House of Representatives
21 July 1920

8th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2848

NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER announced that the writ issued for the election of a member to serve for the division of Ballarat had been returned indorsed with a certificate of the election of David Charles McGrath.

Mr. McGRATH took the oath, and subscribed the roll.

page 2848

QUESTION

WOOL AND SHEEP-SKINS

Mr JOWETT:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA

– Large auction sales of sheep-skins are announced to take place in Sydney and in Melbourne to-morrow and on Friday. The skins that will be offered have mostly accumulated because the owners have been awaiting some definite statement from the Government on the subject of export conditions. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, and published in last Thursday’s newspapers, I ask him if he is now in a position to inform the House what steps the Government propose to take to permit the exporting of sheep-skins and wool from sheep killed after the 30th June last?

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– I have said, in the plainest terms, that all skins and wool from sheep killed after the 30th June last may be exported, but as an Executive meeting has not since been held, the embargo has not been formally removed. I assumed, however, that every one was acting in accordance with my public declaration of the Government’s policy. A meeting of the Executive will be held at the earliest moment possible to remove the embargo.

page 2849

QUESTION

VISIT TO RABAUL

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister tell the House who are to constitute the party that is to visit Rabaul? Are Ministers only going, or will other members go, too? Is the right honorable gentleman going himself, and if so, when?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– I am going, but I cannot say when.

page 2849

QUESTION

DEPORTATION OF FATHER JERGER

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether I am correctly informed that the Government, propose to invoke the aid of coloured and non-union labour in the difficult task of deporting Father J erger ?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– I do not know anything about the matter, but everything necessary to be done to deport Father Jerger will be done.

page 2849

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITY BONDS

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that arrangements have been made with insurance societies under which a soldier may assure for the value of his war gratuity bonds on paying the initial premium and premiums for three years in advance, in which case cash may be given for them. If that be so, I ask whether the Acting Treasurer will make a similar arrangement for the advantage of soldiers who insured prior to going to the war, so that they may get cash fortheir bonds on paying three years’ premiums?

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

– I shall be glad to make such an arrangement if the insurance companies will assent to it.

page 2849

QUESTION

WOOL POOL PAYMENTS

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House when the 10 per cent. advance will be made to the wool-growers of Australia for the wool they hold in the Pool?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– There is a question on the subject on the business-paper.

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Have the Government taken any action to, provide early payment to distressed graziers of portion of the profits accruing to them from the W ool Pool, so that they may restock their holdings? If so, can the Prime Minister give any indication when payment may be expected?

Mr HUGHES:

-Is not that question on the notice-paper?

Mr Cunningham:

– No.

Mr HUGHES:

– Then I am able to state, in reply, that I have repeatedly pressed the British Government for payment of the profits accruing to Australian growers, and that, as recently as the 3rd July, I cabled to the British authorities strongly urging expedition. So far, no definite arrangement has been made, but I hope soon to be in a position to announce that a satisfactory reply has been received from the British Government.

Mr. HUGH J. WARD.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Is it a fact that Mr. Hugh J. Ward, theatrical manager, has been recommended for honours? If so, has it been upon the representations of the theatrical profession, and of the employees . therein? Also, is it a fact that the gentleman concerned is an American citizen?

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not propose to answer any of these questions.

page 2849

QUESTION

NAVAL DEPOT, WILLIAMSTOWN

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– Is there any truth in the rumour that it is intended to remove the stores from the Williamstown Naval Depot? If so, what is the reason?

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

– During the war, these stores accumulated at Williamstown, particularly in connexion with transports. Now that transport work is practically ended, there is no longer need for the huge stores depot at Williamstown. It is a duplication of effort, which must be curtailed at the earliest possible moment.

page 2850

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Demobilization Services - Pensions of Discharged Soldiers in Hospitals.

Mr BURCHELL:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Whether it is a fact that a list was prepared of officersand other ranks considered worthy of special recognition for services rendered during the period of demobilization?
  2. If so, what became of such list, and what action was taken to give effect to the recommendations made ?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A complete determination in this matter has not been reached, but a list of names appeared in Military Order 273 of 1920.
Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Whether, in reference to a reply to a question asked by the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay) on the 31st March last, it is a fact that discharged soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force remaining in military hospitals have not yet received additions to their pensions making the same equal to field pay rank?

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:

– It has been ascertained that inmany cases the payments referred to, viz., to discharged members of the Australian Imperial Force in military hospitals on 25th February, 1919, and subsequently, of amounts which, together with the pension and repatriation allowances, will be equal to the military pay of rank, have not been made. There has been considerable difficulty in obtaining the information re- quired by the Pensions Department for broken and retrospective periods. It Is expected, however, that most of the payments will be effected shortly.

page 2850

OLD-AGE PENSIONERS

Earning Allowance

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

asked the Acting

Treasurer, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the increased cost of living and universal rise in wages, it would be possible to raise the earning limit of old-age pensioners to £1 per week instead of the present rate, to allow their total income to equal in purchasing power the pre-war rate?

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

-Consideration has already been given to the suggestion, and I regret to say the matter must await a more favorable opportunity for determination.

page 2850

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Austin Chapman

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been called to the success achieved by the State Governments of Victoria and Queensland . by the establishmentof State insurance?
  2. If so, will he consider the desirability of making inquiries with reference to the Commonwealth establishing a similar institution, with a view to meeting public convenience and raising revenue for the Commonwealth?
Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-The answers to the honorable member’s questions areas follow : -

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government intends, as early as practicable, to institute a searching investigation into the question of the insurance of the workers against unemployment and sickness, with the view to the establishment of a system fair to both employers and employees.

page 2850

QUESTION

EXPORT OF SHEEP-SKINS

Mr LISTER:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact, as stated in the metropolitan press of Friday last, that certain firms are withholding sheep-skins from sale in order to bring pressure to bear on the Government to lift the embargo on the export of such skins?
  2. In view of such action having the effect of throwing out of employment thousands of men engaged in the fellmongery industry, will the Government before acceding to such representations insure to fellmongering firms an adequate supply of skins, and prevent that hardship which must necessarily arise should large numbers of men be compulsorily thrown on to the labour market?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. I am not aware.
  2. The representations made to me by representatives of the fellmongering industry are to the effect that ample supplies of skins will be available to maintain the fellmongering industry at full capacity under the proposed new arrangement.

page 2851

QUESTION

WAR WIDOWS’ GRATUITIES

Mr MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Whether it is a fact that, up to the present, not one “ war widow “ has been paid her war gratuity, although others are reported to have received it?
  2. If such is the case, will the Minister see that payment is expedited in these cases?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

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

  1. No.
  2. Some delays have occurred owing to interpretations of section 9 of the War Gratuity Act, but regulations are being promulgated which will enable payment to bo expedited in these cases.

page 2851

QUESTION

WOOL CLIP

Mr FLEMING:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Willhe make a definite statement whether the wool to be covered by the “ Pool “ includes all wool shorn before the 30th June last, or only that actually in wool stores at that date?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

All wool appraised up to the 30th June falls automatically into the 1919-20 clip. All wool shorn before the 30th June which was in bond or warehouse, or immediately available for shipment, will fall also into the 1919-20 clip. Wool shorn before the 30th Juno but which was not appraised nor in bond or warehouse, and/or not immediately available for shipment, other than wool deliberately kept back in order to evade the terms of the arrangement, falls in the 1920-21 clip.

page 2851

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Australian Representation at Conference.

Mr JOWETT:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice-

If, in the event of its being decided that Australia shall be represented by delegates at the forthcoming Conference of the League of Nations, the Government will arrange that such delegates shall be chosen by the Federal Parliament by means of proportional representation?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The question of Australia’s representation is now receiving the consideration of the Government.

page 2851

QUESTION

ECONOMIES COMMISSION

Mr JOWETT:

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

Whether he can inform the House if the Government propose to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Economies Royal Commission; and, if so, to what extent?

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

– This question should properly have been addressed to the Prime Minister. I answer it with his permission -

Notice is being given to-day in the Senate to introduce a Bill for the appointment of a Board of Management of the Public Service in order to give practical effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

page 2851

QUESTION

RESOURCES OF THE EMPIRE

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the statement that it is proposed to hold an exhibition of the Empire’s resources in London during the year 1923, will he take steps to see that Australia is satisfactorily represented, both in exhibits and personnel?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– This matter is now receiving the consideration of the Government.

page 2851

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA

Property Held by Enemy Subjects: Indentured Labour.

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Are the properties held by Germans in New Guinea and the islands so situated still in the hands of those who held them prior to the war ?
  2. If these properties are still in the hands of enemy subjects, is it competent for private people to enter into negotiations for the purchase of same?
Mr POYNTON:
Minister for Home and Territories · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

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

  1. Yes. The Government decided that during the period of military occupation, and pending the receipt of the mandate to be issued to the Commonwealth Government for the future control of these possessions, no transfers of any interest in real estate, either leasehold or freehold, should be permitted.
  2. Not at present. This matter will receive consideration when the terms of the mandate are definitely settled.
Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Whether indentured labour is allowed in British and ex-German New Guinea by the Australian Government?
  2. If so, is it correct that contracts are for three years at a minimum wage of5s. per month for men and 4s. per month for women and boys?
  3. Has the British Government announced the abolition of indentured labour in all Territories under its control?
Mr POYNTON:
Minister for Home and Territories · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

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

  1. Yes; in each case, however, the labour is local only, and is not imported from abroad. The employment of natives under contract is in both Territories controlled by ordinances which insure that the interests of the natives shall be fully safeguarded, and also by regular inspections for the purpose of securing the strict observance of the Government regulations.
  2. In Papua, contracts are actually for one year, but may be up to three years. The rates of pay vary; the minimum is 10s. per month. In late German New Guinea contracts are usually for three years; the minimum rates are 5s. per month for men, and 4s. per month for women and boys. In both Territories the employer provides housing, food, and clothing.
  3. I am not aware of such announcement.

page 2852

QUESTION

PAPER STOCKS

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In view of the serious shortage of paper in Australia, will he take stops to deal with same, so as to avoid the discharge, owing to the scarcity of paper supplies, of a great number of men employed in the printing trade and allied industries?
  2. Whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a small committee of qualified persons representing both employers and trade unions connected with the printing trade to hold meetings in Sydney and Melbourne to consider the necessary measures to deal with the serious shortage, of paper in the Commonwealth, to devise a scheme to enable small newspaper proprietors and printers to receive equal treatment with largefirms as regards supplies, and also for the systematic collection of waste paper and other like material suitable forrepulping?
  3. Whether he will consider the suspending wholly or partially of the import duty on paper, so as to give some relief to consumers in the existing circumstances? 4.Whether he will enjoin upon each Commonwealth Department the necessity for the strictest economy in the use of paper?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The answers tothe honorable member’s questions are as follow: - 1 and 2. The Government has already successfully arranged with Canadian paper mills for the supply of news print required by the Australian provincial press. In the course of the negotiations it was ascertained that the paper mills of the world are experiencing the utmost difficulty in executing orders, owing to shortage of pulp, increased demands for news print, and other causes. The Government is prepared to sympathetically consider any suggestions which may be put forward to relieve the situation so far as Australia is concerned.

  1. It is not seen how the suspension of the import duty would assist in increasing the supply of paper.
  2. Action in this direction has already been taken.

page 2852

QUESTION

TAXATION

Lossesof Stock

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that drought and flood have caused the loss of up to 50 per cent. of stock in many places in New South Wales?
  2. Is it a fact that income tax has been paid on all this stock as natural increase?
  3. If so, willhe consider the immediate amendment of the Act, so as to render such impositions impossible?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. Considerable losses of stock have occurred in certain districts, but the precise extent has not been ascertained.
  2. No.
  3. Section 64 of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides means for relief from liability to taxation when a taxpayer has suffered such a loss that the exaction of the full amount of tax will entail serious hardship.

page 2852

QUESTION

S.S.BOORARA

Mr RYAN:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice-

Will he state who is the actual owner of the s.s. Boorara, at present under the control of the Commonwealth Government, and from what date such ownership commenced?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– The s.s. Boorara. is registered in London under the Admiralty as owners. The ownership commenced on 5th August, 1914, when the vessel was detained at Melbourne.

page 2852

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF WORKS OF ART

Mr MARKS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether any provision has been made on the Estimates for the purchase by the Government, with the advice of the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board, from time to time, of works, other than historical portraits, by Australian artists, having special merit or historical value?
  2. If so, to what amount?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

page 2853

QUESTION

SUGAR SUPPLY

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Minister for Trade andCustoms, upon notice -

  1. What quantity of sugar was supplied to the Co-operative Wholesale Society of New South Wales for the six months ending 30th June, 1919?
  2. What quantity of sugar was supplied to that company for the six months ending June, 1920?
  3. Can the Minister state when ordinary trade requirements are likely to be met?
Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. It is open to the Co-operative Wholesale Society of New South Wales to buy sugar from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company or from any wholesaler: and it is, therefore, not possible to state the source of the company’s supplies, nor the amount thereof.

  1. A cargo of 7,000 tons of sugar arrived from Cuba at Sydney on Monday, 5th July, and shipments of new season’s sugar from Queensland are also beginning to arrive. The ordinary trade requirements are, therefore, now likely to be met.

page 2853

QUESTION

HENDERSON NAVAL BASE

Mr.BURCHELL asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Whether it is proposed to adopt Admiral Lord Jellicoe’s recommendation as applied to Henderson Naval Base?

Can the Minister inform the House, in detail, of the work to be put in hand this financial year?

How many men are employed at this Base now ? “

Is there any prospect of more menbeing engaged in the near future?

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

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

  1. This matter has not yet been decided. 2 and 4. These matters will be considered in connexion with the Estimates.
  2. One ‘hundred and sixty-four.

page 2853

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Allowance to Parents - Advances to Returned Soldiers - Administrationin Northern Territory

Mr RYAN:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Government have discontinued, or intend to discontinue, the re patriation allowance now being paid to widowed mothers, incapacitated fathers, &c?
  2. If so will theGovernment increase their pensions, “in order to make up for any loss they may sustain through the cancellation of this living allowance?
Mr POYNTON:
NAT

– As I informed the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce) on the 2nd July (vide Hansard, page 2547), certain living allowances previously granted have been affected by the recent amending Repatriation Bill. The . question is at present receiving consideration, but in the meantime directions have been issued that the old allowances be continued, pending a decision upon the subject.

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Repatriation Department claims preference over trade creditors for advances made to returned soldiers -(a) covered by bills of sale; (b) on unsecured assets 1
  2. Is it a fact that under section 14 of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act of 1918, which amends the original Act, and section 55 of the Act of 1920, priority in bankruptcy is given to the Repatriation Department on all assets of a returned soldier for all advances made ?
  3. Is it a fact that trade gazettes can be prosecuted criminally if they publish particulars of securities under bills of sale, &c’., given by returned soldiers to the Repatriation Department? .
  4. Is it a fact that the difficulty placed in the way of traders in obtaining particulars of advances made to, and securities held from, returned soldiers by the Repatriation Department, very detrimentallyaffects the credit of all returned soldiers with traders, and retards the formers’ chances of success?
  5. Will the Government make provision to obviate this injustice suffered by returned soldiers and the trading community by allowing publication of particulars of securities held by the Repatriation Department?
Mr POYNTON:

– This question relates to Repatriation, and the Commissioners have supplied me with the following

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Repatriation Regulations make it an offence to publish in any periodical any extract from the registers of securities kept by the Department.
  4. The registers of securities are available for search by any person on payment of the prescribed fee of1s. The restriction on publication of the contents of the registers is in the interests of the soldiers, and was imposed as the result of representations made by their League.
  5. See answer to No. 4.
Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he received a letter fromMr. L. H. A. Giles, hon. secretary to the Darwin branch of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors’ Imperial League of Australia, asking that the benefits of the Repatriation Act may be extended to 150 returned soldiers in the Northern Territory?
  2. What is the Prime Minister’s reply?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A reply was sent by the Repatriation Department on the 29th June, 1920, intimating that an officer of that Department was leaving for the Northern Territory on the 1st July, and had been authorized to deal with immediate applications by returned soldiers, and to make recommendations in regard to future arrangements.

page 2854

QUESTION

MILITARY BASE HOSPITAL, FREMANTLE

Mr BURCHELL:

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

  1. Whether it is a fact that the Military Base Hospital at Fremantle is to be closed and the patients transferred to the Perth Public Hospital?
  2. If this is correct, what were the reasons for the proposed change?
  3. Could not the military patients be accommodated in the Fremantle Public Hospital, or failing that, as the buildings are situated close to the Fremantle Hospital, could not the latter body take over the supervision of soldier patients similarly to the Perth Hospital?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

– Under an agreement which expires on 31st December next, the Immigrants’ Home, Fremantle - a property vested in the State Government - has for some time been utilized as a military hospital. The question of providing suitable accommodation for the patients at the hospital, subsequent to 31st December, is now receiving the attention of the Repatriation Department. The matter will also be investigated by the Director-General of Medical Services, Defence Department, on the occasion of his forthcoming visit to Western Australia.

page 2854

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Mr MACKAY:

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that members of rifle clubs in Queensland have seriously complained of the reduction of the usual grant of 5s. per member to 2s. 6d. after the close of the financial year?
  2. Is it true that 1915 ammunition is to be issued to clubs that have already refused, after a trial, to use same?
  3. In view of the repeated requests that the Defence Department should procure and allow members to purchase new rifle barrels, is it intended to grant any relief in this matter?
  4. Is it a fact that private firms have obtained stocks of rifle accessories, including barrels, and that members of clubs are of the opinion that the prices charged are exorbitant?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes, but the exigencies of the financial situation necessitated the reduction.
  2. No.
  3. Manufacture of barrels for’ use by rifle clubs is now in progress at Lithgow, and it is anticipated that supplies will be available within a few weeks.
  4. The Defence Department has no knowledge of what stocks of rifle barrels are held by private firms, nor of the price asked for by such firms for rifle barrels.

page 2854

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

Duty on Wire Netting - Gramophone Records - Kerosene and Benzine.

Mr FLEMING:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. In view of the very severe losses from drought and flood suffered by farmers and graziers within the last few months, being now augmented by the unchecked invasion of rabbits and dingoes, will he temporarily suspend all duty on the importation of wire netting?
  2. Will he further refund all payments made by primary producers on this account since the recent raising of the duty payable thereon?
Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

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

  1. As the manufacture of wire netting is an old and firmly established industry in Australia, to which has been added, as a result of the war, the drawing of wire from locally rolled iron rods thereby, providing the raw material for the industry, it is not practicable to refund or remit the duty paid or payable on imported wire netting.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
Mr HIGGS:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is the importation of records produced by theVictor Talking Machine Company, of Camden, N. J., United States of America, prohibited by the Commonwealth Department of Trade and Customs?
  2. If so, why?
  3. What is the Customs duty on the said records ?
  4. Is the importation of theVictrola talking machine prohibited?
  5. If so, why?
Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

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

  1. Yes, if they bear the words “His Master’s Voice,” which is the registered trade mark of the Gramophone Company Limited, of London.
  2. Section 90 of the Trades Marks Act 1905- 1912 prohibits the importation of goods to which a registered trade mark is falsely applied.
  3. Ten per cent., ad valorem.
  4. Yes, if they bear the marking indicated in 1.
  5. See answer to No. 2.
Mr RILEY:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the great shortage in kerosene and benzine, has he any statement to make as to the arrival of shipments that will be likely to relieve the pressure?

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

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

The Vacuum Oil Company and the British Imperial Oil Company say that there is no famine. Shipments of kerosene and benzine have been recently landed at Melbourne, Sydney, Tasmania, Brisbane, and Townsville.

Benzine and kerosene are now being discharged at Sydney and Melbourne, and shipments are due in Western Australia and Queensland.

A shipment is due in South Australia in ten days.

page 2855

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Superannuation Scheme - Vacancies in Taxation Department.

Mr BURCHELL:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation providing superannuation for the Commonwealth public servants?
  2. If so, will he inform the House when the Bill is likely to be introduced?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

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

  1. On the 19th May, in reply to a question by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Blundell), I intimated that it was intended to introduce legislation this session dealing with superannuation.
  2. As goon as possible.
Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Government, during this session, to finalize legislation providing a scheme of superannuation for the Federal Public Service?

