House of Representatives
17 October 1919

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 13534

QUESTION

OLD-AGE AND INVALID PENSIONS

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Under the original Oldage and Invalid Pensions Act, which provided for the payment of a pension of 10s. per week, it was laid down that the total income of a pensioner should not exceed £1 per week. When the pension was increased, in1916, to 12s. 6d. per week, Parliament overlooked that provision, with the result that pensioners have been allowed to earn only 7s. 6d. per week in addition to their pension. I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Treasurer, whether the Government will consider the desirableness of so amending the Act as to allow pensioners to earn an amount equal to the proposed increased pension of 15s. per week. We should help these people to help themselves.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– The point has not occurred to me, nor did I know, when we increased the pensions, in 1916, that pensioners were allowed to augment their pensions to the extent of only 7s. 6d. per week. The Government will consider the matter, and if the honorable member will give notice of his question, I will endeavour to obtain an answerfor him.

page 13535

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES

Permanent Staff

Mr FLEMING:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I had on the notice paper yesterday a question as to the period or periods of active service and present position of all members of the permanent staff of the Military Forces. The reply given was, to my mind, most evasive. I ask the Assistant Minister for Defence if he will obtain a more definite and direct reply from the Department.

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

– I will submit the honorable member’s request to the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell).

page 13535

QUESTION

GRATUITY FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the result of his negotiations with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League with regard to the gratuity proposed to be paid to returned soldiers and sailors?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– No.

page 13535

QUESTION

EXPORT OF FRUIT

Allotment of Refrigerated Space

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for the Navy state whether any information can yet be given as to the allotment or curtailment of refrigerated space for the carriage of fruit between Australia and England during the coming season?

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

– The honorable member ought to know that the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) has nothing to do with the allotment of shipping space for fruit. If the honorable member will give notice of his question - and it is one of which notice ought to be given - I will supply him with any information on the subject I have in the Department.

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

– I have been trying to get this information for six months.

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable member has not put a question to me on the subject.

Mr McWilliams:

– I have on several occasions.

page 13535

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO BRISBANE

Mr FINLAYSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Brisbane Courier reports that the arrangements in connexion with the “ spontaneous and impromptu public reception” to be tendered to him on the occasion of his visit to Brisbane next week are that the procession shall move from the, railway station viâ Edwardstreet, Queen-street, and Albert-street to the Market Square, where the right honorable gentleman is expected to address the returned soldiers. Will the right honorable gentleman state whether the soldiers who have been selected to haul his car through the streets-

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

– Order !

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Will be paid the Sydney and Melbourne rate of 30s. per head or the Adelaide rate of £1 per head ?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– I refer the honorable gentleman to Mr. Ryan for an answer.

Mr Higgs:

– I understood you, Mr Speaker, to rule that the question just asked by the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. Finlayson) was out of order. May I ask whether a question having reference to the expenditure of public money is not in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to business of which they have charge, or to matters of public importance of which they have cognisance, and should not be based on newspaper reports unless the member asking them takes the responsibility for their accuracy. The question I did not regard as serious, but satirical, and it had no reference to anything connected with the business of the House. In any case, questions, unless of an urgent character, should be placed on the business paper.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Gratuity to Returned Soldiers and Sailors

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received an intimation from the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) that he desires to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., “ The proposed gratuity to returned soldiers and sailors.

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- I strongly resent the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) a few moments ago, when I asked him to inform the House of the result of his negotiations with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers League with reference to the proposed gratuity to returned soldiers and sailors. I have, therefore, availed myself of the earliest opportunity of securing definite information on the subject. Having regard to the contempt with which the right honorable gentleman treats, not only the Opposition, but Ministerial supporters, one would imagine that he was going to pay this gratuity out of his own pocket. It is generally understood that the gratuity will cost the country from £25,000,000 to £30,000,000, or something like £5 per head of the population, but honorable members of this Parliament, apparently, are not to be consulted on the question. The New Zealand Parliament, on the other hand, determined what the gratuity should be, and to whom it should be paid. We, as the representatives of the people, should have the right to decide these questions.

Mr Hughes:

– And the House will have that opportunity when the Government has decided the matter.

Mr McGRATH:

– The right honorable member is leaving for Queensland this afternoon. He will not return to Parliament this session, and God knows where he will be next session. It may be that he is making promises which this party will have to fulfil next session.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member’s remark as to no one knowing where the Prime Minister will be next session will apply also to himself.

Mr McGRATH:

– Absolutely. We are the representatives of the people, and should be consulted on this matter.

Mr Hughes:

– Parliament will have an opportunity before we rise to discuss it. The honorable member assumes that the Government has arrived at a decision.

Mr McGRATH:

– I have been endeavouring all along to obtain that promise from you, but the only reply that I received to my question a few moments ago was a curt “No.” We want you to be here when the question is discussed. Since your return from England you have been making promises to the “ diggers,” speaking as “ one digger to another.” You a “ digger “ ! You are a chocolate “digger” wearing a” diggers” hat.

Mr Hughes:

– I am as much a “digger” as you are.

Mr McGRATH:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mr Hughes:

– All that you did as a “digger” was quite harmless.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– Order! The honorable member must address the Chair.

Mr McGRATH:

– The Prime Minister, on his return to Australia, made promises to returned soldiers-

Mr Higgs:

– Secretly.

Mr McGRATH:

– Secretly. He has been holding conferences with them, and we desire to know the result of his negotiations. We want to know what has been promised. I believe that something should be given to our returned men, but some of them should not get a penny.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member is one of those who should get nothing. What did he do?

Mr Higgs:

– What an impudent lie!

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call upon thehon- orable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) to withdraw that expression.

Mr Higgs:

– I withdraw it, but the inter jection to which I took exception was a most impudent one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting.

Mr McGRATH:

– In reply to the Honorary Minister (Mr. Poynton) I shall say now what I have not yet said in public. On arriving at Havre I wrote to General Birdwood, whom I have never met, and begged of him to treat me as a private, and send me up the line. He replied immediately, sending me up the line. I went where I was ordered. I was up the line with the boys during the days of the Paschendaele stunt, and did what I was ordered to do. I could do no more. I was under military orders, and if a man obeys orders more cannot be expected of him.

Mr Higgs:

– And I believe that the honorable member was over the military age.

Mr McGRATH:

– When a man fortyfive years of age does what I have done, it is not fair for an honorable member to interject as the Honorary Minister did just now.

Mr Poynton:

-I know all about what the honorable member did.

Mr McGRATH:

– The honorable member does not. As a matter of fact, he was as well able to volunteer as I was. I did more than some honorable members opposite, who, although they volunteered, never left London, and made no request to be allowed to leave London for the Front.

Mr Fleming:

– That is wholly incorrect. Not one member of the Ministerial party who enlisted failed to go to France.

Mr McGRATH:

– What about the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Heitmann) ?

Mr Fleming:

– He reached England too late to go to France. The honorable member’s statement is a mean one.

Mr McGRATH:

– The record of honorable members of the Opposition who volunteered will compare favorably with that of Ministerial supporters who enlisted. So far as I know, there was no political influence - men had to go where they were sent.

I have been led astray by these unfair interjections. When a man has enlisted, and having done all that he could do, has returned medically unfit, as I have, it is most unbecoming on the part of a Minister to impute that he simply went away for a picnic. We want to know what gratuity, if any, is to be paid. We want to know whether men who never left England, but who occupied cosy, comfortable positions there are toreceive the gratuity. We want to know whether men who enlisted here, but did not leave Australia, are to participate in the grant. We wantto know if men who did not leave a base in France are to receive the gratuity ?

Mr Fleming:

– Those men were doing their jobs in France.

Mr McGRATH:

– They might have been, but they are not entitled to as large a gratuity as are those who went up the line.

Mr Fleming:

– That depends upon where they were ordered to go.

Mr McGRATH:

-They took none of the risks to which men who went up the lines were exposed. We desire also to know whether the dependants of men who fell at Gallipoli and elsewhere are to participate in the gratuity. They are quite as much entitled to participate in it as are the men who volunteered in the early days, and had the good fortune to come through. All these are questions to which an answer should be given.

This is not a question to be dealt with haphazard. We ought to know how the Governmentpropose to obtain the money. One would imagine, to hear the promises that are being made, that this country was in a most flourishing condition. I suppose by the time we add the Federal, State, and municipal debts and commitments, our total public debt will not be far short of £900,000,000.

Mr Fenton:

– One thousand million pounds.

Mr McGRATH:

– Yes, probably £1,000,000,000, and then we talk lightly of this extra £25,000,000 or £30,000,000.

Sir Joseph Cook:

– Why do you not make it £2,000,000,000 ?

Mr McGRATH:

– I am bringing it within the bounds of truth. The total debt, including our commitments, and including also the municipal debts,will not be short of £900,000,000. That is a serious position. Surely we have not forgotten our responsibilities? We have to go to the electors and show how this money is to be found. I want from the Prime Minister a declaration on the subject. The Cabinet has been meeting. Surely it has decided the question. The Prime Minister has been meeting the representatives of the returned sailors and soldiers, and the mind of the Government must be made up. Surely they know what they are going to give? I claim as a representative of the people to know exactly what promise has been made, and the conditions attached to that promise, so that I may be able to discuss it in Parliament, and so that the people of Australia may know to what they are committed.

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

– I do not object to the action of the honorable member in moving the adjournment of the House, but the day before yesterday, when he put the same question; to me, I told him that I was discussing the matter with the representatives of the soldiers direct. Apparently he takes exception to that course. I am quite sure he would not. have taken exception to it if those concerned had been the representatives of industrial unions, for one of the first things that industrial unions demand is that they shall manage their own business in their own way, and deal direct with Governments if they think proper to do so. I notice that when the industrial unions have any dispute or trouble, it is not to the honorable gentlemen opposite that they go for assistance. They deal with the Government direct. I have treated the soldiers in the same way. After all, the soldiers are best able to say what they want. It is for us, as representing .the Government of the Commonwealth, to hear what they have to say-, and to decide how far wo can meet them.

I shall say nothing’ now about what has been the result of the many confer^ences that myself, the Minister for Repatriation, the Assistant Minister for Repatriation, and the Acting Minister for Defence have had with the soldiers. We have discussed a great many things. I think that both the executive of the Soldiers Association and we ourselves are better able now, as the result of those conferences and discussions, to understand, on the one hand, what it is that the soldiers want, and, on the other, the difficulties that are in the road. I did not think the honorable member would censure me for going to the fountain head, so far as I could go there, in a matter which concerns the soldiers very nearly. So much for the general question of the criticism directed at me for daring to approach the soldiers, who, after all, are citizens of this Commonwealth, upon matters that vitally concern them. Not only should no censure rest on me for that, but I think I am entitled to praise, because I have don« that which was the obvious and sensible thing to do.

