House of Representatives
11 March 1920

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 4), 1919-20
QUESTION
- LEAD URGENTLY NEEDED

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

page 291

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act - Transfers of Amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council -Financial Year 1918-19- Dated 4th February, 1920.

Excise Act -Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1920, No. 32.

War Service Homes Act - Land acquired under at Bankstown, New South Wales (2).

page 291

SUPPLY BILL (No. 4), 1919-20

No-Confidence Amendment.

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from 10th March (vide page 289), on motion by Mr. Watt -

That there he granted to His Majesty, for or towards defraying the services of the year 1919-20, a sum not exceeding £5,727,180.

Upon which Mr. McWilliams had moved -

That the proposed sum be reduced by £2,863,590.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– The standing order is quite clear. It reads - 257a. No member shall speak for more than one hour and five minutes at a time in any debate in the House, except in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, or in a debate on a motion of “ no confidence,” or in moving the second reading of a Bill, or on the debate on the Appropriation Bill, or on the Financial Statement in Committee, when a member shall be at liberty to speak for one hour and thirtyfive minutes. In Committee of the House, no member shall speak for more than thirty minutes at any one time, or more than twice, on any one question before the Committee: Provided that this rule shall not apply in Committee to a member in charge of a Hill, or to a Minister when delivering the Financial Statement, or to any member during the proceedings in the Committee on the Tariff, or, in regard to the number of his speeches, to a Minister in charge of a class of the Estimates in Committee of Supply.

Therefore, no honorable member can now speak more than twice, and not for more than half-an-hour on each occasion, on any question before the Committee.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- As there appears to be some doubt whether the amendment of the honorable member for Franklin is or is not a motion of want of confidence, I hasten to say that I shall support it in any event, because I should not like to run any risk of not opposing the present Government.

I wish to say a word or two to my friend’s of the Country party. I have not used the objectionable words “ socalled,” and I now declare them to be the Country party, and baptize them as such. We have been so long accustomed to the honorable and amiable member for Franklin ploughing his lonely furrow with a good deal of perseverance, and no little ability, that it takes us some time to appreciate him as a new Napoleon in the realms of politics. Some people have greatness thrust upon them, and, doubtless, greatness has been thrust upon the honorable member for Franklin, and it does not lie with me to say that he does not deserve the greatness he now enjoys. I have said that I shall support this amendment,and I realize that what I am saying may be more or less injurious to the Country party, but that is their look out. The mover of the amendment says that it is not a vote of want of confidence ; the Government say it is, and the Temporary Chairman seems to be in some doubt as to whether it is ox not, hut I think the matter has been settled in the saying of Shylock that “you take my life when you do take the means whereby r live.” Applying that maxim to this amendment it is perfectly clear that if the Country party propose to take from the Government the means whereby it lives they thereby take its life. I am sorry that the Country party should, in approaching u3 coyly, rather be inclined to trifle with our young affections. I think they are relying, at all events, as far as I am concerned, on the insatiable animosity of certain honorable members of the Opposition towards the Government, and, therefore, feel perfectly certain that whatever motion they may move, if it is critical or condemnatory of the Government, will have the support ‘ of most, if not all, of honorable members on this side.

I have a serious complaint, politically though not personally, against the Country party and its Leader. I read ,with very great interest their propaganda on the platform during the election. In fact, among the “ farmers “ in North Fitzroy, and the southern part of Carlton [ found that the reading of long passages from the Farmers’ Advocate, telling of the misdeeds of the Government, and of the difficulties and hardships under which the farmers labour, was a potent influence in winning sympathy for my side from the residents and electors of those great “farming” areas. The Country party attacked the Government. They said, and said truly, of it that it had wasted and mismanaged the public finances. They have said this in the House. They said, and said perfectly truly of the Government, that it had acquired cornsacks at about 8s. 6d. a dozen, and traded them off to the unhappy farmer at a price which was more than twice that amount. They said of the Government that it had overcharged them for carrying their produce on more or less leaky ships to the other side of the world, and that when their produce arrived there the primary producer had received less than that to which he was justly entitled, having regard to the prices which were being won by producers in other parts of the world. They said that the Government was constructing vessels through which the men engaged in their construction were admir- ing the seascape at one end, while at the same time workmen were engaged at the other end caulking up holes with putty and various other materials in order to enable the vessels to float a little longer than was necessary to go from the surface to the bottom. They said all these things about the Government, and I am not going to suggest that any one of them was an exaggeration, or that they said anything too harsh. On the contrary, much as they have said, and well said, I contend they have understated the case against Ministers. Still, apparently, they have not lost confidence in the Government, and do not promos© to vote against it, at least with a view to its defeat. May I draw a comparison between honorable members of the Country party and another practical farmer, the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Cunningham), who has succeeded the noetic exPostmasterGeneral (Mr. Webster) ? While the. honorable member for Gwydir has stated the case well and ably, as they also have stated their case against the Government, he, unlike them, will be found taking the responsibility of recording his vote in accordance with his arguments and convictions. After all, it is immaterial what these gentlemen in the Corner think about the Government or say about it if they are not prepared to make good their words by votes against the Government.

The right honorable gentleman (Mr. Hughes) who leads the House makes no defence. What he does is to plead guilty with a number of mitigating circumstances. He has said and repeated that in the same set of circumstances he would do the same again; that is to say, he would enter into these wasteful contracts again that have cost the country so much money, and he would still sell the wool at prices which return to the producer something less than the Country party think they should be obtaining. The Prime Minister does not deny the charges made against him, but he says that he had not, as none of us had, the foresight to see how circumstances would develop, otherwise he would not have done what he did so foolishly as the Leader of the Commonwealth Government. Notwithstanding all these things, the Country party propose to support the Government in its folly and wastefulness.

Apparently ‘the real reason is that if they did other than that they would be liable to be charged with having some measure of sympathy for the Labour party. May I tell them with candour that most of them owe their presence in the House to votes of Labour men, a fact which they should keep in mind? After all, they ought not to be animated by a craven fear of being great. If they do not desire the Labour party to come into power - and I am in no great hurry that they should; I am certainly not the least ambitious for office - what would be wrong in their moving a motion of no-confidence and accepting an invitation from another quarter to form a Ministry themselves? I ask the honorable member for Franklin not to blush at the suggestion. He would make a most amiable, tactful and able Prime Minister, and would certainly get more cordial support from honorable members of the Opposition than they would ever be likely to give to honorable members sitting behind the Ministry at the present time, or the Ministry itself. There may appear to be some practical difficulties in the way. The numbers of the Country party are comparatively few, but with support they would not seem so few. I have indicated that the honorable member for Franklin would make an admirable Prime Minister. As for his Attorney-General, I have a curious suggestion to make. One of the lessons of the war is that we must have no more secret diplomacy; therefore, I say in public that if the honorable member for Franklin were to approach the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler), who, I understand, is .a Nationalist, and were to suggest to him that by accepting the office of, say, AttorneyGeneral, he might find a ready means of getting rid of a certain “ calamitous mountebank,” I think it very likely that he would accept at once a suggestion so practical and pleasing. Then there is the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs). It may be said that he has pledged himself to support the Nationalist party. My answer to that is that he has also pledged himself to support the Labour party. I, therefore, see no reason why he should not pledge himself to support’ the Country party. In this way, difficulties that I have indicated as, perhaps, insuperable, would prove to be by no means so.

Coming to the questions of economy and profiteering, I may say at once that I am not a reckless’ supporter of mere catch-cries, even when the catch-cry is that of economy. After all, one want3 to know just in what way the proposed economy is to be secured - whether we are to obtain it by sacrificing efficiency, whether it involves the underpayment of some men, or subservience to some outside influences which occasionally alarm politicians, and even statesmen, into taking a course of action with which they do not altogether agree. Still, economy is a very useful and proper ideal. As to the method by which we link up proper economy with our campaign’ against profiteering, I remember that the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) once said at Balaclava that a great deal of nonsense was talked about profiteering. The right honorable gentleman, like the Prime Minister, and many others, generally dismissed the whole subject by declaring that there was a great deal of nonsense spoken in regard to it. It is true, no doubt, that there was. The world has not become any richer as a result of the war. It is perfectly true that we cannot have a war such as that through which we have just passed without paying the penalty. We cannot withdraw millions of men from useful avenues of production without reducing the fruits which the labours of these men would otherwise have won for the world. We cannot carry on such a war without loading with debt the people of the country for which it is carried on.

It is useless now to recapitulate my views in regard to the war. We went into it and have piled’ up lour debts, strewn the world with dead, and filled the various belligerent countries with wounded. We must pay the penalty in shortage of commodities, and also by way of the huge debt in which the war has involved us. My greatest regre!t is that those who did most to foment the waT, those who were the most bitter in their animosity and hostility towards those who would say or do anything to mitigate its ferocity, are, for the most part, those who have drawn the largest dividends out of the war. They set out to make the world safe for Democracy. They have made it so safe for Democracy that many of them who shouted very loudly for war are afraid now that the world has been made too safe for Democracy Democracy is going to have something to say about future wars that will not be altogether too pleasing to them. We were also told that it was a war to end all waT. But the Treasurer yesterday assured us that he was able to come into this House, like a lady from a bargain sale, proud to declare that he had bought up in the Old Country some secondhand munition machines, and was bringing them over here as an earnest of economical administration’ on the part of the Government for the next twelve months. I can only hope that some friendly storm will sink those munition machines in the ocean.

It is very likely, if one might mix profane matters with sacred, that the pursuit of the profiteer is as difficult and a3 complicated as was the pursuit of the Holy Grail. One of the methods by which the Prime Minister proposed to secure, pillory, and punish him was an amendment of the Constitution. And it is to that subject that I wish specially to devote my attention for the next few minutes. When the Prime Minister, after his trip abroad, reached Australia, he declared, even before he arrived in the eastern States,- that he was going “to wage war against two classes in particular - the Bolsheviks on the one hand and the profiteers on the other. At that time “his two notes of condemnation were of equal strength and fluency. As the election campaign went on, however, his note against the Bolsheviks began to rise in a gradual crescendo until it reached a perfect shriek of denunciation, whereas his note of condemnation of the profiteer began to fall in a gradual diminuendo until by the time election day came round it was no moTe that a gentle cooing such as he was accustomed to hear from his friends of the Australian Women’s National League. He did come forward, however, with a definite proposal to deal with profiteering by means of an amendment of the Constitution. It has been said that those of us who recommended the electors to vote against his proposed amendments of the Constitution took up a position inconsistent with our attitude to previous proposed amendments, and that we did so merely because the people were asked to sanction these amendments by ‘the Prime Minister, with whose ‘policy generally we disagreed. I declared at the time that was not so, and gave reasons for my point of view. As a matter of fact, it was not correct, although if we had taken that course we should not have been without high precedent. A super-Nationalist, now on the Supreme Court Bench of Victoria, whom we may not criticise in that position, but whose actions when he sat in this House as the member for Flinders we aTe open to discuss, once declared his whole-hearted approval of amendments of the Constitution proposed by Labour, but he would not consent to them because, he said, pointing to a Government led by the present Prime Minister, he would not trust the Government then in office. In these circumstances we should have had precedent for any such stand as fiat wrongly attributed to us. I was not prepared to follow that precedent. It has been the unanimous attitude of the Labour party to declare their readiness to give a wider and more generous interpretation to the Australian Constitution, to make it a better and more wieldy instrument, trusting the people to use their own unlimited discretion as to whom they should place in charge of the affairs of the countryLet me say that there was no essential difference at all between members on this side of the House. My honorable leader, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor), expressed himself in favour of giving a vote in the affirmative on the referenda, but the honorable member - just like myself in this respect, at all events - declared that the proposals were quite unlike the Labour proposals, and were inadequate and a sham. The only difference between him and myself was that, while he thought that some small measure of good might possibly come from the adoption of the referenda, I felt that even that small measure “would not be derived.

.- My first speech in this chamber is for the purpose of supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Country party. That party has come in for some criticism, a few jeers, and many taunts from honorable members on both sides of the House regarding its attitude generally towards other parties. Last evening we were treated to an excellent lecture from the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Fleming), in which, addressing himself particularly to the Country party, he dwelt at length upon the necessity for remembering our national ideals and our duty to our constituents. That honorable member ought to be the last of any sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to talk to the Country party about our duty to our constituents. He, like several other honorable members on the Ministerial side,, to whom the present unfortunate Government are looking for rescue in the present crisis, and any other crisis that may arise, is suspended in mid-air like Mahomet’s coffin; he is between the devil and the deep blue -.sea.” The honorable member for Robertson spoke about the broadness of his political ideals. His political ideals are so broad that for two long months nobody knew to what party he belonged, and even to-day some of his constituents are still wondering about the same thing. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Kerby), who criticised both the Country party and the Opposition, made one remark to which I take strong exception, namely, that the Country party, in moving to reduce the amount of Supply, aimed deliberately at delaying the payment of the war gratuity and the proposed repatriation. expenditure. In order to make clear to the House the reasons that actuated the Country party in taking that course, I cannot do better than quote from the manifesto issued during the election campaign by the Victorian farmers’ organization -

At this juncture “wild-cat” vote-catching schemes of any individual or party at the expense of the Public Purse, and with the taint of bribing the electors and debauching the electorate, should be denounced by every honest man and woman, and unceremoniously rejected by the people.

After increased production, Australia’s great need is economical government. The primary producers of Australia think a greater proportion of the new wealth they annually create will henceforth be absorbed in taxation and the discharge of war obligations, including the welfare of our soldiers and their dependants. They willingly accept the burden with the other sections of the community. But they absolutely oppose the continuance of the riotous domestic or ordinary expenditures of the Commonwealth and States, and outside war purposes.

I could quote a good deal more in that strain, but’ what I have read is sufficient to show conclusively where this party stands on the question of public expenditure. Peculiarly enough, we do not stand alone in regard to economy. I quote now from the Prime Minister’s speech -

Public Service.

Economy in expenditure is as essential as increased production. We must produce more and spend less. The Government intends to introduce into the Departments of the Commonwealth a Board of Management, as recently recommended by the Economies Commission. This, we believe, will promote economy and efficiency and a higher level of administration.

I could quote a good deal more to that effect also, but I do not desire to waste time. I proceed now to read from the manifesto of an organization which calls itself the Labour party - a manifesto which, like many others, may have been forgotten -

Finance.

By the exercise of the most rigid economy, we propose to put an end to the present era of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure, while at the same time making provision for adequate remuneration for all Commonwealth public servants. lt appears as if all the members of this House are pledged to the principle of economy, which is our motive in moving the amendment to the motion for Supply. I have culled from statistics a few interesting figures with regard to the public debt-

Further; the Treasurer told us yesterday that the Mother Country had sent in a bill for £41,000,000, and that it was necessary for him to go to London in order to “endeavour to make arrangements for the renewal or repayment of the debt. ‘We are sending the honorable gentleman home with empty pockets. In addition to the debt I have mentioned, there is an annual liability for war pensions of £6,000,000, which I do not think any honorable member would attempt to cut down or repudiate. We have also wargratuity and repatriation obligations to meet. These matters, and many more which I could quote, bring one irresistibly to the conclusion that the financial state of our affairs is such as to cause very great anxiety to every Australian who thinks anything of his country. Take the last War Loan Bill. The honorable the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) told us the other evening that even with the threat of compulsion the amount asked for was not obtained.

