House of Representatives
1 October 1919

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 12830

NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a return to the writ issued for the election of a member to serve in the House of Representatives for the Electoral Division of Echuca, in the placeof Albert Clayton Palmer, deceased indorsed with a certificate of the election of William Caldwell- Hill.

page 12830

QUESTION

REPATRIATION: GRANT TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

-I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, whether the Department will consider the advisableness of renewing the allowances they have been making themunicipalities to provide for the employment of returned soldiers. I have here a letter showing that, in one case, twenty-three returned soldiers have been dismissedby a municipality owing to the fact that it has exhausted its grant.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The Government made a free grant of £500,000 to the local governing bodies of Australia to overcome the immediate difficulty experienced in placing returned soldiers in employment. They also advised the State Governments that they would be prepared to lend local governing bodies a further indefinite amount, provided the State Governments would pass the necessary legislation,or make whatever arrangements were requisite to enable the municipal authorities throughout the Commonwealth to expend further moneys in the employment of returned soldiers.

page 12830

QUESTION

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX

Mr LECKIE:
INDI, VICTORIA

– I find that entertain ments held to provide funds for the erection of Soldiers’ Memorial Halls, and for other purposes associated with the welfare of our returnedmen, are being subjected to the Entertainments Tax. Will the Acting Treasurer take into con sideration the desirableness of placing such entertainments on the same footing as ordinary patriotic efforts, which are, to a certain extent, exempt?

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

– The matter will receivemy consideration.

page 12830

QUESTION

FROZEN MEAT CONTRACTS

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

– In to-day’s press there appears an announcement by the Minister for Trade and Customs that the Imperial meat contracts are to terminate three months after the date of the exchange of ratifications of peace. Will the Minister inform the House if that announcement is final so far as Australia, one of the contracting parties, is concerned, and, if it means that, although huge quantities of meat for the Imperial Government are now accumulated in Australian cool stores, and, notwithstanding the enormously increased cost of producing meat owing to the drought conditions, the prices, terms, and conditions of the existing contracts are to apply to the new season’s meat?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The announcement referred to was made as the result of a cablegram, stating that the Imperial Government had announced through the Board of Trade that the contracts will terminate three months after the ratification of Peace. I proposeto consult with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) as to whether, in view of the fact that the Imperial Government are unable to lift from Australia accumulated supplies, further representations should be made to them to the effect that the old contract should not apply to the new season’s meat, but that the latter should be subject to the new contract’ when it is entered into. As soon as these negotiations have proceeded further the information will be given to the honorable member.

page 12830

QUESTION

ALLOWANCE POST-OFFICES

Mr FLEMING:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether the information lately given by him, in the form of a letter, in regard to allowance post-offices in country districts, is to be taken to mean that in all but exceptional cases the hours that previously obtained will be restored ?

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

– An error occurred in the interpretation of my instructions on the subject. I am correcting that error, and those concerned will be advised that the course just outlined by the honorable member is to be adopted.

page 12831

QUESTION

REFRIGERATED SPACE ON OVERSEA STEAMERS

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

– Can the Minister for the Navy say whether a definite decision has yet been arrived atbetween the Commonwealth and the Imperial Government regarding the control of refrigerated space on steam-ships trading between Australia and the Old Country during the coming season ?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No. So far as I am aware nothing whatever is known of the matter.

page 12831

QUESTION

ADMIRAL VISCOUNT JELLICOE’S REPORT

Shaw Wireless Works

Mr JENSEN:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Will the. Minister for the Navy state whether it is intended to place on the table of the House that portion of the report furnished by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe which cannot be regarded as secret, and particularly that part of it which relates to His Lordship’s inspection of the wireless workshops at Randwick, Sydney?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
NAT

– My recollection is that my honorable friend was informed last week that; the matter would be considered in connexion with the full report presented by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe. I hope that before long we shall be able to lay the report on the table of the House. The honorable member’s request will receive consideration.

page 12831

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Early in the present session the then Acting Treasurer (Mr. Watt) promised that, in view of the increased cost of living, consideration would be given to the question of increasing the amount of the invalid and old-age pensions. I should like to know whether anything has yet. been done in the matter ? When is the Government going to announce their intention?

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– The Government will announce its policy in due course.

page 12831

GENERAL ELECTION

Government Caucus Meeting

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Owing to the detrimental effect of a general election on business generally, and on honorable members’ pockets-

Mr Hughes:

– This is evidently a nonparty question!

Mr WEST:

– However that may be, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether, if there had been a full attendance of honorable members at the recent Government caucus meeting, the decision as to the date of the election might not have been different?

page 12831

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LEAVE GRATUITY

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. Gregory

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that officers and soldiers who were returned to Australia for convalescence, and again sent forward to the Front, have had the period spent within the Commonwealth deducted from their war service gratuity, whereas those who convalesced across the seas had no such deductions made?
  2. If so, will the Minister agree that no deduction shall be made from the war service gratuity for the period during which any soldier who has been on active service has been convalescing, whether such period was spent in Australia or overseas?
Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. Yes. Service outside Australia only was counted as service for the purpose of war service leave gratuity.
  2. Yes. The whole period of service from date of embarkation to date of commencement of final gratuity leave (or to date of discharge in past cases where such leave was not granted at the time of discharge) will now be allowed as. qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the leave gratuity. Adjustment will be made where necessary.

page 12831

QUESTION

WAR DECORATIONS

Mr RILEY:
for Mr.. Page

asked the

Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many decorations (giving particulars of each class of decoration) were won by nurses, also members of the Army and Navy during the present war?
  2. What rank did the holders of these decorations hold?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– I have the particulars as to the Army, but not as to the Navy. When I have the information as to both I shall lay it on the table.

page 12832

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS: IMPORTED AMMUNITION

Mr MATHEWS:
for Mr. Fenton

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is true that imported ammunition is being used at our rifle ranges by the members of the Citizen Forces and Rifle Clubs instead of the locally made ammunition?
  2. If so, will he see that Australian ammunition is used, so that employment may be given to returned soldiers and others, who are at present out of work, in the manufacture of such ammunition?
Mr WISE:
NAT

– As far as can be ascertained, no imported ammunition, other than miniature, which is not made in Australia, is being used on rifle ranges by members of Citizen Forces and Rifle Clubs. All .303” ammunition required for use is made in Australia, and if an isolated case has occurred in which imported.303” ammunition has been used locally, then the quantity would be comparatively small, being the unexpended balance of ammunition placed on transports for protection of ships en route to Australia.

page 12832

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TWEEDS : PRICES

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. If, as stated, all-wool suits can be supplied to the returned soldiers at varying prices of 25s.6½d. to 32s. per suit, will the Minister bring before the Cabinet the need for supplying the general public with such suits at a profit of, say, 25 per cent.?
  2. With reference to the supply of the tweed sold by the Department to contractors at 4s. 4d. per yard, double width, will he consider the question of supplying such cloth in suit lengths to the public at an increase of price of, say, 25 per cent.?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. The Government cannot undertake to supply made-up suits to the public.
  2. It is anticipated that it will be possible at an early date to employ part of the plant of the Government Woollen Mills, not required for Government purposes, in manufacturing a limited quantity of cloth to be placed on the market for civilian use.

page 12832

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ LEAVE IN ENGLAND

Sustenance Allowance

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the soldiers serving in Palestine, who were granted leave to visit

England, had their sustenance allowance reduced from6s. to 3s. per day, although 6s. was promised ?

  1. Was the amount of their leave deducted when they arrived in Australia?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. Soldiers granted leave to visit England were, in some cases, incorrectly informed abroad, owing to a misapprehension, that sustenance allowance of 6s. per diem would be payable. This statement was rectified on arrival of the soldiers in England. The approved rate of sustenance allowance applicable to all cases of long-service furlough in England is 3s. per diem, and payment of 6s. per diem could not be made in the cases quoted without extending the right to the increased payment to many hundreds of other cases already in England.
  2. The amount of the long-service leave granted to the soldiers in England was deducted from the long-service furlough in Australia. It would be inequitable to allow soldiers to take furlough in England and again grant full furlough for the same period of service after their arrival in Australia, i.e., inequitable to those soldiers who did not elect to take furlough in England.

page 12832

QUESTION

GRIEVANCES OF BLUEJACKETS

Mr WEST:
for Mr. Mahony

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Is the report in the Sydney Sun of Tuesday, 23rd September, 1919, correct which stated that a bluejacket from H.M.A.S. Torrens had been dealt with because he had presented to the Prime Minister a list of the grievances of the Jack Tars in the Australian Navy? 2.If so, will the Minister take such steps as . will enable the men of the Australian Navy to place their grievances before the Prime Minister, seeing that the Prime Minister has asked that all grievances of soldiers and sailors should be placed before him?
Sir JOSEPH COOK:
NAT

– Leading Signalman Mellor admits that he deliberately broke the regulations and committed an offence. I should add that the Prime Minister did not see Signalman Mellor, and knows nothing of his complaints.

page 12832

QUESTION

THE WAR

Rentals Charged by France and Belgium.

Mr WEST:
for Mr. Finlayson

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount debited against the Commonwealth Government by the Governments of (a) Belgium, (b) France, as rent for use by the Australian Imperial Force of trenches, dug-outs, billets, &c, during the war?
  2. What is the amount proposed to be charged as rent for the cemeteries in which fallen Australiansoldiers are interred in (a) Belgium, (b) France?
  3. Are these amounts being charged up as ordinary war expenditure?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. Nil. The per capita charge of 5s. paid to the Imperial Government for the maintenance, equipment, &c, of Australian troops operating in France and Belgium includes accommodation.
  2. Nothing is known here regarding a charge for rent of cemeteries and inquiries are being made by cablegram. The Imperial War Graves Commission has decided to apportion the total expenditure incurred in the cost of care and maintenance of graves in the ratio of the number of graves of the respective countries to the total number of British Empire graves. The estimated liability of the Commonwealth for the financial year 1919-20 is £120,000.
  3. See replies to Nos. 1 and 2.

page 12833

QUESTION

SURPLUS MILITARY FLANNEL

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that the surplus flannel manufactured for soldiers was to be made available to soldiers and their dependants at cost price, viz.: -1s. and1s.6d. per yard ?
  2. Whether large quantities of this flannel have been disposed of to Messrs. Foy and Gibson and Maclellan and Co., and is now being sold at 2s. per yard by those firms?
  3. Will the Minister arrange to have this flannel retailed to soldiers at the cost price?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. The surplus flannel has been forsome time, and is still, available at practically cost price, viz.,1s. 8d.,1s. 10d., and 2s. per yard.
  2. The flannel sold to Maclellan and Co. has been retailed, and is still being retailed, by that firm and by Foy and Gibson at the prices at which it was purchased by them from the Department.
  3. See No. 1.

page 12833

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mining Homestead Leases, Etc

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

Having reference to the question asked, “ Whether the Government will advance money to returned soldiers under the War Service Homes Act to enable them to make their homes on land held under tenure peculiar to mining fields, viz., miners’ homestead and residence areas,” and the Minister’s reply, “ The War Service Homes Act permits advances to be made in respect to land held in fee-simple only,” is this reply to be taken to mean that the Government does not propose to amend the Act to permit of advances in respect to land held under mining homestead leases, &c?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Inquiries are being made as to the validity of the titles mentioned, and on receipt of the desired particulars the question of making advances in respect to them will be considered.

page 12833

QUESTION

PRICE OF BREAD

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that at Cobar, New South Wales, certain storekeepers are charging 5d. per loaf for bread?
  2. If so, will the. Minister take action against such storekeepers?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The price of bread is not now subject to the control of the Commonwealth Government. It is understood, however, action has been taken by the Government of New South Wales to fix the price of bread in that State, and the honorable member’s question is being referred to that Government.

page 12833

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT

Australian Films Company

Mr SPENCE:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Having regard to the preservation of the rights of Australian authors, artists, producers, workers and the public, and the alleged operations of the Australian Films Company with ancillary agreements with certain picture exhibitors in Sydney to destroy or injure, by means of unfair competition the Australian picture-producing industry, will the Government take steps to consider the enforcement of the law under the Australian Industries Preservation Act for the repression of destructive monopolies, or, alternatively, whether action can be taken underthe common law for conspiracy?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Action is being taken to ascertain if the alleged operations of the Australian Films Company constitute an infringement of the Australian Industries Preservation Act.

page 12833

QUESTION

MUNITION AND WAR WORKERS: EMPLOYMENT

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Fowler

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a considerable number of returned munition and war workers throughout Australia are unable to obtain employment, and are suffering severe hardship in consequence?
  2. Is it a fact that SenatorPearce and Sir Joseph Cook both promised that these men would beassisted into positions on their return from England?
  3. Will the Minister take steps to provide work for such of these men as are unemployed, and, in the meantime, make a monetary allowance where it is shown to be absolutely necessary?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. Nofigures are available showing number of returned munition and war workers who are unable to obtain employment.
  2. It is not known what promises the honorable member refers to.
  3. The Department is not responsible under the agreement for any further payments to munition and war workers after their return to Australia, as their agreement terminates on date of landing athome port. Approval has, however, been given for the payment of one week’s allowance to all workers who left England since the signing of the armistice, on the following scale: -

Munition Worker. - Worker, £11s. per week; dependant, £15s. per week; each child under 16 years, 2s. 6d. per week.

War Worker. - Worker, £11s. per week; dependant, £1 4s. 6d. per week; each child under 16 years, 3s. 6d. per week.

All workers with a satisfactory record now returning to Australia also receive £5 (British Government re-settlement allowance), £5 (Commonwealth gratuity), which, together with the £3 balance of voyage allowance, makes a total of £13, which amount, it is considered, should suffice to tide the worker over the period of unemployment. Furthermore, although no responsibility was accepted in the matter of finding employment, the State Munitions Committees have been instructed to use their best endeavours to place returned men in suitable employment, and, from reports received, it would appear that they have been very successful in this regard.

page 12834

QUESTION

WOOL APPRAISEMENT CENTRES

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether, in regard to the appraisement of wool at Hobart, Launceston,and Geraldton, were any suitable premises, such as stores, sheds, or other buildings in existence and available for the purpose of appraisement at the time when appraisements were first made at all or any of the places named?
  2. If any such buildings were not available, were any building or buildings specially erected for the purpose stated?
  3. If any buildings were so specially erected, at whose cost were they provided - at the cost of the Wool Pool, the Commonwealth or any other Government, any public body, corporation, company, or any private company?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. None were erected specially for the appraisement of wool. In some cases extensions have been made to existing warehouses, and branch establishments have been built.
  3. The expense of additional accommodation for the appraisement of wool has been borne in every instance by the wool selling company or firm. Neither the Central Wool Committee nor any public body has erected warehouses for the appraisement of wool.

page 12834

QUESTION

WOOL DUMPING DISPUTE

Dr MALONEY:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the papers laid on the table of the House in re wool tops, will he cause the report of Sir John Higgins to be printed if he cannot see his way toprint the whole of the documents?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The honorable member’s question is taken to relate to the report and correspondence in regard to the wool dumping dispute in Sydney. The report itself would be incomplete without the correspondence, and the honorable member has already been informed that it is not considered desirable to incur the expenditure which the printing of these documents would entail.

page 12834

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Gregory

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

  1. How many soldiers’ homes have been erected and handed over to returned soldiers in each State, viz-.: - (a) erected by theDepartment; (b) erected or purchased by the applicant?
  2. Will the Minister make it quite clear to applicants that they may erect their homes by contract or otherwise, subject to departmental approval of site, plans, and specifications?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The Commissioner has supplied the following : -

  1. The necessary particulars are being obtained, and will be furnished in due course.
  2. This is being done.
Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– On Wednesday, 25th September, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) raised the question of land held under miners’ leases or miners’ rights being accepted in connexion with the War Service Homes Act. The Minister for Repatriation now advises that he has referred to the Crown Law officers the question as to how far these titles are valid. On receipt of this advice the Minister proposes to confer with the Housing Commissioner, after which I hope to be able tofurther advise the honorable member.

On the 18th September the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) asked me a question as to whether the policy of the Repatriation Department was to discourage returned soldiers from erecting their own homes. I promised the honorable member that I would bring the matter under the notice of the Minister and reply to him later. I desire to furnish the honorable member with the following reply: -

It is not the policy of the Department to discourage returned soldiers in erecting their own homes. On the contrary, in a number of. instances this has already been sanctioned, and homes are being erected by returned soldiers, subject, of course, to the approval of plans, &c, by the War Service Homes Commissioner.

The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor), on the same date, asked me to have specific inquiries made as to whether returned soldiers, some of whom have been gassed, have been prevented from attaching shop premises to such dwellings.

I have made the necessary,inquiries, and I am now able to furnish the followingreply:

Consideration has been givento the cases in which applicantsfor homes under the War Service Homes Act, whilst requiring a house primarily as a dwelling, also desire to carry on their usual avocation therein. It has been decided that application for premises designed for both home and business should be accepted, and the Minister for Repatriation has communicated accordingly with the War Service Homes Commissioner.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Hentyrecently asked that a statement be made to the House as to applications submitted by eligible applicants for an advance under the War Service Homes Act to purchase existing properties, and suggestedthat applicants had paid a deposit on them after valuation and had not been able to secure an advance.

Although the valuation of a property may be a correct one, it does not follow that the proposition is sound. Other points have to be considered, such as locality, suitability from a health’ point of view, type of dwelling, and its state of repair. These matters would have to be taken into account in an ordinary business proposition, but we must go further than that and protect the applicants, who axe returned soldiers and their dependants, fromexploitation.

As the valuation cannot be taken as a definite guide that the particular application will be approved, applicants have been advised, and notified through the press, not to make a deposit either before or after valuation unless a clause is inserted in the contract to purchase properties providing for a return of the deposit should the application for an advance be declined. If honorable members would advise returned soldiers who consult them regarding their applications in such terms, a distinct service would be rendered the applicants.

page 12835

QUESTION

PASSPORT TO A. CARROLL

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

– On the 17th September the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) asked the following questions : -

  1. Whether Augustine Carroll, a witness before the Royal Commission on Naval and Defence Administration, was granted a passport to leave Australia, and on what date?
  2. What was the name of the Minister who approved of the granting of the passport?
  3. To what country was Carroll granted a passport ?

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

Inquiries that have been made have elicited that Augustine Carroll, a member of the Australian Imperial Force, is a citizen of the United States. He is, therefore, not eligible to receive a passport from my Department. The Collector of Customs, New South Wales, advises that Carroll, about a fortnight ago, applied to the staff of the Intelligence Section of the Defence Department, Sydney, for a military permit to enable him to proceed to the United States of America.

He was referred to the American Consular authorities in regard to his obtaining the Consular visa if the permit were granted, but has not since presented himself at the Defence Department.

page 12835

QUESTION

PRICE OF SUGAR

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– On 17th September the honorable member for South Sydney asked the following question: -

Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that the firm of Anthony Hordern and Sons, of Sydney, is reported to be Selling sugar at 4½d. per lb., and will he state whether he has given permission to that firm to chargethis increased price?

I replied -

I am not aware that the statement is correct, but I will have inquiries made. The firm has no right to charge 4½d. per lb.

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

Messrs. Anthony Hordern and Sons did sell sugar at 4½d. per lb., the circumstances under which such sale took place being as follows:-

In consequence of the recent seamen’s strike there was a shortage of sugar, and several city and country firms, including Anthony Hordern and Sons, Sydney, applied for permission to add the actual railway freight charges on sugar obtained from Queensland per rail to the proclaimed selling price of 3½d. per lb.

One application was submitted to the New SouthWales Attorney-General, who minuted the papers to the effect that, provided the actual extra railway freight only were added to the proclaimed price, no action would be taken under the Necessary Commodities Control Act 1914.

Subsequent applications, including that of Anthony Hordern and Sons, were dealt with interms of the State Attorney-General’s minute referred to above.

The extra railway freight for Messrs. Anthony Hordern and Sons’ shipment, which consisted of 6 tons, was approximately1d. per lb.

As the price of sugar in Australia is at present controlled by the Commonwealth Government, action is being taken to make further inquiries into this matter.

page 12836

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Peace Treaty - Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the observations of the German Delegation on the conditions of Peace. (Paper presented to the British Parliament).

Public Service Act - Promotion of G. J. P. Tily, Postmaster-General’s Department.

Seat of Government - Ordinance of 1919 - No. 5 - Interpretation.

page 12836

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LEGISLATIVE POWERS) BILL

Declaration of Urgency.

Order of the Day called on -

Mr. Hughes, to move, “That he have leave to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter section 51 of the Constitution.”

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

– I declare this to be an urgent Bill, and move -

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

Mr Tudor:

– What Bill?

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

– I direct the attention of the honorable member to the wording of the Order of the Day. There can be no debate on the motion.

Mr Higgs:

– I rise to order. Where is the Bill? What is the measure? Is not the motion too previous?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. I direct the attention of the honorable member to standing order 262a, which provides that the Government may declare that the Bill be considered urgent,

On the reading of a message from the GovernorGeneral recommending an appropriation in connexion with any Bill, on the calling on of a motion for leave to introduce a Bill . . .

And so on. The motion for leave to introduce the Bill has been called on, and the Prime Minister now moves that the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The motion at this stage is, therefore, quite in order, although it precedes the actual motion for leave to introduce the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Limitation of Debate.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the time allotted (a) for the initial stages of the Bill up to but not inclusive of the second reading shall be until 5 p.m. this day; (b) for the second reading of the Bill shall be from the conclusion of the initial stages until 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919; (c) for the Committee stage of the Bill shall be from the second reading of the Bill until 9 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919; (d) for the remaining stages of the Bill shall be from the conclusion of the Committee stage until 10.30 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- Of course, honorable members opposite may have discussed this Bill at length at their party meeting yesterday, but honorable members on this side, who are just as much interested in this class of legislation, and, as a matter of fact, are more desirous of passing it, as these questions have been twice submitted to the vote of the people by the Labour party, have not. We have not had the opportunity of seeing the measure, or measures - because the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has given notice of two. If these Bills are similar to those which were introduced in 1915 by the right honorable gentleman himself when he was AttorneyGeneral in the Fisher Government, there will be practically no opposition to them from this side of the House; but, first of all, we want to know what is in them. So far as we are concerned, the trouble will not be that they may be too wide in their application, but that they may be too narrow, and may be limited in other directions. Both Bills could pass to-night, so far as wc are concerned, if they are the same as the measures which were passed in 1915, on which occasion most of the honorable members belonging to the Liberal party who are at present members of this House walked out of the chamber rather than lake part in the enactment of such legislation.