The honorable member has spoken of gratuities. I do not know why the honorable member, who apparently derives his information from some esoteric source, assumes that the Government has agreed to pay gratuities amounting to £25,000,000 or £30,000,000. That is the first I have heard of it. The honorable member will, perhaps, indicate where he proposes to get the money. The other day his new leader, or his new follower - I do not know where they are in this matter - said in my electorate, “Why have you not paid this long ago? You should have paid it long ago.” Here we have, on the one hand, a most gloomy picture of the state of affairs in the Commonwealth, for the public debt, according to the honorable member, has leaped up till it now reaches £900,000,000, or £1,000,000,000, making any further demands upon the resources of the Commonwealth impossible. Here is the other gentleman asking, “Why don’t you pay the gratuity? Why have you hot paid it long ago?” Which of these voices is the voice of Labour? I do not think either of them is.. Certainly the one which spoke the other night is not.

When the Government has decided what it will do, it will make an announcement. Honorable members may say what they please on that question, but until the Government has itself decided, surely it will be premature for it to make an announcement. I can say most emphatically that it has not decided, because this Government has to deal, not with hot air; but with cash, or its equivalent. It is easy for men who have no responsibility, and are not likely to have any, to say, “‘We will give you this, or give you that.” It is another thing entirely for those who have to make good their promises in current coin of the realm, or its equivalent. My answer to the honorable gentleman, so far as the gravamen of his charge is concerned, is that when the Government has decided its policy on this matter it will announce it, with such circumstantial detail as it considers to he proper.

The honorable gentleman introduced a great amount of irrelevant matter about men who had not done any fighting, and who did not deserve the same amount of gratuity as others. I quite agree with him on that point, -and he may.be sure that, if there is any gratuity, those who did the fighting will get the thick end of it, and that those who did none will get very little.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I was not aware that the adjournment of the House was to be moved by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), but I think he has served a good purpose in doing so, if it was only to obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) the declaration that the Government have not decided this question. As to how far the Government have considered it, we on this side are in the dark. I do not know whether honorable members opposite are in a different position. It is quite possible that they are not, and that they do not know to what they are likely to be committed, any more than we on this side do. We do not know even whether the Government will make an announcement before the House is dissolved. The Prime Minister is going away this afternoon to Brisbane, and there will certainly not be an opportunity for a full Cabinet meeting until he returns, unless it is held in the lunch hour to-day, and it is not likely that an important question of this nature will be decided so hurriedly. I have not the slightest objection, to use the Prime Minister’s own words, to the returned soldiers managing their own business in their own way, or to the industrial unions, or any one else doing so, but the House is entitled to know what is being done in an important matter which, we read, may involve an expenditure of from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000. Those figures have appeared in practically every daily paper of this city. The Prime Minister expresses his dissent, and, of course, I admit that he is not responsible for what appears in the papers. I suppose that the pressmen have estimated the number of men who have been away and the length of time they have served, and have calculated the amount likely to be involved on the basis of the 1s. 6d. per day which has been mentioned at the meetings of returned soldiers.. I notice in to-day’s papers that the Perth branch of the Returned Soldiers Association is not satisfied with1s. 6d. per day. It is asking that the amount be made 2s. 6d. per day. If1s. 6d. per day means anything between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000, 2s. 6d. per day will mean anything between £30,000,000 and £35,000,000.

Mr McWilliams:

– It is nothing when you say it quickly!

Mr TUDOR:

– Not many years ago a fair amount of ridicule was directed at the late Lord Forrest because he used to ask, “ What is a million ? “ Apparently we have reached the stage when it is not “What is a million?” but “What is twenty or thirty millions ? “ A time of reckoning must come to this and every other country.

Mr Hughes:

– Hear, hear ! I am glad to hear you say that.

Mr TUDOR:

– I said it last night while the right honorable member was away, in speaking of aseries of articles written by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), and published in a pamphlet entitled A Financial Carnival when the present Prime Minister and myself were in the same Ministry between 1910 and 1913. If it was a financial carnival then, it is a financial riot to-day.

Up to the 30th June next year, the war expenditure out of loan and revenue is estimated at practically £1,500,000 per week, the last week of that term being one year and eight months after the armistice was signed. The war expenditure ought to be getting less each week. When we are faced with such enormous commitments, no public man would be doing his duty unless he endeavoured to obtain from the Government a statement of the exact position as regards the promises that are being made. We are now told that the Government have not decided this question. When the Government have decided it, apparently this House will have an opportunity to consider it.

Mr Hughes:

– What I said was that the Government would make a statement as to what it proposes to do.

Mr TUDOR:

– Here?

Mr Hughes:

– Here; and it will go to the country, and the country will decide.

Mr TUDOR:

– Then apparently we shall have the case stated here, and Parliament will have no opportunity of deciding or even discussing it.

Mr Hughes:

– I did not say that.

Mr TUDOR:

– It is quite possible that in that statement, which we may or may not have the opportunity of discussing, there will be set forth the proportion which the soldiers will receive, perhaps in accordance with their length of service, or the kind of service which they have given. I shall be glad of the opportunity when we hear that statement, to speak upon it, but at this stage the honorable member for Ballarat has done good service to the House and the country by obtaining from- the Prime Minister the assurance that the Government have not even made up their minds on the question.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I do not see- what the Opposition can object to in the normal course adopted by the Government in connexion with these proposals. As soon as they have made up’ their minds, as we are on the eve of the election, they will seek a greater authority than even this House can give. There is nothing new in that policy; it is as old as the hills.

Mr Riley:

– Will they not pay the gratuity before they go to the country ?

Mr KELLY:

– They cannot pay a cent without the authority of this House.

Mr West:

– They can involve the House in a liability.

Mr KELLY:

– The Government cannot, by any arrangement with the Returned Soldiers’ Association or any other body, involve this House or the country in a liability of ‘one penny until the country and this House have consented. All they are doing is to consult with bodies representative of the returned soldiers, regarding the justice or otherwise of these proposals. I do not wish to add to the embarrassment of such a discussion, but I frankly confess that but for the fact that other portions of the Empire have granted gratuities, I should prefer that anything the Australian “Government do for the returned soldiers should be in the direction of assisting those who are in need of medical and other care, and of repatriating and restarting in life the men who have served their country at the Front. I have one feeling about such things as gratuities after service. They may be placed in the category of money that has come easily, and money that has come easily goes easily. By the payment of such money we shall have made no further advance towards settling the future of these men than if we had not paid anything at all. One curious phenomena in this country, and the cause of high prices of many com modities, is the fact that a new class of person had come into existence with the war - persons who are drawing wages- in a way that wages were not drawn before. Men have been living in camps and drawing their regular wage. On certain nights in the week they would leave camp and go to theatres and other places of entertainment. The soldier’s girl wants to go to some such place, and he jolly well has to go. The moneys paid to the soldiers and to the allottees have led to - I will not say squandering, but to a very free spending, with the result that in a large number of cases prices have been automatically raised to meet the liberal disbursement of Government money that has been circulating in Australia since the outbreak of war. I am not suggesting that the Government wail pay £25,000,000 or anything like that sum as a gratuity, ‘but if a great sum of money is simply thrown out to the returned soldiers generally, I am afraid that it will be spent swiftly, and men will not permanently benefit. I wish to be sure that any payment the Government make to returned soldiers - and I do not begrudge any amount that is properly spent on them - shall be such as will really earn its return in the future welfare of those men and their dependants. So long as the Government,, in their arrangement with the returned soldiers, adhere to a policy of that kind I shall be deeply thankful.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– Any discussion on its merits of this question is to be deprecated at the present juncture. The Government have not invited the House to consider the merits of the proposal, and I prefer to reserve my criticism until I have heard the Government’s intentions. The point to which I wish to direct attention, is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is unfair, not only to the honorable member who moved the adjournment of the House (Mr. McGrath), but to other honorable members on the Opposition side who have offered not the slightest objection to tha Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet discussing this matter primarily with the returned soldiers. I have had the honour of addressing to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League in Queensland, a petition signed by over 3,000 .returned soldiers, asking for the payment of a gratuity. I have received from the Prime Minister, so far, merely the usual formal acknowledgement.I make no objection to that, but it is’ unfortunate that, when on Wednesday and Thursday of this week the Prime Minister wasasked whether he was able to make any statement on the matter he almost impudently replied that he was conferring with the soldiers. It is an unfortunate fact that honorable members are apparently not only denied theright to criticise the doings of the Government, as if we had no privilege or status in this House, but that in respect of a matter involving, as it must do, several millions of pounds, it is regarded almost as an impertinence for any honorable member to address questions to a member of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister seems quite touchy on the subject, and it is utterly futile to suggest that we on this side object to the returned soldiers approaching him or him approaching them. What I do protest against is the continual endeavour to make the interests of the returned soldiers a party concern and an election battle-cry. We ought to take a broader view of these matters, and not regard the question of a war gratuity as either a party objective or an election cry. All that we should concern ourselves about is as to whether we can further help these men, and as to which is the better way - the payment of a war gratuity or assistance in some other form.

At this juncture Parliament is oppressed with a feeling that the country’s finances are in such a condition that every huge expenditure must be carefully and honestly criticised in order to insure that the country will get value for its disbursements. To what extent the Government propose to commit themselves and the country to the payment of a war gratuity remains to be seen; but it is obvious that, in connexion with this and other matters, Parliament is being ignored by the Cabinet. Indeed, even members of the Government party seem to be ignored. I recall the fact that the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce), when addressing his constituents a few nights ago, is reported to have said that he did not know what was to be the Government’s policy at the elections; he had not been consulted. Honorable members on the Government side are perfectly well aware that the

Cabinet, not having made up their mind regarding the war gratuity, the Prime Minister being about to depart for Queensland, there will be no further meeting of the Cabinet before the House adjourns. Honorable members will scatter to all parts of the Commonwealth for the election campaign, and they will not be asked to approve or disapprove of the proposal that is to be put before the country. Cabinet may or may not decide the matter. One cannot help regarding the position in Australia as analogous to that in the. Old Country, as described by Mr. Asquith, the former Leader of the Liberal party in . Great Britain. He is reported to have said that “ Cabinet Government had been superseded, parliamentary authority was a cypher, and the House of Commons was a caricature.”

Sir Joseph Cook:

– Of course, he is out of the House of Commons now.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– He was put out through the adoption by the present Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Lloyd George) of the same kind of tricks as were adopted by the Australian Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes).

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

– The same sort of tricks as the honorable member adopted to put some of us where we are.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I assure the honorable member that I adopted no tricks to put him there ; he went.

Sir Joseph Cook:

– I hope the honorable member will not infer from my remarks that I am glad that Mr. Asquith is out of the House of Commons ; I am very sorry.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I, too, am sorry, because I think he is one of the biggest men who has been in Imperial politics for many years.

Mr Burchell:

– “Wait and see.”

Mr FINLAYSON:

– At any rate, I would rather have one Asquith than a dozen Lloyd Georges. The Cabinet does not seem to have considered the war gratuity; the Ministerial party has not been consulted; Parliament has not been consulted. The position in regard to this matter is analogous to that in connexion with the report made by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe upon the naval defences of the Commonwealth. His report has been in the hands of the Government for weeks, but we are unable to ascertain anything of its terms. After leaving Aus- tralia Lord Jellicoe visited New Zealand to report to the Dominion Government regarding the naval defence of that country. That report has been tabled in Parliament, and is before the people of New Zealand. The Commonwealth Parliament has not been treated fairly in respect of that matter, and it is unfortunate that it should be necessary to move the adjournment of the House in order to get from the Prime Minister a clear and definite statement in regard to the war gratuity. Now we know where we are. I can reply to the Returned Sailors and Soldiers League in Brisbane, which addressed a petition to the Prime Minister through me that the Government have not made up their minds in regard to the war gratuity; no decision has been arrived at; but as soon as it is made it will be announced.