It is well known that the greater part of our huge debt must be met by exports, and if we look up our 7 ear-Book statistics we shall find that our principal exports are primary products. That being the case, let us see where we stand. Let us consider, first of all, what is the condition of the great wheat industry. I quote now from statistics issued by the Australian Wheat Board, dealing with the wheat handled up to the 1st March, 1920. The total received into No. 1 Pool, season 1915-16, amounted to 163,000,000 bushels; No. 2 Pool, season 1916-17, 138,000,000 bushels; No. 3 Pool, season 1917-18, 103,000,000 bushels; No. 4 Pool, season 1918-19, 65,000,000 bushels; and for the last Pool, season 1919-20, there had been received, up to 1st March, only 32,000,000 bushels. I do not desire to create a false impression, as I believe that the amount to be received into the last Pool may be supplemented by another couple of million bushels. But there are the facts. The production in wheat has fallen from 163,000,000 bushels in 1915-16, to about 32,000,000 bushels for the present season. And the position with regard to wheat is reflected in other products. The oat crop, for instance, in 1915-16 yielded 16,000,000- bushels.

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

– The honorable member is hardly fair. He does not mention that for the earlier Pools the seasons were good, while for the latter drought conditions have been prevailing.

Mr STEWART:

– Then to satisfy the honorable member for Wannon I shall quote the acreage. Does he deny that the total area under cultivation is nearly 4,500,000 acres less than formerly? What does the honorable member say to that?

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

– The answer is-

Mr STEWART:

– The honorable member can get up when I sit down and supply his answer. I was about to point out that the oat crop fell from 16,000,000 bushels in 1915-16, to 14,000,000 bushels, in 1916-17, and in 1917-18 it was down to 10.000,000 bushels. Later figures are not available, but I think the honorable member will .agree with me when I say -that the total oat production this year is considerably below 10,000,000 bushels. The same position is disclosed in the figures relating to hay. In 1915-16 the total yield was 5,600,000 tons; in 1916-17, 3,500 000 tons; and in 1917-18, 2,700,000 tons. I venture to predict that the figures for the years following, when available, will be lower still.

All these facts show quite conclusively that we cannot go on spending money at the present rate and producing less wealth in the way of primary products.

Without desiring to lecture honorable members^ I feel impelled to say that it is the duty of every citizen of the Commonwealth to practice the most rigid economy, and the duty of the Government is to set an example. The position simply has to be faced. At present money is plentiful, but financial men, and, indeed, most people, know quite well that the pendulum is always swinging, and that after a period when money is plentiful there comes, sooner or later, a period of financial stringency. If the opinions of leading bankers in the Commonwealth are a guide this time of financial stringency is near at -band. I understand the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey), in the course of a lecture recently, stated that financial and industrial chaos was inevitable. I do not know that I quite agree with him, but I feel confident that if we go on at our present rate we certainly shall be in grave danger. Nothing is more certain than that.

The present Government ask to be allowed to carry out their policy. I am quite prepared to do that, but when the Prime Minister declares that the Government have secured a mandate from the electors, all I can say is that it is a very flimsy mandate indeed, and I thought he was a better tactician than to talk in this Committee about the result of the recent elections.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He said they had an overwhelming majority.

Mr STEWART:

– Some honorable members opposite can claim a large increase in numbers as the result of the recent election, and the little party to which I belong can claim ito have had a very satisfactory increase.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– With the assistance of this party, sir.

Mr Gabb:

– Also of this party.

Mr STEWART:

– I can only say that I got very little assistance from the Nationalists. I am here to-day as the result of the support I received from working farmers and working men and women of Wimmera. The honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) gave figures which I had intended to quote regarding the state of the parties in this Chamber, and he aptly put it that if the last elections were regarded by the Government as a victory for the Government, then God help the Government if they were to win another such victory !

Sir Robert Best:

– They happen to be still in power.

Mr STEWART:

– I did not say primary products.

– I wish to know what got rid of Ready.

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

– He was one of the honorable member’s crowd.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– The honorable member is referring to rather ancient history, and an election was fought largely on the Ready case. Personally, I resent the continual insinuations of bribery and corruption by men who have not the courage to place their fingers on the spot. They have no right to malign public leaders and to degrade the public life of this country by seeking to create the impression in the mind of the people that to be a politician is to be a rogue, a thief, and a scoundrel. If the document which the honorable member for Wimmera quoted furnishes the reason why certain honorable members think that the Government should be put out of office, no man. who values the reputation of our political leaders will vote for the amendment. I am a little in doubt as to the reason for the amendment. The Leader of the Country pasty said that it was moved with no intention of injuring the Government. The honorable member for Wimmera, however, rejoices in the prospect of the Government being displaced. The honorable member for Corangamite made charges of maladministration and corruption, and yet says that he would keep the Government in power. What sort of conduct is it for an honorable member who thinks that the Government has been scandalously wasteful of public money, and that its administration has bordered on corruption., to say that he is willing to keep it in power ? If I believed one-half of what these gentlemen have said about the administration of this Government, I would not vote to keep it in office for a moment. The honorable member for Yarra quoted from a speech in which the honorable member for Corangamite charged the Government with all the extravagance, that the most imaginative Labour man could conceive of.

Mr Tudor:

– I quoted a speech in which the honorable member said that the Government is kept in office by a gang of profiteers. There was nothing in the quotation about maladministration.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– I shall vote for the Government, because I believe that during the five years that the war lasted they rendered great service to Aus, tralia, and that the Australian people recognises that fact. Had those who are attacking me had more political experience, they would be less willing to follow the lead of gentlemen who all through the war showed a readiness to pounce upon the little mistakes of administration. What is it that members of the Country party wish to be done? Our Commonwealth Parliament has been in existence now for all but nineteen years, and it is said that responsible government should be restored. Has one instance been quoted during the existence of Federation in which Estimates were passed at the beginning of a financial year, before the money for whose appropriation they provided could be spent? Do honorable members wish to restore the responsible government of 1913, when the Estimates were nine months late; of 1912, when they were eight months late; of 1904, when they were seven months late, and of similar years ? They have not given any indication of what they want. In this matter, Parliament is where the honorable member for Wimmera said another party was, that is, between the devil and the deep sea. If the Estimates were brought in in May, and were passed then, the Government would have a year hi which it could do what it liked. The control of Parliament over the Government exists only while the Estimates have not been passed; the moment a Government gets its Estimates, Parliament ceases to have any real control over it. Notwithstanding the inconvenience of Supply Bills, I prefer to have a Government asking Supply for three or four months at a time, because this provides opportunities for criticism of its administration. What greater pretence could there be than that honorable members really wish to debate every item of the Estimates? I believe that Sir George Turner on one occasion kept the nose of honorable members to the grindstone week after week in the consideration of Estimates; but none of those who were here then would like the prospect of a similar experience. Unless those who criticise the Estimates in detail have »as much information as the Minister himself, most of their talk is directed against the things that are not. Criticism must be based on big general principles. We want to know the big principles upon which the Departments are being run and the big items upon which the Government money is being expended. Knowing this, we want to secure men we can trust to carry out those principles and spend that money. If we reach the position put by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Prowse) that we do not trust the Government to spend the money, but are going to look after it ourselves, the sooner we get rid of a Government that we cannot trust with the people’s money the better it will be for the country.

Mr Marr:

– The Country party trusted the Government last week.

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– If we have no confidence in the men to whom we intrust the task of government after we have told them what we want them to do and the principles on which we desire them to govern the country, our clear duty is to ge.t other managers in their places. Between these two courses Parliament has little or no choice. I hope we shall have an end to these debates when the division is taken on this motion, and that we shall be able to get to that work which the members of the Opposition, the Country party, and the National party alike declare to be urgent. That is the work of dealing with the soldiers’ gratuity. There are very few members in this House who are not pledged to give the soldiers the gratuity as promptly as they can. The discussion of motions of the same nature week after week on the question of whether the Government should remain in office or not, simply delays the realization of the promises made to the electors.” It is our duty to get on with the work of the country as quickly as we may.

Mr BRUCE:
Flinders

.- I wish to define the position in which I stand, because I think I have been quite as enthusiastic as most of my honorable friends in the corner on the subject of the restoration to Parliament of the control of the finances. I consider it absolutely vital that that control should be restored. We may blink our eyes to the fact, and some people may not believe it, but there is no doubt that during the period of the war, for what I believe were necessary reasons, a certain amount of the proper and due control of the country’s affairs by Parliament had to be handed to the Executive, and acts had to be sanctioned after they had been done which, in the normal course of affairs, would have been a proper subject for full consideration and discussion by Parliament.

Holding these views as I do, and having expressed, them throughout the election, I want to make my attitude towards this motion perfectly clear. My view is that this is a new Parliament just returned by the electors, with a new Government to whom the country has given a mandate. The least the House can do is to give the Government a chance to show whether they are going to redeem the pledges which, heaven knows, were plentiful enough during the period of the election. I am prepared to give the Government that chance, but I unhesitatingly say that I shall be a violent supporter of my honorable friends in the corner if those pledges are not to be redeemed. To attack the Government straightway on a motion like this - for, rightly or wrongly, I hold the view that no self-respecting . Government could permit such a motion, taking the conduct of the business of the House out of their hands, to be carried without regarding it as a vote of censure - seems to me rather like shooting a man without giving him any sort of warning. There is a sort of decent feeling that one does not shoot a man without mentioning that one is going to do it. The Government ought to have been given some sort of warning before being shot at. It seems extraordinarily like shooting a bird sitting. They ought to be given a chance, and for that reason I certainly think we should hold our hands, while very clearly indicating that we expect Ministers to do the various things that they have undertaken to do.

Mr Prowse:

– We gave them notice at the elections.

Mr BRUCE:

– The people gave notice at the elections of what they wished us to do. They returned the Government with a majority, and now we desire to see the result of the Government’s pledges. Until something is done which is a breach of the pledges given to the people, I am prepared to support the Government and give them opportunity to show the House and the country what they propose to do. It seams to me that the Country party has scored an extraordinarily brilliant success, if they will only be content with what they have pulled off. They have obtained a statement from both the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) that their words have been heard and heeded. Both honorable gentlemen have placed the Government under certain obligations to do certain things with regard to bringing down the Estimates, not only for the present financial vear, but for the next. They have undertaken also- that the Government will not ask the House again for Sun-4 during this, financial year without first bringing down the Estimates. After these three months have elapsed, they must ask for Supply again for the last month of this financial year. I do not think that what the Government have undertaken to do is in any sense due to the action of the Country party. Rather it is due to the pledges they gave to the people at the election. At the same time, the Country party are quite entitled to take to themselves the advertisement and the kudos that they have made the Government do a great number of things. Having done this, and having taken the action they have taken, and scored what I think they can claim as a success, it seems to me that they will be rather throwing away that success if they persist in seeing this motion through and conceivably putting the Government out. That is a side issue, if you like, but it might happen. The present situation reminds me- very much of what used to happen in the early days of the war, before we became so scientific in the conduct of battles. No doubt a number of honorable members remember, as I do, the early days of 1915. When an attack was to be made we were given, in the same way as obtained at the end of the war, an objective to take. Every unit had its objective, but, in those early days, if a unit secured an easy and bloodless victory, such as I suggest that my honorable friends in the corner have now secured, it was very apt, instead of sitting down on its objective, to go on and try to take something further. Many men have gone under through that fatal tendency. It was only realized later on that it was a grave mistake not to be content with your original objective, and to go on further and try to get too much. I suggest that that is very much the position of the Country party now. They have done all they wanted to do. They have indicated their presence in the House in a very pronounced way, and they will throw away a great part of the victory they have achieved if they refuse now to accept the pledges that they have been so successful in obtaining. While I am distinctly pledged to efficiency and economy in the conduct of the affairs of the Commonwealth, and above &11, to the restoration of parliamentary control over the finances, I am quite prepared to give the Government an opportunity to redeem the pledges they gave to the people, and will vote for them on this motion.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- It is very appropriate that a party which owes its return to the House mainly to the votes of the primary producers should challenge the Nationalist party which, if it represent anything, represents the big middlemen interests of the great cities and centres of Australia.

The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams), Leader of the new party, is to be congratulated upon his choice of the subject upon which to challenge the contempt - in regard to public expenditure - with which the Government has treated Parliament for the last four or five years.

I wish to deal with the outrageous robbery of the primary producers of Australia by great capitalistic interests on the other side of the world, whose chief instrument was the present Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. There should be an independent inquiry to ascertain what Australia has lost through the so-called bargaining of the Prime Minister in the sale of Australia’s products, particularly wool, wheat, meat, rabbits, rabbit skins, butter, cheese, fruit and jam, hides, and metals, including gold, tin, platinum, bismuth, and wolfram. If these could be figured and aggregated, it would be found that Australia has been sacrificed to the extent of at least a greater amount than the total cost of her participation inthe war.

There may not be time to substantiate every point in that charge with the abundant evidence I have at my disposal, but I shall endeavour, in the time available to deal with the two main items of wool and wheat.

In the Budget statement delivered on 8th October of last year, the sale of Australia’s products for the whole period of the war was set out in the following table: -

During the absence of the Prime Minister in London upon the last occasion, the Go vernment, in an unguarded moment, lifted the press censorship, and for the first time there came trickling through the cables evidence of the gross robbery of this country which, during the whole period of the war, had apparently been suppressed under the War Precautions Regulations.

The Budget statement showed that the payments made for Australian wool under Imperial contract were as follows : -

Mr. O. C. Beale, the well.known Sydney manufacturer, and ex.president of the Chamber of Manufactures, upon his return from England, is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 27th March, 1919, as saying -

England paid Australia1s. 3?d. per lb. for wool, and America1s. 9?d. per lb. for cotton. Our wool was being sold in London at four times its purchase price. England paid Australia 5d. per lb. for prime meat, and paid America from1s. to1s. 6d. per lb. for lower grade meat. England paid America ?168 per ton for electrolytic copper, and Australia ?108 for a better article. Freight on copper at the time was ?6 per ton. Canada was paying off its debt to Britain by receiving a fair price for its products. Not so Australia.

On the 5th November, 1919, Mr. Beale again stated in Sydney, in the presence of the Prime Minister -

Our greasy wool purchased by the Imperial Government in Australia at the rate of1s. 3d. per lb. was sold in London at 6s. per lb. Australian producers received less for their meat, wheat, and wool than any other country, including Argentine, United States of America, and Canada.

According to the Budget speech of the 8th October, 1919, Australian wool for 1916-17, 1917-18, 1918-19, and 1919-20 had been sold to the Imperial Government at a flat contract rate of1s. 3?d. per lb., plus?d. for handling charges.