The Premier of Tasmania, who was at the secret Conference of Premiers, has “blown the gaff.” He always does so. Six days before ex-Senator Ready became ill, he was able to tell us that he had received word from the Prime Minister that something was going to take place. Otherwise, honorable members on this aide have- to depend upon what appears in the newspapers, and that is all the information we possess as to the legislation which the Prime Minister now asks us lo treat as urgent.

Since 1911, I have contended that it is a matter of urgency for the people of Australia to have the opportunity of amending the Commonwealth Constitution, and giving greater powers to the Commonwealth Parliament. It is a matter that should be referred to the whole of the people of Australia, and not to a section of them which may be controlled by State Upper Houses, and this will be the case if the State Parliaments deal with this question. I am anxious to compare these Bills with the legislation passed in 1915. Of course, honorable members know that similar Bills were submitted to a referendum in 1911. Amended slightly, they were resubmitted to the people in 1913. Then, in 1915, with very slight alterations, they were passed by this Parliament, but were not submitted to the people. I shall not vote against any motion which proposes to make this class of legislation urgent, but when the Bills themselves come before us, if they are not in the form in which this Parliament passed them in 1915, I shall move amendments in the direction of making the powers sought for as far-reaching as- possible, or, at least, as far-reaching as they were in the legislation of 1915.

Mr Boyd:

– The country has already turned them down twice.

Mr TUDOR:

– We do not know that the country would have turned them down in 1915.

Mr Leckie:

– Why did the Labour Government withdraw them in 1915 ?

Mr TUDOR:

– The Bills were withdrawn in 1915 in order that the State Parliaments should deal with them, as promised by their Premiers. That promise was not carried out. Some of those Premiers were called to Melbourne on Saturday last. I would not accept their word. They did not even submit- the necessary legislation to their Parliaments on the last occasion. I understand that the Victorian Ministry submitted certain legislation to the State Parliament, but the Upper . House rejected it. There was only one State Parliament that carried the promised legislation.

This is the first time honorable members have been asked to make an urgent measure of a Bill that one party has not s-een. It is not treating Parliament fairly, and is quite ari innovation. Probably honorable members on the Ministerial side are under the impression that they can bludgeon anything through Parliament. They regard the present as a fitting time for an election, and in order to have an excuse for holding one, and for the purpose of making the people believe that they are anxious to get at the profiteers, they propose to put these Bills through, to treat them as urgent measures, despite the fact that honorable members of the Opposition have not had the opportunity of seeing them, and to submit them to a referendum on the day on which the election is held.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

-36].- With a great many other people I have been wondering why there is need for all this haste. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues received as many mandates as they required to deal with profiteering, the Tariff, and industrial matters. Why are they now in such a hurry to amend the Constitution? It is only a few months since the Prime Minister was boasting about the powers he possessed as an autocrat. He said, “ I can do anything I like.”

Mr Mathews:

– He did what he liked.

Mr HIGGS:

– He had complete and ample powers, as an autocrat, under the War Precautions Act.’ That Act has not yet expired. Why, therefore, is there necessity for proposing to amend the Constitution and have a general election on the 13th December? I have a very strong impression that the Prime Minister is afraid that the longer he and his party remain in the House the greater difficulty will he and his friends have in explaining why they have not carried out their promises regarding profiteering, price-fixing, the Tariff, and industrial matters, and difficulty in explaining their broken pledges to the soldiers. Instead of desiring to pass a. measure of this kind, the right honorable gentleman ought to wake up his Repatriation Department.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– Order! The honorable member is wandering from the motion before the Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

– I would like to point out areason why we should not be dealing now with powers which the Prime Minister already possesses-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member will not be in order in doing that. He will only be in order in speaking to the motion before the Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

– I suggest that it is not necessary to take up the time of the House in introducing this Bill, because the Prime Minister has already ample powers. He has full power to compel the War Service Homes Department to get on with the building of homes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order, on the motion now before the Chair, in discussing such matters. He will only be in order in discussing the various times proposed to be allotted for the consideration of this Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

– It is proposed that we shall have until 5 o’clock to-day to dispose of the first reading of the measure, that the second reading must be through by 4. 30 o’clock to-morrow, and that the final stages must be disposed of by 10.30 to-morrow night. This is a sample of the methods of the Prime Minister. He is always in a hurry; he never looks twentyfour hours ahead. He invited the various State Governments to send representatives to meet him in Melbourne. They came and met in secret, and, apparently, nobody could get any information as to what they were doing. Now the right honorable gentleman is taking steps to alter in twenty-four hours a Constitution the framing of which occupied some of the brainiest men in the Commonwealth- for years. I see nothing to. be gained by this haste.From what I know of the Prime Minister, this Bill, although I have not had an opportunity of reading it, represents more than is disclosed on the face of it, and probably those honorable members who have already consented to the terms of the measures will find on investigation that it means a great deal more than it says. I warn those honorable gentlemen who so strenuously opposed the constitutional alterations proposed by the Labour party in 1915, to be very careful when the Bill comes before them.

Mr Leckie:

– The honorable member does not desire this Parliament to get increased powers ?

Mr HIGGS:

– I do not know what increased powers the Prime Minister is seeking. As this Parliament has yet nine months of life before it will expire by effluxion of time, there is no necessity for rushing through this amending measure as the Prime Minister proposes. The preliminary stages are to be completed in one hour and seventeen minutes from now. We are not to be given time enough to consider the measure. What is the reason for this extraordinary haste ? Shall I be out of order in suggesting that it is due to the fact that the Prime Minister hopes to exploit what he believes to be the public sentiment of the moment, and that he believes that if he can appeal to the. country soon, he will fare better than if he postponesthe election for another six months ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will be out of order in discussing that matter.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I welcome this proposal to alter the Constitution if the Government are seeking power to do something rational, but I shall oppose the Bill if I find that the increased powers that are being sought have been so whittled down as to offer no likelihood of being effective. Often in the past, Acts passed by this Parliament have been found in practice not to confer the powers that they were supposed to give. My experience on two occasions makes me approach this matter cautiously. Once the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) rankly deceived me by telling the House that the powers conferred by the War Precautions Act were not sufficient to enable the Government to deal with the fixation of prices.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have no wish todiscuss the matter. I merely state that the Prime Minister gave ‘the House that assurance, and I, ‘believing him, went about my -constituency repeating .his “statement. Later I found that those who said that the Prime Minister’s statement waswrong’ had taken the correct view of Cbe’ War Precautions Act. The last Bills for the alteration of the Constitution were introduced by a Labour Government, and the drafting of the ‘measures was left entirely to the then Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) . He was -allowed also to put ‘before the ‘people the case for the alteration of the ‘Constitution:. I would resume my seat at once -if I thought that ‘he was stall determined ‘to get for the Commonwealth the complete1 -powers that were sought on that occasion-, but I know -that since that time he has been associated politically with .men who do not desire the Commonwealth to have such powers.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– The honorable member is out of order. The only question before the Chair is the allotment of time for the various stages of the Bill.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have already said that I would not oppose the Bill if I knew what it contains.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may ‘not go into that matter on this motion.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If you, sir, intend to restrict my discussion of the motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There seems to be some misapprehension on the part of some honorable members as to the actual motion ^before the House. All that the motion proposes is to fix the times in which the various stages of the Bill shall be completed. Honorable members must confine their discussion to the question of time, and they will not be in order in debating the pros and cons of the Bill, the actions of the Prime Minister, of any other matter that is outside and not germane to the terms of the motion.

Mr Riley:

– I rise to a point of order. Can you, sir, explain to the House what the Bill proposes, and why the time- for its discussion should be limited ? We on this side do not know the terms of the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is no part of the duty of the Presiding Officer to explain to the House the nature and purpose of a Bill. This should be done by the re sponsible Minister. But I point out that there is no Bill before the House-, hut a motion to regulate the period of time for discussion on. a Bill about to be introduced. All I am concerned with is the carrying ‘out of the Standing Orders by regulating the discussion so that it conforms to them, and at this stage honorable members can discuss nothing else but the time ‘limit.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am under -no misapprehension as to the purpose of the motion, but I am endeavouring to show that the desire for a limitation of time arises out of what is actually contained in the Bril. I caught a glimpse of the measure, and I noticed that a salient point was the exclusion of all reference to the -railways.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member may not discuss that matter. I cannot allow him to proceed on those lines.

Mr MATHEWS:

– So far as our knowledge of what is contained in the Bill enables us to -judge, the time allotted by the Government for its discussion is not sufficient. Again,’ speaking with a very slight knowledge of what the measure contains, I say that it is likely to be highly contentious, and I am certain that if the Prime- Minister were on this side, and ,fighting the Government upon this matter, he would offer the same objection. It would be ana using to hear the honorable gentleman, if he were sitting in Opposition, and -were -met with a proposal by the: Government to limit the discussion ion a measure of so much importance to the people.. After all the time wa have- wasted during the past few weeks, I cannot see the necessity for passing, this measure in such a hurry. I may not get a further opportunity of discussing the measure itself, but if it is likely to be .effective, by giving to the Commonwealth -the -full powers that are required, I shall be content to allow it to pass without further ‘.opposition. The time allotted is altogether insufficient to enable us to discuss the all-important matters involved in the measure.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Illawarra

– If there is a subject upon which we ought to be able to come to a speedy decision, it seems to me that it is a proposal for the amendment of the Constitution. ‘ There was a time when practically the whole ‘of the -members of the Opposi-tion shared my view that an extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament could not be too speedily granted.

Mr Mathews:

– Not the honorable member’s view.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– Yes, my view. I am a little astonished to find that to-day, when we have an opportunity to go on with this all-important work, opposition to it should come from honorable members who shared, and, I believe, still share, my view, that the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in this regard should be speedily extended. I would point out that the matter of the amendment of the Australian Constitution has been before this House on two previous occasions, and has been the subject of two referendums; so that the pros and cons of the question are as familiar to those who take an interest in the working of the Constitution as are those of any subject that could come before us.

Mr Mathews:

– Nothing of the sort. We do not know what are the provisions of the Bill. The honorable member, perhaps, does.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– The hon,orable member for Melbourne Ports, whose desire to know what is in the Bill leads him to interrupt me so frequently, could have that desire gratified immediately by allowing the Bill to be presented. The discussion of this motion can lead to no other result than that desired by ‘ the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), and the more time that honorable members take up in debating this purely formal motion, the less time there will be to discuss the Bill itself when it comes before us. I wish the electors to know that the whole of the time occupied in the discussion of this motion is time taken from the discussion of the various stages of the Bill. If the Opposition desire more time to debate the Bill itself, they will allow this motion to pass without further delay. I hope that it will he agreed to, and that we shall as speedily as possible secure for the Commonwealth Parliament those powers which it ought to have had long ago, and which cannot be obtained for it one hour too soon.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I hope that I am under no misapprehension as to the terms of this motion, which, if I understand it correctly, means that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) proposes to introduce a Bill - the provisions of which are unknown to honorable members - for the amendment of the Australian Constitution. He proposes, in advance, to obtain the sanction of the House to the limitation of the debate upon that measure to a few hours, which will expire some time Co-morrow. A more monstrous proposition was never submitted to this or any other responsible deliberative Chamber. We do not know what is proposed, but we know, at least, that it is designed to materially alter the foundations and basis ‘ upon which this Parliament rests. We know, from the terms of the motion, that the Bill is at least one of pre-eminent importance to the country. We know, further - and the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Lamond) must know, when he talks of taking away from the time that has been allotted for the discussion of this Bill - that subject to the terms of this motion such a measure could not be properly discussed in the time available. The honorable member should be ashamed, if he has any sense of shame, to stand in his price, the acquiescent servant of a new party, prepared to give away his privileges and the rights of this country by agreeing to stifle the discussion df a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution. I did not expect anything better from the Prime Minister. Neither the country nor the House has any right to expect anything better from him.

Mr Webster:

– Do not get excited.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I will not. If any one ought to get excited it should be this docile follower of his new master. There is no danger of the honorable gentleman becoming excited; he is not permitted to become excited in connexion, with the motion.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. W. Elliot

Johnson). - I would remind the House that each honorable member is allowed only ten minutes in which to speak to this motion, and that the whole debate is not to exceed one hour. I therefore ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting, so that each honorable member may avail himself of the full time to which he is entitled.

Mr BRENNAN:

– The allotted ten minutes would be more than sufficient for me if honorable members opposite would not interrupt. We have no means of knowing what is in the Bill,. and I have no right to discuss or suggest what is in it in detail; but we are bound to assume that there is something in it which is acceptable to the majority of the Prime Minister’s present party, who turned down his Constitution Alteration proposals in this Ho.use only a little time ago.

Mr Fenton:

– Led by the present Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), they walked out of the House.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Yes ; on that occasion they walked out and left the Prime Minister and the Labour party to deal with that Bill. The right honorable gentleman having given notice of a motion for the amendment of the Constitution, we at least are entitled to assume that the Bill will meet with the approval of the majority that now controls him against his better judgment. The Bill will be introduced in due time, but it cannot be discussed within the time fixed for its consideration. The right honorable gentleman knows that. I rose simply to place on record the fact that I regard it as a monstrous invasion of the rights of the Parliament and the people to deal with a Bill of this character in the way in which it is proposed to deal with it.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The House divided.

AYES: 37

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

First Reading

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter section 51 of the Constitution.

Bill presented and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That this Bill he now read a second time.

Mr Charlton:

– Will the Prime Minister explain why this Bill is marked “ confidential”?

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member had better ask the printer; I cannot tell him. The honorable member has the Bill before him, and I am going to lay its contents before the world. It is the first time that I, myself, have seen the Bill in print.

As the time at the disposal of honorable members for the discussion of the Bill is limited under the Standing Orders, I shall not attempt to traverse the ground which was so thoroughly covered by me on occasions when I before had the honour to introduce amendments to the Constitution. I shall best conserve the time and interests of honorable members by confining myself to a very brief review of the position as we now find it.

The war, and the situation which has arisen out of the war, have given a new importance and a new urgency to the question of the amendment of the Constitution. During the war, the matter was able to be postponed, because it was found that the defence power was wide enough and elastic enough to give the Commonwealth power to deal temporarily with a wide range of matters which, though outside the ordinary scope of the Commonwealth powers, had to be dealt with as part of the great task of organizing all the social, industrial, and financial resources and efforts of the country for the supreme struggle for national existence.

By common consent of the State Governments, it was necessary that the Commonwealth should have, during the war, powers practically identical with those for which we are asking to-day. In pursuance of’ the decision of a Conference with the State Premiers, held in 19.15, .a Bill was initao.du.ced into each State Parliament to give those powers for the war period. Only ;one State Parliament, .that of New South Wales,, passed the Bill; the rest - not yet realizing, perhaps, the greatness of the emergency - hesitated or drew back. Subsequent decisions of the High Court disclosed that the extent of the war-time powers of the Commonwealth dispensed with the necessity for the time being.

Here I may deal with the points raised by my honorable friends opposite on the preliminary motion.

We are now faced with a different situation. The war is over, and with it the war-time powers of .the Commonwealth are disappearing. We are brought back to our pre-war limits of authority, and we have to deal with the aftermath of the war - a condition - as difficult and as full of dangers as the war itself.

Every honorable member opposite who has spoken asked why the Government are seeking these powers, and declared that we possess them now. They were also greatly perturbed at the motion which .limited the time of discussion, and asked why the haste to pass this Bill. I propose to deal with each of those points in: turn, and, very shortly, with the present constitutional- powers of this Parliament under the defence sub-section of section 51. Honorable members have asked: Why seek these powers when we already have them under the War Precautions Act? Let me set out the facts, and show exactly what power this Parliament now has. I turn- to the judgment of the High Court in what is known as the bread case - an appeal from the Court of petty sessions in the State of Victoria - in which the nature, the extent, and limitations of the powers of the Commonwealth, under the defence paragraph of section 51 of the ‘Constitution, were made perfectly clear.

I shall quote from the Commonwealth Law Reports, 1915-16, Vol. 21. His Honour the Chief Justice, in the course of delivering judgment (Commonwealth Law Reports 1915-16, Vol. 21, p. 441), said -

One test, however, must always be applied, namely: - Can the measure in question conduce to the efficiency of the Forces of the Empire, or is the connexion of. cause and effect between the measure and the desired efficiency so remote that the one cannot reasonably be regarded as affecting the other?

His Honour- further ‘said, as reported) on> page 442 -

A law passed ‘by the Commonwealth Parliament in time of profound peace -prohibiting theaccumulating of foodstuffs could not be .regarded as. substantially an, -exercise of the defence power. In time of war the same act might well be made a capital offence.

Applying this well-established doctrine, the question is whether the Act and regulation, the validity of which is now called in question, can be regarded as substantially laws relating to defence, in other words, whether the provisions of the regulation -oan conduce to tliemore effectual prosecution of the war. It is not -necessary for the Court to point out the particular way in which, they can have .that effect. . But the Court may, I think, take judicial -notice of the fact that the past season’s harvest was most abundant, and that vast quantities of wheat, far exceeding the possible consumption of the Commonwealth, are awaiting export, while, owing to the operations of war, the supply of freight is deficient. It is obvious that for economical, as well as other reasons, the export of the- surplus to the’ United Kingdom, or. the Allied Nations, may be highly desirable for ‘the more efficient, prosecution of the war. It seems to follow that any law -which may tend, with or without the aid of other -measures, to encourage such, export, may be conducive to the more efficient conduct of the war.

In the same case His Honour Mr. Justice Isaacs is thus reported on page 453 of the same volume -

The defence power .may be exerted .in times of peace; but so far only by way of preparation. Actual defence, and all that “it connotes, comes only when we are at war. War creates its own necessities, proportioned to the circumstances, and not measurable in advance of the occasion; and defence is only complete when it meets those necessities, whatever they may prove to be. While peace prevails the normal facts of national life take their respective places in the general alignment, and. are subject -to the normal action of constitutional powers.

Here then we see set out in plain words) the nature, -extent, and limitations of the powers of this Parliament under the defence sub-section of the Constitution. Shortly put, we see that in time of war the

Commonwealth may do any and all things necessary, or -which .may conduce to the. more effectual prosecution of the war and the defence of the Commonwealth. In time of peace our powers shrink within their normal limits, and we must look to the Constitution, and not to the extraordinary powers arising out of the necessities of war,’ to ascertain what we can and what we cannot do. The judgments of the High Court,_ from which I have quoted, make this perfectly, clear. It is obvious that the extent of the power, whatever it is, which we derive from the sub-section of section 51 of the Constitution springs wholly from a condition of actual war or preparation for war, and I ask honorable members to notice that neither of these conditions now exists. We are in a state of peace - the Peace Treaty has been ratified, and it cannot be said that we are at war nor that we are preparing for war. Our powers under the defence sub-section, therefore, are no longer what they were during the war, but are strictly limited to the narrow sphere over which they operate in normal times. Let me quote further. Mr. Justice Isaacs, in support of this contention (page 455), said -

I do not hold that the Legislature is at liberty wantonly, and with manifest caprice, to enter upon the domain ordinarily reserved to- the States. In a certain sense, and. to a certain extent,, the position is examinable by a Court. If there were no war, and no sign of war, the position would be entirely different.

Nothing could be clearer. These words are not ambiguous, there is no room for uncertainty. They set out our position quite clearly. In war we had great powers not normally possessed by us, and we no longer possess those powers. That is the position.

I now turn from the judgments of the majority, who held that iri a time of war the defence powers of the Commonwealth were such’ that the Commonwealth might do anything and everything, provided that the relations -between the thing done and the successful prosecution of the war was evident, to the judgments of the minority, who held that even in time of war we had no such power. I quote from the judgements of Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Rich, as given by Mr. Justice Duffy and reported on page 465 -

We venture to think that they extend to the raising, training, and equipment of Naval and Military Forces, to the maintenance, control, and use of such Forces, to the supply of arms, ammunitions, and other things necessary for naval mid military operations, to all matters strictly ancillary to these purposes, and to nothing more. This, in our opinion, is their natural meaning, and to extend it would be to paralyze the States during war time as completely as if there had been no reserve powers, and to subject them at all times to an irritating _ and embarrassing usurpation of their ordinary functions. The defence of the States would be the defence which King Stork extended to the frogs who invoked his assistance.

On page 467 His Honour is reported as saying-

Finally, we were pressed not to withhold from the Commonwealth a power so conducive to the effective conduct of the war in which we arc engaged, as we firmly believe, on the side of honour and righteousness. Such an appeal is ill-made to Judges who are sworn to administer the law without fear, favour, or affection, and whose fundamental duty is to interpret the law as they understand it, not to strain it tins way or that at the bidding of expediency. But, in our opinion, the respondent has wholly failed to show that the power to fix the price of bread in Melbourne and its suburbs at the- present time is in any sense conducive to the defence of the Commonwealth, or has any relation whatever to the progress of the war. If we are wrong, and such a power be necessary now, or if it becomes necessary in the future, it can be exercised by the State, or delegated by the State to the Commonwealth. It is a gross and pernicious error to suppose that in the conduct of the present war the interests of the States and the Commonwealth are diverse, they are identical, and the people of Australia will, no doubt, be as willing to protect and forward those interests through their State Legislatures as through the Commonwealth Parliament.