Mr HUGHES:

– I refer the honorable member to the answer I have just given.-

Mr BLUNDELL:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the reason for the delay in filling vacancies in the fourth class in the Taxation Department, South Australia?
  2. When is it anticipated that the positions rendered vacant during the past financial year and new positions provided for in the Estimates for 1919-20 will be filled?
Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Appointments have been deferred pending the staff reorganization of the Taxation Branch in all States, which has necessitated exhaustive investigation by the Public Service Commissioner. It is anticipated that appointments will be made in the near future.

page 2855

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Reservations for Monuments: Cardinal Moran - Utilizing Internment Camp

Mr MARR:

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Whether in the plans approved for the Federal City at Canberra provision has been made for the erection in the Capitol of monuments to great Australians?
  2. If so, is it a fact that permission has been given to the Roman Catholic Church, by a Minister in a previous Government, to erect a monument to the late Cardinal Moran in the space provided?
Mr POYNTON:
NAT

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

  1. A general approval has been given to the plans of the city, which include the reservation of an area, including Currajong Hill, to bc occupied by national memorials. Details of the scheme cannot be worked out at present, and its development must be deferred until matters concerning the city are much further advanced.
  2. A promise, was given that a site should be allotted for such a monument, but it was clearly stated that it was not possible to say which particular spot could be marked out for the statue.
Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Whether any consent or approval has been given for the erection of any monument on the Federal Capital site by any person or body of persons?
  2. If so, to whom or for what purpose?
  3. Have any regulations been framed for the granting of such consent or approval, or is approval granted by the authority of the Minister alone?
  4. Will the Minister take steps to provide that the House shall be consulted before any such consent or approval is given?
Mr POYNTON:

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

  1. As stated in my answers to the questions of the honorable member for Parkes (Mr Marr), a promise was given that a site should be allotted for a statue to the late Cardinal Moran.
  2. The promise was made to Senator Needham on behalf of the H.A.C.B. Society.
  3. No regulations have been framed in connexion with the matter. So far, there has only been one application, and that was approved by the Minister.
  4. It’ might be difficult to arrange for reference to be made to the House in each particular case, but at a later date an opportunity will be given for discussion of the principles which shouldregulate the grant or refusal of all such applications.
Mr STORY:
for Mr. Austin Chapman

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House what steps have been taken in regard to using the internment camp erected at Canberra?
  2. Will the buildings erected there be made available for persons engaged in employment in the Territory?
Mr POYNTON:

– The buildings and equipment are the property of the Imperial Government, the management of which is in the hands of trustees on its behalf. Negotiations are taking place with a view to the acquisition by the Commonwealth of so much of the property as can be profitably utilized for the construction of the Capital or otherwise.

page 2856

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

New Offices and Alterations, Victoria and New South Wales - Country Services - Sick Leave - Telephonist’s Duties - Overseas Mail Services - Mail Contractors : Fodder Allowances - Wages of Postal Assistants - Automatic Exchange, Perth - Relieving Postmasters - Bundanoon Postal Arrangements

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

Whether he will inform the House as to -

the number of new post-offices erected in country towns in the States of Victoria and New South Wales since 1900, and the population of each of such towns, as well as the total cost of the new premises;

the number of alterations to postoffices in Victoria and New South Wales in the same period, and the cost of such work in each instance?

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

– On inquiry, I find that to furnish the return asked for would involve considerable time, labour, and expense. Unless the honorable member has some important public purpose to serve, I would ask him not to press the matter.

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Austin Chapman

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Will he consider the desirability of securing sufficient funds to enable telephones to be established in small country centres where reports in respect of the same have been favorable, but which have been delayed on the grounds of want of funds?
  2. Will he consider the desirability of reestablishing many of the small country mail services that were reduced during war time, so that people in isolated parts of the country may have a greater measure of . convenience than enjoyed by them at present?
Mr WISE:
Postmaster-General · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

– Consideration has already been given to these matters, and instructions were issued some time since in regard to such services.

Mr RILEY:
for Mr. Mathews

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Will he supply a return showing the sick leave granted to male telephonists in the Commonwealth service during the term beginning on the 1st July, 1919, and concluding on the 30th June, 1920?
  2. Is it a fact that the male telephonist on night duty at the Footscray Exchange is called upon, in addition to answering calls, to enter daily calls on tally sheets?
  3. Is it a fact that this duty is excessive, considering that during the busy season upwards of 3,800 calls are to be recorded, in addition to attending calls?
  4. Will the Minister cause inquiries to be made, with the view of having this work deleted from telephonists’ duties?
Mr WISE:

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

  1. Yes, if sufficient justification can be shown for incurring the expense. 2, 3, and 4. These are matters which have a bearing on a plaint lodged with the Arbitration Court, and it is not usual to answer questions in Parliament on matters which are sub judice.
Mr MARKS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What progress has been made in negotiations with the steam-ship companies respecting an improved mail service to and from Eng- land, and when it is anticipated finality will be reached?
  2. With a view to alleviate the serious disabilities under which Australian business firms are now labouring by reason of the indifferent mail service to England, will he consider the advisability of entering into a special contract with the Oceanic Steam-ship Company, now operating between Sydney and San Francisco with the Ventura and Sonoma, and who are about to place a new 8,000-ton steamer on this route?
  3. Will the Minister consider the removal of the restriction requiring that letters sent via San Francisco to England must be indorsed with the route and the name of the steamer by which they are consigned?
  4. If so, and in order to insure a more general use of this quick route for Australian correspondence, will he urge the British PostmasterGeneral to remove the same restriction ?
Mr WISE:

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

  1. The existing contract with the Orient Company, the only one to which the Commonwealth is a party, does not expire until 17th September, 1921. I am, therefore, not in a position to give the honorable member any information at this juncture in regard to a new contract.
  2. A special contract is not considered necessary. The San Francisco route is already utilized under non-contract conditions, when any advantage is likely to be gained thereby in regard to the arrival of mails in England. 3 and 4. The overseas time-table is arranged with the view of insuring the conveyance of the mails by the quickest means available. It is not always advantageous to use the San Francisco route for mails to England, as steamers leaving Australia via Suez about the same time as the American steamers may afford a quicker means of despatch; but in order that the public may use the San Francisco route, if they so desire for some special reason, the arrangement for indorsement of their letters was made accordingly as a convenience to the public, not as a restriction.

Mr. STORY (for Sir Robert Best) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

With reference to a question asked by the honorable member forKooyong on the 31st March last, Hansard, page 1011, with reference to the Pacific mail contract, will the Minister be good enough to state what has been the result of his consideration of the matter ?

Mr WISE:

– This is a question which comes within the province of the Prime Minister, but I understand the matter is still under consideration by him. That was the consideration referred to in my previous answer.

Mr. STORY (for Mr. Austin Chapman) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that mail contractors are in great difficulties on account of the high price of fodder, and in many cases are unable to carry out their engagements without some assistance from the Government?
  2. If so, will he consider the desirability of at once giving them some help in the way of a fodder allowance in all deserving cases?
Mr WISE:

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

  1. Applications have been received from a number of mail contractors for assistance owing to the high prices of fodder.
  2. The question of affording assistance to mail contractors in drought-stricken districts is under consideration.
Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, though telegraph messengers, of four years’ standing receive £134 per annum, postal assistants of five and a half years’ service are receiving only£84 per annum?
  2. Whether many postal assistants are resigning from the Commonwealth Service from this cause?
Mr WISE:

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

  1. Under the recent letter carriers’ arbitration award a telegraph messenger entering the Service at sixteen years of age at £72 per annum would receive £138 per annum on attaining the age of twenty years. I am informed that there are not any postal assistants with five and a half years’ service who are receiving £84 per annum.
  2. I am not aware of any.
Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the automatic telephone equipment of Perth is much below the requirements of the city, and that, as a consequence, there are many complaints from subscribers regarding the defective service?
  2. If so, what action is the PostmasterGeneral taking to improve this state of affairs?’
Mr WISE:

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

  1. The automatic telephone equipment in the Perth Exchange was recently overloaded owing to the shortage of and the difficulty in obtaining material for additions to the exchange, in consequence of which some complaints were received.
  2. Sufficient equipment has been obtained recently to meet immediate requirements, and. the only difficulty now experienced is a moderate congestion on the junction line equipment during the peak load of the day. Arrangements are in hand to prepare for large additions to the Perth Exchange. When the necessary equipment has been received and installed the service should ‘be completely satisfactory.
Mr MARR:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether he can state the number of relieving postmasters in New South Wales and Victoria, and the number employed in each grade in each of the two States?
  2. How many graded offices in each of the two States are there at which these officers are called upon to perform relieving duties?
Mr WISE:

– Inquiry is being made, and replies will be furnished as early as possible.

Mr LAZZARINI:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will lay on the table of the House the inspector’s report in connexion with the proposed alteration of postal arrangements at Bundanoon, New South Wales?

Mr WISE:

– It is not in the public interest that inspectors’ reports should be made public; but I shall be very glad to give the honorable member any information on the subject that can be reasonably, asked for.

page 2858

RETURNED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS IMPERIAL LEAGUE

DISTRIBUTION OF TwEED.

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

– On Thursday, the Sth July, the honorable member for .Hunter (Mr. Charlton) drew attention- to certain allegations which had been, made against the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League in New South Wales, of discriminating against returned, soldiers who are not members of the league, in. the distribution of civilian suiting made at the Government Woollen Mills, Geelong. I am having inquiries made into the matter as promised, but, in fairness to the league, I wish to inform the honorable member that I have received a telegram from the president of the league in Sydney, in which he asserts that the allegation of discrimination by the league in charges for tweed to members and nonmembers is untrue so far “as his State is concerned.

page 2858

QUESTION

PETITION BY REVEREND J. B. RONALD

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– On the 2nd July, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) asked me a question in regard to a petition to His Majesty the King presented by the Reverend J. B. Ronald: I now desire to. inform the honorable member that a despatch has been received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, forwarding the petition referred to. As, however, the matter is. purely a State one, the petition has been referred to the Government of Victoria.

page 2858

QUESTION

SMELTING AGREEMENT

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– On the 7th July, the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) asked me a question as to whether I would lay on the table of the House, a copy of an agreement betweenthe Broken Hill mining companies and the British Board of Trade. I then. re-, plied that I was under the. impression that I had previously informed the honorable member that the terms of the agreement which he has in mind were not completed, and, therefore, a copy could not be laid on the table. I have since made furtherinquiries and ascertained that my memory served me right when I replied to the honorable member on the 7th July. I desire to further inform him that the details of the contract, to which the parties are the Zinc Producers Association and the British Board of Trade, have not yet. been finalized. When the agreement is received, the question of tabling it will be duly considered.

page 2858

PAPERS

The following papers were- presented : -

Taxation - Increases of. Wealth (War) - Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons. (Paper presented to the British Parliament.)

Deceased Soldiers’ Estates Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1920, No. 109.

Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1920, Nos. 110, 118.

Northern Territory Ordinance of 1920 - No. 4 - Dog (in substitution of the Paper laid upon the table on the 1st instant).

Public Service Act - Promotion of F. W. H. Hay, Prime Minister’s Department.

War Service Homes Act- =Land acquired under, at Chilwell, Victoria.

page 2858

QUESTION

DISSENT FROM MR. SPEAKER’S RULING

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

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) has given notice of the following motion : -

That the Speaker’s ruling - That references to the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran in the Father Jerger case, and to the conduct of the Executive in connexion with that inquiry, are not proper subjects for discussion in Parliament - be disagreed to.

The essential point in the ruling which I gave on Thursday is not mentioned at all in that motion. My ruling was that the case of Father Jerger could not be discussed in Parliament while it was sui judice. I mentioned that fact to the House on Friday in order that the honorable member might have an opportunity to amend it. Perhaps the honorable member wall now ask the House for leave to amend his motion, so that it will state accurately the ruling I gave.

Mr RYAN:
West Sydney

– I have no objection to the motion being amended to make it clear that the objection is to your ruling, that my remarks concerning Father Jerger were out of order, because his case was under notice of appeal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The essence of the ruling was that the case was *sub judice **

Mr RYAN:

– I contend that this matter was not sub judice, but I am quite willing to have the motion discussed on the basis of the circumstances in which it was given. I quite understood Mr. Speaker’s ruling to be that as notice cf appeal had been given against the decision of Mr. Justice Starke in the Father Jerger case, the remarks I was making were not in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member ask the House for leave to amend the .motion?

Mr RYAN:

– What will happen if the House refuses to do that ? ^ .

Mr Tudor:

– Would the objection of one honorable member be a bar to the amendment of the motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sure that the House would not take advantage of the honorable member’s oversight in the framing of the motion. My only object is that the notice shall appear in the proper order, and that there shall not be placed on the records a ruling which I did not give.

Mr RYAN:

– My notice of motion set out that your ruling should be disagreed to on the following grounds-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The notice on the paper sets out grounds which are not correct.

Mr RYAN:

– That was not done by me. Those grounds were stated by the official who edited the notice of motion before placing it on the business-paper; My notice of motion proposed that Mr. Speaker’s ruling “be disagreed to on the ground that this matter was a proper subject for discussion in Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the honorable member have leave to amend his motion in the way he has indicated ? (Leave granted.)

Mr RYAN:

– The motion will be in order if you, sir, will obtain the notice I actually gave, and which set out the position correctly. I moved to disagree to the ruling which you gave when I was speaking on Thursday evening in reference to an inquiry, which I referred to as a make-believe inquiry, before Sir Robert Garran at the instance of the Executive Government. I’ was proceeding to make some condemnatory comments upon that inquiry, and the action of the Government in connexion therewith. As a rule, I am very reluctant to move that the Speaker’s ruling be disagreed to, but I think that in this matter it is imperative that something be done by Parliament itself to vindicate the right of honorable members to fully and freely discuss all matters of public importance, and, particularly, abuses of. the power of the Executive Government. At all times, honorable members should uphold the right of Parliament to freely discuss such matters, and it is rather significant that this ruling was given while a motion of censure on the Government was being discussed. Of course, discussion must conform to the Standing Orders; but usually, when speaking on a motion of want of confidence or censure, honorable members are allowed a wider range, and greater latitude, than in ordinary debates. It is in order that Parliament itself may affirm the right of honorable members to discuss these matters ot public interest, and particularly misfeasances of the Executive Government, that I move this motion. That is the first reason. But I have a second reason, and that is to protect the Courts, and in this particular case the High Court, from having any responsibility shifted from the Executive Government on to it. If Mr. Speaker’s ruling stands, and Parliament is precluded from discussing this matter, the impression will go forth to the public that the High Court had some jurisdiction to decide whether or not the Father Jerger inquiry was properly conducted, whereas, as a matter of fact, the question submitted for decision to the High Court was whether the Executive Government had power to deport the Reverend Father Jerger, or anybody else. Mr. Justice Starke had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not the Executive Government had abused its powers. Of course, it would be very convenient for the Executive to shift on to the shoulders of the Court responsibility for misfeasance of the Executive. What are the grounds upon which it is out of order to discuss matters that are pending in a Court of law? In the first place, it is considered improper, or unfitting, that matters should be discussed in Parliament that might have the effect of prejudicing the trial of persons against whom a charge is pending. The other reason is the protection of Judges from unjust attacks or attempts to influence them in the performance of their judicial functions. For those two reasons, discussion in Parliament of cases which are sub judice is held to be improper, and sometimes out of order. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling given by the Speaker of the House of Commons on the 6th May, T889. Mr. Atherley-Jones was addressing the House in regard to certain prosecutions in Ireland, and a point of order having been taken as to the propriety of his remarks, the Speaker Sal/ (vide page 1255, vol. 335 of the Hansard reports of the House of Commons) -

Nor am I aware of any distinct and definite ruling from the Chair, though I am aware of frequent expressions of opinion, both from Ministers in this House and other members, with regard to the impropriety of alluding to pending trials in such a way as to prejudice a fair trial of the case.

That sets out the grounds on which in that particular case the Speaker thought that the remarks that were being made were extending beyond the bounds of propriety. Are any of those conditions present in this case ? Is it not extraordinary that instead of my proposed remarks tending to prejudice the fair trial of an individual, they were in demand of such a trial? That being so, the case cannot be within the rule that I have read. And it cannot come within that rule on the ground that what was said was intended, or calculated, or could be construed’ in any way, to reflect on a Judge when no specific motion to deal with him was before the House. On the contrary, the observa- tions which were ruled out of order were based on the assumption that the decision of the learned Judge who decided the case was right. They were comment upon the action of the Executive in abusing a power which the Court said that it had. It is perfectly obvious, I submit, that comments, or observations, or discussions about the matter of that inquiry could not in any sense tend to .prejudice the fair trial of anybody, nor could they reflect upon the learned Judge who tried the case, or upon the Courts generally. On the other hand, they tended to make , for the fair trial of persons generally. I should be sorry to confine my remarks to any one particular individual, and-, not now only, but for years, I have contended that no one should be deported from these shores, because we should be able to deal with offenders within our own borders; certainly no one should be deported until a specific charge had been made against him and he had been fairly tried before a jury of his countrymen - a right that was wrung from King John over 700 years ago, and one that is being violated almost every day in this country at the present time.

I now wish to examine the facts of the case in order to show honorable members that the matter to which I was referring is not sub judice. It is not the subjectmatter of a decision by a Court, and it is not under appeal from a Court. In order to understand that, we must know what the matter was that was brought before the High Court of Australia in the Father Jerger case. That case was a challenging of the authority or power of the Executive to deport persons, with or without trial. The contention was put forward by the. counsel for the Rev. Father Jerger that the War Precautions Act had’ come to an end, and that certain provisions of it were ultra vires of this Parliament. It cannot be suggested that the matter of the inquiry held before Sir Robert Garran had anything to do with the case. That inquiry took place before the case was brought before the Court, and was not referred to in any way while it was before the Court. It was not brought before the Court as part of the subject-matter upon which the Court’s decision was asked.

Mr Bowden:

– It was under the powers of the War Precautions Act that it was held.

Mr RYAN:

– That inquiry was not held under the War Precautions Act. The deportation is alleged to be under the powers of the Act, but not the inquiry.

Mr Bowden:

– The inquiry was an administrative act.

Mr RYAN:

– I am glad that the honorable member admits that it was not held under the War Precautions Act. This matter is of vital importance to all members, no matter where they sit, because what is my position to-day may be theirs to-morrow. It is of the utmost importance that we should arrive at a correct decision as to the powers and rights of members in discussing questions in this Chamber. I say that the particular matter to which I was referring was not sub judice. In order to come to a conclusion as to whether it was or was not tub judice, it was necessary to have knowledge of the facts, and to know what was the particular matter before the Court. That was not a thing that you, Mr. Speaker, could spin out of your brain, unless the facts had been put before you. I can well understand that, not knowing exactly what particular matters were before the Court, you should come to a wrong conclusion. You cannot know everything. No one can do so. But, having had the facts put before you. and I, having given you my assurance that the matter on which I was speaking was not one of those that came ‘before the Court, you should not have decided that it was sub judice.

Mr Brennan:

– He accepted as gospel the strategic interjection of the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook).

Mr RYAN:

– Perhaps that is so. However, you were misled, Mr. Speaker, because I contend that there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt but that your decision was wrong. I am one of those who believe in supporting the Speaker, whose authority must be upheld. I would be the first to object to any challenging of your authority. But I ask honorable members to note the difference between upholding your authority and dissenting from your ruling. You remarked, the other day. that the Speaker is never wrong. He is never wrong until Parliament has dissented from his ruling. While the ruling stands it must be upheld. If, on Thursday evening, I. had defied your ruling, no doubt, certain things would have occurred, and, whether in the final result your ruling was determined to be right or wrong, honorable members would have been justified in taking, on the motion of the Prime Minister or other Minister in charge of the House, certain action against .rae. Defiance of the Chair is entirely different from asking the House to declare its rights iri the discussion of public matters. la this case honorable members should be actuated only by the desire to arrive at the right conclusion. It should be no offence to you, Mr. Speaker, that a majority of honorable members declare a particular ruling to be wrong. What is the position ? I am precluded, by your ruling, from discussing the matter of the inquiry, and shall not try to do so by a side-wind. I wish to confine myself to what is strictly relevant to the motion I have moved. I was prevented from saying anything about that inquiry, strongly as I felt upon it. I cannot say anything regarding it now, strongly as I feel about it. But the daily press can discuss it. Public meetings can be held throughout the country to discuss it. Parliament alone, the ruler of the country, is gagged, and members can say nothing about it. The Parliament that controls the Executive cannot say anything about it. In the train I read the

Argus, comments upon, the case, and what has taken place at public meetings regarding it. I read that the Assistant Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Ryrie) referred to the reverend gentleman as a traitor.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– So he is.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a cowardly thing to say without giving him a trial.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope that the motion will be discussed without referring to the case of Father Jerger.