According to the Sydney Sun of the 17th November, 1919, Australian wool was sold in London at 8s. 3d. for greasy, and according to the Evening News of the 17th November, 1919. scoured wool was sold at 10s. 3d. per lb. This shows a range of prices for greasy wool of from 6s. to 8s. 3d.

Re Freight. - Mr. Beale, according to the Sydney. Morning Herald of the 4th April, 1919, and, again on the 16th April, 1919, replied-

Australia had the most magnificent fleet of coastal ships in the world, and she handed it over for war purposes, and placed herself at the mercy of the salesmen of her produce. . .

It is not the lack of freight space that caused absurdly low prices for Australian wool, grain, and metals. There are other explanations for the very bad bargains that were made, and under which Australia suffered bitterly.

We shall all be interested to hear the “ other “ explanations of these bad bargains.

As a matter of fact there were freights ; for the robbery had taken place respecting large tonnage of goods delivered in London, *nd they could not have been delivered there unless freights had- been available.

Fisher, Unwin, and Company, the great London publishers, in a book entitled “ Mr. Hughes,” just issued, state that he was the “ instrument of the great English profiteers.”

With grave yet irreconcilable facts thrown in his teeth, after the censorship had been abolished in his absence, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister became excited and lost his head?

The Daily Telegraph of the 17th September, 1919, reports him as saying -

The last wool sales were made behind my back, and if it had not been sold Australia would have been in a better position.

But this “ pooled “ his own Treasurer (Mr. Watt); and there was nearly a Ministerial “burst up.” So the Prime Minister had another try, for on the 24th September, 1919, seven days later, he had to eat his own words, since he told the Melbourne Argus -

I myself was responsible for the sale of the wool in question.

Where is that balance of 4s. 8ii. between the ls. 3 1/2d. per lb. and the 6s. per lb., which was the minimum figure quoted by Mr. Beale, that has not reached the Australian people?

Having failed to substantiate his claim that the sales had taken place behind his back, having broken down like a perjured witness under / cross-examination, the Prime Minister attempted a miserable

Mr. J. H. Catts shuffle. In the Daily Telegraph of the 6th November, 1919, he said-

Criticism levelled at me in Australia at a critical time prevented me selling Australian wool to the best advantage. Those who levelled these criticisms must pay the price, and in consequence millions of money were lost to Australia in wool alone.

What an indictment! The goose screamed at its clumsy plucker, and had to pay for its whistle. Millions of money were lost to Australia because some one here criticised the Prime Minister. How dared they? At any rate, this is how, on the third or fourth attempt, he ,came to account for the large amount of money which the primary producers of Australia had lost.

But he made yet another attempt. On the 24th August, 1919, he said -

Had I known before what I know now, I should never ‘have sold the wool other than for the period of the war.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He said that again the other day.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Apparently, after four attempts at an explanation, on consideration, he has decided to hang on to the last.

Besides putting his own Treasurer in the ditch, and nearly bursting up the Cabinet, and having to turn round and eat his own words, the Prime Minister also put “ Farmer “ Falkiner in serious trouble - -this great squatter, who sits on the directorate of the great Bank of ‘ New South Wales, whose address is London and Australia, and which bank, may be, was getting its “ cut “ out of what was happening on the other side, as well as out of what took place over here.

Although he belonged to a certain persuasion, “Farmer” Falkiner smiled up his sleeve when Mr. Critchley Parker, the Prime Minister’s other friend, issued sectarian pamphlets in an endeavour to divide the masses of the people; he had no disagreement with that action so long as there was a combination of capitalism for the purpose of driving a wedge of dissension into the great mass of the consumers.

Mr. Falkiner/ however, fell out with the Prime Minister over his statement of August last; and speaking’ in this House, as reported on page 12613 in Hansard, of the 19th September, 1919, he, as a member of the Central Wool Committee, said -

We did not ask the Imperial Government the price; we simply asked them if they would take our wool.

He was the trustee of hundreds of million of pounds’ worth of the primary products of Australia, and yet, when he proceeded to sell it, he did not ask the price, but simply said, “We do not want to know the price; we merely want to know if you will take it.” Every wool-grower and primary producer should read the speech of this “ Woolhara Point farmer,” so illuminating upon his business acumen, and the faithfulness with which he regarded his trusteeship of these hundreds of million of pounds’ worth of Australian products. .

The Prime Minister then turned round upon his faithful henchman, and he said that Mr. Falkiner “ represented the great vested interests of Australia,” and had opposed “ every good thing “ in Parliament.

Mr. Falkiner replied by publishing a slab of the Case for Labour, by William Morris Hughes.

The Treasurer (Mr. Watt), more discreet than either of these gentlemen, maintained a wise silence. “ Farmer “ Trethowan and T. I. Campbell, president and general secretary respectively of the Farmers and Settlers Association - who both agreed with the famous Georgeson contract in connexion with wheat - indorsed “ Farmer “ Falkiner as the farmers’ candidate for the Senate.

And the League of Good Citizenship blessed them all !

When the Government commenced to get into difficulties over the sale of this wool, and the facts began to percolate through the cables, we were told for the first time that there was to be a division of the profits; and so we were told, on the 8th October, in this House -

That the Australian wool was sold to the Imperial authorities for naval and military requirements; and that respecting any sales made otherwise, 50 per cent, of the profits would be returned to Australia.

But “ naval and military requirements,” it is understood, included the “requirements of the Allies.” Australia was to sUPply Great Britain and its great continental Allies with wool a.t this fabulously low price of ls. 3id. per lb., when the minimum ruling price was 6s.; and only after those requirements were supplied was 50 per cent, of the profits made by sales effected by the Imperial Government to be divided.

– I have read in Hansard the statements which were made, and I say that the information was not given the other day. 2fo copy or the particulars of any contract have been produced. The honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Lamond) is not very accurate in many of his statements.

After the Government had decided that a general election should be held, and not before, we were told that the Imperial authorities would consider the interests of Australian wool-growers, and would share with them any excess profits made on the re-sales of that wool. But why should not our primary producers get the full value for their products? Why should the British Government, if it is really the British Government, scoop the cream off the milk?

When fabulous prices were ruling for primary products such as Australia could supply, why did the Prime Minister take the Commonwealth line of steamers off our coast and send them to other parts of the world for the purpose of profiteering in freight?

– This House occupies a somewhat anomalous position in that it is now engaged in discussing the second want of confidence motion that has been launched within a very few days Only on Friday last my honorable friends in the corner voted their abiding confidence in the Government. But now, a little later, they turn round and submit a motion which they affirm is not intended to be loaded. They say that the motion has been tabled merely for the purpose of enabling them to elicit information. If my honorable friends are sincere in this matter - and I hope that nothing I shall say will cause them to think that I doubt their sincerity - I ask them whether the Government have not yielded to their solicitation to give a pledge that economy will be exercised in connexion with the Estimates?

Mr Stewart:

– No.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I do not suppose that anything I can say will satisfy my honorable friend, but I think that a number of other members of his party will admit that the Government have endeavoured to meet them by giving them the assurances which they sought. I speak as an old politician, with an experience ranging over thirty years, and Ihave heard this wild craze for economy voiced during the whole of that period by every political party in Australia. So far as rigid economy is concerned, no member of this House is more anxious to secure it than I am. But I wish to tell my honorable friends of the Country party that there is no more difficult question to deal with than that of economy. I make that statement as a Minister of nine years’ standing, and as one who was a member of a subcommittee whose duty it was to insure the exercise of economy in the Public Service of this State during very trying times. I ask them to accept my assurance that the Government are as fully impressed with the absolute necessity for economy as are they themselves. Ministers would be ignoring public opinion if they were not. They have been impressed with the need for economy for quite a long period, and they have been stimulated by the injunctions of their supporters. What have they done in these circumstances? They have adopted the only practical means of securing economy. They have appointed a Commission of business experts whose special duty it is to recommend how economies can be effected without impairing in any way the efficiency of our Public Service, and the administration of the affairs of the Commonwealth. This Commission has been, and indeed still is, engaged upon that work. Will my honorable friends say for one moment that they are more competent to deal with the question of economy than is the Commission whose special function it is to recommend for our consideration the methods which can best be followed to secure the end in view?

– We are supposed to be living in a time of peace. May I make one quotation from the greatest legal authority in Australia - a man whose brilliant legal attainments everybody must acknowledge ? Here is what Sir Samuel Griffith, the ex-Chief Justice, said, in the case of Farey v. Burvett, at page 440 of C.L.R. -

No one disputes that an attempt by the Commonwealth Parliament to fix the price of food in time of peace would be a trespass on the reserve powers of the State. It is contended it is, therefore, equally a trespass in time of war.

– The Senate does not look like that.

Mr FENTON:

– The position in the Senate has been brought about by a peculiar system of voting - by trickery. This House is the more important, and is supposed to have charge of the public purse, and here the so-called Nationalist party does not represent a majority of the voters. The votes cast against the present Government numbered over 1.000,000, with only 800,000 in their favour.

– At his own expense. But when, he arrives in the Old Country all he will be able to do will be to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he desires to raise more money he will be absolutely dependent upon the advice tendered to him by the financial experts, and all that he need do is to cable to London to ascertain whether he can or cannot get the money within the time when it is required. If a cable was received from the British Government, I presume that a reply has been sent to the effect that the money is not available in Australia just now, but that the Treasurer will shortly depart for London, and on arrival there will give satisfactory explanations in regard to the liability in question.

According to the announcement by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer is to go to London on a financial mission. There is a considerable amount of moonshine in that statement, and1 1 am afraid that when he arrives on the other side of the world he will indulge in what was termed by certain British journals en the occasion of his previous visit, “spreadeagle oratory.” I shall quote to the House what the honorable gentleman said when he visited London as the Premier of Victoria. There is a danger in allowing a man holding such views to represent the Commonwealth Government .without a protest by this House, because if honorable members remain silent the Treasurer may be accepted in England as representing the views of this Parliament. When he was in England in 1913 he attended certain functions and gatherings, some, of which were arranged to hear his views on public questions. Amongst other gatherings, he attended the anniversary meeting of _ the League of Empire. The chairman of the meeting was Lord Grey - not the present Earl, formerly Sir Edward, Grey - who delivered a speech, in the course of which he said: -

It was now being recognised^ both in the oversea Dominions and in the United Kingdom, that the time was fast approaching when some form of organic union between the selfgoverning Dominions and the Mother Land would be essential to the maintenance of the EmpireThe only way in which the self-governing Dominions could ultimately share the burden of Empire in a manner conducive to their selfrespect was by establishing some form of organic union in which there would be an equal sharing of rights and responsibilities.

Mr. Watt seconded the motion proposed by Lord Grey, and in the evening” at a meeting, under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Lucas, he gave a sketch of the Australian Constitution and its working, and said that -

The more he studied the question the more he was persuaded that the organic development of the British Empire would probably follow the line of thought which recommended itself to Australia.

His support of Lord Grey and his speech on the same evening indicate to me that certain people in the Old Country and in Australia have in the present Treasurer a champion of what is known as Imperial Federation. Therefore, there is a danger in allowing such a man to go to London without this. Parliament placing some restrictions upon his utterances; he may again propound theories such as he voiced in 1913. In this connexion I would draw the attention of the Committee to , the report of a Privy Council decision published in this morning’s paper. Incidentally, that decision proves the inaccuracy of the statement made by the Prime Minister concerning the honorable member for We3t Sydney (Mr. Ryan), for it adds one more to the several other decisions previously given in indorsement of the actions of the former Premier of Queensland. The Privy Council decision was delivered by Lord Birkenhead - probably better known to honorable members by his former name, Sir F. E. Smith - who belongs to the Tory party in English politics, and is known to be one of the most brilliant lawyers in the United Kingdom. At a comparatively young age he had achieved the wonderful distinction of being made a member of the Privy Council. In the case to which I refer, the Full Court of Queensland and the High Court of Australia had decided against the Queensland Government, but the Privy Council has upset those decisions and indorsed the advice given by the honorable member for West Sydney. In announcing the decision of the Privy Council, Lord Birkenhead said -

It was not the policy of the Imperial Legislature to shackle or control in the manner suggested the legislative powers of the nascent Australian Legislatures. Consistently with the genius of the British people, those powers had been given completely and unequivocally in the belief that such would be fully justified, by the event that the young communities would successfully work out their own constitutional salvation.

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

– I was rather surprised at the remarks of the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Lamond). He appeared to lecture honorable members concerning their duty in this House, and so I feel it necessary to ask him what he considers is the duty of a member of Parliament? Is it simply to intrust all responsibility to the Government and take none? If we accepted his advice, that would be our course of action; but I conceive my duty to be something entirely different. While certain power must be given to the Government of the day, members of this House have their especial privileges’ and duties, and those who fail to insist on these are traitors to their constituents. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce) appears to think that we, as a party, will gain something by the action we have taken, but that we ought now to give way, in view of the promise made by the Prime Minister. I think, however, that the honorable member for Flinders and other honorable members have somewhat missed the point. We claim, and properly so, that there should be some explanation and debate in connexion with the financial position, and that members should have the privilege of saying what money shall be expended. We also claim other privileges; and I object to any Government usurping them. I am not talking now of war-time conditions, because the war is over. If I had been in a position of Ministerial responsibility I would have assumed certain of these arbi trary powers myself during war time. But it is a long time since hostilities ceased, and still we find the Government administering affairs in that autocratic and tyrannical manner, which, during the war, caused so much resentment. At the present time the Minister for Customs (Mr. Greene) is actually using his authority; under emergency legislation, to place an embargo both on the importation and exportation of goods. Under this system many evils can arise; and I say it is the duty of this Parliament to determine what shall be done or not done in that and other regards.

So far as the Country party are concerned, surely the recent debate and the vote on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) indicate that there can be no doubt as to our position. The decision of the country in the recent election was emphatic enough. Honorable members opposite know what my position is. I ask for no quarter, and I shall give none, so far as they are concerned. The reason for the debacle was plain. People have come to realize and resent the tyrannical Prussian methods of many outside organizations. They object to this parliamentary representation being governed by any irresponsible body. On many occasions honorable members, to my knowledge, have not acted in accordance with their convictions, for the simple reason that they have been governed by some outside and irresponsible authority. There is also the conviction that during the war many of the leaders of these outside organizations were disloyal to this country.

Mr Gabb:

– Who ruled Senator Shannon ?

Mr GREGORY:

– He had the opportunity of going before the people at the recent elections if he had so desired.

Mr Gabb:

– But not as a Liberal candidate.

Mr GREGORY:

– The organization simply stated that it could not support him. So far as I am concerned, I give my conscience into the keeping of no person or party.

There are many reasons for this discontent on the part of the people, among them being the increase in the cost of living, difficulties in connexion with the war, and faulty administration. But we can all be wise after the event. Honorable members opposite may- be reminded that for the first two years, a Government supported by them had control of the Treasury bench, and were loyally supported by the Liberal party. No effort was made to baulk them in their war policy. The War Precautions Act was passed by a1 Labour Government.