Whatever powers we have at the present time under the War Precautions Act have their roots in the defence sub-section. From the judgments of even the majority in the bread: case, it is perfectly clear that, whatever powers we have, which are not strictly those belonging to the Commonwealth under the Constitution, spring wholly from the existence of a state of war or of preparation for war. Neither of these conditions is now present. War is over ; Peace has come to us with complete victory over our enemies. Neither war nor the- need: for preparations for defence* against a declared enemy exists. In three months the War Precautions Act itself expires; our powers under the War Precautions Act have now shrunk, if, indeed, they have not altogether disappeared. I do not think that any lawyer will say, upon a fair interpretation of the judgments from which I have quoted, that our war powers are sufficient to enable us to do any one of the things that we must do. But whether that be so or not, no one will deny that in three months, or a little more, we shall be stripped of every vestige of that power, and stand absolutely help-: less to deal with the situation that now exists. The Peace has come, and our powers, if they have not disappeared, have shrunk, to what extent it is perhaps difficult to say. In my opinion they have shrunk to such a point that the validity of any of our regulations may be at any moment challenged. In a few months they will disappear altogether. The people alone can give us the power we want. If we do not pass these Bills now - and here I come to the second point raised by those honorable gentlemen who ask, “Why this haste ‘”–Parliament will not have any power at all to deal with the situation as ‘it exists - with the aftermath of war. I ask honorable members, and I invite the country, to note the attitude of certain honorable members - it is true they have not seen this Bill - upon a measure whose only object could be to give to the Commonwealth Parliament greater power to deal with those vital issues which concern the welfare of the great masses of the people. Ono honorable member asks, “Why this haste?” Another bids honorable members on this side beware lest they go too far; to beware of what is .”n these Bills. That is nice advice to come from the mouths of honorable gentlemen who supported these very measures. I have not had time to look up Hansard and note what the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) said when Bills for the amendment of the Constitution were before this Parliament previously, but I have no doubt whatever he spoke in support of them ; yet he now bids the House and the country beware of them. Is it not abundantly clear that at the back of all that my honorable friends have said, and of their protestations against this “ haste,” and their solemn and pathetic warnings to the people and to honorable members on this side, to beware of what these measures will do - is it not clear, I ask, that they see opening wide the portals that lead them into the arena where their masters await them ?

No doubt there will be some criticism of these measures, but I shall confine myself now to setting out the reason why they are introduced at this time, and in this shape, and why the Commonwealth Parliament needs these powers. The war has gone, and Peace has come, but the consequences of the war remain behind. They are not less dangerous to the community, nor are the difficulties presented to us less complex, than the war itself.

We have to rebuild a world which has b’een shattered and devastated by five years of dreadful struggle, convulsion, and destruction. Our task is not merely to restore the world as it was before, but to build something infinitely better, something more in harmony with the ideals and hopes which alone could have sustained mankind to endure the terrible ordeal ‘ of the war period . The world after the war is a new world. At present it is only a new world in the making. It is disordered, and disorganized, and fraught with- infinite potentialities and possibilities for good and for evil.

The problems of reconstruction are great and pressing; they need the assistance of strong and effective government. In Australia it is, and must be, to the Commonwealth that the people look during the period of reconstruction for the establishment of the social and industrial conditions which alone can enable us to reap a harvest of blessing from the horrid tillage of war.

What is the situation with which we have to cope, and what are the Commonwealth’s powers for that purpose?

We find everywhere industrial unrest, widespread and deep-seated, the gravity of which it is impossible to overestimate. In Russia it has produced absolute chaos. In the enemy countries, where it may have been diligently fostered for propaganda purposes, it burst out a few months ago in open revolution, and, although that has been suppressed, the smouldering fires are still there, ready to burst into flame again at any moment, and threatening the very existence of the country. In America it is spreading like an epidemic throughout the land. In Great Britain at this very moment we see a nation paralyzed in all its economic activities by probably the greatest strike in the history of our times, and the whole industrial world has been shaken to its very foundations. The industrial ‘war, long threatened, has now broken out in full fury, and no one is able to say what the outcome will be. The industrial activities of the nation are paralyzed, constitutional government defied, and the very existence of Britain, .as a great manufacturing country, is trembling in the balance.

This spirit of general unrest is the most vital factor of the whole situation, not only in this, but in every country. It has its roots in justifiable discontentwith existing conditions, but it is intensified by the nervous tension of five years of war strain, .and is being fanned by men who are the avowed enemies of the whole system off modern civilization, and whose watchword is destruction, pure and simple. According as it is handled, it may prove to be the “.divine discontent,” which is the necessary condition of progress and reform, or it may blaze out into a devastating passion, which may wreck the whole fabric of society.

This industrial .unrest is intimately related to two other factors of the situation –the high cost of living, and the shortage of raw materials and the necessaries of life, which is the inevitable consequence of five years diverted from production to an orgy of .destruction.

One cause of the excessive cost of living is unquestionably the prevalence of profiteering. Great fortunes have been made during the war, and are being made still, out of unreasonably high profits. Competition no longer plays the part it did before the war in bringing prices down to a reasonable level, and organized capital and organized trade combi nations are able to -exploit the consumer.

Another cause is the shortage of necessaries throughout the world. This is a direct factor in the increase of prices, and the only remedy for it is increased production to make up for the wastage of war. “We must not only get back to prewar standards of production, we must better them. We must work harder, and produce more, and this requires «that the wheels of industry should revolve swiftly and smoothly - which needs industrial peace. This brings us back ,to industrial unrest, which is the condition that must be removed before civilization can be cured.

So we see that these three things - industrial unrest, the high cost of living, and the scarcity of raw materials and other necessaries, that is to say, of wealth - are intimately related one to the other. Each reacts on the others. Each is the cause of both the others, and an effect of both the others. The high cost of living helps to cause industrial unrest ; industrial unrest is fatal to production, and helps to cause the high cost of living. The scarcity of necessaries contributes to the high cost of living, and to industrial unrest, and so on in” a vicious circle, and in and out through the warp -and woof runs the trail of the profiteer, who takes unfair advantage, for his personal greed, of the. abnormal and unsettled condition of the world.

The cure must be drastic, and the programme of reform must be comprehensive. It must deal with the whole intricate web of causes. Profiteering must be put down with ‘a strong hand, but that alone is not enough. If we are to stimulate production, it is necessary to have full control of production, which involves control of both labour and capital, the elements of production. It is necessary to have full control of trade and commerce, by which the results of production are distributed and brought to the consumer. Trade is controlled by corporations and combinations of corporations ; it is captured by monopolies ; it, too, is affected by organizations of capital and of labour. All these must be controlled, and the Government which controls them must be able to do so fully and effectively, to deal with the problem as a whole, not only with a bit here and a bit there. Unless it can so deal with it, government is futile.

It ,is, essential, too, fox the welfare of Australia, not only that we should produce abundantly, but that we should be able to get good prices abroad for our products - to obtain the real parity of the world’s markets. The buying pf the world is going to be highly organized, :and unless -the selling is similarly organized, the producer of the primary products, which .are the backbone of Australian prosperity, and the source of Australian wages, will be squeezed and beaten down. We need for the producer and the wage-earner, for capital and for labour, a fair deal. Unless we secure fair inducements for both, both will invariably suffer. As I have said, the interests of the consumer and those of the Commonwealth generally must be safeguarded. So we come back again, by whatever road we travel, to the central problem of all - the problem of industrial peace.

What, then, are the powers the Commonwealth must have to enable it :to deal with the situation? First of all, it .must be able to deal .fully and effectively with the whole field of industrial matters. It3 present powers in this , regard are hopelessly inadequate. It can deal only with disputes between particular employers and employees, and then only by way of con- ciliation and arbitration. It has no jurisdiction at all unless the dispute extends beyond one State. Even then it cannot regulate the conditions of the industry; it cannot make a common rule; and it cannot provide for collective bargaining.

The Commonwealth, then, must have full control over industrial matters. That does not mean that it will supersede all State action in the industrial field, or the work of State industrial tribunals. It will assist and supplement and harmonize them ; but, in order to do this effectively, it is necessary that there should be no fixed limits set to the sphere of its control. Next, it is necessary to have full control of trade and commerce. The Constitution at present draws an arbitrary line where there is no line in nature. Commerce is one indivisible subject-matter ; it is the same thing, whether it crosses a State boundary or not. It is impossible to control commerce effectively when half of it is in the Federal sphere and half of it is not. And here, again, it is not in contemplation that every detail of commercial transactions shall be regulated by Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth will undertake its general regulation for national purposes - as the Dominion of Canada does. But it is impossible to deviseany formal limitation which will not seriously hamper the effectiveness of the power.

Trusts and Combines. Control of these is essential to control of the cost of living, and that control cannot be effectively exercised by the States. Their powers are tremendous. Their shapes are innumerable. They are the dominating factor in therise of prices. And they cannot be dealt with and followed through their manifold shapes and disguises without full power. They laugh at our present Commonwealth Trust legislation, which is based on limited power. The war, and war conditions, have increased their power. The States are powerless to deal with them; only strong Commonwealth powers can meet the case.

Nationalization. To deal with monopolies effectively, there must be in reserve a power to nationalize them - to acquire the business, where that is necessary to protect the rights of the people. The power asked for is not a power to nationalize all businesses; only those which are monopolies. It is only to be exercised on a resolution of both Houses, passed by an absolute majority, after full investigation and report by the High Court, initiated by a special resolution of Parliament. This is an ample safeguard against the abuse of the power.

Let me now turn to the limits of time and conditions upon the exercise by this Commonwealth of the powers asked for in these Bills. The measures grant to the Commonwealth Parliament the. powers set out therein for a limited period only. Clause 6 of the Bill we are now considering provides -

The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force -

until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor-General thereto; or

until a convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect:

Provided that if no such convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the 31st day of December, 1920, the alterations made by this Act shall cease to have effect on the said 31st day of December, 1920.

For all practical purposes, these powers are to be granted to the Commonwealth Parliament for a period of twelve months only. Meanwhile, a Convention must be summoned, which shall decide what powers ought to be allotted permanently to the Commonwealth. As soon as the Convention has arrived at its decision, the matter will be submitted to the people for approval, and if the people approve of the decision of the Convention, the readjustment of the powers as between the Commonwealth and the States will be, for the time being, finally settled. If a Convention is not summoned before the end ofnext year the powers lapse automatically. In any case, they will be subject to the matured judgment of a Convention and of the electors of the Commonwealth in the light of actual experience and of the situation as it then exists.

I have set out the reasons why these amendments are necessary now. These amendments must be regarded as war-time measures. Although the war has ceased, we have to deal with the aftermath of the war - industrial unrest, the high cost of living, scarcity of material, and profiteering.

I believe that we have not the power to deal with these matters now. Certainly, we shall not have it three months hence. Therefore, if this Parliament does not pass these Bills, and allow the- people to express their opinion, and give us if they deem fit the powers we seek to obtain, we shall be sitting here, drawing our salaries and doing nothing. It is a matter of urgency to pass these Bills, and as such I put them before the House, asking all honorable ‘ members to give assent to them. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) said that they are not a party matter; but if he did not, I will say it for him. If it has become a party matter with him, it is only since he has sat on the benches opposite; because when he was on this side of the chamber he used to support me with great enthusiasm when I said that it was not a party matter, if he is going b;i<-k on his former view it only shows what can happen to a man when he loses the stimulating and elevating effects of my company. I say that this is not a party matter; but whether honorable members regard it as a party matter or not, I ask them to agree to this legislation.

As the Leader of the Opposition knew, because he was a member of the Government which I had the honour to lead, we did not press these matters before the people during the war, because of the war. Any blame that rests on a Government for not pressing on with such legislation during the war rests on the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a Minister. The proposals of 1915 were withdrawn because the States asked and agreed to present .the necessary legislation to their Parliaments to hand over to the Commonwealth the necessary powers to deal with the matters the Bills now put forward purpose to cover. I have already explained ‘that they did not do so.

When the present Government decided that the position of the Commonwealth was unsatisfactory, owing to the fact that Ministers found themselves stripped of nearly all the powers they exercised during the war, they came to the conclusion that some amendment of the Constitution was necessary. Thereupon I approached the States, just as I had done in 1915, when I was leading the Labour Government. I summoned the State Premiers to Melbourne and put the matter before them, because the present Government considered, just as the Labour Government did in 1915, that the State Premiers were as much representative of the people as we are, and the only reason why we had asked for these powers in 1915 was because we believed that, of the instrumentalities of government in Australia, the Commonwealth Government was the better fitted to exercise them.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Premier of Tasmania (Mr. Lee) has given a report of what took place at the Conference of Premiers, but, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, let me -set out the position. The Conference of Premiers and myself met oh Friday last. I told the Premiers that the Commonwealth Government required the additional powers set out in these Bills in order to deal with industrial unrest, profiteering and matters incidental to or arising out of the war. The Premiers, while readily admitting that an increase of power was necessary for the Commonwealth, were of opinion that some of the amendments proposed went further than was necessary. Thereupon I asked them to submit alternative proposals which would do all that was necessary to be done, although the powers handed over to the Commonwealth should not be so wide as those I had asked. The Premiers agreed to do so. They accordingly met on Saturday and discussed the matter. Of course, the time at their disposal was very short, and they were at great disadvantage because they had received no notification of what they were to be called upon to consider when they met on Friday. On Monday I met them again. The Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Holman)’ was unable to be present, but all the other Premiers were, with Mr. Coyne, acting for Mr. Ryan, the Premier of Queensland, and Mr. Lawson, the Premier of Victoria, submitted to me a memorandum containing the result of their deliberations. Shortly put, they were quite willing to give to the Commonwealth powers to deal with industrial unrest and profiteering, as well as other matters incidental thereto, .but they considered that what we sought was in excess of the powers asked for. Discussion took place. Several suggestions were put forward. It was suggested that the powers asked for should be handed over to the Commonwealth for a limited time. I agreed to that. It was also suggested that a Convention should be called in Older to finally determine - subject, of course, to the people’s decision - what should be the permanent distribution of powers. I agreed to that proposal also. However, as the Premiers still held that the powers we asked for were too wide, I suggested that a Committee of constitutional lawyers, consisting of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General - Sir Robert Garran - Professor Harrison Moore, of Victoria, and Professor Jethro Brown, of South Australia, should act as an advisory legal committee, and consider whether the Commonwealth could deal with the position as it exists to-day with powers falling short of those which are covered by the Bills before honorable members. That Committee is still sitting ; and I have said that if it unanimously agrees that lesser powers will suffice I shall be willing, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, to consider the matter favorably.

I wish to make perfectly clear the position of the Premiers in order to prevent misunderstanding. Mr. Holman was not present at the meeting on Monday. The other representatives said, as was quite proper, that they could not commit their Governments to any course of action . They promised, however, to lay the proposals before their Governments straight away, and suggest that they be adopted. Beyond that I shall not venture to say to what extent they agreed to the proposals. But I point out that we have done everything possible to work in harmony with the States in this matter. Wehave made the measures merely temporary. They are, in effect, a continuation of some of the present war powers. They do not go as far in many directions as did. the special powers which the Commonwealth exercised during the war, but they are practically an AfterWar Precautions Act, as it were, which will enable us to deal with matters that are necessary and vital to the welfare of the Commonwealth.

The two Bills differ from the measures passed in 1915. We have inserted words in the Trade and Commerce clause which make clear that we do not intend to deal with the fares and freights of State railways. There has also been omitted from this. Bill the proposal to amend the Constitution in order to enable us to deal with disputes on State railways, and, in the second Bill, with which I shall deal indue course, an amendment of phraseology has been introduced that makes the measure clearer than was the Act of 1915, and meets the main objections raised against it. I have already delayed the House unduly, and I shall now content myself by leaving to the consideration of honorable members the motion that the Bill be read a second time.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- Any honorable member who was privileged to be in the House on the previous two occasions on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), as Attorney-General in the Labour Government, introduced the earlier Referendum Bill, will admit that he has been heard to great disadvantage to-day. The speeches he delivered on those occasions, when he had behind him the solid support of the Labour party, rang true, and differed vastly from the speech which he has made this afternoon.. It is my intention to move amendments which, if carried, will restore these Bills to the phraseology employed in the last Referendum Bills.

Mr.Corser. - The honorable member wanted Unification.

Mr TUDOR:

– I intend to move amendments that will bring this Bill and the other Bill that is to follow into conformity with those which were passed by this Parliament in 1915.

Mr Hughes:

– Quite right.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am glad to hear that remark from the honorable member. The Prime Minister told us that this increase in powers is rendered necessary by the decision of the High Court in the bread case. It was necessary long before that decision was given, and many of us tried on several occasions to have the alterations made. Twice referendums were submitted to the people, and twice they were rejected.I believe that, had the Bills passed in 1915 been taken to the people, they would have been indorsed, but they were withdrawn because the State Premiers promised that they would do their best to induce the State Parliaments to confer upon the Commonwealth the necessary powers. Some of them did not even attempt to put the matter before their respective Parliaments.

Mr McDonald:

– From what quarter did the promise emanate?

Mr TUDOR:

– At that time Mr. Lee was not Premier of Tasmania. The pro ceedings of the Conference of Premiers held in Melbourne on. Friday and Saturday last were kept secret, and apparently the press on the mainland could learn nothing about them. But the Age was able to get from Tasmania, through Mr. Lee, an account of what happened at the Conference. This is the second occasion on which he has given us interesting information. He told us on a previous occasion how Senator Ready was engineered out of the Senate - how, six days before Senator Ready became ill-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in debating matters which have nothing to do with the motion before the Chair.

Mr TUDOR:

– Of course, it is very objectionable to Government supporters.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order !

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not saying that you, sir, are biased ; I bow to your ruling. I was merely about to say that six days before Senator Ready became ill Mr. Lee knew that that wouldhappen. Very shortly we shall have an opportunity to say on the election platform in Tasmania what we think about those happenings.

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

– You will have to be careful of what you say in Tasmania about Mr. Ready. His little wife came to your meeting, and silenced you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! This discussion is quite irrelevant, and must cease.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member says that ex-Senator Ready’s wife silenced me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr TUDOR:

– She never came to my meeting.

Mr SPE AKER:

-Order ! I cannot permit this irregular discussion to be continued for a moment longer. I have called for order several times. The question before the Chair is the second reading of the Bill, and the actions of exSenator Ready are in no way relevant to the measure.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member for Denison took good care to get in all of his interjections, and I took care to get in my reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Both the interjection and the reply were equally disorderly.

Mr TUDOR:

– I shall take care to get my reply into Hansard.

Mr Burchell:

– Does the honorable member intend to amend Hansard?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr TUDOR:

– I never do that; but the Prime Minister did.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members must see that these continuous interjections lead to disorder, and oblige me to interrupt the debate. I have no desire to do that, and I ask honorable members to allow the debate to continue in an orderly manner. I do not wish, if I cam avoid it, to use compulsory methods of enforcing order.

Mr TUDOR:

– Before the interruption I was saying that these additional powers were required by the Commonwealth long before the High Court gave its decision in the bread case. All honorable members on this side of the House desired the powers conferred by the Commercial Activities Bill in respect of certain commodities to be extended to cover others, and I moved an amendment for that purpose.

Mr Atkinson:

– The honorable member only did that in order to waste time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Wilmot to withdraw that remark.

Mr Atkinson:

– I withdraw and apologize.

Mr TUDOR:

– When the Commercial Activities Bill was before the House we on this side pointed out. that if it was possible for the Government to continue to exercise control over certain commodities, they could similarly continue their control over other things.

I am very glad to notice that the Bill will, apparently, give the Commonwealth power to control its own ships. If this power is conferred we shall be able to run our own fleet, and be independent of any Combine, either inside or outside Australia. A proviso has been inserted to deliberately withhold from the Commonwealth any power to deal with the fares and freights on State railways. Apparently there is a fear that the Commonwealth may possess power to do that, even if such power is not specifically included. I have given notice of my intention to move in Committee that that proviso be struck out. It is possible that the measure will be passed through the Chamber so hurriedly that we on this side will not have an opportunity of moving our amendments, but, at any rate, they will be on record on the notice-paper of our desires in this direction. After a certain stage only Government amendments can be dealt with, and if discussion is confined to one clause up to that stage, the moving of other amendments canbe prevented. If the opportunity is afforded, I shall move to strike out that proviso, and to restore the paragraph that appeared in the 1915 Bill -

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State.

I propose also to move to strike out clause 6. The Bill proposes to give the Commonwealth increased powers for only one year. It is really a gamble on the next election. The Prime Minister dare not appeal to the people without asking them to grant to the Commonwealth additional powers to deal with profiteering. He knows that the people are being fleeced by persons who, according to his own description, give £50 to a patriotic fund, and by high prices rob the people of £50,000. This measure is intended to pave the way for the Prime Minister’s reelection. He knows that honorable members on this side are in favour of the constitutional alterations to which we subscribed previously. But I am opposed to the limitation to one year, and to the reference of the matter to a convention. The Bill refers to a “convention constituted by the Commonwealth.” Who is to call the Convention ? Does the word “ Commonwealth “ mean the GovernorGeneral, or the Government, or this Parliament? And how is the Convention to be constituted? Are the Government to decide who shall be members of it, or are the people to be given an opportunity to settle that point? Is its constitution to be like that of the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry, upon which there is no representative of the workers or of the Labour party?

Mr Jowett:

– The workers were invited to send delegates to the International Labour Conference, and they refused to do so.

Mr TUDOR:

– Of course, the honorable member is on the temporary general council; but if the present Government remain in office the honorable member will be removed, because he has joined the Country party. The Government will have upon all the bodies they control

Nationalists only. I am afraid that if the proposed Convention is nominated by the Government, it, like the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry, will include no representative of Labour.

Mr Pigott:

– The constitution of the Convention will be decided by the electors.

Mr TUDOR:

– There is nothing in the Bill about the electors constituting the Convention. The Prime Minister did not say a word about that.

Mr Pigott:

– Ask the Prime Minister. He will tell you that is so.

Mr TUDOR:

– He is not in the chamber.

Mr Pigott:

– I will answer for him.

