gone by, when he availed himself of opportunities to criticise past Governments, he regarded the Budget speech, and the figures associated with it, as the best means of revealing the country’s financial position. Nearly three months have elapsed since the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) delivered his Budget speech, and now, almost on Christmas eve, we have been compelled to sit all night for the express purpose of discussing the most serious financial problems that the country has to face. Surely during the last three months many an opportunity must have presented itself to the Government of placing the Estimates to the fore on the business-sheet, so that the House might at reasonable hours have a chance of dealing with the financial situation. After having been here all night, I and other honorable members are befagged and befogged, instead of being able to engage in clear thinking on the finances. Is it any wonder that Parliament is laughed at when we deal in this way with the business of the country? Is it any wonder that the people are asking what we in Parliament are doing ? We are called upon to discuss the most important matters affecting the welfare of the country, without being given a reasonable opportunity to bring to bear upon them clear minds and deliberate thought.

Here is a serious position that is presented in one paragraph in the Budget statement- -

During the next ten years something like £390,000,000 of Australian loans will have to be redeemed, being about £200,000,000 of State loans and £190,000.000 of war loans. Practically the whole of this immense sum must be provided for by renewal notations. Moreover, additional sums will be required for war, for repatriation, and for State public works. It will be seen that a Herculean financial task if ahead.

There, in one pregnant sentence, we are given a fair idea of what this country has to face in the very near future. Much of this indebtedness, especially in regard to the States, will have to be redeemed when money is dear; and that will make the burden of the Australian taxpayer all the greater. On most of the loans to be redeemed, the interest is only 3 per cent. or 31/2 per cent., and we shall be singularly fortunate, even with the best of methods, if on new loans we do not pay more than an average of 5 per cent. That surely makes one wonder whether, even in a country like this, which shows such a marvellous power of recovery, we shall be able to . keep pace with the expenditure. We have not only to redeem loans and face a great interest bill, but we have to provide millions for repatriation, and a considerable sum for pensions. In a country like this, where there is so much to do and so little done, no Government can afford to stand still ; and never were we faced with such financial problems.

Mr Mathews:

– We are no worse off than are other countries.

Mr FENTON:

– Quite so. I am no pessimist, and I have no doubt we shall survive; but we will never overcome the financial troubles unless we apply our best talents to the problem.

Mr Poynton:

– Wait until we get the indemnity.

Mr FENTON:

– Even if there is an indemnity we shall, according to the bestinformed minds in Britain, have to allow Germany time to earn the money.

On the question of demobilization I intend to read one or two quotations. It appears to me, from the slow manner in which we are setting about our demobilization scheme, as though the Government were not prepared to receive men in large numbers early next year. Is there any design on the part of the Government in their being slow with their demobilization scheme, as compared with what is being done on the other side of the world ? Here is a newspaper cable : -

The demobilization of the British Forces returned from the war began in London on Monday.

It is expected that by the end of the week several thousands of men will be arriving every day.

The principal centre for the disbanding of the men returning from France is Wimbledon.

It will be seen that the British authorities are demobilizing the troops as fast as possible, always, of course, reserving a certain number for eventualities.

Mr Atkinson:

– We are a long way from the battle front.

Mr FENTON:

– That is the very reason why we should be more vigorous in our preliminary effort. We have to bring a distance of 12,000 miles men who have been from home over four years; and thesooner provision is made for them the better they will be satisfied. During the war, the British, French, and German soldiers have always been able to visit their families for a week or two. The shipping tonnage available for demobilization has alreadyappeared in the newspapers.

Mr Livingston:

– Will not the High Commissioner do his best for the boys?

Mr FENTON:

– The question is whether Mr. Fisher will be allowed to do anything.

Mr Livingston:

– Who will stop him ?

Mr FENTON:

– We have a monopolist in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), who is now in England, and who does not likeany interference. No doubt, if he had his way, Mr. Fisher would be treated as badly in 1918 as he was in 1916.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– If you are as good a friend of the soldier as is the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) you will not fall short.

Mr FENTON:

– I know of no one here who is not a friend of the soldier; at any rate. so far as relatives at the Front are concerned, I think I can show as good a record as any man in the House. We have a perfect right to complain if we think that demobilization is not proceeding as rapidly as it ought to. I propose to quote from some remarks of Captain Carmichael, M.L.A., who went to the Front, and returned only to take others back- with him. He is a man not likely to make any rash remarks, and one who, I think, has every desire to be fair; and, therefore, the following newspaper extract may be of interest: -

Captain A. C. Carmichael, of New South Wales, is to sail for Australia in a fortnight, He is investigating the construction of workmen’s houses in -England, and reports that concrete houses suitable for the Sydney suburbsare being built for £150.

Interviewed in regard to demobilization, hecriticised the want of co-ordination between London and Australia. There was plenty of shipping available, he said, but the men were not ready owing to the want of organization in England. The story is current among the- soldiers that Australia cannot absorb more than 10,000 monthly, as the Repatriation Department cannot handle more, and there is a certain amount of discontent, due to the English papers publishing particulars of the Canadian, British, and American demobilization proposals, but nothing about Australia’s -scheme. The men are little interested in education and factory proposals.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Did you see the Minister’s reply to that? Head it, so as to have it placed on record.

Mr FENTON:

– I shall leave that for the honorable member to do. I do not think that any one will question Captain Carmichaels veracity.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– I question his knowledge of what he is talking about.

Mr FENTON:

– He is better able to judge of the position in England than is the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) in Melbourne.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– I heard a statement made by a responsible Minister that, at any rate, casts some doubts on Captain Carmichaels methods.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member will have his opportunity if he thinks my statements are not in accordance with fact. As I have said, the newspapers have published the names of the steamers available between January and April, and the tonnage is in the aggregate from 800,000 to 1,000,000 tons. That being so, we ought by the end of April, or a little later, to have 100,000 men back in Australia. It is evident that shipping is not short now, though it may be in a little time if we hesitate too long. In four or five months it is possible that the ships at present available may be engaged in other waters carrying other troops home.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Of course, Sir John Monash would never think of that!

Mr FENTON:

– The Government are considering whether they will send another Minister to Britain to superintend the demobilization, but I hope that before any Minister can arrive there, we shall have many thousands of our men returned to Australia. There are at present in England Sir John Monash, General White, and others, including Lieutenant Burchell, a member of this House, who, we understand, has had certain work allotted to him. How many more do the Government require to assist in the work of demobilization?

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Apparently Captain Carmichael has not heard of any of these!

Mr FENTON:

– With all respect to Sir John Monash, I believe that Captain Carmichael could do as well as any I have mentioned. The United States Government are taking their men back by hundreds of thousands. Captain Carmichael is a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and may be taken to task-

Mr Poynton:

– He was a wonderful recruiter - he got the recruits in camp 1

Mr FENTON:

– He induced men to go to camp who otherwise would not have been there. If any honorable member wishes to reflect on Captain Carmichael he ought to do it openly, and not, as some honorable members are now doing, in an undertone. At any rate, the one thing we have to do, and what ought to have been done long ago, is to prepare for our men’s return.

I take this opportunity to again emphasize the necessity for the establishment of new industries in order to give employment to our returned soldiers and others. So far as my information goes, there are some industries which ought to be flourishing, but which are likely to go out of existence-

Mr Livingston:

– Can you mention one?

Mr FENTON:

– Yes; the manufacture of sheep-dip.

Mr Jowett:

– What!

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member informed me only the other day that he uses Australian dip and finds it gives every satisfaction. I have lately been in consultation with Sir John Higgins, who has had much to do with the metal and other industries. A promise was faithfully made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) to- the manufacturers of Australian sheep dip that if the analysis of the Australian article proved satisfactory, if there was a shortage of shipping space from Great Britain to Australia, and furthermore, if the Australian manufacturers could supply Australia’s requirements in the matter of sheep dips, there would be a prohibition of the importation of these dips from any other part of the world. Yet dips have been coming in almost as regularly as they did when there was no war in progress.

Mr Jowett:

– That is not the case.

Mr FENTON:

– They may have been coming in a little irregularly, but the very fact that dips have been imported in large quantities has resulted in shutting out the use of locally made dips.

Mr Pigott:

– Not more than 25 per cent. of the usual supply of Cooper’s dip is obtainable. ‘

Mr FENTON:

– I know that Cooper’s dip has a standard quality, but Sir John Higgins made investigations in regard to the matter-and satisfied himself, from the analysis made, that the Australian made dip should be used and should get preference over the imported dips.

As a result of the assurance given by the Prime Minister, one firm of Australian manufacturers spent an additional £20,000 in equipping their factory with the object of supplying Australia’s requirements in the matter of sheep dips. I do not intend to go through the whole history of the matter, but the correspondence dealing with it shows conclusively that a serious injustice has been inflicted upon the Australian manufacturers of sheep dip, which, in some cases, has been proved even superior to Cooper’s dip. When we establish such industries there are byproducts which affect other industries. One of the chief ingredients of sheep dip is arsenic, obtained from arsenical ores. Thus the mining industry is affected. One firm manufacturing Australian sheep dip has employed its hands on three continuous shifts, but since the importation of dips has been permitted, it has only been able to keep one shift going, and in all probability that will be reduced now that the season is over.

Mr Jowett:

– Is not the honorable member aware that Sir John Higgins and the Central Wool Committee have done everything in their power to encourage the use of Australian dips ?

Mr FENTON:

– I accept the honorable member’s word in regard to the action of the Central Wool Committee. I know myself that Sir John Higgins has done all he could to establish the Australian sheep dips on the market. The manufacturers have no complaint against Sir John Higgins and the Central Wool Committee.

Mr Jowett:

– Is it due to the action of the Government that extra quantities of imported dips have been shipped to Australia ?

Mr FENTON:

– I do not say that extra quantities have been shipped, but sufficient quantities have been landed to supply the requirements of the pastoralists.

Mr Jowett:

– I doubt whether it is due to the action of the Government.

Mr FENTON:

– It is due to their lack of action. The following s a cablegram sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) to Leggo & Company, who manufacture a sheep dip -

London, August 29th, 1918

The authorities here do not desire to take action. Because of interests involved on this side they say extremely difficult. Other countries affected as well as Australia and prohibition would lead to serious trouble here. Still negotiating but undoubtedly the simplest course would be action by Australian Customs.

This is where I join issue with the Government. Recently in dealing with this matter I went to the Customs Department and so impressed were they with the seriousness of the position in which these manufacturers have been placed that they were on the point of sending a cable to Great Britain intimating that if. any further quantity of sheep dip was shipped on the boats coming to Australia, they would see that it was not landed on arrival here. If they had only taken that action months ago, when Cooper’s, Quibell’s, and other sheep dips were coming into Australia, they would have saved more than one firm from being placed in a most peculiar position.

Mr FENTON:

– It has been admitted by the honorable member himself, by the honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett), by Sir John Higgins, and by large graziers, that the Australian article is equal to the best imported sheep dip.

Mr Jowett:

– That is true.

Mr FENTON:

– I would not expect the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Pigott) to support me.

Mr Pigott:

– But I am using colonial dip.

Mr FENTON:

– My protectionist faith is such that I would have prohibition against the world in regard to anything we could manufacture or grow here with proper protection for the worker and consumer. The Prime Minister, in his cable, has practically suggested the same thing. He says that Customs action is needed on this side. The agents for the imported sheep dips’ are among the most influential firms in Australia. Apparently, space can be found for their dips, while it cannot be found for machinery that is so essential for the establishment of industries in Australia. It should have dawned upon the Government that these shipments of dip were coming to Australia. When complaint was made to the Customs Department, and the claim was put forward that the authorities had said that the importation of sheep dips would be prohibited, the reply was, “ Your alarm is unfounded. Your suspicion is groundless. Go back to your factory, and turn out the goods. You have the Australian market at your disposal.” But at that very moment ships were coming to Australia bringing out sheep dips.

Mr Jowett:

– That was not the fault of the Government.

Mr FENTON:

– In his cablegram, the Prime Minister speaks of the big influences at work in London. By some means, underground or otherwise, the exportation of Australian leather to Great Britain has been prohibited, possibly because the tanners of the Old Country have been powerful enough to secure Australian hides, and turn them into leather. American production preponderates in the copper world, and so much American influence has been at work in Great Britain in regard to copper that our representatives on the other side of the world have not been able to make those adjustments which should have been made on behalf of Australia.

I am not only pleading on behalf of the manufacturers of sheep dips; I am also pleading on behalf of the men who have been thrown out of employment, and on behalf of our chemists, who having succeeded in turning out an Australian product which, with the exception of sulphur, is made entirely from Australian raw material, are now baulked in their efforts. I lay the blame on the Government, who ought to do something to establish new industries, and revive languishing industries. They could have prohibitedthe importation of these sheep dips. By not doing so, they have inflicted a serious injury on at least one very reputable firm, and a more serious injury on many workers in this country.

Mr McWilliams:

– What is the relative retail price of the various sheep dips?

Mr FENTON:

– From the figures I have seen, I am prepared to say that the Australian dip, which is admitted on analysis to be as good as any imported dip, is being sold at a price which is less than that of the imported article. These people, who are employing a large number of hands, have been placed in a very unfair position. I have brought the matter forward because they have failed through other channels. Itmay happen that, owing to the matter having been ventilated here, some action will be taken detrimental to the industry. If so, it will again be ventilated in the House.These people were practically invited by the Ministry of Munitions to undertake the manufacture of sheep dips, and the manner in which they have been treated will not be an encouragement to other persons who are desirous of establishing Australian industries which we require to provide that variety of employment which will be so essential for our soldiers when they return. These negotiations have been going on practically for twelve months, but so far as the manufacturers are concerned, they seem to have reached a dead end.

The following is a statement as to the position of the local manufacturers : -

At the beginning of this year the Director of Munitions inquired as to whether, in the event of the imported sheep dips not being available here, as the raw materials were wanted in the United Kingdom, and also the shipping space they occupied was wanted for urgent necessities, manufacturers would undertake to see that sufficient sheep dip would be produced in Australia to supply the whole of the needs of the Australian pastoralists. After giving the matter very careful consideration, the manufacturers undertook that this would be done by-

Increasing very largely their own sheep dip-making plant, and reserving the necessary raw materials.

Undertaking to supply other sheepdip manufacturers with the raw materials required by them.

This decision was only arrived’ at after several conferences with the Directors of Munitions, also the Chairman of the Central Wool Committee, Sir John Higgins, and in the full belief that the imported brands would not be available here.

Indeed, the manufacturers were told, during the above negotiations with the representatives of the Commonwealth Government, that they would be expected to enter into a bond by which they would have to make a cash forfeit in the event of their failing to carry out the undertaking, and at the time they signified their willingness to execute such a bond. Later on, however, they were told that their assurance would be taken without the bond.

In keeping with this undertaking, the manufacturers have in good faith spent some thousands of pounds, and also committed themselves to the expenditure of many thousands more, and are now absolutely in a position to carry out the undertaking, which was considered a solemn obligation to the Commonwealth Government, and had they not been assured of the demand they certainly would not have spent so much money in providing the supply.

The manufacturers are now advised that several shipments of sheep dip have been made to Australia, and that one shipment of considerable size has just been landed in Sydney. This shipment consists of 1,000 cases ex Austral-Mede, and 750 cases by another boat, theCalulu; also that there is a further shipment duo in the Malta, which is due next month, besides others to follow.

They are assured that these shipments have been made in direct opposition to the views expressed to the Imperial Government by the Commonwealth Munitions Department, as to their necessity, and evidently the parties interested have used improper or unfair influences to secure space for this superfluous article at the expense of other commodities which are most urgently needed here. If that is so, their interests deserve little consideration. In any case, to allow these shipments to Australia in the face of the above facts is a serious breach of faith, as well as a severe blow to the expansion of an important Australian industry.

This is a very important industry, and there are others branching off from it. Since we have practically all the raw materials - such as arsenic and alkali - used in the manufacture of sheep dip, the only ingredient used in its manufacture that we have to import being sulphur, there is no reason why we should not give the industry every encouragement. We have Australian raw materials ready to be turned into a finished product that Australians are ready to buy, and yet the market is flooded with . the imported article. Having endeavoured quietly but straightforwardly to secure justice for an industry richly deserving of assistance, I feel that I am performing my duty as a public man in bringing this grievance- before the Committee. I hope that the common sense of honorable members will induce them to see that these men are helped to reach the goal which they have in view.

Finally, dealing with the question of economy, I do not think that any real savings will be made until the whole of our Commonwealth and State Constitutions have been put into the melting-pot, and the National Parliament is given supreme power. No adequate scheme of economy can be secured until we get as near aspossible to Unification.

Mr Considine:

– Why strain at the gnat andwallow the camel?

Mr FENTON:

– I am not; I say that I am prepared to go as near to Unification as is possible. Subject to certain alterations, I should prefer to see the South African Constitution in operation here. We shall never be a truly National Parliament until we have all the essential powers, instead of having to depend for them upon an irritating War Precautions Act.

Motion agreed to.

page 9564

QUESTION

ESTIMATES (1918-19)

Department 1 (The Parliament), £41,115, agreed to.

Prime Minister’s Department

Proposed vote, £1,87,177.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I object to the Estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister being taken as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J H Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am in the hands of the Committee, but I am following the course usually adopted in proposing to put the Estimates in Departments. That will not prevent the discussion of any item.

Mr FENTON:

– I should like some information as to a number of services covered by the Department of the Prime Minister. In the first place, I desire someinformation as to the work that is allotted to the Council of Defence. Then again the Audit Office is covered by this Department. The Auditor-General has appealed again and again for an increased staff. The Public Service Commissioner is prepared to agree to that request, and we should have from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) an explanation as to why it has not been complied with. Grievances are also associated with the Public Service Office, which is. covered by these Estimates, and some discussion is likely to arise as to the High Commissioner’s Office. I cannot say that I share in the criticism that has been indulged in with regard to it. I do not know whether there is anything in the High Commissioner’s agreement with the Government that compels him to take an absolutely back seat while a couple of Ministers are in the Old Country. Some people are asking what Mr. Fisher is doing just now. The position is that our exceptionally active Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is always undertaking big duties, and as soon as he arrived in the Old Country the High Commissioner, apparently, was required to take a back seat. If the High Commissioner’s Office is to be dominated by Ministers when they go Home, I can only say that the Australian people are not receiving a fair deal. We should also have some information in regard to Commonwealth shipping.

Mr Webster:

– The expenditure of the Department has not been increased in the aggregate.

Mr FENTON:

– I recognise that. We have had in the press statements to the effect that the Government intend to cancel the contracts for the building of “wooden ships, but we have had no official information on the subject. Many important services are covered by the Estimates relating to the Prime Minister’s Department, and I protest against any attempt to hurriedly pass them.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– There is some information that we ought to have in respect of the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Department. Some time ago I inquired what was the cost of repairing the new Commonwealth ship Cethana. I have been informed that on her maiden voyage from America to Australia she was leaking continuously, and that, when caulking her it was found necessary to put battens inside the planks for caulking purposes. I have asked what was the total expenditure in effecting repairs to this vessel upon her arrival.

Mr Poynton:

– I have already stated in this House that about £4,000 was expended on the work of recaulking and putting in a boiler.

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

– I am glad to have that information. It is satisfactory to know that the Commonwealth is represented by a reliable officer who will take delivery of these vessels, which are costing us a large sum of money. Those of us who urged the Government to enter upon the construction of wooden ships much earlier than they did, should not condemn the Government for building such vessels, nor should we ask them to alter their arrangements in regard to them.

Mr Poynton:

– All the wooden vessels ordered in America are nearly completed.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The vessels which are being built in Australia, of Australian hardwood, will prove exceedingly useful in the coastal trade. My only regret is that they are not ready now to put intocommission and so to relieve the congestion in the coastal trade.

Mr Poynton:

– I think six of the wooden ships ordered in America have been delivered and loaded. The freights for the second one totalled £22,000.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That is a big contribution towards the payment of the cost of the vessel. If, when the Navy Department’s Estimates are reached, the Minister will state the reason for the increase in the rental or charges for the ships taken over by the Shipping Board on behalf of the Commonwealth, I am prepared to allow the matter to drop at this stage.

Mr Poynton:

– I will give that information later.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The position of the Sigh Commissioner’s office is serious. It is stated by men returning from England that at the present time that office is a mere sinecure. The whole of the duties for which he was appointed have been transferred and vested in other hands. If that is so, we should be informed of the reasons for this development. The amount provided for theoffice is being increased from £8,925 to £10,650, and, in addition, we are paying the High Commissioner a salary of £3,000, and a house allowance of £2,000. There are other incidental items of expenditure. I wish it to be understood that I am not reflecting on Mr. Fisher personally. “While he was a member of this House, although I was politically opposed to him, I always regarded him as a thoroughly conscientious and reliable man, and when he was appointed High Commissioner the House was almost unanimous in believing that he would render good service to the Commonwealth. But it is a serious thing if we are paying £5,000 per annum for an officer whose duties have been delegated to other branches. For instance, it is stated that the military authorities have practically taken possession of Australia House, and one returned soldier has informed me that before he could gain access to the High Commissioner he had to run the gauntlet of a military guard. I ask the Minister in charge of the Estimates to state what is the status of the High Commissioner to-day,- and whether he is carrying out the duties for which he was appointed. If not, is there any reason why we should continue to employ him merely as a figure-head, and that Ministers should be sent to London to perform his duties.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

Attention ought to be called to the remarkable growth of the Prime Ministers Department. Not many years ago there was no such Department. It is one of our unfortunate inheritances from the Fisher Government, and its development is partly attributable to the push fullness of its permanent head. The large vote for this Department, is perhaps, excusable at the present time, having regard to the fact that a great number of activities have been thrust upon the Prime Minister in connexion with the war. But if I am in my place to consider the Estimates next year, I shall require that more justification be shown than we have had so far for the tremendous cost of the Department.

Mr Poynton:

– The increase is chiefly because of the war.

Mr FOWLER:

– I believe that is so; but the Department will require a liberal use of the pruning knife in the near future. I desire to know something about the Government motor cars. I» this Department there is an item of £1,250 for motor-car maintenance, and the wages and expenses of chaffeurs. I notice, however, that all the cars are not under the one item, but are distributed through all the Departments. How many cars are at present available to Ministers, and what is the. total expenditure on this account? 1 understand that a motor garage has been acquired in the vicinity of Parliament House, which, in itself, must havebeen an expensive item.

Mr Poynton:

– All I know is that I banded over my car, and was sorry for it afterwards.

Mr FOWLER:

– I know that the cars of Ministers have been grouped, but the Acting Minister for the Navy must not suggest that cars are no longer available for the use of members of the Ministry.

Mr Poynton:

– They are not as conveniently available as they were.

Mr FOWLER:

– Honorable members realize perfectly that the conception of Ministers tearing about the country on public duty in motor cars is altogether erroneous. The principal work of these vehicles appears to be in carrying Ministers to and from their’ homes, and occasionally they are utilized for purposes which cannot be identified at all with the affairs of the Commonwealth.

Mr Poynton:

– That cannot be said of my car.

Mr FOWLER:

– I am not making an accusation against any particular Minister, and, least of all, against the honorable member who is interjecting. But; I know of cars having been used for purposes for which Ministers ought to have been ashamed to use them. I believe that if a careful analysis were made it would be found that we are keeping a large number of motor cars and chauffeurs to do an insignificant quantity of work daily. If motor cars are to be kept for the use of Ministers, there is a still greater need for them on the part of honorable members. The Government offices are distributed all over Melbourne, and a considerable amount of our time is occupied in dodging from one office to another. Nevertheless, we cannot provide motor cars for the members, and certainly there is no occasion to have all this fleet of motor cars available for such casual calls as may be made by Ministers during the day. I know of a Ministerial car having been used time and again to convey a Commonwealth official to and from the golf links. Not long ago, when I was in a hairdressing saloon, the barber remarked, “ That is a very handsome car Mr. So-and-so has,” mentioning the name of a certain Minister. I said, “Have you seen it?” and he replied, “ Tes, he came down on a

Saturday, picked up Mr.– , and went off to the .races.” That sort of thing is degrading to parliamentary life, and I am surprised that Ministers descend to such practices. If we are to economize, Ministers should set an example ; and, in view of the fact that the business of the country, has been carried on for many years without these luxurious methods of conveyance, and also that certain Ministers, to their honour, decline to use these motor cars, the Government ought to make a clean sweep of the lot. That would be a fair example of economy to set before the country. Everybody knows that it is simply because the motor car is a luxurious means of travelling that this scandal is taking place all over Australia in connexion with both the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments. The time is not far distant when this sort of thing and those responsible for it will be swept aside by an indignant community.

Mr PIGOTT:
Calare

.- I agree with many of the remarks made by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler). I have been looking with alarm at some of the items in the High Commissioner’s office. I find that the appropriation for 1917-18 was £38,000, and the actual expenditure £49,174, whilst the estimate for the current year is £46,700. The economy which is necessary in these times should start in the London office. The upkeep of Aust tralia House is £9,500 per annum, which I think is considerably in excess of the upkeep of this Parliament House. I noticed also that £600 was expended last year in the purchase of a motor car for the High Commissioner’s office.

I have always advocated the coordination of* the services of the States and the Commonwealth. There are in London six Agents-General, representing the various States, and the expenses connected with them amount to about £40,307, whilst; in addition, there is an expenditure of over £46,000 in the High Commissioner’s office. If these services were coordinated a saving of from £25,000 to £30,000 could be effected, and both the States and the Commonwealth would benefit. We should not forget that thf Federal Government and the State Governments are the instruments of the one sot of taxpayers. It would be a wise step to bake a referendum of the people regarding the co-ordination of various State and Federal Departments, such as the Electoral, Statistical, Immigration, and Taxation Departments, and the London agencies, and the abolition of State Governors. The Commonwealth Electoral Department costs the taxpayers £53,700, and the State Electoral Departments, £86,275. The Commonwealth Statistician’s office costs £15,013, whilst the Statisticians’ offices of the States cost £32,117; on immigration the States spend £38,602 ; the High Commissioner’s office costs’ £48,841 ; and the States Agents- General, £40,307 ; The Governor-General’s establishment costs £26,875, and the State Governors, £42,489 ; the Commonwealth Taxation Department costs £273.067, and the State Taxation Departments, £178,705. The total expenditure under these heads for the Commonwealth is £417,496, and for the State, £368,495, or a total of £785,991. I venture to say that if these activities were co-ordinated, we could effect a saving of something like £250,000. In my opinion, there could not be a more popular cry to put before the people than economy in this direction ; and if the question were referred to the country by way of referendum, I feel quite sure that it would be supported by both Parliament and people.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

– I notice that in connexion with the Commonwealth line df steamers, provision to the amount of £7,703 is made for a London office with a manager, assistant manager, marine superintendent* superintending engineer, accountant, and clerks, and there is also an Australian office similarly staffed at a cost of £5,852. Further, under the heading of Commonwealth Shipping Board, £4,460 is provided for a delegate member in London, at a salary of £1,000, with a secretary, clerks, typists, messenger, and a Shipping Board representative in India. I should like some information regarding these votes. Where is the necessity for having a delegate member of the Shipping Board in London, and a Shipping Board representative in India?

Mr Poynton:

– The latter is in India for a time looking after jute goods.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Is the delegate member in London apart altogether from the Commonwealth line of steamers?

Mr Poynton:

– The Shipping Board has nothing to do with the Commonwealth line of steamers, but it controls all other shipping.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Does this delegate member represent the Commonwealth in the Imperial shipping arrangements?

Mr Poynton:

– I think so.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Do you know who the gentleman is?

Mr Poynton:

– No; but I shall make inquiries.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I understand there are two staffs in Melbourne for the management of shipbuilding in the Commonwealth, whereas it would naturally be concluded that one staff, with, perhaps, a naval side and a mercantile side, would prove sufficient. Is it absolutely essential that there should be two staffs, with two suites of offices, and all-round duplication of expense? Surely there is not such a great deal of difference between ordinary shipbuilding and naval shipbuilding, so far as general draftsmanship is concerned.

Mr Poynton:

Mr. (Turchin, the manager, is in William-street, and has to do with the mercantile shipbuilding, whereas Mr. King Salter controls the naval side.

Mr FENTON:

– But there is a second or sub-office in Melbourne, as I know, because some honorable members have visited both places. I understand that in the Old Country both classes of work are undertaken by single firms under one system of management, though, of course, different portions of a yard may be set aside for the different kinds of work, possibly under sub-managers. If that can. be done in the case of private firms, why should it not be done by the Commonwealth ?

Mr Poynton:

– The only explanation. I can suggest is that there is not room in one office for the whole of the staff.

Mr FENTON:

– But if any one goes to one of these offices, say, that one devoted to the mercantile shipbuilding, and asks a question relating to the Navy shipbuilding, he is directed to go to the other building.

Mr Poynton:

– There is an establishment at Port Melbourne where launches for the Navy are constructed.

Mr FENTON:

– But I am speaking of a second office in Melbourne.

Mr Poynton:

– I take it that it is a small office connected with the building of the launches.

Mr FENTON:

– But the office is elaborately fitted up, and models of vessels are made and exhibited there. However, an appropriation of £174,000 was made in 1917-18 to meet the requirements of the Prime Minister’s Department, and £222,000 was spent, showing an excess expenditure of, roughly, £50,000. This year it is proposed to vote £15,000 more than was voted last year. Did the excess expenditure come out of some reserve fund or the Treasurer’s balance? We should really have more information, because it cannot be concluded that a general discussion on the Budget discharges us from all responsibility for the Estimates. On former occasions the Postmaster-General has come armed with full details of the proposed expenditure in his Department; but on the present occasion that example does not appear to have been followed, for the table is absolutely clear of any documents connected with the votes. This is certainly reducing the discussion of the Estimates to a farce.

Mr Poynton:

– ‘What information does the honorable member desire?

Mr FENTON:

– I wish to know the reason for the increase in the expenditure. I notice that the salary of the secretary has been raised from £600 to £750. Have his duties and responsibilities increased?

Mr Poynton:

– Undoubtedly his duties have increased, and he is now paid at the same rate as other secretaries of Departments.

Mr FENTON:

– That is just the point; once a Department, however, insignificant, is created, the head of it claims to be put on an equality with the heads of all the other old-established branches of the Service.

Mr Poynton:

– I do not know any one who is a harder worker than Mr. Shepherd, the secretary.

Mr FENTON:

– We know that Mr. Shepherd very often acts as the “ buffer “ between honorable members and the Prime Minister, and, plainly, I think he is sometimes too much of a buffer. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) is very obliging generally under the great stress he has -to bear ; but there is an evasiveness, and, if I may so term it, a putoffness about the secretary sometimes that is not very satisfying to honorable members. <,

Mr Poynton:

– The Acting Prime Minister is so busy that much of his work come3 along to me. I may say that, although I am located in the same ‘building, I have great difficulty in seeing the honorable gentleman.

Mr FENTON:

– It is not every man who is gifted with the wonderful reserve force of the Acting Prime Minister, and can stand a like strain. The honorable gentleman’s colleagues would do well to warn him to put on the brake, because, if he does not, it is quite likely that we may. suffer a very serious loss: and I say this, although I am a political opponent of his.

Mr Poynton:

– We are warning him every day.

Mr FENTON:

– Even the greatest genius could not cope satisfactorilly with* the vast and various work which falls to» the honorable gentleman; and I suggest, that there should be a system adopted of allotting certain of his duties to otherMinisters so as to relieve the strain.

Mr Poynton:

– The great bulk of theActing Prime Minister’s work could not be allotted in that way, as, for instance^ the financial work, and that of the otheractivities of which he is the head. He also does a fair amount of ordinary work in the way of correspondence. I may say that I have received quite a number of deputations for him, subsequently sending him the short-hand transcript of the interviews, for he is anxious to keep gnp of all the business.