Mr Mathews:

– And the Liberal party supported it.

– True, but I am not here for that purpose, and cannot explain it. ‘I do know (that the Australian woolgrower was more than content with the contracts made in his behalf. The unfortunate fact is that while Canada was able to help the Mother Country - not only by sending troops as did Australia, of course, but financially also - and while New Zealand has managed to carry on satisfactorily, in Australia there has been chaos. A good deal of that chaos has been due almost entirely to the attitude adopted by the leaders of the party opposite. The Country party indicated its position clearly when Parliament met, when .the Opposition moved its motion of want of confidence. We demand a return to parliamentary and constitutional government. During the war many things were done which we have been compelled to overlook; but the war is ended, and there is no reason why we should permit the government to be carried on as during the war. There is no excuse for autocratic rulership any longer.. The action of the Ministry in sending Parliament to the country was solely a matter of Government responsibility, for which there was no sufficient excuse or justification. We were sent before our constituents during the height of the harvest period. What is to be the position during the remaining months of this financial year? Sis Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is expected to be in Australia very soon. There will then be a cessation: of political activities, and, obviously, the whole of the financial year will have elapsed before Parliament will have secured an opportunity to consider the financial situation. Surely now is the time to deal with the Estimates.

There is undoubtedly great need for economy. Many promises have been made with regard to the repatriation scheme - promises which must cost Australia an enormous sum of money. Then, also, the pensions echeme must be remodelled. A boy who enlisted on his eighteenth birthday went to the war, and did a man’s work. I am citing an example, but it is an actual case. He was slain on the field of battle. The mother was asked what were the earnings of her son during the year prior to his departure for the Front. Of course, they were nil. The mother was then granted a minimum pension of 7s. .per week. Her heroic lad had gone away to do a fullgrown man’s work, and in doing it he had given his all. Surely the mother should be granted a pension based, not upon the remuneration of a boy’s labour, but on that of what he would have been worth on his return. In regard to recruiting, expenses, of course, have come to an end; but so far as the Defence Department is concerned there is still great expenditure going on; and until a definite .policy is placed before the country we know that there must be considerable further outlay. I quote the following from the progress report of the Economies Commission: -

If it be decided that civilian training as now laid down by law must be proceeded with, together with the scheme for providing an arsenal and aircraft service, the country must be prepared to see an immense increase in defence expenditure - tooth capital and revenue expenditure - as compared with what it was before the war, and a consequential lessening of financial power available for the internal development of the nation.

I .emphasize that, until we gain some knowledge of the Government’s intentions regarding such matters as defence, aviation, and naval activities, we must not cease from impressing the absolutely urgent need for economy. The Economies Commission has indicated to the Government that there must be “ a consequential lessening of’ financial .power available for the internal development of the nation “ unless the specific economies’ pointed out are undertaken. The Commission has pointed to enormous sums that can be saved to Australia; and it calls for the determined attention of Parliament in insuring that the Government shall make full and proper investigation under the various heads of expenditure set out by the Commission. This country depends tremendously upon internal development. The curse of Australia is the huge concentration of ‘population in the cities. More than half the” population of New South Wales is now dwelling in Sydney. In Melbourne there is to be found about one-half of the population of Victoria.

Mr Mahony:

– The facts are the other way .about in respect to the two capitals..

Mr GREGORY:

– It has only recently been announced in the press that the population of Sydney is 1,010,000^- the total population of the State numbering 2,000,000. Primary production during the year before last was valued at £280,000,000, and secondary production between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000. There is something wrong. If we are going to pay our way, if we are going to produce greater wealth and increase our population - which is the only sound way of getting out of our difficulties - there must be a change of policy. An almost intolerable burden confronts us. “We should have in this chamber a full and exhaustive financial debate, in the course of which the Treasurer should set out clearly what are the Government’s obligations in regard to repatriation loans to the States, and so forth, and how they intend to help and build up primary production.

If Australia continues along the lines of depleting its rural population and swelling the numbers of city dwellers, there is bound to be disaster. We have been told that, in regard to our complaints concerning postal administration, we should be satisfied now, in view of the fact that a new Minister controls that Department. But it should not be forgotten that for the past three or four years, night after night, as opportunity has offered, a few honorable members - among them myself - have fought and pleaded with the . Government to give greater consideration to people in the back country. I pointed out the huge losses sustained by the Department in regard to the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan exchanges. I stressed that the inhabitants of those cities were not asked to furnish a guarantee in order to cover and make good the losses. Yet, out in the bush, people who have asked for telephonic facilities in order that they may get into close touch, for example, with a doctor in case of emergency, have been informed that they must first guarantee a certain sum, otherwise they will not get their telephone. There must be a big change brought about in the regulations controlling the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, especially in relation to facilities afforded in the bush. I will cite three typical facts among innumerable causes of complaint. A case came under my notice having to do with the construction of a small section of telephone, the cost of which was to be £340. In response to an appeal to the Department, we were told that if we could advance £320 we would be furnished with the telephone. Another instance has to do with the expenditure of a quarter of a million sterling on the part of a State Government in the building of a railway, the making of roads, and the opening up of a new territory generally. In reply to requests for telephone facilities, the Commonwealth au.thorities made investigations, and ascer- tained that the cost of installing telephonic communication along this line of railway would be £5,500. They refused to undertake the work on the ground that it would not pay. A third instance involves a number of people living in an out-back neighbourhood who are served with a fortnightly mail service, which is carried on at a loss of £40 per annum. They were notified that unless they guaranteed £20 per annum the mail service would be forthwith cancelled.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– One hears the same kind of thing all over Australia.

Mr GREGORY:

– That is true, but one hears at the same time of the special advantages afforded to people living In the cities, who are already furnished with every facility for the enjoyment of life. Yet, throughout the regime of the late Postmaster-General nothing was done to conduce to further settlement in the bush. I quite believe that the Government will be prepared to promise to do all that is possible in the direction of granting facilities for the out-back country.; but the fact remains that for years past we have been fighting and pleading for greater consideration, and I cannot help feeling sure that it will still be necessary to fight in the interests of the settlers. I hope the Government will make every effort to fulfil their promises in this regard, not to pacify honorable members, for I do not desire them to take action based upon that point of view at all, but because they realize the necessity for inducing settlement away from the centres of population.

I have noted with pleasure a line upon the Estimates covering the outlay of £12.000 or £13,000 for an agency in New York. No doubt good work will be done if Australia is represented bv a capable man. A good sound business agency, both in London and in New York, from which sources Australia may receive advice respecting the markets .of the world, and so be able to take full advantage of the world’s parity for outproduce, is a matter upon which no one would hesitate to expend a reasonable sum of money. I feel sure that the Government can do good work in this direction, and it is only by giving sound, businesslike attention to the requirements of the country that we may look forward to a prosperous future.

I paid a visit to Shepparton a little while ago, and gained considerable information with respect to a number of co-operative concerns. I was enabled to make close investigation of the cooperative movement in regard to various lines of production. The people, by their own co-operative freezing works, were doing a very valuable thing for themselves and the country ; and the same may be said with regard to the cannery also. Last year they had been getting as little as 10s. 6d. a dozen for their canned fruits, but this year the price is 21s. per dozen, and it is hoped to turn out £180,000 worth of canned fruits from that one co-operative cannery. The same successful note was struck respecting the bacon-curing factory in that locality. In these co-operative organizations the producer is afforded the advantage of the world’s parity, and obvious prosperity is created. Such facts as these are attractive. People, instead of concentrating upon the cities, are induced to settle in the country, where living is cheaper than in the city areas. By the building up of prosperity in country communities we are erecting a basis of wealth for the whole community. *I hope that while we are .pressing the necessity for economy the Government will realize how urgent it is that something should be done for those who are opening up the out-back areas.

To strengthen my argument I propose to point out an incident which came under my notice last year in regard to the operation of the wartime profits tax. Let us say that two men have been left a sum of £10,000 each. One has a love for country life and goes out-back and expends his £10,000 in employing labour upon developmental work in the bush. He is faced and hindered by fires, floods, and droughts; and, as a result of these encounters, he is forced to borrow large sums of money to carry on. I am citing an actual fact. ‘ Up to the time of the beginning of the war he had not shown any profit whatever. In his first war year he showed a book profit of £1,200, and, for the next year, a book profit of £4,800. I remind honorable members that a book profit is such that one may lose most of it in the following’ year’s operations. This man had not only to pay land and income tax, but also a war-time profits tax, amounting to £2,750; and he had to borrow the money to pay the tax. Take the case of the other man who says, “ I am not going to take any risks, but am going to put my £10,000 out on mortgage. I will have an income of £600 to £700 for the rest of my life, and shall not incur any risk.” He started as a commission agent, and, perhaps, sold the property of the other individual, who, apart from endeavouring to benefit himself, was assisting the country as a producer. The man -who started as a commission agent, who took no risks, and produced nothing, was not asked to contribute a single 6d. in the form of war-time taxation, even if he had made £20,000 or £50,000, because he had made his money with his brains. That is the legislation we have on our statute-book to-day, and no greater scandal has ever been perpetrated by any Parliament. I have already stated that it is the desire of the members of the Country party to place the finances absolutely under parliamentary control, and. we object very strongly to the autocratic and tyrannical methods that have been adopted by the Government in their administration.

May I direct the attention of the House to the embargo placed on the exportation of base metals? I wish to impress upon the Government that when the vote for the Attorney-General’s’ Department is being considered in connexion with the Estimates it is my intention to moye for a reduction in that vote unless we have a definite assurance from the Government that metals are to be free from that embargo. The war is over, and the illegal and improper control that has been exercised by Ministers under the authority of the Government must cease, as there is no valid reason for its continuance.

In dealing with importations, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) has possessed extensive powers,and has really been introducing a new Protective Tariff without Parliament expressing an’ opinion on the rates imposed. Is it right for the Minister simply by regulation - I am not attacking the Minister personally - to fix the duty on all importations from overseas? . If this present practice is permitted to continue a high Protective Tariff may gradually be introduced without Parliament being consulted. The importation of sheep dip has been freely discussed from time to time, and Mr. Leggo has stated that he was promised that the sheep dip market would be free to him for a whole year, thus relieving him of any fear of competition during that period. An importer of British goods was informed by the Prime Minister that sheep dip ordered prior to 31st March would be. admitted into Australia, but before delivery was given the consignees would have to enter into a bond agreeing to pay any duty that Parliament might impose. It was wrong for the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, to state that any duty that might be imposed would have to be paid. The consignees agreed, and the sheep dip, which was placed in bond, has only recently been released.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– They are now commencing to manufacture in Australia.

Mr GREGORY:

– That may be so; but the Minister, whoever he may be, should not have the power to issue regulations imposing certain duties or restraining trade without Parliament being consulted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Hon. J. M. Chapter). - The honorable member has reached the time limit.

Extension of time granted.

Mr GREGORY:

– It is not my intention to deal at length with import duties, as that matter can be thoroughly discussed when the Tariff Bill, which we hope to have before us at an early date, is under consideration. I have taken from the Argus a list of goods on which an embargo has been placed, and I shall endeavour to show, if time permits, the extent to which the Department has gone. I have in my possession a letter from a softgoods firm, enclosing a communication from the Acting Collector of Customs, Western Australia, in relation to yarn. We all know how the price of hosiery has been increased, and the communication from the Acting Collector, which is of particular interest, reads -

In connexion with your application of 13th January, 1920, for a licence to import hosiery yarn, the necessary licence is enclosed herewith. With regard to future importations of proclaimed goods, you are recommended to procure a licence before ordering same, as the issue offuture licences will depend upon inability to obtain supplies from Australian manufacturers.

– When I wish to deal with the Brisbane further, I shall draw attention to the report of the Finance Committee which was laid on the table. A majority of the members of the Committee belonged to the Labour party. That report condemns the administration of the dockyard from beginning to end, and shows how scandalously things were conducted there.

The only statement in the speech of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) that appealed to me was his remark about profiteering, and the need for action by the Government in regard to excess war profits. During the war there were many persons who did everything they could by means of personal service in the hospitals, in the Red Cross depots, and elsewhere, and gave everything they could, to help the boys who were overseas fighting for us. But there were others, many of whom were constantly waving the flag, and talking about the Empire, who were robbing the community as much as they could. In my opinion no big concern should have made excess profits during the war, and we might seriously consider the advisability of retrospective legislation in regard to such profits. Shipping companies and all other big concerns should share with the rest of the community the losses which the war brought upon us, and the obligations which it has left with us. I do not see why these big concerns should be permitted to put away huge profits made during the war. We should seriously consider whether retrospective legislation could not be brought in to take away their excess profits to help us to meet our war debts. I know that the question is beset with difficulties. We would have to consider the case of new concerns, and would have to determine what should be regarded as a fair rate of interest on capital. We would have to take into consideration the position of those who, by originating new ideas, have helped to buildup industries.

Mr Tudor:

– Some of the big firms insured against the taxation of their profits by putting money into the political funds. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) “blew the gaff” on that.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to7.45 p.m.

Mr GREGORY:

– I had all bub finished when, at the last moment before the suspension of the sitting, I understood the Leader of the Opposition to interject when I was talking about profiteering, that much of these profits had gone back into the party . funds. I do not know if that interjection contained an insinuation. If it did, all I have to say is that my experience of elections for the past ten or fifteen years is that the Labour party have always been more amply provided with funds than any other party that I know of. Where those funds come from I have no knowledge.

Mr Ryan:

– Now the honorable member is posing as a humorist.

Mr GREGORY:

– No, I am giving broad and solid facts. When I find the members of the Labour party travelling round the country by motor car, while I have to go round by train, 1 can only come to the conclusion that the party funds are fairly extensive and well organized. I am quite satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition feels, as most others feel, that neither this nor any other party is favorably disposed towards those who have been unduly using their position for the purpose of exploiting the people during the last few years. Their numbers are few indeed, and there can be little sympathy with them. I hope that my remarks this afternoon on that phase of the question will be seriously considered by the Government.

I am sure that many members sitting on this side of the House are fully in sympathy with what I have said regarding the need for parliamentary control of our work. Time after time huge sums of money have bean expended without parliamentary authority. At present embargoes are being imposed on importations and exportations without any parliamentary control or authority in any shape or form. While we should be prepared to forgive mistakes that have been made in war time, because it would be absolutely impossible for a Government to try to do things and not make mistakes, we have a right to demand a return to the system of parliamentary control, particularly when we receive the reports of Royal Commissions such as have recently been placed before us, and when we know that money has been wasted. Although I have now no doubt, from what I have heard, as to how the division will go, I hope the Government will take heed of what has been said, and see that we get back to pre-war conditions and to that control of our parliamentary institutions, of which we have had so much reason to boast in the nast.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- The honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory), in speaking in support of the amendment put forward by his party, saw fit to devote most of his speech to an attack on the members sitting on this side of the House. Incidentally, he mentioned that he gave no quarter, and expected none. I am of somewhat the same temperament, for I also expect no quarter from members on the opposite side, and intend to give them none. The honorable member also saw fit to make a dirty attack upon those Broken Hill miners who are fighting for their lives and the. lives of their children. It. comes with e very bad grace from the honorable member, who, I understand, occupied at one period the position of Minister for Mines in a Western Australian Government, and who should, therefore, know something about the conditions in the mining industry, to make such an attack upon the Barrier miners. One would certainly suppose that, from his Ministerial experience, he would have known something about the conditions of lead mining, and the hardships imposed on the men who go down into lead mine3, risking not only their own lives, but the lives and health of their children also. There are 3,760 miners on strike in Broken Hill.

