House of Representatives
27 June 1923

9th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker (Rt. Hon. W. A. Watt) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 318

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1923-24

Message recommending appropriation reported, and referred to Committee of Supply.

page 318

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Nauru -Report on the Administration of Nauru, during the year 1922. - Prepared by the Administrator(or submission to the League of Nations.

New Guinea - Report to the League of Nations on the Administration of the Territory of New Guinea from 1st July, 1921, to 30th June, 1922.

Ordered to be printed.

Customs Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 71.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at -

Mentone, Victoria-for postal purposes.

Newcastle, New South Wales. . - For Postal purposes.

Urayarra, Federal Territory - For Federal Capital purposes.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act Ordinances of1923 -

No. 9 - Darwin Town Council (No. 2).

No. 10 - Public Service.

page 318

NEW BILLS

Time for Consideration.

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the large number of Bills on the notice-paper, some of which arc of a very important nature, I ask the Prime Minister whether an endeavour will be made to have the Bills introduced and the second readings moved as early as possible in order that honorable members may have a little time for their consideration before they are proceeded with?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– It is the intention of the Government to adopt the course suggested’ by the honorable member. The Bills referred to have been put on the notice-paper so that the first readings may be moved as early as possible, and copies’ distributed. In thisway, honorable members will be given an opportunity to study the measures before the secondreading stage is reached.

ADJOURNMENT(Formal).

Proposed Deportationof Irish Envoys.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter ofurgentpublicimportance, viz., “The action of the Government in arresting Rev. Father Michael O’Flannagan and Mr. J ohn O’Kelly for the purpose of deportation without first allowing them the right of trial by jury.”

Five honorable members having risen intheirplaces,

Question proposed.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- In taking this course, I desire it to’ be clearly understood that honorable members on this side are concerned not about particular individuals, but for the maintenance of the great principle of trial by jury, which has governed British justice for centuries past.We dissociate ourselves from happenings abroad and from expressions of opinion on Irish affairs. The hope of the. party on this side is that the people of Ireland may be able, with their new form of government, to work out their own destiny along lines which will bring contentment and happiness to the people of that island.

Having made that clear, I want to say that this is the first occasion upon which action has been taken under certain legislation passed by this Parliament in 1920. Honorable members will recall the fact that we on this side opposed that legislation. “We pointed out at the time very clearly that in our opinion every individual against whom a charge was made should have the right of trial by jury. Later on, this Parliament also passed an Act dealing with passports. Honorable members on this side opposed that measure, too. I recollect that the Minister in charge of it (Mr. Poynton) assured the House that it was necessary in order to facilitate the travelling of persons who might go abroad from Australia. We objected that the legislation proposed was a relic of the war period, and claimed that as we had got back to normal conditions the people should not be hampered by the passport legislation submitted. However, the House passed the measure referred to. The two gentlemen mentioned in my intimation to Mr. Speaker, who are to be deported from Australia, came here furnished with British passports, not with passports issued by the authorities of another country. Their passports were indorsed by the Australian authorities, and they were allowed to land. They held meetings in Victoria, but no action affecting them was taken. They then went to ‘New South Wales, and held meetings there. A certain section of the community objected to their speeches, and criticised the action of the Commonwealth Government in permitting these gentlemen to land in Australia. They claimed that they should be deported. As a result . of that criticism, the New’ South Wales Government took action against these gentlemen for sedition under a law under which the Commonwealth Government might have taken action had they so desired before the State Government intervened. The law under which the New South Wales Government acted assure to these gentlemen trial by a jury. After the State Government had taken action the Commonwealth instituted proceedings against them under the following provision of the Immigration Act 1920.- 8a. Where the Minister is satisfied that, within three years after the arrival in Aus tralia of a person who was not born in Australia, that person -

  1. has been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by im prisonment for one year or longer;.
  2. is living on the prostitution of others;
  3. has become an inmate of an insane asylum or public charitable institution ; or
  4. is a person who advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of any State, or of any other civilized country, or of all forms of law, or who advocates the abolition of organized government, or who advocates the assassination of public officials, or who advocates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or who is a member of, or affiliated with, any organization which teaches any of the doctrines and practices- specified in this paragraph, he may, by notice in writing, summon the person to appear before a Board within the time and in the manner prescribed, to show cause why he should not be deported from the Commonwealth .

To this provision the Opposition took strong exception when the Bill containing it was being debated in this Chamber. We feared that when some burning question was exciting popular feeling men might be appointed to these Boards who were biased; possibly unconsciously.

Mr Mahony:

– There is no doubt about the bias of the Board appointed in this case as the records of its members show.

Mr CHARLTON:

– They may not be aware that they are biased. In a community like this such a pernicious procedure should not be permitted. In this particular case a Board was appointed by the Commonwealth Government, and the envoys were summoned to appear before it in order to show cause why they should not be deported. Their counsel appealed to the High Court to declare that the provision of the Immigration Act under which the Board had been appointed was unconstitutional. However, the Court held that the Act was valid. Meanwhile the hearing of the charge of sedition levelled bythe State Government was stopped. The Immigration In-‘ quiry Board resumed its sittings after the decision of the High Court had been given, aud recommended that these two gentlemen be deported. , The next step in the chain of events was the appearance of the envoys in the State Court to answer the adjourned, charge of sedition, and the police magistrate, before whom they appeared, is reported to have criticised the Commonwealth authorities severely for having practically held a State Court in contempt by delaying proceedings. I should say that there was justification for that criticism.

Mr Groom:

– If the honorable mem. ber is referring to the action for sedition, that was a State affair.

Mr CHARLTON:

– But the State proceedings were delayed by the action taken by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Groom:

– No.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am glad to hear the Minister’s denial. In company with Senator Gardiner and Mr. Dunn, I waited on Mr. Bavin, the State Attorney-General, and he told us that the State Government were not responsible for thedelay, but that the fault lay with the Commonwealth Government for having taken proceedings under the Immigration Act after the State Government had initiated’ a prosecution for sedition. He said that obviously the State could not proceed with its prosecution when the Commonwealth stepped in. I asked if, under the charge of sedition, the envoys would have the right to trial by a jury, and he replied that there was no question of the accused losing the right to a trial by a jury under the charge the State had laid against these gentlemen, and, further, that the proceedings had been initiated under a Commonwealth Act. If the State Government could proceed under a Commonwealth Act, which gave the accused the right to a trial by a jury, how was it that the Commonwealth did not proceed in the same way? How was it that they allowed these gentlemen to address meetings in Victoria and also in New South Wales, and that they took action only after the State Government had done so?

I hope that there will be no effort to make it appear that honorable members on this side, are holding a brief for the persons concerned. I do not know these gentlemen. I have never met them. I am no more concerned with them than I would be with any other person ordered to be deported by a Board appointed under the Immigration Act.. When section 8a was discussed in this House we pointed out the clanger that might be incurred by persons expressing their opinion of the existing system of government in Australia. Within three years after his arrival in this country a’ man who may have been a good citizen for over two years may happen to say something during industrial trouble which may be held to be’ in contravention of this section of the Act, and a Board may be appointed to deport him. No one can tell where this sort of thing will end, and for that reason we cannot allow these two gentlemen to be deported without raising our voice in protest. If we do not do so we shall be regarded as giving tacit consent to the action of the Government.

Mr Anstey:

– And we would have no right to challenge a similar action in the future.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is a very serious position. Whatever may have happened during the war, when every one was in a state of excitement, we are not justified in perpetuating the procedure of that period. If the Government think they are justified in putting into operation a measure of this kind in the circumstances I have outlined, what may not happen to our liberty of speech or to the right to trial by a jury? I am ventilating this’ matter solely because I am anxious that nothing, should be done to abolish liberty of speech or trial by jury. Had the Government taken a course of action which would have allowed the envoys to be tried by a jury, no one could have found fault. But that was not done. As a matter of fact, the Commonwealth Government intervened, and so delayed the State proceedings that the police magistrate who was dealing with the case felt called upon to comment on the Commonwealth’s action. To me the action taken by the Commonwealth is beyond understanding.

Mr Brennan:

– The Commonwealth Ministers would have looked very foolish if these men had been acquitted. They had to stop other proceedings in order to save their own faces.

Mr CHARLTON:

– There may be something in that view of the matter. It seems to me that the Commonwealth Government must have taken fright when a certain agitation commenced in New South Wales. Probably they thought that the proceedings instituted by the State Government were, in a way, a reflection upon themselves, and, of course, astheState (Government had already (preferred . a charge of sedition against the envoysunder a Commonwealth Statute, they were obliged to look forsomeother means of taking action, and accordingly commenced proceedings under the Immigration Act. I would like to hearthe Attorney-General explainwhythe Commonwealth did this when the gentlemen inquestionwere already answering a charge of sedition, which would have to be decided by a jury, and not by a Board appointed by theGovernment. Ido not knowthe members of the Board, and I make no reflection upon their personal , probity when I say that it is possible for men to be unconsciously biased by public clamour in connexion with a proposeddeportation.. Therefore, the community having againsettled down to peace conditions, we should revertto our pre-war procedure, which gaveevery man the right to trial by ajury of his fellow countrymen. That right is the bulwark of British justice. We have upheld it for hundreds of years as a pattern to ‘be followedbyother nations in framing their judicial systems. Yet in this enlightened age, aftertrialby jury has been in operation for hundreds of years, and has proved to beaneffective safeguard of the liberties of the individual, and the safety of thecommnnity, the Government are attemptingto deny it to two persons who have arrived in the Commonwealth. Do not forget that they arrived as British subjects, with British passports. Honorable members opposite talk a lot . about the Empire, and the necessity forEmpire solidarity, and for meting out even-handed justice ; to every man who is protected by the Britishflag. In this instance, that principle has been lost to sight ; the usual method . of administering British justice has been set aside. Not only every Britisher, but every person of any nationality who comes to Australia, isentitled to trial byjury. The men who are about to be deported arrived with a passport which was equivalent to a icertificate by the BritishGovernment of the exemplary character of the bearers. No other view can be taken of , a -passport issued by British . officials. They have no right to issue passports to undesirables, and it may be assumed that they would not do so. These Irish . envoyswere hall-marked as reput ablecitizensoftheEmpire ; yet theCommonwealth proposes : to depoutthem withoutaccording themtrial by : jury. immediately afterthe New : South Wales magistrate had expressedhis disgust ‘with the action . ofthe Commonwealth Law Department in delayingto take action against these men; immediiartely after “he had declined to further remandthem on the sedition charge brought by the State Government, and had released them, theywerere-arrested. Probably , they will be deported in the near future, but it is notyet too lateor the Commonwealth Government to retrace their steps, and have these men tried by a jury, a procedure to which they, like everybody else in this country,are entitled.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The Leader of the Opposition has based his case mainly upon the contention that (these Irish envoys are entitledto trial : by jury. Iask the House to consider first of all the law under which theCommonwealth are’ acting, and the purpose of thatlaw. I remind honorable members that the Immigration Act of 1920 was not a war-time (measure.; it waspassed after the excitement of the war haddied down. It was a law deliberately made by this Parliamentfor the purpose of regulating the admission of immigrants to Australia, and excluding undesirables. That Act increased thenumber of persons who were deemed to be prohibited immigrants and therefore not eligible to land in Australia, and included, amongst others -