Mr FENTON:

– Quite so, and thefirst page of the Estimates of this Department is teeming with items on which, we ought to be fully informed.

Sitting suspended from 9 to 11 a.m~ ( Wednesday) .

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

’. - So far as I know the opinion of the country, the ever-increasing expenditure of the Government is viewed with growing disfavour. Some- increases are, no doubt, due to the war, and the appointment of boards, each with its secretary, and staff. The longer these Boards exist,, the bigger will the staffs become, becauseit is the natural tendency of Government Departments to inflate themselves with a. view to increasing their importance. There will be grievous disappointment in: the community if next year our publicexpenditure is not considerably reduced, and a determined effort should be madeby Ministers to reduce it.

With regard, to the matter raised by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler), I hold the view that it would be well for the Commonwealth to sell its fleet of motor cars.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– If the honorable member will move to that effect, I shall support his amendment.

Mr PALMER:

– My desire is, not toembarrass the Government, but to give them some salutary advice. The upkeep of these cars, with men always in attendance, is very expensive, and economy should be effected by contracting with the various garage proprietors throughout Australia for the supply of cars as they may be needed. 1 have to complain of the complicated manner in which the accounts are presented to us, it being difficult for an ordinary person to follow them. In the present Estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department there are twelve heads of expenditure, and last year there were only seven heads. There is this further complication, that £35,344 is debited to the Department under five heads, and £34,844 credited under four heads, leaving as the remaining item £500 for the Council of Defence. Why does not this item appear in the Defence Estimates? And why inflate the Prime Minister’s Estimates with expenditure which is added only to be deducted again ? Then, in this Department, £13,590 is put down for the Commonwealth line of steamers in London and Australia, the various salaries being detailed, and yet on page 92 of the Budget papers, “ Office and general expenses in London and Australia “ are stated at £8,528. In the transferring and re-transferring of amounts, a large clerical staff must be engaged. ( Possibly members who have been Treasurers understand the arrangement of the accounts, but other members cannot do so. I do not’ blame any particular Government for this arrangement, but it certainly should be simplified. Such simplification would bring about a reduction of the clerical staff, would save the money of the taxpayers, and would put members of Parliament in a better position for understanding the true state of affairs.

The country is crying out for a reduction of expenditure, though there has not been a murmur against the spending of money in the conduct of the war. Yet, despite the protestations of Ministers that the pruning knife has been applied to the Estimates, there is still need for vigorous curtailment of them. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) told us yesterday that he had reduced the Estimates by between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000.

Mr Richard Foster:

– That was not half enough.

Mr PALMER:

– A member who says that should be prepared to show specifically where reductions could be made.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It is for Ministers to do that, ot for the Public Accounts Committee to examine the officers of the various Departments.

Mr PALMER:

– The honorable member, who has had Ministerial experience, knows that Ministers would think that it would compromise their dignity to allow that.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Committee was appointed for the purpose of doing that.

Mr PALMER:

– If that be so, it must be prepared to accept its share of the blame for the excessive expenditure. Were I a member of the Committee, I should feel bound to explain what had been, done to meet the situation. In my opinion, divided responsibility in this, as in other matters, is unsatisfactory. The best results are obtainable only by putting all responsibility on one man. If we divide the responsibility for the inflation of expenditure between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee, we shall’ not know who to blame.

I trust that the Government will take into serious consideration the protests that have been made against the large expenditure of the Departments. If it is the work of the Public Accounts Committee to examine the expenditure of the Departments, let the Committee do its duty; but, in any case, the solid interests of the taxpayers must receive attention.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.I want some information from the Government in regard to the items “Intelligence officer, £504,” and “ Private secretary, £408,” under the Professional Division in the Prime Minister’s Office. The appointment of intelligence or publicity officers is an American innovation, which means “ boom yourself.” I want to know what duties are performed by intelligence officers, because, I understand, there are similar officers attached to the Defence Department and Repatriation Department. I am saying nothing against the gentlemen who hold these positions. I am merely concerning myself as to the method of appointing them. I understand that by placing the intelligence officer and the private secretary under the heading of the Professional Division, the Minister in charge of the Department reserves to himself the right of appointing them.

Mr Fowler:

– - It amounts to political patronage.

Mr TUDOR:

– It means embodying the worst feature of a system that has existed in America for many years past, because I take it that if the Minister controlling a Department can appoint a publicity officer he can also dismiss him. In America when any change of parties takes place it means that throughout the length and breadth of the country one set of officers is replaced by another. We have passed Public Service Acts in the States and in the Commonwealth for the purpose of removing any possibility of political influence being exercised in regard to appointments in the Public Service. We have realized that it is an exceedingly bad principle to admit any possibility of political patronage being exercised in this way. I want to know from the Government what duties these publicity officers have to perform, whether their positions are permanent, whether a man who has been appointed by one Minister to the Professional Division may be displaced by that Minister’s successor in office, or whether a Minister is to be obliged to have a man working under him in whom he may not be able to repose any trust? Of course, I must admit that my experience has shown me that our public servants give just as loyal service to one set of Ministers as they do to another set, no matter what party may be in power.

Mr Poynton:

– A publicity officer’s chief duty is to prepare matter for his Minister.

Mr TUDOR:

– Does he cull things from the newspapers relating to the Department and prepare short reports for the Minister?

Mr Poynton:

– Yes.

Mr TUDOR:

– I have no fault to find with those duties.

There is another item. - Accountant (Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund), for which £300 was voted on last year’s Estimates. A footnote explains that the salary is to be paid this year from the Trust Fund, Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund, but we are not told in what part of the Estimates the duties of this particular officer may be found. All of the officers dealing with repatriation work should appear in one group in these Estimates.

Mr Poynton:

– It will be remembered that a sum of £250^000 was voted by Parliament for repatriation. That sum was administered by trustees, but before the appointment of the Minister for Repatriation the control was in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Mr TUDOR:

– I could understand the position if this accountant is nominally - holding office in the Prime Minister’s Department, and is actually working in the Repatriation Department. In such circumstances his position would appear in the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Office, but his actual salary would be paid by the Repatriation Department.

Another item requiring explanation is, “ Administration Expenses, Port Pirie Wharf,” for which £2,000 was voted last year, but upon which there was an actual expenditure of £13,829 during the year. Under Division 24, “ Port Pirie Wharf,” we find the following items: - Manager, £500; engineer, £375; and assistant, £364- or a total of £1,239 to be expended this year on the administration of this wharf. It is common talk that the erection of the coal-grab on the wharf at Port Pirie cost £300,000 or £400,000; that it was erected by the South Australian Government, and practically without making any inquiries the Commonwealth Government took it over.

Mr Poynton:

– The coal-grab cost £74,759. The South Australian Government asked us to erect it, and agreed to take it over from us, but they have not done so yet. It was put up at a time when we had difficulty in supplying Broken Hill with coal. The Commonwealth Government also bought the wharf and the land for £82,500. The approximate earnings for the year amounted to £38,760.

Mr TUDOR:

– But what is the cost of running the wharf ?

Mr Poynton:

– During the strike the earnings were very low, but the revenue from the wharf is now about £2,100 per month. Sinking fund and working expenses for the twelve months amounted to £25,200; interest chargesamounted to £7,875; depreciation on plant, at 15 per cent., accounts for £11,250; 5 per cent, depreciation on the wharf, valued at £20,000, accounts for £1,000, making a total expenditure of £45,300, against a revenue of £38,760.

Mr TUDOR:

– No more unsatisfactory transaction has ever taken place between the Commonwealth and a State. Apparently we have erected this coal-grab for the State, and although it has been working for twelve months, it has not yet been taken -over by the State Government. Of course, when manual labor is displaced by mechanism, the opinion that the men whose labour has been dispensed with will give upon the plant may be considered to be biased, but I am assured that it is costing a great deal more to shift the coal by means of this grab than was the case when the coal was handled by manual labour.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I know that such a statement has been made, but it is not the case.

Mr Boyd:

– There is a little difference in the cost.

Mr Poynton:

– It costs about ls. 3d. per ton to unload vessels, but there is over 100 per cent, saving in the despatch of shipping.

Mr TUDOR:

– I presume that the manager (Mr. Harry Jackson), an exmember of the South Australian Legislature, and his staff, are employed by the Commonwealth. Are they permanent officers ?

Mr Poynton:

– No.

Mr TUDOR:

– I have the same fault to find in connexion with these appointments that I had to find in connexion with the appointments of publicity officers. So far as I know, Mr. Cook, a journalist, who was appointed publicity officer in the . Prime Minister’s Department, had no pronounced political opinions, but the appointment of Mr. Hairy Jack-son, the exmember for Port Pirie, was certainly a political one.

Mr Poynton:

– He is a very competent, man.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not say that he is not, but the position was not advertised. I am as friendly towards Mr. Jackson as I am. towards any of my political opponents; but I. am stating, as a public duty, my belief that Ministers have no right to fill these positions with men from the ranks of their own political party.

Mr Poynton:

Mr. Jackson was recommended by Mr. Davis, the man previously in charge, and he was further recommended by Admiral Clarkson. He has proved to be quite capable of doing the work.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not saying a word against his capabilities, but if a. Labour Government had given a position in the Public Service to a man who had been defeated for a parliamentary seat, and if honorable members now on the Ministerial side were in Opposition, there would have been an outcry from them against such an exercise of political patronage. When we were in office we were denounced for having adopted a policy of ‘ ‘ spoils to the victors “ by giving appointments to men of our own political party. If Mr. Jackson had not been an ex-member of Parliament, he would not have been given the position he now holds. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd), a member of the Melbourne Harbor Trust, probably knows more about coal-grabs than does any other honorable member, because the Melbourne Harbor Trust have been making inquiries with a view to installing mechanical appliances of the same character, the shortage of shipping having brought home to them the necessity for making use of these appliances in order to give quick discharge to the vessels visiting this port. He has told us that the cost of handling coal by means of this coal-grab differs very slightly from the cost of handling coal by means of manual labour.

Mr Boyd:

– I do not mind saying that the Melbo’urne Harbor Trust turned a similar proposition down because the use of these coal-grabs meant an increase in handling charges to the people who have to pay them, and meant a. saving to the ships only.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is a startling statement from an honorable member who has spent his life on the water front, and knows the loading and unloading of ships from A to Z. I would be surprised to learn that the workers of Port Pirie are slower in handling goods than are the waterside workers in Melbourne. As a matter of fact, men working on the water front are very much the same class of workers all over the world. I did not know that we had paid £82,000 for the wharf or £75,000 for a coal-grab for the State Government. It is well to place on record these facts; also the further fact that the appliance has been in operation for nearly twelve months, and the State has not yet taken it over. I did not hear of the existence of this coal-grab until I went to Port Pirie in March last. When the people of Australia learn that some £75,000 was spent in erecting it for the State, and that it has not yet been taken over, they will demand an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances. I hope the Minister will give me the information for which I have asked.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– I did not have an opportunity to take part in the general Budget debate, but now that we have reached the Estimates, we should be able to deal with the expenditure on business-like lines. I do not think we can be satisfied with the statement made yesterday by the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) that, notwithstanding the cessation of hostilities, and the fact that the signing of the peace terms is, we hope, close at hand, it is impossible at this stage to reduce our national expenditure. The honorable gentleman mentioned that it would be possible to make reductions in respect of certain war expenditure, and I appreciate the fact that, before bringing forward these Estimates, he lopped off large volumes of expenditure which otherwise might have been allowed to go through. That, however, does not exhaust the possibilities. There is still plenty of room for further reductions of a substantial character. If, instead of taking action, we are to allow, the Departments to reform themselves, we shall have to wait until doomsday for anything in that direction. If we intend to assert our right to control the finances of the Commonwealth, we must give a direct instruction to the Government or the Departments concerned to make substantial reductions. Unless we start at once to put our house in order the burden of taxation that we shall have to bear will, in a very short time, have a crushing effect upon Australia Additional taxation will have to be imposed to meet the interest on our war loan?. At the time of the presenta tion of the Budget, the indebtedness of the “Commonwealth was £284,000,000. , To that must be added another £40,000,000 in respect of war raisings, and there will probably be a further loan of £60,000,000 for repatriation, which will bring up our Commonwealth debt to something like £400”,000,000. It may also be necessary to float substantial loans to reduce our note issue to something like normal proportions, so that we shall then he faced with an interest bill with war pensions of from £23,000,000 to £25,000,000 per annum. In other words, in the way of war taxation we shall have to levy on the people, to the extent of from £5 to £6 per head of the population, or from £24 to £30 per family. How can we hope to give an impetus to production in Australia if this crushing burden is to remain without any attempt on our part to reduce the expenditure on purely administrative work ? 1 do not wish to discuss at this stage the full details of our public expenditure. I would point out, however, that our war expenditure has increased from £15,111,000 a year to £78,044,000 a year, and that our ordinary expenditure from the beginning of the war until the presentation of the Budget increased from £23,000,000 to £45,000,000. The greater portion of that increase represents provision made for interest and sinking fund on our war loans. We are told that, in taking into consideration the increase in our expenditure, we should disregard all war expenditure. In time of war, it is difficult to keep a close watch on the naval a.nd military expenditure. Everything has to be done in a hurry, and no doubt great extravagance has taken place in all the belligerent countries. If we deduct everything in the form of interest on war loans, war pensions, payments to the States, and so on. - everything in the way of fixed expenditure - we find that, in 1914, purely ordinary or peace expenditure was £16,640,153, while for 1918-19, it is estimated at £16,973,743. This would show an increase of only a little over £300,000. To get at the true position, however, we must have regard to the expenditure on works. In 1914, our works expenditure amounted to £2,673,939, while the works expenditure for 1918-19 is estimated a* £454,951. Deducting that expenditure we find that the ordinary purely admin- istrative and departmental expenditure ih 1914 was £13,968,214, as against an estimate of £16,518,792 in 1918, showing an increase of £2,550,578. Here we have a great leeway which must be made up. Drastic reductions should be made in the Estimates of the different Departments to make good this difference in the expenditure for the two war years mentioned.

Notwithstanding that we are endeavouring to cut down expenditure, we find an increase in the Estimates for almost every Department. The expenditure of the Prime Minister’s Department in 1914 was £169,000, whereas for 1918-19 it is estimated at £229,000. The Treasury Estimates have increased from £3,622,000 in 1914 to about £5,000,000 in respect of the current financial year. These increases may include many items of expenditure capable of satisfactory explanation, but it is certainly the duty of Ministers to explain why, in the ordinary administrative and departmental expenditure, so far as we are able to classify it, there is an increase of £2,500,000 as against the figures for 1914.

Sir Robert Best:

– The creation of Boards may be largely responsible for it.

Mr SAMPSON:

– If - the administrative accretions during the war arise from the formation of commercial pools and business activities, which have been taken over by the Government, the reductions should be equally rapid; before long we should be relinquishing many of them.

In dealing with the business details of the Departments it should be possible for us to make suggestions, and to ask that the. Estimates be revised by the responsible Ministers as well as by the Treasurer. The honorable member for Yarra , (Mr. Tudor), in discussing the Estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department, referred to the item relating to the intelligence officer. Such an officer was, perhaps, necessary during the war to give the public information as to action taken on the “War Precautions Act.

Mr Brennan:

– He did not give that information to the public.

Mr SAMPSON:

– At any rate, whatever justification there might have been for the creation of such an office during the war, its continuance now that the war is over cannot be defended.

In these Estimates the provision made for increases of salary should be the subject of review. “We have, for instance, an item of something like £2,000 in respect of temporary assistance for the Prime Minister’s Department. Seeing that it ought to be a declining Department, we should be told why temporary assistance is necessary in it. The Prime Minister’s Department has been established for only four or five years, but it has built up its expenditure largely by the transfer of branches formerly administered by other Departments. The probability is that had those branches been left with the Departments formerly administering them, there would have been very little increase in their expenditure. Then, again, we have the item of “ maintenance of motor cars.” Last year we appropriated £1,000 for the purpose, and the actual expenditure was £1,796. “We are now asked to vote £1,250. Is that increase necessary ?

Mr Boyd:

‘There has been a big in- - crease in the price of petrol.

Mr SAMPSON:

– That might partly account for the increase in this case. A heavy expenditure is also provided for in the Prime Minister’s Estimates in connexion with the Audit Office. We should hear from the responsible Minister a statement as to the duties of that office. Revelations have recently been made by the Commission on Navy and Defence Administration as to the purchase of the Shaw wireless works, and also of vessels at an exorbitant rate in connexion with the Department of the Navy. A mere recital of such transactions in the Auditor-General’s annual report might have saved the Government from heavy losses. The expenditure on the Auditor-General’s Branch is increasing every year, but in his annual report there was no reference to those purchases by the Navy Department, which have involved the Commonwealth in a loss of probably £50,000. I know that the AuditorGeneral claims that there are certain limi- tations to his duties, but the time has arrived when bis responsibilities should be widened, and the whole Department reformed.

Another service covered by the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Department is that of the Public Service Commissioner’s Office, in respect of which there is an increase of £4,000 as compared with the expenditure of last year. The grading and classification of offices, and the fixing of the pay of officers of the Public Service seems now to be done largely by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and it is, therefore, difficult to understand why this increase should be necessary.

There is also an item of £46,000 in respect of the High Commissioner’s Office in London. For years we have been told that a stupendous effort is to be made to bring the High Commissioner’s Office into line with the offices of the State AgentsGeneral in order that the cost of the representation of Australia in London might be reduced, as the people during the Federal referendum were led to believe it would be. Has any great effort been made by the Government to bring about the amalgamation of the Commonwealth and State offices in London ?

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

-We are told that another Minister is going home.

Mr SAMPSON:

– And that, notwithstanding that we have a High Commissioner and two Ministers already in London. Time will not permit of my dealing with every item in these Estimates, but the unnecessarily heavy expenditure provided for inthe Estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department warrants the Committee in demanding that they shall be reviewed, and that the expenditure of the Commonwealth should be reduced to at least last year’s level. The Ship-building Departments are also under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. I do not know why the Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton), who is in charge of these Estimates. I believe the Assistant Minister has done good work in connexion with shipbuilding, but I wish to know why this almost unlimited expenditure is not placed under the Navy Department and the control of the same

Minister. Or does the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Poynton), as an Assistant Minister, control the expenditure, even though it is in the Prime Minister’s Department? It is due to the Committee, and to the people, and it is necessary to the discharge of our trusteeship as custodians of the public purse, that the Committee should take charge of the public expenditure, some of which I think is too high. The Acting Prime Minister has given a definite undertaking that some of the items of expenditure will be reduced. He referred particularly to recruiting, and certain other war activities. But I believe that, owing to the altered, circumstances and the fact that the Government intend to reduce the number of commercial activities in which they are engaged there is room for a further curtailment of the ordinary departmental and administrative costs.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is it proposed to operate these ships as a Commonwealth enterprise?

Mr SAMPSON:

– There has been a big expenditure on ships, incurred without any authority from this House. Of course, during the war millions of pounds were expended without any direct approval from the House other than the authority to raise the money. As an instruction from the Committee that this expenditure be further reviewed by the Treasurer with a view to substantial reductions in the Prime Minister’s Department, I move -

That the vote be reduced by£ 1.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I congratulate the honorable member who has just spoken on having moved an amendment as an instruction to the Government, and may I express my gratitude to those honorable members, including the honorable members for Barrier (Mr. Considine), Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews), Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson), and Swan (Mr. Corboy), and some of the members on the Government side for having prevented the Government breaking the back of the discussion on the Estimates by compelling the House to sit all night. I was not able to remain in the House for more than twelve hours, and I am thankful that I have been able to get a rest, and that I now have an opportunity of making a few remarks that I consider necessary in the interests of good Government. I wish to remind the Committee of the extraordinary growth of the Prime Minister’s Department. In 1902 there was no such Department. The work of the Prime Minister was done in connexion with the Ministry of External Affairs. Not till 1911 was the Prime Minister’s Department created, and I find that the estimates for 1910-11 included provision for a secretary to the Prime Minister at a salary of £420. The number of officers in the Prime Minister’s office was six, and the total vote for the Department, including the Audit Office, was £21,059. In 1911-12 the total vote was £24,457, and the officers in the Prime Minister’s office numbered eight and in the whole Department eighty-five. In the office of the Prime Minister was a secretary at £520, a senior clerk, four clerks, a senior messenger, and a typist. For the current year the total expenditure of the Department is estimated at £181,177, of which £32.834 is in the Prime Minister’s office, and the secretary’s salary has been increased from £600 to £750, without any reference to Parliament. The office staff which, in 1911, numbered, six, is now increased to forty-eight. The Acting Prime Minister will agree with me that that is not the proper method of procedure in regard to Commonwealth expenditure, and if he is in office long enough I believe he will alter this state of affairs. If he knew the practices of the secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department he would ask the approval of Parliament before giving that gentleman an increase of £150 per annum.

Mr Boyd:

– He is one of the hardestworked officers in the Service.

Mr HIGGS:

– Hardest-worked officer in the Service! This is the officer who prepared the Amax Bulletin for circulation amongst the soldiers abroad - a corn*pilation that was absolutely one-sided.

Mr Boyd:

– That would be done under the instructions of the Prime Minister.

Mr HIGGS:

– The honorable member tells me that the Prime Minister’s secretary, under instructions from his chief, sent to the soldiers statements which were absolutely partial to the Government, and misrepresentative of the party in Opposition.

Mr Boyd:

– I do not know anything at all about the matter, but I am certain that he would not send that publication to the soldiers on his own initiative.

Mr HIGGS:

– I should like to know if Mr. Shepherd’s services in that regard are the reason for his salary being increased to £750. We find that the Prime Minister’s office now includes a secretary, an intelligence officer, a private secretary, or twenty-six officers in the clerical division, and nineteen in the general division, making a total of forty-eight.

Mr Watt:

– What is the honorable member’s argument in that regard?

Mr HIGGS:

– That Sir Henry Parkes was right when he said, “ Create a Department and place a man in charge, and he will soon surround himself with a staff.” The Prime Minister’s Department has even a paying officer, but I believe the Treasurer intends to make some re-arrangement in that regard. As to the publicity officer, I know that the manager of one of the leading newspapers in this country considers that the practice that has grown up in political life of appointing newspaper men to various positions in the Government Service amounts to a subornation of the press. This officer sends the most one-sided cables to London at the expense of the Commonwealth.

Mr Watt:

– I do not think he does.

Mr HIGGS:

– A few days ago the honorable gentleman supplied me with a sample of the cables that are sent. The members of the Win-the-War party are supposed to represent private enterprise, and surely the newspapers will find it to their own interest to send news to the Old Country for publication. But the Government have a publicity officer who, in cabling to London the resolutions of this House upon the deaths of Lord Forrest and Sir George Reid, quoted the speech of the Acting Prime Minister and made no reference whatever to the attitude of the Opposition. Apparently that represents the view he takes of his duty as a publicity officer. I know that this gentleman (Mr. Cook) lost no opportunity of giving the Prime Minister the most exaggerated flattery, and of misrepresenting the views and arms of the members of the Opposition in the Melbourne Herald, on which he was employed. I ask that the Economy Board shall inquire into the appointment of publicity officers. There are sufficient newspapers in the Commonwealth to supply the general public with views regarding the proceedings in this Parliament. If the Prime Minister requires somebody to boom him and declare that he is received with loud applause, and that the audience rises en, masse to give him an ovation, let him pay for such services out of his own pocket. At one time, so partial was the public press, so unfair as a rule to the Labour Party, that I was in favour of establishing a Government newspaper. I thought we could surely issue a Government sheet in which officers of the Crown would publish fair accounts of what was taking place in political life, holding the balance equally between the parties, and I actually had the idea of appointing somebody to brighten the Government Gazette. But, after my experience of Government sheets, I would not vote one penny for such a project, because the Government in power either uses an official publication in its own interests or the officers consider it their duty to boom the Prime Minister and the Government, and hold up the Opposition to ridicule and public contempt. The Prime Minister’s Department, and its secretary, to whom the Government have chosen to give another £150 per annum, call for further consideration and criticism.

In the second progress report of the Commission appointed to inquire into Navy and Defence administration, I have discovered some very important comments regarding the position of the AuditorGeneral. We know that millions of pounds have been wasted and that gigantic frauds have been perpetrated during the war, and the Royal Commission, in referring to the matter, drew attention to the disabilities of the Auditor-General and the defects of the Audit Act. That Statute was passed by Parliament with the idea of making the Auditor-General absolutely independent of any Minister or Government, and responsible only to Parliament. His position was to have been equal, to that of a High Court Judge, so that he could not be removed from office except by resolution of the House. But what are the facts? If the AuditorGeneral requires additional staff, he must go, cap in hand, to Mr. M. L. Shepherd, the Prime Minister’s secretary. If the statement of the Royal Commission were not before our eyes in black and white, could we believe that such a thing could be possible? The Auditor-General, in order to cope with arrears of work, which the Commission admitted, had to apply to Mr. Shepherd for more officers. In paragraph 61 of the report, the Royal Commission, referring to the scope of the Auditor-General’s operations, said -

When it is remembered that the scope of the Auditor-General’s operations covers the examination of the accounts of the Commonwealth Treasury, Defence and Navy Departments (including the Woollen Mills, Clothing Factory, Dockyards, Small Arms Factory, Cordite Factory, Harness and Equipment Factory), Commonwealth Bank, General Post Office, Customs Department, Land Tax, Entertainments Tax, Passports, Public Trust, Australian Wheat Board, Soldiers’ Repatriation, Commonwealth Line of Steamers, Prime Minister’s Department, Department of Home and Territories, Department of Works and Railways, &c, &c, the impossibility of coping with such a task with a staff of 131 permanent officers and 81 temporary employees will be realized, and it is not surprising that the work in connexion with numbers of the immense operations indicated above are in some cases years in arrear.

It is the opinion of three business men that, ‘owing to the extent of his duties, the Auditor-General’s work is years in arrears. That officer applied to the Prime Minister’s Department for an increased staff, and I invite honorable members to read what Mr. Shepherd had to say -

The Prime Minister has asked me for a report on the observations in par. 27 of the Royal Commission second Progress Report under the heading “Auditor-General and his functions.”

I desire to point out that the only occasion on which any serious disagreement with the Auditor-General on staff matters took place, was in connexion with the methods by which he proposed to cope with increased work or bring up arrears of work.

Are we on a stage and merely acting a part in a comedy? This officer had the presumption to dictate to the AuditorGeneral how he shall conduct his work. Did he do that under the instructions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) ? This £600-a-year-officer, as he then was, said - On several occasions I suggested that, instead of his proposals to employ assistance at 10s. per day, he should secure the services of competent auditors, and strengthen the staff in the higher grades. The last occasion on which this was done was when he submitted, for the special sanction of the Prime Minister, a request of the Directorof Naval and Military Audit for the appointment of 108 temporary clerks at 10s. a day, at an increased cost of £17,000 per annum, to the existing staff of 72, making180 in all, “ to overtake arrearsof work within twelve months.” The AuditorGeneral stated that “ the present application covers so large a number of additional officers that I do not care to follow the usual course of indicating my personal preliminary approval, but submit the matter for your special sanction.” The usual custom is for the Auditor-General to engage temporary assistance, and submit each . case for formal approval.

When submitting this to the Prime Minister,

I drew attention to the difficulty of securing good temporary clerks, and suggested that it would be better to appoint a number of qualified auditors. The Prime Minister concurred in this view, and submitted the matter to Cabinet.

The Auditor-General is a man of very wide experience, and, with all his faults, is a very able man. And I desire to make an apology, and explain that when I said the Auditor-General was too old for his position I did not know that he was being treated in this fashion by the Prime Minister and his Secretary. I did not know that the Auditor-General had actually to come to the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department and ask his permission to appoint officers, and that it was in the power of the Secretary to object, and tell the Auditor-General that, instead of asking for temporary men, he ought to seek competent auditors. What does this Secretary know about auditing ? Is he an experienced accountant ? Has he the qualifications of the Auditor-General? We find the Prime Minister submitting the matter to his Secretary, and asking him to make a report on the AuditorGeneral’s representations. The Royal Commission pointed out that the work of the Auditor-General was years in arrear, because of the scope of his financial audit and the absence of sufficient officers. The Auditor-General, instead of occupying the independent position in which we, as the Federal Parliament, sought to place him, as the man in control of vast sums, has to come to the Prime Minister, who submits his ease to the Secretary to the Department, a gentleman who, until the Government thought fit to give him an additional £150, was receiving a salary of £600 a year. The Secretary to the Prime Minister goes on to say -

As a result, it was referred to the Treasurer to ascertain his views, and he forwarded a report, furnished by the Secretary to the Treasury, who pointed out that -

The proposal aims at overtaking arrears in twelve months.

The request for such a large number makes one wonder whether the weakness is purely numerical.

The proposed increase is of the poorest material.

The application suggests the undertaking of an immense amount of detail work, the wisdom of which is not apparent, and may well be doubted.

The new temporary officers would form 60 per cent. of the staff to audit large and important transactions.

At the same time, the Secretary to the Treasurer expressed his realization of the seriousness of the position of refusing staff which the Auditor-General considered necessary. . He made other proposals for overcoming the difficulty.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– That rather agrees with the Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mr HIGGS:

– He apparently agrees to some extent with the Secretary to the Prime Minister, but, at the same time, the Secretary to the Treasury saw the seriousness of the position created by refusing a staff. In view of the fact that the Treasury accounts, like accounts of every other Department, come under the supervision of the Auditor-General, surely, to most people, it must appear wrong for the Auditor-General to have to submit his case to the Secretary of any Department, whose work and whose officers’ work have to be supervised and examined by the Auditor-General and his officers ? The Prime Minister made a decision, with the following memorandum : -

With regard to the recommendations, Nos. 11, 12, 13, in the second progress report dealing with the position of the Auditor-General, I propose to see how effect can best be given thereto. The recommendations are not free from difficulty, as they involved the questions of the appointment,promotion, transfer, and general control of the Audit staff, the appropriation of money for that purpose, and the responsibility to Parliament.

I earnestlyhope that the press will let the public know exactly how the AuditorGeneral is being treated. I shall vote for the amendment in the hope that before very long the Parliament will put the Auditor-General in his proper position. If the Auditor-General requires 400 officers to supervise the expenditure of hundreds of millions of money, let us see that he gets them, and if any honorable member feels that the Auditor-General is asking for too many, let him say so in his place here, and allow the Auditor-General, if he so wishes, to defend his position at the bar of the House. At any rate, an end ought to be put to a humiliating position. A high public officer, representing the public of Australia on the one hand, and the members of this Parliament on the other, who stands between them and the officers who handle the expenditure of vast sums, ought not to be subject to a subordinate officer. It is said that “finance is government.” No question that has come before this House could be more vital to the public welfare.

There are one or two other matters to which I desire to call attention, though, to my mind, they are not of such great importance as that to which I have just referred. The Public Service Commissioner comes under the Prime Minister’s Department.Something is wanting in connexion with this branch of the Service. We created a Commissioner in an endeavour to prevent - and I believe we have succeededmembers of Parliament appointing their relatives and friends to positions in the Service. Such a practice prevailed many years ago, and was, without doubt, a scandal. A member of Parliament is not in a position very often to judge of the qualifications of the applicant, and would prefer somebody else to make a decision ; for do we not desire the services of the best obtainable officers ? I am not sure, however, that the present method of appointment is the best. The

Public Service Commissioner and his officers arrange examinations, and questions in certain subjects are set to the students who present themselves. This system of examination, like every other system in connexion with the Public Service, is open to criticism. A lad is sent into a room to answer a dozen questions, founded perhaps on the history of the British Empire from the eighteenth century to the present time.