Mr Gregory:

– For how long?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The strike is now in its eleventh month. Official figures show that the dependants of those men comprise 2,570 women and 4,371 children. To listen to the honorable member and those of his ilk who criticise those miners who are fighting for better conditions in Broken Hill, and putting up the greatest fight that has ever taken place in the industrial history of Australia, forced to it out of sheer necessity, one would imagine that going on strike was a peculiar pastime of these workers, and that the men who go on strike in Australia or any other country do so out of sheer perversity. Those honorable members never imagine that the men have any grievance worth mentioning.

Mr Gregory:

– That widow who had trouble over there laid it out fairly strong.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I thought the honorable member was talking about the “ widows “ and “ orphans “ who comprise the shareholders in the mines. The honorable member knows the old wheeze. The unfortunate widow he now refers to does not happen to be connected with this particular dispute. The honorable member should know something of the facts regarding the Broken Hill dispute. He should also know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has been asked, and has taken no steps whatever to bring the mine-owners, the directorsof the mining companies, and the men who are on strike “ together at a roundtable conference, where this matter could be threshed out. The men have asked repeatedly for a Royal Com- mission to be appointed by the Government to inquire into the conditions prevailing in the mines at Broken Hill, with full power to examine the mining companies’ balance-sheets, profits, and rebates. They have been refused that Commission. I thank the honorable member for affording me the opportunity of placing the facts about the Broken Hill strike before honorable members. 1 shall leave them then, if they can do so, to dare to talk about these ‘ ‘ loafers ‘ ‘ in Broken Hill. By the time I have concluded, the honorable member, if he has any manhood in him at all, will be sorry for the remarks he made this afternoon about the “ loafers “ in Broken Hill, who are living on public charity in a “ loafers’ paradise.”

Mr GREGORY:

– I said you people were desirous only of building up a “ loafers’ paradise.”

Mr CONSIDINE:

– In this connexion, Dr. Birks, medical superintendent of the Broken Hill and District Hospital, who is not likely to be prejudiced on the side of the men, seeing that his brother-in-law is manager of the Broken Hill South Mine”, stated distinctly that a man who works for five1 years continuously in the ordinary stopes at Broken Hill is “settled” through lead poisoning. I do not say that Dr. Birks is biased on the side of the companies by reason of his family relations, but at least honorable members will admit that he is likely to be unbiased, and that that statement comes with added weight from him. It is backed up also by Dr. Burn ell, who is also a medical officer in the Broken Hill and District Hospital, and is further confirmed by Dr. Steven, a medical practitioner up there, and by the evidence of Dr.’ Booth, who examined men working in the Broken Hill mines for military purposes during the war. Dr. Booth told a Royal Commission in 1914 that in his capacity as examining medical officer for the Commonwealth Military Forces, he frequently found young men on the threshold of manhood broken down in health because of the terrible conditions they worked under in the Broken Hill mines. Dr. Steven examined 178 miners at Broken Hill, and said -

My examination of the miners at the Amalgamated Miners Association office some time ago showed that 78 per cent, of those examined were suffering from slight lung consolidation to advanced phthisis.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is not that an argument that the mines ought to be closed altogether?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– They are closed very effectively at* present, and are likely to remain closed until those who are sent here to look after the interests’ of the citizens of Australia take steps to give the men a fair deal.

Mr McWilliams:

– If the death-rate is so .heavy as that, the mines should not be opened at all.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The death-rate for infants at Broken Hill is the -highest in the Commonwealth. I have here the most eminent medical testimony obtainable. It is that of Sir Thomas Oliver, an expert on industrial diseases. The medical men at Broken Hill vouch for the truth of his statement that the infantile mortality is directly traceable to the effects of lead poisoning on the fathers, due to their occupation in the mines. At page 200 of Sir Thomas Oliver’s book on Diseases of’ Occupation, he states -

It is an interesting fact that while a man who has suffered from plumbism takes a long time to recover, even after withdrawal from the lead works, a woman who has been a lead worker, and in whom during all the period she was in the factory each pregnancy ended in a miscarriage or still-birth, will, if she gives up working in lead, probably go to the end of term in her next and succeeding pregnancies, and give birth to healthy children, who survive. The effects of lead in this particular direction are worse when both parents are affected, next when it is the mother alone who has been brought under the influence of lead; but there is evidence to show that lead impregnation of the male is also extremely prejudicial to the offspring. Rennert has attempted to express in statistical terms the varying degrees of gravity in the prognosis of cases in which at the moment of conception both parents are the subjects of lead poisoning; also where , one alone is affected. The malign influence of the lead is reflected upon the foetus and on the continuation of the pregnancy 94 times out of 100 when both parents have been working in lead, 92 times when the mother alone is affected, and 63 times when it is the father alone who has worked in lead. Taking 7 healthy women who were married to lead workers, and in whom there was a total of 32 pregnancies, Lewis tells us that the results were as follow: - 11 miscarriages, 1 still-birth, 8 children died within the first year after birth, 4 in the second year, .5 in the third, and 1 subsequent to this; leaving only 2 children out of 32 pregnancies as likely to live to manhood.

That is where the father alone was engaged in lead mining. The author also states -

One of the principal things to bear in mind is that it is the continuous entrance of very minute traces of lead into the body rather than the occasional entrance of a larger dose that induces the most severe forms of plum- bism.for it is of the nature of lead to act slowly, and thus gradually to undermine the health.

The local medical testimony bears out this evidence, and there has been no attempt on the part of the mining companies or their henchmen, political or otherwise, to controvert these facts. In order to show that the expert testimony of these medical men was in harmony with the facts, I asked the Commonwealth Statistician some time ago to furnish me with a table comparing the infantile mortality in the various capitals with that in the mining fields of the Commonwealth over a period of years, and the table forwarded to me proves that by reason of the conditions prevailing at Broken Hill the infantile mortality there is the highest in the Commonwealth. The table is as follows : -

The average infant rates of mortality in the cities and mining fields mentioned for twelve years were - Melbourne, 82.76; Sydney, 75.416; Adelaide, 72.833; Lyell, 70; Kalgoorlie, 82.50; Mr Morgan, 74.583; Broken Hill, 114.166.

These figures conclusively prove Dr. Oliver’s statement backed up by the testimony of the medical gentlemen in Broken Hill. They show that the children of the lead miners of Broken Hill are being deliberately murdered. The fathers work in- the mines, not only at the sacrifice of their own health,_ but also at the risk of their children’s lives. Not only do they have all the disadvantages and run all the dangers incidental to mining occupations, but there is the added possibility that their children will die from lead poisoning. The medical men at Broken Hill declared that pneumonia is an industrial disease at that centre, because lead poisoning renders the miners more susceptible to this disease than is the case in any other centre, and a State Royal Commission in 1914 also declared that Broken Hill was recognised as a locality where pneumonia could be regarded as an industrial disease. The Royal Commission also found that for the eighteen months preceding 1914 no less than 33 per cent, of the employees at Broken Hill had met with accidents. The North mine, which employed 1,055 men, had registered 811 accidents in the same period, and the South mine with 1,000 employees during the six months preceding the visit of the Commission . had a record of 25 per cent. of accidents. The significance of this high percentage is all the more apparent to honorable members when they learn that no mishap was classed as an accident unless the sufferer was absent .from his work for at least three days.- If a man meets with a minor mishap which may keep him away from his work for two days, it is not classed as an accident in the figures I have quoted. During the period covered by the Royal Commission 15^ peT cent, of the membership of the Miners Union averaged a loss of four weeks and four days’ wages through severe accidents. From 1893, when the StatS of New South Wales first began to tabulate these figures, to 1917, the Broken Hill mining companies had killed outright 390 men. God knows- how many others were lead’ poisoned, or how many died from other diseases which the medical authorities say are the direct result of their systems being impregnated with lead. Let honorable members place themselves in the position of a miner of Broken Hill, with a wife and family. He runs the risk of cage accidents, premature explosions, falls of ground, miners’ phthisis, pneumonia, and lead poisoning, and he knows that his children are condemned to death before they are born by reason of his own occupation. Yet we hear cheap sneer3 from the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory), who say3 that these men are trying to establish a “ loafers’ paradise” in Broken Hill. The men are not trying to establish a loafers’ paradise there. They are trying to get rid of the loafers who are battening on them and their children. No less than £26,000,000 sterling has been wrung from the corpses of the little ones and the miners who have been done to death by the mining companies of Broken Hill. Not to the extent of one iota have those companies given way to the men. When the latter did not strike for better conditions, they were locked out. ‘ In 1909 the Broken Hill Proprietary Company shut down their mine for two years rather than pay the rate of wages awarded by the Arbitration Court. When the companies met the men in conference a few months ago, they denied there was any truth in the statements with regard to lead poisoning, and when the medical authorities came to our rescue and showed conclusively that our contentions were true, they refused to have anything further to do with the men, simply saying, in effect, “ Get back to work and pile up dividends.” Yes, pile up dividends, and also tombstones in the cemetery there, but do nothing to interfere with the profits of the mining companies. What care the mining companies, or honorable members opposite, how many little ones go to the grave, or how many men are killed in the mines, or die from lead poisoning, and its sequela, or how many die from pneumonia? The honorable member for Dampier also made mention of munition factories that, as a matter of fact, did not turn out a single shell ; but he was as silent as the grave, and voiceless as the tomb, when the men had to fight the Broken Hill Mining Company and their bogus munition factory, which was never used except for the purpose of arousing the patriotic feelings of the community against those who were striving for better working conditions, and which, being a bogus munition factory, was pulled down and scrapped when the fight was over, having served its purpose.

Honorable members say, “ Why do not the men go to the Arbitration Court?” The manager of the British mine, Mr. Cyril Emery, according to the official statement of the miners, told the men that if the Arbitration Court granted their claim, the mines would shut down. The men are asked to toss with a doubleheaded penny. If the companies win in the Arbitration Court, the men are expected to go to work. If the men win in that Court, the companies will follow the example of the Broken Hill Proprietary in 1909, and shut down the mines. What honorable member on the Ministerial side is prepared to arbitrate as to whether he is going to the grave in five years, six years, or ten years, as a result of lead poisoning, or as to whether his children shall be sent to an untimely grave, or even have a chance of living at all? The Broken Hill men do not intend to let this state .of affairs continue; and with the help of the working men and women of Australia, despite the cheap sneers of the emissaries of the mining companies, and the protagonists of the Trusts and Combines, we will win out. The women of Broken Hill are prepared to stand staunchly by their men, and, if necessary, undergo starvation, and are even prepared to let their children suffer rather than send the husbands and fathers back to the mines to be lead poisoned. The humanitarian men and women throughout Australia are rallying to their assistance ; but the so-called “ as good as Labour men,” the heroes of hundreds of industrial fights, whom I see opposite, are quite prepared to sit down and do nothing. They decline to ask for the appointment even of a Royal Commission to inquire into these conditions. I have just returned from a visit to Tasmania, where I have spent a full month. What did I find there? That humanitarian men and women, who have never voted Labour in their lives, are now sending their contributions to the World newspaper in Hobart to aid the Broken Hill miners in the fight which they are putting up. But what does the Government, which is supposed to look after the interests of this country, do? When Mr. Brookfield asked the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to send second-hand blankets and boots to Broken Hill to relieve some of the distress existing there, he was promptly told that no boots were available. It is true that a thousand, or a couple of thousand, blankets were forwarded, but with strict instructions that even a second-hand blanket was not to be given to any striker. Yet the present Minister for Defence is the individual who used to stand on the Yarra-bank and discourse upon social revolution.

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

– Tell us about those two unions.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– It would be useless to tell the honorable member anything, because he would not understand me. I might have been able to impress him in his early days, when he was connected with the Labour League at Horsham. The only thing that the workers of this country are receiving from the so-called “ as good as Labour men,” from those who, according to their own statements, left our party because of the high regard for principle which they entertained; from those who, like Brutus, are all “ honorable men “-

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

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

QUESTION

LEAD URGENTLY NEEDED

Europe Looks to Broken Hill

London, 4th March

The city editor of the Times states that the impaired lead production of America, Spain, and Mexico makes Europe more dependent than ever on Broken Hill. A resumption of operations there, he says, is urgent to prevent a grave scarcity after the long strike, which is probably an Australian record. He adds that it is to be hoped that the labour difficulties will be bridged in the near future, otherwise the lead-manufacturing industries will be placed in a serious position.

A further cablegram published in the same issue is as follows: -

The Times financial expert states that the position in regard to lead is grave. Europe is more than ever dependent upon the resumption of operations at Broken Hill. If the work is not resumed there, there will be a great scarcity. Unless the strike differences are speedily adjusted, it will lead to manufacturing industries being placed in a. serious position.

Europe, we are told, is crying out for lead. The miners on the Barrier are appealing for a chance to improve their health, and prolong their lives and those of their children. The world wants the lead, and I want to know from the Government why every request I have made for the contracts between the Imperial Government and the mining companies of Broken Hill to be laid on the table of the House has been refused on the ground that it would be against Imperial policy to do so. I desire to know what influence is at work. Who is controlling the Government? Who is it that will not allow the Government to move in the desired direction? I believe it is the people mentioned in the book published recently by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey). It is the people of the kingdom of Shylock. The mining magnates and financial institutions, and not honorable members opposite, are the real Government of Australia. They will not allow the Government to move in the direction that we ask. The workers of the Barrier and their children are to be crucified unless the men themselves will go back to work in the mines under conditions which mean the sacrifice of their own lives and those of their children. I tell the Government and the Committee that the workers of the

Barrier are not going to return to the mines until they have extended to them some of the much-prated-about British fair play. These men want an impartial inquiry into the conditions prevailing there. A Royal’ Commission appointed by the Government of New South Wales conducted an investigation in 1914, and its testimoney is absolutely damning to the mining companies; yet nothing has been done to improve the conditions. Time after time the men are forced to strike for better conditions, and to sacrifice themselves and ‘their children to the wolves of starvation. They are forced now to appeal for help to their working brothers and sisters throughout the Commonwealth. As for ourselves we receive £600 a year, and some honorable members do not know what it is to be out of work and out of funds. Some of us, on the other hand, do know what it means. I intend, as long as the strike lasts, to devote more . attention outside Parliament to the work of relieving the necessities of these people who are putting up a splendid fight for their rights, and I am convinced that with the support of the humanitarian people of Australia we shall yet force the Government to- do something. We shall force them to have an inquiry, and until justice is done not an ounce of lead will be produced, no matter what the necessities of Europe may be. bv the miners at Broken Hill.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- No serious objection can be taken to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Mcwilliams) by any one who realizes how very far we have drifted from the correct attitude of representative government. It was somewhat ungracious for the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) to commence his speech yesterday with a sneer at the futility of Parliament, since, undoubtedly, the length of rope given him by his party, and therefore by Parliament, was granted largely because of a feeling of patriotism and a confidence in the ability of the Prime .Minister, about which, I must confess, I have had all along some serious doubts. His handling of the present position, I think, fully justifies me in still entertaining those doubts. The right honorable gentleman went on to complain of the time that was being wasted in this debate. Almost three weeks of more or less valuable time, he said, -had been wasted, and he was very anxious- to push on with the work that had been waiting so long the attention of the Parliament. This right honorable gentleman who thus takes exception to a waste of time extending over three weeks is the very individual who packed off the last Parliament to the country without the slightest justification, and thus wasted three months. One of the most necessary steps to be taken by this Parliament is to prevent itself being sent prematurely and improperly to the country by any one individual, whether he be Prime Minister or Governor-General of the Commonwealth. Even already the threat of dissolving Parliament has been whispered round. What is more, it has even been shouted aloud, if a newspaper may be said to shout through its leading columns. Members of Parliament should resent these threats, and if they feel as I do, they will take steps to protect the Legislature from improper influences of this kind.