Mr Fenton:

– It will be announced at Bendigo on. the 30th of October.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That leaves an unfortunate feeling in our minds that the war gratuity is to be used as an election cry, a mere stick with which to beat the Labour party.

Mr Burchell:

– I have been wondering whether or not the honorable member favours the payment of a gratuity.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I said at the commencement of my remarks that I do not think this is a time at which we ought to discuss the merits of the case; but that when the Government submit their proposals to the House that will be the time for us to state our opinions. I am entirely in favour of the payment of a war gratuity, not only to returned sailors, soldiers, and nurses, but alsoin the form of some special consideration to the war workers, and munition workers. Honorable members on both sides of the House, and the country as a whole, favour honest and fair treatment of those various sections.

Sir Joseph Cook:

– Enough said! Let us now proceed with the business.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– All I desire to know is whether we are to have art opportunity clearly and openly before the House rises to hear the Government’s policy in regard to this matter, and discuss it.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

. -The House is still left in a somewhat indefinite position. First of all, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) told us that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the question of the war gratuity, and then, by way of interjection, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) was speaking, he said the intention of the Government would be announced and placed before the country. There would seem to be two replies to one question; and we ought to be told distinctly whether or not we are to have an opportunity to consider the matter. In New Zealand a very different course is taken. There a parliamentary paper has been issued setting out in detail exactly what is to be done for the returned soldiers. Why should this Parliament be treated in a different manner? Australia would appear to be a little bit behind in matters of this kind. Many of our soldiers left positions worth 12s., 14s., and, in some cases, 16s. a day in order to fight for the Empire on a pay of 6s. a day. Some of the men obtained rank, and with it higher pay, but the great bulk came back as privates, having fought the fight, in some cases, on less than half their civil remuneration. It is our duty, not only to put them in their former positions, but, in some degree, to make up for what they have lost; and this New Zealand parliamentary paper will be useful, in the way of affording a comparison between the policy adopted in the Dominion and the policyof the Commonwealth. There ought to be a discussion on this question in the light of day, so that whatever we may decide may be open to the favorable or unfavorable criticism of the public. If the discussions on proposals relating to our returned soldiers are analyzed, it is seen that the Labour representatives here have nothing to fear, for whenever the interests of the soldiers or their dependants have been in question, we have always supported more liberal treatment than that originally proposed. There is no doubt that we, who represent the workers of the country, from whom the bulk of the soldiers came, will do all we can to see that our defenders receive proper treatment now that the war is over. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) has conferred a great benefit on the House and the community generally by raising the question this morning.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr.

McGrath) is to be thanked for’ moving the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the treatment of the returned soldiers. I know that on the Government side there is a feeling of nervousness and fear in view of the coming election, and I sympathize with honorable members opposite in their present position. We on this side have intimated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), by means of the motion now before us, that his public acts and statements are somewhat subject to the will of Parliament; and I hope that the lesson will not be lost upon him in the coining election campaign. It may, in some degree, restrain him from making rash promises which cannot be realized; for, certainly, since his return from England, he has given rise to some uneasiness on the part of the people as to what his real intentions are.

I do not believe that there is a member of this Parliament who is not prepared to recognise to the fullest extent the services of our soldiers, and to see that they and their dependants are properly treated.

Mr Kelly:

– What axe the views of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) on that matter?

Mr WEST:

– Of course, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) is not going to be a member of the next Parliament, and is perfectly at liberty to make any silly statements he chooses, but those of us Who have to seek the suffrages of the people must consider our position. I am one who is going before the electors, and, as an honest legislator, I must, and shall, be prepared on the platform to justify every -statement that I make in my place here. However, I hope this morning’s proceedings will render the Prime Minister a little more circumspect, and convey to him that he ought to study, not so much his position at the general election as the interests of Australia. Evidently the right honorable gentleman has one object, and one object only, and that is to return to power; and. that being so, he has allowed himself to become very indiscreet. This motion of adjournment may have the effect of bringing him back to that calm and dignified frame of mind which should characterize every man in his position. He should guard himself against making hysterical statements, and always have a full sense of the responsibility which is his. I feel confident that the late Mr. Deakin, to whom it was always a pleasure to listen, would never have allowed himself to become such a figure in the eyes of the public; and it would be well if the Prime Minister would follow, not only the example of some of his predecessors, but the example of some of the English statesmen with whom he came in contact in the Old World. That would be more likely to earn him the respect of the people of Australia than the course he is now pursuing. His idea seems to be to inflame the public mind in a manner not at all consistent with the dignity of the leading Minister of the Crown. Private members like myself may do many things for the purpose of getting into the “ limelight,” but a Prime Minister should be above all such motives. Humble private member as I am, I am sure no one could ever accuse me of not maintaining the dignity of the position as a representative man, and the responsibility in this respect is infinitely greater in the case of a Prime Minister.

The honorable member for Ballarat referred to the question of where the money was to come from in order to provide the gratuity for our soldiers. That, however, is a question which we need not consider at the present time. When we have decided that these gratuities shall be paid, then it will be our duty to devise means of raising the necessary money. If we are to have a discussion on the matter, it should be before the Prime Minister goes to the country, or the matter should be postponed until the new Parliament assembles. In any case, we should show that, as representatives of the people, we can consider questions of this kind in a calm and deliberate way, and- arrive at conclusions which are conducive to the nation’s welfare.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

.- The’ honorable member for Ballarat (Mr.McGrath) is to be commended for bringing this question forward. It is quite right that the House should be allowed to assist in deciding what shall be done for our “ diggers.” I quite recognise that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is a “ digger,” and will do his best to maintain that reputation; but I impress on the right honorable gentleman, and also on the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), that there is another duty we owe to our returned soldiers besides the payment of the gratuity now under discussion. I refer to the refunding of the money viciously deducted from the pay of men who have done their duty overseas. I have a case under consideration by the Department of a lad, whose number, 35, indicates that he was one of the earliest to enlist ; indeed, he spent close on five years in the service of his country, and was four times wounded. It appears, however, that owing to deductions for petty crimes, this man, on his return to Australia, finds himself practically penniless. He was released from prison as an act of grace on the signing of peace.

Mr Burchell:

– Has the honorable member a list of the “ petty crimes “ ?

Mr YATES:

– It would, perhaps, take up too much time to refer to the case in detail.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:

– The motion is the adjournment of the House in order to deal with the question of. war gratuities.

Mr YATES:

– And I desire to show that there is something else that should be done in justice to our soldiers.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will be in order if he confines himself to suggestions having relation to the matter of gratuities.

Mr YATES:

– I want to bring under notice the fact that before any gratuity is paid a lot of money which has been taken from soldiers should be refunded to them. I refer more particularly to the deductions from pay which soldiers havehad to suffer in addition to serving sentences of imprisonment. I cannot place my hand on the figures for which the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Burchell) has asked, but I have with me the papers of another soldier which reached me yesterday. Deductions for petty crimes, such as absence without leave for one or two days, have penalized him to the amount of £115. He has forwarded to me a receipt which he was given for some property taken from him when he was imprisoned, and he claims that this property has not been restored to him. This is one of the documents : - 26th January, 1919.

Received from Gunner Groves the following articles: - 1 pocket wallet, containing photos and papers; 1 pocket wallet, containing post cards, papers, and pay-book.

  1. Marshall,

Pte., 1st Australian Division Traffic Comtl

Here is another document: -

No. 4611, Private Groves, A.A.I.F

The sum of 4 francs 10 cents., 2d., 8 marks, 1 franc, and draft for £25.

This was the document he received when he was drafted from No. 11 Military Prison, in France, to Great Britain.

Mr YATES:

– I do not care whether it was or not; the authorities had no right to deprive him of his personal property.

Sir Joseph Cook:

– What has this to do with the question before the Chair ?

Mr YATES:

– I am pointing out that the Government’s first duty is to meet the grievances of the soldiers who have been penalized in this way. The Government have a duty which supersedes the granting of a war gratuity. Mr. Speaker has ruled that I am in order in placing this matter before the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the honorable member is rather straining the latitude given, which appears to me to considerably extend beyond the question before the Chair.

Mr YATES:

– This case has been ventilated in the columns of Smith’s

Weekly, in which the details are given fairly correctly: This young fellow committed no crime until after the armistice was signed.

Sir Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order. Is it fair for an honorable member to ventilate other grievances under the cover of a definite urgent motion before the Chair ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have intimated to the honorable member that he is, in order if he has an alternative proposal or variation to suggest in lieu of the payment of a war gratuity, but if he proposes to discuss a number of details dealing with matters which are quite extraneous to the question before the Chair, heis not in order. Before intervening I was waiting to see how far the honorable member proposed to go.

Mr YATES:

– I have no desire to press the matter at this stage, but, in justice to the soldiers, I must take another opportunity of doing so. What I am suggesting is not so much an alternative as it is an addendum to the question already raised in the House. Itis a duty which the Government owe to the soldiers. Military law is bad law. Many of our returned men have been unduly and severely punished by being deprived of their pay and liberty, and by being imprisoned in places where they should not have been confined. I hope the Government will do justice to men who have done their duty gallantly and well, but who, while serving in the field have undergone punishment for petty crimes, and at the same time have lost their pay. I hope a refund will be made to them, in addition to the payment of a war gratuity.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 13545

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Advances to Establish Men in Business.

Mr FENTON:
for Mr. West

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence,upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that in the first stages of the repatriation of returned soldiers financial assistance was given to returned soldiers who desired to establish a business, such as that of grocer, saddler, general storekeeper, &c.?
  2. Was this practice discontinued; if so, for what reason?
  3. Is it a fact that many returned soldiers who were for many years employed in various kinds of business concerns, prior to their enlistment, have been refused financial assistance to establish themselves in business on their own account, though such assistance was asked ‘ for only by way of loan and repayment was in many cases guaranteed?
  4. Will he state clearly and fully the intentions of the Repatriation Department and the Government concerning such applications?
Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– All that I can say at the present time is that the question of granting assistance to returned soldiers who desire to enter into businesses is under consideration.

page 13545

QUESTION

WYNDHAM WIRELESS STATION

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
forMr. Gregory

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. What distance is the Wyndham Wireless Station from Wyndham?
  2. What provision is made to enable the staff to obtain their mails, fresh meats and vegetables, and, in case of sickness, medical advice?
  3. Will the Department see that the quarters are renovated and altered so as to provide livable conditions suitable for the tropics?
  4. In view of the remoteness of the station, cannot some form of recreation be provided?
  5. Why is it that the quarters are not furnished, more particularly in view of the fact that officers in these stations are supposed to be relieved every three years?
  6. Why are the members of the staff charged a rental of £5 each per annum for unfurnished quarters, whereas at other stations £3 per year is charged for furnished quarters?
  7. Will the Minister insist that the staff are relieved promptly every three years?
  8. Is it a fact that members of the staff have served four, eight, and eleven months over the regulation period of three years?
  9. Would it not be possible to reduce the term of service at such stations to two instead of three years?
  10. Has the inspector visited and reported on this station since it was opened, or has the Minister’s attention been previously drawn to the unenviable conditions of the staff?
Sir JOSEPH COOK:
NAT