Mr McWilliams:

– There is a great deal of luck in these examinations.

Mr HIGGS:

– That is so.

Mr Fowler:

– And important qualifications, such as individuality and force of character, are not taken into account.

Mr HIGGS:

– There is something wrong with these examinations. We know that the Chinese have a system in which memory is the principal qualification, and the unfortunate students learn long, passages until sometimes they go mad in the process. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) will agree that an examination in literary subjects, and arithmetic and mathametics generally, might be supplemented by a personal examination by a committee. At the present time, in the case of the navy, every boy presenting himself goes before a body of that kind.

Mr Fowler:

– I suggested that to the Public Service Commissioner only a few weeks ago.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am glad to hear that the suggestion has been made. Many boys, when confronted by the examiners, are very often, like members of Parliament in their maiden speech, attacked by stagefright, and do not do their best.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– I am sure we have been very much interested in the remarks of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), especially those in reference to the Intelligence Officer. If any one ought to know the details of the appointments in this Department it is the honorable member, for practically the whole were made when he, himself, was Treasurer, and there was an Intelligence Officer at that time.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member is wrong; Mr. Cook was appointed after Ileftoffice.

Mr POYNTON:

– The present Intelligence Officer was appointed after the honorable member left office, but there was one when he was at the Department.

Mr Higgs:

– Was that officer getting £504 per annum? No.

Mr POYNTON:

– All the officerswere appointed by the honorable member whet Treasurer. I am not now. replyingfor the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watty who is quite capable of looking after him self.

Mr Higgs:

– I deny the statementof the honorable gentleman, who misrepresents me when he says that there was an Intelligence Officer - a Publicity Officer - when I was at the Department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member can make a personal explanation afterwards.

Mr Tudor:

– What was the name of the publicity officer to whom the honorable member is referring?

Mr POYNTON:

– I do not know the name, but I am confident that I am right.

Mr Tudor:

– I am confident that you are not.

Mr Higgs:

– The Minister is most reckless in his statements to-day.

Mr POYNTON:

– There are references in the Estimates to Commonwealth shipbuilding, the Commonwealth line of steamers, the Commonwealth Shipping Board, and the Port Pirie wharves.

Mr McWilliams:

– Do you not think it would be better if these were directly under the Navy Department?

Mr POYNTON:

– It is hardly for me to express an opinion, seeing that I am only Acting Minister. I desire to give honorable members some information about the progress of the wooden vessels which are being built under contract for the Commonwealth in America, and also in reference to the vessels known as the Austral line, and their earnings. It is known to honorable members that we contracted for the construction of fourteen ships, and, of these, six are now on the seas with loading, or being loaded, and the seventh is to be delivered in the last week in December. The Coolcha has arrived at San Francisco, and sailed for Sydney, via, Honolulu. The Beringa is expected here in November, and the Bethanga, which was delayed by a breakdown of a forge plant, is expected at any lime. The Benowa, with engines and tanks on board, will fee here about the middle of January. The progress report of the Babinda is -

Fitting struts. Delayed through breakdown (27/11/18). Expect launch 14/12/18.

There are only three others - the Balcataa, the Boobyalla, and Boorihaj in reference to the two first, the report is -

Progressing satisfactorily (27/11/18) Decks layed. Caulking 9/12/18.

I have no particulars of the Boorika.As to the Austral line; on the balance-sheet for the first year there was shown a net profit of £986,332, and six weeks or two months ago we received a cable from Mr. Larkin, the manager of the line, to the effect that the whole of the cost of the ships - £2,000,000 odd - has been paid off, and that there was £15,000 to the credit of the line.

Mr Fowler:

– That is entirely due to the war.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– The purchase was due to the war.

Mr Fowler:

– It was not.

Mr POYNTON:

– I am not attempting to take any credit, but merely to make a plain statement of fact. Whether this is the result of the war or not, honorable members will be pleased to know that the ships are paid for, and thatthere is a certain amount to their credit.

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · CP

-How many ships are there afloat?

Mr POYNTON:

– There are fourteen, and we have lost two which were fairly well insured, though I forget for what amount. Some time ago I informed the House that contracts had been let for the construction of twenty-six steel and twenty-four wooden ships. Since then the Western. Australian contract, affecting six ships, has been annulled, because labour would not comply with what is known as the Shipbuilding Industrial

Agreement. I purpose reading, for the information of the Committee, the last monthly report of the progress of operations in the various shipbuilding yards. This report has not yet been placed before the Cabinet, but I have obtained permission to make its contents public. It is as follows : -

Williamstown. - I enclose herewith for the information of the Cabinet, copy of progress report of the work done at the Williamstown Dockyard during the month of November, 1018.

The work of fitting shell deck, tunnel, and other plating in position in the first ship is proceeding as material comes to hand. During the month the framework of the forecastle, bridge, and poop have been erected and rivetted. The counter of the vessel, including the plating,- has also been put in position. The framework of the vessel is completely finished.

The whole of the double bottom tank of the second vessel is completely erected and rivetted. One or two strakes of the bottom plating are in position, and all the available tank top plating is in position.

The whole of the transverse and longitudinal frames and beams are finished, and are being rivetted ready for erection. The erection will commence at an early date. The work of rivetting the transverse frames is being pushed forward with all despatch.

One hundred and forty-one tons of steel plates and six tons of bars from the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s works have been delivered into the yard during the month.

Cockatoo Island. - A copy of the report from the General Manager, Cockatoo Island Dockyard, attached hereto, shows the position there at 26th November, 1918.

As indicated therein, the prepared material amounts to 437 tons, and of this, 365 tons is erected on the slipway.

Walsh Island. - A copy of the progress report submitted on 29th November, 1918,. by the Director of Shipbuilding, Walsh Island, which is attached, indicates the position at the yards on the date mentioned. Photographs which accompanied the Director’s report are also enclosed, and indicate the stage the shipbuilding work has reached.

The plating of the shell of the first vessel is proceeding as material becomes available, and stock material is being utilized to the greatest possible extent. The stern plating is in hand, and part of the upper deck plating has been fitted.

On the second vessel the ballast tank is completely framed; tie tank margin fitted, and part of the tank top and shell plating is in place. A start has been made with the erection of the transverse and longitudinal framing. The bulkheads are in course of construction. The stern post is to hand, and preparations are being made for erection.

The work on the third vessel has so far advanced as to permit of a start being made with the framing.

Walkers Limited. - Advice has been received that at 27 th November, 1918, the fourth stern frame and rudder stops had been shipped, while the fifth had ‘been completed, and a sixth frame is cast and machined with the exception of the drilling.

Wooden Skips. - Work is now proceeding at the yards of Messrs. Kidman and Mayoh on the actual shipbuilding, and progress is being made. More timber continues to be received in the yard, and work is advancing on the preparation thereof.

At Messrs. Hughes, Martin, and Washington’s yard two keels are laid, and a commencement has been made with the main timbers. Further supplies of timber have been received in the yard, and some additional men put on the work of preparing material for other vessels.

The Wallace Power Boat Company have received into the yard large quantities of timber, eighteen frames are erected, and others are almost ready to be put up. Work generally in the yard is proceeding satisfactorily.

Shipment of Plates. - Shipments of plates ordered from America continue to come along slowly. The s.s. Challamba, which left San Francisco on 22nd October, has arrived in Sydney with 630 tons. The s.s. Bellata and s.s. Coolcha., which are en route, have on board 350 and 1,000 tons respectively, and there are also on the water 208 tons in the s.s. Karori, 265 tons on the s.s. Coolgardie, and 480 tons on the s.s. Middlesbury.

With these deliveries there will remain a balance of about 1,000 tons, and it is. expected that this quantity will be shipped by the end of the year. The delivery of this material will make possible continuous progress, and it may be anticipated that at least two ships will be launched early in the new year.

Serious delay has been experienced in the discharging and transhipment of material after arrival in Sydney. I am given to understand, that with the present discharging arrangement and regulations at Sydney, both for timber and case oil, with which the vessels carrying the plates are partly loaded, this deplorable delay is unavoidable. The seriousness of the position may be judged by the fact that it took six weeks from the date of arrival of this material in Sydney to reach Melbourne. This is a matter which calls for immediate attention.

The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited have offered to reduce the price of sectional material for a further contract for eight ships from £23 to £17 per ton, but are not prepared to make any reduction on the £30 per ton they are at present charging for steel plates, and further express a desire that plates be obtained from England or America.

Machinery

Walsh Island. - Progress of machinery is generally satisfactory, but there is still some difficulty in the manufacture of large forgings.

Steps, however, are being taken to overcome this. Erection in the shops has been commenced on engines for No. 3 ship.

Thompson and Company, Castlemaine. - Progress on machinery is generally satisfactory. Erection in shop is continuing on engines for No. 1 ship. There is still some difficulty in the manufacture of large forgings. Steps, however, are being taken to overcome this.

Clyde Engineering Company. - Designs for principal parts of the main engines have been approved, and work is commencing in the pattern shop.

Number of Men Employed. - The number of men employed in the shipyards is, approximately, as follows: -

I anticipate that two of the ships will be launched in- February; and, in addition, a collier of 7,000 tons now building on what is known as the Adelaide slip. The collier, when fit for sea, will release two of the coastal vessels which are now carrying coal. We were paying to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company £23 per ton for structural steel, and £30 per ton for steel plates. The prices were high compared with the English and American prices, but to these freights have to be added. We made representations to the company, and they reduced the price of their structural steel to £17 per ton, but we were not successful in getting them- to reduce the price of steel plates - that is f to ^ inch plates. They are not too keen about making these plates, because their plant could be more profitably used on other work. There are probably 300 or 400 men, and perhaps more, working on the collier to which I have referred. I regret that there has not been more progress made m Tasmania. One reason for the delay there is that the engineers’ strike prevented necessary machinery, which had been ordered, from being supplied.

The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams) complained of the increase of the payments to ship-owners allowed by the Shipping Board. The ships were all taken over at the Board of Trade Blue-Book rates, the price originally paid being: For passenger ships, from 20s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. per ton, per month, none of the profits going to the owners; and for colliers and cargo vessels, from 14s. to 16s. 6d. The Board had the right to increase the rates by 10 per cent., but did not take advantage of it. Later, the Imperial Government decided on an increase of rates, chiefly because it was thought that a fund should be established for re-construction, to meet the heavy losses of the war, and also because the owners were being called upon to pay war-time profits tax. The increase did not apply to passenger boat rates, but collier and cargo boat rates were increased about 4s. Boats of those classes have suffered most from torpedo attacks. Representations were made to me on the subject, when it was pointed out that the vessels had been taken over altogether from the owners, that the owners’ earnings were subject to the wartime profits tax, and that if the vessels were free they could easily earn from 60s. to 80s. per ton by going to neutral countries for freight. Under these circumstances it was thought by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) that it would be fair to increase the rate. Reference has been made to the coalhandling plant at Port Pirie. It was arranged for before I had anything to do with the Department, in consequence of the difficulty that was being experienced in getting coal to the Barrier. There was a big agitation on the subject, and a deputation waited on the Premier of South Australia, and I think that another deputation came to Melbourne. In the first place, the South Australian Government were going to erect the plant, but eventually they asked us to do so. lt was felt that vessels should not be delayed as they were being delayed, and we agreed. to erect the plant and the wharf, to be taken over afterwards by South Australia at a valuation. The Barrier wharf .at Port Pirie has now (been acquired by the Commonwealth Government, under the Lands Acquisition Act, at a cost of £82,500. The wharf is a very valuable one. A mechanical coal-handling plant has been erected on the wharf tit a total cost to date of £74,759 8s. 6d. The working expenses of the wharf to date total £24,233 6s. 5d., and- the earnings have amounted to £37,852 0s. 7d. The working expenses for the month of October were £2,092 13s. 6d. ; and the earnings for the same period, £3,230 ls. 5d. On that basis the earnings for a year would be £38,760. In a comparative statement it would be necessary to show against this the working expenses, plus interest on outlay, and depreciation. The total outlay on the wharf and , plant to date amounts to £157,500. The approximate earnings for twelve months are £3S,760; the approximate working expenses for twelve months are £25,200; interest at 5 per cent, on the outlay of £157,500, £7,875; depreciation, at 15 per cent., on £75,000 of plant, £11,250; depreciation, at 5 per cent., on £20,000 for the wharf, £1,000. These figures show an approximate annual loss of £6,540. The hand-labour cost of dealing with the coal was 2s. 3d. a ton, and the cost of dealing with it with machinery is ls. 4d. a ton.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.S0 p.m. (Wednesday).

Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– Captain Davis, who was one of a party that went to the Antarctic regions, installed the plant at Port Pirie, and managed it for some time. He then made application for permission to go to the war and recommended that Mr. Harry Jackson should be appointed to control the plant. ,1 would not agree to the recommendation until Mr. Jackson had shown some ability to hold the position. He was employed for about three or four weeks with Captain Davis, and in that time showed that he was capable of doing the work for which he had been recommended. At the end of that period Admiral Clarkson submitted a minute recommending that Cap tain Davis be relieved, and that Mr. Jackson be appointed in his place. I concurred in the recommendation.

Mr BOYD:
Henty

.- The Minister has dealt with a very interesting statement in regard to the working of the coal discharging appliances at Port Pirie, and during the adjournment I have taken the trouble to secure some reports which were in my desk dealing with the plant. I did not expect the matter to come before Parliament, but I Was interested in it because the shipping officials of the Commonwealth Government had endeavoured to force the hands of the Melbourne Harbor Trust, of which I am a Commissioner, to follow the policy adopted in South Australia and install grabs for the handling of coal. As a Trust we were successful in withstanding that pressure, not only from persons interested, but also from the Commonwealth Government. I do not hesitate to say that the machinery on the Port Pirie wharf has quite failed to achieve the purpose for which it was erected. It was put up without tenders having been called, by a firm which was certainly competent enough to erect machinery of that kind, but an understanding was arrived at that the four gantries, one opposite each hatch on a vessel, would average 60 tons per hour. That is to say, a vessel would be guaranteed a discharge of 240 tons per hour from the hold. The best results that have ‘been obtained so far were secured during the months of June and July of this year, when 106 tons per hour per ship were discharged, as against the promised 240 tons per hour per ship. Each grab averaged 26i tons per hour, instead of the promised 60 tons per hour. The reports which I have in my possession were prepared by the engineer of the Melbourne Harbor Trust, and the engineer of the South Australian Harbor Board for the guidance of their respective bodies in the matter of the expenditure of money. Before the Melbourne Harbor Trust would contemplate launching out on an expenditure of £250,000 with the responsibility for its financial success it felt that it must be perfectly satisfied that it would secure a proper up-to-date plant that would yield certain results. The statement has been made by the Shipping Board that the Port Pirie appliances have discharged coal at a cost of1s. 3d. per hour. This is. a report submitted to the South Australian Harbor Board : -

Admiral Clarkson reported that coal is now being discharged by the Port Pirie appliances at1s. 3d. per ton, whereas it is costing 2s. 3d. to do the same by hand. This is, in the opinion of the Board (Supply and Tender Board), a misrepresentation of the facts. If coal is costing 2s. 3d. per ton gross, including interest, maintenance of plant, provision of steam winches, &c, it is quite exceptional, and not the ruling rate, where the work is carried on under proper conditions, and it cannot be credited that the gantries do the work at 1s. 3d. per ton gross. The cost of labour has been checked by reliable means and found to be from10d. to1s. for shore labour, and to this must be added labour and use of ship’s winches for dragging grabs into the sides and ends of holds. The serious error, however, is the non-inclusion of the cost of maintenance and renewals of plant, and the much heavier items of interest and depreciation.

These gears (constructed at Port Pirie) are considered by engineers to be on the light side, frequent breakdowns occur, and a careful estimate by a prominent engineer who made a. close study of the work, is that repairs represent a charge of 4 per cent. on the estimated cost of £80,000, and interest and depreciation another 10 per cent.; the latter will probably exceed 121/2 per cent. The coal consumed was estimated at 4.10d. per ton of coal discharged.

There have been only 133,000 tons of coal worked at the gantries since the erection of the plant up to the end of July, 1918, which is equal to 177,000 tons per year, or 3,400 per week. The cost may be summarized thus: -

Overtime, which is a big factor, is a further charge against the ship, and has not been included, but engineering supervision and proportion of administration expenses must of necessity be added.

Comparison of the actual cost of Port Adelaide of putting some 60,000 tons into trucks or heaps during the year has been afforded the Board. This was found to be an average of 1s. 8d. per ton, including winches, interest on and upkeep of gear, &c. The rate of discharge at Port Pirie averaged, throughout June and July, 106 tons per ship hour (which averages 261/2 tons per grab), while two colliers, under the old methods at Port Adelaide, averaged 125 tons pership hour, which, in the opinion of the Board, goes to show that, with proper supervision and the willingness of the men to work, the older method is still in advance of the best the Port Pirie gantries have done.

That is a very serious statement, made by a Board responsible for the effective working of these machines. The assertion was made that these gantries would discharge 60 tons of coal per hour, but the very best result obtained was on the s.s. Aeon on the 14th March, 1918, where the output, of coal was 35.73 tons per hour.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member ber is quoting from a report by Mr. Arthur Searcy. He is prejudiced against this plant.

Mr Tudor:

– At any rate, he is the State Engineer in South Australia for the people who own this plant, but will not pay us for it.

Mr Poynton:

– He is not an engineer.

Mr BOYD:

– His opinion is backed up by that of other men. The engineer who advises the Melbourne Harbor Trust, is as competent a man as can ‘be found in Australia.

Mr Tudor:

– The Commonwealth would have engaged him for lighthouse work, but he preferredto remain with the Melbourne Harbor Trust.

Mr BOYD:

– Yes ; we treated him well. This is his report -

Attention is drawn to the results attained in working s.s. Aeon, on 14th March, 1918, where the average rate per grab hour reached 35.73 tons - the highest rate attained so far.

The precaution was taken, however, of clearing the between decks at Wallaroo before proceeding to Port Pirie, as the grabs do not do good work in ships with these decks full of coal.

The positive test of the work is, however, not the grab-hour, but the ship-hour average, as the longest hatch determines the length of time the vessel is detained. In this connexion, it is noted that the Chronos, in October, discharging by the old method, averaged 91.5 tons per ship hour, which is only 21/4 tons less than the best rate at the new gears.

I visited Port Pirie with the Melbourne Harbor Trust Commissioners in June last for the express purpose of looking at this plant, with a view to examining it in detail, so that we should commit no blunder in spending £250,000, and be responsible for any failure that might occur. As we have to handle over 1,000,000 tons of coalper annum, jt is very necessary for us to economize, even if the economy effected be ever so little per ton. Speaking from my knowledge of shipping, I say that these grabs, if they are to be worked successfully, must be used on vessels specially built for them. The Commonwealth are now sending to Port Pirie only ships that have no ‘tween decks.

Mr Poynton:

– Grabs can only be worked successfully without ‘tween decks. The collier which is being built at Cockatoo Island is to be specially fitted for this trade.

Mr BOYD:

– It is quite evident that vessels must be built to suit these grabs. The vessel which was being discharged at Port Pirie while the Harbor Trust Commissioners were there had no ‘tween decks. Our engineer says -

The vessel which was being discharged at the time of the Commissioners’ visit had no tween decks, and I understand, as far as possible, only that class of vessel is now sent to Port Pirie.

The cost of discharging coal in Melbourne with the winch and basket system is about ls. lOd. per ton. The argument put up to the Melbourne Harbor Trust by the Shipping ‘Controller, in urging us to rush into this matter, was : “ It is an urgent matter to get the ships away. The Commonwealth Government will find the money. All that you have to do is put up the plant.” As business men, I think we said, “Very well. We presume that the Commonwealth Government will find the money, and we will put up the plant. If our engineer makes an estimate of what this would have cost in normal’ times before the war, and shows that it costs so much at the present time, say, for the sake of argument, an extra £100,000, on what would have cost £100,000 previously, you will debit us with the £100,000 only, and not with the extra cost.” But that was a different proposition altogether. They wanted us to erect the machinery,, and, subsequently, be prepared to find the. whole of the capital. They tried to bring pressure to bear on the Harbor Trust; but they happened to strike a Board of men. who were not ready to submit to pressure. We were told that the easiest way of overcoming the difficulty was to put a price of 2s. 6d. per ton on our charges for discharging coal. Although the public are well aware of the present cost, we were told not to mind what the cost would be by the installation of these grabs, because the public would have to pay. That was certainly one way of getting out of the difficulty. It might suit the man operating the machinery, but it was a totally different matter to the people who had to pay. When these things are investigated at first hand, and when one knows the methods of spending money adopted under the War Precautions Act, in order to achieve certain objects, it makes one hesitate, and say that closer investigation should be made into many of these propositions before they are rushed on to the public, and before money is squandered.

There ought to be a more economical method of shipbuilding and ship repairing. A little while ago L requested the Government to send a vessel owned by the State of Victoria to search among the islands for the missing boat’s crew of the barque John Murray, which had been wrecked. The Assistant Minister for the Wavy (Mr. Poynton) facilitated the matter in every way in his power, and when we placed it before the Treasurer, he consented to pay the cost, but asked me to submit an- estimate of what expenditure was- likely to be incurred by the expedition. I made inquiries from shipbuilders and other people as to what their charges would be, and I arrived at an estimate, which I submitted to the Acting Prime Minister. He said, “ Very well, I will give you authority to spend £500 a month for three months.” By-and-by, the bills came in, and at a later date I shall have to face the Treasurer and explain why the expenditure has been greater than I said it would be. Instead of receiving from the Government Dockyard, as I anticipated, a bill for £250 for fitting up the vessel, I got a bill for £467, or £217 above the estimate. It is all very well to deal in that way with Government work, but if the dockyard is to secure the private work which is necessary to its success, it will not do for it to practically double its estimates.

The policy of shipbuilding in Australia, as laid dawn by the Government, is an excellent one if vessels can be built here as economically as they can be constructed abroad. I have no fault to find with the policy, but 1 would urge upon the Government that it is useless to build our own ships unless we intend also to train our own men and officers to staff them. “Why should our vessels be manned by Dagoes, Turks, and other foreigners, as many ships are to-day? We have had British ships coming into this port without a solitary British sailor on .board; latterly we have had British ships coming in with foreigners in charge of them. I do not anticipate that the fleet of- vessels purchased by the Government will ever be disbanded, and if additions are to be made to that fleet the Government should see that it is -manned by Australian officers and men.

Mr Poynton:

– We have under consideration the question of training’ an Australian mercantile marine. The suggestion is that some officers should be trained at Jervis Bay.

Mr BOYD:

– I know that my honorable friend takes a very keen interest in this matter, and so far as I know he is doing very well in his Department. He is certainly .always ready to meet in a friendly spirit any suggestions’ made to him. The Government have already done something towards the training of their own officers. They had about sixteen apprentices on the Shandon and the John Murray, but upon the loss of the latter vessel some of the apprentices had to be transferred to steam-ships. I would remind honorable .members that it is impossible to train a sailor on a steam-ship. A sailor can only foe trained on a “ windjammer.” When I was at sea, those who had had only steam-ship experience used to be spoken of as “ Western Ocean paintscrubbers.” The beet illustration I can give in support of my assertion that it is impossible to train a sailor on a steamship is the fact that when the Titanic had her side ripped out by coming into contact with an iceberg in the Western Ocean it was found that there was not a sailor on board who could pull an oar or steer a boat. It is of the utmost importance that we should train not only our own officers, .but our own men. ‘

Without egotism, I ‘think I can “claim to speak with authority as to whether or . not -the average Australian youth has a love of the sea. In connexion with the training-ship John Murray, I had to deal with a number of Australian youths “ full of spirit.” Not one out of every twenty of the hundreds that passed through the hands of those controlling that vessel had the slightest notion of going to sea. I knew that the best way to implant in these boys a love of the sea was to give them a cruise or two on a ship under full sail. We adopted that course, with the result that 70 per cent, of these lads went to sea, although when they joined the vessel they had no intention of doing so. Of those who, on leaving the John Murray, went ashore, many are constantly asking me to get them a ship. A love of the sea is implanted in the hearts of the youth of every country, and particularly in the hearts of British youths. We have to find an outlet for those whom we train, and since we are building ships of our own, we ought to train our own youths.

Mr Poynton:

– How would the honorable member train them?

Mr BOYD:

– Apprentices ought to be trained on a sailing vessel. If the Shandon, which is owned by the Commonwealth, were fitted up in the ‘tween decks on the same principle as the Belgian training ship L’Avenir, which recently visited these shores, and which had sixty cadets on board, we should be able to carry in the lower hold of the vessel sufficient cargo to liquidate the greater part of the cost of using her as a training ship.

Mr Poynton:

– What period of training would be required ?

Mr BOYD:

– An ordinary seaman could be trained for all practical purposes in two years. An officer, however, under the Marine Act, must have had four years’ actual experience at sea. During the war we have lost over 15,000 British officers in the mercantile marine, and many vessels arriving here have had on board only one certificated officer.

Mr Poynton:

– Were these losses due to the submarines ?

Mr BOYD:

– To submarines and other war causes.

Mr Corboy:

– On our way Home we had an officer on board who could not take a reading of the sun.

Mr BOYD:

– That is quite possible. The Scandinavians use, for the most part, sailing vessels, so that they have ample opportunity for training officers and men. A man who has been about four years before the mast on a Norwegian, Danish, or Swedish vessel can apply for his certificate.

The TEMPORARY ‘CHAIRMAN (Mr. Charlton). - Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I am glad that I raised this morning a question in regard to Port Pirie wharf and the coal grab upon it, which was erected for the State Government, but has not yet been taken over, although the work has been completed for twelve months or more.

Mr Poynton:

– The arrangement for the purchase was completed only within the last six weeks or two months. The State Government is to take over the land at the cost to us.

Mr TUDOR:

– Is the State taking over both the land and the coal grab ?

Mr Poynton:

– I know that it is to take over the land. The original arrangement was that they should take it over at cost.

Mr TUDOR:

– We must see that that agreement is carried out. Contracts made with the Commonwealth on behalf of some of the States have not always been adhered to. For instance, the Government of Western Australia undertook that if the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway line were completed by the Commonwealth Government, they would lay down a line of the same gauge from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle. That undertaking, however, has not yet been carried out. If the South Australian Government entered into an arrangement with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) for the construction of the Port Pirie coal grab, and agreed to take it over at cost, they have a right to take it over at the actual cost. They should not expect the Commonwealth to pay for some- thing which they themselves require. It was not until the work had been commenced that the Commonwealth was asked to finance it.

Mr Poynton:

– And it was of great advantage to South Australia in the distribution of coal.

Mr TUDOR:

– Undoubtedly. According to figures supplied by the Minister, the earnings of the wharf and coal grab have averaged £37,852 per annum, while the expenditure, exclusive of depreciation - which is put down at 15 per cent. - amounts to £24,233 per annum. I doubt whether 15 per cent, is sufficient to allow for depreciation of machinery of this class, which, as the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) has said, must necessarily be of a frail and flimsy character. Allowing for depreciation at 15 per cent., that represents a total of £11,000, and if we allow for interest on the cost of the wharf at £82,000, we find that on this enterprise we are losing £6,000 a year.

There was an industrial trouble at Port Pirie some little time ago, and I introduced to the Acting Minister for the Navy a representative of the organization concerned. The Navy Department, through Admiral Clarkson, had refused to pay the men the award rates.

Mr Poynton:

– They were paid at a fixed rate, and earned, on the average, more than any other men on the wharf..

Mr TUDOR:

– No doubt. I have known of men who, on agreeing to leave their union, have been given foremen’s jobs. My experience as a worker is that if a man is prepared to go back on his principles a job will be created for him. These men, who were loyal to their union, were not paid the award rates when the gantries were working.

Mr Poynton:

– They have been receiving the award rates for some time.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am glad to hear that. The work carried out by this coal grab, allowing for depreciation and interest on the cost of machinery, is costing more than it would if it were done solely by hand. Honorable members opposite do not care how the moneys of the taxpayers are expended. If they were dealing with their own money, they would take up a different attitude. Let this matter be inquired into by the Public Accounts

Committee or the Public Works Committee. After the statement made by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd), some inquiry is necessary. If investigation proves that everything is right, well and good; if everything is not right, the whole affair should be cleared up. It will be an advantage to other ports to know whether the grab system of handling coal is the most economical, and an independent inquiry will settle the point. I understand that the mechanical contrivance enables the service of the guyman - he is the man who works the guy rope as the baskets come from the hold - to be dispensed with. But, notwithstanding that economy, the grab is costing more than the hand labour, according to the figures which hae been quoted. Honorable members mav say that it is South Australia’s money that has been spent, and that the people of that State will be required to Day the £70,000 involved. I am afraid that the Commonwealth will be called upon to pay the money. I did not know that this system was in operation until I went to Port Pirie in March last. I believe that the grab has been installed within the last eighteen months or two years. With Estimates covering 300 or 400 pages of printed matter to be dealt with in a few days, it is quite possible for little items like this one to pass unnoticed. Looking at the item on the Estimates, honorable members might think that it related to the shipment of lead from Port Pirie for munition purposes. But not one ingot of lead has been handled by this contrivance. If this grab is to be paid for by the Commonwealth we ought to have a full inquiry into the transaction; if, on the other .hand, the State of South Australia is to pay for it, as was agreed, it is no concern of ours. I am glad that I raised this matter this morning, because most of us possess a little more information on the subject than we had before.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Are we to have an inquiry into the purchase of this contrivance ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I am asking the Government for an inquiry, and if honorable members on the Ministerial side support that request I have no doubt that it -will be granted.

I regard the training of seamen as all important. A very small proportion of

Australian men have adopted a seafaring career.

Mr McWilliams:

– It is a strange fact that there are more sailors from Tasmania on the Australian coast than from all the other States.

Mr TUDOR:

– That may be because Tasmania is an island, and has a fairly large seafaring population. But Australians as a whole have gone to sea less than other nationalities have done. Perhaps the reason is that the rates of pay and the’ industrial conditions at sea were not such as would attract men to a seafaring life. There is also the disadvantage that a married man who goes to sea is away from his wife and family for weeks and months at a stretch”. Some sea captains on the coast see their families only for a day or a night about every month. Provision was made in the Navigation Act to make the life of the sailor more attractive, but, owing to the war, and a request from the British Government, that Statute has never been put into operation. The sooner we can have our vessels manned by Australians or Britishers instead ‘of by the polyglot crowd now found in the forecastles the better for the service generally. Probably not more than fifty Australians hold a master’s certificate. I hope that in the future stens will be taken to increase the number of people of our own nationality engaged in .seafaring.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- The Committee is entitled to have from the Acting Prime Minister an explanation of the relations existing between his office and that of the Auditor-General. If the position of the latter is as embarrassing as was stated by the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), the Committee should express its disapproval of such a state of affairs. If there is any officer in the Commonwealth Service who should have the utmost freedom in the discharge of his duties and the choice of his officers, it is the gentleman to whom we look for the proper scrutiny of the national accounts. The auditing of the Commonwealth accounts is estimated to cost this year £67,529, as compared] with last year’s cost of £46,441, showing an increase of £21,088. I arrive at those figures in this way: The amount set down for the Auditor-General’s Office is £42,367, and to that must be added £19,340 to be recovered and credited to Division 15. The latter sum is to be paid by some other Department, so that it is a charge upon the revenue of the country. There is also on page 25 another amount of £5,822 to be recovered. All this expenditure may be justified, but we are entitled to know the reason for it. Is this expenditure to continue increasing as it has done during the last year ? We know that owing to war conditions and the expenditure of large sums of loan money the work of the Audit Office is much heavier than it was, but even allowing for that extra work the increase in the cost of the office seems very great. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will give the Committee some information on the subject and an assurance that the Audit Office and the Prime Minister’s Office are working harmoniously together, and that the Auditor-General will in future have a free hand in carrying ,out his duties.