Mr TUDOR:

– To what have we descended when the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Pigott) can announce the policy of the Government in regard to an important matter of this kind ? Not one word was said by the Prime Minister as to who should convene the Convention, and how it wouldbe constituted. He may have told honorable members opposite at the party meeting that the issue would be submitted to the people-

Mr Atkinson:

– He mentioned nothing about the constitution of the Convention.

Mr TUDOR:

– The Prime Minister did not tell us whether the members of the Convention would be selected by the Government or the Governor-General, or whether he, if in power, would merely call together the State Premiers. If he does that, we shall look to Mr. Lee again for a little information. If the personnel of the Convention is chosen on the same lines as the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry was, probably all the alterations that are proposed by the Bill will be wiped out. The result of the Convention, if it is appointed by the present Government, will be that we shall have a more conservative instrument of government than is our present Constitution. The people will be asked to vote on the question of whether they will allow the Constitution to remain as it stands or will agree to its amendment in the form proposed by this conservative body. If the Convention is not created by 31st December, 1920, the amendments for which this Bill provides will cease to operate. As an honorable member of our party has said, the people in this case are being offered a “ gold brick,” which is the

American phrase for the confidence trick, and if the clause remains as introduced they will be fooled.

I presume that the supporters of the Government have agreed that these proposed alterations of the Constitution shall be submitted to the people ; but even if they are submitted and unanimously approved of, they will cease to have effect after 31st December, 1920, unless the Government of the Day appoint a Convention to make recommendations for alterations of the Constitution and the people indorse those recommendations. If the Government of the day do not desire these enlarged powers to remain in the Parliament, they will neglect to convene the Convention, and the Parliament will revert to its former limited powers.

In a Ministerial statement delivered in this House eighteen months ago, by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), in the absence of the Prime Minister, the announcement was made that -

To establish and maintain better interests between capital and labour, it is proposed that the Attorney-General shall also be Minister for Labour, and an Advisory Council representing employers and employees will be appointed to keep touch between the Department and the industrial interests affected.

Although eighteen months have elapsed since that promise was made, not one step has been taken to give effect to it. The Prime Minister, who holds office also as Attorney-General, has not been appointed Minister for Labour, nor has the Advisory Council been constituted. Are we to have the same procedure in connexion with this measure? Are we justifiedin believing that the promises made in connexion with this proposal are more likely to be carried out than were those made in the Ministerial statement eighteen- months ago? There is no justification for any such belief.

I hold that the Commonwealth Parliament should have thesepowers, not for twelve months, but for all time. I shall vote, for such an extension of powers as was proposed on the last occasion by the Labour Government then in office. I shall vote to strike out from this Bill the proviso exempting from the powers of this Parliament the right to make laws with respect to the control or management ofState railways. When the last referendum proposals were under con sideration in this House, the present Minister for the Navy led his party out, of the chamber while we were discussing a proposition to bring Staterailway employees within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The right honorable gentleman and his party then said that they would take no further part in the proceedings, and they trooped out of the House. I shall give those who voted for such a provision on the last occasion an opportunity to vote for it once more. Is there any reason why we should exempt the railway services of the State from the provisions of this Bill? Is there one public utility throughout the civilized world in connexion with which there is to-day as much industrial trouble as there is in connexion with railway services? There was never such an industrial upheaval in Great Britain as is now taking place in connexion with its railway services. Yet the Government say that there is absolutely no justification for bringing the State railway servants under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Is there any guarantee that no further trouble is likely to occur in connexion with railway services ? We all remember the turmoil which took place in connexion with the Victorian railway strike in 1903.

Mr Riley:

– The last big strike in New South Wales related to the railway service.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes, and as the result of it, representatives of that State were unable to reach this Parliament for some time.

Mr Groom:

– Was there not a railway strike also in Queensland?

Mr TUDOR:

– I believe so. Notwithstanding these facts the railway services are deliberately exempted from the provisions of this Bill.