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

  1. Fifteen miles.
  2. The staff procure fresh meat and vegetables from stations situated within a few miles of Wyndham Radio Station. In case of sickness, there is telephonic communication between the Radio Station and the Wyndham township. The Government provide free medical attendance and medicine for the staff in case of sickness, and also pay transport charges. The Government pay freight on stores from Wyndham township to the station. The question of subsidizing a mail service between the township and Radio Station is now under consideration.
  3. The quarters are reported to be satisfactory. The question of any necessary renovation and repairs to quarters will be considered in connexion with provision for works for this year.
  4. It is not customary for the Department to do this. No application of this nature has been received.
  5. It is not the policy of the Department to furnish quarters at radio stations.
  6. Rental of £5 was charged as the result of a specific ruling by the Public Service Commissioner.
  7. Yes.
  8. Owing to lack of shipping facilities and recent quarantine restrictions, some members of the staff did serve over three years at the Station. None of the staff there at present have served three years.
  9. This matter will receive consideration.
  10. No inspection has been made. Any reasonable requests from the staff have always been favorably dealt wtih by the Naval Board.

page 13545

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

Rents Paid in Melbourne and Sydney.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. Gregory

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that a rental of £600 per annum is being paid for quarters for the arsenal staff in Melbourne?
  2. What is the total amount paid in Melbourne annually for the rental of officers’ quarters and stores?
  3. What is the total amount paid for similar requirements in Sydney?
Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The total amount paid annually in Melbourne for office accommodation for all Commonwealth Departments is £20,217, this is for central staffs and branch offices.
  3. The corresponding figure for accommodation in Sydney is £12,161, the whole of which is for branch offices.

page 13546

QUESTION

PAPER

Report of Economy Commission

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
for Mr. Richard Foster

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he lay on the table of the House the Royal Commission’s report on departmental economies as promised last Friday?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– I now lay on the table of the House the first progress report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider and report upon the public expenditure of the Commonwealth with a view to effecting economies.

Ordered to be printed.

page 13546

QUESTION

BRITISH ADMIRALTY’S REPORTED OFFER OF VESSELS

Mr FENTON:
for Mr. West

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Is there any foundation for the public statements recently made that owing to public feeling in Great Britain in favour of the reduction of the heavy naval expenditure Australia is to have a free hand in picking vessels for the Australian Navy to assist in the carrying out of the recommendations of Viscount Jellicoe?
  2. Is it a fact that a high authority at the British Admiralty has expressed the hope that Australia will accept ships of the Dreadnought class?
  3. Will theGovernment consult Parliament before accepting any offer of additional ships?
Sir JOSEPH COOK:
NAT

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

  1. To what the honorable member alludes I do not know. I know that large reductions in the Naval Estimates are being made, but the latest reductions are down to the colossal sum of £74,000,000 as compared to our Estimates of considerably less than £2,000,000.
  2. No.
  3. This matter can be determined when the occasion arises.

page 13546

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES

Pay of Acting Staff Sergeants-Major

Mr FENTON:
for Mr. McGrath

asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it was not intended that the acting staff sergeants-major were to receive an increase in pay from £156 per annum to £180 per annum, as laid down in M.O. 263/19?
  2. If so, will he inform the House why the increase referred to has not been paid?
Mr WISE:
NAT

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

  1. No. The rate of £180 per annum was laid down for those qualified for permanent appointment to the instructional staff.
  2. As soon as acting staff sergeants-major qualify and are appointed to the instructional staff as provisional staff sergeants-major they will be eligible to receive the higher rate of £180 per annum.

page 13546

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · Parramatta · NAT

– I move -

That the House at its rising adjourn until 3 p.m. on Tuesday next.

It was originally intended to meet on Monday, but that is an awkward day for honorable members who live in other States. Having consulted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) in regard to the matter, I have formed the conclusion that, even without meeting on Monday, the business of the House can be finished by Friday next, which is the intention of the Government.

page 13546

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2)

Bill received from theSenate, and (on motion by Mr. Groom) read a first time.

page 13546

ELECTORAL WAR-TIME BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the method of voting by members of the Forces at Elections and Referendums, and for other purposes.

Bill presented and read a first time.

page 13546

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL

(No. 2).

Motion (by Mr. Greene) agreed to -

That leave be given tobring in a Bill for an Act to amend the War Service Homes Act 1918.

page 13547

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

In Committee : Consideration resumed from the 16th October (vide page 13505)..

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Application of absent and postal voters’ provisions).

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I presume that this merely brings the measure into conformity with the Electoral Act

Mr Glynn:

– Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Conduct of Scrutiny).

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I desire to ask the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) whether the scrutiny for which this clause provides will conflict in. any way with the scrutiny provided for in the Bill relating to elections for the Senate. “We have at the present time three different methods of voting. In this case the electors are required to put a cross in the square opposite the word “ Yes “ or the word “ No,” according to the way in which they desire to vote. I should like to know if a ballotpaper would be declared informal if, instead of putting a cross opposite the word “ Yes “ or the word “ No,” as the case might be, the elector inserted in the square the figure “ 1 “ ?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · Angas · NAT

.- This provision is really the same as that embodied in the Act of 1906-12, except that it is slightly modified to bring it into con,sonance with the Electoral Act of 1918.

Mr Fenton:

– But would a ballot-paper be informal if the figure “ 1 “ instead of a cross were placed in the square?

Mr GLYNN:

– The question to be determined by the electoral officer is whether the marking is within the square. The voting must be in accordance with the schedule. No other form could be used, because this provision relates not to a choice of candidates, but simply to the indication of the intention of the elector to vote “ Yes “ or “ No “ as to the proposed amendment of the Constitution.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Non-application of section 6a - Pamphlets).

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- This is really one of the most important parts of the Bill. The clause declares that section 6a of the principal Act, which provides for the issue of pamphlets stating the case for and against a proposed amendment of the Constitution shall not apply in this case. If the clause were negatived it would be impossible to hold a general election on 13th December next, because it would not be possible to issue the pamphlets for which section 6a provides. I have not seen a Bill prepared in this way. It is most unusual for a clause to follow, as this does, the schedule to a Bill. It looks as if it were an afterthought. It seems to me that the clause means that a Government with the necessary majority can repeal any section tha-: stands in the way of its desires to rush an election. The Government practically say, in this case, that it is unnecessary to let the people know by means of a pamphlet the real reasons for the- referendum. If the true reason were stated, it would be that the referendum is being taken because of a desire on the part of the Government to hold a general election six months before its due date.

Mr Groom:

– But the pamphlet for which the section iu the principal Act provides is supposed to give reasons for a proposed alteration of the Constitution.

Mr TUDOR:

– I should like to compare the pamphlet issued by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in 1913, and also that written by him in 1916, with any pamphlet that he might prepare for issue in connexion with this referendum.

Mr Glynn:

– If he were to prepare one now he would give the same reasons. The only difference is that he has gone as far as he could.

Mr TUDOR:

– If he stated the real reason for the referendum it would be that the Government want to hasten the holding of a general election. I think that the provision in the principal Act for the issue of a pamphlet explaining the proposed alteration was a wise one to make.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– The Commonwealth Parliament established a very salutory and wise principle in providing that, in . connexion with” referendums, both sides of the case should be prepared, printed, and supplied to the electors in order to enable them to cast an intelligent vote. It was a new principle which, unfortunately, has not yet been carried into effect, but we ought to try as far as possible to preserve it. I regret that in this measure it is provided that the principle shall not apply in connexion with the forthcoming referendum. Referendums on proposed alterations of the Constitution should not he the subject of party movement. They ought to be based onhigh, broad, national principles.

Mr Glynn:

– Then both sides should join in issuing the one pamphlet.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is what is provided for in the principal Act. It is because I believe that referendum questions should be discussed in the widest possible manner, and the public acquainted with the facts either for or against them, that I regret that the provision made in the principal Act for the issue of a pamphlet is not to apply in this case. There are, of course, other reasons, particularly in relation to time, for the non-issue of a pamphlet on this occasion. Another reason why a pamphlet is not to be issued may be that the arguments in favour of the proposed amendments of the Constitution have already been compiled in the pamphlet prepared by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in 1915. The right honorable gentleman says that the arguments set out in that pamphlet hold good to-day. No doubt the opposition that will be stated to the proposed alterations will be based entirely on the arguments then submitted by the right honorable gentleman in support of them. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) is under no delusion as to the fact that if a pamphlet were issued by the Government at the present time it would not contain the real reasons for the submission of this proposal in December next. It might give arguments for or against the proposed alteration, but certainly no pamphlet issued by the Prime Minister at the present time would convey to the people the real, genuine, honest reasons for the referendum. It will, however, be the business of every member of Parliament to advise the public of the rights and wrongs, the virtues and vices of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. It is unfortunate, I repeat, that constitutional questions should be voted on at a general election. Referendums at a general election are to be deplored, since they are likely to be clouded by other issues which should not be allowed to obtrude themselves. I regret that the provision in the principal Act for the statement of a case for and against the proposed amendment is not to apply in this instance.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13548

MATRIMONIALCAUSES (EXPEDITIONARY FORCES) BILL

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

.-I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

An Act was passed in the Imperial Parliament on the 22nd July, 1919, at the request of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth (Mr. Hughes) in the interests of the soldiers of the Commonwealth and the other Dominions, to provide that “ where a marriage has been contracted in the United Kingdom during the present war by a member of His Majesty’s Forces domiciled in any of His Majesty’s Possessions or Protectorates to which this Act applies, the competent Court in that part of the United Kingdom where the marriage took place shall, any question of domicile or residence notwithstanding, have full jurisdiction and power to entertain, hear, and determine “ matrimonial proceedings, and to make the necessary decrees and orders. This Imperial Act applies only to such of the Dominions as by Statute declare its application to them. The purport of this Bill, as set out in clause 2, is to apply the Imperial Act to the Commonwealth as from the date of the coming into operation of this Bill. An Australian soldier domiciled in Australia who has been married in England and wants to take steps for a divorce, now finds that he cannot do so, because he has not been domiciled in England.

Mr Tudor:

– If he married a British girl, will she have rights similar to his ? All our men were not angels.

Mr GROOM:

– Yes. This Bill is to have only a temporary operation, because the British Act has only a temporary operation. It provides that “This Act shall not apply to proceedings commenced after the expiration of one year from the passing thereof.”

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time

In Committee :

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– If it is the pleasure of the Committee, I will put the clauses as a whole.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I asked the Ministerby interjection whether the British wife would have the same rights as the Australian soldier, and I understood from him that the measure gives the woman in England the same rights as the man to sue for divorce, or judicial separation, or conjugal rights.

Mr Groom:

– Yes, the Imperial Act says “where such proceedings are instituted by either party to the marriage.”

Mr TUDOR:

– I think the Bill is on right lines.