Another point upon which I desire to touch is the enormous expenditure for the rental of public offices. One may walk from Albert-street, East Melbourne, to the Wool Exchange, in King-street, and find in nearly every street rented premises occupied by the Government. It is about time we adopted the recommendation of some of the departmental officers that the Commonwealth should erect an office building providing all the accommodation required for Federal Departments and services which will be permanently located in Melbourne.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Where are these offices to be built?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There are plenty of convenient sites available.

Mr AUSTIN Chapman:

– In Melbourne?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Some of them.

Mr Falkiner:

– Why not “sack” some of the officials?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I do not know whether that course would be justified. But the Government must accept the responsibility for the present heavy expenditure on the renting of offices. The rents are very high in Melbourne, and I have been assured by a leading architect that the amount now expended on rents would more than pay interest and sinking fund on the cost of constructing a large block of offices. We should concentrate our

Departments so that people doing business with them will not have to dodge all over the city from one office to the other. Whilst I am an advocate of economy, I do not think it is economical to discontinue public works which will be revenueproducing. One of the functions of the Government is to see that the people are employed* and they could not be employed on any better work than the erection of offices to house Commonwealth Departments. I hope the Government will seriously consider that matter, and that before long offices will be erected in Melbourne to house such Federal services as are likely to remain in this city for all time. Of course, I hope that some day the principal offices will be erected at Canberra, but that is a vision of the sweet by-and-by, and may not be realized in our time. I know that theFederal compact included a “ scrap of” paper” regarding the Capital which thepeople of New South Wales thought the Federation would carry out. As one who was born in New South Wales, I remember well that there was a distinct understanding on the part of the New South Wales people that within a reasonable time of the consummation of Federation the Capital would be established in that State. We should proceed with the creation of the Capital City as soon as we possibly can do so.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– I, too, propose to deal with the matter of the rents that are being paid for office accommodation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN’ (Mr Charlton:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– That question belongs more properly to the Department of Home and Territories, and I do not propose to allow any further discussion of it at this stage.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I shall, refer to the matter later. A good deal has been said about the growing expenditure on the publicity which is indulged in by the Prime Minister. The intelligence officers have lately become rather a joke. It seems as if there is developing in Australia a peculiar institution along the lines of self-advertisement, and the Prime Minister has set a very furious pace in this particular work. Of course, there can be no objection to a reasonable amount of journalistic advertisement as to the conditions of Australia and the work of the

Government generally; but I do take strong exception to the increasing expenditure on a publicity policy that is onesided. The objections of honorable members on this side to the partial character of the censorship is aggravated by the publicity work of the Prime Minister’s Department, because, so far as I have been able to follow such activities, they are nothing else but a eulogy of the Prime Minister and the Government. Whatever our opinion in politics may be, we all recognise that there are two sides to every question, and that in order to arrive at the truth, and get a correct view of matters one has to put before the public and one’s mind, a fairly impartial view of both sides. The trouble is that the work of this officer has been of an entirely partial or party character.

Mr Falkiner:

– That is party prejudice !

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is borne out by fact. I know when an article is biased against me and my party, and when it is written with the idea of giving a fair interpretation of the work going on. The publicity agent, or intelligence officer, has become an instrument of journalistic warfare. He has simply developed, perhaps not from choice on his part, but acting under directions, into the writer - up of the doings of the Government; in short, he has become a journalistic “ barracker ‘ ‘ of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) and the Government.

Probably the Acting Prime Minister may not be altogether to blame, because he has evidently taken his cue from a higher authority. This year an invitation was sent out to the Commonwealth Government to send home a press delegation of twelve journalists, who were expected to be able to give us first-hand and impartial information about what was doing on the other side of the world. The selection of those gentlemen was of a very disagreeable character, in that eleven of them were of one view in politics. The one man who could, in any sense, represent the Opposition view of politics was already in England, and advantage was taken of his presence there to add him to the delegation. So far as we have seen the delegation has accomplished nothing. I am not aware of their inquiries or observations being put on record.

Mr Sampson:

– They have not returned yet.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Journalists are not in the habit of waiting until they return home before writing up their impressions.

Mr Bayley:

– We have had a picture of their shaking hands with the King.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is very interesting. I do not know whether the Commonwealth is paying the expenses of this delegation, for I can find no item in the Estimates to cover them. The fact remains that those gentlemen were selected to give the people of Australia first-hand information in regard to the war and operations in Great Britain, and I have been able to get a certain amount of information regarding them from the London newspapers. Lord Beaverbrook, who issued the invitation to the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the Imperial Government, was approached, and it was pointed out to him that the twelve gentlemen selected by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) could represent only one view of politics, and, therefore, could not be accepted as at all representative of the journalism of Australia. The following is a letter written on behalf of Lord Beaverbrook, apparently by his secretary, to the editor of the Daily Herald, Adelaide : -

Ministry of Information,

Norfolk-street, Strand, London, W.C. 2nd September, 1918.

Dear Sir,

I am desired by the Minister for Information (Lord Beaverbrook) to acknowledge your extremely interesting letter of 25th June, and to say that he must appreciate your courtesy in drawing his attention to the informative article which appeared in the 22nd and 24th June issues of the Daily Herald.

He desires me to point out, however, that the selection of the press delegates from Australia was left entirely to that Government. You will naturally appreciate the fact that here, in London, it is not possible for us to be closely in touch with local affairs, and, consequently, in the face of, each delegation of journalists from the Dominions, the selection of the delegates is left entirely . to the Dominion Governments. The intention of His Majesty’s Government in extending the invitation was that the delegation should represent’ all sections of the press of Australia, and on that subject they regard the judgment of the Commonwealth Government as the only authority which it is possible for them to accept.

Yours faithfully.

A.P. Holt

That was the original intention, and from that point of view no objection can be taken ; but the selection of the eleven gentlemen of one particular colour was commented on also by newspapers on” the other side of the world. The Westminster Gazette says: -

  1. The press ‘delegation is certainly a one-sided affair.

Another editor of a London paper says -

I certainly think the delegation most unfairly chosen.

I do not desire to place on record too many of these extracts, but I shall refer to a statement made by Mr. Pringle, a member of the House of Commons, in referring to the Ministry of Information at Home. Mr. Pringle is thus reported -

Another member of the House of Commons (Mr. Pringle) said that the main point was that a large part of the operations of the Ministry of Information was not propaganda for the country, but propaganda for the Government. Articles appeared in the Dominion press which were simply glorifications of the present Government, and many of them cast reflections of a somewhat discreditable character upon men who, at other times, were responsible for the affairs of the country.

Labour Unrest Cause

Further, he said that this Department employed men to spy upon the Labour movements in this country. He had personal knowledge of cases where important leaders connected ‘with the trade union movement had been bought by the Department in order that they might spy upon their fellows, and he believed that it would be safe to say that some of the agents employed had gone to the length of deliberately inciting to strikes and to outrage.

Then the British Australasian, a paper published in London, had a word to say -

The Australian Labour press is up in arms against what it describes as the gross favoritism shown by Mr. Watt of papers favouring his own policy, and his scandalous unfairness to the Labour press in allotting the invitations from the British Government to take part in the Australian press mission to England. Lord Beavorbrook asked for a thoroughly representative delegation, and trusted Mr. Watt to provide it.

The closing part of the article is -

Recognising this, Mr. Watt evidently threw away any troublesome idea of attempting to. be fair, and went at the job as a very ordinary politician, using his privilege, first to down his opponent, the Labour party, by allotting them a share in the mission outrageously below that due to their numbers and influence, and next to please those sections of his own press whose favour might be of most value to the Government.

The press mission cannot fail to be useful in giving Australia, through its mission, a firsthand knowledge of men and matters here, but it would have been much more useful, and would not have aroused justifiable bitterness among the readers of important Labour journals, if the latter had been treated with some semblance of justice.

Those are all the extracts I propose to read, with a desire to show that, even in Great Britan to-day, it is recognised that the press delegation was unfairly and unreasonably chosen, and that only one point of view was put by it before the people of Great Britain and Europe. The same thing will probably occur when the delegation returns to Australia and presents a report or makes a public statement.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– ‘Would it not be better for the honorable gentleman to take the Chair?

Mr Wise:

– You know that what you are saying has nothing to do with the question before the Chair

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I shall place myself under the shelter of the Presiding Officer. This leads me to refer to another illustration of how, in regard to the press of this country, there has been unfair discrimination. Already reference has been made in the House to the outrageous charges made for advertisements by the anti-Labour press in connexion with the war loan. The Sydney Morning Herald charged 18s. and 25s. per inch; Daily Telegraph, 15s., 20s. 10d., and 25s.; Evening News, 12s.; Sun, 6s., 8s., and 12s. 6d.; Truth, 22s. 6d. ; and the Sydney Worker, 6s. In the distribution to those papers, the Labour paper got £7 4s. out of the total expenditure in New South Wales of £7,482 16s. lid.

Mr Falkiner:

– On what side do you say Truth is?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I do not know; it is a bit of a nondescript.

Mr J H Catts:

– It is declared by the Sydney Labour Executive to be antiLabour.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is not accepted as a Labour paper. The position is nearly as bad in Victoria. The Age charged 12s., 14s., and 21s. per inch; the Argus, 12s., 16s. 8d., and 19s. 2d.; the Herald, 6s. and 12s. ; and the Labour Call got £12 out of a total expenditure in Victoria of £4,316 8s. 8d.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Are those not the regular charges of the newspapers?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I should hope not.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– They are, as a matter of fact.

Mr J H Catts:

– What is the highest price charged by the Sydney Morning Herald?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is 25s.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Then that is the regular rate.

Mr J H Catts:

– I get advertisements inserted in that paper every week for less than that.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Then you are not getting the position assigned to the loan advertisements. It is a misrepresentation to say that those are not the regular charges of the newspapers.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am saying that those were the rates that were charged by the newspapers. If they .are the regular charges, they stand out in striking contrast with the treatment of the Labour papers. In Queensland, the Courier charged 8s., 10s., 12s., and 16s.; Mail, 5s. and 8s. ; Standard, 9s. ; Telegraph, 9s. and 10s. ; Observer, 6s. and 10s. ; and the Brisbane Worker got £13 12s. out of a total expenditure ih Queensland of £5,173 9s. 7d. The Standard received a total of £493 4s., as against £401 5s. 9d. for the Mail, and £648 for the Courier.

Mr Bayley:

– That was a fair distribution.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It was a much fairer distribution than in New South Wales. In the other States there is no daily Labour paper. In South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, the rates are much lower. For instance, the Advertiser, in Adelaide, charged 12s. and 20s. per inch : Register, 12s. and 20s. ; TJ Hearald, a Labour paper, 10s ; Journal, 12s. ; and the Express, 12s. In Western Australia, the West Australian charged 10s. and 12s. 6d. ; Daily News, 10s. ; and in Tasmania the Mercury charged 6s. ; the Post, a Labour paper, 5s. ; and the Examiner and the Telegraph, Launceston, 7s. 6d. There we have another illustration of what we, on the Opposition side, have had to complain of so regularly, namely, that the Labour papers seem to have been singled out for unfair treatment, quite apart from the treatment they have been subjected to by the Treasurer of late.

The Press delegation should have had at least six representatives of the Labour press, with six representatives of the anti-Labour pre’ss, but the fact is thala the Labour press nad one representative, I, for one, am looking forward with considerable interest to the character of the report which the delegation will give when it returns to Australia.

I desire to briefly re’fer to an item which, the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr.. Wise) will be glad to know, is specifically stated in the Estimates.

Mr Wise:

– That is immaterial to you 2

Mr FINLAYSON:

– No; it is not- ifc means everything to me. On page 22.’ of the Estimates there is an item “Tropical diseases - contribution to Imperial Fund for investigation of.” I refer to this matter because there has been brought before honorable members, in a very pointed and emphatic way, the necessity for consideration being given to the presence of certain diseases in Australia, particularly the hook-worm disease. Unfortunately, this disease is best known in the coastal districts of Queensland, but it threatens to spread over Australia, and do incalculable harm. On Friday of last, week I put some questions to the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene), which I shall venture to repeat. The questions were -

  1. Whether any proposals have been submitted to the Commonwealth Government in the direction of combating the hook-worm disease in> Australia?
  2. If so, what is the nature of those proposals ?
  3. Has the Government come to any decision on the matter?
  4. If not, will the matter receive early and favorable consideration?

The replies were -

  1. Yes, the subject was fully discussed by the representative of the Rockefeller foundation of the United States of America, with representatives of the Institute of Tropical Medicine, the Commonwealth Quarantine Department, and myself, with the result that I made certain proposals to Cabinet.
  2. The Government decided -

    1. To accept the offer of co-operation by the Rockefeller Foundation in the work of exterminating the disease.
    1. To provide a sum of £35,000, conditional on the Queensland Government providing a similar sum. The Rockefeller Foundation has agreed to find £30,000, making a total of £100,000, the expenditure to extend over a period of five years.

    2. That the work should be carried on in close co-operation with the Institute of Tropical Medicine, and under the control of committees representing that body and the Commonwealth and State Governments. Dr. Waite, of the Rockefeller Foundation, to be in charge of the field work.
    3. That Queensland should be divided into four districts, each with a staff of two medical and four lay assistants.
    4. That after the work of eradication in

Queensland has been well advanced, arrangements be made with other States to conduct surveys of areas likely to be affected, and, if necessary, to carry out extermination measures.

  1. Immediately on the Government decision, I brought the matter before the Honorable J. Huxham, Minister of Health, of Queensland, who undertook to submit it to his colleagues, and apprise me of their decision.
  2. As will be seen, the Government have already given the matter most favorable consideration, and are now only waiting for the concurrence of the Queensland Government in order to commence active operations.

I received information to-day that the Queensland Government had agreed to adopt the recommendation to come to the arrangement suggested by the Minister when replying to those questions. The Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government, and the Rockefeller Foundation have agreed upon active measures for preventing the further spread of this disease and its eradication from Queensland. Some honorable members attended a lecture delivered in Melbourne recently by Dr. Waite. It was much to my regret that I could not hearit, because I have been in regular communication with the doctor since he arrived from America, and am interested in his work. However, subsequently in conversation he gave me some startling facts concerning the disease and the danger which menaces Australia, but he said that it could be easily combated, and already a number of Queensland municipalities have adopted a sanitary system suggested by him which has greatly improved matters. Quite a number of diseases to which the human race is liable are so widespread that scarcely a nation can escape them. The existence of these diseases will challenge our loyalty and patriotism more than many recent occurrences. The rapid spread of Spanish influenza must have created concern in the minds of many persons, and it is a matter for satisfaction that the energetic measures of the Quarantine Department have so far kept it out of Australia. There are other diseases that demand closer attention than they have received. It is a cheering thing that the State Governments have commenced to combat venereal disease, which is so prevalent in the community to-day. The hook worm disease is of little account compared with venereal disease, tuberculosis, and cancer.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– The hook worm disease is not a little matter.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is easily eradicated compared with the other diseases I have mentioned.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– So is consumption.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– We have often been told of sure and certain cures for consumption, but none of them has yet proved entirely satisfactory, whereas the measures taken to combat the hook worm disease have given satisfactory results. The community has not begun to think federally in regard to health. It has not grasped the idea that whether the State authorities are active or indifferent, it is the duty of the Federal Parliament to consider the national health of Australia. “Unfortunately we have power only to prevent the introduction of diseases. We can prevent persons who are diseased from entering Australia,b ut we can do nothing with those who are already within the Commonwealth. This limitation of our powers is a defect of the Constitution, because it stultifies our effectiveness and enables diseases to- spread freely which might be combated with good results. Each State is doing something in fighting disease, but there is no grand national effort. Ever since I have been in this Parliament, I have been directing attention to the signs of deterioration in the manhood of Australia, a deterioration not so great, or even proportionately so great, as that in other countries, but stall very serious. The medical examinations made during the war proved that a startling number of men who should have been in their prime were unfit for military service. In this country there is so much opportunity for physical development, and the conditions are so conducive to healthy living, that it should not have happened that 25 per cent., speaking generally, of the men who wished to enlist for active service were rejected as inefficient.For some considerable time I have had on the businesspaper a notice for the appointment of a Royal Commission to discover the reasons for this state of things, and to suggest methods for removing it. I have on several occasions called attention to the disclosures in the report of a Royal Commission appointed by the late King Edward. That report shows specifically where the dangers lie. Unfortunately, Australia has done practically nothing towards eradicating these dangers, though the health of the community should be the chief concern of every Government. We cannot have a strong nation from weak citizens, and physical, mental, and moral efficiency require the presence of sound minds in sound bodies. I know of nothing more worthy of the attention of the Government than the combating of diseases that are playing havoc with the health of the men and women of the present day, and menacing the happiness of future generations.

Progress reported.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr. WATT (Balaclava- Acting Prime

Minister and Treasurer) [4.0] . - I declare (a) that the Estimates of Expenditure 1918-19 are urgent Estimates; (b) that the resolutions preliminary to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill are urgent resolutions; and (c) that the Appropriation Bill is an urgent Bill.

Question - That the Estimates and Appropriation Bill are urgent - put. The House divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 17

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Limitation of Debate

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

– I move -

That the time allowed for the consideration of the whole of the Estimates be until 10.30 p.m. to-day, and that the time allotted for all resolutions and stages of the Appropriation Bill be until 11.30 p.m. to-day.

My honorable friends opposite, except the five stalwarts who kept vigil in the small wee hours of last night, may consider this somewhat harsh treatment, but the Government - I think with the approval of the country - has determined to get through the business.

Mr Higgs:

– The approval of the country is shown by the fact that your candidate at Corangamite is third on the poll.

Mr WATT:

– He laughs best who laughs last. The Government is faced with the alternative of asking honorable members to endure the ordeal of another all-night sitting or adopting the more business-like methods which the House has ordained shall be applied on occasions of this kind. Several honorable members on this side last night thought it to be their duty to the country to remain here at great sacrifice of personal convenience, and I desire to save them from the necessity of a second all-night sitting.

Mr Mathews:

– It is not fair, to the officials to go right through another night.

Mr WATT:

– I am glad that my friends opposite support the motion, inferentially.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Acting Prime Minister is seeking to “ gag “ the discussion of proposals involving the expenditure of £128,000,000- £44,000,000 out of revenue and £84,000,000 out of loan money.

Mr WATT:

– The Appropriation Bill will cover only the expenditure out of revenue. On a previous occasion, not many months ago, when it was complained that a measure had been insufficiently considered, I ascertained, speaking from memory that at the preliminary stages seventy-six speeches had been made upon it. I have but one more observation to make. It is not pleasant to be, forced to shorten discussions when honorable members wish to pour out themselves in voluble discourse. But this is the alternative, which, I think, is quite plain to honorable members who have listened to the discussion on the first item. It is only natural that honorable members may desire to discuss the question of repatriation and other matters. As I explained on a former occasion, in reply to a question from an honorable member in the corner, there will be two opportunities during this session to discuss repatriation - one when we are dealing with that portion of the Estimates relating to the Bepatriation Department, and the other when we are dealing with the Bill which has originated in another place, and which is expected to reach this House today. I refer to the measure which prorides for the housing of soldiers. It will afford honorable members an additional opportunity of discussing the matter of repatriation in all its grave reality.

Sir Robert Best:

– Will honorable members be permitted to discuss repatriation generally upon that Bill ?

Mr WATT:

– Of course, Mr. Speaker will decide precisely how much it can be discussed under the Bill, but, generally speaking, there will be the two opportunities to discuss matters connected with repatriation. Between now and 11.30 o’clock to-night, and when dealing with the Bill to which I have referred, honorable members will have ample opportunity to ventilate their ideas on repatriation matters, and criticise the Government if they desire to do so. I think that I have recommended the right procedure, and I hope that the motion will be agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I protest against this unseemly rush, in which the Government are indulging in order to avoid fair criticism of the Estimates they have placed before the Committee.

Mr Jowett:

– The honorable member should have been here last night.

Mr TUDOR:

– I have been present at more all-night sittings than has any other honorable member. When I left the House at 1 o’clock this morning I knew that there were at least five honorable members of the Opposition who had not spoken in the general debate, and I realized that, as I had already occupied my full time, I could not speak again until the first item had been agreed to.

I had already been in attendance from

II o’clock in the morning. We were told that when the guillotine standing order was passed a couple of months ago it would mean the abolition of all-night sittings.

Mr Corser:

– We are avoiding one tonight by making use of it.

Mr TUDOR:

– Perhaps the Government object to discussion of the matter which I unearthed to-day - the erection of a coal grab on the Port Pirie wharf. Why do they not appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into it? Are they afraid that other matters may be unearthed, during the consideration of these

Estimates? Honorable members representing country constituencies will be anxious to discuss the Estimates of the Department of the Postmaster-General. I have heard complaints from honorable members on this side who represent country constituencies.

Mr Atkinson:

– You have heard just as many from honorable members on this side.

Mr TUDOR:

– Honorable members on this side are desirous of having the opportunity to discuss the Estimates of the Department of the Postmaster-General, in order to submit complaints regarding certain matters ; and I am anxious to discuss the position of employees in non-official post-offices. I am also anxious to discuss one or two phases of demobilization. I will not be permitted to talk about them when we are discussing the provisions of the War Service Homes Bill, nor shall I be permitted to discuss the question of deducting from dependants’ payments fines inflicted on soldiers who have subsequently lost their lives. I have several specific cases to bring forward in which soldiers’ dependants have not received adequate pensions. One case is that of an old man employed in the Victorian Railway Department at a wage of 6s. 6d. per day for the greater portion of his life, the father of eight or ten children, four of whom have enlisted, and three have been killed. The mother applied for a pension in respect to one of the sons she has lost, and she was given a pension of 5s. per week; but when she applied again in the case of a second son, her application was practically refused on ‘ the ground that ‘she could not submit such an application. She lives in the Bourke electorate. It is owing to the absence of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) that I am dealing with this and many other cases.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is discussing something quite outside the motion.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am simply pointing out that there will be no opportunity for me to deal with these matters in the limited time at our disposal for the discussion of the Estimates. A Bill to pay a pension of £1,750 to the Chief Justice of the High Court will probably be putthrough in five minutes, but no opportunity will be given to honorable members to ventilate the grievances of soldiers. By 10.30 o’clock to-night we are to agree to the expenditure of £44,000,000. If the honorable member for Bass (Mr.. Jensen) does not speak tonight, honorable members will have about four and a half hours in which to discuss, these Estimates. I protest against this method of leaving the discussion of such an important matter until practically thelast few hours of the session’. I have always objected to this procedure. When the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) submitted a motion to alter the hours and days of sitting, I urged him to give usthe opportunity to discuss the Estimates. Honorable members opposite, the most docile followers that any Government could hope to have, say that they will add their weight to any action taken by the Government. The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Palmer) is going to add his 56 lbs. weight to what has been done. If honorable members propose to assist the Government in rushing business through in this way, they will have no opportunity of discussing the Estimates. If they prevent honorable members on this side from dealing fairly, honestly, and honorably with the interests of their constituents, they will have to go before their electors and say, “ We allowed four and a half hours for the discussion of Estimates covering an expenditure of £44,000,000.”

Mr Poynton:

– We have already had twenty-three hours’ discussion of them.

Mr TUDOR:

– I admit that I occupied my full time in the general debate, and I shall take every opportunity of speaking upon the items. If honorable members opposite have not spoken,, it is their own fault.

Mr Atkinson:

– Some of us have not spoken at all.

Mr TUDOR:

– It serves the honorable member right. If he votes for the application of the guillotine he closes his own mouth as well as the mouths of others.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- I challenge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) to put himself on the scales side by side with me, so that we may see which of us has the greater weight. The honorable member’s ire has been excited by the passing of the guillotine motion, but if anything was needed to justify the decision at which the Committee has just arrived, it was the speech to which we had previously listened. There was hardly a word in it, or in quite a number of other speeches made from the other side of the Chamber, which had any relevance to the Estimates. Honorable members who went to their homes last night, and spent a comfortable night in bed, would now condemn a majority of the House to a repetition of last night’s ordeal. If there is any virtue in discussing the Estimates, why do not honorable members discuss them ? I admit that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition had some semblance to a discussion of the figures contained in the Estimates, but the majority of the speeches of honorable members ‘opposite have been quite irrelevant to them. With our eyes open we agreed to an amendment of the Standing Orders, hoping thereby to escape allnight sittings. . Had the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) not moved as he has done this afternoon, there would have been another all-night sitting ahead of us to-night, and it is not fair to honorable members, nor to the public, that the Committee should be dealing with such important matters in the early hours of dawn. All the heroics we have listened to from the Leader ofthe Opposition are nothing but fireworks.

Mr Atkinson:

– What about the Hantard staff?

Mr PALMER:

– Honorable members opposite pose as the friends of the servants of the House, yet they have kept them out of their beds, and compelled them to work inordinate hours, all for the pleasure of orating in this chamber. If their remarks had been relevant to the issue, or if they had dealt with anything that was seriously wrong that could by any possible means be righted, we could have submitted to the ordeal, no matter what it was, or how long we sat; but, seeing that we have been kept here simply for the purpose of frustrating the legitimate objects and purposes of government, it is time that we asserted ourselves. Any time the Government propose to apply the “gag “in circumstances similar to these they will always find in me an implement for the purpose of achieving that end. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Higgs), who is looking at me, has had . a good night’s rest. He is very sorry that he cannot orate for a couple of hours longer, but there is no reason why we should listen to him. Nothing of an instructive nature is heard from honorable members opposite. All their remarks are of a destructive nature. They aim at destroying the legitimate intentions and purposes of government, and at bringing ridicule on the whole institution of Parliament.

Mr Mathews:

– This is not a Sunday school picnic.

Mr Considine:

– The honorable member is struck dumb by that interjection.

Mr PALMER:

– No, I am not struck dumb. I pause simply because there is nothing further to be said in regard to this matter. However, I am entitled to speak for so many minutes. The discussion on this motion may last for an hour, and then we shall resume the consideration of the Estimates. If honorable members opposite will pledge themselves to go straight on with the business I will resume my seat, but if they propose to waste time in discusing this and other irrelevant matters, such, as we have heard the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) talking about, matters which have nothing whatever to do with the Estimates, I might just as “well occupy some of the time that honorable members opposite would otherwise waste.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable mem-, ber is not entitled to accuse other honorable members of having wasted time.

Mr PALMER:

– I withdraw any assertion that honorable members opposite are wasting time. The unfortunate part of this business is the amount of makebelieve behind it. If honorable members of the Opposition were seriously desirous of fulfilling the obligations of members of Parliament they would be in attendance when the House is sitting. Last night they were not here. They were : away sleeping in their beds, while supporters of the Government were compelled to remain and keep a House. They now come along quite fresh, and prepared to inflict upon us another night’s misery. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) admits that he left at 1 a.m., and was not prepared1 to remain throughout the night. What right has he, after sleeping for some hours, to come here and rate those who have been in constant attendance? I am satisfied that the majority of the House will support the Government an their determination to dispose of the Estimates to-night, and to enable honorable members to get away for the Christmas holidays within the time promised.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I do not know whether I am entitled to speak to this question, since I did not take part in the all-night sitting. I have never known any good to come of such sittings. The speeches of members are not reported in the press, and when one returns in the morning one usually finds the House discussing the very question that was under consideration at 11 o’clock the previous night. The whole difficulty in regard to this matter would have been avoided if the Government had arranged a month ago for additional sitting days. The Opposition have no desire to waste time, but we point out that questions of the greatest urgency remain to be discussed in connexion with these Estimates. Among these is the problem of repatriation. Thousands of our men will be returning shortly, and what has been done to provide for them? The State Board is resigning, the DeputyComptroller of Repatriation has sent in his resignation, and the Department is in a state of chaos; but no opportunity is to be afforded us to discuss the whole subject. These Estimates are to be passed by 11 p.m., and by that time we shall not have reached the Repatriation Department Estimates. ,

The question of war pensions and the treatment of the dependants of soldiers who have lost their lives at the Front have also to be discussed. There is in this State to-day. a woman whose lad was killed at the Front, and whose husband has been crippled since her boy went away. Because her boy was in receipt of only £1 per week when he enlisted she is now granted a pension of only 5s. per week, and 10s. per week for the support of her children The Government cannot afford that we should at any time discuss questions of that character, but they can find time to bring in a Bill providing for a pension of £1,750 a year for the Chief Justice. Now that the waris over and the joy bells are ringing there is no time to deal with war pensions and the question of repatriation.

Mr Story:

– The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) told the House that, as soon as the Estimates had been disposed of a Bill relating to repatriation would be brought before us.

Mr McGRATH:

– He said that the Soldier’s Homes Bill would follow, and that it would be for Mr. Speaker to decide whether or not, on that Bill, we could discuss the question of repatriation.

The Ministry should be. anxious to obtain the opinions of honorable members as to what should be done in regard to repatriation. The Minister for Rspatriation (Senator Millen) has to grope in the dark. He occupies a very awkward position since the matter with which’ he is dealing is entirely new, and there is no experience for his guidance. We ought to let him know, however, that we do not share his view that no new industries are required in Australia.

Mr Glynn:

– The Minister for Repatriation has not said that no new industries should be established in connexion with repatriation.

Mr McGRATH:

– I do not wish to do the Minister an injustice, but I understood from the press reports that he had made such a statement.Our lads will be coming back presently at the rate of 10,000 or 20,000 a month, and, unless we deal promptly with the whole question of repatriation, much troublewill then arise.

There is also awaiting our consideration the question of the return of our boys and the representations that should be made to the Imperial Government to bring back our troops from the Rhine. Their position is totally different from that of the French soldiers. When I was in France, riots were of frequent occurrence, because the mothers, sisters, and sweethearts of French soldiers insisted that they should be granted leave at least once in twelve months. Our boys in some cases have not seen their dear ones for four years, and now many of them are to besent up the Rhine. Having regard to what Australia has done in the war, I think the British Government would be pleased, first of all, to release our men ; and, secondly, to provide additional shipping facilities for their return. The belief is growing that, because of the delays associated with the repatriation arrangements, the Government are not anxious for the speedy return of our boys. If that is their attitude, we ought to know of it. Having remained quiet throughout the consideration of the Esti mates, I emphatically protest against the application of the guillotine to them tonight.

Mr WISE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · Gippsland · NAT

– It is rather surprising to hear Opposition member; complaining that they have not had an opportunity to discuss the question of repatriation, in view of the fact that we have been discussing the Budget and the Estimates since 11 a.m. yesterday.

Mr Richard Foster:

– And during that time they have discussed practically everything under the sun except the Estimates.

Mr WISE:

– Exactly. On the first item, honorable members of the Opposition were each entitled to speak for one hour and thirty-five minutes, and one of their number in that time gave us the Bolshevik constitution for Russia, so far as it has been framed, and discussed other matters quite foreign to the Estimates. And yet we are told that we should give them more time to deal with the Estimates ! In round figures, the Estimates provide for the expenditure of £44,000,000. Of that amount we have already voted, by way of Supply Bills, £23,624,914.

Mr Richard Foster:

– And out of that £44,000,000 a sum of £8,000,000 represents interest on war loans.

Mr WISE:

– That is. so; while there, are also items relating to payments to the States. The balance of the proposed votes with which we have to deal is only £13,512,774. Ample time has been afforded honorable members to- discuss repatriation and other big questions, but even to day, when we reached the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Department, the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) discussed at length the press delegation which visited the Old Country at the invitation, and at thecost of the British Government. Much valuable time, which might have been devoted to the consideration of repatriation questions, was occupied by him inreading quotations from newspapers in regard to the press delegation.