Any person who advocates the rover.throwby force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of any State or of any other civilized country, or of all forms of law, or who advocates the abolitionof organized government,or . who advocatesthe assassination of public officials, or who advocates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organisation which entertains and teaches any of the doctrines and practices specified in this paragraph.

The deliberate decision of the Housewas that such persons should be prohibited from entering -the Commonwealth. Immigration laws must, by their very nature, be administered promptly, and, usually, at the time when.the person applies for entrance into the Commonwealth. This prohibition stands at thevery portalsof the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition, ineffect, suggests that trial by jury should be conceded to every person who comes under the definition of a prohibited immigrant. Do honorable members conceive that it would be possible to administer an Immigration Act for, inter alia, the exclusion of undesirables, if every person who knocked at the door and asked for admission had to be tried by a jury before his application could be refused?

Mr Brennan:

– That is not the point.

Mr GROOM:

– I am showing that the basis of the Act is administration by the executive authority, which is entitled, by the law itself, to exclude prohibited immigrants if they are known to be such at the time of their arrival. This Parliament deliberately adopted that law as the settled and determined policy of the country, and I submit that it was right in so doing.. A person who advocates the overthrow of any established Government in the King’s Dominions is by the law of the land a prohibited immigrant. Itis obvious that in the specification of undesirable immigrants it is the character of the individuals which is aimed at. It is not always possible to discover at the moment of an immigrant’s arrival in the Commonwealth whether he is or is not disqualified on the grounds set out in the paragraph I have quoted. Parliament, realizing the possibility of undesirables evading the law, and thereby getting a footing in. the Commonwealth before their characters are discovered, wisely enacted that if within a period of three years after an immigrant’s arrival he proves himself or is found to be within the category of prohibited immigrants he can be deported. But in order that he should not be treated unfairly, a clause was inserted providing that the Minister could not deport a man charged with being a prohibited immigrant untilhe had appointed a Board to adjudicate on the case, and the person charged had failed to appear before such Board and show cause, or the Board had recommended that he should be deported. In this case those conditions were fulfilled. The honorable member (Mr. Charlton) said that it is an unheard of proceeding to have a law administered in this way; he said that it is a violation of the right to trial by jury. May I remind the honorable member exactly what that right is? It is conceded to a man who has committed an offence against the laws of the country in which he resides.

Mr Anstey:

– Who is charged with having committed an offence.

Mr GROOM:

– I accept the honorable member’s correction. This is not such a case.

Mr Maxwell:

– Even such a man has not always the right to trial by jury.

Mr GROOM:

– No; there are other methods of procedure in regard to even the more serious charges of breaches against the law of the land. We did not charge these persons with having committed an offence rendering them liable to be deprived of their property, or to suffer imprisonment for a term, or any extreme penalty.

Mr Charlton:

– The State charged them with the commission of an offence, but you intervened and stopped those proceedings.

Mr GROOM:

– The Commonwealth did not stop the proceedings. I am dealing with the law under which we took action. I say that that law considers only the question whether a person is a desirable or an undesirable immigrant. If he is thought to be an undesirable immigrant, it is a matter for the Executive Authority to determine that fact, and deport him from Australia. This law is not unknown to British communities or to countries inheriting British traditions. Canada passed an Immigration law in 1910. That was well before the outbreak of the war, so that it cannot be contended that that law was the result of war conditions. It provides that whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen, within three years of landing, has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to the Act, he shall be reported by the Immigration Officer to the Minister. Section 41 provides -

Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow, by force or violence, of the Government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British Dominions, or the overthrow, by force or violence, of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of public officials, or shall by word or act create a riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society which extorts money from or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada’ by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person shall be classed as an undesirable immigrant, and notice thereof be given to the Minister.

Section 42 provides that the . Minister may order any person alleged to be a prohibited or undesirable immigrant to be detained, and may order a Board of Inquiry to investigate the complaint. If the Board is satisfied that the person is a prohibited or undesirable immigrant he may be deported forthwith, subject to an appeal to the Minister. The Board of Inquiry consists of three or more immigration officers, of whom the Immigration Officer in charge must be one.

There is a further provision which reads as follows: -

Where any person has, within three years of landing, become an inmate of a gaol, the Minister for the Interior may issue a warrant authorizing him to be detained with a view to his deportation.

Canada is a British community corresponding to our own which, prior to the war, acted in exactly the same way as we acted in 1920. Nobody can say that the Dominion of Canada is less British than Australia in its institutions andin its care for the liberty of the subject. Executive provision relating to deportation may be found in the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Act of New Zealand. Under that Act, the AttorneyGeneral of New Zealand may order any person to leave the Commonwealth if that person is disaffected, disloyal, or liable to be a source of dangerto the peace, order and good government of New Zealand. The South African Act also has provisions dealing with exclusion. The United States of America has a law exactly similar to the Australian Act, and in it provision is made, in addition, for the examination of immigrants by a Special Board of Inquiry consisting of three immigration officers. Honorable members will see, therefore, that there is nothing novel in our law; it is similar to laws which have been passed by other British communities and by the United States of America. These laws are not deemed by those countries to be a violation of the liberty of the subject. The passage of our Act was perfectly justified. The Act is brought into force by the Minister on the advice of a Board, in order that action may be taken promptly to exclude from Australia persons found here who are deemed to be undesirable.

There is no necessity to discuss the proceedings that took place before the

Board. A copy of the Board’s finding has been laid upon the table of this House. The Board found that these men had advocated the overthrow by’ force and violence of the established Government of a civilized country, to wit, the Irish Free State.

Exception is taken to our intervention. The responsibility is thrown upon the Department of Home and Territories to administer this Act. The New South Wales Government, on its own initiative, took action under the Crimes Act, and charged these persona with sedition. The action of the State Government did not remove from the Commonwealth the obligation to take whatever action they felt was necessary for the removal from Australia of undesirable immigrants.

Mr Scullin:

– It would have been decent to wait for the verdict of the State Court.

Mr GROOM:

– Not necessarily. The object of our Act is to exclude undesirable persons from Australia. Immediately the Commonwealth Government are in a position to do this, it is their duty to take action. So soon as we were in possession of evidence which showed that these men were undesirable under the provisions of the law, we deemed it to be our duty to take action. Action was taken independently of the State. The men were charged before a perfectly impartial Board. Immediately that Board was constituted, objection was taken to its constitutional authority. The constitutional issues were carried to the High Court of Australia. The attitude of the Commonwealth all through has been not to take any technical advantage, but to have the constitutional issue and the merits of the case decided according to law. The High Court of Australia affirmed the constitutional validity of the Act which we passed in 1920. The Board having made a recommendation certifying to all the facts essential for the deportation of the persons concerned, it is the duty of the Government to comply with the law.

Mr Fenton:

– Why did you not send their cases before a Judge of the High Court?

Mr GROOM:

– Because the High Court has its own particular functions, and this was not one of them. The

Board constituted to deal with the question! consisted of three persons, one being an ex-magistrate, and the other two gentlemen qualified, and experienced lawyers.[Extension of time granted.]

Mr Mann:

-If the charge of sedition had been sustained, would the Government have had authority to deport these men?

Mr GROOM:

– In the circumstances mentioned by the honorable member, the Government would have had authority to act. A charge of sedition-, if proved, would not necessarily relieve the Government of the obligation to take action under the law which I have quoted against persons known to be undesirable immigrants.

The Leader of the Opposition took the stand that because these men had been supplied with passportsby the British Government, no action should have been taken against, them here. The passports gave them authority to move within, the British ‘Empire, but contained the conditions that they were issued subject to the immigration regulations of all parts of the Empire. Therefore, there was nothing to prevent the Government from pnoceeding in accordance with the Commonwealth immigration law.

Mr Charlton:

– That condition is in. all passports.

Mr GROOM:

– It has been inserted for the purpose of preserving the rights of the Dominions. I submit that our legislation is in accordance with precedent, and that our. action has been dictated by sound reason. Australia should not be a. sanctuary for men who advocate the overthrow of the Empires or of the established government of any of its- Dominions. We do not want in the Commonwealth men who do not believe in constituted authority and who. are prepared to go to any extreme to overthrow all forms of government.

Mr Brennan:

– That is not so in this case.