Mr RYAN:

– Under your ruling, sir, I am precluded from saying anything in this House concerning the inquiry in the Father Jerger case, and the conduct of it. But it can be discussed by every one else. Even a Minister of the Crown can repeat here by interjection what he said elsewhere. If the matter were sub judice, the rules preventing its discussion would prevent persons outside Parliament from discussing it now. The Minister says that the Reverend Father Jerger is a traitor, but he is afraid to submit the matter to the trial of a jury.

That is not British. I suppose I may conclude that your ruling, sir. prevents me from discussing the action of the British seamen on board the Nestor in upholding the rights of trial by jury granted in Magna Charta. I cannot refer to anything in connexion with the case of the Reverend Father Jerger, because you have said that it is sub judice. Your ruling was a very handy one for the Government, because it gags this Parliament by preventing members from discussing the case.

Mr Riley:

– The case is not before any Court.

Mr RYAN:

– No. I am pointing out that the ruling was wrong, and stating the facts to show that it was wrong. It is significant that’ the point of order on which the ruling was given was taken by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), who is a member of the Executive that is responsible for the travesty of justice that we have had in connexion with this matter, and in connexion with the deportation of other persons without trial.

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

– I have to learn that it is in order, under cover of a motion of dissent from Mr. Speaker’s ruling, to launch a cowardly attack on a Minister who is not able to reply to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The discussion must be confined to the motion now before, the House, and no attempt must be made to re-open the case to which I would not permit reference to be made. I ask the honorable member for West Sydney to refrain from any personal attack on Ministers or others.

Mr RYAN:

– I am not making an attack on the Minister, except in his public capacity.

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

– It is out of order for you to attack the Executiveon this motion.

Mr RYAN:

– If the Minister, is also the Speaker, and can give rulings - -

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

-I ask the Speaker to decide the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have already ruled that the honorable member for West Sydney is not out of order in this regard.

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

– May I ask if, under cover of this motion, the honorable member may proceed to attack the Executive?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have already ruled that nothing beyond the terms of the motion itself will be in order for discussion at this stage, and I ask the honorable member for West Sydney not to pursue his present proposed line of argument,

Mr RYAN:

– In order to develop my argument, namely, that your ruling is wrong, sir, it is necessary for me to’ present certain illustrations indicating what the Executive may do. I point out that if this ruling stands it will rob honorable members of their right of discussion; and it is only in thatsense that I am using the illustration with respect to the Minister for the Navy. I suppose, however, that he is so thin-skinned because he knows that the Executive has been guilty of such a; gross travesty of justice.

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

-I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to. a repetition by the honorable member of . a reference which you have just ruled, out of order. In addition to the fact of his being out of order, the honorable member has employedan insulting observation in regard to myself, and I ask that, it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable, member for West Sydney must know well that if a: remark is made which any other honorable member or Minister regards as personally offensive, it must be withdrawn, I call upon him, therefore, to withdraw.

Mr RYAN:

– But I have not been guilty of such an offence.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) ‘ has ‘ intimated that he feels aggrieved because . of something personally offensive to him which the honorable member has just’ said. I am sure he will see thathemust withdraw.

Mr RYAN:

– So long as it was something which was not in- order I will do so; but the Minister for the Navy obviously feels aggrieved at my applying trenchant criticism–

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

– But you must not be offensive.

Mr RYAN:

– I wasnot, and I have nothing to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the honorable member that it is customary, when a Minister or any honorable member of this House has taken exception to some remark in. the course of. debate, for the honorable . member who has so off ended to withdraw. I hope, therefore, that the honorable member for West Sydney will do so,

Mr RYAN:

– If you, sir, will tell me what I said that was not in accordance with the Standing Orders I will be most ready and willing to withdraw it. I remarked that the Minister for the Navy was thin-skinned. I will withdraw the phrase if that will placate the Minister.

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

– My skin is not as thick as your hide.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Will the honorable member for West Sydney please resume his seat. The honorable member, I feel sure, will at once perceive the development which has followed upon his original remark, to . which exception was taken, and which he has just agreed to withdraw. I have now to call on the Minister for the Navy to withdraw the utterance to which he has just given expression.

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

– Yes, sir ; I withdraw.

Mr RYAN:

– I will, proceed . now, if I am permitted, . to show that if your ruling stands there are quite a numberof other matters associated with this case which cannot be referred to, and which, obviously, ought to be open to discussion in this House. They are matters which are open to debate outside; but here., . apparently, we are to be prevented from discussing them. I do not wish to read a long extract from a statement made by the reverend gentleman concerned, and published in the Adelaide Herald, so, with the permission of the. House, I, will ask leave that it be inserted in Hansard.I will proceed now to make, comments upon some of its features.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am afraid I cannot allow the honorable . member to do as he proposes for in following such a procedure he would be going too far be- yond the scope of the motion of dissent from my ruling, and would be, dealing with the case itself. I repeat and emphasize that the honorable member cannot re-open.the case, or refer, to it, and sorevive the very point which, has been ruledout of order.

Mr RYAN:

– I am not referring to the inquiry held bef ore Sir . Robert Garran, but I arose for the purpose of referring to other matters in connexion with the same reverend’ gentleman, butnot matters which are sub judice.I desire, to show that, if remarks in regard to. the inquiry can be ruled out of order, so can any remarks uttered with respect to these other matters be ruled out of order. That is the only reason why I wish to have the newspaper statement inserted- that, together with my desire to be saved time by dispensing with reading the statement to honorable members. Of course, if you rule that I must read the statement, I shall proceed to do so. These are the remarks to which I refer. They are headed, “Does Australia stand for this? A call to lovers of freedom on behalf of a ruined man.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am sorry to interrupt the honorable member, but he must see that he is proceeding to deal with matters which do not affect the motion. The only question ‘ before the Chair is embraced in the motionof dissent from my ruling. Under cover of that motion it will not be competent for the honorable member to revive a matter to which the ruling itself referred, and the honorable member knows that perfectly well.

Mr RYAN:

– I was not going to refer to the particularinquiry, but toa statement published on behalf of the reverend gentleman himself which has appeared in the Adelaide press.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not see what that has to do with the motion at all.

Mr Ryan:

– If your ruling stands, then we may not discuss these matters.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is certainly proceeding a long way from the point before the Chair. ‘ The only thing he may discuss is whether or not Mr. Speaker’s ruling was correct, namely, that a case which is sub judice cannot be discussed in Parliament, and whether the decision of Mr. Speaker, that it is not in order to discuss that matter, shall stand. If the honorable member were permitted to revive matters other than that which is embraced within the motion, there would be no limit to this discussion.

Mr RYAN:

– I have to develop my own argument, and, if possible, to satisfy honorable members that your ruling is wrong. You say, however, that I am confined to discussing whether you were right or wrong in your decision. I say that the matter was not sub judice. That is my point.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is, entirely, a different matter. It is simply a point in dispute as to whether the matter was sub judice or not. The question before the Chair, however, is not whether the case is sub judice or otherwise, but whether the decision of Mr. Speaker was right or wrong, that if the case was sub judice, honorable members would not be in order in discussing it.

Mr RYAN:

– Your ruling was that I could not go on. That was the effect of it. I was stopped when I was speaking, and if it now develops that the matter was not sub judice, what redress have I for having been stopped? If you say that your ruling was that I was wrong if the case was sub judice, what is my position if I was right? I contend that the matter was not sub judice when you ruled me out of order. Did you not rule that it was?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I can only say that I was informed ‘by a Minister that it was sub judice.

Mr RYAN:

– All I can say then, sir, is that you were misinformed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– But I had to accept that assurance from a responsible Minister.

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

– What the Minister has to say is that Mr. Speaker was not misinformed.

Mr RYAN:

– I believe tha1; you were misled, sir, by the fact that the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) gave you to understand that the matter was sub judice, whereas it was not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It was not only the Minister for the Navy who so informed me, but the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom), who is a legal member of the Cabinet, announced the fact also.

Mr RYAN:

– I understood all along that your adviser was the Minister for the Navy. He certainly rose in his place.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister for the Navy raised the point.

Mr RYAN:

– When I was speaking I said -

I have challenged the Government to place the evidence on the table, and they have refused to do so. Are honorable members going to allow that sort of thing to continue?

Then followed the Minister for the Navy, as reported in Hansard, as follows : -

For the last few minutes the honorable member has been discussing the Father Jerger case, which is not within the province of this Parliament to discuss at present, as you, Mr. Speaker, well ruled this afternoon. Is it in order to set aside your ruling and to discuss the case again while it is pending in the Law Courts?

That was the Minister’s point of order. I do not remember the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom) intervening at all; but, at all events, the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) raised the point om which your ruling was given.

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

– And the Law Officers of the Crown intimated to the House, and to Mr. ‘Speaker, that the matter was sub judice in the Courts.

Mr RYAN:

– Then the Law Officers of the Crown have misinformed the House, and I am surprised that they should have done iso upon the point that the matter of the inquiry held by Sir Robert Garran was sub judice. Does the Minister for Works and Railways say that .it is ?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– The inquiry is not sub judice itself, but the challenging of the Government’s action in deporting this man is sub judice. The honorable member must remember that there was not only an application to be made which was under appeal, but, also, that a writ was issued challenging the Government’s action, and asking for an injunction to restrain the Commonwealth authorities from deporting the party in question. And, according to the honorable member’s case, presumably, the whole of the facts in connexion with the deportation are to be raised.

Mr RYAN:

– No; only one point was raised, and that was whether the Executive had power to take this action or not.

Mr Groom:

– On the application Which the honorable member made, he raised several points.

Mr RYAN:

– Does the Minister suggest that it was within the jurisdiction of the High Court to say whether or not the Federal Executive had .abused their powers ?

Mr Groom:

– You have issued a writ, which has raised the whole question of the circumstances of the deportation.

Mr RYAN:

– There is only one point raised, and that is whether the Commonwealth Executive has power to deport persons, or not. This matter regarding the inquiry held before Sir Robert Garran was not sub judice, and is not now sub judice. Responsibility rests upon honorable members to. say whether or not they will prevent a discussion on this matter; and it is an individual responsibility. Are honorable members going to stand for this, namely, that they will not allow the matter to be discussed upon the floor of the House, seeing that a notice of appeal has ‘been given regarding the power of the Executive to deport people from this country? If they -are going to do so, discussion can be held up in this Chamber, not only pending the final decision of the High Court, but until a decision has been sought from and given by the ultimate tribunal of appeal of the British Empire; that is, the Privy Council.’ It would be absolutely ridiculous, but that would be the effect of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and of honorable members supporting it.

Now, I desire to give an illustration of a matter which may be referred to in debate in this Chamber, which is not the issue in a trial. I am referring to volume 335 of British Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, third series (page 1251). The member of the House of Commons whom I shall quote is. Mr. Atherley-Jones, whose knowledge of the Standing Orders of the Imperial Parliament no honorable member will doubt. He was speaking in reference to the prosecution of a Mr. Conybeare and a Mr. Harrison, and was called to order for referring to matters that were in issue at the trial. He desisted, but went on to make other statements, which I shall read in order to illustrate what was held to be in order as not being part of the subject-matter of the trial -

Now, what I want to ask the House is what offence Mr. Harrison committed in handing in these loaves of bread, and, secondly, what is of more importance, assuming that he had committed an offence, which might be the subject of some civil remedy, what justified the police in arresting him ? In amplification of this question, I wish to ask the right honorable gentleman what are the functions of the Royal Irish Constabulary in respect of evictions? I have followed with great care and interest the information we have at various times received in regard to the conduct of the Irish Constabulary at evictions, but, as an English lawyer, and speaking, as I know I do, the confirmed opinion of every member of my own profession, I say without hesitation that the duties of the police at evictions are confined within these limits.

And so on. Those’ statements were not held to be out of order. Later on, as reported at page 1258, Mr. AtherleyJones, dealing with the conduct of the police with regard to Mir. Conybeare, said -

It is reported that Mr. Conybeare, during his visit to Falcarragh, was subjected to an odious system of police espionage. Members of the constabulary followed my honorable friend about with note-books in their hands and wrote clown every word he uttered in private conversation.

Although these gentlemen were under a charge that had yet to be dealt with, Mr. Atherley-Jones discussed in this way the manner in which the police had dealt with them. That being so, surely I should have been allowed to refer to the manner in which the Commonwealth Executive dealt with this internee. Here was an actual trial, and the matter was discussed in the House of Commons by Mr. Atherley-Jones, whose knowledge in such matters no one will doubt. He referred in the way I have set out to the conduct of the police connected with the case. Could I not, then, refer similarly, even if the matter were sub judice - which it is not - to the manner in which the Commonwealth Executive had abused their powers 1 Was it not open for me to refer to the way in which they had hounded down this internee and persecuted him at every turn? Are we not to be allowed to discuss these things? Are Ministers to be able to go out without telling the public what has been done-

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

– I rise to order. Is the honorable member in order in charging the Executive Government of the day with persecuting and otherwise abusing this so-called internee while the case is still before the Court?

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

– I am afraid it would be somewhat difficult to restrain some honorable members from indulging in adverse criticism of the Government of the day. I would point out, however, that the specific motion before the Chair is merely one to diss.ent from my ruling, and advantage should not be taken of such a motion to make charges against Ministers or any one else. The honorable member should simply deal with what, in his opinion, are the merits or demerits of the ruling itself. I ask him to confine himself to that aspect of the. matter.

Mr RYAN:

– In building up my ar- gument, it is necessary that I should make my case clear to honorable members by-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that the honorable member is going considerably beyond what, is necessary.

Mr RYAN:

– It is necessary to. show what would be the consequence of giving effect to the ruling from which we ask the House to dissent. I have quoted from a speech- made in the House of Commons in which Mr. Atherley-Jones was allowed to use some very strong language. He asked, when dealing with the case of Mr. Conybeare, why the police were allowed to go about taking notes of private conversations of a person who was to he tried ?’ That surely was a reflection, and a very justifiable reflection, upon the action of the Executive Government of the day.

I am not going to detain the House any longer. I have set out what, in my opinion, are the considerations upon which honorable members ought to act in coming to a conclusion on this question. It is not, so far as you are concerned, Mr. Speaker, a personal matter. It is a matter not of upholding your rights OV authority as Speaker, but of upholding the rights and authority of this House. Every member has to shoulder . a personal responsibility for the vote he casts. The -responsibility for the ruling given by you when you called .me to order was yours, Mr Speaker; but every honorable member who, when we divide on this question, votes to say that you were right in not permitting me to make »i comment upon this Executive action on the part of the Government must accept the responsibility for your ruling. That responsibility, I am sure, honorable members are prepared to take. I am prepared to take my responsibility, and I have no doubt that every honorable member is prepared to shoulder his own. But I would remind honorable members who contend that they come here to stand for the upholding of the authority of Parliament, and for the restoration of constitutional government, that one of the first things they must do is to see that there shall be no curbing of the rights of honor-able members in this House to speak in public upon all matters, and to take the consequences of what they say. If I said something that was not in conformity with public opinion I should stiffer accordingly. After all the final arbiter, the final judge of us all, is .public opinion. We all know that during the years of the war the Executive Government were given extraordinary powers. It was said that because of the war it ‘was necessary that they should have them. Those powers were used tyrannically. But in addition to v’est- ing them in the Government and to setting up a class of tin-pot tyrants in this country, are honorable members opposite going to allow us to be prevented from expressing in this House our views upon every action of the Executive? I repeat, sir, that the responsibility passes from you. -No doubt you came to your conclusion as the result of being misinformed by some responsible Minister. The responsibility passes from you to the shoulders of honorable .members generally, and I hope that they will do their duty.

Mr Mathews:

– I second the motion.

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

– I ask honorable members to cast back their minds to the circumstances under which this ruling was given. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) was attempting to discuss the whole question of the deportation of Father Jerger - an Executive act carried ‘out, -as we believe, under the authority of the law. The -deportation of Father Jerger was being argued in the Courts, awd it was raised here. The honorable .member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) in his capacity as counsel, had made application to the High Court for an order nisi for a writ of habeas corpus. That case .had been argued before the Court one afternoon, and on the following morning a decision was given by the learned Judge. The honorable member announced in Court that he intended to give notice of appeal; and that notice of appeal has actually been given, so that the question is still sub judice. An attempt was made to discuss in this House the whole question of Father Jerger’s deportation, when the validity or invalidity of that action was before the Court for decision. When the matter was first raised the grounds on .which, the action taken was alleged to be invalid were not known, except by reference to a writ which had been issued in addition to the application for an order nisi. In this writ it is stated that-

The plaintiff’s claim is for a declaration that the War Precautions Act 1914-16 and the War Precautions Regulations 1915 are no longer in operation, and are ultra vires of the Constitution Act-

Mr Ryan:

– That is a pure point of law.

Mr GROOM:

– But in this writ the plaintiff also claims an injunction - to restrain defendant by himself or his agents or servants from taking any action or step interfering with the personal liberty of the plaintiff, and’ compelling him to leave Australia, and also for an order to restrain the said defendant or his agents or servants from authorizing or permitting any military or naval authority from arresting the plaintiff or interfering with his personal liberty as aforesaid:

It will thus be seen that the question of a man’s personal liberty, which is involved in this writ, was raised by the honorable member. During the debate he sought to create, and might have been successful in creating, in this House a political opinion upon the case while it was still before a Court for decision. That was the atmosphere which the honorable member intended to create. Our functions as a legislative body are clear, and there can be no doubt that the House is perfectly justified in criticising freely the actions of the Government and in calling upon it to answer for its conduct. Such criticism is clearly within the functions of Parliament. The Courts of law, however, stand in a different position. They are created to deal, amongst other things, with questions relating to the liberty of individuals and to take into account the circumstances concerning such matters. The honorable member f or Kennedy (Mr. McDonald) will no doubt have a clear recollection of the ruling that he, as Speaker, gave when Sir William Irvine, then the honorable member for Flinders, sought to discuss something relating to the Australian Workers Union, which at that time had a case before the Arbitration Court.

Mr McDonald:

– The case was actually before the Court.

Mr GROOM:

– It was, and the honorable member ruled that, since it was sub judice, the matter could not be referred to in this House. The principle then laid down was that it was not right or proper for the House to discuss matters which are pending before the judicial tribunals of the country.

Mr Riley:

– If a Judge committed an outrage on the bench, could we not discuss his action?

Mr GROOM:

– Yes. The procedure is clearly laid down by the Constitution itself. If a Judge is guilty of misconduct we can deal with that misconduct.

Mr Mathews:

-But the majority in this House would prevent us from doing so.

Mr GROOM:

– Not at all. I am merely showing that there is a proper procedure to follow. If a Judge is guilty of misconduct his actions can be challenged in this House, and by resolution of the Parliament he can be removed from office.

Mr Ryan:

– The question here is not the removal of a Judge for misconduct, but the removal from office of the Executive of the dayfor misconduct.

Mr GROOM:

– And in dealing with that alleged misconduct the honorable member was trying to bring before the House the f acts concerning the case which was before the Judge for decision.

Mr Ryan:

– Not at all.

Mr GROOM:

– That was the actual position when he was called to order.

In the House of Commons, as reported inVol. 64, 4th Series, of the Parliamentary Debates, page 867, an honorable member sought to discuss allegations of bribery before any legal proceedings had been brought before a tribunal, but before the time within which a petition could be lodged had expired. Mr. R. G. Webster rose to a point of order, asking -

Is it in order for an honorable member to refer to an election at a time when the period during which a petition may be lodged has not yet expired?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must say that I think it is most unusual.

Sir J. Maclure. ; I think, if I may be allowed to say So, that it is disgraceful.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order, Order ! It is a most unusual course,and I think it is out of order. The honorable member is now about to go into the allegations that there was bribery and corruption at the Great Grimsby election. That, I understand, is his object.