Bill reported without amendment, Standing Orders suspended, and Bill passed through its remaining stages.

page 13549

DECEASED SOLDIERS’ ESTATES BILL

Mr WISE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT; ALP from 1910; IND from 1914; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The principal Act passed last year has proved of immense value in enabling us to administer the military estates of deceased soldiers in accordance with justice, and free from the points raised by persons whose claims rest solely upon legal technicalities. The question has arisen whether the Act applied to soldiers who were killed before its passage, and the object of clause 3 of the Bill is to insert the words “ whether beforeor after the commencement of this Act.” The next clause deals simply with the dating of regulations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and, Standing Orders having been suspended, passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

page 13549

SUGAR INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL

Second Reading

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

.-I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The object of the measure is simply to confer upon the Royal Commission ap- pointed to hold an inquiry into the sugar industry the powers contained in the Royal Commissions Act 1902-12. The High Court gave a judgment which, I think, eventually went to the Privy Council, and it was determined that unless the powers of the Royal Commissions Act were specifically conferred by Act of Parliament upon a Royal Commission after it had been appointed, there werecertain things which that Royal Commission could not do. When Mr. Justice Street was inquiring as a Royal Commission into the meat question it was found necessary to take exactly the same action. The Sugar Commission, in the course of their inquiries, have experienced certain difficulties, and find themselves unable to obtain all the information they desire. In the circumstances, it is proposed to confer upon them - they are the members of the Inter-State Commission, together with Mr. Mills - the same powers as we conferred upon Mr. Justice Street. There is nothing else in the Bill.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I understand that the Royal Commission consists of the members of the Inter- State Commission, plus Mr. Mills, who has not yet been appointed to the Inter-State Commission, although there is a vacancy on it, and that this Bill gives those gentlemen power to compel persons, who hitherto have refused to do so, to give evidence. This is a very necessary power for any Royal Commission to have. The first time that this Parliament was confronted with this difficulty was in connexion with the inquiry into the tobacco industry by a Select Committee of the Senate, which was afterwards constituted a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Senator Pearce. If any member of the House were called on to give evidence before a Royal Commission, he would attend, because he is not wealthy enough to fight the matter; but apparently, in the case of the Sugar Commission, the big company concerned not only fought the question before the High Court, but even took it tothe Privy Council. It is evident that the rich companies and corporations in this country will do their best to flout the will of Parliament. I hope that we shall take power in this Parliament over all corporations , They think they have so much power that they can refuse to answer questions, even when they are making huge profits. I understand that Mr. Knox, the representative of the Colonial SugarRefining Company in Sydney, refused point-blank to give evidence.

Mr Groom:

– But many men come for ward voluntarily and help the Commissions.

Mr TUDOR:

– But when these big concerns think there is an opportunity to flout aRoyal Commission, or when they think that some of their vested interests are being infringed, they object to give evidence. If this Bill will give the Royal Commission on the Sugar Industry greater power to compel persons to give evidence, no matter what positions they hold in the community, I agree with it. Every Royal Commission has a right to obtain the evidence that is required, and the representatives of big corporations and companies should be compelled to give evidence in the same way as the poorest person in the community.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

– Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the clauses be put as a whole?

Honorable Members. -Hear, hear!

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I understood from the Minister that it is necessary forall Commissions to be given this power. This Bill applies only to the Sugar Commission. Is there any objection on the part of the Government to extend it to all Commissions?

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

.- The effect of the judgment of the Privy Council is that, unless we specifically confer by Act of Parliament thepowers of the Royal Commissions Act on a Royal Commission when it is sitting, that Commission is not clothed with those powers. Had no difficulty been experienced in connexion with that inquiry, this Bill would not have been necessary, but as the Sugar Commission was confronted with difficulties, the Government thought it should have the full power conferred by the Royal Commissions Act. That is the reason for introducing this Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13550

NAVIGATION BILL

Second Reading

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

.- I move -

This this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a short but important measure. In introducing it the Government have a two-fold object. Firstly, we desire to bring into early operation the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act. That is probably the most comprehensive Act ever passed by this Parliament; it was the work of several Governments, and was passed with the unanimous approval of every party in Parliament. I suppose nobody knows better than the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) the enormous amount of work that must be done before the Navigation Act, with all the manifold duties imposed by it, can be fully operated. The Government are desirous of, at the earliest possible moment, proclaiming the coastal trading sections, not merely to keep faith with the seamen, but also in order to conserve to the Commonwealth its coastal trade, or at all events to prevent from engaging in that trade people who are not complying with the same conditions as to wages, accommodation, and rations, as are imposed upon Australian shipping companies.

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

-Does not the Minister think that the shipping ring is a sufficiently tight combine already?

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

– However that may be, the honorable member will agree that it is not fair to allow foreign shipping companies to engage in our coastal trade, and, employing probably black labour, to pay a mere pittance to their seamen and provide accommodation which is a disgrace to this twentieth century civilization, while at the same time compelling our own companies to conform to the standards prescribed in the Navigation Act. Possibly it is not generally known that, with the exception of the British Islands and Germany - which had no coastal trade worth speaking of - every country in the world insists upon keeping its own coastal trade for people flying its own flag. And America has carried that policy so far asto insist that a vessel travelling from New York right round Cape Horn and up to San Francisco is still engaged in the coastal trade, and she will not allow any foreign vessel to participate in it.

Mr McWilliams:

– And before the war America had driven all the mercantile shipping from her coast.

Mr Tudor:

-What nonsense. There are bigger vessels trading on the American lakes than come to Australia.

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

– I know that the United States now occupies one of the foremost positions in the shipping world owing to the enormous tonnage over which the American flag flies.

Another important purpose of this Bill is to apply the coastal trading sections of the Navigation Act to the Territories under the control of the Commonwealth, or which will pass under our control in accordance with the mandates given under the Treaty of Peace. Every care will betaken, of course, not to interfere with the inter-island trade carried on by the natives.

Mr Tudor:

– Is the Minister sure that this Bill will not interfere with that trade?

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

– The officers of the Department assure me that the Bill will confer on the Minister such discretionary power as will enable him to prevent any undue interference with the native vessels which trade from islandto island, but, at the same time, will give us all the power we require in regard to what is really coastal trade.

For various reasons, it is not considered desirable to immediately proclaim the whole of the Navigation Act. Apart from the fact that the tremendous amount of work involved in assuming all the functions for which the Act provides would necessitate considerable delay, it is thought that, owing to the abnormal conditions which exist in the shipping world generally at the present time, it is not desirable to proclaim the Act in its entirety. Therefore, the first clause will enable the Government to proclaim any part of the Act which is necessary for our purposes. We can proclaim from time to time so many sections as are necessary to do that which we may consider desirable at the moment. For instance, what we most desire at present is to give notice as soon as possible of the date when the coastal trading provisions of the Act will be enforced. The Parts which will be proclaimed for that purpose are Part VI., viz., sections 284 to 293 inclusive, and also, to give effect to that Part, certain interpretations and machinery provisions, viz., sections 1, 2, 6, and 7. The Bill as drafted gives us power to proclaim from time to time the various other sections as they become necessary in consequence of the taking over of various activities.

Mr Fenton:

– Did I understand the Minister to say that the coastal trading provisions will apply to the islands over which Australia is given a mandate?

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

– Yes. That does not mean that we shall prevent ships flying the flags of other nationalities from trading with those islands.

Mr Fenton:

– They will bo in unfair competition with vessels sailing under Australian conditions.

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

– Any vessel flying the flag of any country, including Great Britain, other than Australia, and engaging in that trade, must comply with exactly the same conditions as are imposed upon ships flying the Australian flag. There is notthe slightest doubt that for a number of years Australia will have to foot a considerable bill for the development of those islands which are the subject of our mandates, and, in the circumstances, it is only fair that, as far as possible, the trade of the islands should be secured for this country. That is the policy followed by every other country in the world with the exception of Great Britain, and even the Mother Country adopted thatattitude prior to 1854, when she espoused Free Trade. It was under the Protectionist Tariff that Great Britain originally secured her industrial and commercial pre-eminence, a fact that some of my Free Trade friends too often forget.

Mr Wallace:

– How will this Bill affect Dutch boats sailing from Singapore to Sydney, viâ Rabaul?

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

– Any Dutch boats calling at the islands to lift copra and bring it to Sydney, or carrying goods from the mainland, to the islands, must comply with Australian conditions.

Mr McWilliams:

– While they are on our coast.

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

– Those vessels must be structurally altered in order to provide the accommodation for the crew that is specified in the Act, and that condition will necessarily be observed on the coast and at sea. They must also pay the same rates of pay while they are trading on our coast. Of course, this Bill does not raise the question of the employment of coloured labour. I think I have explained to the House the two main objectives of the Bill, and without going into further detail I commend the measure to the House.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I agree with the Minister for Trade and Custon* (Mr. Greene) that although this Bill contains only three or four clauses it is most important. First, I should like to know from’ him whether, ;n view of the fact that the Bill will have to go to Great Britain for the Royal Assent, its coming into operation will thereby be delayed.

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

– The Government is assured that the introduction of this Bil: will not delay, but will facilitate, the proclamation of the Act.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is the most important point. We have had a great object lesson in the last few months as to the importance #f the maritime trade of Australia.

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

– This Bill is -introduced with the desire to expedite the proclamation of the Act, and the Government would not have introduced it unless it had a definite assurance that such would be the effect.

Mr TUDOR:

– The Navigation Aci has been described as a monumental measure, and it is certainly the longest thatwas ever introduced in this Parliament. T believe that the Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britian is the longest Act of thu kind in the world,, and the most important.

Mr Wallace:

– And the most obnoxious.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member knows that shortly before the war the. British Parliament passed an amending Merchant Shipping Act, which received the Royal Assent three or four days before hostilities broke out. After the Titanic disaster in 1912 there was a Convention of all the maritime nations, and the representatives - at that Convention agreed to urge on their various Governments and Parliaments the necessity of bringing the Navigation Acts of the world up to date and into line. The Australian Act, fortunately, anticipated most of the provisions of the British Act.

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

– Practically all, with the exception of the wireless provisions.

Mr Wallace:

– It dealt with life-saving appliances.

Mr TUDOR:

– And structural alterations. Lloyds, which is the supreme governing body in regard to the structure oi shipping, took a keen interest in the matter. Owing to the war, however, all thi: nations which had not passed legislation abandoned the idea for the time; but, as I say, Great Britain did pass a Bill, and I presume it will be put into operation. Owing to the war, the British Government expressed by cable their anxiety that our Act should not be proclaimed; but for this, I have no doubt, under the advice of the responsible officers of the Department, it would have been proclaimed long ago As a matter of fact, before the war, in anticipation that- it would be proclaimed, the Government appointed the late Captain Davis, a man of practical experience,, as Director of Navigation. I am hopeful that this Bill is only a preliminary to the appointment of a Director, and that the Bill will be in operation very soon so far as our coastal trade is concerned.

The Minister for Trade and Customs pointed out this morning that, owing to the decision of the United States of America that only American vessels shall trade on their’ coasts, the coastal trade is monopolized hy home shipping. The’ honorable member for Franklin (Mr. .Mcwilliams) stated that American vessels had been driven from the oceans of the world prior to the war; but, if so, the United States showed that it was not be-, hind other nations so far as the construction of ships is concerned, for more tonnage was turned out by the States during the years of the war than by all the other nations put. together.

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

– I think the United State* holds the second position in the world in regard to merchant shipping.