Mr GROOM:

– I am not saying that it is; but the facts prove conclusively that these men did come to Australia to advocate the overthrow of a society established by law in the IrishFree . State. In the circumstances, the duty is upon the Government to administer the law and to see that its provisions are carried out:

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- The speech made by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Groom.) is the essence of futility, and I am satisfied that if the numbers dividing the parties in this House were closer the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) would be’ carried this afternoon. The Attorney-General has not said anything to justify the action of the Government with regard to the gentlemen concerned. It is one of the most mysterious and sinister happenings in the Commonwealth during the past eight years, including the war years, when heaven only knows, we had enough hysteria and jingoism to satisfy everybody.

Mr Maxwell:

– Well, let us have no more of it.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Heaven forbid that we should continue to act in this extraordinary way.. These gentlemen came to Australia to deliver a message to the people of Australia-. I am not concerned’ in any way with their message. It would be presumption, on my part,, to attempt to- dogmatize on the Irish question when the Irish people themselves are so much divided over it. What I am concerned about is that this Government should out-jingo the jingoes of Britain in their determination to keep this an. utterly loyal country. The Irish envoys were quite well-known in Great Britain, but they got their passports for Australiawithout the slightest trouble. Members of the British Government,, whatever their faults may be, are not, asa rule, as hysterical as this Government.. They recognised, no doubt, that the position of. affairs in Ireland could not be altered, and so passports were issued fa these men, who’ came to Australia.

Mr Maxwell:

– Perhaps they were glad to get rid of them.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– They made, speeches’ containing gross reflections on the British Parliament, and they were in Australia for a month or six weeks before any action was taken. I am not concerned at all with the nature of their views, but I protest that persons who come here on passports issued by the British Government, should not be liable to be incarcerated, or deported as undesirables. If this course can be upheld it is’ quite possible that in due time, when some of my colleagues: from the Bnitish Labour party come to Australia, the Commonwealth Government may deport them in the same manner. On the other side of the House there are honorable members who have committed enough sedition to justify their deportation a dozen times over, and I am: certain that, on this side, there is not one member who has not made seditious speeches. I defy any man to fight effectively on behalf of the working classes without being guilty of seditious utterances. The absurd Act “under which the Irish envoys are tobe deported was not, as the Minister has said, passed in time of war, but because the War Precautions Act was being repealed, and it was thought necessary to keep the jingoistic spirit in existence, so as to be ready for those who might come to this country, and by their speeches, attempt to disrupt the great British Empire. Section 8a of the Immigration Act of 1920 reads-

  1. Where the. Minister is satisfied, that, within three years after the arrival in Australia of a person who was not born in Australia, that person -

    1. has been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable for imprisonment for oneyear or longer -

These gentlemen have not been convicted of a criminal offence -

  1. is living on the prostitution of others -

They are not in that category -

  1. has become an inmate of an insane asylum or public charitable institution.

They cannot be punished under that paragraph. But so that no one might come to Australia who the Government think might undermine the might of the British Empire, this all-embracing provision was passed -

  1. If a person who advocates the overthrow by force, or violence of the established Government of the Com monwealth or of any State, . . . he may by notice in writing, summon the person to appear before a Board within the time and in the manner prescribed, to show cause why he should not be deported from the Commonwealth..

That is foolish and ridiculous enough, Heaven only knows, but the section goes further. It does not refer only to the Governments of the Commonwealth, New Zealand, Canada, or Great Britain - that is wide enough, but apparently the Government think it too circumscribed - but it. coversany person who preaches the overthrow of any Government.

Mr Gregory:

– By force.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Yes, by force The Commonwealth Government says, “We are the protectors of alienations, and if any person advocates the overthrow of a capitalistic Government in, say, Japan, this Government under this law can deport such a person.”

Mr Gregory:

– I think we might get into trouble if we did not act.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– The honorable member, nodoubt, would act if he had the opportunity. If there were an insurrection in China, for instance, and a delegation representing the workers of China came to Australia to lay their case before the people in the Commonwealth, he could under this law be deported. The whole Act is characteristic of those hysterical people who have been governing the Commonwealth during the past six years. The accused persons, who have made twenty or thirty speeches in Australia, have not caused a greater ripple in public opinion than would be caused by a pebble thrown into the sea at St. Kilda; but Governments aided, abetted and incited by certain organizations in this community have been led to believe that not only the British Empire and her Dominions, but the whole of the civilized world is endangered. These organizations, have, therefore, used their force and influence to compel the Governmentto take action.

Mr Atkinson:

– Surely the New South Wales Government considered the position serious or they would not have taken action.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Thereby hangs a tale, and I would like the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Groom) to state whether representations were made by the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth Government asking them to take action under the Immigration Act, and, if so, what those representations were. No sooner had the State Government taken action under their sedition law than the Commonwealth Government instituted proceedings under their Immigration Act. There are sufficient Commonwealth and State laws under which a person may be tried for sedition. But these were thought insufficient to deal with these particular gentlemen, and the Commonwealth is therefore acting under the drag-net section which I have quoted, and is about to deport them from the Commonwealth. In a report in the Argus to-day of an application by the State Government for a further remand Mr. Gale, the stipendiary magistrate, is made to say that he could understand, with other proceedings pending, why the remand had been asked for in previous instances, but he considered the present request unreasonable. The report continues - ‘

Mr. Kidston said that those other proceedings were still pending. The Commonwealth Ministry had come to a conclusion which had been reported iu the public press.

Mr. Windeyer denied that the proceedings were still pending.

Mr. Gale (heatedly). Why should they use our State Court and procedure to give them time? I do not feel disposed to remand any longer. I have gone the limit. It is unreasonable to keep these defendants in custody any longer. I think it is for the Federal authorities to take action, and not for us to delay any longer.

Even the stipendiary magistrate became heated. These gentlemen 4were eventually discharged into the hands of a policeman, who took them to a penitentiary. During the trial by a biased Board, one of the accused - I am informed by an onlooker, not through the press - was assaulted, and when he asked for protection he did not receive the courtesy he was entitled to. It is a further reflection upon the Commonwealth Government if men charged with sedition are allowed to be assaulted as this man was. The Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) said that an impartial Board was appointed. God save us from impartiality of this kind ! Of all the conservative, biased, and prejudiced men in the community, I doubt whether it would be possible to secure three more partial, conservative, biased, and prejudiced men than Mr. Stinson, Mr. Macfarlane, arid Mr. Manning. When one knows the beliefs of these men it is easy to realize that they had formed their opinions as soon as they were appointed. I followed the trial closely, and came to the conclusion that, irrespective of the defence that would be put up, the accused would be deported. That was the order. It is useless the Minister informing us that it was an impartial trial, because the whole thing was “rigged” and “faked” by the two Governments concerned. I earnestly pray that honorable members on this side of the House, if their liberties are at stake, may never have to appear before such an impartial Board. British justice! There is no such thing under such a Board. I can only lodge my protest as I did when that hysterical, jingoistic piece of legislation was placed on our statute-book, and I always regret that such an Act remains, particularly when it is misused, ‘as it has been in this instance. The Government has not used it in the interests of the British Empire. The British Government should at least be given some consideration, for it would not foolishly and hysterically endanger the peace of Great Britain and Ireland by taking such ridiculous action as the Commonwealth Government has taken.

Mr F FRANCIS:
HENTY, VICTORIA · IND NAT; NAT from 1922

– I desire to congratulate the Government upon the action it has taken in connexion with the deportation of men whose sole purpose and desire, it has been proved, was to overthrow all constitutional forms of Government. I am surprised that any member of this House should blame the Government for trying to keep the pure air of Australia free from pollution by men whose sentiments lead them to desire the destruction 11 ot merely of Australia, but of the British Empire. They have had a fair and rea,sonable trial, according to the forms of British justice. I regret that the powers of the Commonwealth Government are not even greater than they are. If the Government desired me to do it, I would support action to compel every person to subscribe to the oath of allegiance before landing in Australia. I know that we have power to compel individuals to take that oath, but in some cases, such as the one under notice, disloyal people have slipped into this country without the knowledge of the authorities. Some honorable members have endeavoured to make capital of the fact that these men were admitted to the Commonwealth on a British passport, but if after entering Australia men behave in a manner which undoubtedly proves that they are not fit to continue as residents, the people ought not to be compelled to harbor them, either temporarily or permanently, merely because they hold a British passport. I congratulate the New South Wales Government on what it has “done, and regret that action was not taken earlier. The mass of the people of the Commonwealth have come to the conclusion that if the Commonwealth Government had not acted’ as it did, it would have violated the trust reposed in it. Both the hearts and the minds of the people have been impressed, and they are determined not to tolerate any Government that will sympathizewith and assist the disastrous propaganda of rebels. I would not give support for one instant to a Government which would condone the action of members of the Opposition in defending people who are not worthy subjects of the British Empire.

Mr Gabb:

– We are demanding trial by jury.

Mr F FRANCIS:
HENTY, VICTORIA · IND NAT; NAT from 1922

– The rebels have had trial by jury. The honorable member who has just spoken (Mr. Blakeley) has charged the Government with being one-sided, but it is not one-sided. It is, however, determined to dispense justice and to stand for the unity of the Empire. It will not harbor in our midst men who are traitors and rebels to the country. Those who were appointed to investigate the case were men of a high calibre, who had filled other responsible positions, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that these men were rebels and traitors to the Empire. Australia, therefore, cannot retain them in this country.

Members of the Opposition interjecting -

Mr F FRANCIS:
HENTY, VICTORIA · IND NAT; NAT from 1922

– It is all very well for members of the Opposition to say “ Hear, hear,” and to talk of forming a Republic in this country. They will not get’ very far with that kind, of propaganda. The people of Australia are within the bonds of the British Empire, and that Empire, no matter what may be said by honorable members opposite, is the greatest Empire the world has ever seen. No Government that is true to its trust can permit Australia to be polluted with Sinn Feiners, rebels, and traitors. I congratulate the Government, and I hope it will take steps to rid Australia of many more men of the calibre of these Irish envoys, who should be deported as soon as it is possible to make the necessary arrangements. The people desire it, and are behind the Government in the action taken, not because the Government is one-sided, but because it is national. The Government represents not any particular section, sect, or colour in the community, but the people as a whole. Other Governments, if they get the chance, may do otherwise, but this Government must keep Australia free from the contamination of rebels and traitors. The people of Australia will learn from this debate that there are men even in the Commonwealth Parliament who would harbor and foster in this country people who are not fit to live here. I hope the present Government will long continue to control the affairs of the country, for its loyal sentiments have found expression in the deportation of men who are not fit to pollute the pure air of Australia.