Mr. Lewis. ; Yes

Mr SPEAKER:

– Such allegations may be true or they may not, but it appears to me to be quite irregular to discuss that question in this House. Supposing an election petition had been lodged, very clearly it would be out of order to ask this House to discuss or pass judgment upon a matter which is under consideration in an election Court. The same reasoning must apply if the twenty-one days, which is the period within which a petition may be presented, have not lapsed. I think it would be quite out of order for the honorable gentleman to enter into , a discussion as to whether corruption took place at an election when the twenty-one days have not expired within which a petition may be lodged.

So careful was the Speaker to preserve proper relations between Parliament and the Courts that, although in the’ case in question an ©lection petition had not been presented, he held it to be absolutely improper to discuss in the House matters relating to the election which might come before the Court for determination. It is a decided principle, and I am showing the extent to which the Speaker carries it out. The facts in the case were clear as they presented themselves to the House at the time, the ruling was given. The matter was before the Court, and the extent to which” the circumstances of the case were to be brought forward could not be known.

Mr Ryan:

– The Justice of the High Court had already given his decision.

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– Not altogether. Notice of appeal had been lodged, and still holds good. The case is still sub judice.

Mr Ryan:

– But not this particular matter.

Mr GROOM:

– We cannot separate one isolated fact. The deportation proceedings must be taken as a whole, and Mr. Speaker gave his ruling on them as he had them before him in this House. Honorable members endeavoured, as far a3 possible, to get around that ruling and discuss the facts of the case.

Mr Fowler:

– What was the nature of the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran ?

Mr GROOM:

– All the facts in regard to the case; of Father Jerger were placed before Sir Robert Garran in his capacity of Solicitor-General.

Mr Fenton:

Sir Robert Garran’s inquiry was not a Court case.

Mr GROOM:

– The matter that is sub judice is the case before the High Court, and honorable members sought to bring before the House the facts relating to it.

Mr Riley:

– Is it claimed that Father Jerger ‘s case is still sub judice?

Mr GROOM:

– The questions raised concerning his deportation are still sub judice.

Mr Riley:

– Then why are you attempting to get him away; why do you not wait until the Court has given its decision ?

Mr GROOM:

– That is not the point at issue now. The issue is whether the question of his deportation is sub judice at the present time.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government are endeavouring to get Father Jerger away by the use of black labour.

Mr GROOM:

– That again is a different -question.

Mr Brennan:

– Is it not a political question, and a matter which we should be permitted to discuss here? Are there not a dozen political aspects of the matter which ought to be discussed here”?

Mr GROOM:

– Even if the case has its political aspects, we should not discuss them in such a way that they might influence the trial of an action. That is the whole principle at stake. Honorable members are endeavouring to evade the rule generally laid down.

Mr Mahony:

– Would a discussion of the inquiry carried out by Sir Robert Garran influence the High Court?

Mr GROOM:

– Every case is based on facts, and it was the facts in connexion with the whole case, including those submitted by Father Jerger, which were inquired into by Sir Robert Garran. It was the third time the facts had been examined.

Mr Brennan:

– That was the third travesty, and there have been halfadozen travesties since then.

Mr GROOM:

– It was a step towards ascertaining the facts, and while the matter was being dealt with it was- an improper thing to attempt to review them and discuss them in the House, seeing that a writ of habeas corpus had been applied for, and an application for an injunction made, giving ample opportunity to the Court to deal with the case. The case is still going on. In Adelaide, an application has been made to a State Judge for a writ of habeas corpus. In every way the matter is being attacked. It is certainly true that a man is entitled to take every legal remedy at his command, but that is not the point at issue to-day. The question is whether it is right or proper to bring political influence to bear in this House in such a way that it might interfere with the administration of justice.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

– I rise to support the motion; and I hope that members will be very jealous of the right of the House to discuss matters of public importance. On a motion of this kind there is always a danger, as there is in regard to all public questions in Parliament, of its being decided, if not on party lines, at least under the influence of party considerations. It is a pity that this is so ; but I hope that it will’ not be the case to-day. When I was discussing this matter on Thursday last, I re- ceived from Mr. Speaker a very explicit assurance that I must not discuss the Father Jerger case in any aspect whatever. That was nearly an end for me; but I went a little further under very great difficulties indeed, until I was ordered to cease my remarks. Some of the features in connexion with the Father Jerger case are purely political; others are purely legal. One of the questions before the Court was a complicated legal one as to whether, on the facts before the Court, Father Jerger could be declared an alien. The question involved the examination of British law, and a comparison with Australian law, and also involved the whole ambit of the law concerning nationality. In fact, it was a question which might very well have gone from a single Justice to the High Court, and then to the Privy Council, and before a final decision might be given the time could very well extend to at least twelve months.

Sir Robert Best:

– The question was decided by the Full Court.

Mr BRENNAN:

– The honorable member is correct; that pure question of law was decided by the Full Court, and, therefore, we are bound to assume, although it is not material to the present discussion, that it had been decided that Father Jerger was not British, and was an alien. But is’ it proper, when the Counts are leisurely considering a pure question of law involving an inquiry as to whether a man is an alien or not, that we in this Parliament should not he able to consider a purely political question - the propriety of the Executive in taking a certain course of action in regard to deportations? That matter does not involve, the jurisdiction of a Court.. The, object of our Standing Orders was to protect persons upon trial, and to protect the Court. It was conceived for the purpose of guarding any person whose interests were at stake; hut it was not designed with the object of preventing the discussion of public questions which are not in issue in the Courts. For example, on Thursday last I was desirous of raising what I regarded as great impropriety on tie part of the Government in preventing counsel from having access to Father Jerger to get his instructions ; hut Mr. Speaker prevented me from bringing forward that aspect of the matter, although it had nothing to do with the Court. I was about to submit that Father Jerger could not have a fair trial unless he was allowed to see counsel and give instructions for his defence. The matter was quite anterior to the trial, and I thought it was something that demanded the greatest publicity in order that the community might learn that the course of justice was being interfered with in every way. This was a purely political question, and not a legal matter at issue in this particular case. I also wanted to raise a purely political, or perhaps ethical, or even religious, question as to whether it was proper on the part of the Government to prevent Father Jerger from being interviewed by his confessor, also a matter that had nothing whatever to do with the Courts, and the discussion of which could not possibly affect the judgment of a Court. There is one- question of law as to whether the War Precautions Act is ultra vires that should be discussed in this House, and the Government ought to be subjected to caustic criticism for their attitude. But it is suggested that, because some proceedings have been taken under, say, Order 2 j or some other section of the War Precautions Regulations, it is incompetent for honorable members here to point out that long ago the Government should have removed from the statutebook the whole of the war precautions legislation. Surely the House will be with those who declare that every honorable member should have the right to discuss the purely political question as to whether this legislation should be repealed or not. It has been a burning question with us, and every day it is hecoming a more pressing political matter. Many of us consider that the administration of the Act is wrong, oppressive, and improper, and as it becomes more so every day, and is purely a political question, we should not be prevented from discussing it merely because some section of the Act is under consideration in connexion with the proposed deportation of Father Jerger. I am sorry that there is now some doubt as to the question we are to decide. If the question is whether or not’ a case which is sub judice may be properly discussed in this House it should be easy to decide. I do not wish to discuss in this’

House any particular matter which, is sub judice. But that is not the issue. The question before us is whether we may discuss political questions relating to the War Precautions Act and deportation, which were not in any way in issue in the case which was before a Court, and for our purpose and argument cite the case of the Rev. Father Jerger. I cannot understand the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom), with his standing at the’ Bar and his responsibility in this House, defending the position of the Government in this regard. The question of the propriety of such a discussion would not have been raised but that the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cock), when he saw that I was touching on ground that was delicate - not from the point of view of the Court, but from the point of view of the Government - in order to protect himself from the unlimited resources of his intellectual vacuity, raised a point of order that I,’ by my own admission, proposed to carry this matter further. I did say that we proposed to carry it further, but I did not say whether it was to be carried to the platform or to the Courts, or merely that the indignation which was felt by the public would find expression in some way or other. I hope the House will display sufficient self-esteem and regard for its paramount public duty to vote for the motion, and thus assert its own right to examine urgent public problems carefully.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I am not concerned with the legal argument as to whether or not a particular case was sub judice. I was authoritatively informed that it was so. The real point of my ruling was that matters awaiting the adjudication of a Court of law should not be brought forward in debate. This rule was observed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, both by the wording of the speech from the Throne and by their procedure in the House of Commons, regarding Mr. ‘ O’Connell’s case, and has been maintained by the rulings from- the Chair. (Vide May, 10th Edition, page 316.) In the same edition, at page 264, it is stated- -

A matter whilst under adjudication by a Court of Law should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise.

I will quote from the authorities which I referred to in May as laying the foundation of this decision. In the address from the Throne, referred to in Parliamentary Debates, 1884, Volume 72, appeared this passage -

I forbear from observation on events in Ireland, in respect to which proceedings are pending before the proper legal tribunal.

In that instance the Queen in her speech from the Throne forbore from mentioning a matter that was before the Court. On page 86, Lord John Russell is reported as having said -

I quite agree, that while the trials are pending before a judicial tribunal in that country, it would be impossible, with a proper regard to the proceedings of a Court of Justice, to discuss certain topics one way or the other, without involving the conduct of persons who are now obliged to defend their conduct before the Judges.

Sir Robert Peel spoke to the same effect on page 98 -

Her Majesty declares her reluctance, while the legal proceedings are pending, to refer to those proceedings; and it is indeed impossible to’ refer to parties connected with affairs in that country without in some way alluding to the trials now going on.

The actual issue raised upon the Speaker’s ruling was in this case brought up in 1899, when the adjournment of the House of Commons was moved “ for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the conduct of the police at Falcarragh, and the circumstances attending the arrest of Mr. Harrison and the prosecution of Mr. Conybeare.” Mr. Wharton, at page 1254, volume 355, third series, said - :

I rise to order. I do not wish to interrupt the honorable member, but I wish to ask you, sir, whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House for an honorable member to refer to the circumstance of a case pending legal jurisdiction. The fact is that all the circumstances to which the honorable member is alluding, will come before the Court of Appeal, and will probably form the charge against the honorable member opposite before that Court. I wish, therefore, to know if it is in accordance with the practice of this House, that the circumstances of .the case can be referred to on this occasion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– When the honorable member on a previous night gave his notice, I thought it my duty to take upon myself the responsibility of saying that I thought, under the then circumstances, it would be indecorous in the highest degree to bring the circumstances under the notice of the House. But to-night, the honorable member has varied the notice on moving the adjournment of the House, namely, “For the purpose of calling attention to the conduct of the police at Fal.carragh.” He now appears to be dealing with another subject, namely, the prosecution of the honorable and learned member for the

Camborne Division (Mr. Conybeare), and I hope I may say I do not think I am travelling out of my responsibility and my proper functions when I say that 1 do not think the House will sanction any remarks which are likely to prejudice the trial which, though it is over in the first instance, is now the subject of appeal. The honorable and learned gentleman has asked mc whether it is the practice of the House. I am not aware that there has been any definite and distinct expression of opinion on the part of the House that pending trials should not be alluded to. Nor am I aware of any distinct and definite ruling from the Chair, though I am aware of frequent expressions of opinion, both from Ministers in this House and other members, with regard to the impropriety of alluding to pending trials in such a way as to prejudice a fair trial of the case.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– As the clock is nearing the hour of 5, at which time the debate will expire in the ordinary course, I suggest that the time for the debate be extended.

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

– I do not like the idea of preventing any honorable members from speaking. Of course, it is for Mr. Speaker to say what he wishes in this matter, but I suggest that we might agree to take a vote on this motion before the dinner-hour.

Mr TUDOR:

– Take a vote before 6.30.

Ordered (on motion by Sir Joseph Cook) -

That the debate be continued until 6.15 p.m. if a division be not taken before that time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In our own Parliament Mr. Speaker McDonald ruled -

Our Standing Orders do not provide directly for this matter, but it is, I believe, a universal rule of the British Parliament, as laid down in May, pages 278 and 332, 11th edition, that matters awaiting the adjudication of a Court of law should not be brought forward in debate. In accordance with that principle I rule that it would not be in order to refer specifically in the debate to the .Australian Workers Union.

That is reported in Hansard at page 1126, volume 75, 1914. On referring to the division-list I find that the Speaker’s ruling <on that occasion was upheld by the House, amongst the supporters of it being a number of honorable members who are present colleagues of the honorable member for “West Sydney.

Mr Ryan:

– I, too, would have supported that ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My ruling has been given in accordance with that and other decisions of this House, apart from the precedents established by the British House of Commons. The only question

I had to decide on Thursday was whether or not it would be in order for an honorable member to refer to a case that wa3 still pending before the Law Courts, not having been finally dealt with. If it was still pending before the Courts, it must be regarded as sub judice. I pointed that out when the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) was speaking and referring at considerable length to a particular case - the merits of which do not concern me - which I understood had been disposed of by the Court on Thursday morning. While the honorable member was speaking, the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) raised a point of order as to whether the honorable member was in order in referring to a matter that was still sul) judice. I replied that I understood that the cr.se in question had been decided by the Court that morning. I spoke in accordance with an intimation that I had received from the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor), but the Minister for the Navy assured me that the case had not been finally decided, as notice of appeal had been given. I then asked the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) if he could give me an assurance that the matter had been finally disposed of by the Court. The honorable member said something to the effect that the matter would not, be allowed to rest where it was, and I concluded from that statement, in the absence of a definite assurance to the contrary, that the case was still pending before the Courts. Then the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom), who is a member of the legal profession, entered the chamber and definitely assured me that the case was still sub judice.

Mr GROOM:

– I stated that counsel had announced in Court their intention to lodge an appeal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is so, and, so far as I could learn the case was still before the Courts. Accordingly I ruled that the matter, being still sub judice, matters relating to the case which might form the subject of evidence to be submitted to or inquired into by the Court could not be debated.

Mr Ryan:

– In the face of my assurance that this matter was not sub judice, will you still hold that we could not discuss it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– A Minister of tha Crown had assured me that the ease was sub judice, and I could not be expected to decide between two legal gentlemen regarding the legal facts of t!;e. matter? When a responsible Minister of the Crown, who is a member of the legal profession, assures me that a case is sub judice, I must take his assurance; but when another honorable member, also a legal gentleman of recognised status and legal attainments, tells .me that the case is not sub judice, I am on the .horns of a dilemma. But that is not the point. What I had to decide, and the point on which I gave my. ruling, was that while the matter was sub judice it could not be discussed. Beyond that I could not go. I did not profess to decide whether it was or was not sub judice, but acted on the assurance of the Minister that it was.

I might draw attention to another fact, and that is that the point of order was not raised for the first time when the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) gave notice of his intention to move to dissent from. my ruling. Altogether, it was raised no fewer than four times during last Thursday’s discussion. I was temporarily called from the Chamber to attend to some urgent business, and the Deputy Speaker, who relieved me, informed me that during my temporary absence he had ruled that the matter could not be discussed. Then, when the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) was speaking, my attention was called to his remarks by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook). I ruled that if the matter he was discussing was sub judice, he could not continue to discuss it. The honorable member for West Sydney raised a point of order affecting another phase of the question, and I ruled that my original decision still stood. Later in the evening, when the honorable member for West Sydney was speaking on the censure motion, he attempted to argue this particular case.

Mr J H Catts:

– No; another matter altogether.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understood, and I still believe, that what he was arguing formed part and parcel of proceedings connected with this case.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is the point in dispute.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There were certain proceedings of a judicial character - an inquiry before Sir Robert Garran - which seemed tq me part and parcel of the matter, and which could not be separated from it, because they .might very well come up, and probably would come up in any case submitted by way of appeal. I ruled that the honorable member for West Sydney could not discuss the subject with which he was dealing. That was the fourth ruling on the point during that day, and it was not until my ruling had been repeated four times that notice ofthe motion to dissent from it was given.

I feel sure that the House will see the unwisdom of discussing matters which are pending before the Courts. Had this matter been finished with by the Courts, there would have been no objection to a full and thorough discussion of it, and I should not have attempted in any way to interfere with such a discussion of it. It was only because, in my judgment, it was not right to discuss it, and not in accordance with our own practice and the traditions of the British House of Commons, and the decision of the House on a previous occasion, that I ruled that the discussion could not continue. My ruling was grounded on the practice of the House of Commons as I understood it, on the practice of this House, and on an actual decision of this House on a previous occasion, to which I have already made reference.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I shall be brief, because other members desire to discuss the motion ; but there are one or two points which should not be lost sight of. You stated, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling was based on the principle which had been accepted by the House of Commons that nothing should be said in debate that tended to prevent men from getting a fair trial. Now, surely what was said on Thursday last did not tend to prevent any man from getting a fair trial, seeing that it was a demand for a fair trial. We have been told that the case is sub judice. If so, it is extraordinary that there should be an attempt to send Father Jerger away while he is still awaiting trial. The Government informed you, Mr. Speaker, that the case was sub judice, and yet they have moved heaven and earth to send the man out of the country while his case is before the Courts, and had it not been for the action of the British seamen on the Nestor he would not be in the country “to-day. What was said was not tending to prejudice the granting of a fair trial. It is not right for the Government to prevent a fair trial, or to prevent members from speaking on this case. On Wednesday last, before I rose to move my motion of censure, the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) about Father Jerger’s case, .and the right honorable gentleman’s reply was that the honorable member would have an opportunity to talk as much as he liked about it during the debate on the censure motion. The honorable member was, however, prevented from talking on the motion because of the arrangement to take a vote on it- before 4 o’clock p.m. on Friday last. I do not think the Prime Minister endeavoured to mislead the honorable member. He, no doubt, thought that on the censure motion we should be able to discuss everything connected with the case, because it was not sub judice in the ordinary acceptation of the words. When a case is sub judice, no one is allowed to say or publish anything about it. The press, however, is not treating this case as sub judice. It knows tha>t it can say what it likes about it, and the Argus comments upon it freely to-day. If the press can comment on it, why should not members on this side be allowed to do so? The newspapers have gone so far a.s to declare that this is the first time that an objection to deportation has been raised by us ; but that statement is a deliberate lie, because on the 17th August last the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs), who was then Deputy Leader of the Labour party, moved a motion protesting against it, as honorable members will see by reference to our Hansard record. Outside the chamber any member may say what he likes about the Father Jerger case; the War Precautions Act does not prevent its discussion. Many of us have said a good deal about, not only this case, but other cases of the kind. Every person in the community is- entitled to a fair trial, and to be told who are his accusers. We have no right to assume a man to be guilty without trying him. What we say now in this matter is what we said twelve months ago. The honorable member for

Angas (Mr. Gabb) some time back spoke of the ill-treatment of internees in internment camps.

Mr Brennan:

– The longer the Act remains the greater the scandal becomes.

Mr TUDOR:

– I realize that. To-day the Government were asked whether they intended to employ black labour to effect the deportation of Father .Jerger. I assume that the suggestion was that they might utilize the black labour on board the Peninsular and Oriental steamer Khyber. It would be a disgrace to a country professing to believe in the White Australia policy for a Government to use black labour to obtain their ends. To-day I .received, a telegram from Adelaide, which says -

Glynn, ex-Minister Hughes Government, has given exhaustive statement for publication. One paragraph stating not a single direct proof of any disloyalty has been adduced against this man.

Mr Bell:

– Are the merits of the case now before, us?

Mr TUDOR:

– No ; but I am entitled to say what I have been told of the opinion of a leading member of the party opposite, and an ex-Minister and exmember. If the statement that this case is sub judice means anything, it means that the trial of Father Jerger is not concluded, or that he is going to be tried. We say that he is being deported without a trial, and, therefore, the case is not sub judice. If the case were sub judice, surely the Government should not be moving heaven and earth to get the reverend gentleman out of the way before a trial could take place!

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The observations of Mr. Speaker seem to me absolutely to cloud the issue. The point was .whether the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) should be allowed to discuss a matter which had been before Sir Robert Garran, but not before the Courts.

Mr RYAN:

– The Government tried to blame the Courts for what they had done themselves.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. This is the Hansard report of what the honorable member said -

I should like yon, sir, to be quite clear as . to what my assurance is. It is that I am not referring to any matter in connexion with the Reverend Father Jerger that came before the Courts.