Mr TUDOR:

– The people of Australia have little or no idea of the class of vessels which run on the American lake=. There are over 100 vessels of 12,000 tons on Lake Superior alone, and I remember reading in the Longshoreman, a journal of the maritime workers, accounts of wrecks on the lakes involving vessels of 7,000 and 8,000 tons. This Bill, I take it, proposes to do for Australian-owned shipping what has ‘ been done by the United States legislation for American shipping. It would be palpably absurd to fix standards of wages and conditions for Australian seamen, and allow shipping companies and seamen from other parts of the world, with inferior wages and conditions, to trade on the Australian coast. Dutch vessels from Singapore to Sydney, calling at Rabaul, Eastern and Australian boats from China, calling at the Northern Territory, and Japanese boats will be allowed to bring cargo from outside Australia, and land it here, but directly they take a cargo or passenger from any port in Australia or its Territories, they will be compelled to pay Australian wages and observe Australian conditions. If such a vessel brings cargo from Darwin to Sydney, or vice versâ, Australian wages and conditions will have to be observed. The competition of foreign vessels on our coast has been a bone of contention so far as the seamen are concerned, and some discussion was raised about the ocean liners which call at Western Australia. I am not sure whether any provision was inserted in the Act, but, at any rate, it was said in this Parliament that until the transcontinental railway was opened, we had no right to impose Australian conditions on such vessels.

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

– There was a special provision inserted in regard to those vessels.

Mr TUDOR:

– I understand that certain clauses had to come into operation at a date subsequent to the proclamation of the Act. Personally, I think the Bill is a step in the right direction, and I am anxious that it shall come into operation as early as possible.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– This is a very important Bill, amending an Act that was before the Parliament as a “ standing dish “ for six or seven years. When it was under discussion I suggested that it should be divided into three parts, and that the part relating to the accommodation for the seamen should be put into operation immediately. The accommodationprovided for seamen on all ships was such that it was impossible for it to continue. I got into some little trouble because, in a debate on the question, I described the ships as “ floating slums,” but, as a matter of fact, they were little better. The conditions were such as no man on shore would tolerate for an instant.

Mr Leckie:

– Are the conditions worse now than twenty years ago?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Undoubtedly the accommodation is a great deal better than it was twenty years ago, but there is still room for a great deal of improvement. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) appeared to doubt my statement that the American Shipping Act had, to a very large extent, driven American overseas shipping under foreign flags. The United States of America did not come into the war until it had been raging for three years, but she went on building ships at fever speed all the time; and I think I am correct in saying that 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the American troops had to be conveyed in British bottoms.

When the Navigation Bill was before the House I doubted the efficiency of the provisions with which we are dealing now. As to the rate of wages, for instance, we may take the case of a Dutch tramp vessel which comes to Australia with a crew signed on in their own country at from £4 to £6 per month. The captain of that ship is told that while on the Australian coast he must observe Australian conditionsand pay Australian rates of wages, and he agrees to pay, say, £10 per month. But does any one think that the extra money will not be deducted when the men are paid off? Of course it will; and no conditions we can make here can alter the terms of a contract signed in a foreign country, and under a foreign flag. The difficulty as to conditions may be surmounted, but the provisions of the Act will be useless, so far as they apply to the rates of wages to be paid by overseas vessels trading on the Australian coast. If a man signs on in an Australian shipping office for £10 a month, and his vessel trades on the American coast, where his wages are raised to £12 a month, does any one claim that when he is paid off, on hisreturn to Australia, he will receive more than the £10 per month for which he signed on? No condition we may have here, and no payment we may insist on, can break a contract a seaman has signed. When seamen return from the Australian coast to Holland, Japan, France, or any other country, they will be paid the rate of wage set out in the contracts they sign in their home ports. To whom could they appeal for the payment of the Australian rates?

There is a much more serious aspect of the case. More often than I care to remember, I have referred to the fact that the greater part of the trade on the Australian coast is controlled by the Inchcape Combine. For years it was denied that the Union Steamship Company had sold out to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Every one knows now that the Peninsular and Oriental’ Steam Navigation Company has been bought, and is controlled by, the Inchcape Combine. The British-India Line and the Australian United Steam Navigation companies are both under that Combine. Australian shipping flying the Australian flag is part and .parcel of the biggest and most serious Combine the world has ever seen; and the effect of this Bill will be to make Australia’s trade a closer corporation for that Combine, which is menacing our commerce today. As an instance of how freights have risen. prior to the war, coal was carried from Newcastle to Melbourne at 5s. 6d. per ton. During the war, the rate was increased to 8s. 9d. per ton, and recently, I understand, another ls. 6d. per ton has been imposed. At the present time, the rate is practically double what it was prior to the war. Can any one say that the increased cost of running the vessels is commensurate with this enormous increase? There is in existence a contract between the Federal Government and the Huddart Parker and Union Steam-ship Companies for the conveyance of mails between Tasmania and the mainland; and, although one of the clauses of the contract distinctly prevents any increase in freights or fares without the consent of the Postmaster-General, these companies have increased their fares on two occasions. I submitted a question to the PostmasterGeneral the other day concerning this matter, and he denied having any knowledge of an increase. I accept his word, but I would like him to place the contract on the table. As a matter of fact, the fares have been raised on two occasions. In the first place, the steamship company brought about an increase by the exceedingly shady method of abolishing the issue of return tickets. During the strike, three year’s .ago, I think, they intimated that they would not guarantee to return a passenger to his own port, and declared that he must travel at his own risk; but, when the strike was concluded, they still continued to issue single tickets only. It meant a considerable increase, and lately they have again increased the fares to the extent of 10 per cent. It is only right that the Government should compel them to adhere to their contract, unless they can demonstrate that the fares they were charging were not unreasonable.

I ask honorable members to consider seriously what they are doing with this class of legislation,. The greater portion of what we are pleased to call Australian shipping is controlled by the Inchcape Combine - the most serious and deadly Combine the world has seen - and, through Leylands, in London, in which they have a controlling interest, and through Morgans, who are the controlling interest iri America, the same Combine has practically the whole of the shipping of America and Great Britain in its hands. It cannot be said too often that those who control transport govern a country. Tasmania, being an island, is the first to suffer, but Australia is also an island. The increased rates of freight which the Australian trade has to bear for the carriage of goods overseas is a deadly menace to our primary production, and to our trading and commercial life generally. The freight on wheat has risen from 8d. and lOd. per bushel, before the, war, to about 3s. 6d. per bushel to-day. We may be able to pay this rate while there is a world shortage of wheat, and while competing countries overseas are paying boom prices for it; but what will be the conditions of the wheat-growing industry of Australia in the future, when the Mark Lane quotation is something like it was before the war? Unless we can bring down the rates of freight to something like 9d. or ls. a bushel, the wheat-growing industry of Australia will be down, and out.

I repeat that under this Bill we are dealing with a most deadly Combine. Surely it is strong enough and powerful enough already without this further assistance. Some of us, whose constituents depend wholly on sea transport, have been* fighting the Combine for years, but this Bill proposes to foster and strengthen it in every direction. While I agree that the conditionswe impose on our people should be imposed on others who trade on our coast, and that it is not fair to allow others to come into direct competition with our own people, and trade here on very much more favorable conditions, nevertheless, I urge this aspect of the question, that, although we talk of fostering the trade of Australian ships, we are really assisting a Combine with its headquarters in London. The controlling interest in our so-called Australian shipping companies has been passed over, in a majority of cases, to that Combine which I have already named. Nearly all the Australian companies have sold out to it, or are controlled by it. I hope that the people of Australia will realize that, unless we are prepared to prevent this Combine from crushing the trade of Australia, our position will be a very sorry one.

I am in thorough accord with the proposal to bring into immediate operation the provisions dealing with accommodation for seamen. It is not right that some companies should make proper arrangements for the accommodation of their seamen while other companies are allowed to shirk their responsibilities in this respect. At the same time, I utter the warning that under this Bill we are strengthening the Combine existing in Australian waters to such an extent that it will be almost impossible to combat it. I repeat that the majority of the vessels in the Australian trade, and under the Australian flag, have sold out, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Inchcape Combine, and that those companies not already sold out are controlled by, or have such trade relations with, the Inchcape Combine, that to-day there is no such thing as competition on the Australian coast. There has been none for years. No one can charter a steamer unless he does it at his own risk; no , one can engage one of the existing companies to take a cargo from Hobart to Brisbane. They will not take it beyond Sydney. Our produce has to be dumped on the wharfs at Sydney, and transhipped to a vessel trading to the northern State, because there is an understanding between the companies that they willnot trespass upon one another’s trade routes. We have known of this condition of affairs for years, but nothing has been done to prevent it.

Coming now to a matter that I have threshed out in this House over and over again, I say that, while the Shipping Board is constituted as it is, it will be impossible for the people of Australia to get any amelioration of their conditions, as it comprises one gentleman nominated by the Government and six managers of shipping companies which control the whole of our Inter-State coastal trade. Three years ago I begged the Government to give the trading community some representation on it, and when I was informed that it was impossible to adopt a system of electing such representatives, I suggested that the Board should comprise the gentleman now sitting as chairman, if the Government chose to retain him, four members of the shipping companies, and four members of this House chosen from both sides. In this way the public and traders of Australia would have a voice in the control of the commerce of the country. If the Board is to continue, I appeal to the Ministry to alter its personnel immediately. I have no complaint against the members of the Board as managers of their various companies; but it is not fair that the whole of the trade and commerce of Australia should be placed in the hands of a Board fortified by powers given by legislative enactment. I repeat that it is merely strengthening the monopoly.

Mr Kelly:

– How are we strengthening the monopoly by passing this Bill?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Because by means of this Bill all competition from overseas will be shut out.

Mr Kelly:

– The only alternative to that position is not to proclaim the Navigation Act.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Before the Navigation Act of 1912 is proclaimed it should be reconsidered. That part of it which requires the provision of better accommodation for seamen should certainly be proclaimed, but there are other parts of it, giving a direct monopoly to vessels flying the Australian flag, but owned and controlled by Combines in London and New York, which should be reconsidered.

Mr Kelly:

– If we proclaimed those parts of the Act relating to seamen, foreign ships would not be able to come here, because they do not conform to the conditions laid down in relation to seamen.

Mr Archibald:

– The honorable member for Franklin wants Free Trade in shipping.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I do not want the whole shipping trade of Australia to be placed in the hands of any close Combine.

Mr Archibald:

– It has been in the hands of a Combine for years.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– And in my own humble way I have been doing my best for many years to break down that Combine.

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

– If it were a question of Combines, that would have to be dealt with in legislation quite apart from this Bill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Not at all. The whole of the trade of Australia is controlled by a Shipping Board, which determines freights, conditions, and trade routes. I ask the Minister to seriously consider the request that has been made to him in this House over and over again - and I believe he can see no strong objection to it - that if the Shipping Board is to continue to rule the destinies of our Inter-State trade and commerce, representation on that Board should be given to tie trading public and the producers of Australia, whose requirements have not been too well met.