Mr GABB:
Angas

. -Before the question is put I should like to make it clear that in voting against the Government I do not, in any way, father the cause of the Irish Free State, or that of the opposing forces in Ireland. The vote which I intend to give will be a vote in favour of trial by jury. On many occasions in the last Parliament, when the war hysteria affected the people, I endeavoured to obtain justice for men who had been in Australia, not merely for a few weeks, but for many years, and who had been deported without a trial by jury. I took that stand then and I am in duty bound to adhere to it on this occasion. Whether a person who wishes to enter this country, is of Irish, German, English, or other origin is of no matter to me, providing he is of the white race. The Irish envoys should have been given a trial by jury, upon which is based the whole edifice of the British system of justice. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. F. Francis), because one of these gentlemen holds the title of “Father,” could not miss the opportunity to butt in. Any honorable member who has been returned to this House largely on a sectarian vote must, at all costs, cultivate that vote in order to retain it. Such action, despicable though it be, is absolutely necessary. These gentlemen spoke in Victoria, and very little comment was made. They then went to New South Wales. The Government there were largely returned upon the sectarian issue, and it is to their interest to fan the flames of sectarianism as much as possible. For that reason they commenced an action against these Irish envoys. The honorable member for Henty first of all congratulated the Commonwealth Government for having decided bo deport these gentlemen, and then he congratulated the New South Wales Government for their action, although a State magistrate acquitted the gentlemen in question. If one can gauge the honorable member’s mentality by bis remarks, the electors of the Henty district must feel dissatisfied with their selection of him in preference to men of the calibre of Mr. Boyd and Mr. Gullett, who are bothcapable men. This honorable member, in one breath, congratulates the Government for acertain action, and, in hisnextbreach, congratulates another Government for doingpractically the opposite. I shall castmy vote in favour of every person, particularly British subjects, having the opportunity oftrial byjury priorto beingdeported, fined or imprisoned.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

. -I renter myprotestagainstthe proposed action of theCommonwealth Government to deport the Irish . envoys. These men, no matter from what country ithey come, should have trial by jury before being deported. The Attorney-General pointed out that in South Africa and Canada, provisionwasmade under the immigration laws forthe creation of aspecial Board consisting of three immigration officers. The Commonwealth Government are now acting on the finding ofa Board consisting not of three Government officials or three immigration officials,but of three distinct partisans. The Board comprised Mr. McFarlane, a magistrate who has received from the Government quite a number of commissions to proceed on fishing excursions, to try to ferret out evidence of the alleged maladministration of the late Labour Government; Mr. Stdnson, who is actively connected with the King and Empire Alliance; and Mr. Manning, who is a prominent Tory. How could any one expect these three men to arrive at a fair and impartial finding, knowing their past activities and associations with the Government? If theGovernment had created a Board consisting of three members of the judiciary, one might have expected a fair and honorable finding from them. Apart from the creation and thepersonnel of the Board, these Irish envoys should have been afforded the opportunity of trial by jury. I raise my voice at all times in protest against any person being deprived of liberty. I have been actively associated with a movement to bring about the amendment of the law of New South Wales concerning lunacy laws. In many cases persons have been incarcerated in asylums without being given the protection of a proper inquiry. The cases have been submitted to a magistrate, and on his finding, together with the certificatesof two medical practitioners or two justices of the peace, persons have been committed to mental hospitals for life. I am opposed to the present practice in New South Wales ofconsigning persons to mental asylums without trial by jury, and I am also opposed to the decision of the Government to deport thesetwo Irish envoys without affording them a trial by jury. They were charged with being connected with seditious enterprises,, and, before being deported from the Commonwealth, their case Should be submitted to a jury to ascertain whether they were actually engaged in a seditious enterprise or not. It is said that it is a matter for the CommonwealthGovernment to see that the laws of the country are put into effect; but to illustrate to honorable members how easy it would be for one of these gentlemen to be found guilty of being engaged in a seditious enterprise, I refer them to a section of the War Precautions Repeal Act, which contains a number of provisions quite as hysterical as those of the Commonwealth Immigration Act passed in 1920. According to that section, it is a seditious action to promote ill-will and hostility between His Majesty’s subjects so as to endanger the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth. I submit that every honorable member ofthis House has committed sedition at one time or another. Mr. Stinson, a member” of the Board, is associated with the King and Empire Alliance, which organization undoubtedly creates strife and dissension among His Majesty’s subjects. No honorable member could put forward his views on the platform without bringing himself within the provisions of this reactionary law. I hope theGovernment will reconsider their decision and give these men an opportunity of appearing before a jury to show that they are not engaged in a seditious enterprise.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- In view of the Government’s decision to deport the Irish envoys, one hardly knows what Australia is coming to. We make a boast of freedom. Certain persons are everlastingly boasting of their liberty, and functions cannot be held unless started and finished with “ God save the King.” As a matter of fact, thisis not the custom in Great

Britain, as there the National Anthem is seldom sung. The late Lord Northcliffe stated that he was sick of the sound of the tune. While I was in England during the war, Mr. Arthur Lynch, member for one of the counties of Ireland, advertised in the Times and the Daily Mail that a meeting of citizens was called for the purpose of discussing the formation- of a Republic. Quite a number of people attended, the speeches were reported and many branches of an organization were formed for the purpose of agitating for the overthrow, by constitutional methods, of the present monarchial form of government, and the establishment of a republic Those men were not arrested; they were permitted to carry on what they believed to be their good work. Every facility is given; in England for all sections of the people to voice their opinions.

Mr Fenton:

– Hyde Park is full of them.

Mr McGRATH:

-Of course it is; but here in Australia, in the twentieth century, we have to listen to the inane mouthings of the honorable member for Henty-

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Order ! That remark must be withdrawn.

Mr McGRATH:

– I withdraw it. Nevertheless it is deplorable that expression is given to such sentiments as these we have heard from the honorable member. He is always on the platform talking about his loyalty to the Empire. But though a much younger man than several honorable members who fought for their country during the late war, the honorable member for Henty did not go on active service. He was a still younger man atthe timet of the South African War, but he has no medals to show that he participated in that campaign. He likes to dwell upon the subject of loyalty to the Empire, because he represents a constituency where the electors, owing to sectarian considerations, are-‘ easily influenced by such talk. I come from a North of Ireland family, but the bitterness engendered between the north and south of Ireland should not be displayed by the descendants- of Irishmen in Australia. Those differences should be settled in Ireland.I emphatically protest against the deportation of the Irish envoys. The only trial they have received has resulted in their acquittal’. Cases of deportation were numerous during the late war,, and the only justification that, the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) can offer for the precipitate action of the Government is the fact that some Act was passed by the Nationalist Government in 1920. That measure was not acquiesced in by the. Labour party. We bitterly opposed every line of it, because it could be used not only against persons expressing republican sympathies, but. also against any people having the temerity to express views not in accord with those- of the Government in power.I trust that the Ministry will not proceed with their deportation. If the mem in question are guilty of sedition, let it be proved before a properly-constituted tribunal. Only upon that proof being furnished would deportation be justifiable.

Question - That the House do now adjourn - put. The House divided. .

AYES: 23

NOES: 34

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 330

QUESTION

WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION

Bank Guarantee

Mr WATSON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. On what terms was the bank guarantee for £75,000 arranged on behalf of the Wholesale Co-operative Federation?
  2. Has the guarantee been withdrawn, and, if not, is there a probability that the Government may be called upon to pay the amount?
  3. Will he give his assurance that should the company default, he will acquaint the House of the fact, and give an undertaking that no more such guarantees will be given unless the consent of the House is first obtained?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

  1. Theterms were that the Commonwealth agreed to guarantee to the extent of £75,000 an overdraft in London in the name of the Federation. The guarantee is to remain in force for three (3) years from 18th November, 1921, subject to the Commonwealth’s right to withdraw the guarantee after having first given three (3) months’ notice in writing to the Federation at any time after 18th November, 1922.
  2. No. As the Commonwealth holds an undertaking under seal from each of the constituent companies of the Federation to make up any deficiency, it is unlikely that the Commonwealth will be called upon to make any payments.
  3. Yes.

page 330

QUESTION

SYDNEY MAIL BRANCH

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Post master-General, upon notice -

  1. What has been the proportionate increase in the quantity of mail matter handled by the staff in the Sydney mail branch between the 1st July, 1915, and the latestdate for which the figures are available?
  2. What has been the proportionate increase in : the numbers of the staff in the Sydney mail branch during the same period?
  3. What has been the proportionate increase in the number of parcels handled by the staff in the parcels post section of the Sydney mail branch between the 1st July, 1915, and the latest date for which the figures are available?
  4. Whathas been the proportionate increase in the numbers of the staff in the parcels post section of the Sydney mail branch during the same period?
Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

– The following information has been furnished by the Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney : -

  1. 6.5 per centum.
  2. 20.4 per centum.
  3. 105.8 per centum.
  4. 33.3 per centum. In addition, a number of temporary hands are employed, and assistance given by other sections at rush periods of work.