He was referring to the sham inquiry before Sir Robert Garran. It was upon the references of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) to that alleged inquiry that Mr. Speaker challenged his right to discuss the question at all and ruled that he had no such right. It was not a matter before the Courts which the honorable member was discussing. i submit that no honorable member, if he is going to register a conscientious vote, will take the stand that it would be out of order to discuss a matter which is not before the Courts at all. Mr. Speaker went entirely outside of his rights in giving his ruling. The whole position, however, is clear from the point of view of the Government. It is ashamed of the business, and of the action it has taken. It wants to shift the responsibility from itself to the Courts. Even to-day when the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) asked the Prime Minister if it was a fact that Father Jerger was to be shifted from this country by the use of black labour or by non-unionists-

Mr Bell:

– The honorable member asked if it was the intention of the Government to employ that kind of labour.

Mr Brennan:

– The exact expression, if mm, desire to hear it again, was, “ To invoke the aid of black labour or nonunionists.”

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And the Fi une Minister said, “ Yes, any means will be justified which the country can employ to deport Father Jerger.”

Mr Bell:

– The Prime Minister did not say “ Yes,” but that he did not know.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He said, “ I do not know and then the Prime Minister qualified that by saying, “ Any means that can be adopted will be justified.” If the matter is sub judice, obviously the Prime Minister does not recognise it to be so, because he said, “ Any means are justified in getting Father Jerger out of the country,” I am not particular about’ the exact words used by the Prime Minister.

Mr Bell:

– You certainly are not. You are not particular how you misquote him.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then, whatever .he may have said, I am satisfied, that the Prime Minister would use any means. He will be prepared both to use and to support any means.

Mr Brennan:

– The Prime Minister said he would take any means.

Mr Bell:

– He meant that, no doubt.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We agree there. If any means would be justified, and the Prime Minister was prepared to make use of any means, then how could the right honorable gentleman consider that the matter was sub judice?

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

– Order! The honorable member may make passing reference to that point, but it is outside the scope of the motion, and he will not be in order in discussing it.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I emphasize that the matter could not have been sub judice, seeing that the Prime Minister virtually admitted as much. The authorities are trying now by every devious means in their power to send Father Jerger out of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I again remind the honorable member that he is distinctly out of order.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before you temporarily took the Chair honorable members were permitted to refer to this phase of the subject without hindrance ; and- to a great many other things besides. .Mr. Speaker did not confine ‘them to the narrow limits of the motion as you, sir, are endeavouring to do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am prepared to take full responsibility for my own actions.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Members of the Government do not consider the matter sub judice. The honorable member for North Sydney (Sir Granville Ryrie), in his statements in Sydney - when he referred to Father Jerger as a traitor and a rebel - must have considered that the matter was not sub judice or he would not have uttered those remarks. Further strength for my point is provided by the fact that the papers in Australia have been discussing the same subject every morning without reservation.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– All I can say is that I do not think .he ought to go alone. He ought to have some companions.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As for that, it is not only the case of Father Jerger with which we are concerned. In answer to a statement which has appeared in a section of the press, wherein it asks why we on this side are interested so much in the case of Father

Jerger, I would point out that the Leader of our party stated to-day that we had been conducting a campaign for the past twelve months against the principle of deportation without fair trial of any citizen.

The sole question now is whether the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) was out of order in discussing the departmental inquiry before Sir Robert Garran.

Mr Brennan:

– It was not- an ordinary departmental inquiry, because in such investigations the party concerned has the right to be represented by counsel.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Exactly ; aud neither was it a Court. It was the greatest travesty that could have been conceived. Only one conclusion can be drawn. I point out that Mr. Speaker made his lengthy statement when, perhaps, there were present not half-a-dozen members on his own ‘side.

Mr Bell:

– What does the honorable; member mean by saying “ on his own side”?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will tell the honorable member that after the vote is taken. I was forced into making the remark, because if there had been any desire on the part of honorable members opposite to hear what Mr. Speaker had to say they would not have trooped out of the chamber when he stood up to speak. I regret that we are about to take a party vote on this -subject.

Mr Bell:

– I thought that that would be dragged in.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– It is a funny thing that all the pro-Germans are cn one side.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That statement is totally unworthy of the Honorary Minister.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I must raise a point of order. While appreciating the bluff personality of the Honorary Minister, I feel sure that on reflection he will withdraw what was an offensive remark.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– I withdraw.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

–I could answer the interjection by saying that those who believe in “British justice are all on one side of this House. I hope that when the vote is taken it will not indicate that those who stand for fair play, for British justice, are confined to honorable members on this side.

Mr Bell:

– That is not the question before the House.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt is not a question of pro-Germans or of any one else; but I hurl back in his teeth the Honorary Minister’s offensive interjection. It is of no use for the Minister to have said what he did with a smile on his face. r Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - Order! The Honorary Minister - has withdrawn his remark, and it should not be referred to.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A.nd so he should have withdrawn it; but some thing further is necessary. The idea of dragging a reference to pro-Germans into this debate, so long, after the war is over, is entirely reprehensible.

Mr Bell:

– Then why does the honorable .member do> so ?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am discussing the right of every man in Australia to fair and open trial; and it is a right and not a privilege. I regret that we are about to cast a party vote. Every honorable member who stands for liberty, for the right of every citizen to fair and open trial, should be ranged on this side when the vote is taken. It is all very well for the Honorary Minister to seek to cover his unenviable position; and it is quite fitting, from his point of view, that he should drag in the racial aspect.

Mr Wise:

– What has that to do with Mr. Speaker’s ruling?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It arises from an offensive interjection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have once reminded the honorable member that that expression, has been withdrawn, and, therefore, is not under discussion. Will the honorable member please desist?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is a lot more that I wish to say, but, judging by the limitations which are being placed upon me, I would not be allowed to proceed far. I shall take another opportunity to reply to the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) when he referred to a certain vote taken in the course of discussion upon the War Precautions BUI. There was a Labour Government in power at the time, which gave its adherents every assurance that there would be no violation of the principle embodied in that measure.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is going entirely outside the scope of the motion.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In conclusion, I again emphasize that there can be only one fair way for honorable members to vote, and that is in support of this motion.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- I shall state very briefly the reasons why I intend to vote for this motion to dissent from Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I had the pleasure of introducing to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) the town clerk of Sydney (Mr. Nesbit), who asked for an inquiry into Father Jerger’s case. The right honorable gentleman promised us that he would grant an inquiry, but it merely took the form of a departmental investigation by Sir Robert Garran. . Sir Robert Garran is a public servant of the Commonwealth, and while I do not wish to reflect upon him in any way, it cannot 6e said that an inquiry by him constituted a hearing before a legal tribunal. His decision in this case does not carry with it the authority that would attach to a decision by a Court of .law. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan), when he was called to order, was endeavouring to point out that when representing Father Jerger before this departmental inquiry, he was deprived of his right to put questions to witnesses. The Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) raised the point of order that the matter could not be referred to since the case was sub judice, and had actually been before a Court. My contention is that the inquiry by Sir Robert Garran was not an inquiry by a Court, and that even if it could be so construed, since a decision had been given and the case had not been carried on to any legal tribunal, the honorable member for West Sydney was entitled to discuss the whole matter in the House. By means of this point of order, we had’ put into Mr. Speaker’s mouth the statement that the case was sub judice, and therefore could not be discussed. I am only a layman, but I have come to the conclusion that the honorable member was perfectly within his rights when he was called to order. We, as representatives of the ,people, have certain rights in this House. Surely it is open to us to criticise departmental in quiries, particularly when the proceedings have been completed. I am very friendly with Mr. Speaker, and regret exceedingly that I shall have to” vote against a ruling given by him, but I am convinced’ that his ruling in this instance was wrong. It cannot be said that this Parliament does not stand above all Courts. The Justices of the High Court are our servants. We pay them to carry on the machinery of the law, and we ought not to be precluded from discussing any question brought before them. No one could be injured by a discussion in this House in relation to an inquiry that had actually closed, and in which a decision had been given. It is now argued that since notice of appeal against that decision had been given the case was clearly sub judice. We are told that we are in duty bound to respect the decisions of the Courts. Is there not a greater obligation on the part of the Government to respect the orders of the Courts? When action is being taken before a public tribunal to restrain the deportation of Father Jerger, the Government should refrain from any attempt to deport him until the decision of the Court has been given. Our position, I contend, is unassailable. The honorable member for West Sydney, in my opinion, was quite in order. He was looking after the interests of his client, and the people of the country generally, when he was ruled out of order; and I shall certainly vote to dissent from the ruling.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- Little remains to be added to the statement of the case against Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) has already fully covered the ground, and there has been no answer to his arguments. In reply to him, other matters have certainly been discussed ; but if I were to conclude that those who have followed my honorable friend were unable to distinguish between the point raised by him and that raised by them,. I should have but a very poor opinion of their intelligence. The Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom) has had a legal training, but it would be utterly absurd to dignify the remarks made by him by describing them as a legal argument. If he were not dissembling, then his ability as a lawyer stands on a very low plane. As a matter of fact, there is on the Government benches a majority who are determined1 that the Executive acts of the Ministry shall not be discussed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to discuss the motion.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am doing so, and I am going to show the attitude of honorable members opposite in regard to it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The attitude of honorable members has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The matter which the honorable member for West Sydney was preventing from discussing was an Executive act on the part of this Government, and has nothing to do with the Law Courts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Iremind the honorable member that the motion before the Chair is merely one to dissent’ from Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

Mr J H CATTS:

– And Mr. Speaker ruled that a departmental inquiry which had been concluded - a Star Chamber procedure that had actually terminatedcould not be discussed. Notwithstanding, that the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan), an acknowledged constitutionalauthority, gave the assurance time after time that he was not discussing any matter that was sub judice, and did not propose to do so. Mr. Speaker called upon him to desist. He was called upon not to proceed further with a discussion of the administration of the Government in. regard to this Star Chamber inquiry. We have’ now a very cunning attempt to side-track the real issue by describing it as a discussion of a case that is sub judice. I want to tear away the mask and let the public see that the real issue is being side-tracked, not to shield the Law Courts from political influence, but to protect the Government from their administrative acts which they know will not stand the light of day. That is the point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not the point. The only Question before the Chair is a motion to dissent from the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The acts of the Government do not enter into the present discussion.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Deputy Speaker now touches the very ground that I want to discuss. Ho says that the actions of the Government may not be debated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is misrepresenting what I stated. I said that the acts of the Government may not be discussed on this motion.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Surely one is in order in stating what is the case that is being discussed. There has been a lot of misrepresentation, either wilful or otherwise, and I desire to show that the point for which we are contending is that the rights and privileges of honorable members must not be taken away from them. We are not now proposing to discuss in detail the Star Chamber inquiry, hut we are seeking to show what it is that the Government are cloaking under the vile pretence that the question is pending in a Court, and is, therefore, sub judice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is again out of order in imputing improper motives to the Government. That has nothing whatever to do with the motion before the Chair.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I want to make it clear to those who read the reports of our debates that we are not permitted now to discuss the merits of deportation generally, nor the merits of deportation in any particular case. It might otherwise be thought by some people who read the reports ofthis debate that we were allowed to discuss the merits, and that we did not make out a very strong case. I repeat that we are not allowed to do that. We are not allowed to deal with the merits, and to bring out potent facts which would be very pertinent if a general discussion were allowed. I want to point out how weare being sidetracked.

The point at which the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) was prevented from discussing the departmental inquiry conducted by Sir Robert Garran is recorded at page 2790 of the last issue of Hansard. On reference to that page it will be found that the honorable member had time after time given Mr. Speaker his assurance that he did not propose to debate a matter pending in the Courts or that would be the subject of an appeal to the Courts. But Mr. Speaker prevented him from discussing this other matter to which I am referring, although it was not sub judice. I propose to quote the facts from Hansard, page 2791. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) then wrote out the following notice of motion, to dissent from Mr. Speaker’s ruling -

That Mr.Speaker’sruling be disagreed with on the groundthat. reference to . the enquiry before Sir Robert Garran, in the Father Jerger case, and the conduct of the Executive in connexion with that enquiry, are proper subjects for discussionin Parliament.

Then Mr. Speaker, after reading . out this notice . of . motion, . said -

The. honorable, member for West, Sydney has given notice . of his intention to move -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon J M Chanter:

– The honorable, member is not in order in reading from the Hansard, report ofthe debates of the current session.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am showing from the published record of this Parliament the matter which is now under discussion, . and which an effort is being made to side track. I am proving ‘ that Mr. Speaker read out the notice - of motion to dissent from his ruling, and am endeavouringto point out that if therewas anything wrong in the statement of the caseby thehonorable member for West Sydney and in the wording of the motion, then was the proper time for Mr. Speaker to declare that it was not his ruling, and that it was quite outside the matter. However, he did not doso. Afterwards there was evidently some second thought on his part, because the motion appears on the business paper in a reconstructed . form. It . was not reconstructed by the honorable member for West Sydney. This is how the motion ‘appears on the Business Paper: -

That the Speaker’s ruling - That references to the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran in the Father Jerger case, and to the conduct of the Executive in connexion with that inquiry, are not proper subjects for ‘discussion in ParliamentAc disagreed : to.

Compare the wording of this motion with what was read out by Mr. Speaker when the honorable member . for ‘West Sydney handed in his notice of motion to dissent from the ruling which had been given.

Mr Brennan:

– It makes it quite clear that the conduct of the Executive . was one of the points . at . issue and for discus- sion here.

Mr J H CATTS:

-Yes, but.it would make it appear . that thepoint for discussion here is . that Mr. Speaker had . -.given hisruling in . regard to ;.the . Garran inquiry. . “However, -that is , not . the point at issue. Mr. Speaker has this- afternoon sent to me by messenger . a slip . inhis own writing, . stating that . his ruling is not -covered by what appears in. the motionon the notice paper, butthat his ruling really was as follows: -

Ruled : That references in debate . to matters which are pending before the Courts, and. thus sub judice, are not in order.

The . Hansard . record of the facts on pages 2790 and 2791 will he searched in vain for any such ruling. First of all, the honorable member, forWest Sydney was prevented from discussing the Garran departmental inquiry, which we submit was . not sub judice, and which he was perfectly . entitled . to discuss. Thereupon the honorable -member handed : in a notice . of - motion to dissent from the : ruling. That motion, which was . relative -and pertinent, Mr. Speaker read to the House, -taking no exception, -to it. - It next appears- on the ‘business paper -in an altered form, the alteration not having been.. effected by the honorable memberf or West Sydney ; but now that the matter . has come : before the House, Mr. Speaker desires to have it discussed on . a totally different issue, . as shown by this note -which he has sent. to me.

The . only point I wish to make in this debate is this-: The manner in whichthis matter has been handled all . through showsthat there is more concern to close -the mouths of honorable members in regard to. the administrative acts of the Government thanthere is in regard to the discussion of cases subjudice and before the Courts.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

:- I support the arguments put forward by honorable members. Mr.Speaker is placed in a difficult position between two diverging statements, the claim of legal gentlemen of the Opposition that the case of Father Jerger is not sub judice, and the assurance of the Minister who acts as legal adviser to the -Government that it is sub judice. Naturally, Mr. Speaker cannotbe Blamed for accenting . the . legal opinion given by a Minister of the Crown. Surely in this House, which is, for the present moment, the . highest Court in Australia, our lips ought not to be . sealed . upon : this matter when nearly ‘ every -one outside and . the press are .;pesmitted to comment on it, as freely as they choose, without being penalized . for -so doing. If the gentleman whose name has been mentioned had committed some wrong, it should be proved in open Court, and, if proved, there would be no claim from honorable members such as that now put forward. I merely wish to add that, although this Parliament may be the highest Court in the country, what has been allowed to take place would not be permitted for one moment if the people, the creators of this Parliament, had the power of the recall. They would use it freely, indeed, too freely and very awkwardly for some honorable members here to-day.

Mr.FENTON (Maribymong) [5.56]. - Every honorable member should be vitally concerned at any attempt to filch his privileges. The usefulness of this Parliament and its opportunity to debate a great many questions that oughtto be fully discussed will surely be denied to it if, oh this occasion, Mr. Speaker’s ruling is supported. Any honorable member who votes in favour of the ruling will be settinghimself up as one who desires to curtail debate. There hasbeen no Court proceeding in connexion with the Father Jerger case except last week, when an appeal was made to Mr. Justice Starke in. chambers. I do not regard the inquiry by Sir Robert Garran as Court proceedings. Yet honorable members have been pulled up at once by Mr. Speaker for attempting to discuss what occurred at that inquiry.

Mr McDonald:

– It is admitted that it was not a Court.

Mr FENTON:

– Then surely Mr. Speaker’s ruling was absolutely wrong. If members value their privileges, I look for votes from the Government side and from the Country party in support of . the motion. Otherwise . our future proceedings will he very seriously handicapped in the discussion of many questions which shouldbe brought . before the House. I will put up a fight !before I permit myself to he deprived of privileges I am supposed to enjoy as one of the mouthpieces of the people. There have -been quite enough miscarriages of justice in the past.

Mr RYAN:
West Sydney

.- No honorable member on ‘the other side of theHouse has faced ‘the real issue at stake. Iagree with agood deal of what

Mr. Speaker has said.; but, likethe flowers that bloom . in the spring, his remarks ‘ ‘ have nothing to do with the case.” I quite agree that there might be some impropriety in discussing a matter in Parliament if there was a likelihood of prejudicing the fair trial of any person or of unduly influencing judicial functions; hut the real issue in this case is as to whether the matter to which I was referring was sub judice. Mr. Speaker has stated that this question has been the subject-matter ofseveral rulings, and I can quite appreciate the manner in which he has beenmisled on the point as to whether this particular case was sub judice. The blame rests entirely on Ministers of the Crown - in the first place, the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), and in the second place, -the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom). However, in-order to make perfectly clear what was the issue I had raised, I cannot -do better than refer to the report of what took place on the occasion on which the ruling was given. Sir Joseph Cook rose in his place during the course of my speech, and, addressing himself to Mr. Speaker, said -

For the last few minutes the honorable member has been discussing the Father Jerger case, which it is not within the province of this Parliament to discuss at present, as you, Mr. Speaker, well ruled this afternoon. Is it in order to set aside your ruling and to discuss the case again while it is pending in the law Courts.

Then Mr. Speaker. said-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– The honorable member is not in order in quoting from reports of this session’s debates.

Mr RYAN:

– Then what am I to do? I am merely using this record to refresh my memory as to what was said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under the Standing Orders the honorable member is not permitted to quote from Hansard of the current . session. I ‘personally refrained from doing so, and trusted to my recollection of what had takenplace.

Mr J H Catts:

– Ifthereis a dispute as to facts, surely the honorable member can refer to the Hansard report to . support him in . his statement . of them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The rulewhich has. always been followed is that. an honorable member is not permitted to quote from the Hansard report of the current session’s debates unless it is the same debate. This is not the debate in the course of which the remarks were made which the honorable member seeks to quote. Those remarks were made during the debate on the censure motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. The debate today is on the ruling itself.

Mr RYAN:

– The debate is on the same subject-matter. If we are at one in regard to the facts there is nothing to argue about; but if there is a difference of opinion as to what are the facts, the most reliable source to which we may refer is the gentleman who sits at the table reporting for Hansard, who has no reason for misreporting what is said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Standing order 267 is as follows: -

No member shall read from a printed book, newspaper, or the report of any speech made in Parliament during the same session.

This point cropped up early in the history of this Parliament, and it was decided that reference might be made to the Hansard reports of the same debate. Of course, this is not tha same debate as that from which the honorable member for West Sydney is quoting.

Mr J H Catts:

– On a point of order, I remind you, sir, that after reading to the House the notice of motion given by the honorable member for West Sydney, you said that the debate would be adjourned until the following day.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I said that the debate on the motion of dissent would be adjourned. I was not referring to the debate then in progress on the censure motion.

Mr RYAN:

– I ask honorable members to be good enough to refer to the Hansard report when it is published. I also ask all readers of Hansard to refer back to that portion of my speech on page 2790, when I was interrupted by the Minister for the Navy, and when Mr. Speaker ruled against me. They will there find that Mr. Speaker ruled that I could not refer to the Reverend Eather Jerger in any way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Only while his case Was sub judice.

Mr RYAN:

– No doubt that was your reason, sir,, but my contention was that, although a certain case was sub judice, the particular matter to which I was referring was not so. In effect, your ruling went so far as to say that because the Reverend Father Jerger had a case in the Courts I could make no reference to him or to his deportation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member could make no reference to the matters which were to be inquired’ into by the Courts.