Mr WALLACE:
West Sydney

. -It does not seem to me that any controversial questions are associated with this Bill, and I am glad that the Government are taking steps to proclaim at least a part of the Navigation Act which was passed in 1912. In the principal Act reference is made to the shipping trading on the coast “ or among the States,” and I dare say that as the result of the coming referendum we shall be able to secure a reasonable interpretation of what is meant by the words “ among the States.” Recently an accident happened to a seaman on board an oversea vessel which, after touching at Port Adelaide, then proceeded direct to Brisbane. Compensation was claimed under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, but the Court ruled that the vessel was not engaged in trade and commerce “ among the States,” with the result that the seaman lost his case. I hope that steps will be taken to bring vessels so trading within the provisions of the principal Act.

The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams) complained that as a result of this Bill the Australian shipping monopoly would be strengthened. In the first part of his speech, however, he pointed out that the shipping companies engaged in the Australian coastal trade are controlled by oversea companies. It is perfectly true that, as he says, Lord Inchcape practically controls the Union Steam-ship Company, the Australian United Steam Navigation Company, the Australian Steamship Company, and the Adelaide Steamship Company. That being so, it necessarily follows that there would be no competition between those companies in the Inter-State trade even if the principal Act were at once proclaimed.

During the last eight or ten years certain vessels, on which white crews were formerly carried, have been trading to the Pacific Islands and also to South African ports. These vessels now employ coloured labour, but they are allowed incidentally to carry cargo between different Australian ports, and thus to compete unfairly with Australian ship-owners who, in accordance with our White Australia policy, are not permitted to employ coloured labour. There are at least four of these vessels, one of them owned by Messrs. Scott, Fell, and Company, and the others by Messrs. Crosby and Company, which are carrying coloured crews, and are thus placing Australian ship-owners at a disadvantage. This Bill is absolutely necessary to put an end to that sort of thing.

Prior to the war 60 per cent. of British shipping was manned by Asiatics. With the exception of the White Star and Orient liners, all oversea vessels coming to Australia and engaged incidentally in our Inter-State trade, employed Asiatics either in the stoke-hold or on deck, and in some cases both on deck and in the stokehold. The Australian steam-ship companies, which are compelled by our laws to pay fair wages and to provide reasonable conditions for their men, were thus subjected to unfair competition. I am satisfied that this will again obtain if we do not proclaim the Navigation Act, and so protect Australian shipping. As soon as the feeling caused by the war is over British ship-owners will, no doubt, again man their ships with Asiatic labour. There should be no difficulty in compelling oversea shipping companies, if they engage in the Australian trade, to observe Australian conditions and Wages Boards rates. The accommodation for the crews on modern steam-ships trading between Great Britain and Australia compares very favorably with that of Australian vessels, while the quality and class of food supplied on them has also been greatly improved. The conditions obtaining on the oversea vessels on which white crews are carried compare very favorably indeed with those ruling on Australian ships. The conditions of employment, wages, and accommodation for crews on American ships are, in turn, immeasurably superior to those of British ships. Australian and British ship-owners give less attention to the comfort of their crews than do the Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, French, and Italian ship-owners, but they pay higher wages.

I do not think much difficulty will be experienced in securing compliance with the provisions in the Act relating to the accommodation of seamen. Care will have to be taken, however, to secure the enforcement of the law in respect of the wages of the seamen. Where an oversea vessel engages in the Inter-State trade we can compel the master at the final port of clearance to pay the crew the additional wages that have accrued to them. In that way, if an Asiatic crew were carried, the master would not be able to discharge these men on the other side of the world without paying them the extra wages accruing to them under the Australian law in respect of their period of service in Australian waters. There would be no trouble so far as white crews are concerned, since we have a chain of Seamen’s Unions stretching from one side of the globe to the other. It would be impossible for a master, in the event of his refusing to pay the difference in wages, to obtain a second crew at the port of discharge. Some time ago an Australian ship voyaged to New York, where the Australian crew was paid off, and a new crew was signed on to receive about £2 per month less than the wages rate ruling in Australia. When the vessel returned to Australia the owners endeavoured to pay off this second crew at the lower rate. The Seamen’s Union, however, took up the case, with the result that the men received an additional £2 per month and all the other concessions they would have obtained in the ordinary course had they signed on here. It is essential that Australian conditions of pay should be observed in order that our seamen may be protected. Most of the coastal steam-ship companies, as has already been pointed out, have amalgamated with big British Corporations, and are thus amply protected.

This Bill will protect not so much the ship-owner as the seamen, who should be our chief concern. If we are to become a power in the Southern Seas and develop our industries as they should be developed, most of our trade will be water-borne, and it is highly essential that we should give every attention to our seamen. Without steam-power we would be defenceless. If we are to build up this Australia of ours we must give every consideration to those who go to sea. I am, therefore, pleased that the Government intend to proclaim part. of the principal Act, and I believe that if the people of Australia were advised that constitutional difficul ties stand in the way of giving effect to the Act as a whole, they would readily remove those obstacles.

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

– That is not the reason. The reason is the difficulty in the way of getting all the necessary preparatory work done in the time. We can proclaim the coastal trade provisions of the Act very much more rapidly by adopting this method.

Mr WALLACE:

– In whatever way the Government intend to carry the thing out, I am pleased to see them making a start. No doubt the whole Act will now be gradually put into effect, and some day we shall have a Navigation Act for Australia. This is the only British Dominion outside of South Africa and Canada which has no shipping of any consequence. New Zealand has for many years had a Navigation Act of its own, and, owing to the influence of that Act, has been able to foster and build up its shipping industry far better than we have done, while giving its seamen infinitely better conditions and terms than we have given ours.

The Minister quoted the high freights that are being charged. Those charged by some of the small coastal companies are scandalous. The Minister represents one of the Northern River districts, and will appreciate the figures which I am about to give. I had occasion the other day to buy some galvanized-iron for a relative of mine, who lives on the Northern Rivers, and acts there as a sort of commission agent. He asked me to obtain for him about 16 cwt. of galvanized-iron. I went to Hudson Brothers and told them to send the iron along to him and send their bill for freight and other charges to me. I got a bill for 32s. 6d. freight on that small quantity of iron to the Richmond River. A few days afterwards I received another bill stating that the first one did not cover the charge for freight. They wanted another 12s., making a total of 44s. 6d. for freight on 16 cwt. of galvanized-iron from Sydney to the Richmond River.

Mr Kelly:

– Did that include charges for handling on and off the boat?

Mr WALLACE:

– No, it was just the freight on the iron, which was delivered f.o.b. It was the charge for carrying from the Sydney wharf to the railway wharf at Lismore. The iron would be in the ship’s hold for about thirty-six hours at the very outside. That ship, under ordinary circumstances, ; can make two trips a week. If a company can charge £2 3s. 6d. a ton, it means that the ship earns about £4per ton per week on all the stuff it handles. I have heard honorable members complain about the charges for carrying wheat to the Old Country. A steamer in ordinary circumstances takes about seven weeks on a trip of that description. If the oversea companies adopted the same rates of freight as obtain on the New South Wales coast they would charge about £28 per ton at the very least.

Mr Fenton:

– What was the cost of the iron ?

Mr WALLACE:

– About £30, which, I admit, was very cheap. It was advertised as a cheap lot ; but it was the freight that knocked me out. If the Minister intends to proclaim this part of the Navigation Act, and so protect the Australian ship-owner from competition, he should also protect the Australian consumer and consignee from exploitation. I do not think the charges I have quoted as operating on the New. South Wales coast are fair.

A few days ago I read that, owing to the increased wages of seamen and other factors, the Australian shipping companies intend to increase their freights by 10 per cent. The Government ought to step in and institute an inquiry into the earnings of these concerns, and ascertain what the proper freight charges should be. They could thenprevent the people from being exploited. We complain of the high prices the farmer is asking for his produce, but after I saw that announcement, and after I was told by the manager of a butter factory that it cost them in freight to Tweed Head from £2 to £2 12s. 6d. per ton for certain lines that they required, I thought to myself that even if the farmer is charging 2s. a pound for his butter he is only trying to get back a little bit of what the shipping companies are robbing him of. It is a case of one being up against the other, and the consumer suffers all the time. It is high time the Government stepped in to prevent exploitation of this description. I give my hearty approval to the action of the Government in proclaiming the Navigation Act, even if it is done in this piecemeal way. I hope that as soon as possible the necessary arrangements will be made and regulations passed to put the whole of the Act intooperation.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I could not help feeling all the time I was listening to the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Wallace) that it was a great pity that he of all honorable members opposite should have been chosen to succumb to outside greed. The honorable member made a very fair and reasoned statement, as he usually does, on this measure, and it is because I recognise his ability in this regard that I regret he is being sacrificed.

I do not think the statement of the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mc Williams) was just to the Government, and I hardly think he did himselfcredit in the somewhat curious attitude he adopted. He professed, even while opposing the Bill, to be burning with anxiety, deep beyond words, that nothing we should do in this place should in any way foster the great Combine that controls our Inter-State trade. I think the honorable member forgot that only a few months ago he was lull of equally burning indignation against the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) for daring to enter into the shipping business by purchasing ships in England. If the honorable member would cast his mind back, I think he would find that he has never, in his place, supported the action of a Government supported by him, where such action might lead to some passing unpopularity or difference of opinion among his own supporters outside. It is very easy for honorable members in this House to refuse to accept responsibility for anything done on the side on which they happen to be sitting; but I hardly think it is fair, and I urge the honorable member not to be constantly currying favour in the future with the opponents of the Government outside, by opposing the actions of the Government which he is supporting inside.

Mr Charlton:

– -But he belongs to another party now.

Mr KELLY:

-No. This method of the honorable member has secured him the nomination of all parties in Tasmania.

Mr Watkins:

– That is clever.

Mr KELLY:

– It may be clever, but it is not patriotism, and I do not think it is consistent with the responsibility that should weigh with honorable members in this ‘Chamber.

In his very excellent utterance, the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Wallace) suggested that it might be possible to pay Australian wages on ships not actually trading on the Australian coast line, from the time they touched our coast line until they again left it. I do not think that is at all necessary in’ the interests of Australian labour. We want to get the best conditions we can for Australian labour both on ships and off them. Certainly on ships w’e want to’ improve conditions to a very great extent before

Wo shall really help to build up that mercantile marine which we all desire to see established in Australian waters for the sake of the future security of the nation. But the rate of wages in a country is governed by the cost of living in that country, and I do not think it would do Australian labour any good if we required the P. and O. Company, for instance, which does not use its mail steamers to trade coastwise in cargo, and which employs lascars, to pay those lascars Australian rates of wages, so that they might spend the money in India at the Indian rates of living.

Mr Wallace:

– It would compel them to carry white men instead of lascars.

Mr KELLY:

– I do not think it would. They are not trading here. They are not in competition for the local coast-wise trade, and it would not matter a brass button to them. I give that as an extreme illustration to show the unfairness lying behind the honorable member’s proposal. What we should do is what the Govern- ‘ ment are doing - pass a measure aiming at the improvement of conditions on ships, and insuring that piratical forays shall not be made by independent adventurers from overseas upon the Australian coastline, in shins not so equipped and not meeting Australian conditions.