Mr Higgs:

– We could not discuss repatriation while the Estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department were before us.

Mr WISE:

– Although there was no item in those Estimates in respect of the press delegation, the honorable member for Brisbane was allowed to discuss that matter, so that he might also have been allowed to discuss repatriation and other questions. I have merely put these few considerations before honorable members so that, side by side with the protests of the Opposition, the actual facts may go out to the people.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I always listen with regret to the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Wise), when he is arguing a bad case. His legal training enables him to take up any side, whether it be right or wrong. That is what an advocate must always be prepared to do, and in this instance he is supporting a very bad case. He would not like to risk his seat by appealing to the people on the question of whether or not Estimates providing for an expenditure of £44,000,000 can be adequately discussed during a sitting extending over one day and night.

Mr Wise:

– In round figures, only £13,500,000 remain to be expended.

Dr MALONEY:

– I shall accept the honorable gentleman’s statement; but I would remind him that this money is to be found, notby the Ministry, but by the people, and that if they knew how the business of the Parliament was being carried on, they would speedily demand a change. There should notbe a long recess. When Parliament is in session, we can, by putting a question to a Minister, very often secure immediate redress for the dependants of soldiers who have been unfairly treated, as well as direct attention to important matters affecting the Department of Repatriation. The Assistant Minister for Defence is always prepared to investigate any complaint that we make. In connexion with the Repatriation Department, the DeputyComptroller, to his eternal credit, has been man enough to stand up against the Minister (Senator Millen), and to send in his resignation because be found himself unable to do anything. I do not think the Minister in charge of the Department has any intention of doing justice to our returned soldiers. I have thought of asking the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) whether he will place on the table of the House to-morrow all papers in connexion with the purchase of the patent rights and machinery for the making of paper-mache go-carts, &c, by returned soldiers in the Repatriation Department. I am informed that £55.000 has been spent on this machinery. The members of the Local Repatriation Committee have resigned, and will not work further with Senator Millen. They recognise the absurdity of the whole system. Positions have been created in the Department for which there is no warrant.

This Parliament should meet all the year round. Next in importance to the awful question of the war, is that of the repatriation of our soldiers. The Government have no time to deal with the general question of war pensions, but they have brought forward a Bill to provide a pension of £35 a week for the Chief Justice. As the representative of Melbourne, I tell Sir Samuel Griffith that, if he has sought this assistance, he is a disgrace and dishonour to the Bench on which, he has so long occupied a seat; and if not, why should he allow his friends, the Ministers, to come here cadging for him? I feel so strongly on the subject that I challenge any member of the Ministry to contest with me the representation of Melbourne on this very question. I challenge Sir Samuel Griffith, if he cares to resign from the Bench, to fight :me for my seat.

If a man misbehaves himself, and is sent to gaol, the State Government assists his children to a greater extent than the Defence Department assists the children of soldiers who are killed at the Front. No provision is made for more than five children in the family of a. soldier who is killed at the Front. If there are six, seven, eight? or more children, no allowance is made in respect of any beyond the fifth.

Mr Poynton:

– The Defence Department allow £3 17s. 6d. a week for the maintenance of such a family.

Dr MALONEY:

– The honorable gentleman is begging the question. New Zealand pays her soldiers’ dependants more than we do, and the United States of America is also doing more for its men. I asked the Government to obtain from the Victorian State Insurance Department valuable information, which it has collated, as to what the United States Government do for their soldiers. Nothing, however, hae been done. ‘ Only the common workers are involved ! But the Government are prepared to provide a pension of £35 a week for a man who gave up the Chief Justiceship of Queensland, which carried with it a salary of £3,500 in order that he might enjoy the greater honour of being the Chief Justice of a Continent. They will provide such a man with a pension of £35 a week, but will not give one penny for the maintenance of more than five children of a soldier who has died at the Front. I believe, and the press are already hinting, that there oan be no clear issue in this House until there has been an appeal to the people. Let us go before our constituents, and be cleansed of our sins of omission and commission in this Parliament, and those of us who return from the ordeal will be better able to deal with this matter. If any man were asked on the platform by his constituents if he were prepared to continue sitting in Parliament for ten months in the year, how glibly would every honorable member answer “ Yes.” I do not know but that the Government, having the power and holding the opinions they do, are not doing the best for themselves in desiring to get into recess.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Illawarra

.- I had hoped that when the war ended the sufferings of the soldiers might have ended, too, but it seems to me that many of them have yet to suffer the knowledge that their cause is to be utilized for purposes far removed from any genuine interest in their welfare. We have sat here for many hours discussing the Estimates, and we have heard very little about the soldiers from honorable members who profess to be so interested in their behalf. We have been taken to Russia to discover Bolshevism, and to other parts of the world, to consider matters that have very little relevancy to the Estimates, but of repatriation and demobilization we have heard practically nothing from those who have taken part in the debate. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath); himself a returned soldier, found it more convenient to be in his comfortable bed when this matter might have been discussed than to be present to give us the benefit of his experience and advice. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts), who is so anxious to have more time allowed for the discussion of the Estimates, made a pathetic plea the other night because the numerically small Opposition was to be worried to death, did not worry last night to bear any of the burden that attaches to the duty of an Opposition.

Mr J H Catts:

– Because the Government wished to wear us out by an allnight sitting.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– The records of the House will show how much the honorable member has been worn out by his services in this House during all this session.

Mr J H Catts:

– The records of the next election will show the opinion of the electors of Illawarra regarding the honorable member.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– They may also show what weight is to be attached to the prophecies of some honorable members, who, on the occasion of the last election, made similar predictions, which were not confirmed by the electors. The soldiers are asking for a fair deal, and one and a half hours’ talk from gentlemen who have nothing to offer but talk will not help their cause very much. What is needed is that the Government should have time to consider the Peace position, that they shall get away for a time from the eternal grind of this continuouslytalking Parliament, and attend to the administrative work that is necessary if the soldiers’ claims are to be adequately met.. The proposal that we should attempt to return 300,000 men to Australia within’ two or three months, without having time to prepare for their reception, is not in the interest of the men. It is a proposition put forward solely for the purpose of making political capital. I would suggest to the Minister in charge of the Estimates that when weresume their consideration we should proceed at once to the discussion of the two Departmentsthat will enable repatriation and demobilization to be dealt with, leaving the lesserDepartments until later in the afternoon. We shall then be able to hear what practical suggestions honorable members opposite have to offer to the Minister for Repatriation, and shall be able to assess. the value of their criticism of the Government.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– The Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Wise) thought fit to make special reference to my few remarks on the Estimates.

Mr Wise:

– On what was not inthe Estimates.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I was one of the few honorable members who attended throughout last night’s sitting. I was in my place from 11 a.m. yesterday till 8 a.m. this morning, and during the whole time I took no part in the proceedings. But because I ventured to offer a few remarks to-day on matters whichI considered of importance,- the Minister chose to castigate me. He particularly objected to my references to the press delegation to London.

Mr Wise:

– It had nothing to do with, the Prime Minister’s Estimates.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It had a great? deal to do with the Prime Minister, whose Department we were discussing, and I know of no better time for considering the conduct of the Prime Minister than when the Estimates ofhis Department are before us.

Mr Wise:

– The press delegation did not come within the purview of his Department.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It did. It was the Acting Prime Minister who did the thing of which I complained.

Mr TUDOR:

– And he said, in answer to me, that he took full responsibility.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– This is the first time that I have heard any suggestion that the Acting Prime Minister was not reponsible for the selection of the press delegation. I have had no earlier opportunity to refer to the matter, although I was waiting for a chance to do so on the last two grievance days. It is a matter of public concern. Does the Assistant Minister also object to my calling attention to a question relating to the health of the community?

Mr Wise:

– If the matter is referred to in the Prime Minister’s Estimates the honorable member was perfectly right.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– My remarks occupied only about twenty-five minutes, and for the greater portion of that time I was discussing disease and health, a matter which has not received the attention which its importance demands.

Mr Wise:

– If that is referred to in the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Department the honorable member was right. I do not know whether it is referred to there.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I accept the Minister’s apology.

Mr PIGOTT:
Calare

.- I was present throughout last night’s sitting, but I was allowed only a few minutes for my remarks, because the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) occupied his full time in discussing affairs in Russia, and Bolshevism generally. I do not think he referred to one figure in the Estimates, or made one suggestion in regard, to repatriation, or anything that would be of benefit to his own class or the country generally.

Mr Considine:

– The Honorable member quoted this morning some of the figures which I used last night.

Mr PIGOTT:

– I apologize for my mistake; the honorable member did suggest the abolition of State Governors and the curtailment of expenditure on parliamentary government. I was much impressed last night with the fact that of the honorable members opposite who regard the Estimates as of great import ance, and requiring full discussion, only five remained throughout the sitting.

Mr Finlayson:

– That is not true.

Mr PIGOTT:

– There are only eight honorable members of the Opposition present now; the others have returned to their home to enjoy a holiday. I believe that the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) is really sympathetic towards the widows and children of soldiers, but I remind him that the Labour Government of which he was a supporter was not too sympathetic when the question was raised two years ago. On referring to .the records yesterday I found that on the 22nd May, 1916,’ when the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) was Treasurer, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) moved an amendment that the allowance for each child of a deceased soldier should be increased from 5§. to 10s. per week.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– Order! The honorable member is not in order in discussing that matter on this motion.

Mr PIGOTT:

– The subject was referred to by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), and I desire to reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Those details have no relation to the question before the Chair.

Mr PIGOTT:

– I desire only to say that, when the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Batman was taken to a division, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) and the Deputy Leader (Mr. Higgs) voted to give the children 5s., instead of 10s.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not debate that matter on this motion.

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

(By leave). - I have just been advised that the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Jensen) desires to make to the House to-night his speech upon the findings of the Royal Commission which inquired into Navy and Defence administration, and that he 13 likely to occupy a considerable time. When I moved the guillotine motion, I Anticipated that the speech of the exMinister would be comparatively short; but I do not think it would be proper to allow the guillotine motion to be carried, and a considerable portion of the time allotted to the Estimates to be occupied by the speech of the honorable member for Bass, thus leaving a natural objection in the minds of honorable members that the time actually available was much less than they imagined.

Mr Tudor:

– I pointed that out after the Acting Prime Minister moved the motion.

Mr WATT:

– If the time occupied by the honorable member for Bass should be longer than I anticipated, it would be unfair to honorable members, whether or not they agree to the application of the guillotine, to subject them to a limitation of time in excess of that which was intended when I moved the motion. Therefore, I ask for leave to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Prime Minister’s Department.

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from page 9594) :

Mr HIGGS:
Capricomia

.- It is with the greatest pleasure that I find the Acting Prime Minister is allowing us to discuss this item at greater length. The Prime Minister’s Department has swollen enormously. Its estimated expenditure now reaches £187,177.

Mr Gregory:

– And last year it was £222,701.

Mr HIGGS:

– The original expenditure of the Department was very small, and it by no means follows that the estimate for the current year will not be exceeded. I wish to revert to the position of the AuditorGeneral’s office. On page 24 of the Royal Commission’s report on Navy Administration appears this paragraph -

The same difficulties with which we were confronted when dealing ‘with the relations of the Auditor-General with the Defence Department are met with when considering the position in regard to the Navy Department. The inadequacy of the Auditor-General’sstaff is accountable, to a large extent, for the delays which occurred in auditing accounts of the stores and numerous activities under naval control.

May I remind honorable members of the remarks of the honorable member for

Echuca (Mr. Palmer),prompted by the honorablememberforWidebay(Mr. Corser,whosaidtherewasnothingin- structivewhateverintheremarkswewere makingontheseEstimates.Ifthehonorable member for Wide Bay had listened to my remarks about the AuditorGeneral he would recognise that they are very vital to the Commonwealth; but he tried to prompt the honorable member for Echuca to say something disagreeable, improper, and unjust. The report of the Royal Commission says: -

Until this is remedied, there is, little prospect of any marked improvement. Whilst there is a certain measure of internal check in the accounts section, it is not of such a systematic character as would warrant the Auditor-General in accepting it as part of his statutory audit. The installation of a proper checking staff would lessen materially the clerical work, and effect a considerable saving in salaries.

As to the stores the report says : -

In regard to the audit of the stores, we have found in some cases that the stock-taking is two years in arrears. Whilst the direct blame for this cannot be laid upon the AuditorGeneral, we consider that more pressure might be exerted by his officers to insure promptitude in dealing with this important matter.

There have been many frauds in connexion with the Defence Department, and without a doubt’ many more frauds would have been disclosed if the AuditorGeneral had sufficient officers to enable him to keep up with his audit. How is it possible, with an audit two years in arrear, to keep proper control over the vast expenditure that is taking place at the present time in the various Departments ? I, therefore, again urge honorable members, at the very earliest date, to place the Auditor-General and his Department on a proper footing. Unhappily, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) was sitting up late last night, and is too fatigued to stay and hear my references to the Auditor-General. I am not sure whether the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Wise), whose Department is under criticism, thinks sufficiently of the measure to note what I am saying; but I should like him to say whether he considers the Auditor-General is in a proper position. Is the Auditor-General an independent man, and is his staff complete and qualified to audit the accounts of the Defence and Navy Departments? Probably when the honorable gentleman speaks, if he does speak, he will enlighten us on this matter.

Mr Falkiner:

– This looks like mother all-night sitting! 5

Mr HIGGS:

– I was not here last night, and I did not feel called upon to stay. I resent all-night sittings, although I have taken part in them before. On one occasion, in the Queensland Parliament, we had a continuous sitting of seventy-two hours, and I venure to say that my life will be about ten years shorter than it otherwise would have been.

Mr FALKINER:

– That all-night sitting had its advantages!

Mr HIGGS:

– I do not suppose that it matters much to. the honorable member whether I stay on this planet ten years more or less. However, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity, to bring under the notice of the many readers of Hansard the reply of the Age to the suggestion by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) that the correspondent of that newspaper was not telling the truth when he referred to the relations between the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook). We all remember the circumstances. The Age correspondent stated that the Prime Minister had not seen the Minister for the Navy for three months.

Mr Falkiner:

– That was the result of the banquets!

Mr HIGGS:

– No, it was the result of inordinate vanity on the part of one of the gentlemen concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), having been warned by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) of the criticisms, evidently thought that, in the interests of the Winthewar party, it was necessary to get into touch with the Minister for the Navy as soon as possible, patch things up, and send a cable to deny the truth of the Age correspondent’s remarks. The Age, as was very natural, cabled to its representative in London and asked him for a reply.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:

– Will the honorable member show how he intends to connect his remarks with the Estimates?

Mr HIGGS:

– I think I might properly discuss the capacity, abilities, and conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr.

Hughes), in a general way, on the Prime Minister’s Department, because he is the man at the head of it. But, Mr. Atkinson, if you will look at item 13, subdivision 3, of the Prime Minister’s Department, you will see that £1,000 is provided for expenses in connexion with the visits of Commonwealth Ministers to London. I desire to know why this money is being spent. The Temporary Chairman is quite right in ascertaining whether I am in order or not - whether I know what I am talking about- indeed, I am only sorry that he does not apply the same criticism to some honorable members on the other side, for I am sure they require it sometimes. I say that, Mr. Atkinson, without in any way reflecting on, you. The estimated cost of this visit to London is £1,000; but, of course, when all is over we shall find that, although the British Government have paid the expenses of those gentlemen for many months, the £1,000 is- not sufficient.

The Age cabled to their London correspondent, and he replied -

Mr. Hughes’s contemptuous treatment of Sir Joseph Cook is a matter of common knowledge among the officials at Australia House.

That is where the High Commissioner is located - that expensive building which cost nearly £700,000, and is actually costing £9,500 per annum for upkeep -

It was so flagrant that it was impossible for any one associated with either of them to be unaware of it. The denial of the statements made in my letter to the Age was apparently based upon Mr. Hughes and Mr. Cook having: become reconciled.

Of course, the reconciliation was quite natural. The fate of the Win-the-war party might be at stake, and to have two gentlemen quarrelling at the other end of the world would not enhance its reputation, and might possibly bring about its disintegration. Therefore, it became necessary to have those gentlemen reconciled -

Though they never met as colleagues in consultation for several months, they had sometimes casually fallen together at such functions as the official opening of Australia House and the dinner to the Australian press delegates. But no equivocal denial by Mr. Hughes or Sir Joseph Cook, and no solemn declaration, with or without mental reservation, can alter the fact that Mr. Hughes consistently, continuously, and contemptuously ignored Sir Joseph Cook for several months.

The way in which that is written proves to my mind that this man is a very able correspondent. The reply is very effectively done, and stamps him, I venture to say, as an honest man who has a reputation to maintain - a man who has no personal reason or motive for trying to damage or ridicule either the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) or the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook). He did his duty to his paper and to Australia in stating the facts. Those two Ministers were never in consultation as they ought to have been. They went from here to represent this country, and we were told in the Ministerial statement that they were staying in London in order to attend to our shipping and the sale of our products. Yet they were not meeting at all.

I have referred to the dignity and the manner of the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), and I am quite satisfied that these would have greatly helped the Prime Minister in discussing business problems with the British authorities. It is true that the Minister for the Navy, even when he is leading the House on the Ministerial side, is not always able to forget his Opposition manners.

Mr Poynton:

– Is that not characteristic of many of us?

Mr HIGGS:

– It is characteristic to some extent of the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), though one does expect more urbanity from him. We all know that a Minister in office can afford to be amiable, because he has a majority behind him, and has no need to get angry. However, the Minister for the Navy very often did so. I do not mind a man getting angry and fighting tooth and nail in Opposition, because it is his duty. These two Ministers went from Australia, and were presumed to be doing their best in the interests of Australian producers; but they got at loggerheads for the simple reason that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) cannot bear any one to get any of the reflected glory that attaches to his position. He must have the whole of the limelight. One associates him with n picture or a theatre where the mechanic with the limelight follows the prima-donna all over the stage, so that, in the full blaze she can be seen in all her beauty. The Prime Minister, like a prima-donna, cannot bear to share the limelight, and he ignored the Minister for the Navy for months, just as he had ignored the High Commissioner.

Mr Falkiner:

– That was force of habit, from the position you allowed him to occupy when he was Leader of your party.

Mr HIGGS:

– I was associated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in office for only a few short months before the burst up. I entered the Ministry on 27th October, 1915, and left it on the 27th October, 1916, and out of that time the Prime Minister was in London six or seven months, so that we were associated for really only about five months. In any case, there would have been a burst up. As I have often said, the Prime Minister is a very excellent lieutenant, but is a bad leader. He led his own party to destruction and he is leading the party opposite to destruction. Why the party opposite cannot get a candidate to carry their colours to-day. They asked Mr. Donald Mackinnon-

Mr Poynton:

– It is our loss.

Mr HIGGS:

– I do not think there is much gain in holding office. As Mr. Justice Duffy said when appointed to the High Court, the promotion is only an opportunity for labouring at the oar; itgives one an opportunity to do more work. It is true that one gets a little prestige, but, after all, there are compensations in being out of office. There is the irresponsibility, and the plenitude of time to indulge a capacity for talk. Those two Ministers were at loggerheads, and it is due to the Age that the reply of the correspondent should appear in Hansard. His statement continues -

These facts are known to a score of people. Sir Joseph Cook himself confided his grievance as to the treatment he had received from Mr. Hughes to so many persons that he could scarcely have expected that it would remain a secret; but he did not desire publication of it - not at least before he returned to Australia and consulted his party.

And so on, in the same strain. It all goes to show that the representative of the Age iu London is telling the truth.

I should now like to say a few words about the High Commissioner’s office. We have very great respect, most of us, for Mr. Andrew Fisher, and we were glad to see him appointed to the position. We thought that he would combine certain work, such as business matters, with his duties as a social figure head. Australia, of course, requires to be represented in London by somebody at whom gentlemen like Professor Tucker may not shudder when the appointment is made known. Honorable members may remember that, not long ago, in an essay or article, Professor Tucker said, “ One sometimes shudders when one sees the gentlemen who go Home to represent Australia in London.” There is nothing about Mr. Fisher to cause a tremor in the most elegant and educated gentleman. The High Commissioner has a manner and a pose which accomplishes a very great deal.

Mr Falkiner:

– That is characteristic of the Scotchman.

Mr HIGGS:

– I think it is, and it is a good asset, which, perhaps, helps Scotchmen to take such prominent places. In most countries where they settle we know that they are usually managers or directors. For the life of me I cannot see why we should spend such a lot of money on the High Commissioner’s Department if we are to have the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) remaining in London. They are supposed to be dealing with shipping, with the sale of products, and with demobilization. .The Prime Minister is good at organizing for elections, but I do not know that he will take sufficient interest in the demobilization of the soldiers to get it carried out as effectively as it might be. I see no reason why he and the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) should remain in London any longer. Demobilization might be left to the High Commissioner, assisted by military officers who know something about the matter. I understand that the Imperial Government has relinquished its control of copper, and that there is now a free market for that metal. The High Commissioner should be allowed to transact business matters generally.

The contingencies include a. grant to the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris. I do not know what that means. I could understand voting money for maintaining a representative in Paris, because we have considerable trade relations with France. That country takes ‘much of our wool, and we might successfully negotiate for the sale of our meat there. The war bonus which is provided for goes, I suppose, to the employees of Australia House. But is it not ridiculous for the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) to say that a sufficient opportunity has been given for a discussion of the Estimates when no Minister will give us any information about them? The Acting Miniister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton) dea.lt perfunctorily with shipping questions, but did not reply to my remarks on the Auditor-General. Those who, stayed here all last night deserve to be thought well of by the country for their resistance to the attempt ot the Government to break the back of the discussion on the Estimates, to use a phrase of the Acting Prime Minister. I cannot get any information regarding these items. I would like to know why £9,500 is required for the upkeep of Australia House. The Acting Prime Minister claimed credit for having introduced the Estimates six weeks ago, but the introduction of the Estimates is useless unless members are allowed an opportunity to discuss them, and Ministers come here, as they did in the old days, armed with information. It must not be forgotten that, in putting through these Estimates covering an expenditure of £45,000.000, we are also dealing practically with a loan expenditure of £80,000,000.

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

.- I voted against the guillotine motion because I do not think the guillotine should be applied to an Estimates discussion ; there is other business on which we could save time. I do not think that expense should be considered when it is desired to obtain an efficient audit. I wish to know whether the Commonwealth auditing is such as would satisfy a commercial house?

Mr Sinclair:

– If it is two years behind it is not efficient.

Mr FALKINER:

– Ministers, heads of Departments, and public servants present to the ordinary member of Parliament a formation like the old British square, which could not be broken into : it is only occasionally, when a report like that on the administration of the Federal Territory is presented, that we have an oppor- tunity to judge the efficiency of our officers. The Commissioner who investigated the administration of the Federal Territory condemned most scathingly some of the officers who were sent to audit the accounts there, but nothing was done. Parliament, in its desire to treat the public servants with justice, has made it almost impossible to sack them, no matter what the report on their conduct may be. Sooner or later this matter will have to be dealt with by one or other of the political parties. The public servants must have been so named by an unconscious humorist, because, instead of being the servants of the public, they are rapidy making the public their servants. Members of Parliament from time to time receive circulars mentioning the grievances of the Service, but I never heard any statement by public servants of what is due by them to the public. Several officials were unfavorably commented on by the Commissioner, who investigated the administration of the Federal Territory, but they still remain in the Public Service, although one or two of them may have had their positions changed. The famous Defence report referred scathingly to the officers of the Auditor-General’s Department.

Mr Higgs:

– The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) said that he did not agree with the Commissioner in regard to the administration of Canberra, and therefore took no action on his report.

Mr FALKINER:

– I do not know that he was better informed than the Commissioner, who made an exhaustive inquiry.

The High Commissioner in London, if not dead, must be asleep. We have not heard of his doing anything since the war started, although vessels have been going to New Zealand to load wool and wheat, while it has been with difficulty that we have found space for stacking our surplus. No business house would pass Estimates like these. In addition to the pay of the ordinary clerks, subaccountants, messengers, and other officials at Australia House, £4,500 is paid to temporary assistants and typists, and £4,500 goes on stationery, travelling, and incidental expenses. We should have more information about those items. To a man in a fairly large way of business, or a big company, taxation, Federal and State, now amounts to close upon 10s. in the £1. We hear of the high cost of living for the men on salaries; but those who are working in businesses are beginning to wonder whether it is worth while to go on producing something of which 50 per cent. is taken by the Government, and paying land and municipal taxation as well. The Estimates should be debated in detail, and the Minister in charge of the respective Departments should be able to satisfy the House regarding any item.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- When in London, I met the High Commissioner, and I know some of the difficulties under which he labours. His position seems merely ornamental, his powers being so restricted.

Mr Higgs:

– Who limited them in this way ?

Mr McGRATH:

– It is generally understood that while the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has been ‘in Great Britain, the powers of the High Commissioner have been curtailed. He cannot do anything without cabling to Australia. Australia House has cost this country a lot of money. It occupies as good a site as there is in London, and is a splendid building, and a credit to Australia; but we should carefully watch the expenditure there. During the war it was a meetingplace for Australians, and was used largely for war purposes. The pensions paid there are considerable. These pensions go to the next-of-kin of lads who fell, living in the United Kingdom, or to wounded men who have settled there. It was not intended, I think, that the pensions work, and other work, should be done by persons who have never been to Australia. Too many men in Australia House know nothing of this country, and the Ministry should make a change in that matter. The chief clerk is an Englishman. I do not say that he is any the worse for that, but such men do not understand Australian conditions. The officer who has to assess pensions, and determine the amounts payable, has not been to Australia, and probably does not know the spirit that animated this Parliament when it passed the War Pensions Act. Many cases of injustice to soldiers or their relatives came under my notice. The whole place has a military tone. Every one is in uniform. When Icalledthere, I was stopped at the door by a sergeant - I was in uniform also - and he said to me, “ Sergeant, you cannot get in here without sending up your name to ascertain if they will see you.” After you have been in the military for some time, you get sick of the sight of a uniform; and I resented having to give my name to a man in uniform.

Mr Poynton:

– There must be some check.

Mr McGRATH:

– I do not object to having to send up my name, but I object to having to give i£ to a man in uniform. The military should not have charge of everything.

Mr GREGORY:

– It is rarely that you see a discharged soldier’s badge on the uniforms of men in these positions.

Mr McGRATH:

– Some of our wounded soldiers filled positions at Australia House, but a number of those working there have not been to Australia. The fact that a man is an Australian seems to preclude him from getting a job there. Very few Australian soldiers above the rank of staff-sergeant were employed there. The Government should see that the Pensions Office is not controlled by the military. Any military officer who may be working there should dress in civilian clothes, and be addressed by a civilian title. There is a man named Smart in charge of the Publicity Branch He runs the Anzac newspaper. He is a young Australian, eligible for military service, but he did not enlist. I saw him one day in civilian clothes, but a day or two afterwards he appeared in khaki with a couple of stars on his shoulder. Although he had not joined the Australian Imperial Force, he had pulled the strings somehow and been made a lieutenant. It is an insult to the uniform that men can secure commissions and go about London looking for salutes from the lads who have come over from France. I would like to know when the Anzac newspaper is to cease publication. I do not know that there is very much necessity for it, except to find positions for a number of men, some of whom were eligibles. In any case, it is a newspaper of a political character, which is everlastingly booming the National Government. Its alleged purpose is to supply definite and accurate in formation to Australians abroad. Now that the war is over, the expenditure incurred in publishing this newspaper could be avoided. This Lieutenant Smart was also running an open-air cinematograph show on Trafalgar-square. What useful purpose it was fulfilling I do not know, but it cost Australia hundreds of pounds. In fact, the expenditure incurred by Lieutenant Smart in running the Anzac newspaper and the various shows which he was controlling will startle Australia when it becomes known. Surely it is time instructions were given to him to cease squandering any further money.

The sum of £9,500 is provided on these Estimates for the upkeep of Australia House. Another item provides for municipal taxation, and still another for a caretaker. I do not know how this £9,500 is to be spent. One floor of Australia House was commandeered by the British military authorities, and I suppose that they are paying rent to the Australian Government. Fortunately, we have in London one big Australian, in the shape of the Secretary to the High Commissioner’s Office. I was very pleased when word came through that Mr. Box had been appointed to the position. He is the right man in the right place. We should not allow any Australian to remain in the High Commissioner’s Office for more than seven years. Any man who remains away from Australia for a longer period must get out of touch with it. There are nine men in the office of the New South Wales Agent-General, and I am assured that not one of them is an Australian. Most of the Victorian Agent-General’s staff have not seen Australia. Mr. Slater, the honorable member for Dundas in the Victorian State House, who has an orchard at Mildura, thought that he would test the knowledge of one gentleman in Sir Peter McBride’s office, and made inquiries from him about the productions of Mildura. Afterwards he told me that it was laughable to hear this officer explain what Mildura was capable of producing. Of course, he could not say very much, because he had never been to Australia. I urge the Commonwealth Government to see that qualified public servants in Australia, men who know Australia well, and have proved good officers in their Departments, should be given the posts that become vacant on the High Commissioner’s staff. I am satisfied that they would do good work for Australia. There should be no necessity for appointing any one in England to a position in Australia House.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– How many Australians are there in Australia House?

Mr McGRATH:

– I do not know, but I should say that there were fully 100 employed there during the war. The Commonwealth Bank has a branch in Australia House. No man has faced greater difficulties than has Mr. Campion, the manager of that branch. The British military authorities did their level best to squash the operations of the Bank by conscripting every available man in it, and when Mr. Campion protested, the military tribunal told him that there was no need to have a branch of the Commonwealth Bank in London, because the private banks could do all the work it could do. The staffs of private banks were exempted, but our men were taken. As a result, Mr. Campion had to train a staff of girls to do the work of the Bank. Sir McCheyne Anderson was very hostile to the institution. He closed one branch at Lark Hill and allowed Lloyds to open a private bank there. However, despite the hostility displayed towards the Commonwealth Bank, it has proved itself to be a huge success in London. There was not a single day on which one could not see at least 500 soldiers seeking money or ascertaining how cables could be sent away. I cannot give too much praise to Mr. Campion for the splendid work he has done. He did things for our soldier lads that no private bank would have undertaken. Thirty times a day I have given notes to soldiers to take to Mr. Campion, and in many a case that gentleman has advanced a soldier £10 and accepted a draft on a relative in Australia. The soldier has received the £10, and the relative here has not been called upon to pay more than £10. No charge has been made for the draft or for the cost of cabling. Private banks do not work on those lines.

There is an item of £4,200 for a war bonus, to be paid in connexion with the staff of the High Commissioner’s Office. Are the clerks in the Pensions Office and the privates employed in Australia House to draw this money ?

Mr Groom:

– I understand that the bonus is to make up for the increased cost of living, and is to be paid to the lowersalaried officials in the High Commissioner’s Office.

Mr McGRATH:

– I have no objection to the clerks in Australia House receiving this bonus, because I know how difficult it is for many of our Australian privates to live in London on ls. a day. Of course they receive a sustenance allowance of 4s. 6d. a day, but many of them draw not more than the ls. a day. The bonus ought to be extended to the hundreds of incapacitated privates who are employed at Horseferry-road, and are living on ls. a day. The increased cost of living applies just the same to them.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member’s argument is not against the granting of this bonus, but is in favour of an extension of it.

Mr McGRATH:

– The men in the Pensions Office and in the High Commissioner’s Office have better positions than those who are working at Horseferryroad. They do not work as hard, and do not have to remain on duty so long. If we give this war bonus to the men in. Australia House, there will be discontent among the others. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has made this provision on account of representations made by Mr. Fisher on behalf of the men in his office.