Mr RYAN:

– I stated earlier this afternoon that I was quite prepared to have my motion discussed in the light of the circumstances in which the notice was given; that is to say, it must be read into the context of the Hansard report of the proceedings on Thursday evening. I do not think I should alter the terms of the motion, because it expresses very well what was in my mind, if it is read into the context of the report of Thursday’s proceedings. If honorable members vote against this motion they will be yoting for the curtailment of the right of parliamentary discussion on matters of public importance, and they will not be able to escape personal responsibility for their action.

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

– If a case before the Courts is sub judice, what aspect of the case is not sub judice?

Mr RYAN:

– The matter I was referring to on Thursday was not part of the law case at all. That is the whole point of my contention. Honorable members may wriggle and try to justify their votes, but they cannot, escape their responsibility.

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

– The honorable member might leave that to honorable members themselves.

Mr RYAN:

– I must do so; but I am concerned about the people. The electors will see. recorded in black and white how honorable members voted on this motion, and it will be to the discredit of this House if the majority vote to curtail the rights of Parliament in regard to free speech. I have an idea how the vote will go this afternoon, but the day will come when another Parliament will reverse this decision, and the majority of members will declare that the ruling was wrong, and that those who supported it voted for the suppression of free speech and fair public criticism of the Executive, which they desire to keep in power.

Mr HIGGS:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Ryan) has said that he does not propose to amend his motion. I understood that earlier in the afternoon he obtained leave of the House so to do.

Mr RYAN:

– If I wished to do so.

Mr Higgs:

– I understand that you, sir, did not give the ruling which is set forth in the motion now before the House. Which motion is in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– With the intention of trying to clarify the original notice of motion certain words were transposed by the officers, and it seems to me that the result is to give a different complexion to the motion. The notice of motion, as printed, makes it appear that I ruled that reference to the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran in the Father Jerger case, and the conduct of the Executive in connexion with that inquiry, were not proper subjects for discussion in Parliament. I did not say that, although I did say that, while the case was sub judice, it could not with propriety be discussed in Parliament. The motion, as handed in, is really an. expression of the honorable member’s opinion upon my ruling. ‘

Mr Ryan:

– But my notice of motion was all right, was it not?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, except that it did not state what the ruling was. It read -

That the Speaker’s ruling he disagreed with on the ground that reference to the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran in the Father Jerger case, and to the conduct of the Executive in connexion with that inquiry, are proper subjects for discussion in Parliament.

That is the honorable member’s expression of opinion upon my ruling, and not my ruling, which was that it was not in order to discuss matters which were sub judice. With the approval of the House and the consent of the honorable member for West Sydney, I shall put the motion in the form of the original notice.

Question - That the motion (as amended) be agreed to - put. The House divided-.

Ayes . . . . . . 19

Noes . . . . . . 36

Majority……17

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from6.22 to8 p.m.

Ordered -

That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the consideration of the notice of motion. Government business.

page 2881

QUESTION

MOBILIZATION AND VEHICLE STORES, SEYMOUR

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

– I move -

That the Parliamentary Standing Committee upon Public Works having furnished their report, it is expedient to carry- out the following works: - Mobilization and vehicle stores at Seymour, Victoria, with the necessaryrailway connexion, water supply, &c.

Honorable members are familiar with the procedure that is usually adopted in cases of this kind. Upon a previous occasion I explained the nature of the proposed work, which was then referred to the Public Works Committee. That body has since investigated it, and has presented a report in favour of the work being carried out. Honorable members will recollect that the undertaking forms a part of the scheme of demobilization. Our troops having returned to Australia, there has come back with them all the military equipment of a modern type that is necessary for our own’ defence purposes. This equipment, which represents an expenditure of several million pounds, is to be located in differentparts of the Commonwealth. The stores at Liverpool, . which are designed to . house the New . South Wales portion of it-, are well on their way to completion, and the proposed stores at Seymour, which form the subject of this . motion, are intended to’ accommodate the Victorian quota of thir equipment. It is absolutely necessary that the works shall be undertaken immediately for the simple reason that the equipment is now coming tohand.

Mr Watkins:

– Why are the . stores only located’ in the State capitals?

Mr GROOM:

– They are not situated in the State capitals. For instance, these stores are to be located at Seymour.

Mr Tudor:

– But Liverpool is only one-third ofthe distance from Sydney that Seymour is from Melbourne.

Mr GROOM:

– The question of the acquisition of a . suitable site for . the Victorian stores has . been thoroughly investigated, and athas.been found that . for the purposes of demobilization, concentration, and training, . Seymour is the most suitable spot available. Major-General Sir Cyril White gave evidence upon ‘.that point. The ‘.expenditure involved in the proposed workswill- be -about £78,672. The Public Works ‘Committee -has -made the following . ‘recommendations : -

  1. That the- . siteselectedatSeymour for the erection. of the stores be adopted; (2)Thatthe provision of -five vehicle stores : be. approved; (3)That rthe vehicle stores he located towards the eastern end of the site proposed:;
  2. Thatthe vehicle stores ‘ be -placed 50 feet from the . roadway ;
  3. That, . the height of the walls of the vehicle . stores be -reduced ; to 9 ft. 6 in.;
  4. That . the roof principals he constructed of hardwood - and . oregon in accord ance with the departmental suggestion;
  5. That- double doors be provided for . the vehicle stores, framed, ledge, 8 -feet high and 9 feet Wide-;
  6. Thattwo equipment stores as proposed and . designed by the Repartment be approved; (9)That these two stares he erected parallel to one another and one on each Bide of the -proposed’ railway line;
  7. That sprinklers be installed in- the equipment buildings;
  8. That any . space between . the ground level -and the ‘floor ofthe equipment buildings be enclosed-;
  9. That a . shortramp be ‘provided- : f or . unloading vehicles;
  10. That a caretaker’s cottage be approved, but that provision be also included for a’ luncheon and smoke room for ‘temporary and other employees;
  11. That the “Kaustine.” sanitary system be installed;
  12. That the railway siding be constructed from Seymour ‘to ‘the equipment stores;
  13. That any additional land necessary be acquired -now rather than later. ‘

The Public Works Department will construct the works on. the lines . recommended subject to the.reconsideration , of onlythree out, of thesixteenrecommendations -which I.have read. Inregardto the . final recommenddation of the Committee, we have already . taken the necessary . action by securing the additional land required. I Ihave here the Government Gazette containing . the’ notice of . acquisition, and showing . the exact ‘locationof the land, resumed. The Department is now looking into the -recommendations of the Public ‘WorksCommitteethat the height -of ‘the walls of the vehicle stores should be reduced to : 9 it. : 6 in., also as to . the -subject ofthe : double doors that should : be provided, and that . two of the equipment stores should be erected parallel, to - one another and one . on each side , of ; the -proposed’ . railway . line. These matters shave -not yet beenfinally determined.However, ‘they represent only minor parts’ of the Committee’s recommendations. Generally speaking, we have adopted its ‘recommendations.

Question -resolved inthe affirmative.

page 2882

INSTITUTEOFSCIENCE AND INDUSTRY BILL

Debate resumedfrom . 7th July (vide page2578), ‘on;motion by Mr. Greene-

That thisBill be now read asecond time.

Mr.TUDOR.(Yarrai)[8.8].- I am mot quite sure !how many times -thisBill has beenbefore the House, but certainly we have considered it more than once.It has already been passed by the Senate, but such important alterations -have been made in the form of the measure as originally introduced, that Professor Orme Masson, the chairman of the Advisory Council, has . resigned. His resignation was announced in the Melbourne Herald of ‘the8th. inst. According to the report of that journal ProfessorMasson states that-

The present.Bill has, however, departed from the scheme in two important respects; omitting a provision for the appointment of advisory councils and substituting one single director for the three directors originally proposed.

The Prime Minister’s view is that these two alterations are not vital, and do not substantially affect the position; but, even if that view be correct, it is urged that he was not justified in making alterations without consulting the members of the Committee.

In explaining the reasons for his action, Professor Masson expressed the view that the alterations made by the Government would utterly ruin the entire scheme. He said that late in 1915 the Government had started upon this work. He then proceeded -

The movement for the establishment of an Institute of Science, and Industry was the outcome of the formation of a similar body in Great Britain in 1915. The then Victorian Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hagelthorn) sent on to the Melbourne University Council the papers in connexion . with it which he received- from the Colonial Office, with . a suggestion that the scheme might be widened so as to benefit Australia. The Council; however, took the view that- Australian” problems should be attacked in Australia, and that the English action should be followed on Australian lines. At about the. same time the InterState Commission made a similar suggestion.

At the end of the year the University Council urged the Prime Minister,’ Mr. Hughes’, to bring together representatives of science and of industry, and such a Conference took place in the following January, when a Committee was appointed to draft a scheme of operations.

There were in this scheme three essential features - entire freedom from’ political control (a provision with which the Prime . Minister expressed ready agreement) ; the placing of the direction in the hands of three men, of whom two were’ to bemen of scientific attainments and one a “practical” man (a provision with which also, after some discussion, Mr. Hughes expressed agreement) ; and the establishment of an advisory council to consist of representatives of various branches of science and of industry. The only important variation afterwards suggested by the Committee in the proposals then put forward was in the direction of replacing the single advisory council for the entire Commonwealth by a number of such councils, one for each State. ‘ When, however, after 4½ years, the Government had brought down a measure for the formation of a permanent institute, these provisions, deemed essential by the Committee, had been thrown aside without the Committee being in any way consulted.

I look on’ the alterations made as vital. That such a step has been taken . without consultation with the Committee is typical of the whole trend of action on the part of the Government. As a net result of four and a half years’ work, I have no faith in politicians. During that time, the Committee has met once a week or of tener, . and, as an outcome of its labours, it has advised ‘the Government re garding various developments; but the treatment of its recommendations has been such as to induce and increase the conviction that the politicians are not in sympathy with the Committee in its desire to lay down lines along which science can profitably be applied to industry. ‘

Those are Professor Masson’s comments on the alterations which have been made in the Bill as originally introduced. I do not entirely agree with the view which he has expressed. I do not believe that the proposed Institute can be entirely divorced from political control. If Professor Masson is of opinion that all we have to do is to find themoney for the Institute, and that the Advisory Council is to spend it just as that body likes, or that it is to appoint whom it chooses, and to conduct as many investigations as it thinks fit, I do not agree with him. But I do believe that the Commonwealth Government should have utilized the machinery at present existing in the different States which are already doing work along somewhat similar lines, and that it should have placed the Commonwealth laboratory at their disposal, so as to aid them in that work. I do not think that we are justified in building up another institute, which, if divorced from political control, may become a spending department. When speaking upon this subject, upon a former occasion, I was asked by the honorable member for the Barrier (Mr. Considine) whether the Institute was intended to undertake the destruction of such pests as the prickly pear and the blowfly. Certainly we should accomplish a great work if we rid Australia of the prickly pear, and I have no doubt . that many honorable members are- in a position to give us a similar assurance in regard to the blowfly, which has inflicted enormous injury upon stock in this country. Does any honorable member think that the work of the Institute has brought nearer the solution of the problems caused by the existence of these pests ? I have, from the start, objected to the unpractical nature of what has been done. I have nothing to say against “University men,but theorists have been put into positions which should have been held by practical men. I do not advocate the claims of any particular person, but Parliament should hesitate before giving to anybody power to appoint as many officers as he pleased, without control. The Bill does not fix any amount as the cost of the Institute.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is so; but there is a tendency to keep on men after the work for which they were appointed is finished. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the Institute shall cost £50,000 or £500,000 a year, and, therefore, the only opportunity for discussing its cost will be when Estimates are under consideration. But honorable membra know that, perhaps, several days may be occupied with the earlier departments of the Estimates, arid the remaining departments may be then passed almost without discussion. Of course, votes will come up on Supply Bills, but then, other things will be mentioned. Some honorable members may call attention to the fact that the South Australian Government has not paid for the Port Pirie grab, which it promised to pay for, or there may be a long debate on the administration of the Northern Territory, or concerning the trans-continental railway.

Mr Blundell:

– Often, everything is discussed but the Estimates themselves.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes. The honorable member speaks with Ministerial experience. The Postmaster-General’s Department, coming as it does at the end of the Estimates, is sometimes run through hurriedly, to enable members to get to their homes.

Mr Burchell:

– That does not happen only when some particular party is in power.

Mr TUDOR:

– No. The point I make, is that Parliament ought now to determine what shall be spent on the proposed Institute. If it does not, there will be -little opportunity to control the expenditure later. Although there has been no Act to sanction the creation of the Institute, officers have been appointed and for several years we have been voting money to pay their salaries. I am never averse to’ spending money, from which a good return is likely. I have been denounced as responsible for’ the establishment of the Commonwealth laboratory at Royal Park, and the bringing to Australia of Dr. Penfold, a man of eminent scientific attainments; but the cost of equipping and working that institution has been recouped over and over again by the sale of meningitis and influenza serum, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of pounds saved to the com munity by the distribution of influenza serum during the epidemic last year. But we are starting the Institute of Science and Industry on wrong lines. Last year I was informed that the journal which is issued by it, and of which a couple of hundreds of copies are sold at ls. each, was costing ls. 8½d. to produce. It is certainly not costing less now. Many of its articles have already appeared in other scientific publications, and are merely reprints. Here is one which is reprinted from the Veterinary Journal, without any statement of the place where that journal is published, though the name of. the” writer is given.

Mr Corser:

– The publication of these articles gives information to people in Australia, which they would not otherwise get.

Mr Gregory:

– I know nothing of the article to which the honorable member is now alluding, but the republication of some of these articles is a good thing.

Mr TUDOR:

– Eleven or twelve pages are devoted to the subject of rats and rat fleas. I do not think that the journal serves the purpose for which it was established. If there were co-operation with the existing State institutions, Better work would be done. As to whether there should be three directors or one, possibly as good work could be got by having ‘ohe man at the head of affairs as by having three; but he must be a practical, not merely a theoretical man. I objected to the appointment of the late Dr. Gellatly, who was a journalist, on that ground. Following the article on rats, come two pages on sharks, which, we are told, are good for food.

Mr Watkins:

– The Chinese have already told us that.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It is possible that you have eaten shark without knowing it.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes, because at restaurants, one eats many things without knowing what they are. It is for that reason that I prefer to have my meals at home. Not only have honorable members been sent a copy of the May issue of the Journal, giving an account of the work of the temporary Institute, but they have also received a separate account of its work. Most of the investigations that have been carried out up to the present time have been into matters already dealt with by the State Departments, and many of the articles which have been published in the Journal have appeared in other publications.

Mr Blundell:

– In the Commonwealth ?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes ; in the Agricultural Journals of the States. Any person interested in the problems that have been dealt with in the Journal could easily get elsewhere the information that it has contained.

Mr Richard Foster:

– There should be co-ordination, so that there might be an Australian scientific magazine, which would take the place of the separate State magazines.

Mr TUDOR:

– Does the honorable member think that the State Departments will permit us to do the whole of the work? I think with him that there should be some co-ordination.

Mr Richard Foster:

– If I thought it could not be obtained, I would not support this proposal.

Mr TUDOR:

– Experience has shown that the States are very reluctant to hand over to the Commonwealth any of their functions. It was my privilege to be a member of a deputation that waited on a member of the Victorian Ministry the other day on the question of venereal disease. When I was speaking he suggested that it would be a good thing for the Commonwealth to take on the work, and I told him that the Commonwealth had already voted money to help to eradicate the disease, in view of its danger to the community. In spite of what the Commonwealth has done, no State Government will give up the work. When we took over lighthouses and quarantine, which were spending Departments pure and simple, the States raised objections. It has to be set down in the Constitution before they will agree to our taking control. I guarantee that if we propose to undertake anything outside the Constitution the States will not give it up. The men who fight any such proposal most bitterly are some of the State officials in the Departments concerned.

Mr Richard Foster:

– You have just struck the sore point.

Mr TUDOR:

– I know the position. Any honorable member who has been here for any length of time realizes that the men who will block the Commonwealth from extending its activities are men holding positions in the State services, and doing the work which we propose to take over, such as that outlined in this Bill.

Mr Richard Foster:

– And the Federal Departments very often are equally guilty.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is quite possible; but, after all, if there is any force in the honorable member’s suggestion that we should co-ordinate the work with the States, we must remember that we cannot do it by setting up another expensive Department where six exist at the present time, or where we are not going to do a scrap of new work. That is why I object to this scheme. The Minister has not given sufficient information as to how the States will co-operate with us in this particular matter. I believe the Bill will cause unnecessary expense by duplicating the work thatis now being done.

Paragraph c of clause 9 gives power for “ the making of grants in aid of pure scientific research.” I believe that is a thing we should do, but we can do it equally well by other means. When I was a Minister, a man came to me and showed me how much lanoline was being wasted every year in the wool, and how it could be utilized. We could have a little experimental plant at each of our Commonwealth laboratories, of which there is one in every State, to do that sort of work. If one. manufacturer wants the work done for himself he should pay the whole cost of the experiment, but if the whole of the manufacturers, or the whole of the public, are to reap, the advantage of the services of our technically-trained men, whose salaries we are paying all the time, then all the manufacturers or all the public should meet the cost. That would be a far better way to do this than setting up an expensive Institute such as is being proposed. There is no limit -to the amount that may be granted under paragraph c of clause 9. The Institute, if it is under no direct political control, as some desire, can spend any amount of money.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It must be financially under control.

Mr TUDOR:

– It must be directly under the control of a Minister. If we have to find the money, and are responsible to the people, we have no right to give those running the Institute absolute control, or to allow them to spend as much as they like on any proposal, but that is what will happen unless we impose a limit on certain of these clauses. It is our duty to put a limit to the power to make grants in aid of pure scientific research.

Mr Gregory:

– It is all subject to regulations and to the Minister.

Mr TUDOR:

– We have had too much lately of regulations which have gone absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Act, or to the intention of the Parliament which passed the Act.

Clause 12 provides that the employees shall not be subject to the Public Service Act, but shall be engaged for such periods and subject to such conditions as are prescribed. That means that those in control can employ any and as many persons as they like, and keep them on as long as they like. If there is any evil in connexion with public Departments, it is the existence of “ temporarypermanent “ men.- They are under the control of no one, and frequently, in order to keep sweet and make themselves good fellows, they do things they ought not to be called upon to do. What has been the trouble iri this building? Have not you, Mr. Speaker, been asked frequently whether the employees of Parliament are being treated properly? These complaints occur simply because those employees are outside the purview of the Public Service Act. We come in contact with the men; we know them well, and they do little services for every member. Directly you take men outside the Public Service Act, you establish conditions far worse than anything which occurs under the -Act; I know the difficulty of getting rid of a man once he is in the Public Service. He’ is there practically for life. That might not be desirable in the case of the new Institute, but we should have some system- of control over its employees, independent of whoever happens to be the head of it for the time being. Under sub-clause 1 of clause 12 the Director may appoint as many officers as he thinks necessary;

Mr Groom:

– The Governor-General.

Mr TUDOR:

– That means the Government. They are responsible.

Mr Groom:

– The Minister makes the recommendation.

Mr TUDOR:

– But it is the Ministry, and not the Governor-General, that takes the responsibility. I have always been averse to sheltering the Ministry behind the term “ Governor-General.” The Governor-General or the State Governor simply presides at the Executive Council meeting. There is no discussion, and things go right through.

Mr Groom:

– But the Executive Council means more than one Minister.

Mr TUDOR:

– There must -be three present.

Mr Groom:

– It establishes the principle of having, more than one person responsible for an appointment.

Mr TUDOR:

– How many outside the Minister concerned actually know onehundredth part of what’ is going’ through ? It takes Ministers all their time to control their own Departments, without having any to spare to fool round to find out what is going on in others. The Minister is quite convinced by the advice of the head of -his Department that a proposal is absolutely necessary, and of ‘ course it will go through unless ‘there is financial stringency such as exists now. In that case the -Institute may - not be extended very far, but in times of plenty it may grow and be found very expensive when lean times come again.