I feel sure that this debate will serve a very useful purpose in indicating to the Government the necessity of taking heed of those matters about which honorable members have talked so long and done so little. The country expected that the Tariff would have been dealt with by the last Parliament, for if the Government was pledged to anything, it was undoubtedly pledged to a revision of the Tariff. But in spite of the work that had to be undertaken - that was crying out to be performed - Parliament was sent to the country by the Prime Minister, for no other reason than the furtherance of his own political interests. I say, again, that that is a power which ought not to be exercised in this or any other democratic Parliament by any one individual. We ought to go to the country only when our proper time comes, or, failing that, only when by a majority of the members of the House it is felt desirable that the people should be consulted. At any rate, Parliament ought to be master of its own destinies in this regard during its term of existence. To an old parliamentary hand like myself, who realizes how often members have been “brought to heel,” it appears high time to secure that Parliament shall retain to itself power to determine when it will go to an election at any other time than when its natural term of life has expired.

Mr Jowett:

– Would you not push that idea a little further?

Mr FOWLER:

– I think I .have pushed it far enough, even for my honorable friend, who has intelligence enough to grasp what I mean. Of what was said from the various platforms in the Eastern States during the election campaign I have not a very correct idea; but in Western Australia we heard echoes of some great sectarian issue that was being determined. 1 am very glad to say that we had very little of that in my own State, whatever may have been the state of affairs elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I had to go very largely on a policy of my own, because, except for the voluminous promises of the Prime Minister, which I could hardly echo in view of past experience, there was nothing else. It is just possible that in going to the country the Prime Minister had an idea of getting rid of some folks like myself, who had occasionally spoken rather too frankly of some of the faults and imperfections of the Government, and even of the faults and imperfections of the head of the Government. But it is one of the most singular happenings in the whole course of my political career that, after having a Nationalist opponent put up against me, with the object of pushing me aside, I should not only be returned to this House, but am actually the Government majority. I hope that, under the circumstances, I shall be given credit for some little generosity.

Mr McWilliams:

– I do not mind saying that if the Government take your vote after this speech they can accept my amendment!

Mr FOWLER:

– I hope to make my position quite clear before I sit down, even to the Leader of the Country party (Mr. McWilliams), who seems to have some mistiness about it in his mind at the present, time. However, as I was saying, a train was being laid to get me out of the Perth seat for a good many months before the election took place. First of all, a General at work, not at the Front, but, I believe, in London, was approached with the suggestion that he should come forward as a candidate. He made a few inquiries, and decided that he would not take up the task. A second person, an ex-member of the State House - and a very estimable gentleman in every way, who, probably, would have made a very strong candidate - was approached to contest the seat with me, but he also declined. Then a third gentleman, was approached, and undertook the job, and undoubtedly put up a very good fight. He, however, “gave the show away “ quite honestly, by stating to his friends that he was being brought forward by Senator Pearce in order to get rid of the present occupant of the seat. Of course, Senator Pearce denied this ; but a gentleman who could lie so brazenly as he did about his projected trip, to Europe, as honorable members will recollect, would have very little compunction, indeed, in denying a fact of that kind. However, as I say, I am back here again, and I am prepared to give the Government every assistance to carry out the numerous promises they have made since I bade them “ Good-bye “ to contest the last election.

It has been suggested that that election was a victory for the Government; but, even so, it was rather a doubtful victory, on which I cannot congratulate the Ministry. It was a victory that does not reflect much credit on the astuteness of the Prime Minister,’ seeing that he comes back with seriously, weakened forces. One of the results of the elections, I hope, will be the restoration to this Parliament of full functions as arepresentative body charged with seeing that the Government do their duty in accordance with the wishes of the majority. So far from the election being a victory for the Government, it was, in my opinion, a victory for the National party in spite of the Government, or, to a large extent, in spite of the leadership of the Government.

I have been surprised since I came back to the eastern States to find, not only amongst my friends opposite, and their supporters, but in all classes of society, a general opinion that the Leader of the Government (Mr. Hughes) has outlived his usefulness. I, of course, have held the opinion all along that, as the Leader of the party, he never had any particular usefulness to outlive, and now the general feeling of the community, and of his party, is exactly the feeling of the American backwoodsman who gripped a catamount ‘ on one occasion, and immediately found that his great anxiety was bow to get rid of the critter.” That, I believe, is the attitude of the country towards the present Leader of the Government; and I am sure, also, that there are not a few members of the National party in the House to-day who realize with me that his leadership has not been of any advantage to the community, but has in many ways placed it in a false and humiliating position.

Although I am going to vote to-night with my friends of the National party, I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in doing so, I am voting for the National cause, and that I shall endeavour, with the members of the National party, to see that the Ministry come up to my expectations in regard to the work that has to be performed. I shall continue to give the Government) the benefit of my advice, and even of my criticism; and I am pleased to find, for once in my life, that I am in a position in which my voice may be of some little effect.

So far as my own State is concerned, in addition to my duty to the country at large, I shall probably be heard speaking in its interest in more than one matter. I shall endeavour, for instance, to secure that over-sea vessels trading between Western Australia and the eastern ports shall still be allowed to carry on the small amount of trading that has been permitted them in the past, especially in view of the fact that the Inter-State shipping is still unable to cope with the requirements of trade at the present time. It seems an ill-chosen moment for the proclamation of that portion of the Navigation Act which affects those vessels ; and I shall do my utmost to prevent such an interference with the Western Australian trade from coming into effect.

Then there is the prohibition of the exportation of base metals from Western Australia. I am glad to find that a certain amount of relaxation is to be allowed to those persons in that State - both capitalists and workers - who have been so “‘hard hit” by the war-time regulation which prevents the direct exportation of base -metals. If there were some justification for the prohibition in the war period, there has been none since the war ended. Until lately, at any rate, the Government gave every indication of maintaining that grip on the Western Aus- tralian base metal industry which has been so seriously crippled by it in the past. If the Government are wise, they will realize that, as soon as possible, this and all other restrictions upon the trading capacity of Australia must be put an end to ; and I am glad to hear that, among the members of the Country party and the National party, there is a generallyexpressed hope that the Government will do away with as many as possible of the war restrictions, which, while tolerated during the war, are quite unnecessary at the present time.

There is one suggestion that I have read with amusement, and it is a suggestion which has been repeated in the House, namely, that the recent election has blotted out all the past record of the Government - that the Government begin with a clean sheet, and that we have no right whatever to recall any of their mistakes in the past. I am afraid that “ won’t work “ quite as effectively as might be wished. We cannot blot out the very heavy expenditure piled up by the Government; we have to pay for that sooner or later. Mistakes were made by the Government during the war which will remain a blot upon the history of Australia ‘ for all time. There has been a series of blunders, and of worse than blunders as they appear to careful onlookers, in regard to the administration which reflects very gravely upon the responsibility of Parliament and the ability of Ministers. Since the present Prime Minister has been at the head of the Government his ideal in regard to the appointment of Ministers is expressed by Lord Melbourne’s statement concerning the Order of the Garter, “ that there was no damned merit about it.” I am afraid that in the filling of offices by the present Prime Minister there has been very often no consideration of merit at all.

Mr Brennan:

– That is why the honorable member is supporting the Government.

Mr FOWLER:

– lt is not; it is why I am trying to get from the Government as much efficiency as possible. I wish to give them the benefit of my advice and my little experience, and if they do not take it I may have to reconsider the position I take up.

Another trouble that looms ahead is the financial situation. Any person who lives at the rate of ,£1,000 a year while his income is only £400 will inevitably find himself in insolvency before long. That is approximately the position of the Commonwealth at the present time, and although the ‘Ministry have shown some little desire to meet the wishes of the country and to carry out their pledges in regard to economy, their actions still fall a long way short of the necessities of the situation. I read with regret that the Prime Minister stated that after him and his Ministry would come the deluge. When the right honorable gentleman takes that view it is the duty of the House to make up its mind to avert that deluge if possible. There is only one way to do it, and that is by all honorable members and the House collectively realizing their responsibilities, particularly in regard to the financial situation, and’ determining that as soon as possible we shall make both sides of the ledger balance. lt will be a very heavy task, but not an impossible one. In this connexion I regret that the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) is going to Europe, and is taking with him the permanent head of the Treasury. How we are going to get along in regard to financial reform in the absence of those gentlemen, I do not know, for I cannot see amongst the present Ministry any one in whom I have a great deal of confidence to handle the financial situation. But the position must be faced, if not by the Ministry, then by the party supporting them, and in the last resort by Parliament itself. I hope we shall all realize our responsibilities in that regard.

I have just a word to say with regard to profiteering. To hear the Prime Minister express his anxiety to deal with profiteering now after having allowed his power under the War Precautions Act to lie dormant is somewhat amusing. It is a long time since I made suggestions to “v member of the Government which, if they had been carried out, would, I believe, have had an excellent effect in putting an end to much of the profiteering. But just before the last Parliament was prorogued, in a debate that took place on this matter, I was rash enough, or, at any rate, took a risk which, perhaps, no layman should take in matters of law, to attempt to indicate that this Parliament had a considerable amount of power to deal with profiteering. I was therefore more , than delighted to find during the late election campaign that, perhaps, the greatest authority on constitutional matters affecting the Commonwealth, Sir John Quick, had published a volume in which he had stated his opinion that undoubtedly the Government had powers under the present Constitution to deal with profiteering to a large extent. I ask the Government why they do not use those powers, or, if they believe they have not got them, why they do not put the issue to the test? I can- assure them that however profiteering may be disposed of in an off-hand way in, some quarters, the question is becoming a live one with the general community. Wherever one goes amongst the middle classes, he will find bitter complaints regarding the inordinate increase in the prices of many of the common household necessities, and I warn the Government that for the first time in the history of Australia, the middle classes are seriously considering their attitude towards their present political leaders. They are making up- their minds that something must be done to put an end to profiteering, and if the National Government will not do it, they can take my word that those people will not hesitate to vote for any other party from which they think they will get the relief to which they are entitled. The way in which the middle classes have stood behind every Liberal and National Government, voting solidly for them, and, as a rule, asking for no favours but only ordinary fair play, is almost pathetic. Now many of them are beginning to realize that they are not getting fair play, and it is about time the Government and their supporters became wide awake to the seriousness of the situation, because undoubtedly if the middle classes desert the National party and the Government there will be no hope whatever for- them. Unless something is done to make the living of the community a little more tolerable than it is at present, the Government may expect at least that the solid support accorded to Nationalists and Liberals in the past will be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

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

Mr NICHOLLS:
Macquarie

.- I rise to support the amendment. The arguments advanced by the honorable member for Perth t (Mr. Fowler) were sufficiently grave to compel me to vote against the Government on this matter.

I paid particular attention to the speech of the honorable gentleman, which was very eloquent, and certainly condemned the Government in every way. He accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) of incompetence, and of being an absolute failure as a Leader; he condemned the whole of the Ministry, and concluded by saying that he. could see no one amongst the Ministers in- whom he had sufficient confidence to intrust to him the care of the finances during the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. Watt). The honorable member told us how the Government had bungled in the past, and he related many of their sins of omission and commission, and wound up by saying that he would vote for them once again. He told us that the Prime Minister had . been instrumental in putting the country to enormous expense by hurrying forward a general election. “ But,” said he, “ I will give him another opportunity to go to the country.” One fact that appeals to me more than anything else is that the honorable member had set himself up as the dividing range in this House. The only suggestion I can make to him is that to-morrow morning he should put his vote up to public auction, the highest bidder to become the purchaser. He distinctly told us that he was opposed to the Government in regard to everything the” have done, and vet he is quite satisfied to support them.

Mr Fowler:

– I distinctly said I would vote with the National party, to which I belong.

Mr NICHOLLS:

– The honorable member said that it was his intention to effect, if possible, reforms in the financial administration, and to raise the Parliament to a greater efficiency than it has hitherto displayed. I suggest that the honorable member be designated henceforth “ the Minister for Efficiency.”

Everybody recognises that the amendment before the Chair is a direct vote of censure on the Government because of their maladministration, extravagance, aDd their many sins during the last four and a-half years. While the opportunity presents itself, I desire to refer to a few matters of vital concern. The first is the Treasurer’s projected visit to the Old Country. I take it that in the ordinary course of events this House would have an opportunity of discussing the honorable gentleman’s mission abroad.

We were told that the Treasurer is going to London because the Commonwealth is practically on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is necessary to make certain arrangements in connexion with finance, also immigration, which has been spoken of for some considerable time. I should like to know what immigration policy the Treasurer proposes to adopt; whether he intends to flood this country with people from Great Britain under our present conditions, or whether something will first be. done to improve the state of affairs here. Before we embark upon any immigration policy we should throw open :the avenues of production, and find employment for the people who are already here, and to accomplish this we must see that more land is made available. Australia is not in such a flourishing condition as to be capable of absorbing any considerable influx of population from overseas. As a matter of fact, quite a large number of people are unemployed at the present time. I sincerely hope that we shall not be face to face with any grave unemployment problem in this connexion in the near future as the outcome of the Treasurer’s representations in London on this subject. Thousands of men and women, quite willing to work, cannot obtain employment in Australia now.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– And many employers want men, but cannot get them.