Some years ago, I was for a few passing hours in the turbulent waters of Ministerial office. I can remember a question arising of freights on timbers from Western Australia for the transcontinental line, which was for the time under my con tr 0L Th eGovernmen t of Western Australia had actually entered into a contract with one of those oversea pirates, who had chartered a shiri under conditions obtaining outside Australia, and brought her into the Australian coastal trade. He was carrying on business with the Western Australian Government, and appeared to have made a very excellent arrangement for himself. It looked excellent on paper, until I began to get quotations from other sources for loads of similar magnitude, and found that I could beat this foreign gentleman with the Australian coastal steamers by about ls. 6d. per load of sixteen sleepers. That incident shows how prudent, we shall have to be if these people are not to flood our Australian coast, with no advantage to us. They are simply birds of passage; we have no control over their ships or their management of them, and they do not help us in any way to build up our Australian mercantile marine. T hope that at the earliest possible moment our mercantile marine will b’e placed upon a basis which will secure contentment amongst the employees.

The rates of freight on the Australian coastline are inordinately high, but I should not care to try off-hand in this place to allot the blame to individual companies. Honorable members on both sides know that the greatest difficulty the employer of labour has to cope with in certain classes of employment - having no particular knowledge of the shipping industry, I do not say that shipping is one of those classes - is not so much high wages as decreased production on the part of labour. I do not know how far the shipping companies are exploiting the producer on their own account, or how far they are doing so bv conniving at these practices on the part of their employees.

Mr Charlton:

– The profits would show that.

Mr KELLY:

– They would to a certain extent, tout we must be prudent before jumping to conclusions unfavorable to the companies themselves, because if the companies really got the full advantage of these inordinately high rates, they would be paying, not an average of 10 or 15 per cent., but hundreds per cent. But whatever the profits are, an endeavour ‘should be made to reduce the high rates. Cheap rates for the carriage of our produce overseas and cheap communication between the various parts of Australia are matters of urgent importance. Anything done by the Government to that end will meet with the cordial support of honorable members on both sides of the House.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- The Bill, so far as it goes, has my fullest support. In regard to what was said by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) concerning the employment of lascars by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, it is within the knowledge of honorable members that it is a condition of the mail contract that the vessels of the successful tenderer must carry white crews; and in the future, if it be the policy of the Government to expand the scheme for a Commonwealth line of steamers to trade overseas - and some of those which are now being built to the order of the Government will be big enough and fast enough for the mail service - .the question will arise as to whether we should allow cheap labour to compete with the Commonwealth-owned ships.

Mr Kelly:

– We should be bumping up against a big Imperial problem that would be better left alone.

Mr WATKINS:

– But we desire to insure that our own lines of steamers are profitable.

Mr Kelly:

– The Commonwealth line would justify its existence by providing the Government with inside information regarding the cost of operating shipping services.

Mr WATKINS:

– We desire the Commonwealth line to do more than that ; we hope that it will benefit the producers of Australia. I hope the Government will soon, proclaim the Navigation Act in it3 entirety, in order to deal with crimping, which is as rampant in Australia to-day as it has ever been. The effectiveness of the New South Wales law is determined by the interpretation of the definition of “ seaman.” According to the judgments which have been given from time to time, a sailor ashore is not a sailor; he only becomes a sailor within the meaning of the law when he returns to his ship.

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

– If the elections result as we anticipate, we intend to introduce another Bill to amend the Navigation Act considerably. That is one of the reasons why we do not propose to immediately proclaim the whole of it.

Mr WATKINS:

– I suppose I must be satisfied with that assurance. It Is time that the provision of the Navigation Act were made so stringent as to insure that a sailor’s life will be cleaner and better, and that he ‘ will be guarded against the evil influences which we know operate in the big ports of Australia.

Mr BURCHELL:
Fremantle

. -I do not know whether any pronouncement has been made in regard to the appointment of a Director of Navigation. If not, we should certainly have from the Minister (Mr. Greene) a statement of what the Government propose to do regarding the appointment of a gentleman to control and administer the Navigation Act, under Ministerial authority. In days gone by we heard rumours of a proposal by the Ministry to appoint a gentleman who has had administrative experience on shore, but whose knowledge of shipping affairs is necessarily limited by his lack of practical seafaring experience. I invite the Minister to say whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a man who has had sea-going experience, or one who has only had administrative experience ashore. The honorable gentleman informed us that the coastal trading sections of the Act will be proclaimed at an early date.’ Somebody, will be required to administer the Act, and this House is entitled to know who that officer will be. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Kelly) regarding the necessity for the control of Inter-State and overseas trade and shipping. For that, if for no other reason, we ought to know the qualifications of the gentleman who is likely to be appointed Director of Navigation.

I represent a State which, but for the much-defamed East-West railway, would have been in a precarious position recently, owing to the maritime upheaval. Even at the present time thousands of tons of cargo are waiting in Melbourne to be sent to Western Australia, and there are about 1,000 tons in Adelaide held up through lack of shipping space. I urge the Government to seriously consider the enlargement of the Commonwealth merchant fleet, with a view to taking some part in the Inter-State trade. It is common knowledge amongst men who are associated with the ports that the particularly advantageous prices that are being offered for tonnage throughout the world are tempting Australian steamship owners to seriously consider the sale of vessels that hitherto have operated on the Australian coast. We have read in the press that one steamer, which was running in the Western Australian trade particularly, is now flying the flag of the Orient Company, whilst another ship owned by an Australian company has been sold to a firm on the other side of the world. It is the duty of the Government to inform the House of the action they propose to take to safeguard the interests of the Australian coastal trade. I know this question bristles with difficulties. After the expiry of the War Precautions Act, it will not be easy for the Commonwealth to say to the ship-owners, “ You must keep your vessels in the Australian trade; we will not allow you to sell them to overseas buyers.” But as this is specially and peculiarly the concern of the Commonweath Government, we look to them for a statement of policy.

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

– There is already on the notice-paper a motion relating to this question.

Mr BURCHELL:

– I am glad of the interjection. I shall not pursue that phase of the subject any further, except toremind the Minister and the House that we, who represent portions of Australia which are practically dependent upon Inter-State shipping, expect the

Government to safeguard the interests of our constituents.

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

– It is because the Government recognise the necessity for doing something, that the notice of motion has been placed upon the business paper.

Mr BURCHELL:

– I again invite the Minister to inform the House of the intentions of the Government in regard to the appointment of a Director of Navigation.

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

– The Government are giving the matter serious consideration, with a view to appointing the best man available.

Mr BURCHELL:

– Will the Minister say whether the House will be likely to have an opportunity of discussing the matter before the appointment is made?

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

– I am unable to say whether the Government will be able to discover a suitable man for the position before Parliament is prorogued.

Mr BURCHELL:

– I can only urge that the Minister, when making a recommendation to the Cabinet, will advise the appointment of a man who has had practical sea-going experience. There are so many different phases of the navigation law that are particularly difficult of interpretation as to make it practically impossible for a landsman to thoroughly understand the conditions that obtain at sea. The Minister would be exceedingly well-advised if, in making an appointment, he recommended a man selected from amongst those applicants who have had definite seafaring experience.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

– If it is the pleasure of the Committee, I will put the clauses as a whole.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I presume that this is a Bill which has to go to the other side of the world for the Royal assent.

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

.- The

Government can give the definite assurance that the passage of this Bill will not delay, but will expedite, the proclamation of so much of the Navigation Act as is necessary to bring the coastal trading sections into operation.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13562

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL

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

.- I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Duties of Customs and Excise are being collected on the authority of the Customs Tariff Act 1908-11, and Tariff resolutions introduced on the 3rd December, 1914. During the progress of the war several amendments have been made in the schedule, as the necessity for taxation made it desirable to increase the rates.

Mr Tudor:

– Is there any necessity to validate the duties collected under the resolutions of 1914? These have already been validated.

Mr.GREENE.- The law officers apparently think it necessary that they should be validated again, until such time as the Tariff is definitely dealt with. The action taken in the previous Parliament it is necessary to take again in regard to the several amendments of the schedule, and, at all events, those made during the life of this Parliament. If we do not thus validate the collections, and Parliament were dissolved, the result would be that numbers of people would be able to claim refunds of duties. All this Bill does is to declare that the moneys already collected under the various schedules are legally collected, and to make any such claims impossible.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- Whatever differences of opinion there may be regarding the merits of Protection or Free Trade, we are agreed that, once Customs and Excise duties have been paid, and passed on to the public by importers and others, there shall be no refunds. This Bill is to safeguard the collection of revenue, so that brewers, spirit importers, tobacco importers, and others shall not be able to make claims for re funds; and it is only right that the revenue should be thus safeguarded.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13562

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL

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

.- I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is exactly similar to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill that we have just passed, except that it applies, not to Customs duties, but to Excise duties. It is intended to accomplish exactly the same object.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, reported from Committee without amendment, and report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13562

TASMANIAN LOAN REDEMPTION BILL

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

– I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

It is not necessary to refresh the memories of honorable members with regard to the discussion of last night, when the whole of the circumstances surrounding this small loan redemption Bill were explained, and the proposal indorsed on the originating resolution. It is good and sound that we should honour our obligation and arrange this redemption loan; and this Bill merely gives the requisite authority to conduct the transaction in a statutory way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, reported from Committee without amendment, and report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a third time.

page 13562

ADJOURNMENT

Progress of Business - Viscount Ad miral Jellicoe’s Report -austra- lian Wireless Squadron : Mess Allowance.

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

That the House do now adjourn.

The Government are highly gratified with the progress of business to-day, and we give our acknowledgmentsto honorable members on both sides quite impartially. This progress shows that the legislative machine, when well oiled and properly conducted, can get through a great amount of work. It is seldom that a Minister has an opportunity to render such thanks frankly and truthfully, and I hope honorable members will note the acknowledgment rendered so freely by the Government.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · Parramatta · NAT

– I promised, over a week ago, to lay Viscount Admiral Jellicoe’s report on the table of the House, that is, so much of the report as it is possible to lay on the table. I regret to say there has been some little delay in printing sufficient copies for circulation, but I shall definitely lay the report on the table on the next sitting day.

Mr FENTON:
Maribymong

– In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor), who, doubtless, would have made the inquiry, I should like the Prime Minister to give some indication of the business for next week.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · Parramatta · NAT

. -With permission, in the absence of the Treasurer, I can inform the honorable member that next week will be devoted to clearing up the business announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) yesterday.We have done very well to-day, and I hope we shall do as well when we meet again. With the exception of the Electoral Bills, there really is nothing but a few remnants remaining.

Mr FLEMING:
Robertson.

.- I wish to take this opportunity of bringing under the notice of the Government a grievance suffered by some of our returned soldiers. I do not blame the Government in connexion with the matter, but simply mention it because it is one of those things that tend to cause dissatisfaction. An Australian wireless squadron was attached to the Forces serving in Mesopotamia, but, while the men who were withdrawn from this squadron and handed over to the control of British officers to work with British troops drew mess allowance of 2¼d. a day, Australian officers refused to allow theboys under their control to draw that allowance. This is a matter, it seems to me, that should be threshed out and placed on a proper basis. These small grievances ought to be removed without delay. This case has been brought under my notice by one of the boys who suffered this injustice. It is simply a sample of many little matters which are causing dissatisfaction, and I impress on the Government the necessity for removing the causes of irritation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 3.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 October 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1919/19191017_reps_7_90/>.