By clause 1-4 power is given to the Director to pay to successful discoverers or inventors working as officers of the Institute, or under the auspices of the Institute, such bonuses as the Governor-General determines. It is quite right that an energetic officer who makes a valuable discovery should be fairly rewarded, but when that reward is paid the discovery should become’ the property of the- Commonwealth Government. Some of the bounties which we have passed to assist industries have proved inadequate. Others have turned out fairly successful. Perhaps the most successful have been the iron and steel and wool tops bounties. We agreed to a bounty for the discovery of a phosphatic rock to turn into marketable artificial manure: Some of the bounties would not tempt people to take up a new industry. A bounty was’ offered for flax, but very little flax was’ produced. I think more is being grown to-day on account of the high price. In fact, war conditions have brought’ about far more discoveries and new products in Australiathan anything else. Some of the discoveries have been made by scientific men, and some by workmen engaged in the industries. The theorist has gone around and used the brains of the employees. In many cases the men engaged in the industries have given the information to smarter men, who have reaped the advantage.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Broken Hill people for the last twenty years have rewarded every man who has found them something new.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is a good idea; the companies ought to pay.

If an Institute like this is to be a success there must be complete harmony between the men at the head and the employees. It is all in embryo at the present time, and we do not know whether 10 or 100 or 1,000 men will be employed.

Mr Blundell:

– It will not remain at ten very long.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member speaks out of a full knowledge of the ways of Departments. I do not think the Institute will be very prolific in advantages to the Commonwealth, to judge by the work done so far. The Bureau has been in existence now for some time - perhaps four and a half years, as Professor Masson says - although the Bill has never been passed. Every year an amount has appeared on the Estimates for the purpose, rising to, I think, £30,000 in the last Estimates, of which nearly every penny was spent.

Mr Groom:

– The vote last year was £14,000, of which £13,000 was spent.

Mr TUDOR:

– We- are. told that a lot of the work is honorary; but very often that sort of service costs a great deal more than skilled professional work.

Mr Gregory:

– A good deal has been spent in travelling expenses.

Mr TUDOR:

– Where has been the need of travelling expenses in connexion with an . Institute that has never been formed ?

Mr Groom:

– There has been a number of investigating committees doing advisory work.

Mr TUDOR:

– I should like to know where they have done it. What I am most concerned about is the type of man who is to be chosen as Director.- . He should be a practical man, and not a theorist, if the people are to obtain the advantage which the Bill is designed to give them. If we do not see to that, we shall be throwing the money away. It would be better to postpone consideration of the Bill unless we can obtain a definite statement from the Government as to the type of man they intend to appoint as Director. I am sorry that, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene), who is responsible for the Bill, has not been in the best of health. lately, but we should hear before we embark on the spending of this money a definite statement on that point. After all, this is not a party measure. If the passage of this Bill can be postponed for a few years until some concrete scheme is laid before Parliament, by which time the Government may have decided upon the right type of man to place at the head of the Bureau, the best course will have been followed.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- As a Labour man, I welcome the introduction of the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.” Tudor) pointed out directions in which the Bureau has been already at work. Those attached to it have been working in an honorary capacity for more than four years,’ and have been carrying on in conjunction with the various States, which are anxious for the establishment of the Bureau upon a sound basis, so that finality can be arrived at in regard to certain matters which have for some time claimed attention. One important thing, which the Bureau has been able to achieve is in regard to the standardization of iron and steel.’ In that direction alone its establishment has been more than justified.

Mr Watkins:

– There is another side to that argument.

Mr RILEY:

– The honorable member should know that if a man refuses to believe good of a thing there is no argument that will shake his views. The whole trend’ of civilization to-day is to link up science more and more closely with industry, and the outcome has always been to lighten the burden’ of the worker. I have seen the effect of that during my own life-time in relation to the building industry, with which I have been concerned. The same illustration applies, for example, to boot manufacture. Machinery has completely revolutionized the boot -industry, and one man to-day turns out as much work as did twenty formerly.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Is science responsible for the price being double what it used to be?

Mr RILEY:

– That is where the profiteer comes in j the fault is ours, and cannot be laid at the door of science. We have seen what a wonderful difference in the outlook of a woman’s life the sewing machine has made. Throughout the industrial world science has proved an enormous factor for progress. The old sailing ships have disappeared ; science has revolutionized sea-going traffic.

Mr Richard Foster:

– If you are going to make the industrial picture complete, you must admit that the bricklayer to-day handles 400 bricks where he used to lay 1,000.

Mr RILEY:

– As the honorable member knows, that has nothing to do with science. I invite his attention, rather, to the linking up of science with agriculture. Science has come to the aid of the farmer, and to-day he can carry on ever so much more cheaply and more easily than in the days when there was only the crudest machinery to help him. Despite all the great inventions and the tremendous advance of the past few years,’ we are still but touching the fringe of scientific exploitation. This Government should not hesitate to spend money in the encouragement of scientific research. At the present time the Bureau is studying the economic application of a ‘by-product of molasses to lie creation of a motive spirit. Activities along this particular line have practically come to a head, but the authorities are hampered by the lack of money in placing the discovery on the market. An attitude of ridicule or indifference in respect to scientific research will not help the world along the path of progress. If Australia is to take her place among the leading nations she must encourage the linking up of science with our young industries. Here, for once, we can copy Germany. The German nation has taken a pride in encouraging scientific research and discovery.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a subject which should be above party. With respect to detail, I would prefer to see the appointment of three directors rather than one. The selection of one man might mean that we would secure an excellent scientist in relation to one particular interest ; but there are hundreds of branches of scientific activity, and we want to make the directorate as broad as possible. It would be wiser to appoint three men of an allround high standard. However, if tha Government deem it wise to choose one director, I shall not oppose it. I hope that, as an outcome of this legislation, a Board will be established which will call to its aid the best men in every State, thus creating one great and important body for the whole of Australia.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

– I do not offer opposition to the Bill, but am somewhat in disagreement with the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) in his desire to bring about full political control over the working of the Bureau. We cannot get rid of political control altogether. So far as finance is concerned, we must control operations; but it will be far wiser to appoint three directors than one, giving them the full power of commissioners. One of the three should be a good sound practical man with scientific attainments, while the. other two should he distinctly scientists. The tendency in this Parliament has beep to reduce rather than enhance the powers of the States., In this measure that tendency is not marked, but I cannot overlook the fact that members of this Chamber, generally, seem to have a natural leaning towards ignoring State organizations, and securing the domination of Federal control. If that should be the case with the Bureau, it cannot expect to become as valuable as it should be. As for the theory of the honorable member for Yarra that if the director, or directors, were given full power outside of the Public Service Act to make appointments to the Department, and to spend whatever amount of money was deemed necessary, the- cost would he altogether too great, it is a very good thing that those who are to be in charge should he able to make appointments. Then, if they -can see that they have made an unsuitable selection, they can get rid of the officer concerned, and endeavour to replace him with a worthy man. It would be impossible under this Bill to provide a fixed sum for the cost of the Bureau. Probably it would cost comparatively little at its initiation. It will he the duty of Parliament to watch its growth, and to see that, the Commonwealth -is getting full value for whatever money may be expended’. To say, for example, by inserting a clause in the Bill, that the Bureau should not cost more than £30,000,: would be almost tantamount to,a’n invitation to spend up to that amount per annum. We should record our objection to money having been expended on the Institute, year after year, without parliamentary authority. I have always objected to any Government spending public money without the authorization of Parliament. I hope the Government will appoint three directors instead of one. These officers must be,’ to a certain extent, under the control of the Minister, and, thus, of Parliament. But I want some assurance that the Government will do all that is possible to work hand in hand with the various States in the matter of research. The Minister should have power under this - measure to appoint advisory committees in every State.

Mr Poynton:

– I think, without committing the Minister, that that is his intention.

Mr GREGORY:

Mr. Kingsmill, a member of the Western Australian Parliament, is now in Melbourne as a member of , the Advisory Board in Western Australia, and I have been discussing the matter with him. He has informed me of the magnificent work done by the Board in Western Australia in connexion with forestry research during the past few years. They have received very great assistance from the State Government and outside individuals. The State Government expended a large sum of money in connexion with a laboratory, and hae given a grant of land worth £20,000 for this special work. Recently the Board felt that there was a possibility of utilizing local timbers for the manufacture of paper-pulp, and approached several of the principal printing houses in Perth on the subject, with the result that they subscribed a grant of £500 for research work. Surely the same kind of work can be done in the other States, and if, say, in Queensland, special investigations carried out by the State Advisory Board, under the control of the Commonwealth Director, were successful, the results would become the property of the Commonwealth instead of any individual State, and thus prove invaluable to Australian produc- tions. I ‘find that there is no provision in the Bill to indicate under which Department the Act will be administered.

Mr Richard Foster:

– At present it is under the Customs Department.

Mr GREGORY:

– Yes, but very often a change of Government means a change in departmental administration, frequently with the object of more equally distributing the work among Ministers.

Mr Richard Foster:

– If this Institute is to justify its existence it will require .more than the fag-end of a Minister’s attention.

Mr GREGORY:

– I think an amendment should be inserted in the Bill to insure that the Institute shall be controlled by one particular Department for some time, because then the permanent head will be able to keep in close touch with all that is being done, and so insure more efficient administration.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- I was somewhat astonished at the concluding remark of the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Riley), who said in effect that if the Institute were established any person of an inventive turn of mind would be able to have his proposals elaborated and perfected. I remind the honorable member that we are. not absolutely destitute of such facilities already, for in Mr. Wilkinson, whose laboratory is situated at .the rear of the Customs Office, we have a gentleman who is always ready to render assistance to anybody with a decent idea worth consideration. It is his complaint that hitherto his Department has been, somewhat neglected: In addition, we have in practically every State of the Commonwealth universities, technical schools, schools- of mines, agricultural colleges, and such institutions. I do. not know of any branch of primary or secondary industry that is not in some respect catered for, and, so far. as I can see, this proposed Institute will simply be a duplication of- existing State institutions.

One of the most important items of discussion at the Premiers’ Conference which recently concluded its sittings in Melbourne, was a proposal to have one tax-gatherer and one form of return for the Commonwealth, and I understand some good result will be the outcome of the deliberations, so that probably next year tax-‘ payers will be required to make up only. one return, and pay one tax-gatherer instead of two, as at present. This will mean the saving of thousands of pounds of the taxpayers’ money, and do away with a lot of inconvenience. Why, therefore, should we now be called upon to consider a measure which will mean, duplication of existing services? This proposed Institute will cost a” great deal of money, whether we appoint one, or three, directors. A leading member of the Country party has given the scheme his indorsement. The measure has been watered down considerably, and some of the objections raised by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster) have been met; hut although the pill has been sugar-coated, its effect wi:l be the same. Once an opportunity is allowed any person to establish a Department, it grows and eventually becomes a most expensive concern. In my opinion, if any member of the Economy party sanctions expenditure on this Institute, he is a very poor economist indeed.

Mr Riley:

– Do you not think it possible that the Institute will save the country a great deal of money eventually ?

Mr FENTON:

– No. It has been very expensive up to the present, and has rendered next to nothing in the way of services.

When one ‘looks at the list of men who have done most for our more important industries, one looks in vain for the names of trained scientific men. They may be good in theory, and able to deliver interesting lectures to students ; but when the acid of a practical test is applied to them they are, very often, found wanting. Although these manufacturers have done well for themselves through their inventions, they have also conferred great good upon the community. I may mention one who happens to be an elector of mine, but is, nevertheless, a strong political opponent: Mr. H. V. McKay, the inventor of the combined harvester. He is not a graduate of any scientific school. So far as I know, he made a very humble beginning as a farmer, but undoubtedly is a man with a touch of genius. And he has been reminded that some of the most important improvements to his combined harvester have been made, not by trained scientists, but by farmers’ sons. I may refer, also, to the achievement of a well-known South Australian manufac turing firm, Hume Brothers, who have perfected what is known as the reinforced concrete pipe. This, again, is the product of a practical, and not a scientific, man. Mr. Hume has evolved a pipe that has been put to varied uses in every part of the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is being universally used now in South Africa, Great Britain, America, and other parts of the world. It is displacing cast-iron pipes in many water schemes and in Queensland, where recently great difficulties were encountered when boring for water owing to drift sand, the authorities are now using great reinforced concrete cylinders, 8 feet in diameter, in order to overcome the trouble. These pipes are also being used in connexion with many domestic water supply schemes.

At the outbreak of the war, I strongly advocated the encouragement of chemical research. In many directions industry has been revolutionized in Germany as a result of discoveries made by chemists. One of the most serious obstacles in the way of the progress of manufactures and industry generally in Australia is the lack of commercial chemists. In Germany, thousands of such men have been employed by private enterprise, and have made many valuable discoveries. It often happens that an analytical chemist in the course of his experiments makes a, more valuable discovery than that on which he was bent. Reference has been made to what has been done by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. Its chemists and other experts, many of them intensely practical men, have done many wonderful things in regard, not only to the main product, but many of the byproducts of the Broken Hill mines. I fail to see in what respect the establishment of an Institute of Science and Industry will benefit Australia.

Mr Riley:

– Will it retard the progress of industry in Australia?

Mr FENTON:

– The point is that the same taxpayers that are paying for our State experts will have to pay for this Institute. We have a large number of experts in all the State Departments. Why should we add to the national expenditure by multiplying them in this way? Members of the Country party will agree with me that in Victoria we have no better wheat expert than Mr. Richardson, who is associated with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– And Mr. Pye.

Mr.FENTON.- Mr. Pye has done a great deal for wheat production, by his work at Dookie. In every State we have our Schools of Mines and Agriculture. I have been recently in touch with the Agricultural Departments of New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria, and have found that they are able to supply excellent information as to the purposes for which various areas are best suited. I am not going to say that the establishment of this Institute will lead to no improvement, but I certainly do not think it will improve very much upon the work now being done by the State experts. It must result in a considerable increase in Commonwealth expenditure. I do not think we should be expected to do more than obtain a little extra plant and a few additional appliances, and place them under the control of either one or two Universities, or the present Federal Analyst.

I shall certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill, because I see no necessity for the establishment of an Institute of Science and Industry at the present time. Various arguments have been advanced as to the class of man to be appointed as Director. He will have to possess considerable organizing capacity. If he is to fill the bill he will need to be a man of scientific attainment - one of those splendid men who are few and far-between.

Mr Riley:

– If we could find such a man, the honorable member would not agree to his employment by the Commonwealth, since he is opposed to this Bill.

Mr.FENTON.- We could employ such a man in the Commonwealth laboratory, without incurring the expense attaching to the creation of a new Department. There is no reason why we should not call to our aid some of the best experts, but to do so it is not necessary to create this Institute. The Minister responsible for it will have various branches to engage his attention, and instead of his controlling the Director the Director will control him. The Minister will not be able to keep the expenditure of the Institute within reasonable bounds. Everyone knows that at the present time taxpayers are groaning under the load of taxation, and public expenditure, which they have to bear. The Government which appointed a Commission to deal with the whole ramifications of the Commonwealth expenditure, with the object of suggesting economies, now asks us to agree to this additional expenditure. I do not wish to assume a dictatorial attitude, but I remind honorable members that, in supporting this Bill, they will vote for a considerable increase in our expenditure, and that the results accruing from it will not be worth while. We have the Hawkesbury College, in New South Wales, and the Dookie College and various experimental stations in Victoria and other States, all engaged upon matters relating to primary production. Coming to the secondary industries, we find that Victoria is dotted with technical schools. A boy on leaving the State school may go to one of the many technical schools and acquire much information in regard to primary and secondary industries. If he wishes to forge still further ahead, he may go finally to one of ourUniversities. With all these opportunities offering, surely- it is not worth while overlapping the work of the States by the establishment of this Institute!

Mr Ryan:

– The honorable member contends that in many respects this Bill means a duplication of education.

Mr.FENTON.- I do. It is true that we havein Australia the blowfly pest, the prickly pear, and’ many other pests, but while we are afflicted in one direction, other countries are afflicted in many others. This Institute will not lead to the eradication of the prickly pear from Queensland - -

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

– If it would only knock out the Queensland Government it would do good work.

Mr FENTON:

– That Government is doing very well. The Premiers’ Conference, which has just concluded its sittings, would have been well advised had it told the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) that already the people of Australia are well catered for by the existing State institutions. If we take into consideration our technical schools, our schools of mines and agriculture, our colleges and Universities-

Mr Gregory:

– And our kindergarten!

Mr.FENTON. - The honorable member is still at the kindergarten stage, and I shall leave him to deal with that matter.

Roughly speaking, these various institutions must cost the people over £500,000 per annum. Shall we add to their utility by superimposing upon them this Institute of Science and Industry ?

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

– No one will object to the expenditure if it is devoted to research in relation to agriculture and the plant life of the Common wealth. If the money is to beswallowed up in the purchase of machinery and in dealing with secondary matters waste will occur.

Mr.FENTON.- I do not take the honorable member’s interruptions seriously, since I know that he has a great admiration for the secondary industries of Australia. They play a very prominent part in the development of our primary industries, and the two must go hand in hand.

My objection, to the establishment of this new Institute will, I fear, be of no avail. No doubt, its main principles were explained to the Ministerial Caucus, and it will be carried, since it represents a considerable watering down of the original measure. It has been, watered down to meet the strong criticism levelled at the original Bill, and it means, practically, that we are to appoint one expert, and be dependent to a very considerable extent upon the existing State, institutions.

Mr Groom:

– Should we not co-operate with them ?

Mr FENTON:

– The Universities and the technical schools and experts in the various States are at the disposal of the Minister to solve any problem with which he is confronted.

Mr Groom:

– With grants from the Federal centre, the Universities will certainly undertakeoriginal research . work in respect to particular matters.

Mr FENTON:

– Then the honorable gentleman is in agreement with the views to which I have been giving- expression. Why not make use of the State institutions without creating this new Department?

Mr Groom:

– It is necessary to utilize both to create a central Department.

Mr FENTON:

– I agree with the Leader ofthe Opposition (Mr. Tudor), and the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory), who have protested against the expenditure of. thousands of pounds on scientific and industrial investigations which have not been attended . with any apparent result.’ This Bill’ is entirely unnecessary. It means only a duplica tion of effort. The existing agencies can do all that is expected of them, but if it is considered necessary to bring new mem into the field and to conduct fresh investigations that can be accomplished without the creation of a big Department. If we agree to the establishment of an Institute of Science and Industry, the Estimates relating to it four or five years hence will have enormously increased, and the people will find themselves grievously handicapped.

Mr CORSER:
Wide Bay

.- I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton). He has asked us to bear in mind that we shall take upon ourselves a great responsibility if we vote for this Bill. I hope that the honorable member will realize the responsibility which must fall upon the shoulders of those who vote against the measure, should they be successful in wrecking it. I am very glad that the Government have determined to proceed with the measure. Other countries of the world are far beyond us in the support given to scientific research. In Great Britain over £1,000,000 per annum is being expended on a Department of Science, Industry, and Research. In France £250,000 a year is expended in this way. In the United States of America and Canada millions are expended in this direction. In Japan the expenditure upon scientific research amounts to £500,000 a year, and in Italy to £250,000 a year. In New Zealand; South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, and other countries institutions to promote scientific research are established.

Mr Fenton:

– There is only one Go-: vernment in the countries mentioned.

Mr CORSER:

– There are very few countries in the’ world which offer a wider field for the investigations of a Bureau of this kind than does Australia. We are some 12,000 miles from the principal centres of the world, and we require such an institution as is provided for under this Bill to keep us in touch with the results of scientific research in other parts of the world. This great continent is capable of sustaining a larger population than is the United States of America. The area of Australia is greater ‘than the’ area of the United States of America, and its unde- veloped”: resources ..are equal, if not superior, to those of America. It is probably more toour’ interest than to the interest “of any other people in” the world that we should be brought . into touch as rapidly as possible with the latest developments of science. Of whatuseis it to establish industries on wrong premises ? We should be up to date inall ‘these matters. If we can be made so by the expenditure of a few, tens of thousands of pounds, the moneywill be, well expended.

We . have been told that by this Bill we shallbe duplicating our institutions for scientific research ; but similar institutions in- every State are- co-operating With the Commonwealth in this, regard, and are, in favour of the. establishment of the , proposed Federal Bureau.

Mr Ryan:

-Is it true, as we read inv the? Age, that ‘scientists’ have ‘discovered a new method of baking bread which is six hours slower than the old method?

Mr CORSER:

– I have not had much experience of baking, and perhaps the honorable member is in a better position toanswer his question . himself.. It is especially necessary in this, country that weshould establish new industries, and Should safeguard those we have established.