A recommendation should go forward from us that Australia House should resume its normal condition immediately, and become an institution stripped of all military fripperies. There is no need to have majors, captains, lieutenants, and privates there. Discipline can be observed, and is maintained, in various public Departments just as well as it can be maintained in Australia House, and just as well as it could be maintained at Victoria Barracks, if Brigadier-General Williams were simply called Mr. Williams. It hurts me to think that Australia House has been made use of by so many military officials. I was much surprised to learn that Andrew Fisher, great Democrat as he is, Had allowed the military powers that be to take control of Australia House. We are paying good salaries to those who are doing the work there, from the High Commissioner downwards. Australia has not been niggardly in the provision made for the High Commissioner.

I certainly think that there should be no difficulty in getting the State Governments of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania to induce their Agents-General to remove their offices to Australia House. The people of Australia do not know what is happening in London, or they would not permit the various AgentsGeneral to maintain separate buildings. Australia House occupies a magnificent site. Any part of Londoncan be reached from it in a few minutes. The Victorian Government has wisely decided to continue in occupation of a portion of the building, and the other States should to a certain extent become partners in it also. A man from New South Wales who visits London will easily ascertain where Australia House is situated, and naturally he will expect to come into contact with his Agent-General there. He will not expect to, find that he has to go 2 miles further on to find him. There is no need for the maintenance of separate State establishments when the Commonwealth has a palatial and splendid building in such a central position.

Mr Groom:

– An appeal has been made to the other States to join in with the Commonwealth, but they have not acceded to our request.

Mr McGRATH:

– There is a strong feeling among the lads who have been in London, which will find expression when they return, that the various State Governments should join in with the Commonwealh Government in the occupancy of Australia House. They cannot understand why there should be any display of jealousy in regard to such a matter. Australia House will play a very important part in the near future in connexion with immigration, which can only be carried out in co-operation with the States. The work will be facilitated if the Agents-General of the States are all to be found in the one building. Ifthe States would only come in as partners in Australia House, I do not think the building would be run at a loss. I do not think we shall live to regret the money we have spent upon it. Fortunately, the work of construction was completed in time to permit of the Commonwealth Bank and the Pensions Office being established in portion of the building, enabling it to fulfil during the war an admirable purpose, for which we required it.

Mr Finlayson:

– Has there been any extravagance in connexion with the design of the building?

Mr McGRATH:

– I do not think so. It must be compared with the surrounding buildings. We did not want Australia House to be an insignificant structure. It is a building which is equal, if not superior, to the surrounding structures. Australians take a pride in it. We watched the progress of its construction with keen interest. I was at the opening, and I did not meet an Australian there who was not proud of the fact that Australia had its offices in such a central position, and in such a splendid building.

Mr Finlayson:

– Did the honorable member hear any one remark that money had been wasted in building such a nice place ?

Mr McGRATH:

– There is not much waste of money in connexion with the building itself; but there is danger that money may be wasted through not watching what is happening in it to-day. I am always afraid when the military get their fingers on anything, because they spend millions without caring a rap. That is why I claim that they should have no further control over Australia House. Mr. Fisher is a conscientious, just, and honorable man, but he is not a business man. He cannot be harsh to any one. He cannot say “ No.” Therefore, he is a little inclined to allow the military people to have their own way. Perhaps it is better that he should have these characteristics than that he should be too harsh ; but when we find the Estimates growing in connexion with Australia House, it is our duty to put a check upon some of the expenditure. We should certainly see that the High Commissioner’s Office is controlled by Australians, and that they are not left there too long. It is wise to appoint a new Commissioner every five years, because a man can be away from Australia too long, and mayforget many things.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Are the officers in the High Commissioner’s Office mostly English ?

Mr McGRATH:

– Yes. There are Australians there, but the remarkable thing is that while I was in London nearly every position in the Pensions Department was filled by a “ Pommy,” an Englishman who had been in Australia for two or three years before the war, and had gone back to Great Britain. By some means or other, these men have been able to get into Australia House. When I was there, I do not think there was one Australian who was above the rank of private in any of the various departments in Australia House. These positions should be filled by lads from Australia. Fully 25 per cent. of those who enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force at the outbreak of the war were men whose next of kin were resident in the Old Country. We know that the First and Second Divisions suffered very heavily at Gallipoli.

The pensions are being administered from Australia House by a man who, I am told, is a London Jew. He has never visited Australia, and knows nothing of Australian conditions. I had one -or two brushes with him that were not altogether satisfactory to me, in connexion with the administration of our pensions system there, and I certainly think that we could send over from Australia men who understand our War Pensions Act, and the desires of the people of Australia, better than he does. Although the relatives of the men with whom he has to deal reside in England,Scotland, or Ireland, we wish them to be treated as justly as if they were living here. Mr. Barnett may be a very good officer, but he is not an Australian, and does not know the wishes of Australia in regard to this matter.

Mr Mathews:

– How did he getthe job?

Mr McGRATH:

– I cannot say. I was assured by leading journalists that in the office of the Agent-General for New South Wales there are nine employees, not one of whom has seen Australia. The position is almost the same in the office of the Victorian Agent-General. If we were to send over to London Australian officers to administer this Act, they would advertise Australia, and would be better able to interpret the desires of the Australian people than are men who have never visited these shores. And so with the selection of the next High Commissioner. There is nothing to be said against the present High Commissioner, or his predecessor. I do not say that Mr. Andrew Fisher is unapproachable, but we all know his manner and his regard for dignity.

Mr Webster:

– Has he still the old dig nified style?

Mr McGRATH:

– He has. We have been fortunate, sofar, in the choice of our High Commissioners. The trouble, so far as Mr. Fisher is concerned, is that he has been working too hard for many years. As Leader of the Labour party, he had to undergo a very severe strain, and his followers, while he was in office, were not always as obedient as they might have been. We did not make his path too easy, and, as High Commissioner, he has since had a very busy time, particularly in connexion with the war. I should like him to have an extended holiday. His health is not of the best, and he has certainly earned a holiday.

Mr Higgs:

– The Ministry would not adopt my suggestion that he should come out here while the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) was in the Old Country.

Mr McGRATH:

– That was a very wise suggestion. He could not hope to do anything in London while the Prime Minister was there, and he can do very little under the Prime ‘Minister, even when Mr. Hughes is not at Home. There is no room in London for more than one man to get into the limelight while the Prime Minister is there.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Charlton:

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to refer briefly to the erection of the coal grab at Port Pirie. I am one of those who believe that it is futile and unprogressive to kick against the introduction of labour-saving machinery. I am satisfied that, where bet”ter work can be secured by substituting machinery for manual labour, machinery should be so employed. I hold that view just as I believe that, in respect of many utilities, collective action is better than individual effort. We have reached a peculiar position with regard to. the loading and discharging of vessels. A little over twelve months ago we had in Australia an unfortunate strike,’ with which the wharf labourers were for the most part associated, and in which they suffered severely. It is a fallacy to think that machinery can be successfully introduced to do away with manual labour, with the object of putting a stop to industrial troubles.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The honorable member knows why this coal grab was erected at Port Pirie. He knows that the scarcity of shipping rendered it necessary to use every means for expediting the speedy discharge of coal from vessels, more particularly as the position of the Broken Hill mines was jeopardized.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am aware of that. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd) has fully explained everything associated with the use of this machinery; but there is a phase of this question to which I must refer, although I shall do so with some reluctance. I do not suggest that this machinery was erected at Port, Pirie because of labour troubles, but there is running through my mind a suspicion that such has been, and will be, the case in many instances. As the result of the unfortunate strike to which I have just referred, the regular wharf labourers were displaced by so-called loyalists. Nowadays we hear constantly of a demand for economy and efficiency; but the representatives of every stevedoring association, and every shipowner and merchant who has to do with the loading and unloading of ships’ cargoes, will say that they would prefer to employ the old wharf labourers rather than the so-called loyalists.

Mr Sampson:

– How does the honorable member account for that?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Because the old wharf labourers are tradesmen. It is a fallacy to imagine that any man can load a ship.

Sir Robert Best:

– I challenge that statement. It cannot be said that the experience of the last strike was that the loyalists did much worse than the old wharf labourers.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member knows nothing about the matter.

Sir Robert Best:

– The honorable member thinks he does.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I do understand it, because it is my duty to do so.

Sir Robert Best:

– I have been told by men capable of expressing an opinion that the loyalists did not do much worse than the old wharf labourers.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Any shipping firm will say that they prefer the old,, experienced wharf labourers rather than the so-called loyalists. During the strike, University students and public school boys for a short period did a certain amount ‘ of carrying on the wharfs, but they could not continue the work, and it would be dangerous, to shipping to allow inexperienced men to load our vessels. I shall be satisfied if honorable members will investigate this matter for themselves. Wharf labourers in the past have been charged with “ going slow “ and demanding excessive rates of pay. They have rightly ‘ demanded increased wages, and despite their demands in respect of overtime, which are supposed to be excessive, their work costs 33 per cent, less than that of the so-called loyalists. I can assure honorable members that that statement is absolutely correct, and that I have it from the very best authority. In these circumstances, why talk of industrial methods which will expedite the loading and discharging of cargoes while we maintain the system of employing the sc-called loyalists, which is obviously more expensive than is the employment of the so-called “go-slow,” “grab-all” union wharf labourers.

I wish now to refer to the training of Australian officers and men for our Australian ships. I have always hoped that with the termination of the war our Naval Bases would be used for the training of officers and men for our mercantile marine, and because of that belief have felt that there could be no complaint as to the expenditure involved in establishing them. The Naval Base at Westernport is most suitable for the training of officers and men for our mercantile marine, and the same may be said of the Naval Base at Cockburn Sound. This war has shown us that the British people do not really understand the Australian soldier. Discipline that was demanded of the troops of every other nation could not be exacted from him. It was found by British officers that he was a good fighter, but that he declined to be subservient to those above him. The position is exactly the same in regard to our mercantile marine. It would be useless to spend money in trying to instil into our Australian youths a love of the sea unless we showed a determination not to tolerate the idea that a sea captain is a sort of Czar on his own ship.

Mr Poynton:

– A master mariner must have a great deal of power on his own vessel.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I admit that; but the day has gone by when a captain or the first mate of a ship should be allowed with impunity to “ brain “ a man with a belaying pin whenever he desired to do so. Australians would not stand that sort of thing, and unless we are prepared to treat our Australian sailors as men we might as well refrain from any attempt to train them for the sea. Our ships should be built in Australia, manned by Australians, and controlled in Australia. Foreign crews are preferred on many ships because they are more amenable to discipline than are Britishers. I hope that we shall extend to Australians opportunities for manning and officering our Australian-built ships, but the success of any effort in that direction will depend upon our readiness to allow our men to assert their manliness.

Mr Higgs:

– Would not the proclamation of the Navigation Act help in that regard ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Navigation Act must be moulded with due regard to the interests of Australian people and industries rather than in the interests of the British Empire as a whole. It was very difficult to frame our Act according to our own ideas of what we needed, and, at the same time, to make it conform to the requirements of the Imperial Act. We must have a Navigation Act that will suit the Australian people, in spite of the demands of the British Government.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member wants a kind of Monroe Doctrine.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes, so far as our own vessels are concerned. When our ships are in a foreign port they must conform to the requirements of that port, but in the manning of our own vessels we should have regard to purely Australian ideals.

Question- That the proposed vote be reduced by £1 (Mr. Sampson’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.37 to8 p.m. . (Wednesday).

Progress reported.

page 9614

QUESTION

NAVY AND DEFENCE ADMINISTRATION

Royal Commission’s Report

Mr JENSEN:
Bass

.- (By leave) - I think every member of the House will realize the painfulness of my position to-night. I have been expelled from the Government after they had declared to ‘ the people that they indorsed the findings of the Royal Commission which exonerated me of any wrongdoing. On the 28th October last I asked to be relieved of my Ministerial duties because of the statement sent by the chairman of the Royal Commission to the Attorney-General’s Department, and then on to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt), to the effect that I had received a bribe. That allegation was conveyed to me by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr.

Watt), and I said to him, “Very well, Mr. Acting Prime Minister, relieve -me of my Ministerial duties until this statement has been inquired into and reported upon.” The Commission investigated the charge, and the Government agreed with the Commission’s findings that there was no truth whatever in the statement that I had received any bribe for my administrative work while I was Minister for the Navy. The Government publicly announced their concurrence in that finding; yet in the next breath they informed the House and the people that they intended to apply to His Excellency the Governor-General to cancel my commission. What for? Because the Commission said in its summary of facts - “Mr. Jensen failed to do this, the Minister failed to do the other, the Minister did not do something else in Cabinet that he should have done.” That is all that can be held up against me. For not another thing have I been blamed.

The Commission’s report was received by the Acting Prime Minister last Friday night week, and at midday on Saturday he sent me a copy, with an accompanying letter, in which he invited me to peruse the report and make any comments thereon that I thought necessary. He also stated that a Cabinet meeting would be held on the following Monday at 11 a.m. I assumed that the comments which the Acting Prime Minister invited me to make were to be submitted in writing, and I was not directly .asked to attend the Cabinet meeting, as I had been on every other occasion. However, I wish to say at this stage that no matter how I have been treated, no matter how keenly I feel upon this question, I do not intend, for my own defence, to divulge anything that has taken place in the Cabinet or at Executive meetings. But I do claim, and will exercise the right, to use any statement concerning this report made by any Minister who approached me privately outside the Cabinet.

A few minutes after I received the report on the 7th December, I received a telephone message from Senator Pearce that he would very much like to see me, and he made an appointment for 5 o’clock that afternoon. I went to his house. He shook me by the hand, and said, “ Let me congratulate you on being exonerated. Sit down. Let’s look at the report.” He had a copy of the report, to which he referred. Then he “ said, “ I think, Gus, although you are exonerated, you ought to resign.” I said, “ Not on your life.” I went before that Commission on a specific charge, which practically amounted to corruption. The Commission had been at work for eight or nine months getting what evidence was available from anybody that came before it, and behind my back the statement had been made that I had received a bribe. I had been cleared by the Commission of the charge upon which I went’ before it. Who, then, was Senator Pearce that he should demand my resignation? I think I am at liberty to state why he desired me to resign He said, “You know, Gus, the facts which the Commission has stated in this report will make it very awkward for the Government to pull through during the next two weeks.” That is all that concerned Senator Pearce; he was afraid that the Government would not be able to pull through because the Commission had made statements that I, as Minister, had failed to do this and had failed to do the other thing. I said to him, “ When do you intend to table the report?” He replied, “ On Tuesday when the. House meets.” I said, “ Do not table the report on Tuesday, but allow me to meet the Ministerial party. I am prepared to go before the party on this report, and explain my position in connexion with the whole matter, and if the majority think that I ought to retire, in the interests of the party, from the Government, I will do so, but I will be damned if I will do it for you.” That has been my attitude. I have disclosed nothing that has taken place in Cabinet, nor shall I do so; I have merely related what took place in Senator Pearce’s home, and I have mentioned that conversation so that honorable members may understand the position in which I have been placed. I pleaded that the report might be withheld from Parliament for twenty-four or forty-eight hours until I could appear before the party with which I am associated. But uo, out I must go. That is all the consideration I received from the gentleman who, in the absence of Mr. Hughes, is the Leader of the National Labour party in this Parliament. Honorable members may talk about Mr. Hughes being an autocrat. Never would he treat a man as I was treated by Senator Pearce. 1 made another proposition privately to a member of the Government. I said, “ Other reports by this Commission have been inquired into by the Government before they were tabled; the Government have analyzed them, and not in the interests of a Minister, but, in the interests of the departmental officers, have sent the report in an amended form back to the Commission. Give me the same treatment as you have given to departmental officers in respect or other reports, and I shall be satisfied. Let us sit down and analyze the report, and consider whether other evidence can be brought to bear which will rebut the finding of the Royal Commission regarding my administrative work,” 1 was refused that chance. Is this a British country 1 On one occasion I went so far as to protest against this treatment. I said” it was un-British and unfair to treat a colleague in that way, especially when I was prepared to leave myself in the hands of honorable members sitting on the Government side. I did not wish to place the Government in an awkward position. I told every Minister so. But I demanded a hearing before they took the final step which they proposed. I was asked, and asked, and asked again to resign, but I refused to do so. I wavered on one occasion, and even started to write out my resignation. Then I resolved, ‘ I shall not resign. I shall not, by such an action, make myself appear to the people to be a guilty man. I shall face this charge in every way, no matter where I go.”

I have been very pained by the treatment I have received. I was not invited to the Cabinet meeting at which the Government decided that my commission should be taken from me. T was not present at the meeting which drafted the reasons which were to be advanced for the cancellation oi my commission by the Governor-General. Was I not entitled to that; at least? But I did not receive that consideration, although I was still a member of the Government. I had not been gazetted out, and the Cabinet, which had never held a meeting without me, was sitting in judgment on me when I was not present. I had no chance of self defence - it was done anyhow. They gazetted me out; and I do not know that I am sorry for that -now. I have nothing to be ashamed of in being gazetted out. I know it is a very drastic action for a Government, to take or to tender His Excellency the GovernorGeneral such advice - I quite admit that. But when I was prepared to do certain things - two things - in speaking privately to members of the Government, I wa3 refused. One request was to the party, and that was that it should analyze the evidence in connexion ‘ with the findings of the report, and that I should be given the same ordinary treatment as a departmental officer. When a Minister of the Crown is refused a little concession of that character I say it is pretty hard.

And then, one morning last week, I walked up into this House. I was not gazetted out at that, time,- but was still a Minister of the Crown, with all the powers exercised by any other member of the Cabinet at that moment. When I walked into the Ministerial room I found that my name had been taken off my locker and another Minister’s name put in its place,, although at that time all my things were inside. Cruel! That was cruel treatment to give a man while he was a member of the Government - when he had not yet been gazetted out. And the name that was over my locker was “ W. Webster.” My name had been taken- off and his put on. Who did it I do not know, but I hold that Minister responsible.

Mr Webster:

– I never did it.

Mr JENSEN:

– Your name was put there, anyhow; and I dashed well took it off.

Mr Webster:

– I never did it,.

Mr JENSEN:

– Well, it was there. That is the sort of treatment a man was subjected to. Mr. Speaker, it is almost enough to unnerve the strongest of men ; but it has not unnerved me yet, sir. I have a bit of fight in me still, and when I go through the evidence and the report of the Commission I feel that” this House will not be satisfied with the action of this Government towards me, nor with the action of the Commission. The way in which the Commission have saturated their very findings with spleen and unfair play towards me - that is enough of that; I will get on to the report.

You will remember, sir, that on the last occasion I spoke in this House it was a spontaneous speech, in reply to the action of the Leader of the Government, wherein he announced to the House certain action the Government weregoing to take in relation to myself. I then told you, sir, that at the earliest opportunity I would explain as well as I could the findings of the report, together with the evidence taken. I pointed out in a few words on that occasionthat I considered that the summary of the Commission was unjustifiable, unfair, and un-British ; and I am going to show how it is so. The findings of the Commission, as stated in paragraph 54 of the report are unfair, misleading, and not supported by evidence. I am going through every one of these so-called facts, and I will explain by the evidence each one of them. Paragraph 54 reads -

For convenience we summarized the salient facts of the transaction as we have ascertained them, as follows : -

Father Shaw was confident before the offer was made that the sale would be effected.

There was no such evidence given on oath before the Commission, but I shall tell you what evidence was given. Mr. Cotes was acting in conjunction with Whiting and Aitken, who gave Father Shaw an option over the works . for £25,000 for a month; and, by the way, there is a lot to be said about that £25,000 and that option. I ask honorable members to look at the report of the evidence on page 5. The only ground the Commission had was that Father Shaw was sure when he made the offer to the Navy Department that the works would be sold. What does Mr. Cotes say? This gentleman, Mr. Cotes, was a director in the firm that held the mortgage over the works, and Father Shaw went to him on 12th May, 1916. This is an extract from Mr. Cotes’ evidence -

Are you clear of that date ? - Yes. It was on Friday, 12th May, 1916, when he came over and saw me (he also saw Mr. Whiting), and told as that he thought he had a good chance of selling to the Government, and that he could get options, or had got options.

Now, Mr. Cotes, who is a member of this firm of Whiting and Aitken, solicitors, or is attached to that firm, says that Father Shaw said he had a good chance of selling. Of course, he might have, had a good chance, but it does not say there, as the Commission finds, that “ Father Shaw was confident before the offer was made that the sale would be effected.” Not at all. There is absolutely no evidence to support it. Look at the difference in these words. The finding of the Commission is that “ Father Shaw was confident before the offer was made that the sale would be effected.” Mr. Cotes says that Father Shaw “ told us that he thought he had a good chance of selling to the Government.” That is the only evidence that was taken in relation to that first finding of the Commission as a summary of the facts.

The second finding of the Commission is - (b)Senator Long drafted the offer.

My reply to that is this : the offer was in typewriting, and there was nothing to indicate by whom it was drafted. The form of the finding is palpably intended to make it appear that I must have known who drafted it. But I only heard that when Senator Long was before the Commission. It appears ‘that Senator Long drafted a letter which Shaw should send to the Navy Department. What did I know about that, when it was typewritten and signed “Archibald Shaw”? But it is there for one express purpose, and that express purpose is to show to the people who were not present at the inquiry, and had not read the evidence carefully, that I must have known something about it. _ Now we come to the next finding -

  1. The Minister disregarded the advice of Engineer-Rear-Admiral Clarkson, the Third Naval Member, who was the engineering expert on the Naval Board, and acted on the advice of an inexperienced subordinate officer.

That is the finding of the Commission. My reply to that is that Admiral Clarkson’s objection to the purchase was on the grounds of policy. I had disregarded his minute on the application for the purchase of those’ works. His minute was practically a minute condemning the policy which the then Government was living under, and had been returned on by the people of Australia. Engineer Bear-Admiral Clarkson said straight out that he was against Government-owned industries and institutions. I explained to the Cabinet that Admiral Clarkson was opposed to the purchase. I showed the Cabinet his report, and the Cabinet disagreed with his objection. That was the Cabinet, not I. I certainly disregarded his advice in the first instance, but the Cabinet, when I took the report to them, said that Admiral Clarkson had no right to dictate a policy to the Government. We had been returned to do certain specific things. I am now talking of the 1916 Government. The Commissioners say that I disregarded the advice of BearAdmiral Clarkson, the Third Naval Member. Supposing I did? And I did, too; and the whole of the Government did it with me at the time. Is that anything for this Government to turn me out over? Is it, Mr. Speaker? No. Could they not stand up to me? Could not the Government stand up to an action of mine like that when I was in a LabourGovernment with a certain policy? The present Government took no hand in it, and could not be charged with it, and ought not to be charged with it now. I did that when I was in another Government. Why should I have to suffer for it in this Government? Yet they would not give me a chance to explain those things. The Commissioners, as I say, find that I disregarded the advice of RearAdmiral Clarkson - and acted on the advice of an inexperienced subordinate officer. The engineer in charge of the radiotelegraphy of Australia is the “subordinate officer “ ! He is the man in charge of the whole wireless system of the Commonwealth of Australia. Yet the Commission called him a “ subordinate officer.” Is he a subordinate officer in respect of the wireless system, especially in view of what he says Rear-Admiral Clarkson told him, namely, that the Board implicitly trusted him to take over the wireless system of Australia, to organize and run it; that the Board had no time, as a Board, to do those things? This subordinate officer has made that statement on oath. If honorable members turn to page 84 of the Commission’s evidence, they will see there the evidence of Frank Gillespie Cresswell. He was examined by Mr. Starke, who was the counsel appointed by the Government to see that every fact was brought out. Mr. Starke says -

I understand you wish to make a statement? - Yes. I wish to point out to the Commission that on the occasion of the interview with Admiral Clarkson in connexion with the taking over of the Commonwealth wireless organization,

Not Father Shaw’s works, but the wireless organization of Australia -

Admiral Clarkson explained to me that the Board were more or less dependent upon me to do my best to organize it and run it. Admiral Clarkson was a very busy man at that time. He had the organization of over eighty transports, which entailed the responsibility of transporting 300,000 troops and thousands of tons of cargo to the seat of war. I know this, there was a very big strain on him, and I do not think that Admiral Clarkson, with the responsibility he had, could afford to give the time and consideration which the proposition of taking over these works would merit in time of peace.

That was the answer of this “.subordinate officer “ to the Chairman of the Commission. He said that Rear-Admiral Clarkson entirely relied on him. Yet the

Commission attempted to crucify me by the finding that they gave, although evidence could be brought to bear, and is being brought to bear, to rebut their finding. Commander Cresswell’s evidence continues -

By the Chairman. - You felt that? - Yes; and he entirely relied on me.

Let me further analyze the statement that -

The Minister disregarded the advice of Rear-Admiral Clarkson, the Third Naval Member, who was the engineering expert on the Naval Board, and acted on the advice of an inexperienced subordinate officer.

Commander Cresswell went on to say -

I just wished to point out Admiral Clarkson’s position. In regard to policy, as to whether it was desirable to establish wireless workshops, I know that there was no division or differences of opinion between the First and Third Naval Members on that point. It was considered at that time, and appreciated at that time, that workshops were essential.

I wish to show how little this officer was inexperienced. Mr. Starke obtained from him a statement of his qualifications. This is to be found on page 15 of the evidence taken by the Commission - i

By Mr. Starke. - What is your position in the Naval Department? - Radio Commander, and Acting Director of the Radio service.

Would you be good enough to give me your experience both before you entered the service and since? - I cannot remember the full details of it. I started my career in 1896 with the firm of John Banks, machinery merchants, brassfitters and engineers, Melbourne, and from there I went to the A. TJ. Alcock Electric Light Company. I was there for nearly three years. From there I went to the Post Office, in the Electrical Engineer’s Department. I was there for about twelve years. In 1897, I joined the Commonwealth Naval Militia, at that time as an engineer sub-lieutenant for electrical duties; and when the destroyers came out here in 1910, I was asked if I would be willing to accept a permanent position in the service, which I did. I was appointed as an engineer sub-lieutenant for electrical duties in 1911, and from there I went to sea in destroyers and H.M. ships. I was appointed Fleet Wireless Telegraph Officer, in, I think, 1912.

I may take it from that that you are not a graduate of any University in engineering at all? - No. I passed the professional examination for the Public Service.

You have not had any service with the Imperial Navy as a wireless officer other than on H.M. ships? - No. I had a lot to do with the Imperial officers when they came out here.

But you have not had Imperial service? - No. I worked under a German instrument maker for eight years, and he was a skilful man in the manufacture of electrical equipment.

I take it that your experience in Australia has been a practical experience, and you yourself are personally interested in the subject, and have studied it at great length? - That is so.

The Commission call a man possessing an experience like that a “ subordinate officer,” and practically tell him that he i3 not fit to be in charge of the engineering wireless service of Australia. They say that I took the advice of this man, who not only was in charge of the whole wireless system of the Commonwealth, but had made a huge success of it. The Commission condemned me for taking his advice, and that notwithstanding that they had been told by this man that RearAdmiral Clarkson handed over every mortal thing in the way of wireless to him to take charge of, and asked him to organize a service. Have I had a fair deal ? On every point, evidence can be brought in rebuttal of the Commission’s findings. I asked “the Government to hear me before dealing with me as they proposed. This is another finding of the Commission. It is paragraph d in their summary, on page xiii. of their report -

The Minister failed to ascertain why the Postal Department had previously declined to consider the purchase of the works.

My answer to that is that the requirements of the Postal Department were entirely different from those of the Navy, but the experts of the Postal Department agreed that the plant was valuable and up to date. As a Cabinet Minister, there was no need for me to make an inquiry, because I knew why the offer of this plant had been turned down by the Postal Department. It was when the honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Spence) was Postmaster-General. The Committee that investigated Eather Shaw’s works with a view to seeing if they could be taken over by the Postal Department said that the machinery was most modern and up to date, and there was nothing in’ Australia to beat it. I say that myself. The Commission found me to be at fault because I did not look into the Postal Department Committee’s report on the proposal that the works should be purchased by that Department. The reason that I did not do so was that I knew all about the matter. T was in the Cabinet when, on the recommendation of the Minister concerned, the offer was turned down. It was not turned down because the plant or the machinery were not good, but because they were not altogether suit1 able for the purposes of the Postal Department. The needs of that Department are quite different from the needs of a wireless workshop. Because I failed to look at this report, should I have been put out of the Ministry? No. Let me read from that report. This is a passage that occurs on page 2 of it -

There are certain classes of items of the Postmaster-General’s Department’s requirements which, so far as can be seen, cannot at present, and probably cannot for some time, be commercially manufactured in Australia. For example, opal glassware, incandescent lamps, hard rubber. . . .

But, generally speaking, the equipment at the shops can be used in the manufacture of metallic parts required for telegraphic, telephonic, or wireless purposes. The individual items comprising the plant are thoroughly up to date. The plant is laid out on the lines required for economical management, and it is iT a good state of repair, the major portions of the machines being practically new.

That is from the report of the Committee that inquired if these works would suit the Postal Department. The Commission said that I did not make myself acquainted with this report before I purchased the works. I knew all about that report at the time -

The Committee is of the opinion that none of the machines for manufacture at present used by the company could be omitted if the Department were to undertake the manufacture of any complete line of telegraphy or of telegraph or telephone equipment.

Every machine there could have been used even for that purpose. On page 3 of the Committee’s report it is stated -

The Committee has not made any .valuation of the plant or property. Such is not required by the terms of- reference, and, further, would occupy the Committee not less than a fortnight. But there is appended to this report a list of assets furnished by Father Shaw to the Committee, showing in fair detail the cost to the company of the undertaking.

The Postal Committee did not value the plant or have a valuation of it made. How, therefore, could its report help me in regard to the value of the plant? It simply declared absolutely that the machinery was of the best. Yet I was condemned by the Commission’s report. “We find in another portion of the report furnished to the Department of the PostmasterGeneral -

As to whether it is advisable for the Government to acquire the whole or any por: ion of the plant, providing the price is reasonable will depend upon the policy to be adopted by the Government as to the extent in which manufacture in these works will be carried on, and also upon the cost of installations to meet the Department’s present and future needs. If the policy of the Government is to manufacture all possible articles it requires, then the plant in these works would form an excellent nucleus and could be kept fully occupied.

I think that honorable members must be amazed at this report. I hand it to the Acting Prime Minister so that he may see that it is genuine. I am condemned, because I did not look into these matters, but the report of this Committee absolutely supported my purchase of this machinery. Have I not been treated cruelly ?

Another finding of the Royal Commission against me is- (e)The instructions given to the valuer were insufficient from a business point of view, and the valuation was “ accepted without inquiry as to the method and basis of valuation.

That finding was absolutely opposed to the evidence, because my instructions were very definite, namely, to get bedrock value for the Department. My instructions to Commander Cresswell were to proceed to Sydney, act in conjunction with the engineer and valuator, who had been appointed at a fee of fifty guineas, and do his duty both to Father Shaw and to the Department. I said to him, “I want a fair bedrock valuation.” I have sworn that in evidence. Commander Cresswell has borne me out in that regard. In the report of Commander Cresswell’s evidence before the Commission the following paragraph will be seen on page 22:-

I see in the file, document 15# that there is an instruction from the Naval Board of the 5th July, 1916. Mr. Jensen tells me that he told you to value the plant at Randwick, favouring neither Father Shaw nor the Department. Do you remember that? - Yes, I do.