page 330

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITIES FOR SEAMEN

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to pay a war gratuity to all Australian seamen who suffered loss through the submarine campaign while serving on Australian ships?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to pay a war gratuity to all Australian seamen who, while serving on British ships, suffered any loss through the submarine campaign?
  3. Is the British Government paying a gratuity to seamen who have suffered loss through the submarine campaign?
Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.I am informed, however, that, under the war risks scheme formulated by the British Board of Trade, pensions were paid in respect of British seamen who were incapacitated or killed as the result of enemy action. If I am able to obtain more definite information on this matter at a later date, I shall advise the honorable member.

page 330

QUESTION

ZINC PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Directorate

Mr GREGORY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Who are the directors of the Zinc Producers Association which was formed during the war?
  2. Who is the Government nominee on the board as provided in the articles of association?
  3. Do the directors of the Zinc Producers Association control the sale and make contracts for the purchase of zinc slimes, concentrates, or other products requiring further treatment, with other producing mines controlled by any members of the association?
  4. Are any or all of the directors of the Zinc Producers Association also directors of mines whose sales are controlled under the articles of association of the Zinc Producers Association?
  5. Did the Government force most of these mining companies to give the Zinc Producers Association the control of their output, and make all sales of their products for a period of fifty years. If so, will the Government institute inquiries into the methods of the association, and by legislation give relief to any of the companies which feel that they are being exploited in the interests of other companies?
Mr GROOM:
NAT

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

  1. The directors of the Zinc Producers Association are the nominees of the mining companies comprising the Co-operative Association. Each company has the right to nominate one director on the hoard of the association. The names . of the directors are: - Messrs. W. L. Baillieu, A. Campbell, M. Cohen, C.” Fraser, F. A. Govett, W. M. Hyndman, W. Jamieson,

    1. A. Keating, G. W. W. Mackinnon,. C. J. McArthur, B. A. Moulden, J. S. Palmer, G. Swinburne, J. L. Wharton, and the following are alternate directors - Messrs. A. E. Bright, G. C. Klug, R. R. Marshall, T. H. Palmer, and W. S. Robinson.
  2. There is no Government nominee on the board at the present time.
  3. It is not understood what the honorable member means, and. to the best of my knowledge the Zinc Producers Association controls only its own members.
  4. This question is based on a misunderstanding. The sales are not made under the articles of association, but under an agreement between the association and the supplying companies, each of which has a director on the board of the association.
  5. The answer to the first part of this question is “No.” The honorable member will recollect that, some years ago, the papers relating to the formation of the Zinc Producers Association were, in pursuance of an answer to a question asked by him on 17th August, 1917, laid on the table of the Library. I shall he pleased to give the honorable member, if he desires it, an opportunity to peruse the file again.

page 331

QUESTION

INDIRECT TAXATION: REDUCTION

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he state what indirect taxation on the general public has been reduced since the close of the war, and why Commonwealth direct taxation should be reduced before indirect taxation ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– There has been no reduction of indirect taxation since the close of the war.

page 331

QUESTION

CONDOBOLIN-BROKEN HILL RAILWAY

Mr BLAKELEY:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the disagreement of the Premiers with regard to the construction of a railway from Hay to Port Augusta, and in view of the urgent necessity to create employment for the unemployed, will he sympathetically consider the making available of such sums as are necessary to the New South Wales Government for the purpose of completing the CondobolinBroken Hill section of the SydneyPort Augusta transcontinental line?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The Condobolin-Broken Hill railway is a matter for the New South Wales Government. It is not part of the scheme of the Commonwealth Government for a trans-Australian railway of uniform gauge.

page 331

QUESTION

NAVY AND ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS

Mr FENTON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether he will give the House full information in respect to British Army and Navy meat contracts recently dealt with?
  2. What quantities were tendered for?
  3. Who were the successful tenderers, and at what price?
  4. Are Australian producers participating in any way in these contracts?
  5. If so, to what extent. If not what representations have the Commonwealth Government made on behalf of Australian producers urging their claims?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In November, 1922, the British War Office called for tenders for the supply of 900,000 (12 oz.) tins of corned beef. The tenders closed on the 11th December, . 1922, and the agents in Great Britain of the various Australian packers were promptly notified. The successful tenderer was a South American packing firm, whose name is not known. His price was 5s. 4½d. per dozen. The American quotations ranged from 5s. 3d. to 8s. 6d. per dozen; the Australian quotations from 8s. 6d. to 10s.6d. per dozen. In February last the British War Office called for tenders for the supply of 1,080,000 (12 oz.) tins corned beef. The tenders closed on the 17th April, 1923. The agents in Great Britain of Australian firms were informed by the War Office, and all meat exporting firms in Australia were notifiedby the Comptroller-General of Customs. The War Office would have placed portion of this order with an Australian firm had the firm been prepared to give the financial guarantee required by the Imperial Government. The successful tenderers or the price accepted by the British Government are not known. During 1922, an Australian meat export company secured a British Army contract for frozen beef which absorbed about 20,000 first-quality bullocks, and the same company secured another similar contract this year.
  3. Seereply to No. 2. The successful Australian tenderer for frozen beef was Thos. Borthwick and Sons Limited. The accepted price is not known.
  4. Yes, see reply to No. 2. The Imperial authorities have notified that Australia is securing practically all Army requirements for frozen beef in respect of which a substantial preference as regards price is given where necessary to Commonwealth suppliers.
  5. See reply to No. 4. The High Commissioner in London is doing everything possible in support of Australia’s claims for participation in contracts for the supply of meat.

“THEGROCERS’ COMBINE.”

Mr O’KEEFE:
DENISON, TASMANIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he has the power, under the Australian Industries Preservation Act, No. 9 of 1906, an Act dealing withrestraint of trade and destruction of industries bycorporations, to prosecute suchcombines as that known as “ The Grocers’ Combine “ now alleged to he existing in restraint of trade?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– It is not the practice to give legal advice in reply to questions in Parliament.

page 332

QUESTION

COAL BOARD

Payments to Members

Mr MANNING:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What fees have been paid to Mr. Hibble (chairman), Messrs. McDonald, Bragg, and Morgan (owners’ representatives), and Messrs. Willis, Baddeley, and Pillans (miners’ representatives) sincetheir appointment to the Goal Board?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The total payments made(including fees, travelling expenses, &c.) are as follow : -

page 332

QUESTION

THE VICTORY

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - 1.Whether his attention has teen drawn to the appeal madeby Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee to the Empire for -funds to repair Nelson’s flagship, H.M.S. Victory?

  1. Whether, having in mind the part played by this historicshipin deeds and the maintenance of Empiresentiment, the Government will consider making aContribution onbehalf of -the people of the Commonwealthto the “ Victory Fund,” and thus follow the lead setby the British Government?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– It is understood that a sum of £150,000 is required for this work. The public in Great Britain have subscribed about £58,000,and one donor, it is believed, subsequently gave £50,000. I am informed that the British Government is not providing any funds for the purpose, but is allowing an appeal to be made to the public. Under the circumstances it wouldseem reasonable for the Commonwealth -Government to adhere to the same principle. An appealmight, if desired,be made to the people of Australia, say, under the auspices of the Navy League.

page 332

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Appointment of Mr. Ennis

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

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Who recommended Mr. Ennis to the Tariff Board, and what are his qualications?
  2. Who employs him, and what are his duties’?
  3. What amount of remuneration does Mr. Ennis receive, including all paymentsdirect or indirect,such as travelling expenses, &c?
  4. Will the Minister place on the table of the House the official file relating to Mr. Ennis ?
Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Health · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

  1. The Tariff Board, after several interviews with Mr. Ennis, was satisfied that his intimate acquaintance with the canned fruit trade of Great -Britain would enable him to materially assist in disposing of the stocks of canned fruits held by the Commonwealth in London.
  2. Mr. Ennisis at present employed by the Commonwealth, and is assisting the selling organization inLondon.
  3. Steamer fare to London and £100 per month from the date of his commencing duty in London. The last-mentioned amount is changed against the commission of 2 percent, payable to the selling organization.
  4. The official file relating to Mr.Ennis cannot at present be placed on the table of the House.

page 332

QUESTION

UNCHARTED AUSTRALIAN COAST

Mr MARKS:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether his attentionhas been drawn to a statement made by the Commonwealth Director of Navigation that more than onethird of the Australian coast, and more particularly the Barrier Reef, is uncharted in the modern sense of the term?
  2. Whether any arrangements have been made for the continuation of the surveyof our coast-line by the Hydrographic Branch of the Royal Australian Navy?
Mr BOWDEN:
Minister for Defence · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

  1. I have not seen the statement referred to.
  2. The Geranium iscarrying out sketch surveys in waters adjacent tothe Northernterritory. The question of an extension of surveying operations is receiving the consideration of the Government. canned fruit pool.
Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Who were the parties to the 1921-22 Pool for canned fruit?
  2. What was the guarantee by the Federal Government and the various State Governments in respect tothis Pool?
  3. What was the total value of the pooled fruits (canned and otherwise) ?
  4. What was the amount of the advances madeby the FederalGovernment to growers in each State?
  5. What proportion of potential loss did each individual State agree to share?
  6. What arrangements have been made with the individual States to supply them withfull reports from,time to ‘time as to the state of (the Pool and the arrangements made by . the Federal Goveraunent forthe realization?
  7. What are the total estimated quantity and estimated value of stocks still on hand? 8.What amountis estimatedto be received from the balance of the pulped fruit, and what is the total loss estimated in respect of such pulping in the 1922 Pool ?
Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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

  1. The Commonwealth -Governmentand the fruit-grower. who placed fruit in the Pool.
  2. The Federal Government guaranteed the whole of the finance. No guarantee was given by the States, with the exception of Queensland, which agreed tosharehalf ofthe loss (if any) resulting fromthe realization of the fruits placed in the Pool by Queensland growers.
  3. £605,000.
  1. Seereply to No. 2.
  2. No such arrangements have been made.
  3. For business reasons, it is not considered advisable to supply these particulars at present.
  4. About £26,000. Probably £30,000.