As to the remaining provisions of the Bill I hope that they will be accepted. I shall vote against all limitations for which the Bill provides, and the sooner the people have an opportunity to vote upon the proposed amendment of the Constitution, and also to determine from what party the Government of the Commonwealth shall be drawn, the better I will beplease. **Mr. HECTOR** LAMOND (Illawarra) speech, just delivered by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** is his very evident belief that he will not be a member of the Government which will determine the character of the Convention for which this Bill provides. I desire to extend ito the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** and the Premiers of the States, my congratulations upon the success of the Conference held last Friday. It gives to the' people of Australia some assurance that the legislative powers of this Parliament, which are rapidly approaching exhaustion by reason of .the legislation already passed, may at an early' date be renewed. It gives us also an opportunity to review the whole Constitution in the light of our experience of it during the twenty years of its operation. If, for no other reason ;£han this, it seems to me we would be justified in accepting the proposals of the Government at this time. The question of the amendment of the Constitution has been so often discussed, both in this Parliament and outside, in connexion with various referendum proposals, that, in the, course of this debate, 'limited as it is by the Standing Orders, one .does not need to deal with it in any great detail. The Constitution of the United Kingdom has this virtue, above any written Constitution, that it can be rapidly changed to meet the changing needs -qf a growing Democracy. Our Constitution has the fault of all written Constitutions, that its amendment is a matter of time, and involves infinite trouble, .and much public agitation. We need a better instrument .for the expression of the changing feeling of a growing Democracy. The opportunity to secure that better instrument is now presented to us. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, our immediate need is power to deal with those industrial problems, and the problems surrounding the high cost of living and profiteering, that call for immediate solution at the. hands of this Parliament. It is utterly idle for honorable members of the Opposition to say that this Parliament has the power to-day to deal with those matters. I have been somewhat astonished at the demand of those who sometimes claim to be the only interpreters of the sentiments of the Democracy of this country - that those autocratic powers which were necessary during the war, but which no Democracy could continue for a moment longer than the exigencies of the war required, should be further exercised. We could have no justification for setting up an autocracy in this country, except the fact that the nation was at war. The War Precautions regulations are in the nature of the establishment of an autocratic government, and are not such as would, be approved, by Parliament for the permanent conduct of the business of the country. They constitute a method of government which was forced upon us by the war, and to 'be endured during the war only because they were absolutely necessary for the safety of the country, and they should be terminated at the earliest possible moment. I would point out, also, that the Government would not be justified in exercising those special powers to do things which were not absolutely essential to the prosecution of the war. They were given to them, not to carry out a social or economic policy such as . might be approved by the majority of their supporters, but solely to enable them to prosecute the war. We are now confronted with a condition of peace, and have -to deal with pressing problems associated, not with the prosecution of the war, but with peace, and social and industrial reconstruction. The answer to those who object to an early election, and to these measures being pressed through with all speed, is that the enlarged powers for which they provide are necessary to the Commonwealth Parliament in order that it may at once deal with urgent problems. It would have been better had we been able to go to the country sooner. It has been a favorite theme of Opposition members, on platforms outside the House, that this is a Win-the-war Ministry. They have said, again and again, that it was elected only as the result of the flapping of flags, the beating of drums, and the proclamation that it was a Win-the-war party. The Opposition have declared that the Government had no mandate from the people to do anything except to win the war. A change has now come over the scene. The war having been won - much to the surprise of some members of the Opposition who were asking us to make peace upon terms very different from those which are being' forced upon the enemy to-day - we are now told by the Opposition that the Government ought to go on with legislation for which it has. no mandate. We are told that it should extend its powers as a Win-the-war Government, and proceed with the work of the country as if it had a mandate from the electors to do all that needs to be done. We are told that we should resort, not to our constitutional powers,, but to our special war powers, and use. them for purposes for which they were not intended - purposes to which they cannot be: put for more than a few months longer. This sudden change of view on the part of the Opposition is due, not to any increased confidence in the Government - I shall not say that it is bred of fear of what lies ahead of the" Opposition during the next few months - but largely to a belief that the Prim© Minister has selected the best time for his party to go to the country, and not the time most suitable for the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken of the exemption of railway employees from the provisions of this measure: My personal view is in accord with the proposal that was made when the last referendum proposals were submitted to the people.. I remember very well, however., that in New South Wales a. very large, vote waa cast by railway employees- against the whole of the industrial provisions: of the Constitution Alteration" Bill then- put before the electors. They feared that their conditions might be dragged down to a lower scale than that they then, enjoyed. The railway employees1 of New South Wales regarded themselves as the bestconditioned' and best-paid men in the railway services of the Commonwealth ; and they were not willing to hand the. powers over to this Parliament. It may be that the omission of those powers will bring tothe proposals a support which they lacked' before,, and which is so essential to their realization.. My desire is that, these proposals shall be carried,, and I am. pre- pared to. strip, them of every minor, proposal that may stand in the way of their, securing a majority vote on. an appeal tothe country. If the omission, of the railway provision will help in that direction - as- 1 believe it will, for. it certainly, willi insure: the support of the State Governments, which wou'ld not be given under, the old- conditions - -them I think it is better it should' be abandoned' than that we should risk the loss of an amendment of the Constitution. These proposals will do practically all that we- sought to dowhen amendments were' suggested before, and, at the same time, they wiE give us a much better opportunity of securing . the necessary majority in all the States, if only because we shall have the approval' of the State Governments) the Premiers of which recently met in conference and &&cided to that effect. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- The proposals will be carried1 all right!- {: #subdebate-27-1-s5 .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr HECTOR LAMOND: -- I believe they will be carried in their present form, and because I believe that form gives them a better chance, I support the Bill. But, even if the proposals fell far short of what they are, I should still support them under present conditions^, because *we* have an opportunity for a Convention to review the whole Constitution-, which we could not have, and could not hope for,' under the previous proposals. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- All the Convention is for is to prevent the. Constitution being altered. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr HECTOR LAMOND: -I have my own. opinion as to that. I think we should do very much better if we- had less to say as to the motives which underlie the proposals before- the House; and looked ait: lie proposals themselves without prejudice) and without casting- imputations: The full purpose of them may be obscured to the sight of many honorable members!, because they do not. trust those who? are in charge of them; but, as I have sala, even if they fell short of what they are, I should! accept them,, because- of the pro1vi'sion for a Convention, which, it seems to me, is the most urgent need of the Australian Democracy to-day. Our Constitution is twenty years: old:, and in that time' the' progress of political' thought in this country has- been exceedingly great. We have advanced By leapsand bounds,, and Have been able to- observe-, not only the working of our own Constitution, imperfect, wasteful, extravagant as; it is, but also what is occurring- under' the' new Constitution, in South Africa, amdunder the Canadian Constitution.. I. feel sure that from a Convention, elected by the people we should get a much, better, instrument of government than- we; possess to-day. No- one- can defend the presence of seven representatives of His Majesty im Australia;, no one- can defend the existence of fourteen Houses of Parliament, carrying on as if each represented a sovereign and independent State. These institutions are costly; and, moreover, the clash of these little, petty kingdoms within the Commonwealth results in immense expense to all interests, industrial, commercial, and others. If the proposals of the Government are accepted in their present form, it will be to the inestimable advantage of the people of Australia for all time. {: #subdebate-27-1-s6 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- My remarks shall be few. I shall endeavour to so amend the proposals contained in the Bill as to make them equivalent to those submitted to the people in. 1914. If I fail, I shall give my unqualified support to the measure, and do my best to have it accepted by the people. At the same time, it is more than a surprise to me that the time of Parliament should be taken up with a measure of this kind, seeing the limitations that are imposed in it. It is painful to some honorable members, who have been in this House for eight or ten years, to see the change of front on the part of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes).** That honorable gentleman was the leader in the efforts to obtain greater powers for this Parliament on two or three occasions, when he had opposition from many honorable members who are promising him support to-day. In the proposals before us the Prime Minister has limited the powers of the people to a Convention that has to be appointed within twelve months of the passing of the Bill; and the only ground he asserts for this is the one of urgency. He says it is absolutely necessary that something should be done in order to give this Parliament power to deal with profiteering. That is the position the Prime Minister is putting to the people, and in its support he has quoted authorities, without committing himself definitely to saying whether or not the Government have the powers to-day. The honorable gentleman was very careful not to commit himself, and merely said, that " apparently " we have not the powers This was after he had quoted the judgments in the High Court; but I venture to say that if the Prime Minister was the same man he was a few years ago, we should not have had his feeble effort today ; he would have met the position, and would not have shrunk from saying whether he had or had not the powers. The Prime Minister contended that while we are in a state of war the Commonwealth has sufficient power for any purpose; and the whole point - and it is the point that will have to be put to the people - is whether or not we have the power we now require. When the war commenced, a proclamation was issued declaring Australia to be in a state of war, and under that proclamation there was passed a War Precautions Act, by means of which the prices of certain commodities were regulated. But we are still in a state ff war, because the War Precautions Act has not been repealed, and is still operative. The same Government is in power, but the Prime Minister is careful to say, merely that " probably" the powers we have will remain only for about three months. Supposing that- is the fact? Would it not be in the interests of the people if the Prime Minister and his Government took steps within three months to deal with profiteering ? My own opinion is that within that period the Government could put an end to profiteering, and deal with those who are extorting high prices from the people. However, no attempt of that kind is made, but it is proposed to go to the country for an amendment of the Constitution. Behind all this - and I shall not hesitate to say it elsewhere - there is not so much the question of the amendment of the constitutional powers as an idea that this is an opportune time to appeal to the people in the hope of being returned with a majority. It is no use mincing the matter - the thing is too clear. The Prime Minister admits that the Government have the power to deal with profiteering; at any rate, he will not say that the Government have not. He quotes judicial authorities which do not bear out the contention that we have not the power, and then makes the cautious statement to which I have referred. He says that we can only retain the powers conferred by the War Precautions Act for. about three months, because after a certain time, when the Treaty of Peace .has been ratified by the' different countries, those powers will cease to exist, and the proclamation declaring a state of war will be rescinded. We should then be just where we were prior to the war, and devoid of any power to deal with pro- >Steering. To-day, however, we have that power; and why not exercise it? An honorable member who preceded me said that we have no mandate from the people to deal with legislation now that the war is over. I venture to say that those who take that view would not deny that we have a mandate to deal with the Tariff. It will be remembered that in a manifesto the Government declared that the Tariff was to be dealt with; and yet, although it is admitted that the power to deal with profiteering will remain in force for at least three months, it is proposed to abandon the consideration of the Tariff. Why? Because the Government are afraid that if any alterations are made in the Tariff that may affect them politically a few months later, when this Parliament ceases to exist by effluxion of time. I wonder how any one can justify a position of that kind. > >We have asked for these powers on two or three occasions, and have requested the State Governments to concede them. This has been refused, and now, ' because there has been a meeting of Premiers, the Government are to be allowed the powers for tlie time being as a stalking-horse at the elections, with a prospect of a Convention in twelve months. Is it not a farce, in view of legislation that demands our immediate attention, to have an immediate appeal to the people ? > >As I have already said, the Prime Minister declines to say definitely whether or not the Government have the powers he is now seeking. But in this Parliament as well as in other Parliaments, I have known Governments take the risk, and they have generally been justified on appeal to the Courts. It is not an amendment of the Constitution that is really desired, or we should not have a tin-pot measure like this, but an appeal to the people, for ;permanent powers under which to govern themselves. What becomes of the contention that it is absolutely impossible to deal with Trusts and Combines without full and permanent powers *1* We are to have all the expense df an election when economy is absolutely necessary and there is much work for Parliament, and all for the purpose of letting the people say that the Commonwealth Government shall have these powers for twelve months. After the election the Government might not do very much with the powers, and if there should not be a Convention this legislation would lapse, and the next party who' occupied' the Treasury benches would be unable to act.. Can any one say that that is a right position to be placed in? A weaker position was never presented in view of the happenings in this Parliament during the last ten years, especially seeing that a great proportion of honorable members opposite opposed previous suggested amendments of the Constitution. The Government are relying now upon those who went out and opposed the amendments previously. The Minister for the Navy **(Sir Joseph Cook)** and his party walked out of this chamber when motions relating to these matters were before us on one occasion, and then went away and advised the people to vote against them, so as not to give this Parliament the powers that we asked for. Now these self-same people come along and ask for an amendment of the Constitution ; " But," they say, " whatever you do, do not make it permanent. Limit it to a certain time. We believe we shall come back here, and be able to look after your interests as far as the profiteer is concerned. You need not take cover. Do not be afraid. Give us the power, and we will protect you." > >This proposal is only a sham, introduced for the purpose of helping the party opposite to get back to power. They say, "We think that the time is opportune; the Prime Minister is popular, and we can make use of his popularity." That is the idea that is lurking behind it all. If they were sincere as a Government and a party, and if the Prime Minister himself were sincere, he would have gone for an amendment of the Constitution, as he did before, that would give this Parliament full powers. I am surprised and pained that the outcome of all these deliberations is a measure of this kind. It is a measure which I will certainly support, because it goes along the road which. I think is the right one ; but the time limit ought to be struck out of it, and there is no reason why the industrial workers on the railways should not be included in it. The time has arrived when the Commonwealth should control all industrial matters relating to wages. It would not interfere with the working of the railways by the States. It is only a question oftherailway workers having the right togo to the Arbitration Court to have their grievances adjusted. That is all knocked out. Probably the State Premiers asked that that should be done, and got their own way. They also asked that the operation of the measure should be limited in time, and obtained that concession also. Probably the New South "Wales Government thought, " The Federal Parliament willbe going to the people first. They will do good organizing work for us, and help our cause, which is in a very bad way." But when this proposal goes to the people, the people will remember what happened before. They will recall the position then taken up by the Prime Minister' and his followers. They will know that this measure represents a complete somersault on the part of those honorable gentlemen, and means putting the country to additional expense. Once these alterations of the Constitution are submitted to the people and indorsed, they ought to be made permanent. If they are not, it means further expense, and then, if a Convention is summoned, another big expenditure will be involved. The findings of the Convention will have to be submitted to the people, so that expense will be heaped on expense. While all this is being planned, every honorable member of this Parliament, with the probable exception of one or two, realizes to the full that it is absolutely necessary for us to get all the powers we have been asking for. Yet the Government now camouflage the matter in this way. Evidently there is something behind it. Is the object to obtain a united front on the other side? I venture to say that, whether the other side have a united front or not, if only six men from this Parliament went out and advocated the amendment of the Constitution, in view of what has happened during the war, and of the increased prices of necessities, the people would carry it, even if the other sixty-nine members of this Parliament took the platform against it. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Hector Lamond: -- Do you not think there are many other things that they would like to carry which are not in this Bill? If the Convention recommends amendments of the Constitution in those directions, it will be very valuable. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- There may be some other things ; but why do we not set out to obtain the powers for which we asked before, and make them permanent? If there are other matters not covered by the previous Bills, we can have a Convention to consider them, but we should first make permanent everything that is absolutely necessary. Where is the need for a Convention to deal with necessary powers? The fact that there may be some matters omitted from this reference to the people does not justify the Government in setting a time limit. If we are satisfied' that the powers are necessary, we ought to get the verdict of the people, and the opinion of the majority should rule. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- Are you not prepared to let the people say whether the powers are necessary or not? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- That is what I am asking. The people will give us these powers, and the time limit should not be here at all. This Parliament could have gone on for six or seven months longer, and exercised the powers now asked for, because we have them already under the War Precautions Act or under the defence paragraph of section 51 of the Constitution, seeing that we are still in a '' state of war," and that the proclamation is still in existence. That we have sufficient power now, nobody has proved more clearly than the Prime Minister himself. I never heard a more feeble speech from him than the one he made on this measure to-day. He was very careful to steer all round it. He picked his words; he had his speech written out, and read it carefully, and he would not say that the Government do not already possess all the necessary powers to deal with profiteering. All he said was that " apparently " the Government did not have them, or that if they did have them it was only for another three months. If they have them for that period, they can do all that is necessary to bring profiteering to an end. Then the Parliamentcould go onwith other legislation which is necessary for the welfare of the country. No one can argue that we are justified in allowing our industries to be at a stand -still. We ought to pass an amending Tariff in order to encourage industries and give employment. I had a letter to-day from a man who is fortytwo years of age, and has been walking about for ton weeks and cannot get work. He asks me if I can do anything for him; and there are thousands of others in the same position. We are employing returned men in every municipality by means of Government money, and when that is exhausted they will be thrown on the labour market with all the others who are arriving. Yet Parliament is doing nothing to open up industries to absorb them. Parliament is simply procrastinating, and now it is proposed to have the elections in December. If that is done, the House cannot meet afterwards until the middle of February. It will then take a couple of months before it gets to work so that it will be the middle of next year before anything is done to relieve the distress that undoubtedly exists in this country. Moreover, the new members of the Senate cannottake their seats before July next, and any old members who are defeated will still be able to draw their pay. That condition of things is being brought about simplyto enable the Prime Minister and his followers to obtain some advantage which they think they will gain by appealing to the people this year. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- They are the greatest political engineers on earth. Mr.CHARLTON.- The honorable member is quite right. There is a good deal of political engineering about this business. If we were honest in our intention to help the people, we would have exercised our powers. Instead of exercising them, we have relaxed them. Everybody knows what was done by. the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene)** regarding hides. That permitted the price of boots to go up.The same thing has happened in every direction. We have never made an honest effort to regulate prices in this country. We have had the power, and we have it still, and we shall have it until the exchange of ratifications of the Peace Treaty between the nations, which may be five or six months hence. In that time the Government could do everything necessary to prevent profiteering. We could start this week, and before the end of the year we could bring down the prices of many things to : a very greatextent. But the Govemnrent will not do it. They say, " We had better get to thecountry. This is our hour. Now is the time. There have been a few public demonstrations in favour of the Prime Minister in the different capitals since he has come back, and they will carry us over the election." Probably honorable members opposite will find when it comes to the pinch that things will not work out as they expect. *In* view of all the facts, they deserve to be a defeated party. They are endeavouring, not to help the people, but to delay legislation that would be of assistance to the people. They are trying to make it appear that they have no power when they really have power that they will not use. Why do they not use it? Because the big wealthy people are supporting them, and will support them in the coming elections. Those people know they are safe as long as they have the present party in office. This measure is only a make-believe, introduced for the purpose of enabling aGovernment to get back on to the Treasury bench, where they believe they will be safe for another three years. I have nothing to say against the Bill asregards asking for powers which are to be made permanent; but if it is necessary to put it to the people, no limitation should be imposed, and my main argument against going to the people at the present juncture is that we already have the power that the Bill seeks to obtain from the people. If we operate that power immediately, we can protect the people. The Prime Minister has never definitely said that we do not possess it. In the face of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, we are not justified in going to the people until we exhaust the powers we possess. We must first go on with the legislation for which we received a mandate. We must deal with the Tariff, in order to make provision to absorb out returned men. It is of no use to tell them that we are finding employment for them when we are doing nothing to assist them at all. They are discharged and paid off andout of employment, and it is a shame that this Parliament should permit that state of things to exist. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- You surely do not mean that we are doing nothing at all? Mr.CHARLTON.- I do not withdraw my statement. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- I think thehonorable member should. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Government are doing very little for them. There are thousandsof soldiers out of employment, and yet this Parliament is going to the country without dealing with the Tariff, which might provide employment for them. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- And increase the cost of living. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Government already have power to deal with the increased cost of living. I should like to hear some man of standing in the legal profession on the other side show that we have not the power under existing conditions to deal with profiteering. The Prime Minister, who is a lawyer, has not done so. He was careful to keep off that subject. I should be very pleased to hear any other lawyer on the Government side deal with the question. I always pay great attention to the opinion of the man who is entitled to give it, and very often it brings conviction to me, but since we have been dealing with this matter here not one legal man has shown that we have not this power. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Did not the Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Groom)** show conclusively that we had it? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Yes, when he was explaining the Commercial Activities Bill. We doubted the legality of that measure, but the Minister asserted that we had the power as long as the state of war lasted. Now, when it comes to a question of profiteering, we are told the Government have no power. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -Cannot the honorable member distinguish 'between the two things ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Then the honorable member does not want to. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The honorable member will have some difficulty in making the people see the distinction. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Any man of ordinary intelligence can see it when the matter is put before him. Mr.CHARLTON.-Some men of extraordinary intelligence, like the honorable member, can see the wrong thing. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member is making these assertions, and knows that they are untrue. Mr.Fenton. - Is that remark in order? {: #subdebate-27-1-s7 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I do so. Mr.CHARLTON.- I am sorry if my remarks have engendered any feeling, but if so, that cannot be helped, because the matter is of great importance. I do not talk about profiteering merely for the sake of talking, but because I know that we, as a Parliament, are doing nothing to meet the situation. I know the people are suffering. Only this week I called at a house where the people were in dire distress. They could not get work. We in this Parliament are supposed to pass legislation in order to find employment for the people, but the Government side are thinking about nothing but getting away to the country, although we have six or eight months of our time still to go, during which we couldbe doing something. What have honorable members on the other side done since the war started to find employment for the people ? {: #subdebate-27-1-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honorablemember must see that he is departing from the subject before the Chair. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I think I am entitled to say that, instead of rushing away to the people, this Parliament should devote the months available to it to the passage of useful legislation, which would benefit the country, and, at the same time, provide employment for returned soldiers. {: #subdebate-27-1-s9 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must deal with matters covered by the Bill. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Bill takes away from the time we could devote to dealing with the matters it covers. The object of the Bill is to cut off the life of this Parliament. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- There is nothing in the Bill to say so. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- At any rate, that is what it means, although it is not actually expressed in so many words. 'However, I emphatically protest against the action of the Government in proposing to appeal to the people at the present time, and in closing down Parliament when there is so much legislation to be enacted to provide employment for returned soldiers and others, and which the Government have been given a mandate to carry out. I maintain that they have the requisite power, and the Prime Minister has not denied it. {: #subdebate-27-1-s10 .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia .- Apparently honorable members opposite do not propose to speak upon this Bill. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- Dumb dogs! {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw that expression and apologize. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- I withdraw it. I am not anxious to meet with punishment from the Chair. Mr.HIGGS. - I propose to recommend the people of Australia to vote " Yes " on this proposed alteration of the Constitution; but, at the same time, I deem it my duty to point out that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** and those who are supporting him, have no intention whatever of carrying out the provisions of this Bill. We all admit that the Prime Minister is a very intelligent man; but we must also admit that he is very astute, because he seeks to handicap this legislation by putting the whole of the proposed alterations to the Constitution into one Bill. At previous referendums the Labour party submitted the proposals in six distinct questions. In that way we had the opportunity of getting some of the proposed alterations adopted - the people might vote for one amendment and not for another; but the Prime Minister, quite aware of what he is doing, proposes to submit the whole of them in one Bill, in order, in my opinion, to insure the defeat of this legislation. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable member would suggest that, although both sides of the House may agree to the proposals, the people will not agree to them. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Later on I shall quote the opinions expressed by the Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Groom)** in the pamphlet against these very proposals in 1913. The fact of the matter is that if the Prime Minister secures these powers he will not be permitted to carry them out. Let honorable members read his references, in the *Case for Labour,* to the profiteers who stand behind him today; his choice expression - >These smugfaced, round-bellied men, on whom the sun always shines. Are these gentlemen going to allow him to carry out these powers ? Will they permit him to kill profiteering? Are those who are at the present time sending throughout this country subscription-lists asking for funds with which to defeat the Labour party going to permit the Prime Minister to carry out the provisions of the Bill, even if it should become law? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I would like to see some of that cash. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- We doubt the honorable member's election campaign committee got a share of it at the last election. Otherwise, who paid for the £50 advertisements inserted in support of the National party? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- These replies are only provoked by interjections. I never attack an honorable member unless I am provoked to do so. This afternoon the Prime Minister said that he had no mandate from the electors except to carry out the war, but I distinctly remember him saying at Bendigo that, while the Government could not, for international reasons, amend the Tariff as a whole, they would take the opportunity of amending it from time to time during the currency of the present Parliament. He also asked for and obtained a mandate to deal with industrial matters, to bring in proportional voting for the Senate, and to deal with a dozen other matters I could enumerate by quotations from my documents and the various Ministerial statements; but owing to the discourteous and unfair manner in which the Government have introduced this Bill I have not had time to refer to them. I have shown that the Prime Minister has mandates from the people, and he himself admits that, for three months, he has power, under the War Precautions Act, to do something to prevent profiteering. Yet what does he propose? He proposes to submit a Bill to a referendum, and at the same time have a general election, thus bringing out the senators six months before their time expires, or else putting the country to the expense of about £80,000 to hold a separate election for senators in the middle of next year. Does he think that when he goes before the public he will not have his intriguing and his methods exposed ? Shall we not point out that the new Senate elected in December next cannot meet until July next, and that in the meantime this Parliament will be hung up, and not a single law can be passed, or any action taken under the referendum, except what may be done by administration until July, 1920 ? Even if the "smugfaced, round-bellied gentlemen on whom the sun always shines," as the Prime Minister, in his courteous and elegant way refers to them, in his *Case for Labour,* are willing to allow him to pass this Bill, the Parliament will not be able to meet until July, 1920, to pass any legislation affecting corporations, trusts, or combines. Probably in his haste the Prime Minister has overlooked this point. He generally does overlook such points. Those who are familiar with him know that he never sees beyond twenty-fourhours. Sufficient unto the day is the evil- andthe victory - thereof. He does not think of the morrow. I do not believe that the " smug-faced, roundbellied men " will allow him to carry out this legislation. The Prime Minister was very halting in hisdelivery to-day. Aneloquent man at his best, to-day as an orator he was but a shadow of his former self. He knows that there is only one party in Australia capable of carrying out this, programme, and that is the Australian Labour party; and he realizes that the honorable gentlemen behind him will never allow him to carry it out. As the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** has pointed out, the Bill, if passed, cannot last for more than three years. I suppose that this has been arranged to satisfy those " smug -faced, round-bellied men." The Labour party will probably not be ableto get into power atthis election; but three yearshence, when the public rise in their wrath and righteous, indignation, and mete out condign punishment at the polls to thisGovernment for its failure to carry out the promises of the Prime. Minister, the powers given by this legislation will cease automatically, and the Labour party, which will come into office again, will haveno opportunity of putting them into force. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- And the Prime Minister will have sold the people a gold brick. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- The Prime Minister will have succeeded in fooling the public of Australia. He will go to the other side of the world to fill one of those important positions which will beathis gift if he gets back to powersuch, for instance, as the position of representative of Australia on the League of Nations, or the post of Trade Commissioner, or a position in some other public capacity. His troubles then! " Wales for ever best!" {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- The honorable member said quite recently that the Prime Minister would not return to Australia, but he has come back. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Two years ago I said the Prime Minister was going away for a very long time, and he would not have come back but for the fact that he stigmatized the Cabinet of Lloyd George as a silly lot of doctrinaires, Free Traders, and proGerman agents, and the billet that he would have got from the British Government was never given to him. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: -- This may be a very interestingdiscussion, but I see nothing to connect it withthe Bill. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- We haveno reason to believe that ifthe Bill is carried it will become law. It is provided that it shall notcome intoforce untilthe GovernorGeneral givesassent to it, and I can imagine that the majority of those who are standing behind the Prime Minister will instruct him not to advise the GovernorGeneral to give assent to the measure. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Dreadful ! Does the honorable member stake his reputation as aprophet on that particular prophecy ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I wish to make my statement comprehensive. The GovernorGeneral might give his assent to the Bill ; but then it appears that a Convention is to be held, and if it. is not held, the powers asked for willnot last for more than a year. My main point is that the honorable gentlemen who are with the Prime Minister will not permit him to carry out the terms of the Bill, even if it becarried.Otherwise, why limit the period ? {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- Does not thehonorable member think that that is rather a mean insinuation ? Mr.Maxwell. - If the power is limited, is itnot much more likelyto be conceded ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Ihope Iam not stealing the thunder of Somehonorable members,but somebody asked - " If the Bill is tolast foronly twelve months, or even three years, what is tohappen to the business people of the community who enter into contractual obligations under this measure, and then find themselves confronted with the possibility of the Commonwealth powers lasting only twelve months, or three years at the most?" If any honorable member suggests that my remarks this afternoon are due to an unusually excited imagination, I draw his attention to the utterances of some of those honorable members who sit behind the Prime Minister. They must have performed an extraordinary *volte face* if they now intend to support the referendum Bills. Amongst the present supporters of the Prime Minister who were leading members of the Liberal party when the 1913referendums were submitted to the people are - **Sir Joseph** Cook, the Hon. P. McMahoh Glynn, the Hon. Littleton E. Groom, Hon. W. H. Kelly, **Mr. W.** J. McWilliams, **Mr. A.** S. Rodgers, **Mr. S.** Sampson, Hon. Bruce Smith- imagine the Hon. Bruce Smith supporting the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** in any endeavour to deal with profiteers, corporations, shipping companies, and rings - **Mr. John** Thomson. Hon. G. H. Wise, and **Sir Robert** Best. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- The amendments then proposed were different. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- The honorable member sometimes fires his political boomerang with the same idea as a blackfellow throws his boomerang into a flock of birds - aiming at none, but hoping to hit some. His interjection wasquite inappropriate, because, as a matter of fact, the powers asked for at the referendum of 1913 were similarto those asked for in 1915 and those sought in the Bill now under discussion . The only difference in the Referendum Bill of 1913 was that it did not go quite so Jar as does this measure, which honorable members onthe Ministerial side aresupporting. I find in a pamphletissued on that occasion, to givethe case for and against the Referendum Bills, the following paragraph: - >The Liberal party appeals directly to the people,over the headsof its representatives, though with their aid, asking for the fullest and fairest consideration ofthe complex series of amendments which the Ministry of the day are demanding. Momentous public issues are involved. This is. an appeal of citizensto fellowcitizens, intheir common interest and for the sake of Australiaagainst the rash, reckless, and unreasonable wrecking of the Federal Constitution, which must result, un- lessthe people's answeris a resounding " No." The honorable member for Kooyong **(Sir Robert Best)** will remember that. Referring to the Labour party's anxiety to get these powers, the pamphlet said : - >It seeks to win, by importunity that which the judgment of the people hasdecisively rejected. Those powers were rejected in 1911 owing to the eloquence of the honorable members I have mentioned, supported by the Conservative press. Can we believe that to-day the Melbourne *Argus,* the *Sydney Morning Herald,* and the Sydney *Daily Telegraph* will be found supporting the Prime Minister in securing these powers for the Commonwealth ? The pamphlet continued - . The purpose of the proposed amendments is to enlarge and multiply the powers which can be lawfully exercised by the Federal Parliament. Taken altogether, they represent a vital and far-reaching alteration of the Constitution accepted in all solemnity, and after full consideration, by the people of Australia, only twelve years ago. By the constitutional amendments now submitted, the people were asked to divest their State Governments of a large portion of the power they now possess, and to transfer it to a Federal Parliament already richly endowed. **Mr. Hughes** has said, and others have repeated, that although tremendous powers are being sought, they will not all be used. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Hector Lamond: -- They hated him then as much as the honorable member does now. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I have no hate whatever for the Prime Minister. Mr.Corser. - The honorable member has a peculiar way of showing his love. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -When the Prime Minister referred to me and my colleagues as associates ofthe Industrial Workers of the World, firebrands, and assassins, I may be excused if I resent such epithets. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Hector Lamond: -- He has denied that. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Those statements appeared in the reports of his speeches everywhere. We havehad hisdenials by the score. I have no hate. I regard the Prime Minister now as a political patient whose case is being diagnosed by the political doctor. I am prepared to give a prognosis that the life of the Ministry and its Prime Minister will be very short. Continuing my quotation of the attacks upon the Referendum Bills made bythe members of the Liberal partywho are now supportingthe Prime Minister, I refer to page. 48 of the 1913 pamphlet, where they quoted with approval the opinion of **Mr. Mitchell,** that the proposed alterations would result in " a kind of mongrel Constitution." The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** said that the referendum proposals in 1913 were not the same as those of to-day. I call the attention of honorable members to the provision relating to trade and commerce. The wording is practically the same in the present proposal. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- Really there is only one thing wrong with this Bill. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- And that is that honorable members do not intend to carry it into effect. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- How does the honorable member know that? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Because we know the character of many of the honorable gentlemen who are supporting the Prime Minister. There is only one party in Australia that can deal with profiteering, and that is the Labour party. We are able to deal with the problem because we are united. {: .speaker-KIL} ##### Mr Lynch: -- 'Why did not the honorable gentleman deal with it in September, 1914? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- We did not deal with profiteering at that time because we were advised by the Crown Law authorities that we had no power. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- Did the honorable member seek the opinion of the Crown Law authorities. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I did, and I will produce it in this House. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- Will the honorable member tell the House that after the Prime Minister went to England the same authorities said that we had power under the War Precautions Act? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- It was reported to me as Treasurer, that some persons were charging more than 3½d. per lb for sugar. I asked the Acting Crown Solicitor if we had power to make a regulation punishing anybody who charged more than 3½d. per lb. He said we had no power to do that. The objection of the honorable member for Kooyong **(Sir Robert Best),** the Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Groom),** and the Minister for the Navy **(Sir Joseph Cook)** to the granting of thepowers sought by the 1913 referendum was that we would have in Australia two sets of laws which would apply to every trade, calling, business, and employment within a State. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Cannot men change their opinions? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Of course, people ought to be permitted to change their opinions as the result of deliberation and reflection. But are we to believe for a moment that the Flinders-lane profiteers who support the present Government have changed their opinions? They are the greatest profiteers in the Commonwealth. The honorable members referred to described in these terms the proposal, which now finds a place in the Bill before the House, and which they recommend to the people of Australia to accept - >The result of the acceptance by the people of this wild and wide project will be to leave a way open for the still wider, wilder, and more costly scheme of nationalization. That is to say, the Commonweal thownership of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Does the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Webster)** mean, by his interjection, to suggest that these honorable members have altered their views on Socialism? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -I mean to say that this Bill is the same in that regard. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- It is not the same. {: .speaker-KZC} ##### Mr Hector Lamond: -- If it is not, then the whole point of the honorable member's argument is lost. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- The Prime Minister recently said " I am a Socialist," and in another speech he said, " I have not changed." The right honorable gentleman is therefore a believer in the nationalization of monopolies. Does he say that the gentlemen of the Metal Exchange, who banqueted him yesterday, are Socialists? Are they going to support him in carrying out this measure? Not one of them will do so. They know, however, that they have complete and absolute power over him in the Caucus. His followers, at the most, number eleven. How many will he have after the next election ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Do not prophesy. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -I am not prophesying. I am merely asking a question. Ministerial supporters at the present time, who attacked in their pamphlets the proposed alterations of the Constitution, submitted in 1913, will have the power in the Caucus to say whether the Prime Minister shall be permitted to legislate to take over or control any monopoly. In 1914 there were on the Ministerial side of the House a certain number of stiff-necked gentlemen who insisted on going to the country. One of them, **Sir William** Irvine, now Chief Justice of Victoria, was the President of the Suicide Club, as that party was called at that time. They went to the country and committed political suicide. Honorable members opposite have therefore to be very careful. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -May I say that **Sir William** Irvine was favorable to the proposed alterations of the Constitution submitted at that time, but did not trust the Prime Minister, who would have had to give effect to them, and the Prime Minister of to-day was the Prime Minister then. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Quite so. Honorable members opposite, who think that they will win at the forthcoming election, but believe that they will not come back three years later, are going to take care that the Labour party shall not then put these powers into operation. The Bill limits their operation. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- The honorable member said justnow that the Prime Minister does not look twenty-four hours ahead. He now says that he looks three years ahead. Mr.HIGGS. -I am speaking now, not of the Prime Minister, but of his party. The proposed amendment ofthe Constitution, which was designed to give this Parliament power to deal with corporations on the occasion of the referendum of 1913, was described by the honorable member for Kooyong **(Sir Robert Best),** who favours the amendment now proposed, as "both ruthless and reckless." He also said, "It is a wilful and wanton piece of folly." That proposal finds a place in this Bill, and the Prime Minister is going to ask the honorable member to go on the public platform to support it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- *Tempora mutantur.* {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Times have changed, but will the honorable member tell us that, as the result of reflection and experience, he is now of opinion that the powers asked for in this Bill ought to be granted by the people to the Commonwealth Parliament, and forthwith put into operation? I should also like him, as a student of the Constitution, to say how these powers, if agreed to, could be put into operation before July, 1920, see ing that any new senators elected will not be allowed to take their seats until July next. ' Old senators defeated at the next general election will have no right to sit, and, if they have any sense of decency, they will not attempt to take their place in the Senate should the new Parliament meet before July next. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.* {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -I am very glad the Minister for the Navy **(Sir Joseph Cook)** has returned to the chamber, because I wish to know whether he is aware of the contents of this Bill, which has been so suddenly introduced into theChamber; and, if so, whether he is prepared to perform a double somersault, politically, and advocate legislation which he denounced when, in 1913, he placed before the public of Australia the arguments of the Liberal party against these very proposed amendments of the Constitution. That was when he described the proposals as "reckless," "wanton," "wild," and "wilful," applying to them also a number of other epithets. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Sir Joseph Cook: -- That sounds pretty good alliteration. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- No doubt, the case was set out very forcibly by the Liberal party. I wish to know from the right honorable gentleman whether his change of attitude is the result of mature reflection - whether he has seriously changed his mind? Can he, with his hand on his heart, tell the people of Australia that if the Bill' is carried, he will at once put it into operation? Looking at the right honorable gentleman, I cannot believe that he has so altered his opinions. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- You seem very much distressed about it. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I am not distressed; but, without wishing for one moment to delay the measure, I do think we on this side might be allowed to put the case to the public of Australia, so far as we may, through *Hansard,* seeing that the press gives us very little opportunity of making known our views. Here I may express the sincere hope that the people who read *Hansard* will compare its reports of our speeches with the reports in the daily press. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- I hope they will compare the speech of the honorable member of your party who preceded you - that is all we ask. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Well, I understand that the honorable member is getting some consolation, or hopes to make some political capital, out of a statement of mine to the effect that in February or March, 1916, the Crown Solicitor said that. the Commonwealth had no power to fix prices. The honorable member is welcome to all the political capital he can get out of that circumstance, because, as the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** said to-day, the High Court, about the same time, expressed the opinion that if the Government declared any measure necessary to the defence of the realm, or words to that effect, the Court would hesitate before declaring the proposal *ultra vires.* But, as I say, profiteering was not so rampant during our term of office, up to 27th October, 1916, as it has since become. Profiteering really commenced to afflict the people on the 7th May,- 1917, two days after the elections, when **Senator Russell** gave his consent to the Vacuum Oil Company increasing the price of kerosene. Prices have been rising ever since, until now they are reaching untold heights; and I am informed by commercial people that prices will go higher yet within a few months. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- That does not necessarily mean profiteering. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Not necessarily in all cases ; and that will be the view which the honorable member for Kooyong **(Sir Robert Best)** and others will put to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** when, if this Bill be carried, he proposes to put it into operation. {: #subdebate-27-1-s11 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
NAT -- How do you reconcile your statements now with your statement in 1913 that the increased cost of living was then one of the greatest questions forced on the notice of civilized peoples? That was your view in 1913. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- What was your view? It was that during the war we had no right to ask for these powers.. I have another pamphlet here in which the case against the referenda proposals was stated by the Minister for the Navy **(Sir Joseph Cook).,** the Minister for Home and Territories **(Mr. Glynn),** the Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Groom),** the honorable member for Kooyong **(Sir Robert Best)** and others, opposing, though not in the same severe terms, the measures which the Prime Minister proposed to put before the people. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Circumstances alter cases. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- If honorable members opposite are earnest, and now believe that the Commonwealth of Australia ought to have power to control Trusts and Combines, to deal with monopolies and nationalize them, and to fix prices, we must withdraw all we have said, and give them credit for having honestly changed their views since 1913. But can we believe that members of the Farmers' party are going to support the Government in fixing prices? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- They would not agree to the Minister for Customs fixing the price of butter in the Butter Pool. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I am not .one of those members of Parliament who take up a position of antagonism to the farmers, and I do not know any member of Parliament who does. In 90 cases out of 100 the farmer gets little more than does an ordinary wage-earner. The only difference between the farmer and the wageearner is that the former, perhaps, has a little more liberty than the latter. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- And is never out of a job. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- Is never out of a job, and is, to some extent, his own boss. It would be a most extraordinary happening if the Conservative press of Australia to-morrow morning are found supporting, the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** and the Nationalists and Liberals in asking the public for these immense powers; which we say are necessary, but which the Liberal party in the past have said are not only unnecessary, but dangerous. {: #subdebate-27-1-s12 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne .- I welcome this Bill as I would welcome any measure which gives the people a chance of having a vote. I had hoped that the Government and their supporters would have conceded the referendum and the initiative, seeing that the majority of them believe in that reform. We have to face the same position as on the occasion of previous referenda - we, the created thing, by kind permission allow our creator, the people, to have a chance of voting in a circumscribed direction. I am out for two objects, and two objects only, and my speech, therefore, will be short. I wish to see a real Protective Tariff, and not the present humbug and fraud. Ever since there was a Federal Parliament there has been a majority of Protectionists in the House ; but we have never yet had a Tariff comparable with that of the United States of -America or of Japan. "We could easily, in a oneclause Bill, adopt the Tariff of the United States of America. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: -- The honorable member is not in order in discussing the Tariff on the second reading of this Bill for constitutional alteration. , {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- This is the second reading of a Bill which is very wide in its application ; and my desire is to show that unemployment is rife, as any honorable member could find out himself if he cared to come to my office in Elizabethstreet any day of the -week. A proper Tariff would be the most effective means of preventing unemployment, not only amongst the general public, who pay for everything, but amongst our unfortunate soldiers, who are not getting a fair deal. As to profiteering, it is rampant, as every mother of a family knows, who has to make ends meet with a sovereign that buys only what 12s. 6d. would buy a few years ago. I have here some samples of tweed marked with the prices at which they left the mills. Here is one which, purchased at the mill at 10s. 6d. per yard, reaches the price of 35s. after passing through the warehouse; a second, purchased at 9s. 6d., is sold by the warehouse at 27s. 6d. ; and a third, purchased at 6s. 6d., double width, is sold at 25s. a yard. That- is infamous profiteering. Still, this Parliament will not pass a law to punish the profiteers. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- We are going to. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- We are always going to, but we do nothing. If this Bill is passed the Senate cannot meet until July next year, so what is the use of talking in that way? If ever there was a farce in legislation, it is this Bill in that regard. The Government can say to the profiteers, " Go and rob the people; this Government and this Parliament permit you to do so." What will the Senate do after the elections? I have challenged members of the Ministry repeatedly to come out and fight on the question of profiteering, but not one of them will do so. Under this Bill no railway employee can ever hope to get justice. I believe that some of those honorable members who fought against these proposals in the past have honestly changed their opinions. I hope all of them have done so. I intend to move as an amendment, in Committee, the insertion of the following new clause : - 5a. The power to make laws for the purpose of carrying out the principles of the initiative and referendum. The National party, at all events in Victoria, have adopted the initiative and referendum as a plank of their platform. It was carried by the majority, although not without a good deal of adverse comment. I believe the whole of the National associations will carry it. The whole of the members of the Labour party are pledged to it, and every one of those ex-members of the Labour party who followed the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** out of the room when the unfortunate split in the party took place, is pledged to it also. Why cannot the Government have a little common sense and put it to the people, so as to give our creators, who pay for everything, the right to say what they will do, instead of fooling them with this measure, which is to operate only ' ' until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor-General thereto " ? This House has gone through an experience that no Legislature in the world has ever had before. No less than three separate Parliaments, without a change of Prime Minister, have. been granted by the -Governor-General. I believe the GovernorGeneral would agree to anything that this Government asked. I speak with deference to his high position ; but I hope to see the day when the citizens of Australia can say who shall be their GovernorGeneral, instead of the matter being settled by the mere chance of an appointment. I have here the " Case for the Alteration of the Constitution," as prepared by the present Prime Minister on the 16th September, 1915. That was the time when Parliament was " diddled" - whether intentionally or not I shall not say. The State Premiers fooled the Prime Minister, and in fooling him fooled us, who were supporting the then Government. We thought the Premiers would keep their word and bring in the necessary legislation. We were wrong. Some of them honestly kept their word, some of them vilely broke it; and, therefore, the promise made by the Prime Minister could not have been kept by him even if he had so wished. The chance of giving the people the right to vote on the questions had passed by, so the Prime Minister being fooled by the Premiers, and we being fooled with him, the people outside were fooled - as they are fooled all the time. The following passage appears on page 11 of the pamphlet: - > *Referendums* *Hot Party Questions. - The People's Guarantee that it will not oe used for Party Purposes.* - And this . brings us to another point. How can a referendum upon the proposed amendments of the Constitution necessary to give the people more power to protect themselves be a party question? The amendment of the Constitution is a great national question. To whom will these amendments give power ? To the people. How will the new powers be exercised? As the people decide. But it may be asked, What guarantee have the people that the Labour party will not use these powers for purely party purposes? They will have the best guarantee in the world. The Labour party will, before using any of the new powers, pass the Initiative and Referendum Bill, which gives the electors power to veto any measure of which they do not approve. That is the final and complete answer to all such criticism. > >The amendments will give the people more power to protect themselves, and the Initiative and Referendum Bill will place the control of those new powers - and all others - absolutely in their hands. They will thus be able to say, " Thus far and no further," whenever they think fit. > >Why is not a similar promise made by that side of the .House now through the lips of the same Prime Minister? The honorable member who preceded me said he did not place much reliance upon the intention of the Government to carry this Bill. I am almost inclined to say the same thing; but perhaps I am a little more hopeful,' as the horrors of the war have changed men's opinions all over the world, that even the Conservative views of the late Liberal party have been changed also. The National party have accepted the plank of the initiative and referendum. Why, then, are not its members in this House m*n enough to tell their Prime Minister that it is his duty to give the people a chance to make it law? We could pass it without ten minutes' debate. > >A Convention is suggested. Is a Convention a glorified Commission? A Commission means delay. The Bill says, " This Act shall remain in force until the expiration of three years from the assent of the GovernorGeneral thereto," and if that is not given, it expires in twelve months. If the Bill becomes law in December, seven months must go by before the Senate can meet, unless the defeated senators, if there are any, have the castiron impudence to sit and vote. I cannot see how the Government will dare to face the country with such a proposition. How can they say to the people, "Although there is immediate need to stop these robbers and vagabonds from battening on you, you will have to wait until next July before you are given any relief." If Australia was not a peaceful community, I would say that the Government were almost endeavouring to drive the people into rebellion. I have never advocated, and never will advocate, any such course. I want to see reform brought about by the process of gradual change and argument, with platform against platform and press against press. > >Even the wealthy of this community should hail as a blessing the initiative and referendum. In this evening's *Herald* appears a cable showing how two questions of the greatest interest to the people concerned were settled. The people of the Duchy of Luxembourg were asked if they would have the present Grand Duchess or a Republic. Ten thousand voted for the Grand Duchess, and 2,000 for the Republic, or a majority of 8,000 for the present system. That question, one of the greatest in the world at the present moment, was settled _by the people in that little community without any riot or disturbance. Another great question submitted to them was their future economic union. The voting was: For union with Prance, 6,3-78 ; for union with Belgium, 2,117 ; or a majority for France of 4,261. I ask honorable members who believe that the people, who pay for everything, from the Governor-General's wages down to the wages of the policemen, should have control, to vote for my amendment. I say, unhesitatingly, that we shall never have honesty in' politics, we shall never be able to do away with the bribery, corruption, and fraud that I know exist, but, that, unfortunately, I cannot prove, until we give the people the power to recall any member who does not vote straight, or any member who does not go straight. If this Bill is passed, and the Ministry come back to power for three years,- they can snap their fingers at the people and tell them they can go hang so far as doing away with profiteering is concerned. However, I do not think the Government will go so far as that. I do not believe they will disregard the writing on the wall. In the three by-elections the Nationalists have not gained one seat. The Country party have gained two and we gained one. if the Government want the people to believe in them, they must trust the people. Every man who votes against my amendment concerning the initiative and referendum will deny the people the right to have ' a say in the government which they pay for. The system of the initiative and referendum has kept three, and I might say four, different nationalities in peace and amity in Switzerland, although the war was raging for years around their borders. Bordering on the very edge of the seething mass of war and comprising the elements of the warring races, Latin and Teutonic, nevertheless they lived in peace and amity, and that which has given them peace is that for which I am now asking and that for which I have been fighting for the last thirty years. If I have one regret it is that the advice I gave in 1901, that it should be made a plank of our party, was not accepted. If that power had been given to the people they would have- controlled this Parliament; they would have had the right to make a law and bring it about by a gradual change. It is with the desire of preventing sudden change that I am advocating this amendment of the Constitution with all the force that I can command. Edward VII. spoke words as wise as ever left the lips of Solomon, in my opinion even wiser, when he, as Prince of "Wales, doubting if ever he would come to the throne, and asked to give his opinion about the future of Great Britain as a Republic, said, "If it comes in. my time I hope that they will give me the post of first President, and that after my term of office has expired they will allow me to disappear into private life." Those were the wise words of a monarch who was anxious to avoid sudden changes. It is my wonder that the many wealthy men in this community do not seize upon my suggestion with avidity and fight for it. because nothing will tend to prevent turmoil in the future more than will the gradual change which can be effected by means of the referendum and initiative, to which I hope in the early future the power of recall will be added. With such a power the people could turn from the Government benches any Minister who did not carry out their wishes. Ask the people if they are willing to wait six months to deal with the profiteers. Queensland proposed to introduce a Bill adapted from French legislation. That great master mind, Napoleon, foresaw the profiteer and exploiter of the present day. In his code he provided - >Any man or body of men who join together for the .purpose of raising prices shall be liable to a penalty of 10,000 francs and a sentence of six months' imprisonment. If the raising of prices takes place in regard to foodstuffs, such as flour, wheat, wines, &c., the punishment shall be twelve months' imprisonment and a fine of 40,000 francs. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- That is the legislation which is being brought forward in France to-day. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY: -- Yes. In the legislation now being introduced in the French Parliament the penalty for the first offence is a fine, the penalty for the second offence is a fine and imprisonment, and the penalty for the third offence is imprisonment for at least two years. Similar legislation was introduced in Queensland, and I am very sorry it has not been proceeded with. In the French legislation there is also the additional penalty that on the shop window of a person who' has been punished for- an offence against the Act there shall be a notice to the effect that- he has been convicted. If people in Australia are charged with keeping dirty kitchens they simply plead guilty, pay a fine, and nothing appears in the newspapers; but if the. windows of the persons concerned bore the legend that they had been convicted of keeping a dirty kitchen or of selling improper food, it would be such a severe penalty, that they would not run the risk of incurring it. I shall vote for the Bill, and I shall vote for the amendments foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Tudor)** and others. Furthermore, if I am in the House, I shall move the amendment that I have already spoken of in the hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. A majority of honorable members sitting behind the Government be'lieve in the principle of the initiative and referendum, giving the people the right, no matter .whom they may choose to come back to be their Ministers, to initiate legislation and reject or accept it after it passes this Parliament. {: #subdebate-27-1-s13 .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling .- The Bill is the creation of the Labour party, carefully emasculated by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** and the Government, and placed before us as _ something to bring about the millenium abolish profiteering, and settle industrial disputes; but when one runs one's mind over the sins of omission of the party opposite with regard to profiteering and industrial matters, one wonders that they have not their tongues in their cheeks when they again claim for the forty-ninth time that they are out to get at the profiteer. They have done nothing so far; rather have they helped the profiteer to rob the people. I well recollect what the Prime Minister said in his policy speech at Bendigo. He did not, as he did in South Africa, damn the profiteer, but he repeated what lie had said in 1915, when he spoke of those patriots who gave £50 to patriotic funds and then fleeced the people of £5,000. Very fine electioneering guff ! Neither the Prime Minister nor his party has attempted to do anything in regard to profiteering, either by means of legislation or by the use of the great powers given under the War Precautions Act. The very fact that they have brought down this Bill, after enjoying unlimited powers for two and a half years, shows perfectly well that they are hypocritical in what they are doing. After **Mr. Lloyd** George and a few European politicians had done very well at damning the profiteer, the Prime Minister began to damn him when passing through South Africa, and he continued to do so by wireless between South Africa and Fremantle, and daily ever since - with much violent language and gesticulation, he has hanged and shot him - but, notwithstanding all this talk, the right honorable gentleman has done nothing, even under the powers he and his Government possess, to affect the wealthy interests which his party represents. I remember the Prime Minister saying that he did not propose to allow the people to be fleeced and robbed dur ing the war, and that he would take immediate steps to prevent this, but he has done nothing. On the contrary, after the National party were returned to power in 1917, the Government held a receivership over the Standard Woollen Company. In 1914 the invoice value of the goods of that firm was £14,000, but the National Government allowed these goods to be kept in the different storehouses and warehouses of Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney until the latter part of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, and then sold them for £140,000. Thus the people of Australia were obliged to pay £100,000 more than the invoice value of the goods -when they were landed in Australia. {: .speaker-KK9} ##### Mr Jensen: -- They were sold by auction and public tender. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- They were. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Who got the money? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The Germans will get the money. The honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Jensen)** was Minister at the time, and I took a very keen interest in regard to the disposition of the material held by the firm. I submitted offers to the Minister from several of the large distributing firms in Australia, who guaranteed to distribute the woollens held by the company so that not more than £500 worth should go to any individual, and were prepared to do all this for the bare cost of handling the material. However, the offer did not satisfy the Government. The original people connected with the Standard Woollen Company were G. Hardt and Company, but they were declared enemies, and the business was transferred to E. Schroeder. The High Court declared that the sale was a legitimate one. Hardt has departed for parts unknown, and no doubt Schroeder also will later on be departing with £100,000 robbed from the people of Australia by the National Government. I asked the honorable member for Bass what the Government intended to do in regard to the £100,000, and he said that, if practicable, the money would go into the Treasury. On many occasions I have endeavoured to elicit from Ministers what has become of that sum, but at no time could I get a plain, clear, and unevasive answer. I have not the slightest doubt that the money which was robbed from the people of Australia by the Prime Minister and his Government will go into the pockets of the Germans. I well remember how the National Government endeavoured to protect the workers of the country from exploitation by taking rabbit skins from the rabbiters and making £230,000 out of them; but that money is now in the Treasury. The rabbiters are totally different from a wealthy German firm declared to be an enemy firm. That firm is to be permitted to take£100,000 out of Australia, while the rabbiters, who work for their living in the paddocks of the country, are to be robbed of£230,000. The powers which the Government enjoy under the War Precautions Act were much greater than they can ever hope to get from the people within probably a quarter of a century. Notwithstanding that fact no effort has been made to deal with this question, and one may be pardoned for inquiring why ? The answer is not very hard to discover. I see before me the representatives of the squatting interests. I see the honorable member for Grampians **(Mr. Jowett),** who does not like to be called a squatter now. He prefers to be called a farmer. {: .speaker-KES} ##### Mr Falkiner: -- A "cockie." {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Yes, a "cockie" in a small way in the Grampians. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Falkiner)** also represents the wealthy pastoralists. The rag merchants have a good champion in the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Bruce).** The apple-growing industry, too, has full representation in this Chamber. There is not one interest of any note that is not very ably and keenly represented amongst honorable members opposite. So well have they looked after those who found the large sums of money which were placed at their disposal to get them into Parliament that nothing has been done to affect the interests of their backers The honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. McWilliams)** cannot, and is too honest to try to, show me wherein the Nationalist Government have ever attempted to restrain exploitation and profiteering. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- They did not do so badly with cornsacks last year. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- At the beginning of this year I, and many other honorable members on both sides of the House, were anxious that the farmers should be protected against exploitation in connexion with cornsacks. Many questions were asked on this subject, and I inquired of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene)** whether he would take immediate steps to provide sacks for the 1919-20 crop? He replied that it was not the intention of the Government to continue handling cornsacks; they would allow trade to flow back into its usual channel. The Government had on hand 137,000 bales of sacks. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- The honorable member has overstated the number by 100,000. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- I am quoting the Minister's figures. Those sacks were sold to merchants for 9s. 2d. per dozen. No facilities were allowed to the farmers' organizations to purchase them. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- That is quite incorrect. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- It is not. The farmers' organizations in Victoria asked the Minister for certain credit' and the Minister positively refused; he preferred to sell the sacks to Dalgety and Company, and other large firms who were handling sacks in the usual channels. One week after the. , Minister representing the Nationalist Government had disposed of the sacks for 9s. 2d. per dozen they rose to 12s. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Dalgety and Company did not buy one sack. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- They may not have bought the sacks directly, but the honorable member will find that the firm were interested in the sacks that were purchased from the Government. Three weeks after they had been sold by the anti-profiteering Government for 9s. 2d. per dozen the price rose to 15s. per dozen. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- We could not help that. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Of course, you could not if you had no desire to do so. Those same sacks will reach 17s. per dozen before the present season is over. That is the way in which honorable members who pretend to be representing the farmers, and protecting their interests, have allowed them to be robbed by the exploiters and profiteers against whom this Bill is said to be directed. When one takes into consideration the many interests which will be affected by this measure one wonders whether the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** has changed his opinion, or whether there are vested interests which have changed theirs. The Leader of the Government assures us solemnly that he is still a Socialist; that he still holds the same ideas as he held whilst a member of the Labour party. In the case for the Federal referendums in 1915 the honorable gentleman wrote - >Every other Parliament in the Empire has the powers we are asking for. These Parliaments can protect the interests of the people if they choose. They can limit the profits of these unscrupulous persons, who are heaping up war fortunes, regulate prices, and deal generally with trusts and monopolies. They can deal with strikes and industrial disputes generally. But the Federal Parliament of Australia, in the greatest crisis of the modern world, when the entire fabric of civilization is cracking with the frightful strain, is powerless to deal with capital or labour. Those arguments were used against the very people who to-day come to Parliament and say that they desire to deal with the profiteers. When the Prime Minister hurriedly convened the Conference of State Premiers he must have been in a quandary as to how to please the Premiers in order that they should not be antagonistic towards him, and at the same time go to the elections with a specious appeal that would again delude the people. He has done that on a number of occasions during the last two and a half years, and for the fourth or fifth time he will again try it. He continued his referendum argument in 1915 - >We must speak plainly, for this is a time when plain speaking is not only a virtue, but a duty.. Many have made, and are still making, great fortunes out of this war; many more are making higher profits than in peace time; and, despite protestations to the contrary, surprisingly few great companies and capitalists have been seriously affected by the war. If those words were applicable in 1915, are they not doubly so to-day ? Have they not been doubly applicable during the lasttwo and a half years when the Nationalist Government have controlled the destiny of the country, and yet have done nothing to stop the profiteering ? Again, the Prime Minister said - >We all know how the cost of living has increased, .so that it is with the utmost difficulty that the bulk of the community are able, even with the greatest economy, to make both ends meet; and, making every allowance for the effect of the drought, there can bo no doubt whatever that this is due very largely to the manipulation of the markets by unscrupulous persons at the expense of the community. These persons frequently pose as .patriots. They subscribe *£50* to patriotic funds, and fleece the public of f 5,000 by high prices. His words were true then; they are doubly true to-day. The Prime Minister and his Government have allowed the £5,000 to grow into millions of pounds. I heard recently of an interesting instance of the organization of trade and commerce in New South Wales, where by means of the manipulation and organization of the market, shortly after the signing of the armistice, certain articles which had been bought at war prices, and were likely to be subject to competition and underselling, were given special consideration, whilst other lines, of which the market was short, were increased in price. Out of cream of tartar alone it is estimated that a profit of about £50,000 was made, and I believe that the person who arranged *this* vast organization is representing the Commonwealth in a fardistant country. He deserves his job for the fine work he did in helping to rob the people of Australia. Then there was the rice joke; that was very interesting. A carefully-worded article was printed in practically all the newspapers of Australia. It pointed out that rice was an excellent substitute for potatoes. At that date rice was 3d. or 3½d. per lb. About eight or nine days after the article was distributed, rice rose to 6d., and later to 7d., per lb., and at the time there were 600 tons of rice in Sydney. Yet honorable members opposite say they intend to " down the profiteer." One cannot help smiling when he contrasts the ineptitude or lack of desire to deal with this question with the protestations represented by the Bill before us to-day. The Prime Minister further wrote in 1915 - >The referendums threaten many great interests; they threaten profit-mongers, exploiters, and the great vested interests of capital generally, and these will do everything within their power to defeat the proposals. But they dare not do so openly, and therefore urge the electors to vote against the referendums because we are at war. Do honorable members think that vested interests and capital generally have altered? Have their business morals changed one iota during the war except for the worse? {: .speaker-KES} ##### Mr Falkiner: -- They could not. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- I do not think they could. They have become more rapacious since 1915; they have been goaded on to greater efforts in their moneychanging by the party they placed in Parliament to do their bidding - a party that was subsidized to the extent of about £50,000 in New South Wales alone. ' The people who backed honorable members with their money will demand their pound of flesh. For every penny spent in fighting the Labour party they have had a return of hundreds of thousands of pounds. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- I saw none of this money of which the honorable member speaks. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Will any of it be available at the next election? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Plenty of it. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928 -- Where ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- In Melbourne and Sydney. The National party of New South Wales has a balance of £9,000 in hand - and this before it proceeds to collect for the forthcoming campaign. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- This is news to me. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Is it? The woolbrokers of Queensland, in December or *January* last, hit upon the happy idea of striking, for the purposes of the party funds, a levy of1s. per bale on all wool that passed through their hands. It was thought that the pastoralists would adopt the same course, but I cannot say whether or not they have done so. It would certainly pay them to take this action, since for every£1 the pastoralists have put into the funds of the Nationalist party, they have 'been repaid, not tenfold, but a hundredfold. The importers and the manufacturers have also had their pound of flesh at the expense of the people whom the Labour party represent. Honorable members opposite, after all, are merely protecting the interests of those whom, they represent, while we are trying to prevent such exploitation. The Ministerial party have won, but whether they will continue to win is another question. While four of the amendments of the Constitution which the Labour party proposed in 1915 are provided for in this Bill, one of the most important, that relating to the nationalization of monopolies, has been discreetly dropped. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The nationalization of monopolies? {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Do not correct the honorable member's misstatement. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- There is no misstatement on my part. Nothing has been nor can be done by honorable members opposite to prevent the exploitation of the people *by monopolies,* because those who control them outside will not permit them to take action. The instinct of selfpreservation prevents them from doing anything likely to jeopardize the financial backing which is so necessary to those who represent the monopolies. Quite recently many, if not all, the members of the Ministerial party received a circular from the combined pastoralists' organizations of Australia, which are well and ably represented by them, in regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Many resolutions were likewise received by them from various branches of the Farmers andSettlers Association of New South Wales, and also, I believe, although on this point I speak subject to correction, from branches of the Farmers Union of Victoria, asking that agricultural labourers should be exempted from the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The movement was Australia wide, and if the Farmers Union of Victoria did not take part in it the Pastoralists Union did. They asked that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should not apply to the agricultural industry. Hundreds of resolutions to that effect were received by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** from branches of the Farmers and Settlers Association which also desired that **Mr. Justice** Higgins should be removed from the Bench. Questions were asked in this House by certain members of the Ministerial party as to whether the Prime Minister intended to bring about the removal of **Mr. Justice** Higgins. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Has the honorable member a copy of this extraordinary circular of which he speaks? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- Yes; and if the honorable member would like to peruse it again- {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- I have never seen it. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- I will afford him an opportunity to do so. Not only did the Farmers and Settlers Association do all in their power to secure practically the emasculation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act after the Australian Workers Union had been working for something like twelve years to obtain pro per conditions for station-hands, but the Pastoralists Association took a hand in the movement. We succeeded in securing to the station-hands an increase of wages aggregating something like £4,000,000 per annum. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- What did the honorable member do for them ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -From the time that I was thirteen years of age until six years ago I worked in the pastoral industry. I did more for the union as a worker than as an official. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- If the honorable member had said that W. G. Spence did these things he would have been right. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The honorable member for Darwin **(Mr. Spence)** to whom the honorable member refers was a unit in the movement, but he did not camp on the banks of creeks or hang about stations until nightfall so that he might sneak up to the shearers' huts, like a thief in the night, to obtain evidence. He did not do that, but I, in common with many hundreds of my fellow-workers, did. It was the organizers, the men who were hounded from pillar to post by the squatters, that secured better conditions for the stationhands. After the agitation on the part of the Farmers and Settlers Associations had dropped the Pastoralists Unions came to light, and in a circular which most members of the Nationalist party received, I think, asked that party to protect their interests by securing an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which would really emasculate its benefits so far as station-hands were concerned. The Ministeralists, so far, have not had the courage to take that action; it remains to be seen whether they will attempt it. I think, however, that the pastoralists have bitten off more than they can chew. In conclusion, I have only to emphasize the point that those who, in 1913, most strenuously opposed amendments of the Constitution which are embodied in this Bill are to-day behind the Prime Minister in his effort to carry them into effect. There is, however, an emasculatory provision attached to these proposed amendments, I refer to Clause 6, which provides that - >The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force - > >until the expiration of three years, from the assent of the GovernorGeneral thereto; or And here we have the "nigger in the wood pile" - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. until a convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution and the people indorse thoserecommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect : Provided that if no such convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty, the alterations made by this Act shall cease to have effect on the said thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- There is more in that than meets the eye. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- That is so. This is about the one hundred and first " gold brick" that the National Government have sold to the people, and they think it will tide the party over a fairly tight time. It is the desire and hope of those who speciously plead that they are going to protect the people, notwithstanding that for two and a-half years they have allowed them to be robbed, that this proposed amendment of the Constitution will bridge them over the fateful 13th of December, which, by the way, is a most unlucky date. I believe that the Bill is so much camouflage, and that the Nationalist party will simply go on as it has done during the last two and a-half years. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Then the honorable member admits that we are going to return ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -I am doubtful whether the Nationalist party will return with a majority. Many of them will sing their swan song during the next few weeks. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -I have heard this story before. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -The honorable member will certainly sing his swan song during the next few weeks. The laudation of the Nationalist party's proposed anti-profiteering legislation, and the pleadings of the party to be given yet another chance to protect the people, may carry some weight; but, speaking generally, I think that the Government have so often sold the people " gold bricks " that the electors will realize that this is but another gold brick which they are offered, and will turn down the party. {: #subdebate-27-1-s14 .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports -- In introducing this Bill to-day, the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** gave evidence that his heart was not in the work. We did not have from him high flights of oratory such as he used to indulge in when dealing with proposed amendments of the Constitution in the daysgone by. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- There was a sad want of that wild-cat earnestness. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- There was some thing lacking. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- It is one thing to lead a party, and quite another to be its servitor. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I will leave it to the honorable member to apply that sort of acid. The Prime Minister's speech was lacking in vigour because his heart was not in the measure. On the last occasion that he submitted a Bill providing for an amendment of the Constitution, he said he had endeavoured to make the questions for submission to the people so comprehensive that they would give us what we desired ; and that unless we could get all the powers for which we were asking, the effort would be useless. To-day, however, he asks for something much less. Will the parliamentary representatives of the people never learn a lesson from experience? The Government have deliberately left the railway servants out of the Bill, and treated them as though they were not members of the community. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- So did the Labour party leave therailway servants out of their Bill. How do you account for that? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member knows as well as I do that the railway servants were included in the last referendum proposals of the Labour party. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I mean the first referendum. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- They were left out of that referendum because there were so many men like the honorable member himself in the Labour party. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I advocated their inclusion as a railway man, and you were against it. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member did that in his selfish interests, and the moment those interests had gone he turned down the proposal. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- You do not represent a railway constituency. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I have more railway men in my constituency than there are in the whole of Tasmania, where there are only a few tramways. When the honorable member says thatI opposed the inclusion of railway men I can only say, so as to keep in order, that he is not correct, though there is a stronger language that I might use. If we leave the railway men out of this Bill we shall place them in the same position as they were before. We have to go back only a few years to find the Victorian Government, under the Irvine *regime,* placing the railway men beyond the pale, not allowing them an opportunity of even voting with any effect. In Great Britain to-day we have one of the most extensive strikes, started by railway men, that has ever taken place, and that strike is likely to extend. Seamen, railway men, and others engaged in any form of carrying can " stick up " the rest of the community. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- If the Government does not fight them, they can " stick up " the community. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The Government of Great Britain are trying to fight the railway men there to-day. I do not blame the honorable member and others behind the Government for hoping againsthope that the railway men axe going to get a good " doing." But they will find that they have more than the railway men to deal with. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: -- How does the honorable member connect these remarks with the Bill before the House? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I know I am out of order, but I am led astray by interjections. The railway men in any community should be considered just as much as the rest of the community. Time after time in Australia railway servants have endeavoured to get justice, but, in Victoria particularly, we have the spectacle of thousands and thousands of men being paid 9s. 6d. per day. How does any honorable member opposite think a married man with a family of only two, though many have six and eight children, can live on such a wage at the present time? Honorable members opposite will simply reply that they do not know; and neither does any one else know. Yet these men have no hope of redress, because under the present distribution of the State seats, there can never be anything but a Tory Government in the Victorian Parliament. In the metropolitan area of Victoria one man may represent 28,000 electors, while a country member may represent only 5,000. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- That is a good reason for the honorable member supporting this Bill. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Does the honorable member not know that railway men are left out of the Bill? I .am at a loss to understand a member of the Farmers party making an interjection of that kind. The Labour party in the State Parliament of Victoria have been toying to get better conditions for the railway men, and a Classification Board has submitted a suggestion or recommendation, which, however, cannot be carried into effect, and which, even if it were, would be utterly useless. A strike of railway men in Victoria would affect, not only the one State, but the whole of the States of the Commo n wealth; and strikes of sympathy in the other States would intensify the situation. We, on this side, desire that the people of the community should be asked to give this Parliament power to stop strife on our railways by giving the employees some chance to improve their position. We hoped something from this Bill; but we are told, in effect, that railway men are not members of the community - are not civilized beings. These men know that they cannot get their rights from the State Parliament; and here we have the Federal Parliament refusing to extend to them that consideration to which they are entitled as taxpayers, whose work is conducive to the prosperity of the country, for without railway men we could not carry on our commerce. I know I shall be told that if these men do not like their jobs they may go elsewhere; but that was ever the reply of the " boss " in the past when workers asserted themselves. That style of speech, however, is seldom resorted to now, because it is beyond debate that the man who works for wages has his rights just as much as has the man who employs him. I know it is useless to appeal to the Government to in clude railway men in this measure; but I urge upon honorable members opposite to learn a lesson from what is taking place in the world to-day. Who ever dreamt in days gone by, just prior to the war, that the railway men of Britain would ever be so well organized as to put up such a fight? If the railway men of Great Britain can do this, so can the railway men of Australia. Honorable members opposite may hope that the Australian railway men may put up a fight, in order that they may get a " doing " they will never forget, and be brought to their knees. But the powers that be cannot always continue to bring men to theirknees, because the wage-earner is getting more determined every day to obtain redress. {: .speaker-KFC} ##### Mr Fleming: -- They are getting more consideration every day. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Only because they have claimed and fought for it; they always have to put up a strenuous fight. Even the Conservative press admits that the old order of things is gone, and that there is a new feeling in the world - that the worker has found what he can do by organization, which will become more complete in the future. I know that the railway men of Australia have struggled in the past for their rights with signal failure, brought about by several causes with which I shall not deal now; but the next time they try there will, be more cohesion and determination, and, let us hope, more funds for their support. The railway men were looking to the Federal- Parliament to do something which will enable them to Tight their wrongs, and they have been doing so for years. {: .speaker-KES} ##### Mr Falkiner: -- It is the man on the land who has the wrongs. The railway management in Victoria is certainly good, but in New South Wales it is deplorable, and it is killing production each year more than the last. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I shall not go into that question; but the honorable member must admit that the position would be worse if there were no railways running at all. {: .speaker-KES} ##### Mr Falkiner: -- Not much; 10 miles an hour 'is the rate at which the New South Wales railways carry stock. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I think that when the honorable member sees his interjec- tion, " Not much " in cold prints he will think it requires amendment. In any case, if the New South Wales and Victorian railway employees were to strike at all effectively, the honorable member and others would suffer considerably. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- The cities would suffer more than the country. {: .speaker-KES} ##### Mr Falkiner: -- They would starve in the cities; we in the country would not. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I know that the people who produce and control the food can last the longest, but that may not continue; there are methods of prevention, which I am not even going to suggest. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- What is the good of talking about strikes, anyhow? {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- Talk about arbitration. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- That is the second interjection, which shows that the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. Pigott)** does not understand the Bill. The railway men cannot go to arbitration, because we are leaving them out of the Bill. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- I mean State arbitration. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- There is no State arbitration. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- There is in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Like other honorable members from the " Ma " State, the honorable member thinks that New South Wales is the world. I have made a special appeal on behalf of the railway men in Victoria, who have no arbitration, or any method of redressing their wrongs. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Not even a Wages Board? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Not even a Wages Board; they are simply told that they must take what is offered or leave. Private employers know that they cannot deal with their men in that way; and if the Government make laws to control private employers, surely we ought to expect justice from the Government itself. That position is not debatable. No Government which creates Courts to keep down industrial strife in private employment can refuse to its own employees what it concedes by Act of Parliament to the employees of private interests. The trouble is that when the Prime Minister met the State representatives in conference last Friday, they said: "You must not interfere with our railway management in any shape or form." The Prime Minister therefore gave way, and we have the sorry spectacle of a great section of the people being put beyond the pale so far as the redress of their wrongs is concerned. I have no doubt the Premiers put up the good old argument that the railways are State utilities, which it is their duty to make pay. I do not believe it is essential to make the railways pay. My own opinion is that we ought to have free railways, but I recognise the financial responsibilites which are carried under present conditions by the State Treasurers. The State Governments will not allow any outside interference in the conduct of their railways, which, they say, they intend to run in their own way. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- The State Parliament is the Arbitration Court of the railway employees. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member forgets the peculiar constitution of the Victorian Parliament, which will always be Tory under the present system. The railway employees have no hope of redress from that body as now constituted. They, therefore, looked to the Commonwealth Parliament, and hoped that the Commonwealth Government would interest itself in them. I know that many railway employees, including even some of the most poorly paid, always vote for a Tory candidate. It is so, although I cannot explain it; but any honorable member who takes an interest in the industrial troubles of the world to-day, and notes what is happening in Great Britain, ought to realize that, by leaving the railway men beyondthe pale of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, the Government are looking for trouble, which, if it breaks out in one State, will extend to the whole of Australia. That is one of the biggest blots on the Bill, but we know the reason of it, and we know, also, that the Government think that they must get the help of the State Governments before they can carry their proposals. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- What have the State Labour party been doing all these years? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -They have never had more than about one-third of the membership of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- If they were any good they could dosomething, even if theyformedone-thirdoftheHouse. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member cannot believe that a minority oan force a majority to their way of thinking when it comes to a vote. I do not say that they have not been able to obtain a certain amount of redress for the railway employees. They have done something for them, but the great majority of the railway workers -are paid now only 9 s. 6d. per day, which is not enough for a married man to keep a family of even two upon at present prices. However, if the Government go into this with their eyes open, that is their look-out, and if the people let them do it, the railway servants will have to take what they can get. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Is the 1onorable member opposing the Bill? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Does the honorable member think he has me in the witnessbox? I have to take all I can get, but the exclusion of the railway employee is an unforgivable blemish on the measure. The Government will regret it. I ought to be pleased at that, but it will cause trouble that I do not wish to see. What is happening in Great Britain ,to-day can happen in Australia, and will happen when the railway men find that they receive no consideration from the only Parliament from which they have any hope. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** like the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Maxwell),** tried to make capital out of our opposition to the time limit in the Bill. One honorable member opposite tried to prove that we were against taking increased powers. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that the electors would take note of the attitude of the Labour party, who had always clamoured for increased powers. Of course, this was only a trick. Honorable members opposite know full well that we are not. opposing the Bill. I am convinced that there is a large section of members on the other side who are not satisfied with it in its present form. The Prime Minister's attempt to make capital out of our opposition to the time limit shows how .weak he has become. He knows in his heart that that pretence will find no credence with the electors. I suppose the three-year limit was all the concession that he could get from the State Premiers. There may be several reasons for fixing that term. If the Government remain in office they will have control -of these powers for three years, and when the next election comes on, the powers will have expired. There is, however, a proviso under which they may last only for twelve months. I suppose, if the Government are' returned, their composition will be much the same as it is now. There is sure to be a large representation of the farmers on the other side, but, thank the Lord, it will be a case of dog eating dog. It is not the members on this side of the House who will lose the number of their mess through the rise of the Farmers' party. I suppose that a number of the farmers' representatives will be like the honorable member for Robertson **(Mr. Fleming),** who has Tory instincts and aspirations. I place that honorable member at the top of the poll of Toryism, and he is a farmers' representative. If the twentyfive farmers' representatives who are to be in the next Parliament resemble him, God help the unfortunate workers who are brought under any legislation that may arise from the passing of this Bill! If they found that this legislation was working too well from their standpoint, the Government which they were supporting would drop it at the end of three years. If at the end of twelve months the Convention has met and made recom,mendations for . the alteration of the. Constitution, this Bill will go by the board. That brings the whole question down to the level of a farce, because it leaves it in the power of the party that is returned with a majority to do what it likes afterwards. If this Bill is carried, the necessary machinery will not be perfected by the wave of a magician's wand. It will take some time to perfect the machinery to stop profiteering, and still more time to prevent the workers from demanding, by strikes^ what they think they ought to get. The Government, therefore, can purposely lose twelve months, and I would not . put it past them and their supporters to dilly-dally until the thing fell through. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- What have the Queensland Government done to stop profiteering ? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I wish it were possible to obtain in Victoria a democratic Government like the one in Queensland. I wish we could get from the Government of Victoria the concessions and 'rights that the people of Queensland have received from the Ryan Government. We should have far less cause for .complaint. The honorable member who interjected knows that the Ryan Government is the only State Government that attempted during the war to give the people their rights and to prevent profiteering. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- And the cost of living is higher there than in any other State. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Honorable members opposite know that no State can deal with the profiteering question. Why, then, do they try to hoodwink the people ? {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Why cannot the States deal with it? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Take the case of boots and shoes. The Victorian Government appointed a Commission to inquire into high prices and profiteering. When the Commission was dealing with the price of boots and leather, it received this information: that if the Government of Victoria prevented profiteering,in leather the Victorian tanners would get no hides, because only 25 per cent. of the hides treated locally were grown locally, the balance having to be obtained from other States. They were further told that if the price of leather was fixed in Victoria it would affect only the 25 per cent. of the commodity operated on by local manufacturers, the other 75 per cent. being produced in States whose Governments might not take steps to deal with profiteering in the article. It is the same right throughout commercial life. It is impossible for any one State to prevent profiteering. It would mean its ruin. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Are not the State Premiers entitled to some credit for trying to prevent profiteering ? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- They have given no assistance whatever. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the Premiers are fooling him in making their offer. I remember what happened in 1915. I came into the chamber from the . Library and found it empty. I met the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. McWilliams),** and asked what was the matter. He said, " They have adjourned the House for your party to consider the question of not proceeding with the referendum." That was the first I heard of the proposal. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Yes; it was a sad business. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I went upstairs where the matter was being considered. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- And I was home in bed. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The Prime Minister told us that the State Premiers had promised to give the Commonwealth certain powers. I believe that **Sir Alexander** Peacock, who was then Premier of Victoria, desired to do so. As a matter of fact, the legislation he introduced was carried, but as it did not secure the requisite constitutional majority it was not agreed to. The same thing happened in the other States. I cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister well knew atthe time that the promise of the State Premiers would not be carried into effect. He told us then that he had not power under the War Precautions Act to control these matters. Notwithstanding the fact that the State Premiers deceived the Prime Minister, he is still willing to trust them. We know that the Bill before us is the outcome of his conference with the Premiers. A blind man can see it. It was a question of an election or no election, and having trouble with his Conservative party in the matter of presenting to the people anything of a democratic nature, the Prime Minister conceived the great idea of again meeting the State Premiers, and at the Caucus meeting yesterday, after fighting strenuously for some time- {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- To what clause is the honorable member referring ? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I am referring to the Bill generally. I cannot deal with clauses in detail. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I was asking the honorable member what principle of a clause he was referring to. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I am referring to the principle of the measure, which is the outcome of the Prime Minister's Conference with the State Premiers. The Prime Minister met the State Premiers, and addressed them as the superior being of the crowd - as a matter of fact, as the only man in Australia,' as honorable members opposite will ascertain to their sorrow one of these days. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- I apologize. The State Premiers, having heard what the Prime Minister had to say, told him that if he wanted their assistance in carrying into effect an alteration of the Constitution, he must follow the lines they laid down. This Bill is the outcome of what they laid down. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- They were asked to surrender certain powers. Do not you: think they should have had some say in the matter? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The State Premiers have not surrendered any powers. I call attention to the fact that this measure can only last for twelve months, and that it will take all that time to get the machinery going in order to prevent profiteering, which cannot be done in one fell swoop. The honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. Riley)** regrets that honorable members opposite cannot take a national or broad view of this matter, but I cannot credit them with such a desire. Their bosses outside would not permit it. The profiteers who have sent them here, and the poor fools who support the profiteers in sending them here, would not allow them to do anything of the sort. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Do not say that. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- What is the use of talking? The wage-earner who votes for honorable members opposite is an arrant ass. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must confine his remarks to the Bill. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- If I keep referring to this one fact every five minutes I will be doing just what I wish to do, and with good effect. Honorable members know that this Bill will not prevent profiteering. It is quite possible that the Government may endeavour to put upon the statute-book industrial legislation that will compel the wage-earning section of the community to accept what an Arbitration Court will give, and so. surround the wageearners with penalties that if they dare to refuse to take the little which is given to them gaol will be their portion. I quite Believe that the Government are capable of doing that. {: .speaker-KDZ} ##### Mr Jowett: -- Do you believe it? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Of course. I do; otherwise I would not say it. I say most emphatically that the Prime Minister's actions during the last two and a half years indicate that he would do anything to spite the men who turned him down. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Be fair ! {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- That is my opinion. I believe that the Prime Minister and those behind him would so tighten the industrial laws as to make it impossible for workers to secure any redress. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- If the honorable member had not been selected for Mel bourne Ports I could understand him making this speech. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member knows that I will be here to worry the House for the next three years. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I have repeatedly asked the honorable member to confine his remarks to the Bill. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- Ido not know that I can say anything more about the Bill except that it is useless, and that the Government know it is. No honorable member opposite can justify it. It is intended to accomplish nothing. Nevertheless, I shall vote for it as being the best that I can get, in the hope that the people of Australia will have a little sense at the next election. The great win-the-war cry, that worked on the sentiments of the people, will not be available next December. It is the desire and hope of the Prime Minister that he will still keep the " diggers" with him, but I think the " digger " workers and the other workers of the community recognise that they cannot expect much from the Prime Minister and. his party, and I am hoping that by December they will have come to their senses, so that the Labour party may get back into power, and be in a position to handle these questions. Unless we do, I feel sure that the present Government, constituted as it is, and as it may be after the elections, will not endeavour to pass legislation which is in the interests of the general community. {: #subdebate-27-1-s15 .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 . -I would not have spoken on this Bill had it not been for the speech just made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -So I drew the badger, did I? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member did. I could not understand his speech. It was made not to the House, but to the gallery outside as an electioneering speech. If the honorable member was genuine in his desire to see these alterations made in the interests of the worker whom he pretends to represent, why did he not put up a fight in the House in 1915 when the Referendum Bills were withdrawn ? Why did he sit so quietly with everyone else? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -That is a lie! **Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.** {: type="A" start="M"} 0. Chanter) . - I ask the honorable member to withdraw that remark and apologize. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I must withdraw it, but it is still a lie. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw his remark unconditionally. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I apologize and with draw the remark. In fact, I am willing to go down on my stomach to do it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Who is drawing the badger now? The honorable member will be very sorry he drew me. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- It is a lie, I tell you. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member has repeated his offence for the third time. Again I ask him to withdraw his remark. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I am always willing to withdraw any remark; but why is the honorable member for Denison allowed to make misstatements? He knows that he is wrong. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I call upon the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw his remark and apologize. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I withdraw it and apologize, and crawl on my stomach again. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- In order to show the House that I am not telling an untruth, I ask honorable members whether any fight was put up on the floor of the House by any member of the Labour party in 1915, when the Referdum Bills were withdrawn. Was there even a speech recorded in *Hansard* in which an honorable member stuck up the House or opposed the Government? No. There was not a word from the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, simply because the acid had been put on him. But the honorable member will not admit it. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: **Mr. Mathews** *interjecting.* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -I ask the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to cease his continuous interjections. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The honorablemember for Denison is attacking me in a most brutal manner. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member for Melbourne Ports had an opportunity to make his speech,and I protected himas far as I could against interjections. I shall continue to protect him; and if the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith)** makes any statement that is not in accordance with the rules of debate, I shall call him to order. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I refer honorable members to *Hansard* for a corroboration of the statement I have made. What did the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Mathews)** do to prevent the withdrawal of the Referendum Billsin 1915? I know that every honorable member who is now sitting on the Opposition side was anxious that the Bills should be withdrawn. No protest was made by honorable members opposite. All who were members of the Labour party at that time were summoned to a meeting up-stairs. Majority rule obtains in the Labour party. If any proposal was carried at the Caucus meetingby even a majority of only one, we came down-stairs and voted for it as a solid party. We were compelled to do that under the Labour constitution. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the Bill. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -I am tryingto show that the Government are proposing now legislation of which honorable members opposite were in favour in 1915. The Referendum Bills were suddenly withdrawn; but had they been proceeded with when the Labour partywere in power, there would have been no need for Parliament to be considering this Bill to-day. 'We would have had all the powers for which we are now asking, and would have been able to deal with the profiteer, and with the State Governments if they interfered with the Commonwealthin the carrying out of its duty to the people. Let us be honest and just to one another in this House, and not endeavour to transfer to others the responsibility to do somethingwhich we did not do when we had the opportunity. In regard tothe omission from the Bill of the provision relating to railway servants, I have yet to learn that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr.. Mathews)** put up any fight, either in this House or anywhere else to have the railway men included in the Referendum Bills first submitted to the people by the LabourGovernment. The honorable member knows as well as I do that we were afraid that if the provision relating to. railway servants was included', it would jeopardize the chance of the Bill being approved by the people. Why does the honorable member try to deceive the railway employees by making them believe that honorable members opposite are their only friends? The honorable member for Illawarra **(Mr. Hector Lamond),** who at that time was editor of the *Worker,* has pointed out that the railway men of New South Wales did not desire to come within the Commonwealth jurisdiction in industrial matters. It is very questionable whether they have that desire to-day. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports cannot bluff this House as easily as he can bluff his constituents. I am delighted to find that the Opposition are afraid to divide the House upon this measure. They dp not desire to show the people that they voted with the Nationalist party : but they will follow us because they realize that this measure is in the interests of the worker, that it will bring about that industrial peace of which we are all so desirous, and that it will tend to reduce the cost of living. The Government are quite sincere in seeking these additional powers. They believe that the Bill will enable them to bring about industrial peace, as **Senator Millen** did a few days ago. Did any honorable member on the Opposition side go to the waterside and try to bring about a settlement of the shipping strike ? No; the seamen did not want any of the honorable members opposite to go near them, but their **president (Mr. Le Cornu)** congratulated **Senator Millen** on having been so just in his treatment of the seamen, and thanked him for presiding over the conference, and helping to bring the strike to a, happy conclusion. Honorable members have been silent about that matter; but does not the action .of **Senator Millen** show that members of the party in power are desirous that justice shall be done to the workers ? Compared with some who were members of the Labour party when I first came into this House, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was an old timer, a seat holder. He did not belong to the Socialists' wing; he was regarded as one of the Conservatives in the party, and it amuses me to hear him to-night posing as an ad- vanced thinker on Labour ideals. It illbecomes honorable members opposite to criticise men like the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** and the honorable member for Darwin **(Mr. Spence),** whom every unionist in Australia should respect. Not a unionist, certainly not a member of the Australian Workers Union, will be heard to say an unkind word about the honorable member for Darwin. The honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** boasts of what he has done for the Australian Workers Union, but before he was born the honorable member for Darwin was devoting his life's effort to the cause of the workers, and in his long career he has done more for unionism than all the honorable members opposite put together. By his tact . and great ability he settled many industrial troubles, in regard to which the present leaders of the men would have brought about a strike, yet we hear bitter criticism of an honorable member who has made more sacrifices for unionism than has any other man in Australia. I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I believe we shall be able to convince the people by the splendid record of the Prime Minister during the war that they should give to the Commonwealth "the increased powers that are sought. When the Government came into power they shifted the control of the metal industry from Germany to Australia, thus conferring an immense benefit on the people of Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member is going .beyond the scope of the Bill. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- When honorable members opposite ask what has been done by the Government I mention the recovery of the metal industry as one thing. Another great work of the Government has been the advancing of money on primary products. Three hundred million pounds has been advanced to the primary producer, enabling those who till the soil to continue and extend their production. Yet honorable members ask, "What has been done? " What has been done by the Queensland Labour Government? The latest book of *Knibbs** statistics shows that the cost of living to the worker is higher in Queensland than in any other State. Meat is cheaper, I admit, 'but that has been achieved by the Government seizing the control of a number of stations and paying no land tax, although the squatter alongside has to meet that liability. The same Government during the war, when our kith and kin in Great -Britain were almost starving, commandeered the stock in Queensland, and made the Mother Country pay a higher price for meat, so that they might sell cheap meat to the workers of that State. I quote this fact only to indicate what we may expect if our friends on the Opposition benches should be returned to power. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Is the Official Labour party in power in Queensland ? {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I understand so; and I have read that the Australian Labour party says, in effect, that there is no man in this House capable of leading the party, and has asked the Premier of Queensland **(Mr. Ryan)** to enter the Federal arena and assume the leadership of the party. I hope that he does contest the Illawarra electorate, as rumour Says he will do. The honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Blakeley)** stated this evening that the Government had in hand 137,000 bales of cornsacks at the time when they ceased to control that commodity. The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene)** informs me that the number was only 30,000, and that Dalgety and Company did not purchase one sack, although the honorable member for Darling mentioned them as being amongst the purchasers. What reliance can be placed on the statements of the honorable member ? He did not remind us to-night that, in the interests of his constituents, he sought to create a corner in rabbit skins in order to force up the prices. It did not matter to him if rabbit skins soared so high that the hat-making industry suffered through lack of raw material. He was quite in favour of profiteering by the rabbit trappers. I have no fear of the criticism of honorable members opposite. They may declare that they would not be seen in a 40-acre paddock with members on this side, but, to-night, they will vote with the Government. Why ? Because the measure before us is a good one, and because it is in the interests of the worker and the country generally, and they are afraid to do anything to retard its pro gress. I cordially support the Bill. I believe that it will be passed in the form in which it is introduced. The Ministerial party does not hold Caucus meetings as the Labour party does, and, therefore, I cannot say what is in the mind of the Government, but my opinion is that the provision relating to the railways has been omitted from the Bill in order to insure its acceptance by the people. Honorable members opposite may try to insert that provision in the hope that the Bill will be rejected by the people, and the Nationalist party will be reproached with having been unable to do anything to check profiteering. But the Bill will be accepted by Parliament and by the people. We shall be re-elected by the people; we shall do something in the interests of the country, and I believe that when the Government again appeal to the country, three years hence, they will hear the workers say, " Well done, thou good and faithful servants." {: #subdebate-27-1-s16 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
Batman .- The tempestuous eloquence of the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Laird Smith)** has induced me to rise at this late hour to say a few words about the Bill. The honorable member appeared to take it for granted that every honorable member on this side is favorable to the second reading of the measure. Probably that assumption has some basis of justification, because nobody could possibly know better than he that, for a number of years, the Labour party has bent its best endeavours to the securing of an amplification of the powers of the Australian Parliament with a view, to enfranchising, liberating, and bettering the people. He knows just as well as I do that it was his privilege, up to the present occasion, to be associated with Labour in that honorable effort. To-day he finds himself, associated with other people, and with another party, giving his whole-hearted support to a much less generous and far more defective measure of constitutional reform than would have satisfied him when he was a free politician - a free man. I think it was the honorable member for Kooyong (;Sir Robert Best) who this afternoon, in breach of the Standing Orders, and in a dead language, reminded us that times change. Times do change, and with them people change. It is with a certain degree of sadness that I recall the different conditions under which Referendum Bills relating to the Constitution were introduced to this House in stirring speeches by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes)** who haltingly and shamefacedly introduced this half-way measure this afternoon'. We have all missed that which we then so much enjoyed. Friend and foe then took pleasure in the spectacle of a man brilliantly fighting for a principle worth fighting for, and in which he believed. Friend and opponent alike could but be compelled to admiration for the manner in which, taking his place then at the table, he fought those measures through, nor left his place until they had been passed in every detail. To-day he comes into the House, and, in a hesitating, apologetic way, propounds, with becoming modestyand docility, a new Bill. Having given his message to this House and the people, he leaves the chamber in the way that he came in. The table is vacant but for the Minister who has just now advanced to it, and we shall see no more of this distinguished protagonist of the people's rights until the Bill has been passed, when, perhaps, he will venture in once more. This Bill and the circumstances in which it was introduced are alike open to severe criticism. On this, the motion for its second reading, I take the opportunity which I took in a measure on: , an earlier motion relating to it, to say that it reflects little credit upon a Government responsible to the people that they should have introduced a Bill of such farreaching importance, designed to alter, in most material manner, the Constitution, which is the basis of our rights and activities {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -And our liberties. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- And our liberties, and that they should be graciously pleased to decide that its secondreading should be disposed of in a few hours, and that it must pass through all its stages before the House rises to-morrow night. That is unexampled, and, if I may be permittedto do so, within the all too narrow limits of the Standing Orders, let me say that it is in the highest degree discreditable to the Government. I am sorry to disappoint the honorable member for Denison (Mr.Laird Smith), but I cannot lend any measure of support even to the motion for the second reading of a Bill like this, designed to hold the Australian Constitution in a state of suspended animation for, it may be, three years, or, itmay be, only some period less than twelve months. We do not know whether it will be the one or the other. I ask the Minister for Works and Railways **(Mr. Groom),** who is now at the table, whether he seriously thinks that the Bill itself is constitutional. Is he prepared to argue that the proposal he now, as a member of the Government, puts before this House - a proposal for the amendment of the Constitution - is capable of standing the test of judicial decision? Consider what the Government ask us to do - the limitations they wish us to impose upon the operation of this Bill. It is laid down that the alterations for which it provides shall remain in force for three years from the date of the Governor-General's assent to it or - until a convention' constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution, and the people indorse those re commendations : whichever first happens, and shallthen cease to have effect. I pause there to remind the House, as my honorable Leader **(Mr. Tudor)** has indicated to me in conversation, that if aConvention constituted by theCommonwealth makesrecommendations for the alteration of the Constitution and the people fail to indorse those recommendations, or, in other words, reject them, then it appears clear that those powers will continue until the end of the three years' period, notwithstanding that, on appeal to thepeople, they havebeen rejected.From that point I come to thefinal words of the Bill. Provided that if no such convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty, the alterations made bythis Act shall cease to have effect on the said thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty. That part of the Bill is a sufficient justification for my repudiating and voting against the whole measure. From that provision it is perfectly clear that if,on an appeal to the people at ageneral election, the Labour party was returnedto give effect to the additional powers which, at the same time, were grantedby means of this proposedreferendum,they could not directly proceed with sympathy, sincerity, and earnestness to give effect to the decision of the people unless by the appointment of a Convention for the deliberate consideration, within twelve months, of the whole of the Constitution. The Labour party, therefore, if they came back in a majority, would be limited as to their capacity to give effect to the added powers given by this .proposed amendment of the Constitution. On the other hand, if the Liberal, party comes back with these additional powers, then, with their proven and well-known hostility to the very powers, which, for political purposes, they are seeking here to obtain, they will have abundant means of allowing them to become a dead letter. They will merely have to. abstain from the appointment of a Convention during the first twelve months, and automatically this great grant of powers will have come to an end. That will be the final act of this absurdity. I hope I will not be guilty of tinkering in that way with the Australian Constitution. I hope I shall not be found making .that charter the plaything of party politics. I hope that until a party comes into this House m sympathy with a wider grant of powers for the Australian Parliament, honestly desiring to give effect to a Bill designed for that purpose, in a liberal, patriotic, broad Australian spirit, I shall never be made an instrument of a Government which feels that it must make a pretence of doing something to remove the shackles which bind us under the present Constitution, which by reason of its composite character prevents us from doing anything that will be of any material benefit to the people. I can quite understand the Prime Minister's frame of mind in regard to this matter. It is not difficult to appreciate all the facts and circumstances leading up to the introduction of this Bill. The Prime Minister comes to his party and says,- "It is necessary for our political salvation that we have an election. What excuse can we put -before the people for having that election? We, a strong Government, a strong party, so recently from the country with an emphatic mandate of a kind that no Government ever before ' received, with a superabundance of power to. deal with profiteering, and to attack legislation of the most far- reaching and' essential character waiting to be attended to - what excuse have we to put before the people for holding an election? We must have an election for reasons that we may not disclose. Those reasons are that our popularity which had reached its flow, perhaps, a month or two ago, is on the ebb. I, **Mr. Hughes,** as Leader of this Government have made promises to the people, and particularly to the returned soldiers, which I know T can never fulfil, and before all these promissory notes become due - before the bubble is pricked - I must endeavour to get the benefit of an appeal to the people. That is the real reason for an election and a referendum:. But we have to give a reason for publication. The reason for publication is that the people are crying out for legislation against profiteering. And so we will couple with this election of ours a proposal, tq amend the Constitution." And this is the thing- which is brought down. We can well imagine what the right honorable gentleman said in presenting it to his- party. We can well imagine his saying, " We must amend the Constitution. But, gentlemen, my masters of the Liberal party, rest assured this- is not an amendment that can offend you in the slightest degree. It is to compass my political, salvation, and not to encroach upon your prejudices against any enlargement of the powers of the Australian Parliament. It is a safe amendment of the Constitution. Notice how I have hedged it about. It cannot operate for more than three years, and you can take care that it shall not operate for more than twelve months." Members of the Liberal party must necessarily have said to him in reply, "But this means chaos. This means that the people of this country in their' legislative, commercial and industrial activities will not know by what laws they are going to be governed, or are governed from day to day. They will not know whether a Convention is to sit. They will not know where they will be at the precise moment when this three years' period or half-year period comes to an end." "Be reassured, members of the Liberal party," one can imagine the Prime Minister saying, " sufficient for the day is the evil thereof ; we must have our referendum, because we must have our election, and if these promissory notes become due; look at the Farmers'' Union: - look at the fate of Lloyd George - everything points to the fact that my star is setting, and therefore, as Shakspeare says - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . pause not; for the present time's so sick That present medicine must be ministered. There is a more familiar saying that " desperate diseases require desperate remedies." But will this Bill commend itself to the commercial community ? I can imagine the commercial community saying, " The Commonwealth will legislate for us for the next twelve months, or it may he three years ; but that is the most ; we do not know what it will do, or when its powers will come to an end;we cannot say where we will be placed when they do end." The commercial community will cry, "Heaven save us from our friends; rather have a clear-cut amendment of the Constitution, such as the Labour party has more than once proposed, so that at least we shall know where we are - so that we shall not have an apology for an amendment which obscures out true position from us from the very moment that the amendment is passed." {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- You put up the umbrella very well! {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I wish the honorable member could excuse his present position half as well. I am sure the honorable member has a conscience, and must feel his position. However, he is now in the toils of circumstances, and at least I will give him the credit for remaining in the chamber and facing his critics. To that extent he is to be applauded as compared with the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-KYA} ##### Mr Pigott: -- How are you going to vote on the Bill? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- If the honorable member had only been awake he must have heard what I said; bui he is so obsessed with the interests of the Farmers Union and this growing party of his that he can think of nothing else. I notice that only two-thirds of the Farmers' party is here - the other one is away. Again, to return to the Prime Minister as speaking to his party, for it is only in that way that we can get at what is really in his mind. He would say to them, "We will give this grant of power in regard to industrial matters; when the unions see that we are going to vest the Commonwealth Government with these large powers the unions will go forth in all their strength and dictate to the junta, and the junta will dictate to members of Parliament, how they shall vote on the question, and they will vote'Yes' because of the great charter of liberty involved in this industrial clause." Will they? I do not think so. I do not think the unions will accept the amendment, and I venture to prophesy that even the junta will not accept it. But it is for them to say in their untrammelled discretion; it is sufficient for me to say that I, at all events, do not accept it. And for good reason. Suppose for a moment that, under the additional powers, new unions are formed, new claims made, and new awards are given, in the Arbitration Court, under circumstances which previously to this would not be within the limits of the Constitution. An award is made, as honorable members know, after a great deal, indeed, far too much, of preliminary endeavour, and after a hearing involving lengthy evidence and discussion of difficult and intricate legal points. Suppose that an award is eventually made within the' limits of those powers. In six months' time, the powers fade into thin air and are gone. Then the same union comes before the Court for a variation of the award. Will the honorable gentleman who is at present in charge of the Bill **(Mr. Groom)** tell us what will be the measureof legal complication that will ensue when industrial activities are pursued by virtue of constitutional powers possessed to-day and gone tomorrow, powers full of the absurdities of inconsistency? I cannot help thinking that the honorable member to whom I have just referred knows what would ensue. I remember once inviting him, in connexion with the Necessary Commodities Bill, to tell us how he justified that Bill upon legal grounds, and after a great deal of pressure he. modestly consented to say a word or two. Then he was at great pains to prove that we already had sufficient powers under the War Precautions Act to do everything that was proposed in connexion with this very limited amendment of the Constitution. Have we not still got the powers ? The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Greene),** as a new constitutional lawyer, from his seat this afternoon said that anybody with any gumption could see the essential difference between the two things; but I should be glad if he would explain the difference. I suggest to the Minister **(Mr. Groom)** that there is some inconsistency in this "backing and filling" - this declaring one day, when passing a Bill for one purpose, that we have abundant constitutional powers to do so, and have the authority of several eminent lawyer's to assure us of the fact, and another day telling us that we are so hamstrung that we cannot do anything without a further grant of power by an amendment of the Constitution. Can we amend the Constitution in this curious double-barrelled way? I was under the impression that there was only one way of amending the Constitution, and that way is prescribed in the Constitution itself. The -method is that the Bill has to be passed by an absolute majority in both Houses, and, on appeal to the people, has to be passed by a majority of the people voting in each. State, and by a majority of. the whole of the people voting throughout Australia. Then the Bill having been so passed, becomes law within the time prescribed by the Constitution. The final clause of the Bill provides that if no such Convention as is mentioned in a previous part i9 constituted by the Commonwealth before the 31st December, 1920, the alterations made by the Bill shall cease to have effect on that date. The Bill having been passed and adopted by the people, the amendments are made *ipso facto* in the Constitution. But a very curious consequence results. If within twelve months no Convention is appointed, then by an underhand method an amendment of the Constitution is proposed to be compassed, in> that the amendments already made are removed from' the Constitution. I say that that is an evasion of, or an attempt to evade, the terms of the Constitution; at all events, it strikes me as being so. Of course, it is one of the consequences of having a measure of this kind thrust upon us, and forced down our throats, without an op,portunity for investigation, discussion, or consideration, that we cannot appreciate what we are doing.' One consequence is that we do not wish to pretend to be too sure on intricate legal points. I suggest to the Minister that he might tell us how he justifies that clause in the Bill which appears to give this Parliament power to amend the Constitution, and then foreshadows another amendment which will not go through the usual procedure described by the Constitution Act. This is a matter on which we require information. I am sure that honorable members generally, in the very limited time at our disposal for considering the position, would like to know we are moving in a direction that is capable of being followed by US, or that we are standing on1 a foundation which will he firm and lasting. However, for the reasons I have mentioned, I propose to oppose the Bill. I oppose the Bill because I think it spells chaos and confusion, and is tinkering, in an unworthy way with the great instrument of the Constitution. I oppose the Bill because I think it will not do what it purports to do, namely, enable us to deal, with a free hand, by useful legislation with the problems before us, but that it will be a source of embarrassment and difficulty. Further, if this .party of which I have the honour to be a member comes back to power with a mandate from the Australian people, I wish them to come back with the feeling that they can meet Parliament, and, later on, appeal to the people with a request for a generous and necessary amendment of the Constitution on broad lines; and I fear that such an appeal would be greatly prejudiced by the fact that a short time previously the Constitution had been dealt with in the inadequate, inept,, and quite insufficient way proposed in the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Mcwilliams)** adjourned. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1919/19191001_reps_7_89/>.