Mr NICHOLLS:

Mr Stewart:

– I was called disloyal when I made a similar statement.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– There is nothing disloyal about it - it is the essence of loyalty. Every one is speaking of a self-contained Empire, and surely after what this country has done in giving, as she did, the flower of her manhood to help to secure a victorious peace, she is entitled to more consideration. Surely a British community that has done so much, and whose soldiers have been praised by the Imperial authorities, should be at least on even terms in the markets of the Old World with the producers of America and of the Argentine. This opens up a very complex question. I know the power of the American Meat Trust, and its ramifications through the industries of Great Britain. It can never be properly and effectively dealt with until the Imperial Government steps in and, in concert with the Governments of the Dominions of the Empire, provides for preference to their products over those of countries outside the Empire. I am glad that the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) is going to London, because no better man could handle this question. I am a Britisher, and love my country beyond everything else; but it is not inconsistent to say that if we cannot get the sympathetic consideration from the Imperial Government which we should get, we will get it from the British people, who only need to be educated on the subject to be of our way of thinking. I hope that the visit of the Treasurer to London, reinforcing the work done by the Prime Minister when there, will result in the establishment of preference within the

Empire, and that Australia House will cease to be merely an ornament and will become a great trading centre.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- The honorable member who has just resumed his seat has explained to us that Australia has not had a fair deal in the sale of her products to Britain, and I ask what he did as a representative of the producing interests to see that Great Britain gave for our products at least as good a price as she paid for those of other countries.

If there was bungling and maladministration, or worse than that which took place in connexion with thesale of our wool, it was in connexion with the sale of our wheat crops. It must be borne in mind that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) did not act in ignorance in these matters, for he was in London for approximately half the period of the war. He was away from this country from January to August, 1916, and again from April, 1918, to August, 1919. He knew perfectly well the price of wheat in the markets of the world, and yet permitted the Australian crops to be sold to Britain at a most disastrous sacrifice. This was done at a time when, we were told, the primary producers enjoyed representation in the Commonwealth Parliament. If they did, their representatives abused their trust in the most outrageous fashion.

In the Budget-papers which were laid on the table on the 8th October last, I find the following table: -

According to these Government figures, 108,476,000 bushels of wheat were received from the Australian farmers and delivered to the Wheat Pools, but could not be accounted for.

Senator Pratten, using the returns of the Australian Wheat Board, proved that 24,000,000 bushels were missing prior to the publication of the tables I have read, and showed that 6,000,000 bushels were missing in New South Wales alone, it being admitted that in that State in all probability the deficiency would amount to at least 10,000,000 bushels. He showed by an analysis of the figures of the Pool that on 19th August, 1919, Australian wheat scrip was quoted above its market value to the amount of £506,393, which meant that, following on the confiscation of the Government and the coercion applied under the War Precautions Act, the stock-jobbers who were trafficking in wheat scrip had inflated its value by their gambling on the Stock Exchange. Mr. Barton, an accountant of the Wheat Board in New South Wales, stated that he found that £608,000 had been paid in excess to scrip dealers for 1916-17 scrip. He said that the mouse plague cost £1,780,000 in wheat lost, and that the damage to other wheat brought the loss to £2,389,000. Those figures relate to New South Wales wheat alone. The discrepancy at the lower figure of 24,000,000 bushels estimated by Senator Pratten, represents a loss, valuing the wheat at the lowest mark, the confiscatory price paid by the Government, of £6,500,000.

I explained ‘at St. Arnaud in March, 191S, that I knew of offers for Australian wheat at 12s. 6d. per bushel, Chicago, which were refused in the middle of 1916. The American wouldbe purchasers, representatives of Armours, offered to provide freight to transport the wheat to America. ‘It was estimated that the cost of landing in Chicago would be about 2s. 6d. per bushel, and, for a very considerable parcel of wheat this would have netted 10s. per bushel to the Australian farmer. However, the offer was turned down, and our wheat was sold at from 4s. to 4s 9d. per bushel, f.o.b.

At this time the Prime Minister was pretending to the Australian farmers that they were getting the full market price, for their wheat. The Australian farmer has never received the full price for bis wheat from the outbreak of the war, but has been unmercifully robbed to the extent of at least £50.000,000, as I shall prove.

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

– If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the Australian Wheat Board, and not the Prime Minister sells the wheat

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Prime Minister himself made these sales, and has said so himself time after time. My honorable friend can excuse himself to his constituents in any way he likes for sitting behind the Government and agreeing to everything they have done, including the suppression of information under the War Precautions Act, but I shall give the honorable member incontrovertible evidence from Ministers in . the British Parliament,, who admitted that our wheat had been sold to Great Britain at an absolute sacrifice, and that they were paying better prices to every other country in the world from which wheat was brought.

Mr. Prothero, Chairman of the British Board of Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons on 7th February; 1917, said-

The Australian farmers had sacrificed their profits to feed Britain.

Who authorized this Government to sacrifice the welfare of the Australian farmers to feed Britain? We were never informed of that in this Parliament.

May I remind the honorable member who just interjected of the book recently issued by the great London publishers, Fisher, Unwin, and Co., and entitled Mr. Hughes, in which that gentleman is described as “ the instrument of the great English profiteers.” Mr. Prothero, speaking on behalf of the British Government, in the House of Commons on 8th February, 1917, said -

We have made in times past an appeal, for instance, to India, to Australia, and, indeed, to Canada, to send us their wheat at a lower price than they would get in the world’s market, because we are their own kith and kin, and they have done so. Last year, I believe, an approach was made to Canada. It was made too late, and they did not come into the proposal, but two very prominent Canadian farmers told me this. They said - “ We should object to taking less than the market price so long as the British farmer -sticks to his price, and takes all the war profits which he can get.”

Mr. Outhwaite said in the House of Commons, as reported in the British Hansard for 16th March, 1917, that-

The Australian farmers last year (1916) were paid 4s. a bushel, or 32s. a quarter for their wheat, whilst the British farmers were guaranteed from 64s. to 80s. - that is, 8s. to 8s. 6d.

The rate of carriage from Australia to London was from ls. Sd. to ls. lOd. per bushel, giving a London parity of about 6s. 6d. Yet this Government at that very time, with the full facts within the knowledge of the Prime Minister himself - as he was in London at the time - sold our wheat for from 4s. to 4s. 9d., when the London parity of that wheat in Australia was not less than 6s. 6d’.

Captain Bathurst, Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Food, said in the House of Commons, as recorded in the British Hansard for 30th April, 1917-

Questions of this character are greatly to be deprecated, and render the negotiations for the purchase of wheat in other countries somewhat delicate and difficult.

The official report for 1917- of the British War Cabinet, which honorable members have in their possession, stated that the Ministry for Food early in 1917 fixed’ the price of wheat to the British producers at 9s. 4d. per bushel.

This would mean an Australian export parity of 7s. 6d., whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) sold our wheat for a maximum of 4s. 9d., f.o.b.

On 16th July, 1917, according to the British Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Labour said -

Purchases of 500,000 and 3,000,000 tons of Australian wheat were made on behalf of Britain, Trance, and Italy, under contracts dated October 3, 1916, and December 4, 1916, at prices equivalent to 4s. and 4s. 9d., f.o.b.

So that our Australian wheat was not only supplied to feed Great Britain at approximately two-thirds of its market price, but the British Government also bought it for foreign countries at this immense sacrifice to the Australian producer.

Mr. Lough stated’ in the House of Commons on 24th July, 1917, that-

The Parliamentary Secretary of Shipping Control said he had bought a great deal of cheap wheat - 3,000,000 tons - in Australia; the price paid was 4s. and 4s. 9d. per bushel, and the freight was 13s. per quarter, or ls. 8d. per bushel, which, made the landed cost 6s. 3d.

At this very time they were guaranteeing to the British farmer 9s. 4d. - a deliberate robbery of the Australian farmer to the extent’ of 3s. per bushel.

Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, said, in the House of Commons, on 24th July, 1917-

The large purchases of wheat made in Australia were made on terms generous to the Australian Government and to the Australian farmer, and both got something out of it, and certainly the Australian Government got something out of it.

He also said on the same day -

The price of wheat in the United States was 2.25 dollars, or about 10s. a bushel, and the American growers were making larger profits than they ever anticipated out of the privations of Europe.

At this very time the British Government were buying wheat in America at 10s. per bushel, and paying the Canadian farmers 9s. 2d. on the farms in Manitoba, and had to deliver it themselves in the British ports.

According to the Baily Telegraph of 17th November, 1919, the Prime Minister admitted the charge that in 1917 Britain was paying the Canadian farmers 9s. 2d. on the farm at a time when it purchased Australian wheat for 4s. 9d. f.o.b., and paid a maximum of ls. lOd. per bushel in freight to London.

Even at that early stage of the game the Australian farmer was unmercifully robbed of not less than 43. per bushel.

I come now to freights. Not only was the Australian farmer unmercifully robbed direct, but when the Government obtained control of the vessels for carrying the wheat to London they doubled the prices on the Australian farmer for carrying his wheat in Government vessels, and in that way robbed him of millions of money in excess freights.

I have evidence here of wholesale misrepresentation and falsifying of the rates by the representatives of this Government. I have statements made here as to the freight upon Australian wheat, and statements made at the same time in the British House of Commons, which show that the statements made in the Australian Parliament were not true.

In the’ Melbourne Argus of 9,th October, 1919, the Prime Minister was reported to have said -

Regulated freights on British steamers were 225s. per ton, whilst uncontrolled freight was 31 os. per ton. The Commonwealth vessels, by charging only 150s. per ton, were saving the farmers from 2s. 6d. to 3s. per bushel in freight.

At this statement the Argus reported that there were enthusiastic cheers, yet in the same issue of the paper appears a statement from one of the directors of the oversea shipping interests that the freight for the carriage of wheat from Australia was only 105s. per ton. There is a discrepancy between those statements of about one-third.

In the House of Commons, Sir Leo Chiozza Money, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Shipping Control, stated, as reported in the British Hansard of 28th March, 1917-

Liners were being paid 70s. per ton freight for the carriage of wheat from Australia, which was Blue-Book rates, and worked out at the rate of ls. 10 1/2d. per bushel, and this was the rate being paid.

In the Australian Senate, Senator Russell, speaking as Vice-President of the Executive Council and Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, stated on 22nd May, 1918, that in August, 1916, the rate of freight for wheat to London was 95s. per ton for steamers and 120s. for sailers: that the steamer freight paid for full cargoes was 122s. 6d. per ton for the Continent in August, 1917, and that the rate at present - 22nd May, 1918 - was 150s. per ton. On the 29th May, 1918, Senator Russell stated in the Senate that the freight from Australia to Great Britain, in 1914, was from 19s. 6d. to 32s. 6d. per quarter; in 1916, 85s. ‘to 130s. per’ ton; in 1917, by Commonwealth vessels, 122s. 6d. to Prance; and in 1918, the freight by Commonwealth vessels from Australia to Great Britain was 150s. per ton.

This does not compare with the statement made by Sir Leo Chiozza Money that the price paid for the liners for carrying wheat from Australia was 70s. per ton.

Mr. Oman, the Minister for Agriculture in Victoria, is reported in the Melbourne Argus, on the 12th September, 1919, to have said -

The freight charges for 1917-18 on the Commonwealth ships for wheat to London amounts to £7 10s. per ton, which means that the Australian farmer paid the capital cost of the ships. “ Our products here,” said the Minister, “ have suffered more than any other country.”

The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) admitted the mild impeachment on the 6th October, 1919, by saying -

Freights on the Australian ships showed a profit in two and a half years of £2,065,000, the amount of their capital cost, and still showed a surplus of £500,000.

An expert calculation disclosed that the Prime Minister made the fanners pay 4s. per bushel for freight when, on his own showing, 2s. was ample. -He paid the whole capital cost of the ships within three years, and still is £500,000 to the good; but there is no talk of disgorging even that £500,000 to the farmers.

According to the Daily Telegraph of the 17th November, 1919, our Prime Minister gave an excuse for the small price of 5s. 6d. obtained for the last big sale of Australian wheat. He said -

I could have done better, only that Australian wool had just been sold without consulting me.

So the wheat goose had to help in paying for the whistle of the wool goose, though the latter did suffer, for its temerity, the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Mr. T. Ryan, M.L.A., of Victoria, a special apologist for the Prime Minister, who had just returned from London, is reported in the Melbourne Argus of the 10th September, 1919, to have said -

Australia had not extorted 2s. or 3s. extra for wheat, as America had done.

That was an admission that Australian wheat was being sold at 2s. or 3s. per bushel less than the American price.

According to the issue of Land, the organ of the farmers and settlers of New South Wales, dated the 10th October, 1919, the price of wheat in America on the 8th August, 1919, was from 16s. 6d. to £1 per bushel, at the very time that our Prime Minister had effected a sale of Australian wheat at 5s. 6d. per bushel.

Mr. Boyd, formerly a member of this House, stated, on the 16th July, 1919, that he had evidence that Australian flour was being hawked for sale around the Balkans; and it is well known that the Balkan price for Australian wheat was 16s. per bushel.

I have not the time to refer to the eoi?/spiracy of silence by which all criticisy of the gross administration of the ‘by vernment was suppressed ; but, on the 7it]] March, 1918, a conference of Vic’ farmers was held at Ouyen, an ch so addressed by Mr. Giles, the repres affirm, of the growers on the Australian anths Board; and by Mr. Rees, M.L.C., who had just returned from London. They told the farmers of the gross and outrageous manner in which the Government were sacrificing their wheat, and of the enormous amounts that were being paid to agents - in the vicinity of £45,000 in one case, and £75,000 in another case. A report of these utterances was made, but a Military Order was issued to the editor of ‘the Ouyen Mail, instructing him not to publish the statements. I laid on the table of this House the Military Order, which went out to the Ouyen Mail and the Melbourne Age, in which any damaging criticism of the Government was absolutely suppressed under the censorship regulations issued under the War Precautions Act.

I have not the slightest doubt that if. the representatives of the producers insisted on probing the matter, and on having an inquiry, they would be amply repaid for their trouble.

Sir Joseph Carruthers, who may be looked upon as a representative of the wheat farmers, stated in the Daily Telegraph of the 31st July, 1919, that the secrecy of the Wheat Board administration had caused great sacrifice in wheat scrip.

And, according to the Daily Telegraph of the 20th September, 1919, Mr. Beeby attended a conference of farmers and made some startling disclosures, which were referred to the executive for private inquiry, because they could not be made public. According to the Sydney Morning Herald of the 30th September, 1919, the. honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), president of the Farmers Union of Victoria, said -

My tongue is tied by an understanding with regard to active developments. Information is being withheld for political reasons.

Speaking in Sydney, Mr. A. H. Pitt, manager of the Australian Wheat Board, referred to certain cables, the major portion of which were prohibited from publication, and said that the Prime Minister had made the following statement : -

If it appeared that Australian wheat could be bought other than through me, I would lose my best weapon.

The Prime Minister said something of the same kind about wool.

Evidently this policy of hush and secrecy must be followed. Everything must be done in the dark. Wheat must be sold without any press criticism. Press cables from overseas must not be allowed to see the light of day. The Prime Minister did the same with the graziers. He met them with regard to the price of meat, and made the arrangement with them that no one else was to tell the story to the public. He did the same with the soldiers’ executive about the gratuity. He went to them and said that no one must tell what was proceeding but him. Later on, they contradicted some of his statements. He made the same arrangement for secrecy with the State Premiers. He saidthat no one must tell what was happening in regard to the referenda but himself. He did the same in 1917 when he interviewed the Labour executives of Australia with regard to conscription, and as a consequence we were led to believe that something else had occurred in another part of Australia. By these means of secrecy and suppression, a great deal of the fine work has been “ put in.”