page 333

QUESTION

SALE OF INTERIOR FLOUR TO SOUTH AFRICA

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will lay on the table of the House the papers relatingtothe saleby speculators in. Australia of inferior flourto South Africa inonnexionwith which the sum of £115,000 was recently paid by theCommonwealth Government andthe Australian Wheat Board?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– Thesepapers willbe laid on thetable of the Library.

page 333

QUESTION

ROWAN COLLECTION

Mr BLAKELEY:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will inform the Houseas to the negotiations with regard to theRwan. collection of paintings?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The matter is still under consideration.

page 333

QUESTION

JAMS AND PRESERVED FRUITS

Value added by Manufacturing.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

– On the 22nd June, 1923, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) asked the following question,uon notice: -

  1. Is it a fact that, according to our statistics, the quantity of jams and preservedfruits manufactured in Australia, and the value added by manufacturing - that is,the increased value of the article manufactured after deducting costs of raw material such as fruit, sugar, &c, for 1916 and 1918-21, are as follow: - .
  1. As the quantity manufactured in 1916 is. approximately, as great as in 1920-21, can he account for the huge increase in added values,, particularly in the last two years during which the Government assisted . the industry financially?
  2. What was the added cost by manufacturing per lb. during the years 1916, 1917,1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922? 4.If thesestatistitis are of any value in estimating future’ costs and the possibilities of expanding our export trade, what does he estimate our added costper lb. will be five years hence?
  3. Is he satisfied with the effortsof his Department to promote this export trade; if not, in view of the largo -areas recently planted and the great number of returned soldiers induced to embarkin the fruit-jgro.wing industry, what does he propose to do in order to enable this industry to be made remunerative to the grower?

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

  1. Yes; but the. added value by manufacturing (as quoted) includes the cost of manufacturing pickles, sauces, and vinegar.
  2. The increase in added values of jams and canned fruits is due to great increases in the cost of tin plate, sugar, cases, labels, and other materials; also to the higher wages paid pursuant to the awards made by the industrial tribunals.
      • Approximately,1.6d. per lb. 1917. - Approximately, 1.7d. per lb. 1918- 19. - Approximately, 1.8d. per lb. 1919- 20.- Approximately 2.4d. per lb. 1920-21. - Approximately, 3.4d. per lb. 1921-22.- Approximately, 3.1d. per lb.
  3. The costs of manufacture have fallen since 1921-22 owing to the lower prices now prevailing for the materials already referred to. The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is at present dealing with a claim made by fruit-growers for a decrease in the wages at present paid. It is reasonable to conclude that costs will further decrease during the next five years.
  4. Having regard to the circumstances of the jam and preserved fruits industry, the Department of Trade and Customs is doing everything possible to promote this export trade by exercisinga rigid supervision over manufacturing operations, and by insisting on improved methods of grading and packing in connexion with all jams and preserved fruits exported. The Australian Fruit Council and the State Advisory Fruit Boards are endeavouring to bring about a reduction in the cost of manufacture, with a view to enabling com- petition to be met in overseas markets without l oss to the fruit-grower.

page 334

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITIES

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– On the 21st June the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. E. Riley) asked the following questions: -

  1. What is the number of war gratuities still uncashed by the Commonwealth Government, and what is the total amount of same?
  2. What was the amount of interest paid last year in connexion with the above war gratuities ?
  3. How many officers are employed in connexion with the administration of war gratuities, and what were the total salaries paid to them?
  4. What is the total rental being paid for premises occupied by the above staff throughout the Commonwealth?

I said that this information was being obtained, and would he supplied as soon as possible, and am now able to supply the information required, which is as follows : -

  1. At 31st May, 1923, the number of war gratuity bonds uncashed was 125,587, totalling £13,056,004. Of these, 92,306 bonds of the value of £6,595,482, were owned by ex-members of the Forces and hv relatives and dependants, whilst 33,281 honds”of the value of £7,060,522, were owned by banks, life assurance companies, employers, traders, and others, who cashed the bonds for the original owners.
  2. £906,514.
  3. Number of officers - 49. Salaries - £13,127 per annum.
  4. £681 per annum.

page 334

QUESTION

WHEAT

Government Guarantee

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

(By leave). - Several questions have been asked in this House recently as to whether the Government propose to take any action with regard to the coming wheat crop in Australia. To these questions I have replied that the Government were giving the matter consideration. After the very fullest investigation of the position, the Government have decided to participate again this year in the financial arrangements connected with the forthcoming wheat harvest. The assistance will be by way of guarantee through the Commonwealth Bank in the manner employed last year. The basis of the guarantee will be the same also as that of last year, namely, 3s. per bushel at the siding and 8d. per bushel to cover freight and handling charges. The Government have given a great deal of consideration to this question, because they are certain that it is not in the best interests of the primary producers, or indeed of any class in this country, that they should look to the Government for financial assistance in the marketing and handling of their products. But, bearing in mind the adverse climatic conditions to which many parts of Australia, and particularly New South Wales, have been subjected for some considerable time past, we have felt that we should give those engaged in the wheat industry a further opportunity to make arrangements for the handling and marketing of their harvest without governmental assistance. For that reason, we propose to continue the wheat guarantee for another year, but in doing so we wish to make it very clear to those engaged in this industry that we are giving them an opportunity to make their own arrangements, and we hope that before the next harvest they will have put their industry on a basis which will enable that to be clone. The Commonwealth Bank will take the necessary action, and the Government will stand behind the Bank and guarantee an amount of 3s. 8d. per bushel. We have asked the Commonwealth Bank to take steps to get into touch with the States, and ascertain whether they desire to participate in the guarantee. As soon as replies have been received, an agreement will be prepared giving effect to the proposed guarantee. That agreement will be submitted to this House, when honorable members will have an ample opportunity of expressing their opinions in regard to it.

page 335

DEFENCE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Bowden) proposed -

That he have leave to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903-1918.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.- I do not like to interfere with Ministers who are asking leave to introduce Bills, but I think the Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden) should give the House some information in regard to the Bill which he desires to introduce. Bills are being introduced without any explanation whatever.

Mr Bruce:

– This is being done in order that the Bills may be distributed to honorable members, so that they may. have time to consider them.

Mr MAHONY:

– The Minister for Defence has just moved for leave to introduce a measure dealing with the defence of Australia. I consider this such a very serious and vital question that the Minister should take advantage of the earliest opportunity to explain to the House in some way how he proposes to amend the existing Act. He should give us some broad outline, at least, of what the Government’s proposals are. I have it in mind that it is the intention of the Government to make some very drastic alterations of the Defence Act. I fear that they are endeavouring to introduce conscription into Australia again, and I wish to take advantage of every opportunity to oppose anything of the kind.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– I may say, for the information of the honorable member, that the Minister is following the almost invariable course.

Mr.Fenton. - Will these Bills be printed and circulated immediately?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– They are already printed, and available for circulation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 335

BEER EXCISE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Austin Chapman) proposed -

That hehave leave to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Beer Excise Act 1.901- 1918.

Mr COLEMAN:
Reid

.- I am at a loss to understand why the Government have not seen fit to introduce at this stage, as a matter , of urgency, a measure to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The introduction of an Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill cannot be discussed at this stage.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.- The Government are evidently asking for leave to bring in a Bill to remit the Excise duty on beer. It is lamentable if they should seek to do this at a time when there are many evils in our midst crying out for redress.Surely beer could stand over for a little while. As the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) has just said, the Minister would have been better employed in asking for leave to bring in a Bill to increase invalid and old-age pensions. I hope the Government will accept what honorable members are saying as an intimation that they are expected to come down to-morrow with’ a Bill having that purpose in view.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- The Government are asking leave to introduce Bills dealing with the Beer Excise Act, the Customs Act, the Distillation Act, the Spirits Act, and last, but not least, with the protection of the Boy Scouts’ Association - with everything under the sun but one matter upon which we cannot get information. Questions submitted in regard to the increasing of invalid and old-age pensions are met with supercilious smiles, and the unsatisfactory reply, “ Wait a while.” Before proceeding to afford protection to the Boy Scouts’ Association, or looking after the wines, beers, and spirits of this country, we should have some declaration from the Minister that he will bring in. a measure that will give the House an opportunity of increasing the pensions for the aged people of Australia.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- If honorable members regard some other question as being more important than beer and spirits - if, for instance, they think that the matter of increasing in- valid and old-age pensions should take precedence over theExcise duty on beer and spirits - it should be quite in order for some one to move an amendment to that effect. A high authority on parliamentary procedure declares that -

On the motion for leave to introduce a Bill, amendments may modify, nullify, extend, or restrict) or specify conditions under which leave. to introduce may be granted.

IfI submit as an amendment “ that- before at Bill dealing with beer is- dealt with, a measure increasing invalid and oldi-age pensions) should be- introduced,” will it be-in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– A Speaker generally declines to rule on a supposititious case. If. the honorable member submits an amendment I shall tell, him whether it is in order or not.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Then, sir, in- order to get your valuable opinion, I move this amendment -

That. aftfer the word: “ That “the following words he inserted : - “ before a Bill dealing with’ beer be dealt with by, this. House a measure increasing old-age pensions be introduced.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– I decline to accept the amendment. An. amendment must be relevant to« the motion; this is not. On due. notice of motion, the Minister has moved’ for leave to bring in a Bill. The House may decline to grant leave, or may grant it, and arguments may be used for or against the motion, and suitable and relevant amendments may be moved, but the honorable member’s amendment is neither suitable nor relevant;

Mr ANSTEY:

- Sir, I have not the slightest intention of disputing your ruling. It would be useless to attempt to do so,, and in any case what, you have said is strictly in accordance’- with rulings given by your predecessor. In the British House of Commons amendments in no respect relative to the motion,, but specifying conditions under which leave may be granted, and giving precedence to other measures, have been carried.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is quite a different matter.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– We desire to give honorable mentbers an opportunity of seeing these ., Bills at the earliest possible moment, and considering, them even before the second readings’ are moved

Honorable members- have suggested that, an amendment of the Invalid- and Old-age. Pensions Act is! probably more urgent than, is a Beer Excise Bill.. I entirely agree with them, and were, it possible to give a measure: relating to oldage pensions precedence, the Government would do so, but honorable members are working against the interests of the pensioners by delaying business- now.. The. Government will deal with the question of old-age pensions when the Budget is presented . We are at the present time considering the financial proposals to. be- submitted to the House for the coming financial year. We are- doing; everything practicable to. grant more generous relief to the old-age- pensioners, and we shall be.- in a. much better position, to do the utmost for them when we have fully reviewed the- financial circumstances of the. country, and- know exactly what measures will be within our means. That is the only reason why the Government are not introducing at once the’ measure relatingtoinvalid and oldage pensions. The figures at present available show that we. can go to a certain extent in increasing the. pension and liberalizing the conditions, but it may be that when the figures for the current year are finalized we shall find that we can afford’ to be more liberal’ than we feel we are entitled to be in the light of the information now before us. I ask honorable members to help us to help them by putting these proposed measures into their hands at the earliest possible moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 336

NEW BILLS

Leave given to bring in the following Bill’s, which were presented and? read a first time: -

Air Defence Bill.