One’ of the principal obstacles . to settlement in manyparts of- Queensland is the rapid spreadof the pricklypear. We have in that State 419,000,000’ acres of land,ofwhichquite:400,000,000 acres are still unalienated!- Upon.. the best ‘information we can obtain, it is estimated that at least 1,000,000 acres of land in “Queensland-“ is being - infested with the prickly pear everyyear. Many attempts have beenmade.to destroy the pest, but, so far,theonly . really successful means of dealing with. -it is by close settlement. -With so sparse a population covering such an enormous area, it is unfortunately not possible to do very much in that way. Before the war a company formed, I think, in Melbourne entered into an arrangement with the Queensland Government by which they were to be given 100,000 acres of land, provided they cleared it of prickly pear, and kept it clear of the pest. The means this company proposed for the destruction of ‘ the prickly pear was the application of a gas. Two expert -chemists fromGermany were employed by the company, andtheir operations at Dulaccawere eminently successful.- : As soon as the war was spoken. of, -these two experts cleared out of Australia. The company tried to carry on ‘ the destruction of the pear by the application of a gas which they mistakenly assumed was similar to that manufactured by the German scientific experts; but they largely failed in the experiments they made. As the’ experts at first employed were successful, it should be possible to discover the exact nature, of the gas they applied, and such a discovery would alone be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds . to Australia. ‘

Before long the Commonwealth, and more especially Queensland, will have to undertake the . establishment of the cottongrowing industry. I can go back to the time of the Civil War in the United’ States of America; when it ‘.was -found necessary that some attempt should’ be made to growcotton in this country. Cotton was grown here successfully” at the. time. . I know of many, plantations in’ Queensland upon which it was profitably grown; but when the American Civil War had. terminated those engaged, in. growing cotton in Queensland couldnot continue in competition with the coloured labour in the industry in theUnited States of America. To-day the price of cotton has gone up to such an extent and the cost of its production elsewhere’ so nearly equals the costof its production by white labour in Australia, that I believe there is a great future for; the cotton -growing- industry? in Queensland. Manypeople are growing cotton there now: To give’ honorable member’s some . idea of the extent . to which cotton was grown in that State fifty , years ago, I recently took up a Brisbane Courier, of the 2nd July, in which it was stated that fifty years ago a large sailing vessel, named the Maryborough, left Queensland for London half , full of cotton, the balance of her cargo being tallow. Many people are now going in for the cotton-growing industry, and it has been proved up to the hilt that it can be grown there profitably. One of the problems to be solved in connexion with the industry is the discovery of an effective machine for picking cotton. Some means must be discovered which will save labour in the picking of the cotton. The requisite machinery for the purpose has been developed up to a certain stage, and it is hoped that before Long an effective machine will be available.

The best method ,of dealing with the tick pest is a matter which must be the subject of scientific research. Unless science is brought to bear upon the solu-tion of this problem very grievous errors may be committed. I have heard cattle growers, and amongst them very capable men, advocating as a means of dealing with the tick pest that certain areas of country should, be completely cleared of ticks. l,have heard others, equally capable, say that that is the worst thing that could possibly be done.- They urge the continuance of dipping, which is the present means adopted to keep down the pest, because they say that only cattle reared in tick-infested country become gradually immune to tick fever, and continue to be immune while the country has a few ticks, and that it would only lead to the spread of the disease if portions of the country were absolutely cleared of ticks in close proximity to tick-infested country. This is a question which should he taken up and finalized by a Bureau of the kind to be established under this Bill.

Another pest with which we have to contend is the fruit fly. So far we have riot been very successful in dealing with it, and as we are starting a large number of returned soldiers on orchards in Queensland it is to be hoped that nothing will be left undone to effectively deal with this pest in the interests of these returned men.

I have dealt with the necessity for coping with the advance of the prickly pear, and it might be as well to mention that no less than 23,000,000 acres of good land in Queensland is infested with this pest, and the Government of the State are only too pleased to part with the land for next to nothing to persons who will undertake to eradicate the pear upon it.

I have already said’, in reply to objections by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) that State institutions of this kind desire that this Bill shall be passed, and are ready to co-operate with the Federal Bureau. I know that the Australian Industrialists Association of Queensland have written very strongly in favour of the establishment of a Federal Bureau, and urging the’ passage of this measure. Their only objection to it would appear to be that sufficient provision is not made for consultation with scientists in the different States, but that is a difficulty which might be easily overcome.

Mr Groom:

– The Minister is willing to constitute Advisory Committees in the different States.

Mr CORSER:

– That will meet the only objection raised to this Bill by the association to which I have referred.

I suppose that there is no country in the world which possesses a greater variety of minerals than is to be found in Australia, We know very little about some of these minerals, or how to treat them, and we require to have information as to the way in which they are treated in other parts of the world. We can look to a Bureau of this kind to secure that information for us.

Mr Fenton:

– Have we not led the world in some things, and can we not do so again ?

Mr CORSER:

– We have led the world in some ways, and the world may lead us in other ways. Each should profit by the experience of the other. Mercantile men who believe that it is possible to gain further information of advantage to their concerns do not sit down and say, “ We are satisfied with the things of to-day,” but despatch men of ability to other parts- of the world to acquire it. It is this which leads to their success, and the methods they apply ought also to be applied to the industries which, when the Tariff is passed, we hope to have firmly established in Australia. These concerns will require the most up-to-date machinery, and the assistance which an Institute of Science and Industry oan provide for them will most certainly be welcomed by them. We are told that the States are co-operating in every way with the Federal Institute, and that they are most anxious to see the latter placed upon a firm and up-to-date ‘ basis. I have no word to say in detriment of what the States are doing in this direction, -but I claim that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to furnish the money for a central Institute which will keep in full touch with the State Bureaux and supplement their work. Now that the Bill is before the House, T hope that honorable members will realize the necessity for it and feel the responsibility that is cast upon them.

Mr HAY:
New England

.- -I approach the subject covered by this Bill with all the seriousness it involves. We must realize the bearing that science or knowledge will have on our future undertakings, because if knowledge is not applied to production, which alone, we are told, can enable us to meet our obligations, there will not be much prospect of our solving the grave situation confronting us. I do not care whether the word “science,” which seems to terrify a great many people, is applied. I prefer the words “ better methods.” Australia is twenty-five years behind those countries which have applied science to their undertakings. As a poet has said -

Eye to eye all order festers;

All things here are out of joint,

Science movesbut slowly, slowly,

Creeping on from point to point.

Those who seek to apply knowledge to our undertakings we at first doubt, then tolerate, and then accept. However, as it is applied in Australia to-day, the process is too slow. We can only make this a great country and fill its great spaces by the application of knowledge, thus magnifying our undertakings which alone will serve to attract the population we need. No country in the world is better provided with the gifts of nature. No country is more dependent on what nature has given, and does less for itself. For many years I have had the great privilege, and, at the same time, the great responsibility - for there is no greater responsibility than the sacred task of dealing with human nature - of having undermy keeping, at it were, as many as 400 tenant farmers, 95 per cent. of whom I eventually made their own freeholders. To-day they are the most prosperous men in New South Wales. This result was achieved because for years I have been successful in my endeavour to get them to apply the very best knowledge and the most up-to-date methods to their undertakings. I was associated with many of these men from the very beginning of things - the clearing of the land, the fencing and housing, the financing, and so on to the end, until the tenant farmer became a prosperous freeholder. Twenty years ago I visited Denmark in order to ascertain the methods adopted there which made those engaged in primary production a prosperous people, and I had their methods applied by those whom I was controlling. Thus it was that I was the first person in New South Wales to apply the methods adopted in Denmark in the manufacture of dairy products. I introduced the system of pasteurization. The knowledge gained in this way was not confined to our tenants alone. All who could might enter; none were denied the privilege of the knowledge we gave them. As a result of the application of this knowledge our farmers were able to get for their produce £5 per ton more on the local market and £10 “more in London, and had that principle of knowledge been applied universally in the State of New South Wales, the dairy section of our producers would not have lost about £5,000,000, which, according to Mr. Knibbs’ statistics of production, would about represent the difference between the price realized and what would have been gained by them had science been applied to their efforts. After many years of endeavour to have science applied to industry, it is a matter of sorrow for me to note the indifference of our people towards the adoption of better methods. I shall give a little instance of my effort to have science applied to production. The late David Berry, of the South Coast in New South Wales, in his will bequeathed the sum of £100,000 for a hospital in the district in which he lived. But the area benefiting by the bequest was so circumscribed that the income from the trust was more than the local conditions could absorb, and in order that the district should benefit in another direction, I, as trustee for the bequest, had a Bill passed through the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1906. While providing in the Bill for those who were sick and dying, I thought it right that the surplus income should be applied to those who were to be the future producers of our country. I believe it is the only instance - at any rate, in New South Wales - whereby a will has ever been altered by an Act of Parliament. The Bill provided that the income not required for hospital purposes should be used for technical and agricultural colleges, and for the promotion of agricultural and veterinary science.

The primary producers of Australia suffer more than any others, as they have to contend with pests, blights, and bugs, as they are called in America; but they suffer more from legislation. The men engaged in producing should not be placed on the same basis as those employed in the ordinary affairs of ‘ life. They have to pay taxation on all . they require, and, in addition, are heavily taxed on the implements used in production.The farmers of Australia mustnot be regarded asindividualswhowork merely to produce cheapfood for those who require it. The farmer of the future must stand on his dignity and seek knowledge, which is the greatestasset of all. Aperson may losehismoneybut he never loses knowledge. The children of those engaged in primary undertakings, particularlyin a small way,do not acquire the information that the children of the industrialists . in the city acquire. TheartisansinMelbourne,orinany other largecentre,cansendtheir children, from, the State, schools to the highest seat of learning ; but the children ofthe men on the land have to submit to conditions which do not permit them to obtain that instruction which is absolutelynecessary for their future success. Unless he isa prosperous settler, whichisnotoften the case,hischildrenhavenot theprivilegesof attending the large educational institutions , in the cities that are open to the children of city workers. The natural resultis that, when the average boy reachestheage when he begins to think for himself, he realizes that his prospects in the cities are brighter. Thechildren of settlers drifttowardsthe populous centres, and the parents follow tolook after them.

At presentthereareonlythree classes ofsettlerswhocanliveonthelandand prosper, andthese comprise - the manwith special knowledge, the one who inherits his property free of debt, and the one with a large family, who is prepared to stay on his holding and work fornothing. These are the people,to whom we are looking to relieve us from our present position. Are we going to shirk our responsibilities tothem?

Thisisoneofthemostimportant measuresthathaseverbeenpresentedto theFederalParliament,andwhenthe measureisinCommitteeitismy intentiontomovecertainamendments.Itrust the Governmentarepreparedtoaccept reasonablesuggestionsforits improvement,sothatitmayleavethisChamber withthehallmark,ofapprovalofthe Australianpeople.Ifwearenotvery careful it will be emasculated from the outset. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) referred to thecostthat would be incurred, and to thefactthatiftheBillbecamelaw,it wouldbeduplicatingtheworkofthe States.Itdoesnotmeanduplication,and thecostisamerebagatelleifourobjec- tiveisgained.Wecanobtainwhatis often called efficiency atalowprice, but that is undesirable.

Two yearsagoIhadthepleasureand privilegeofvisitingthe Wisconsin University, intheUnitedStatesofAmerica, to inquire into the methods adopted there for equipping those engaged in primary production. Twenty-fiveyears ago America was approachingthe situation of declining production, that Australia is in to-day. It is anundeniable fact - it is notcaused- by the war; but the fact remains that, the producers of Australia are growing staleon the job. Twenty-five yearsagoMr.J.J. Hill, a great American philanthropist, discoveredthat Americanproductionwasdecreasing andheroused that country by the bald statement that, if she did not pay more attention to her primary undertaking’s, the day was not far distant when the American people would go to bed hungry. This statement roused the nation into activity.We cannot close our eyes to the fact thatwe are approachinga similar crisis, but nothing is being done bylegislation to encourage production. The, Bill initspresent form is a bowelless measure.When I visited theWisconsin University, I inquired into the best methods of, stimulating production and of making the work of those engaged in. theindustry attractive.The activities foreshadowed in the Bill should not come into conflict with undertakings by agricultural colleges of the States. I believe it is the intention and desire,of the Government to provide for co-operation with the different States, and to harmonize their work in every direction. I have had the opportunity of discussing this question with men associated with our agricultural colleges, and from my conversations with competent authorities I have gatheredthat they would; hail a measure such as this with delight.Ifthe Government arenot prepared to confer with Stateeducational authoritiesthe measure is doomed to failure.I do not think, however, that I will joinforceswiththe honorable mem- ber for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) unless heispreparedtochangehisviews.In theStateofWisconsin,whichisnota verylargeone, seventy University specially selected graduates- men who had done a four years course at the University - are located in different parts of the State intheinterestsofproduction . They are paid, not only by the farmers inthe different sections over which , theyoperate, but, there is also an. appropriation from Stateand Federal funds for the purpose. They each receive an annualremunerationof£400andare provided with automobiles. To defray , theannual expenditurethefarmers contribute£200, the State authorities £100, and the Federal Government , £100. The difficulty we experience, in Australia isthat men who are engaged toperform similar work are only half qualified, and the ordinary man knows by experience more than the man so circumstanced. That is onereason why scientific methods have not’ been adopted. The graduates employed in the State of Wisconsin commence with the soil and advising the proper methods of cultivation. They also recommend as toselection of seed, methods of harvesting, transport, and marketing. The intrusion of these officers was resented at first, butlater there was an outcry when they were not on the job. In the sameStatenoless than fifty women, who have taken a two years’ course in domestic economy, are employed to visit thehouses and schoolsto teach the children how to bakebread, cook a joint, cut out a dress,preservefruit and vegetables, and how toprevent wastage.The greatest economyisthe prevention of wastage, of which there ismore in this country than,in manyother countries.

Mr Tudor:

– Domestic economy is taught, in, theschools to which the honorable memberrefers.

Mr HAY:

– Of course it is. Our application of science to industry must notbe limited to agriculturalcolleges ; it must go on to the very roots of education. We must take the children at the impressionable age and teach them nature study andall other things that are necessary.

Mr.Mahony. - What about Jersey cows ? Are they given a university education ?

Mr HAY:

– I have spent a considerable amount of time in endeavouring to induce farmers toapplybusinessprinciplesto theirindustry,andwhenaddressinga meeting ononeoccassionIendeavouredto stressapointbysaying,”Therearecows that pay and cows that do not pay.” A storekeeper in the audience interjected. “ I know all about the cows that do not pay.” I ask leave to continue my remarks at the next sitting.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2897

ADJOURNMENT

Williamstown Naval Stores - Wil- liamstownandcockatooisland ShipbuildingYards- Delay in Mail Deliveries.

Motion (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That the House do nowadjourn.

Mr.MATHEWS(Melbourne Ports) [10. 20].-I endeavoured to elicit from the Minister -for the Navy (Sir . Joseph Cook) by a question to-day the intention of the Governmentin. regard to the naval, stores at Williamstown. According to the Minister’s reply ‘ the Government intend toclose those stores, because they are only a duplication that grew up during war time. I do not ask the Government toduplicate any work at the risk of, economy, but I do not think that we should sacrifice -efficiency to economy. The stores at Williamstown, and the ship repairing yard, have done excellent work for which; they have been eulogized by the Department. The ship repairing yard has been apaying concern. Isit the intention of the Government to break up the whole of that Department ? Do they intend to send the stores to Sydney and arrangefor the repair work to be done byprivatefirms, or will provision be made in the shipbuilding yards for such work? Naturally the employeesat Williamstown storesandrepair yards and the people of the ; district are- concerned as to the Government’s’ policy in this regard. There is a. further rumour that the Government intendto sell the shipbuilding . yards to some private firm, and it is noted, as some, proof of that, intention, that representativesof big British shipbuilding firms, arein Australia spying out the, land, and inquiring particularly ;intothe shipbuilding yards’ nowoperated by the Government. . It may besaid that I am asking toomuch in requestingtheGovernmenttodisclosetheirpolicybutI submit, that, there can benothing in regard to this matter which the people should not know. At any rate, I hope nothing will be done by the Government before the House has had an opportunity to consider the proposal, and the people of Australia have been given a chance of expressing their views about the abolition of a Government enterprise that has developed there.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Governments do many things, and then announce them later. If the Minister will say that no proposal of this sort is on the tapis, I shall be satisfied, but if the sale of the yards is contemplated, the House ought to he informed beforehand.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

– A rumour is current in Sydney that negotiations are being conducted between the Commonwealth Government and the firm of Vickers and Company, of England, for the transfer of the Cockatoo Island dockyards, and also the [shipbuilding yards at Williamstown.

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

– Has the honorable member any great objection to a firm like Vickers establishing itself in Australia?

Mr MAHONY:

– At this stage I shall not say whether or not I have any objection of that kind, but if there is any truth in the rumour I have mentioned, honorable members ought to be told about the proposal. We know for a fact that representatives of that firm are in Australia making very careful inquiries into this matter.

Mr Poynton:

– They have’ visited Walsh Island, too.

Mr MAHONY:

– I desire to know whether the Government are in negotiation with that firm for the sale of the Cockatoo shipbuilding yards.

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

– Let me say at once that if the Government could induce a firm like

Vickers and Company to establish itself, in Australia, as it is now established in England, we should regard it as the best stroke of business done for Australia for many years. .

Mr Mahony:

– We are not questioning that, but we are questioning the proposal to sell the Commonwealth, shipbuilding yard.

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

– A firm that gives employment to scores of thousands of people should be heartily welcomed to Australia, and every reasonable inducement should be held out to it to come here.

Mr Gabb:

-Cannot that firm start anywhere else but in the Government yards? We do not mind the firm coming to Australia.

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

– I do not know where the firm can establish itself; but so far as I know there is no truth in the rumour that Vickers and Company intend to acquire Cockatoo Island dockyard. ‘ I do not think that firm is likely to take the dockyard. It is not such a catch for a private firm as the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) seems to suggest. In regard to Williamstown shipbuilding yards, I do not know what the firm contemplates. But the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) has got hold of the germ of something that is contemplated. For instance, it is proposed to reduce the huge swollen stores at Williamstown. I visited, them the other day, and saw thousands of pounds worth of stores, yet nobody there or in the Navy Department could tell me for what they . are required.

Mr Richard Foster:

– There is about £170,000 worth of stores.

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

– Whatever may happen to the Williamstown people, I cannot continue to spend public money to maintain stores thereor anywhere else unless there is need for them. I hope that the stores will be divided, and that a good portion of them will be transferred to the shipbuilding yards at Williamstown, and that in the end no detriment to Williamstown will result. As to the shipbuilding section at Williamstown, the position is that, notwithstanding that there is a huge shipbuilding yard at that port, the Navy is building boats for the various Departments. The question of whether or not the boats are being well built is immaterial. The outstanding fact is that, although an expensive and well-equipped shipbuilding yard is right alongside, the Navy Department is busying itself with the building of small ships for the Departments. Surely the big shipyards can undertake that work quite as well as can the Navy. The present practice involves an unjustifiable duplication of public expenditure which must be stopped at the earliest possible moment. Again I express the hope that the adoption of the course outlined will prove no detriment to Williamstown whatever.

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
Gwydir

– I desire to direct the attention, of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Wise) to the fact that the delivery of . mails is being seriously delayed in portions of New South Wales which have been affected by floods. From reports in the daily press, I gather that there has beenno delivery of a mail to Collarenebri since 30th June. It is stated that -

Collarenebri mails have been lying at Burren Junction since Wednesday last; meanwhile private persons have travelled to the Junction and obtained newspapers and supplies. It is thought that if this is possible to accomplish the Postal Department can arrange the immediate transport of mails, instoad of waiting for the re-establishment of the train service.

The Postal Department should endeavour to expedite the delivery of these mails, because even in ordinary times there is great delay in the transit of mails to the back country. I believe the PostmasterGeneral will be able to arrange for a special method of delivery, pendingthe re-establishment of the train service. It is asserted that three or four weeks may elapse before there is railway communication to Pokataroo. which, is the - nearest station to Collarenebri. I should like an assurance from the honorable gentleman that he will do everything in his power to insure the deliveries of these delayed mails.

Mr Wise:

– I will look into the matter to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 July 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1920/19200721_reps_8_92/>.