According to Sir Joseph Carruthers, the London parity for Australian wheat was at no time less than 8s. per bushel in the open market. That statement will be found in the Daily Telegraph on the 29th October, 1919. I have references in my notes to some sales of wheat up to 16s. per bushel. A portion of the Australian wheat, which has been bought by the British Government at a ridiculously low price, has been re-sold to Continental countries at huge prices, and we do not know what has become of it.

Taking the total export of Australian wheat delivered overseas at 200,000,000 bushels, and estimating it on the conservative basis of 8s., a value which is certified to by responsible men like Sir Joseph Carruthers , and Mr. Oman, the Victorian Minister of Agriculture, and supported by a mass of evidence, showing that infinitely higher prices could have been obtained, there is a difference of over £50,000,000 between what the farmers will have received when they get the whole of the money for their wheat at the ridiculously low prices at which it has been sold and what would have been rightfully theirs.

This kind of thing has occurred not merely in respect of our wool and wheat, but in respect of all our primary products, including meat, rabbit skins, jams, and metals such as gold, platinum, tin, and copper.

No wonder that the Prime Minister refuses to table the contracts under which Australian metals have been sold to Great Britain. The present is a glorious opportunity for the members of the Country party to force the Government to lay the information we seek upon the table of the House.

Every effort made by members of the Country party to improve the conditions of the Australian farmer will command my whole-hearted support. Having had some experience as secretary ‘ of a farmers’ organization, I know that the farmers, as well as the consumers, are mercilessly plundered by the middlemen profiteers, who are represented on the Government benches. If there be any natural affinity between classes, it Ls certainly to be found between the primary producers and the great body of Australian consumers, arid we must join together to cut out the plunderer and the parasite.

Mr HAY:
New England

.- I have no desire to prolong this debate. But a great deal has been said, and figures have been quoted-, by the honorable member who has just resumed his scat, in reference to the prices which have been obtained for our wheat and other primary products. During .the latter portion of 1917 I was in New York, where I discussed with the Minister for .Shipping and Mr. Robson, who represented the British Government as grain buyer in America, this very question. Upon my return from New York I was authorized by the farmers and settlers of New South Wales to send a cable to the British Minister, offering a quantity of wheat which was then in Australia, and which wc were unable to -get away owing to the lack pf shipping. This is the cable that I despatched : -

About 100,000,000 bushels fair average qualify wheat available here. Can be bought 6s. f.o.b. See Hoover at once. Make desperate effort for shipping. Robson informed me British-American Governments were arranging ship 300,000 tons to Pacific coast to release American wheat for Europe.

At that time a discussion was proceeding between the British Minister and the British grain buyer with a view to transferring a large quantity of wheat from the Eastern States to the Pacific coast in order that American wheat might be released for Europe. Having discussed this question with, those high authorities, upon my- return I at once consulted the farmers and settlers of New South Wales with a view to disposing of some of bur surplus wheat, and I have already quoted the cable which I sent. The reply which I received was to the effect that shipping was unavailable.

Mr j H Catts:

– Because our ships had been sent to foreign waters to engage in profiteering.

Mr HAY:

– During the period of the war the chief trouble we were up against was our lack of shipping. Probably I have been, associated with primary undertakings in this country as long as has any honorable member of this House. My generation has been identified with primary pursuits in Australia for a hundred years, and I devote my life ‘to those who are engaged in these undertakings. I have visited, a great many countries in Europe, with a view to advancing the. true interests, of the Commonwealth, and I say at once that ‘during the early period of the war there was nobody who could advise us what we should do with our surplus products. Having completed my shearing at the time of which I speak, I found that there was neither a financial nor commercial house which could advise me whether I should keep my wool or sacrifice it, because the doubt existed in every reasonable man’s mind that our remoteness from the markets overseas precluded us from the advantages that were enjoyed by other countries. When we entered the war the essential thing for us was to win it, and we had to buy the products required to win - it at any cost. We had our munitions to provide and our soldiers to feed, and if the British Government, could send a ship to America or any other country where its requirements were available, and that vessel could make three or four trips in the time that would be occupied in accomplishing only one trip to Australia, surely it was the proper thing to so employ her. The British Government had to consider the men we had sent to win the war. They had to endeavour to save their lives by feeding them and providing them with necessary commodities.

Concerning our wool, about which so much has been said, I confidently affirm that up to three or four months ago every wool producer in this country was quite satisfied with the price that he was being- paid for it. If I sell a horse to the Acting Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Eyrie) for £25, and the honorable gentleman wins the Melbourne Cup with him, it is .useless for me to declare that he is a profiteer, because I was perfectly satisfied at the time I sold the animal: - It is equally idle for the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Catts) to raise the question of the price that the British grower receives for his wool. The British grower was on the spot, and was thus able to negotiate in a market that we were unable to approach. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has told us that the daily bill for interest alone amounts to £5,000. Those who are engaged in the wool industry know that the British Government have in Australia to-day 1,500,000 bales of wool, much of which is not of the best quality. As a matter of fact, a great deal of it is of inferior quality. It is impossible, therefore, for anybody to arrive an an accurate calculation of what will be the ultimate profits of the British Government upon the re-sales of our wool. I am perfectly satisfied that .had it not been for Great Britain and the assistance she rendered us, we might not now be living under the flag which we all adore. Even if Great Britain has made something out of our wool, we should surely be grateful to her for having provided shipping to carry our produce to market and also money for our products before they were able to remove them from Australia. But for that action on the part of the British Government, what would be our position to-day? Is it not idle for any one to ask me to hold my clip for a year or two in order that I may reap the full harvest? The primary producers of Australia ought to be supremely grateful for all that has’ been done for them. I know that grave mistakes have been made, and I personally have suffered very considerably as the result of lack of judgment on the part of the Government. But I do not complain. I admit that huge mistakes have been made with regard to our wool, but I am sure honorable members will agree with me that in the circumstances those responsible for the government of Australia acted with the very best of intentions. Mistakes were inseparable from the situation. War was- an undertaking to which we were not accustomed. Without a moment’s notice this country, without any preparation, and the Government, without any knowledge of war, became involved in one of the greatest tragedies and one of the biggest undertakings the world has ever known.

I have been warned that it is wise for a new member to take an early occasion to address the House. I entered this House as a farmers’ representative-

Mr Mathews:

– And the honorable member has slipped.

Mr HAY:

– Many men have slipped, and if some are not careful will probably slip again. There is no honorable member who desires more earnestly than myself that the production of this country shall be carried along proper lines. We want increased production. We were asked by the Prime Minister to produce more, and we answered his call. Eleven representatives of the farmers at all events have been returned here to do 6heir best to influence increased .production, and thus the farmers have responded to the Prime Minister’s appeal. With a knowledge of Australia from the Gulf to the southernmost part of Victoria, I am convinced that there are one or two essentials to be attended to before the production of this country can be increased. I should not like to attempt to estimate the millions of gallons of water every day rushing to the sea, which should be utilized to increase the productivity of the soil. It is useless to attempt to settle people on the land and to ask them to produce unless we give them reasonable security of ample water supply. If production has gone down - if the area under cultivation has been reduced from over 12,000,000 acres to 8,000,000 acres, it is easy to discover the reason. My own view is that a great many acres went into cultivation that should not have been cultivated.

We know that hardships are endured by the men on the land ; we know what their sufferings are. My own electorate is similar to a number of those represented by honorable members opposite, and in two Parliaments of the Commonwealth it was represented by Labour. It discovered, however, that Labour did not supply the representation it required, and so it made another choice. I believe that before very long some of the electorates responsible for the return of my honorable friends opposite will discover that Labour should not be their choice, and .that they will return men more intimately associated with primary production and more earnest in their undertakings. We shall never succeed in increasing the productivity of Australia unless we apply to production the sacred principles of knowledge. The countries which have succeeded in raising production to the highest level are at the present time the United States of America and Canada, and they have done so by the application of science to industry. I have heard more than once in this House the expression, “ Two blades of grass “ ; but the quotation has never been completed.

Mr Brennan:

– The honorable member does not know the history of it.

Mr HAY:

– I do. If the honorable member will read Dean Swift he will know all about it. The full quotation is -

Whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together.

I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. Whatever sins the Government may have committed I hope we shall at all events try to prevent them committing any grave sins in the future. If we are going to increase production I hope that in the very forefront of all their undertakings will be a determination to fit people to settle on the land by equipping them with the necessary knowledge for their job, as well as a determination that they shall be protected and guaranteed in complete security.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– Despite the special pleading just indulged in by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Hay), it cannot be denied that during the war Australia was made the scapegoat, and that our primary producers consequently suffered very severely. The honorable member has declared that the lack of shipping to carry our produce to market was largely responsible for the reduced prices obtained for it, but the prices quoted by the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Catts) as having been accepted by the Government were in respect of Australian produce that had actually been landed in Great Britain. Not only were we paid less for our commodities than was Canada or any other country, but Canada received from Great Britain millions of pounds for the manufacture of munitions.

She supplied fewer men, and not ‘ the quantity of produce that Australia did, and we could never get any information as to how we. stood financially with Britain. When I said on two occasions that we were supplying munitions and accoutrements essential for an army, while Canada was not, and when the exmember for Flinders (Sir William Irvine) asked whether such a statement was correct, it was neither answered nor denied by the Government. Very little has been said about the £92,000,000 in regard to which the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) is going Home to make arrangements, and I cannot understand why we have not received full information. We were told in an airy-f airy way that, as to £45,000,000 out of the £92,000,000, we need not trouble about it, because it was money that had been loaned to the States, and for other commitments that had been arranged for ; but there is yet £47,000,000 still owing in regard to which no arrangements have been made. We have never been able to get from successive Treasurers a statement of the amount of money for which we have become indebted to Great Britain during the course of the war. Whom I made statements in public regarding these matters I was threatened with prosecution under the War Precautions Act, on the ground that the statements were not correct, although they really were. In 1915 I .asked the then Treasurer (Mr. Fisher), and I asked each of his successors - the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Poynton), and the late honorable member for Swan (Lord Forrest) - what it was we owed Great Britain for commitments for the Australian Forces, but could get no information; and there has been the same result in the case of the present Treasurer (Mr. Watt). Now, however, we are told that the amount is something like £92,000,000.

Economy is in the air, and the Government party, the Country party, and the Labour party are all advocating it, though the Labour party make the condition that men shall be paid proper wages for their services.

Mr Stewart:

– Men in the Public Service only.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Men outside the Public Service can get what they desire by means of strikes, whereas public servants cannot strike. It is peculiar to hear sections of the press howling economy, while, at the same time, they are every day robbing the public of Victoria by having their newspapers sent to country towns at a great loss to the railways. Then, again, we have commercial men howling economy because parcels and newspapers are not brought over by train fromWestern Australia, but by sea, because the latter is the cheaper. In my own division, I have a nice lot of old ladies and gentlemen - very estimable citizens, thoughthey are opponents of mine - and they, too, are howling economy; but when the Victorian Government economizes by putting out of commission the boat which ran between Port Melbourne and Williamstown, these ladies and gentlemen howled more than ever. As a matter of fact, both the Government supporters and the Country party advocate economy for “the other fellow.”

Since 1916 Australia has been misled and made a scapegoat of; and the reason we could not get to know what we owed was that the Government did not want the public to know what they were spending. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Catts) has to-night quoted figures showing that, while the Canadian farmer was receiving 10s. a bushel for his wheat the Australian farmer was receiving only about 4s., . and, at the same time, the Canadian workers had hundreds of millions of pounds spent on them in the manufacturing of commodities. Yet we were told by those amongst us who “ wave the flag” that Australia was not doing her share,though, as a matter of fact, she was doing more than Canada. If the honorable member for New England (Mr. Hay), as a farmer’s representative, is satisfied with “what the Government have done in the past, and does not, while a member of this House, condemn the Government if it should continue as hitherto, the farmers ofNew England will not require him much longer.

I wish to know from the Government supporters and from the members of the Country party whether they are willing to accept, in the near future, another little bill for £47,000,000 of which we know nothing. If those honorable members would exercise some economy in this direction, and not only in the matter of wages, they would do more good. But, of course, if they did that, they would be only common politicians, whereas they wish to be statesmen who always talk about “the country” and the “flag under which we live.” If they gave more consideration to the people who produce commodities than they do to the “ flag “ greater benefit would accrue to the community.

Question - That the sum proposed to be reduced be so reduced - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 34

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Resolution ofWays and Means, covering resolution of Supply, adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Hughes, and read a first time.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time..

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- Although there has been a lot of discussion upon the amendment moved by the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. McWilliams), there has been no discussion upon the Bill itself. I know that it was the intention of some honorable members to move amendments to the Bill. Do the Government propose to endeavour to pass the Bill through all its stages to-night, or will they be content if the Bill passes to-morrow before the departure of the Inter-State trains?

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

– The Bill is for the purpose of enabling the Government to meet expenditure necessary to carry on the Public Service of the country, and it is essential that it be passed this evening in order that the Senate may have an opportunity of dealing with it to-morrow.

Mr Tudor:

– Does that mean that we shall have to sit all night?

Mr HUGHES:

– I hope not. I have no information on the matter at all. The honorable gentleman has asked me a question, and I have given him my answer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

– I think that is a fair proposition.

Mr Hughes:

– I do not know whether it is fair or not; but it is very late, and the remarks of the honorable member for Maribyrnong have carried the conviction to my soul, and I cao see that if he intends to proceed in the way he has started we shall be here a long time. If I am given an understanding, however, that we shall get through the Bill by 4 o’clock . to-morrow afternoon I will be prepared to adjourn now.

Mr Tudor:

– We will agree to that.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 March 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1920/19200311_reps_8_91/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives11 March 1920

PAPERS

SUPPLY BILL (No. 4), 1919-20

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr BRENNAN:Batman

Mr Richard Foster:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Richard Foster:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr BRENNAN:

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

Mr STEWART:Wimmera

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

Mr STEWART:

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

Mr STEWART:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr STEWART:

Sir JOSEPH COOK:Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Gabb:

Mr STEWART:

Sir Robert Best:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Ryan:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Mathews:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Mahony:

Mr STEWART:

Sir JOSEPH COOK:Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr STEWART:

Mr Brennan:

Mr STEWART:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:Illawarra

Mr Stewart:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Stewart:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Anstey:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr J H Catts:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr J H Catts:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Anstey:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Anstey:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Tudor:

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

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Tudor:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr Marr:

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

Mr BRUCE:Flinders

Mr Prowse:

Mr BRUCE:

Mr J H CATTS:Cook

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Fleming:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Fleming:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Corser:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Hector Lamond:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Fleming:

Mr J H CATTS:

House of Representatives
11 March 1920

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

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

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

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

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

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Illawarra

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

Mr BRUCE:
Flinders

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

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

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903