Could any better instruction be given to a valuator? Could a fairer request be made by any honorable member of this House to deal genuinely with any transaction ? Have I anything to be ashamed of in instructing the engineer of radio telegraphy to proceed to Randwick and act in conjunction with the other man in valuing everything at these works at bedrock price? “What better or more complete instructions could have been given?What does valuing at bedrock mean? Simply that the valuers were not entitled to give any value to machinery which was obsolete and useless. Could any other interpretation be placed upon my instructions? Here, again, the finding of the Royal Commission falls to the ground.

Another finding against me is -

  1. The valuation merely represented the cost of replacing the works on that date with certain deductions for depreciation and obsolescence, but without consideration of the utility of the plant to the Department or the nature of the lay-out of the works.

This finding is not founded on fact. The valuation was made as for works which were capable of being used at once for the purposes for which they were to be acquired. That is to say, they were to be treated as a going concern. I wanted immediate possession if I could get the works at a decent price. If I could not get them at a decent price, the proposition would be turned down. They were purchased as a going concern, with the flywheels going round, driven by the belts attached to the pulley- wheels, and with a hundred artisans at work. Here, again, the Commission has wrongly attacked me.

Another finding of the Commission against me is -

  1. The only check on the valuation was the presence of Commander Cresswell, an officer who had no training or experience in such matters.

What information did Mr. Starke elicit from Commander Cresswell in examining him? The information that he had had twenty-five years’ experience, that he had been associated with machinery all his life, that he had started with John Danks and Company, and that he had been associated with nothing else for twenty-five years. The Commission’s finding is a disgraceful one, in view of the information extracted from Commander Cresswell by its own lawyer, Mr. Starke. Not only is it a disgraceful finding ; it is unfair to me. My reply is that Commander Cresswell was the only capable officer in the Navy Department available to me. Where could I get another man? He was the responsible officer in charge of the wireless system in Australia, and I suppose that if I had not sent him to value these works I would have been blamed by the Commission for not having done so. The extracts which I have quoted from page 15 and page 84, showing that Admiral Clarkson entirely relied on Commander Cresswell, apply to the finding also, and rebut the statement of the Commission “ that the only check on the valuation was the presence of Commander Cresswell, an officer who had no training or experience in such matters.” He was the only man whom I could really obtain in Australia for the task I intrusted tohim.

Another finding of the Commission against me is -

  1. Commander Cresswell reported that a number of expensive patterns and dies and electrical apparatus was obsolete, and should be taken only at the value of raw material.

My reply is that Commander Cresswell took these matters into account in his valuation, and so did Mr. Ross, as I shall prove from his evidence. When giving evidence before the Commission, Mr. Ross saw fit to indulge in a little joke- He had been told by me through the Secretary of the Navy to make a valuation of the plant and stock. Of course, that included everything except the land and the buildings. But because he received that instruction, he said to the Commission that it did not matter to him whether he was valuing a piano or a ginger-pop machine or anything else that happened to be on the works at the time. Of course, he said this by wayof a joke; but the Royal Commissioners were paltry enough to magnify it to the greatest degree possible in order to belittle me. He only mentioned it by way of illustration, but they have endeavoured to make it appear that I had sent him to the works thinking that he did not know his duty, and that it did not matter to him what was there. I quote the following from page 26 of the Evidence taken by the Royal Commission :-

Will you tell me what time you spent on the valuation, and exactly what you did? - I was three days inspecting the machines and equipment of the factory, and the stock. During those three days, each machine was examined in detail. A note was made - mentally, or, in many cases, in writing - of the condition of the machines, their utility and class, type, and their settings; and, after doing so - I might say the schedule of the equipment was handed to me by the Shaw Wireless people at my request, as the Navy Department did not furnish me with the lists as arranged - I took the schedule, together with my own notes, and went through the workshop. The schedule provided by the Shaw Wireless people was incomplete. There are a great many items omitted from that; and, of course, I made those items good in my own notes. Then, having inspected the plant, its character and condition, I devoted about five days, including a good deal of night work, in pricing those items from the material I had available. I inquired also from merchants in the business as to values. I consulted the tenders and prices accepted for equipment for Government purposes of about that date, and as regards the items in stock, consisting of a large collection of miscellaneous manufactured stock, nuts, small screws, bolts, and insulations. I inspected those, and inquired the prices at that time, in order to check the values of this stock. As regards the stock, a sheet was given to me of the stock, of the number of items in each section, which I referred to in my statement to the Government; and I took a note of what stock was mentioned as being in the bin. That is to ‘say, I selected here and there at random entirely, without any suggestion, from different bins, and examined the contents of those bins, and in a few cases I counted the contents, although I did not intend to take stock in that sense - but I examined the quality and condition of the stock; and then, taking the sheet, which had prices opposite the various items, I checked those items by inquiry in the mercantile world in Sydney; and’ therefore, in a sense, I did make a valuation of the stock, subject to the quantities being correct.

That only applies to stock. In his evidence Mr. Eoss shows that he examined every machine in detail, and took everything into consideration. Let me read on -

Can you express it in percentages at all as to what was the appreciation all round on pre-war prices? - It would be impossible to do it, but I had it in much closer detail than that. I took every individual machine, and I referred to the English, American, or local prices where available, and I took the ruling conditions.

May I ask you how you got the appreciated price. For instance, a lot of material could not be obtained in Australia at the time. What prices did you take for that? - Where it could not be obtained in Australia, what I did was this: I took my English list of John Birch, and taking the average of that class of machine, I assumed that the same appreciation would apply to these particular machines. That, I considered, was a very sound position to take.

Did you apply that same principle to the stock value? - Yes. Most of the stock values I checked by quotations. The same principle was applied.

And you went into the question of any depreciation that you saw? - Yes.

That is with each particular machine? - Yes, it was gone into in detail.

Did not that strike you as a very high valuation? - Certainly not.

To take each particular machine and not look at it as a whole? - Absolutely, no.

You were taking it substantially at its replacement value, less depreciation? - Yes, most decidedly. That was the market value of the plant. As a matter of fact, those machines could have been sold since at a price exceeding my valuation.

He says ‘that the machines purchased by the Navy Department could have been sold subsequently at an increased price. And yet the Commission say that I did not obtain value for the money expended by the Navy Department. The crossexamination continued -

You told mc that, quite apart from the utility of the machines at all to the works, whether ginger-beer machine or a pop-gun, you took it at its market value, less any depreciation. What application has the principle of obsolescence to such a valuation as that? - In a few cases, and in this particular instance, in a very close association with Commander Cresswell, I wrote down almost entirely certain things that were obsolete. . . .

In other words, things that were absolutely obsolete were not charged up against the Department; they were written down entirely. The witness continued -

I wrote down almost entirely certain things that were obsolete, and from the nature of which could never be anything else but obsolete, because they had an express purpose and that purpose was past; and if they were no good to the Shaw Wireless, they were no good to any one - such as certain generators. Wherever that principle could be applied, it was applied.

This is a direct rebuttal of the statement in the Commission’s summary of the salient facts which was designed to damn me in the estimation of the people and the Government. The Commission have certainly been successful in damning me in the estimation of this Government. At the foot of page 27, we have the report of further evidence given by this witness, in answer to Mr. Starke - and I do not know that he a friend of mine - as follows: -

Then you made this report, and, in your opinion, it was a fair and just valuation ?– Absolutely.

In paragraph h of the Commission’s summary we have the statement that -

Commander Cresswell reported that a number of expensive patterns and dies and electrical apparatus was obsolete, and should be taken only at the value of raw material.

I would point out that, according to Mr. Ross’ sworn evidence, that was done. The opinion I formed was that the Commission considered, while Mr. Ross was giving evidence, that he was a trustworthy witness; but, after deliberating for three weeks upon the evidence, this is what they put up against me. In paragraph i of the summary we have the statement that -

The manager estimated that obsolete and useless machinery, and stock valued at £13,000, were included in the valuation, and paid for by the Department.

Who is this manager? He is a man named Cornwell, who, I regret to say, I appointed to that position. I first met him in the year 1914, when I was Assistant Minister for Defence. Together with three or four others, he travelled from Lithgow to Sydney, and there waited upon me in regard to certain industrial troubles. I next met him in my office in Melbourne. A telegram had been despatched requesting him to attend there.

He was Eather Shaw’s leading mechanic at these works, and Eather Shaw told me, in reply to an inquiry, that he was a very capable man in engineering works. I sent for him, and when he called, sent him on to Rear-Admiral Clarkson’s room, so that that officer might discuss matters with him, and determine whether or not he should be appointed. I did not appoint this man “ off my own bat.” Corn- well admits in his evidence that, before he was appointed, I sent him to Rear-Admiral Clarkson. After RearAdmiral Clarkson had interviewed him, he said to me, “I think, Mr. Minister, that ‘ you can safely give this man a position, temporarily, for six months. By that time, we shall be able to find out all about him.” I did as Rear-Admiral Clarkson requested. I appointed him for six months, and when that time expired, the Department of the Navy had been taken over by the right honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Joseph Cook), and I had taken over the Department of Trade and Customs. That was in February, 1917..

Beyond this, I know nothing of the man; but, having listened to his evidence extending over five or six days, and having noted the tactics that he adopted in relation to the Commission, I say that he is the most damnable man on earth. That is my opinion of him to-day. According to his own - sworn evidence, he was in Sydney on the 19th August, 1916 - the date on which Father Shaw is said to have been paid - and yet he swore in the witness-box that he knew that on that date Father Shaw was in a room in Melbourne with two disreputable women. This man Cornwell, and two others named Lynch and Carroll, are, in my opinion, conspirators. I would not take Cornwell’s word in respect of any matter. I invite honorable members to read his evidence for themselves. How could he prove that Father Shaw was in a room in Melbourne with two disreputable women on a date when he, Cornwell, was in Sydney ? And this is the man who declared that there was £13,000 worth of obsolete machinery in the works. This is the man who, under cross-examination, also admitted that he had faked up a false valuation in the interests of Father Shaw. That statement wa3 drawn from him under cross-examination by my barrister, Mr. Cussen. I appointed him to the position of manager, not knowing that he had done anything of the kind. Think of what I have Lad to suffer during the last few weeks, because of the efforts of such men to take away my character. At page 68 of the report, the following will be found: -

Witness Cornwell, recalled.

By Mr. Cussen. - In this report it is said on the Monday night before Father Shaw was taken ill there were two girls in his room. What does that refer to? . Was it a fact that the two girls were in bis room?- Yes.-

Cornwell, in giving evidence previously, had referred to this matter-*-

During the night? - I could, not say that.

There is a suggestion that merely two girls were in his bedroom, or was it that he was misconducting himself with the girls?- The girls were in his room that evening.

What did you infer from it? - I thought there was misconduct there, yes.

Do you know who. the girls are? - No.

Does anybody else know? - I do not know.

I repeat that that man was in Sydney on the date upon which, according to his evidence, Father Shaw was in a room with two girls in Melbourne. Can we accept the evidence of a man who is prepared, in the circumstances, to make such a statement on oath? It is not true that obsolete and useless machinery and stock valued at £13,000 were included in the valuation and paid for by the Depart-, ment. In the valuation made by Eoss and Cresswell, no value was attached to obsolete and useless machinery. This statement by the manager was made quite recently, and he had been at the Shaw Wireless Works for two years. Mr. Eoss and Commander Cresswell made every allowance for obsolete and valueless machinery, and yet the evidence of this man Cornwell is quoted against me by the Commission, notwithstanding that he is a. liar in every sense of the word. I shall deal with his evidence in regard to some other .matters a little later on.

In paragraph j of the Commission’s summary, we have the statement that -

After an interview with the Minister, Commander Cresswell withdrew his recommendation to offer £40,000, and substituted an opinion that Father Shaw’s offer of £57,000 was reasonable.

The inference to be drawn from that statement is “that I brought pressure to bear upon Commander Cresswell, with the object of inducing him to withdraw his recommendation that we should make an offer of £40,000, and that I got him to recommend that a higher offer should be made. That inference is not in any way borne out by the evidence. Commander Cresswell distinctly says that I did not attempt anything of the kind. In the first two days of his evidence, he told the Commission that he did not remember my saying that in his report he concurred in Mr. Ross’s valuation of £60,700 for lands, buildings, machinery, plant, and stock. Commander Cresswell concurred in that valuation in his report; he said it was the bedrock valuation, and a just valuation. Of the total of £60,700, £46,000 was the valuation of the machinery, plant, and stock, while the balance represented the valuation of land and buildings. Commander Cresswell reported to me accordingly. I wish to impress upon the House the fact that I sent him up to Sydney to make a valuation, and not to make any recommendation with regard to the purchase of these works. The only instruction he received from m’e was that he should make a valuation. He admits that he did not receive from me an instruction to recommend what offer should be made. He made a valuation in conjunction with officers of the Home Affairs Department. He put down the value as £60,700, and in the same report suggested that I should make an offer of £40,000. I sent for him and said, “ Commander Cresswell, I have your report before me in relation to the valuation of the Shaw Wireless Works- You say you concur in the valuation of Mr. Eoss, and you have no hesitation in declaring that the valuation placed upon the land and buildings by the departmental officers is all right. What is your reason for recommending a purchase price of £40,000? How can I take that to Cabinet ? If we have obtained a just valuation by our own Government officers, ought we not to pay fair value for anything we ‘purchase from one of our Australian citizens ? “ He replied, “ I can see your difficulty in taking this proposition to Cabinet in that form. With your permission, I shall take away the report and reconsider it.” I made no attempt to influence him. I merely drew attention to the inconsistency of his report and recommendation, and, on his own initiative, he took away his report, amended it, and sent it back to me. I had not instructed him what valuation to place upon the works, or what price we should offer for them. In fact, he was not asked to make an offer. I consider, and I think the Acting Prime Minister will indorse my view, that when an officer is asked to make a valuation in regard to a purchase, he should carry out the duty he is asked to do. It remains for the Minister, in conjunction with his colleagues in Cabinet, to consider wha’t offer shall be made. That was the course I adopted. But the Commission says, in paragraph j: -

After an interview with the Minister, Commander Cresswell withdrew his recommendation to offer £40,000, and substituted an opinion that Father Shaw’s offer of £57,000 was reasonable.

Commander Cresswell had indorsed Mr. Ross’s valuation of £46,496, and the Home Affairs valuation of the land and buildings at £14,240, making a total of £60,736. That was more than the amount at which Father Shaw had offered the works, viz., £57,000 ; yet, when I took the proposal to Cabinet, although Commander Cresswell had said that £57,000 was a reasonable price, I recommended the purchase at £55,000. Commander Cresswell admits that all he means by the reference to £40,000 was that bargaining should start at that figure. He did not say that the Government should not pay more than £40,000. For two days he could not remember that I had said to him that his report was inconsistent with his recommendation, . but later, at his own request, he was recalled, and he stated on oath that I had pointed out to him .that his recommendation that we should offer to purchase the works at £40,000 was inconsistent with, his indorsement of the valuation at £60,700. The Commission admits that that took place. What I am about to quote now is very important. The Commission, when it held a secret inquiry, six months ago, took the same view as I did regarding the inconsistency of Commander Cresswell’s report and recommendation. Honorable members will find this on page 24 of the evidence -

By the Chairman’ - Do you remember when the Commission questioned you on the point at the first interview, you were asked how you could reconcile your report in the concluding paragraph with the first portion of the report in which you concurred with Mr. Ross’s valuation of £60,000 for the land and buildings, and then you went on by stating that you thought an offer ought to be made of £40,000. The Commission pointed out to you was what was apparent then, it was inconsistent to say in one portion of the report practically that the works were worth £60,000, and in another part only £40,000 should be offered for them. Do you remember your reply? - I do not remember the reply; but I meant that £40,000 as the basis for negotiations.

Yet, in face of that statement by the Chairman as to what the Commission had said at a secret inquiry when I was not present about the inconsistency of Commander Cresswell’s report and recommendation, the Commission condemned me. Is this British fair play? I demand from this House justice. Honorable members are men of hearts. Can I sit down quietly under these allegations ? The Commission puts the same construction upon Commander Cresswell’s report as I put upon it; and yet, by inference, it charges me with having influenced him to withdraw his report and substitute a recommendation of a higher purchase price. Are we living in a British country, that I am treated in this fashion? Commander Cresswell admitted that he meant the £40,000 to be the basis for negotiation. That is an admission that the plant was worth more than £40,000. The Chairman said to him -

That was not the reply you gave the Commission on that occasion? - That is the only reason I had.

The statement you made then was that the Minister said it was his own business, and not yours.

I swore an oath that I never made such a statement. I never spoke to Commander Cresswell in that way. I have always treated every officer with respect. In proof of my integrity and honesty, I remind the House that I have been in Ministerial office for four years and three months, and I challenge any honorable member to rise in his place and say that I have ever suggested any wrong action in connexion with my administrative work. The statement that after an interview with me Commander Cresswell withdrew his recommendation and substituted a. higher one is a suggestion that I forced him to do something. Commander Cresswell said that I did not. His chief clerk reminded him in Court : - “ Yes, Commander Cresswell, the Minister did mention to you the inconsistency of your report and recommendation. You came out of his office and reported the conversation to me, when I assisted you to amend your report.” Commander Cresswell thereupon said, “Now that you mention the matter, I remember it well.” And at his own request he went back into the witness-box and said that he had done me an injustice, and that I had pointed out the inconsistency. So much for that portion of the Commission’s summary.

Paragraphk of the summary reads -

The alteration of Commander Cresswell’s report was not disclosed to Cabinet when the purchase was being considered.

I say that it was unnecessary to disclose the alteration, in view of the inconsistency of the first report. That is my answer to the Commission’s statement. Does a Minister, when he goes into Cabinet, explain every little detail in a big file of correspondence dealing with a big purchase like this? If that were done, Cabinet would hardly get through one item of business, let alone the dozens of items that are dealt with in an hour or so. I never thought of mentioning the alteration, because I had done no wong, and is it for a Royal Commission to declare what I ought to do in Cabinet? Does the Commission demand to know what I should say to my colleagues? . Have I any right to give information to the Royal Commission of what took place in Cabinet ? What does the Acting Prime Minister say to that? The Commission wanted to know everything that had happened in Cabinet, and because I did not admit to the Commissioners that I had not mentioned this alteration in Cabinet, look at the construction that is placed upon my action ! What difference would it have made to the purchase if I had mentioned the alteration of Commander Cresswell’s report ? Not any. But one can read into paragraph k a suggestion that I went into Cabinet with the intention of deceiving Ministers and pushing this deal through. That is all the Com mission set out to do. We now come to a very important matter -

  1. Commander Cresswell in successive reports -

    1. Estimated at £4,000 the cost of additional accommodation and machinery at Williamstown for the manufacture and repair of all wireless telegraphy apparatus required for the different Departments of the Commonwealth Service until the establishment of Flinders Naval Base.

That estimate was in March, 1915, a few months after the war broke out. In August, 1916, when it was being considered, we were in the midst of the war, and everything looked very black for the Empire -

  1. Stated that an offer of £40,000 would be a fair offer for the Shaw Wireless Works for use as general Government electrical workshops, and then stated that Father Shaw’s offer of £57,000 was reasonable; and
  2. Stated that the Government could not erect the buildings and put down the machinery and plant under £80,000.

In regard to paragraph (1), I wish to say -This estimate was in March, 1915, when the necessity for extensive wireless works had not been seen. It was only seven months after the war started, and the conditions were quite different in July, 1916. The £40,000 was only to be a start in bargaining; and the third report as to the £80,000 was true - if ever there was a true statement - and showed the necessity for acquiring the works. These buildings could not have been put up, the plant put down, and the stock there at that time purchased under £80,000; in fact, if these works were not acquired by the Government, it would have been impossible for us to get machinery at that juncture- absolutely impossible. I gave certain evidence before the Commission which, in my opinion, justified me in going into the matter and recommending this purchase. I did not make the purchase, the Cabinet did, and the Cabinet was equally responsible with me in every aspect, especially in view of the fact that I placed the whole file on the Cabinet table, and explained the reports that were against as well as those that were in favour. Therefore, the whole Cabinet was responsible - if I did wrong, they did wrong. At that time, in 1916, no machinery of any sort was coming into Australia. I do not know whether I am going to let out any secrets by stating what I am going to state, but the war is now over, and I am freer to speak than I would have been in 1916. The very machinery that was ordered by the then Government in power from America and elsewhere for the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, Cockatoo Island, and other places was - according to a request which, to my knowledge, was made to the “War Cabinet - urgently required by the Imperial Government. I know that, because of the cables that came; and it was imperative that that machinery should go to England rather than come to Australia. Knowing what I did when that request was made by the Imperial authorities, did I do wrong in purchasing the only machinery in Australia for a wireless system ? There was no idea that the war would have been ended by this time. The war ceased without very much warning; it collapsed, thank God; but there was no knowing then that it might not have gone on for years. Our ships were being submarined, and every bit of steel and equipment was needed in England. The Imperial authorities, as I say, made that request to the Commonwealth Government, and I bought the machinery at a fair price. I care for nobody ; I did it - I recommended the purchase to the Cabinet. There is the truth; and that is why I say that the value placed by Commander Cresswell on this machinery was a fair and genuine estimation, in my opinion, of its value.

Then, to whom else could I refer these questions ? I got certain queries from the then Treasurer, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), because of a certain writer in Sydney, who was a director of the Sun newspaper. That writer was also a director of the Australian Wireless Company, in Sydney, a small company which was running the German Telefunken system. That man went into the witness-bos, and, next to Cornwell, he is one of the biggest liars in Australia. I shall quote his evidence, and say what has taken place since he made that statement on oath. That is the man who, months ago, was giving evidence behind my back in Sydney for days. It was all these suggestions of impropriety on my part - of wrong-doing - that led the Commission to think that my character should be inquired into to see if I had received a bribe. Scandalous! The Commission have attempted to pull Commander Cresswell to pieces on account of the estimate he gave ; but what does the Commission know about the value of machinery? Have they had an expert to value it for their own information? No. They have not had an expert to see if the valuation of Mr. Ross’ and Commander Cresswell was incorrect; but they take it on themselves to say too much was given for the machinery. Who are the members of the Commission? A vendor of silk - not rabbits; another man who has something to do with shipping in Adelaide ; and a third man, of whose business in Sydney I know nothing. These are the people who have taken upon themselves to say that too much was given for this machinery, and they have said it without getting any evidence to justify their statement. Can any honorable member see in the report any evidence on which the valuation of Mr. Ross and Commander Cresswell ought to be challenged by the Commission? The next finding is as follows: -

  1. No inquiry was made as to the details of the option held by Father Shaw.

No inquiry! What has Father Shaw’s option to do with me? What has it to do with the Commission? Yet I am blamed.

This was quite irrelevant, as it only affected the right to give a title. Besides, a very considerable part of the property was outside of that over which the company had any right. Cotes, in his evidence, as shown on pages 5 and 6 of the report, states that the most important works in connexion with the business - for instance, the engine-house - had been erected on land of which the company had not got the fee, and had lost an option which it had held. No inquiry was made as to the number of shares in the com- pany, or who the shareholders were; and Sir Rupert Clarke and Whiting, apparently, only held shares to represent their advance.

In reply to that, I am going to quote evidence given for Whiting and Aitken by Mr. Cotes, who came before the Commission as representing Sir Rupert Clarke. That is the only evidence that has been given in relation to what option Father Shaw obtained as mentioned in the report. The following is an extract from the evidence of Mr. Cotes, as reported on page 5 of the evidence: -

By Mr. Starke - You are a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria? - Yes.

And you are at present employed in the omeo of Messrs. Whiting and Aitken, solicitors, Melbourne? - Yes.

How long have you been there? - Since 1904.

I understand you are acquainted with the business known as the Shaw Wireless Limited? -Yes.

Were you ever a director, or anything of that sort? - Yes, at the commencement of 1916.

How did 3*ou come to be appointed a director? - Mr. H. J. Whiting and Father Archibald John Shaw had been directors. Mr. H. J. Whiting had gone to the war, or had gone to England to enlist for the war, at the end of 1914, and there was no one to protect the interests of Sir Rupert Clarke and Mr. Whiting, who had a controlling interest- in the company, and they were not too well satisfied with the way things were going on during 1915, so at the end of 1915 an arrangement was made under which I was appointed a director.

You were appointed a director to protect the interests of Sir Rupert Clarke? - Yes.

What was Sir Rupert Clarke’s position in connexion with the business? - He had a shareholding interest.

What was his shareholding interest? - Substantially, I think, he had about 10,800 shares out of 35,000 shares, and Mr. Harry Whiting had about the same; and, in addition, Sir Rupert Clarke had guaranteed the account of Shaw Wireless Company with the London Bank, and in or about August, 1915, he had paid to the London Bank the amount owing to the bank, and obtained an assignment from them of their security.

How much had he paid? - He paid to the London Bank just over £27,034.

The London Bank of Australia in Sydney made an advance to the Shaw Wireless Limited of £27,000 or more on the security of a portion, not of the whole, of their works. When the bank advanced £27,000 against that security, there must have been nearly £50,000 or £60,000 worth of stock and machinery. Banks never ad vance more than 50 or 60 per cent, of the value of a security. Sir Rupert Clarke and Whiting paid off the advance of £27,000, and took the security themselves. That security was only a portion of the plant and machinery, and of the land that the Navy Department bought. If it was security justifying an advance of £27,000 by a bank, what was the actual worth of the machinery and plant? According to the statement here, there were 35,000 shares in the company, and Father Shaw was- a director of it. He gave £25,000 for an option on the interest that these people had in the concern, not for an option on the whole concern. Yet this grandmother of an Argus here in Melbourne prints in big type the statement that Father Shaw only paid £25,000 for the- works, and sold them for £55,000. That was a ridiculous, cruel, and dastardly statement. Yet it went down with the public. To continue my reading from the evidence, page 5 -

Were you being paid the interest at all ? - No. 1 want you to tell me about some arrangement made with Father Shaw to lease the works to him? - At the end of 1015 - on the 23rd December, 1915, to be accurate - -Father Shaw came up to Melbourne and saw Mr. Whiting and myself (Mr. Whiting was dealing for Sir Rupert Clarke, Sir Rupert Clarke being away at the war at that time ) , and we discussed the position, and he told us that he had an opportunity of making an arrangement with a lot of engineers to manufacture munitions. We were not prepared to allow Shaw Wireless Limited to incur any more obligations, and we made an arrangement with him under which he was to be able to have a lease of the works for the purpose of manufacturing munitions, he was working on a co-operative basis, as we understood, with his men. We were told that a good deal of money would have to be laid out in the first few months for the purpose of putting the works into proper order for the manufacture of munitions and so on, and so we agreed that the rent for the first six months was to be £15,000,

This firm of solicitors asked £15,000 for the rent of the works for six months only - but that we would not press him for payment at that time, so long as he was getting on all right.

This reminds me of something said during the inquiry, by a witness who was untruthful. It was suggested that I had been in negotiation for the sale of these works with Father Shaw from October, 1915; that he was endeavouring to sell them to me quietly. Yet we have the sworn testimony of a firm of solicitors in Melbourne that in December of that year Father Shaw rented the works for six months for the making of shells for the Commonwealth Government. That puts on one side the reflection upon me. To continue the quotation -

I suppose the lease is in writing if it is necessary to see it? - Yes; but I have not got it. It was not exactly a lease, but an agreement in writing.

Where is it? - It was handed over to Father Shaw.

Did you keep a draft, or a copy? - Yes; but I cannot find it.

Having made that arrangement, did any difficulties arise in the manufacture? - Yes, from what Shaw told me. He told me the Government had commandeered some of his machines, and he also told me . that he had difficulty in getting the steel which the Broken Hill company had agreed to supply him with, that it was not as perfect as it should have been.

Was Shaw able to keep up his rent? - When the first quarter’s rent became due at the end of March, he told that, owing to the expenditure he had, he was not in a position to pay the rent, and we agreed not to require him to pay the rent at that time.

I want you to come to the time when Shaw mentioned the matter of selling the works to the Government? - That was on Friday, 12th May.

That was the first time that Father Shaw mentioned to Whiting and Aitken, solicitors, of Melbourne, that he was going to endeavour to sell the works to the Navy Department. His application came in May -

Are you clear of that date ? - Yes. It was on Friday, 12th May, 1910, when he came over and saw me (he also saw Mr. Whiting), and told us that he thought that he had a good chance of selling to the Government, and that he could get options, or had got options.

He said that he had a good chance of selling to the Government. He did not say that he was going to sell, or had made arrangements to sell. Not only had he got an option from Whiting “and Aitken for that portion of the works which they held as a security, but he had to get options from other persons in connexion with other machinery and other land. He did not pay ?25,000 for an option upon the whole property: he paid that to one firm for an option on part of the works. He had to get options from a lot of persons in Sydney. That is made very plain. Evidently he felt that if he could get an option from Whiting and Aitken, he could get options for the other part of the works in Sydney. But he had to pay ?25,000 to Whiting and Aitken, should he sell, to meet his liability. Father Shaw was a big shareholder in the company, and apparently had a third interest in it. Only three shareholders are mentioned. The Commission did not show that Father Shaw got this option from Whiting and Aitken for ?25,000 and sold it for ?55,000. In my opinion, they only wanted to find out as much as was necessary to punish me. They did not attempt to clear me, or to do me justice. They only went far enough to enable them to make out to the community that I was a bad business man, that I failed in my administration of a Commonwealth Department. That attempt to injure me has not succeeded. They object that I did not inquire into the options. Why did not they inquire into them ? They failed to do so. They called only one witness with regard to this option, and he disclosed only what actually happened in his office. Father Shaw must have had big interests, which I am informed cost him many thousands of pounds ; but because of the way things had gone, he was, I believe, financially crippled, and thought that he would do best under the circumstances to get an option from those who held a portion of the land and machinery as security, and then try to get options from others, and sell the works. That is what he did ; but the whole transaction has been intentionally put in a light which has caused misconception. On page 6 this evidence is recorded -

Mr. Starke. He wanted an option to sell what? What we had.

He only wanted an option on the interest that this firm held -

And how much did he want it for? - We discussed the amount, and finally we found the most he could give us was ?25,000.

A little lower occurs this evidence -

Why did not you offer it direct to the Government? - Because it would not have been a bit of use offering our piece without the other part; it was not a complete thins.

You see the position in which I am placed by a summary which is supposed to contain a statement of the facts. A diabolical injustice has been done to me. Mr. Cotes was examined by Mr. Cussen, my barrister -

You only had security for a part of the land?- - Yes.

Do I understand from you that the more valuable piece of land was not included in your security? - No, that is not correct. I should say, as far as the land was concerned, the more valuable part was included in our security undoubtedly, but the engine house, the engines, and so on, were the vital part of the works.

And situate on land not included in your security? - Yes. That engine house, and the basement for the engines, had cost several thousands of pounds.

I wanted to put on the evidence the construction that I put on it to-night, letting my party know everything. Had I done that, and had a hostile motion been moved, either by the Opposition or by some honorable member on the Ministerial cross bench, I am sure that the majority of hon-‘ orable members would have stuck to me. Mr. Cussen also asked -

Do you know, in addition to the £27,000 that Sir Ku pert Clarke put into this business, how much Father Shaw put into it? - I do not know what amounts Father Shaw put into it. £27,000 was what we paid to the London Bank to take over their securities.

They say that I failed to inquire into the option obtained by Father Shaw. I have only quoted the evidence of their witnesses. I did not call one witness on my own behalf. Furthermore, though it is nearly two years since I left the Navy Department, I did not approach an Admiral, the Secretary, or any officer regarding any evidence which might be put before the Commission. I dare any living man to deny that. I have not approached any Navy officer, or any one else. I have stood on my own ground, knowing that I had done no wrong. If I had done wrong would I not have gone to some of the naval officers or to some other persons, and tried to cover up some of the tracks I had left behind me? But I say again that I did not approach a living soul in the Department, from the RearAdmiral down to the officer of lowest rank, in “regard to the giving of evidence before the Royal Commission. Was that the action of a guilty man ? No. The Commission’s finding against me is -

No inquiry was made as to the details of the option held by Father Shaw.