Boy Scouts Association Bill.

Distillation Bill.

Excise Bill.

Naval Defence Bill.

Sea Carriage of Goods Bill.

Seamen’s Compensation Bill.

Spirits Bill.

Leave given to bring in these Bills : -

Customs’ Bill.

Navigation Bill.

Tariff Board. Bill.

page 337

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Supply to he granted to His Majesty.

page 337

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1923-24

Budget - Loan Conversion - Arbitration Awards - Irish and German Migrants - Old-age and Invalid Pensions: Inmates of Charitable Institutions - Business of the Session - Sugar Agreement - Income Taxation - Tax-free Loans - Taxation Employees - Immigration - Soldier Land Settlement - Commonwealth Land Bank - Rural Organizations - Improved Postal Facilities : Hurlstone Park, Marrickville - Postal Rates - New Hebrides : Treatment of Native Women : Japanese Settlement - Government Control of Public Utilities - Harbor Improvements - Composite Industrial Tribunals - Meat Export Bounty: Introduction of Live Stock from New Zealand - North-South Railway.

In Committee of Supply:

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That there he granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the services for the year ending she 30th June, 1924, a sum not exceeding £4,154,085.

The Audit Act provides that all grants made by Parliament for ordinary services, but not including’ grants, made in respect of special or loan appropriations or’ trust funds, such as old-age pensions and war pensions, shall lapse at the end of the financial year; but. as it is essential that the ordinary services shall continue, it is necessary that Parliament shall vote money towards defraying their cost. This measure provides for two months’ Supply for those services. Before that period has expired I hope to afford the Committee the opportunity of. discussing the Budget for the ensuing year.. I hope to bring down the Budget before the end of July, first of all in order to give honorable members the most ample opportunity for discussing it during the remaining part of the session, and secondly, to give the- public the earliest possible opportunity ofknowing what is the financial position of the Commonwealth, and’ what are the financial proposals of the Government

The sum for which we are asking under this Bill is £4,154,085. Included in that amount is a provision of £300,000 for refunds of revenue, and £1,000,000 for advance to the Treasurer; leaving for ordinary departmental expenditure and war services payable out of revenue a sum of £2,854,085. Those figures have been based upon the Estimates for the current year, which were approved by. Parliament ; they do not contain any new items. The estimated departmental expenditure and War Services payable from revenue for 1922-23 amounted to £17,967,000. One-sixth of that sum would be £2,994,000; but we are asking the Committee to approve of the expenditure of only £2,854,000, despite the fact that during the next two months five pay days will occur, and there really is necessity for greater provision than one-sixth of the annual appropriation. The sum of £300,000 is being set apart for refunds of direct taxes which have to be made by the Taxation Office. The provision includes considerable arrears which will be carried forward to 30th June, 1923. Regarding the advance to the Treasurer of £1,000,000, it has been customary to provide for all works actually in progress at 30th June as well as to meet expenditure of a recurring nature on new works pending the passage of a Works Bill, which will be brought down immediately the Budget speech has been delivered. In following this practice we are asking for a lesser amount than is usually asked for, judging by the monthly statements of previous years. The Committee will not be consenting to any new commitments, because none are contemplated in that provision of £1,000,000.

Until the Treasury books have been closed, at the end of the year, it will be impossible to give a statement setting out the exact position of the Commonwealth. I hope to lay before Parliament, on 4th July, a statement showing the approximate revenue and expenditure for the present year. All I am able to do at present is to indicate, from the figures that are available, that the surplus of £6,408,000 which was carried forward into the year 1922-23 not only will remain untouched, but will be substantially augmented by the excess of revenue over expenditure during the current year.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- It is pleasing to hear from the new Treasurer that he anticipates bringing down hia Budget by the end of July. I hope that his expectation will be fulfilled, as it is absolutely necessary that we should have that Budget before us as early as possible, in view of the declaration of the Government that this House shall rise early in August. It is obvious that, if we are to give full consideration to the Budget, we must have some time in which to discuss it. There should be an interval of at least one week, after the statement taa been made by the Treasurer, before wo are called upon to deal with it. That will bring us to within a week or a fortnight of the closing of this House. I am at a loss to understand how we shall be able, in a couple of weeks, to deal intelligently with the Budget and the Estimates, quite apart from other legislation.

Mr Cook:

– If we maintain the speed we set this afternoon, we shall do it.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I quite agree with the honorable member, if he refers to the speed at which Bills were introduced. Ii the Government use the closure to put through those measures in an ill-digested form, theirs will be the responsibility; we on this side will not worry, because our consciences will be clear when we have to answer to the people for our actions.

I wish to draw the attention of the Treasurer to the loan which was issued recently for the purpose of giving depositor* the right to convert £38,700,000.

Mr Fenton:

– Has it succeeded?

Mr CHARLTON:

– I. do not know. Will the Treasurer make a statement informing lis of the amount which has been converted ?

Dr Earle Page:

– I hope to be in a position to make a statement this week.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is evident that, the whole amount will not be mou verted. The Treasurer must anticipate a similar reception for other such loans. During the war, very many people invested in the loans, because they thought it was their duty to assist their country at such a time. Many of them could ill afford to do it.

Mr Gabb:

– They were afraid of compulsion, too.

Mr CHARLTON:

– In many cases the contribution was compulsory, because persons were told by their employers that they had to take up a certain amount. Assistance was rendered them to enable them to- do so. That class of depositor requires his or her money, and conversion will not take place in such cases, so that a considerable sum will have to be raised in some other manner. My objection to the loan is that it is not short-dated. I cannot understand why the honorable gentleman and his Government decided upon a period of twenty-five years; I be- .lieve too, without the option of paying it off earlier. They made it a long-dated loan in face of the fact that the interest rate is falling in every part of the world; and if we are to be guided by expert opinion, it is likely to fall considerably within the next two or three years. I believe that the honorable gentleman himself is credited in some papers with having made the statement that in three years the interest rate will be about 4-J per cent. Another statement, which he was credited with having made, is that in about seven years the rate will be 4 per cent. How, then, can ‘ the Government justify the issuing of this loan at 5 per cent. free of State income tax, and. carrying a bonus of £1 for every £100 converted ? It does not bear out their contention that they are exercising the strictest economy. It is evident that this country is going to be made pay considerably more than it should. If it were possible to convert the whole of the £38,700,000, by giving a bonus of £1 for every £100 we would lose about £387,000. A little while back I read that New Zealand had converted, in England, a loan amounting to some millions, at 4 per cent. Surely, then, the Commonwealth can convert at a cheaper rate than 5 per cent. ! Not only has the re te of interest for the conversion’ loan been fixed at 5 per cent., but it is to be free of income tax as well, and this will- mean, probably, an additional ^ per cent, to the investor.

Mr Whitsitt:

– If the loan is such a good investment, why is it not oversubscribed 1

Mr CHARLTON:

– Because, I presume, many people who, during the war, thought it their duty, from patriotic motives, to invest in loans, cannot afford now to have their money tied up for another twenty-five years. Therefore, the terms are likely to be attractive only to wealthy people who, in addition to getting a high rate of interest for another twenty-five years, will also get probably another £1 for every £100 converted, and this will represent a large sum of money.

Mr Whitsitt:

– But may not holders of stock dispose of it?

Mr CHARLTON:

– They are doing that every day through the stock exchanges.

Mr Mann:

– That being so, it cannot be saidthat small investors would have their money . locked up for another twentyfive years.

Mr CHARLTON:

– There. is nothing to prevent holders from selling on the open market; but my point is that if the rate of interest is likely to fall in the near future we have no right to offer such anattractive investment for such a . long period. It is claimed by stock exchange authorities that if the rate of interest drops to 4½ per cent, this conversion loan stock will sell for £107, and that if it drops to 4 per cent, the stock will command £115 in the open market, so it will be possible for “ jobbers “ to make considerable sums of money out of these transactions. Interest rates have fallen in Great Britain and America already, and it is being urged in respect of this conversion loan that investors would be well advised to convert, because, in the near future, interest rateswill be lower than at present. I submit, that, in view of the probabilities, the terms are not wise, and that we should use every endeavour to get our money as cheaply as possible.

Mr Corser:

– Can you say if many investors have availed themselves of the terms for conversion ?

Mr.West. - Up to the present only £21,000,000 has been taken up; over £11,000,000 has not been converted.