In all probability, if Father Shaw were alive, he could prove that it cost in the vicinity of £80,000 or £90,000 to purchase and equip the works. What had the option that Father Shaw secured to do with me? I had merely looked into the valuation of the works from the governmental stand-point. Another finding of the Royal Commission against me is -

The Cabinet’s approval of the purchase was upon condition that the Minister was satisfied that the Navy Department’s requirements would keep the plant fully occupied.

My answer to this finding is Commander Cresswell’s report, which was a complete justification of my action, but was suppressed, and not placed before the Commission until my counsel insisted upon its production. This inquiry had been in progress for twelve months, until it took a definite turn a few weeks ago. I asked for a report from Commander Cresswell because of a wire which I had received from the Treasurer. I forwarded to Commander Cresswell the exact question that the Treasurer had submitted to me, and the answer that I forwarded to the Treasurer was the answer submitted to me by the departmental officer, with the exception of a slight variation of the wording, which did not alter the meaning. The answer forwarded to the Treasurer was a complete reply to his request. I submitted to the Engineer of Radio-Telegraphy the question contained in the Commission’s finding, viz., that the Cabinet’s approval of the purchase was upon condition that the Minister was satisfied that the Navy Department’s requirements would keep the plant fully occupied; and his report which is in the Navy Office, not only corresponds exactly with the reply which I forwarded to the Treasurer, but also’ bears me out in another statement - that I had fully discussed this matter from every aspect in Cabinet. I told Cabinet that, according to the reports I had received, the works could be made use of by other Departments. I even told the then Acting Prime Minister (Senator Pearce) privately on two occasions, when we were proceeding to his home in St. Kilda, that even if some doubt might exist in regard to keeping the works fully occupied by wireless requirements, the report furnished to the Postal Department said that there were plenty of machines which could be utilized for the requirements of the Postal Department. Also, at that time I was aware that the Defence Department were having work done at the Shaw Wireless Works for the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. Certain portions of machinery were being turned out for the Lithgow Factory by these works at the very time I was communicating with regard to their purchase. Work was being done for the Defence Department, the plant could have been used for the requirements of the Postal Department; and, as I shall show from the annual report furnished by Commander Cresswell upon the work turned out by these works during the first twelve months, there is no doubt in my mind that they have materially assisted the Commonwealth in the manufacture of certain articles necessary for the carrying on of Government institutions in the interests of Australia. How could the Royal Commission say that the Cabinet’s approval of the purchase was upon condition that the Minister was satisfied that the Navy Department’s requirements would keep the plant fully occupied ? Mr. Cussen was the barrister who represented me at the inquiry by the Royal Commission. I read the following from page 34 of the evidence taken by the Commission : -

The Chairman:

– I do not think you need pursue that point, Mr. Cussen, we quite follow it.

Mr. Cussen I desire to put before the Commission in connexion with Mr. Jensen’s evidence, Commander Cresswell’s report on the first year of the wireless business. This is the original report. (To witness). - That is so; that is your annual report for the first year of the wireless? - Yes.

Although this Commission had been in existence for twelve months, the most material evidence that it could have had before it - Commander Cresswell’s report on the first twelve months’ operations of these wireless works - had not been submitted to it. A copy of this report was posted to me confidentially by Commander Cresswell - it must have been a year ago - probably because of the interest that I had taken in the organization of the wireless system in Australia, after’ the control of wireless telegraphy had been transferred from the Department of the PostmasterGeneral to the Navy Department. I was struck by the mature of the report, especially when I had heard certain evidence given by this man Denison, director of the Sydney Sun, who is also a director of the Amalgamated Wireless, in Sydney, which is running a German system of wireless telegraphy, as I have already informed honorable members. Let me quote from Commander Cresswell’s report dealing with the fitting up of ships with wireless since the taking over of these workshops. This report says -

The number of ships’ inspections carried out during the past twelve months is as follows: -

During the last twelve months the following wireless telegraphy installations have been manufactured in the wireless telegraphy workshops and fitted to the ships mentioned: -

Alacrity, Governor Musgrave, Sleuth, Carina, Oonargo,Calulu, Victoria Lienta, Sir William Matthews, Booral, Kanna

A little later I shall quote the evidence of this man Denison, who swore that his company had entered into contracts with every shipping company in Australia for the supply of wireless” apparatus to its ships, and that there was not a ship left on which the Commonwealth Government could place wireless. The report continues -

The following ships have been refitted with more efficient wireless gear: - Bulla, Seang Bee, Seang Choon, Vestalia, Surada.

Long-wave receivers have been fitted in the following ships: - Hymettus, Karroo, Port Melbourne,Hororata, Benalla, Armadale, Bakara, Nashobra, Beltana, Itria, Karoola, Ballarat, Orontes, Shropshire, Saldanha, Afric, Suffolk, Anglo- Egyptian, Berrima, Seang Bee, Bulla, Surada, Palermo, Orsova, Commonwealth, CaVulu, Carina, Conargo.

Central switches have been fitted in the following ships: - Clan Maccorquodale, Anglo-

Egyptian, Barambah, Seang Choon, Anchises, Dongarra, Bulla. Saldanha. Boonah, Vestalia Itria, Nestor, Seang Bee, Aeneas, Calulu, Carina, Conargo

These works have manufactured and placed on all these ships a complete wireless system, despite what has been said by this man Denison, who caused the then Treasurer, Mr. Higgs, to put certain questions to me. The Treasurer wanted to know from me whether the Amalgamated Wireless Company held a contract for the supply of wireless apparatus to all the ships trading in Australia. I replied that this was not the case; that they had certainly fitted some ships with wireless, but that, at the time, there were over sixty coastal vessels which still remained to be fitted with wireless. The Commission failed to get Commander Cresswell’s report, which was absolutely in favour of the taking over of these works, and justified their purchase; but I happened to remember it, and showed it to my barrister. Thereupon he asked the Commission if they had had it before them. They said “ No.” It was only because I happened to have a copy of the report that the Commission knew of its existence. I think that Mr. Denison should be proceeded against for perjury. The then Treasurer said that he nearly held up the payment of the money to Father Shaw because of his statements. At page 21 of the Radio Engineer’s report, which was made twelve months after the purchase of these works, we have the further statement -

Wireless Telegraphy, and Electrical WORKSHOPS, Randwick.

During the first twelve months from the time of transfer of this service to the Navy Department, the Wireless Telegraph Branch was greatly handicapped by the lack of suitable wireless telegraphy workshops. Representations were made, and a proposal for establishing suitable workshops in Melbourne was being considered when it was decided to take over the works of the Shaw Wireless Company, in Sydney. It was pointed out that these works were too extensive to justify their purchase purely for the requirements of the wireless telegraphy service; if, however, the Commonwealth purchased these works and utilized them, not only for wireless telegraphy purposes, but for the manufacture of electrical and small mechanical apparatus and machinery required by the different Commonwealth De partments, their purchase would be justified, provided, of course, that the various Departments co-operated heartily by placing as many of their orders as possible with the works. The Shaw Wireless Works were subsequently taken over, and it has only been by the acquisition of these works that this Department has been able to meet almost the’ whole of the demand for wireless telegraphy apparatus, &c, arising out of the war.

Only because of the acquisition of these works has the Department been able to meet the demands made upon it for wireless telegraphy apparatus and for repairs for land stations. In this report the taking over of these works was absolutely justified. The Commission, however, never asked for it, and but for it the lying statements made by Denison would have gone unchallenged. So much for the way in which the Commission dealt with the business intrusted to them. They allowed this man, that man, and the other man to make damaging statements against the Department for the Navy, the Minister and the Government generally in regard to the taking over of these works. They called a few persons who wrote “ damnation,” so to speak, across the taking over of these works, and it was only in my defence that the production of the report was demanded. Even” then it was not commented upon by the Commission. In paragraph o of the Commission’s summary we have the statement that -

The Minister was aware from the official reports that the Navy Department’s requirements would not keep the plant fully employed, but he states that the Cabinet thoroughly understood that the Department’s requirements would not keep the plant fully employed, and that work from all other Departments would be necessary to keep it fully employed, but he took no steps to obtain any correction of the Cabinet minute.

Who are these Commissioners that they should say that I should have taken steps to secure a correction of the Cabinet minute? What have they to do with me or with the Cabinet? As long as I was satisfied that the matter had been discussed in Cabinet, and that it was understood that the works could not be kept fully employed in dealing only with wireless apparatus - that there was machinery in the works that co”ld be utilized to meet the requirements of other Government Departments - what more was necessary? I was in the inner secrets of the Cabinet - I was a member of it. Was it necessary that I should send this minute back to Senator Pearce to have it amended in one minor respect, when I knew what the exact understanding was? Ministers of the Crown were called to give evidence. Senator Gardiner, Senator Russell, and Senator Pearce were called before the Commission, and admitted when the question was put to them that when the proposal was being discussed it was understood that the works were to be taken over for wireless purposes, but could be used also for the purposes of other Departments. That was thoroughly understood. As Minister for the Navy I should have been only too pleased to allow the works to attend to the requirements of other Departments. As I have pointed out to the Cabinet, the workshops are being used at the present time by the Defence Department. True, the Defence Department is not the Navy Department, but it is a sister branch of the Service, and at the very time that the ex-Treasurer wrote to me the Shaw Wireless Works were carrying out certain work for the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. I believe it has manufactured also for other Government Departments.

I had the minute of the Cabinet to the effect that I could buy these works for £55,000 provided I was satisfied that the Navy Department would keep them going. And the Navy Department will keep them going. The Defence Department is the Navy Department, and so is the Postal Department, in the sense that these are Government works controlled by the Navy Department, and having the machinery and the men capable of doing work required by the Defence Department and the Postal Department. The Commission urges, however, that I should have had the Cabinet minute corrected. There, again, the inference is that I did something without obtaining the ^consent of Cabinet. Every line in this summary on the part of the Commission has in it the same sting. The whole summary is saturated with ill-feeling towards me. My answer to paragraph o in the

Commission’s summary is that I explained the whole position to the Cabinet, and that the file of papers was available for any member to see. The Treasurer’s request was not limited to the plant being kept occupied by naval requirements, as is shown in paragraph 29, and Commander Cresswell’s report fully answered the Treasurer’s queries. As long as the Cabinet was satisfied with my action and knew what I was doing, what reason had the Commission to complain that no steps were taken to obtain any correction of the minute? The Commission was simply trying to damn me in the eyes of the public, and this paragraph in its summary is also unfair.

I come now to paragraph p -

The Minister’s reply to the Commonwealth Treasurer’s inquiry as to whether the works were necessary for the purposes of the Commonwealth failed to disclose the whole of the facts within the Minister’s knowledge.

That is a diabolical lie on the part of the Commission. My answer to it is that the Commission did not venture to state what facts were within my own knowledge that I did not communicate to the Treasurer. They cannot point to any fact within my knowledge that I failed to communicate. In making this statement they were only going upon certain evidence given by the ex-Treasurer (Mr. Higgs), who, when the other side was put to him by my counsel, considerably modified that part of his evidence. He said that if he had known of it before he would not have answered the question as he had done. ‘There was no evidence of any witness except Denison that the works were not worth the money. Denison was a biased witness who was running a rival concern, and he lied. He swore that the whole of the shipping around the Australian coast was under contract with his company, whereas I have shown that after taking over these works we manufactured wireless apparatus for and fitted up a great number of ships. Mr. Hugh Robert Denison certainly lied, and I hope the Government will look into the evidence given by him. He is the managing director of the Sun Newspaper Company, and is also a director of the Amalgamated Wireless, Sydney. What did this man say, as reported at page 29, when cross-examined by Mr. Cussen in regard to an article published in the Sun on 31st July, 1916? The report of this part of his crossexamination - as given at page 29 - is as follows : -

The article said you were doing the work? - I do not think so.

It says, “ At the present moment the plant required on ships, with the exception of dynamos, are being manufactured by the Amalgamated Wireless of’ Australia?”- That has nothing to do with the company. As a matter of fact, they carefully refrained from giving us any business, for some reason or other.

That was apparent that they had refrained from giving you business - deliberately? - It looked like it.

However, the purchase by the Government of these works meant going into a trade that you were doing in supplying plant required by ships ? - No.

Why not? - For the very simple reason that we- had contracts for the whole of the shipping of Australia, and we had them tied up by means of contracts for a period of years.

The whole of them? - Yes.

Do you say that? - The whole of the Australian shipping was under contract to us. All I can tell you is, the whole of the Australian shipping has been fitted with wireless by the Amalgamated or Australasian Wireless Company.

By Mr. Starke. - You mean the coastal ships? - All the coastal ships in Australia.

By Mr. Cussen. - What about the shipping coming from the other countries? - The Marconi Company, and other companies, have supplied those.

When war broke out, I take it, a number of ships were fitted with wireless? - Yes; and the Government compelled them to bc fitted up, but apparently they could not equip them themselves.

At that time, no. However, do you say that this purchase by the. Government of Father Shaw’s works did not affect your business at all? - Not in the slightest.

Nor was it thought in the future it might affect it? - That is a different thing.

It was a thing that the Amalgamated Wireless, and you, as managing director, would rather not see come about? - Yes; that is perfectly correct, for two reasons.

I suppose one is money? - No. The principal thing was that the Government, unfortunately, had taken the most extreme step in the so-called Balsillie patents, and were proposing to make stations wherever they could, and we were fighting the Government in that matter for years, and naturally we thought the Government was behind them when they started to develop those patents, which we understood were an infringement of our patents.

What is the other reason? - The other” was, we did not want the Government to be a competitor - a competitor with Government money behind it.

Cutting into your profits? - Yes; cutting into everything.

Do you say that you knew nothing at all about that article? - That is so. I did not see it until it appeared.

Did you make any inquiries about it? - No.

No request to any other papers on this matter? - No. I think I wrote a letter to the Argus and Age on that basis.

Did you write that as managing director of the Sun - or what? - As managing director of the Wireless Company, and signed as such.

Did you write that before or after this article? - I think it was after - I am not sure.

You cannot give us any idea whether before or after? - No. The article in the Sun was written the day after the announcement of the purchase.

And when was your letter written? - Within a few days, I think.

You were against it as managing director of the Amalgamated Wireless? - Of course I was.

That only goes to prove that they had taken the evidence of this man Denison in Sydney months ago. He was called to Melbourne, and, I suppose, he repeated the statement that the whole of the ships in Australian waters were under agreement to his company. But in answer to that we have the evidence of RadioEngineer Cresswell that since the taking over of the works’ he has manufactured wireless apparatus, and installed it on a number of ships. There are plenty more ships to be fitted with wireless. Many of those which come to Australia, and some of those engaged in the coastal trade, are not yet equipped in this way. But for my action the Commission would never have seen Commander Cresswell’s report. When I. heard the lying reports that Denison was making in his endeavour to damn me in connexion with the purchase of the wireless works, I remembered that report, and my barrister insisted upon its being included in the evidence.

The Commission’s summary continues -

  1. Senator Long received a gratuity from Father Shaw for influence which Father Shaw believed he had used.

My answer is that Senator .Long never used, or attempted to use, any influence over me, and the Commission has obtained not one word of evidence to the contrary.

  1. Nearly £3,000 of the purchase money paid to Father Shaw has not been accounted for.

That is no business of mine ; it has nothing to do with me. But it appears thatthe Commission obtained a report from police officers in Melbourne regarding Father Shaw’s movements from the time he was paid until he became ill. That report was not placed before the Commission. Only a couple of statements from it were quoted. So far as the Commission’s report shows, that £3,000 might have gone anywhere. Evidence was adduced that certain luggage belonging to Father Shaw had been received by a certain person. There was no evidence to show that the luggage had been properly handled, or by whom it had been opened. I do not know where the £3,000 has gone, and I do not intend to try to discover it. That is no business of mine. But the Commission did report that no proof had been produced that the money had reached me in any way. That is all the Commission could say about me in that regard. My barrister desired that the Commission should make an absolute finding in relation to the whole of the circumstances surrounding this case, but the Commission has failed to do that. It has submitted a report based on certain portions of the evidence, which, in every instance, can be rebutted.

The report was forwarded tothe GovernorGeneral, and by him forwarded to the Government. What has been its effect? I have been gazetted out of the Government, and no matter what happens to me now, no matter how I try to live downthe aspersion that is cast upon me by the action of the Government in not giving me a hearing before my party, and in not collaborating with me in a search for evidence to rebut some of the Commission’s summarized facts, nothing that can be done for me in future, even by this Parliament”, can remove the awful stigma that has been placed upon my character and the suffering I have had to endure for the last few days. Nothing can recompense me for that. I am held up to the people of Australia as a man upon whom suspicion has been east in connexion with his administrative work. That is undoubtedly the effect of the action of Ministers in refusing to sit with me in the Government, or to fight my case. In view of the fact that these transactions did not occur during the regime of the present Government, Ministers might at least have assisted me to combat tie Commissioners’ findings, but they have refused to do so. I have a mass of notes, full of most convincing matter, and I feel that I could continue replying to the report for another two or three hours. But I shall not weary the House by doing that. I thank honorable members for the very patient hearing they have given me; not even by an interjection have they hurt my feelings in the slightest degree.

I am accused of having done certain things without consulting departmental officers or Cabinet. I admit that. How often have I heard honorable members in this House accuse Ministers of being afraid to act on their own initiative, and of being tied up with departmental red tape? I did not purchase the Shaw Wireless Works on my own account ; Cabinet purchased them. But I take the full responsibility of having recommended the purchase to the Cabinet, and I have no regrets in that regard other than that I have been penalized because of having done what I deemed to be my duty in time of war. I desired to do the best I could to facilitate the equipment with wireless of all ships in Australian waters instead of that work being left in the hands of a company which includes such a man as that damned liar, Denison. By the evidence that has been forthcoming regarding the operations of the works, since they were acquired by the Government, that man stands convicted of deliberate lying.

I did many things while I was in charge of the Navy Department, and I ask the Government to look into all of them. One morning I went to the Port Melbourne Pier in company with the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Boyd), and without reference to Rear-Admiral Clarkson, or the Naval Board, or Cabinet, I entered into an arrangement to take over control of part of the new pier.

I resolved that the repair and fitting up . of transports should be facilitated by establishing our own workshops on the pier, and I instructed an officer to purchase the necessary material and machinery. That action was taken on my own initiative. Let the Government inquire into it. Was there ,any corruption or wrong-doing in that regard? .1 will relate to the House something else I did. The newspapers have had a lot to say about me in relation to the contract with Cone and Company for the fitting up of transports. That firm had a contract with the Navy Department for carrying out alterations to vessels and for the supply of the raw material and labour required in connexion with the work, on a commission basis of 10 per cent. No matter what Cone and Company paid for labour or material, they received a commission of 10 per cent. That was the full text of the brief agreement that existed between them and the Government; there were no other conditions or considerations. When I was appointed Minister for the Navy I investigated the contract, and found that the Department was being absolutely robbed - robbed, I repeat. At my instance the company’s books were * seized and audited by the AuditorGeneral. That examination disclosed circumstances that were not too nice from the point of view of the Department. I immediately, said to Cone that I did not like the system on which he was working for the Department, and that he was not going to have these conditions a day longer. I forced Cone to another agreement, which made the conditions absolutely better, for the Government in every way. Instead of 10 per cent, for material he was to get only 5 per cent., and the discounts he had been allowed had to go into the Navy Department for the first time. There were many other restrictive conditions put into the agreement; and he worked under it for some little time. I placed a certain man on board the ships, giving hiin a letter signed by me, and conferring on him the absolute right to come and go when he liked, irrespective of the Admiral or any other officer in the Navy Department. This man watched the interests of the Depart ment, and reported to me almost daily the happenings in the course of the alterations of the ships. I state publicly that the man’s name was Myers, so that if the Government* desire to inquire into some more of my actions they are at liberty to do so. The man reported to me that things were not right with Cone and Company, who were sub-letting the work to other firms. The result was that these firms were absolutely robbing the Navy Department. They were presenting Cone with certain accounts, and these were added to Cone’s accounts again. What did I do ? I kicked those men off the ships. Yet the newspapers have dared to say certain things against me, including the statement that I paid certain moneys to Cone and Company to which they were not entitled. I challenge the Government to look into this matter, and say that I have not saved the country £25,000 by the new agreement, which was made retrospective from the first day they started. All their accounts were gone into, and big deductions were made under the agreement, with the result of great savings.

I am charged with not taking the advice of the Rear-Admiral, but the RearAdmiral sent a minute, and wanted me to pay Cone a certain amount, but I would not do so; and because of my action in regard to this company many thousands of pounds were deducted from their accounts. I may also inform the Melbourne newspapers that I held up one of Cone’s accounts, and said that I thought that, on account of it, he ought to be charged with a criminal offence; and I sent a minute to the Crown Law Office. I prosecuted Peacock and Smith, but on a technical point they got out of the trouble; yet the newspapers are blaming me over the Cone business. Whatever wrong was going on, I as Minister, immediately stopped it. What did I do without consulting the Board or the Cabinet? I handed over the whole of the work on those ships to the Trades Hall - another cut at the Navy Board, those dignified gentlemen in gold braid. As I say, I handed over the whole of the work to the Trades Hall ; and until I left the Navy Office the unions carried out the work in a very creditable manner, and never were accused of wrong-doing in regard to accounts, anyway.

Suppose I did buy the Emerald for £4,500 and another - the Togo-for £7,500? The Togo is one of the fastest boats in Australia, and is only , a few years old, with the best reciprocating engines in the Commonwealth. It was admitted by the chairman of the Commission to be worth £7,500, as the, report of the evidence shows. I am accused of buying these vessels as if I had no right to exercise my executive powers in this way. But bigger things have been done by Cabinet Ministers without consulting the Cabinet. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) paid £2,000,000 for ships without consulting the Cabinet, and his powers of executive are no more than mine. The Prime Minister bought those ships without having a valuation, or even the opinion, of the Naval Board of Australia; but he is not condemned or taken before a Commission.

I bought the Togo because I wanted a boat like her - because we had not at the time available a little tug-boat in Australia. I tried Cockatoo Island and the state shipyards, but there was no material - no plates for ships or boilers - and I was unable to get what I required. Two little boats were necessary to tide me over the duration, of the war; and I had to “do things” in the Navy. I never left everything to the Naval Board; if I had, the Department would have gone wanting on many occasions. As I have said, the Chairman of the Commission admitted that the Togo was worth £7,500. The following is an extract from my evidence on the point : -

By the Chairman. - I do not think we need waste time on it. I think the Commission is quite satisfied that the value of £7,500 for the boat was all right.

This shows that the Chairman thought the boat was worth £7,500, and yet I am condemned for buying her. She is one of the best built boats of her kind in Australia; beautifully seasoned wood, copper fastenings, with the finest engines that could be provided in Australia, and a speed of 14 knots, though by a misprint that appears as 11 knots in the report-. She was inspected by one of the Naval engineers who was sent over to Launceston ; and he not only inspected the boat, but gave her a trial run and got 14 knots out of her. His report was to the effect that he had examined the whole of the machinery of the ship, and had found it in excellent order. What more could I do? I had a report from the same officer that, in his opinion, she was worth £7,500. Admiral Creswell knew that this officer had gone to Launceston to make this inspection, and he had no objection to it. But Sir William was ill for about three weeks, and, before I bought the Togo, I rang up his office and asked his chief clerk to communicate with him, and see if he had any objection to the purchase. The replyfrom Admiral Creswell was “ No,” and on that I purchased her. All the same, I am blamed for doing so, while, as I say, the Chairman of the Commission himself was satisfied as to the value. What did the Commission do? They made a rotten, silly statement concerning my action, or intended to apply to my action, in purchasing the boat. They say that the boat is not suitable for what she was purchased for, and that tenders have been called for her, with the result that one for £1,000 and another for £350 were sent in. In my opinion, these tenders almost give rise to a suspicion of “ fake ‘’ in order to belittle me.

The Emerald was offered to me for £6,000, but I refused to buy her at that price. The agent for. the owner interviewed me again, and wished me to rent her, but I said that the Commonwealth was financial enough to buy any boats she wanted, and that I did not want to rent her. After he had visited me on two or three occasions I told him that I wanted a boat to tide me over the war, and that while I knew she was not a proper tug, she would suit our circumstances, and I would give £4,500. An inspection of. the vessel had taken place, and officers of the Naval Works Department had said she was in good order. She had come down from Brisbane, and, therefore, was seaworthy. Her hull, machinery, and boiler were in good order, and she was of fairly good dimensions - 127 feet long, with a good beam and fair draught. On the whole, I could see five years’ work in her at the very least. In view of the fact that dredges were about to start at the Westernport basin, we required a small tug, and I could not get one built; and I said that, even if we did not spend much on her, the Emerald would suit us for the time being. I rang up Mr. Treacy, and, in his presence, offered Croker £4,500, giving him ten minutes to think over it. He accepted the offer, and I instructed Mr. Treacy to make all provisions for the completion of the sale. I admit to the House that I took the risk of buying this boat, although I had never had a trial of her; but I had a report, and knew she would do for me in the smooth water. Admiral Creswell was one who took umbrage at my buying the boat without consulting him. The- following is an extract from Admiral Creswell’s evidence: -

By the Chairman. - Do the Commission understand that the Emerald has been doing useful Government work? - Yes, she is doing good work.

Although not suitable for the purpose of a tug-boat, yet she has done or is doing other work? - Yes.

Would they require a boat of some kind to do the work she is doing? - Yes. We were in want of a boat for that special purpose, to take coal and water round to the dredges, instead of the dredges having to come into coal, &c.

It will be seen that Admiral Creswell, under cross-examination, said that the Emerald was doing good useful work, although she cost only £4,500. What sort of boat can be purchased in these days for that amount? Would any one expect a destroyer or an ironclad ? -

So far as the Board knows about this vessel? - She is doing good work.

By Mr. Starke. - In examining the hull and the engines of the .Emerald originally, who was the proper officer that the Board should have referred such an examination to. Practically it was referred to Mr. Swan and Mr. Treacy. Mr. Treacy says he was quite unsuitable for such work? - Yes.

What about Mr. Swan? - He may have referred matters of that kind to the members of the Naval Board.

The Emerald had been previously offered to me, and the Navy Board could have gone into the matter, but did not do so.

Who was the technical officer? - I should consider the Third Naval Member the technical officer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cussen. - What do you think is the value of that vessel as she now is? - I could not give you an idea. I could only tell you she has been doing work for us and contributing to the service.

I bought the Togo and the Emerald “ off my own bat,” and never attempted to make out that I had done otherwise. I have never endeavoured to make any other person responsible for my own action.

I have done something else without consulting the Board or the Cabinet. What did I do? Did the Commission give me credit for this? No. A certain transport was about to leave Australia. At-the time, I was a Minister in a Labour Government. When she arrived in Melbourne, all the firemen walked off her. On my own initiative, I put certain Naval Reservists on board, and sent her to Sydney and Newcastle, where she got sufficient coal to enable her to proceed to Europe. The Naval Reservists. acting as firemen, brought her back to Melbourne; and at 10 o’clock in the morning of the day on which she was to sail, the whole of the seamen on board walked off in sympathy with the firemen. The transport was due to leave at noon with 1,200 soldiers, who were on board. I got on the ‘phone, and pointed out to the secretary and the officials of the Firemen and Seamen’s Union the serious effect of this action in war time, and pleaded for men to enable the boat to get away in time. “Mr. Minister,” they said, “we cannot do it. The unionists are defying the executive.” I replied, “ I must have the men.” They said, “They will not go aboard.” Without taking the matter to the Naval Board, and without consulting Cabinet, I rang up the Williamstown Naval Depot, where there were some 200 or 300 Naval Reservists. I told the Captain in charge to select forty-five men, to give them their knapsacks, to put them on the Williamstown train, and to send them round to Port Melbourne forthwith. It was then a quarter-past 10, and I said that they must be at Port Melbourne at a quarter to 12. I took it on myself to do this in the interests of the war, feeling that I was doing the right thing at the right time. I put the boat under naval discipline, and let the lines go, defying the unions of Australia. I did not take that matter to Cabinet or to the Naval Board ; I did it on my own. I knew that I was running the risk of causing a big strike; but, although a Labour Minister, I felt that in time of war no transport should be stuck up. The powers intrusted to me enabled me to do what I did. Let that action be put against the buying of these two little vessels, and against the attempt of the Commission to belittle me by their findings. I have referred to these matters to show that, on occasions other than those mentioned by the Commission, I have done things without consulting the Naval Board. “What was the Naval Board? I was its bOss, its president. I had the power to veto anything it might determine. Was I to do things only in a red-tape fashion? A Minister who is not game to do things for himself in the exercise of his ex’ecutive powers is not worth his salt. What have I to be ashamed of? I am accused of having spent a paltry £12,000 on the purchase of two vessels without making the proper investigation to ascertain whether they were worth the money. I told the Commission, in regard to the Togo, “ You say that only £1,000 was offered for her, and that there was another offer of £350; but I take it on myself to get £6,000 for her now, although she has been chopped about and altered this way and that.” Not a word was said in reply to me. The Commission found that I did certain things without conferring with the Navy Board or with the Cabinet. Let me tell you, sir, that in that same Navy Department, until I stopped it, officers, clerks, and storemen were purchasing tens of thousands of pounds worth of goods without a tender, and without a quote. I issued a minute stopping it. Did the Commission look into that? Have the Commission condemned those officers and others for doing things that were irregular and unknown to the Minister? Not tens of thousands of pounds worth only, but hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of stuff were purchased in the Navy Department by servants who were getting only £5 per week. Some big firms in Melbourne received £40,000 and £50,000 for goods without a quotation or a tender. I stopped that. My minutes are in evidence. But departmental officers are not to be accused for doing these things. Their transactions are not to be looked into. It is the Minister who is condemned. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and honorable members, for your hearing. I. feel my position very much. No man can say that in my speech I have been spiteful to anybody. I have not been spiteful to the Government. I have said certain things, but I have kept within the limits to be expected of an ex-Cabinet Minister. At least, I shall never do what one Minister did here: I shall never tell the House what took place in an Executive meeting. The trials and suffering that I have undergone during the past, few days have been great; and if ever a man was tempted to say something, I have been so tempted. The day perhaps will come when many of those who have listened to me will overlook what has happened during the past ten days, so far as I am concerned. I have made my statement; I have produced facts. There are many other matters into which I could go, but time will not permit. The House has treated me well. I have now been here for three, hours and ten minutes, and have enough material in the way of notes for another three hours; but what I could say more would not, perhaps, convince honorable members beyond their present convictions. I am sorry for what- the Government did to me. Had I had a chance to go before the party, they might perhaps have viewed matters in another light. However, I must take things as they are. I can walk down Collins-street holding my head up, because I have done no wrong. The Ministry have not charged me with doing anything wrong. Not one thing. Is not that so, Mr. Acting Prime Minister ?

Mr JENSEN:

– Outside the way in which the report is worded, the Ministry have not said another thing to me about my administration. Have you, sir?

Mr Watt:

– No.

Mr JENSEN:

– I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank every honorable member. I shall now consider where I shall take my seat in this chamber. I do not know that I shall appear in the

House any more until next session. In the meantime, I shall think over matters.

page 9639

ADJOURNMENT

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

.- Out of consideration for the honorable member who has been addresssing us, and for honorable members who sat through last night, and are very tired, I move, without further comment -

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.13 p.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 December 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19181217_reps_7_87/>.