Mr CHARLTON:

– At present no one can say what amount has been converted. We shall not know until the Treasurer has made his statement. If money is likely to be cheaper within the next six or seven years, those investors who convert their stock will be on a very good wicket indeed. The terms are not in the best interests of the Commonwealth. During the war no loans were issued for a period extending beyond ten years. Why have the Government, at this late hour, and when interest rates are likely to fall, issued such a long-dated loan? Why should we be asked to pay away £387,000 of the Commonwealth money to induce people to convert their holding in a war loan ? . We cannot afford to pay away large sums of money in this way simply because our revenue is buoyant. Every one knows that it is not likely to be buoyant in the future, because our principal source of income is the Customs duties, and it is the business of this Parliament to see that exorbitant revenue is not derived from that source. There is no justification whatever for this long-dated loan. It should have been short dated, so that we could take advantage of any favorable trend in market rates of interest, and. in that way save a considerable amount of money. We are paying interest on about £416,000,000, so we should be as careful as possible to get the capital sums as cheaply as possible.

Another matter to which I desire to refer is the action taken by Mr. Deputy President Webb in the Arbitration Court recently. I am reluctant to mention it, but I believe it is only right that I should do so especially as I have been appealed to by very many trade unionists ou the subject. It will be remembered that in January last an award was given in connexion with an action taken by the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners against the Victorian Government, Anthony, and others. The essential principle of arbitration is that the parties to it shall observe the award, otherwise they will be in contempt. That is the position in which the Victorian Government stands in connexion with the award I mention, but, notwithstanding this, Mr. Deputy President Webb permitted them; to approach the Court. In this way there was unfair discrimination, because recently the Australian Workers Union, which failed- to give effect to an award, were not permitted to be heard, and certain officers of the union were fined heavily. It is not fair for the Judge in one case to-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bamford).Order ! The honorable member must not reflect upon a Judge of the Arbitration Court.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am not reflecting on the Judge personally. What I say is, I believe, fair comment. I always endeavour to ‘be as careful as possible when dealing with a matter like this, and to avoid saying anything against those gentlemen who comprise our Judiciary. But, if I may It)e ‘permitted to say so, I think it is very unfair to discriminate between parties to an award. I do not want to say anything that can be regarded as a personal reflection upon a Judge. Mr. Deputy President Webb may be a very able man,’ but I protest that, especially in view of the attitude of the Court towards the Australian Workers Union, when State instrumentalities are involved and when the “State Government as one of the parties to an award are defying the Court, they should not be permitted to approach it in respect of any phase of the award. I could quote exactly what took place, but I do not think it necessary to do so, and I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unduly. Discriminating action by any Court cannot be permitted without reference being made to it. Mr. Deputy President Webb may have been perfectly right in his view, and likewise I am right, if 1 think that what has ‘been done is not in the best interests of Australia, to say so in this House. He may be able to explain -what guided him in coming to his decision in a way which may be quite satisfactory; but on the facts available, it is necessary that the position should be ventilated here.

In briefly referring to the question of immigration, I wish to quote statements which have -appeared in the press during the last day or two. I hope that honorable members will not think that I am advocating immigration while there are so many unemployed in Australia. I am not -doing ‘anything of the kind. But if the Government intend to adhere to their policy of bringing large numbers of migrants to Australia, no exception should be made in regard to people residing in any part of the British Empire. Ma-. Edgar, M.L.C., of Victoria, has, during a visit to Great Britain, found that the position is very unsatisfactory. A newspaper report states -

During his stay in Belfast, he had several interviews with members of the Northern Government with reference to the refusal of the Commonwealth to accept Irish migrants. The Ministry supplied him with copies of the correspondence, from which it appeared that Ulster had represented ‘to the Colonial Office that the 3irish .were being rejected. The Colonial Office replied -that, under the Overseas Settlement Act, tie .Irish were equally eligible with the British. Interviews followed with Sir William Windham and Mr. J. T. Barnes, Commonwealth Migration Officer, who stated that the Commonwealth had .definitely instructed him to refuse Irish applicants owing to the disturbed conditions in Ireland. Ulster had’ represented that Northern Ireland was completely quiet and normal, and that, .unlike Southern Ireland, Ulster remained a part -of the United Kingdom.

The deputation next interviewed Mr. M. L. Shepherd, official secretary at Australia House, who -undertook to cable to the Commonwealth Government, but there waa no reply owing to the uncertainties of the Australian political situation. Finally, Mr. Barnes informed the Ulster Government that no conclusive action could be taken until Mr. Percy Hunter’s arrival.

It is reported later in the same paragraph that the migration authorities have agreed to withdraw the circular hitherto in use, which stated that they were recruiting persons only from Great Britain. There is a clear statement that persons residing in Ireland were ineligible as .emigrants; but the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) denies this .most emphatically in these -words -

There is absolutely no truth in the statement that we are refusing Irish migrants. I .thought that we -were collecting migrants in the British Isles. There has been no discrimination, nothing of the sort having ever been thought of. I shall certainly inquire into the statements contained in the cable message.

The Prime Minister’s statement was published in .the Argus of yesterday, but in the Melbourne Herald of the same day the report of an .interview with ‘Mr. Edgar, M.L/C., concludes with this paragraph -

Mr. M. L. Shepherd, official secretary for the Commonwealth in London, .asserts that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are on exactly the same basis regarding emigration as any other Britons, though as yet there is no organized recruiting agency on the spot. Suitable applicants -are considered on their merits. Emigrants from the south .of Ireland are still under an embargo.

Notwithstanding the definite statement of the Prime Minister that there is absolutely no restriction <on persons desiring to migrate, the secretary to the High Commissioner in London says that emigrants from the south of Ireland are still under an embargo. Which statement is correct? I am not supporting emigration, for the reasons mentioned, but if we are to adhere to our present policy we should mete out even- handed justiceto every one, and in selecting emigrants for rural pursuits consideration should be shown to suitable applicants from the southern portion of Ireland, many of whom have spent all their lives on the land. Why should an embargo be placed on people coming f rom the south of Ireland? Apparently something is wrong, and I trust the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) will give early attention to the facts I have brought before him.

Mr Watson:

– Is the Leader of the Opposition sure that an embargo is placed upon these people?

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is definitely stated in the reportof an interview with Mr. Shepherd that emigrants from the south of Ireland are still under an embargo, although the Prime Minister has stated that such is not the case.

Mr Watson:

– Are theynot allowed to come in under any conditons?

Mr CHARLTON:

– They are debarred. As the Government have accepted responsibility of bringing people here, they should not consider applications from certain sections only.

We areall glad that it is the intention of the Government to increase old-age and invalid pensions., and I trust that effect will be given to this proposal at the earliest possible moment. The Prime Minister, however., has stated that he will have to wait until the end of the financial year before he can definitely state what he intends doing, although the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) says that the Government expects to add considerably to the £6,000,000 surplus held at the end of the last financial year. If an expenditure of £2,800,000 is involved in increasing the weekly pension to 20s., and the Government have £6,000,000 in hand, surely theycan decide on what they intend doing.

Dr Earle Page:

– It must be considered in connexion with theBudget.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes ; but the Treasurer could make a statement now. It is a poor excuse to say that the financial position of the Government is not known when it is admitted that millions will be added to the surplus.

Dr Earle Page:

– We have not accurate figures yet.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The figures were sufficiently accurate to enable the Go- vernment to deal iwith the question of income tax, which involved a very big principle, at a recent Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. Although those proposals were based von this year’s figures, which the Treasurer., in effect, now states he has little knowledge of, the Government are endeavouring to force the House to deal with them in the remaining seven weeks of the session. If it were . not for the objections raised by the State Ministers, a measure embodying the income tax proposals would -have already been introduced, and the Government, in order to get business through, will be submitting Bills, the provisions of which they have not thoroughly digested themselves.

Dr Earle Page:

– The taxation proposals must also be considered in connexion with the Budget.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes, and when conferring with the State Ministers certain figures were submitted for their guidance; but the Treasurer now says that a decision cannot be reached until the position of the Commonwealth at the end of the financial year has been considered. These facts support what I stated in moving my no-confidence amendment, that the States do not know where they standi, and that the whole proposition is “ loaded.”The Government now find themselves in an awkward position, and everything which has happened of late gives colour to my previous suggestionthat the measures to be introduced in connexion with the taxation proposals should mot be rushed through Parliament in the few remaining weeks of the session. It would be better to keep them back than to find, in six or twelve months’ time, that we had consented to something which was mot in the best interests ofthe Commonwealth orof the States.. We ought togiveproper considerationto these matters.

To-day I allowed the Government to introduce some Bills because I. wanted to see them. If Bills are to be turned out like sausages from a machine, it is necessary that weshould get them a day or two in advance, so that we may Study them. There is sufficient business before the House to keep it occupied until next Christmas, if it attends to its work as it should. Yet we are told that legislation must be forced through, by means of the closure, in seven weeks. That can only be done by not giving proper consideration to the measures. Members of the Opposition will seize every opportunity to make their position clear to the people of Australia so that, if any wrong is done, the Government will have to take the full responsibility. The Opposition will not be to blame if unsatisfactory measures are forced through without proper discussion. There will be the Budget to consider in a month’s time, and the Estimates, which will carry us on to July of next year, to pass. It is time members of the House put on their considering caps and asked themselves whether they ought to allow legislation to be passed in this manner. Supporters of the Government should ask themselves whether they do not owe a duty to their constituents, as well as to the Government. It is their responsibility, just as it is ours, to inquire into these matters, and not to accept blindly whatever the Government puts forward. I hope honorable members will see .the wisdom of bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to induce it to give more time for the consideration of measures to be submitted.

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

.- As a member of this National Parliament, I am pleased to see that the two sections forming the Government are working together in harmony, and I hope the continued association of Ministers will rapidly bring about a more complete amalgamation of the two parties on this side of the Chamber. A useful programme of legislation is to be found in the Governor-General’s Speech, and if the policy of the Government proves acceptable to the two sections of their supporters, a closer unity should clearly be possible. In my opinion, there is no room for more than two parties in the political life of Australia. As the Labour party has definitely embraced the Red objective, and while there remains the possibility of the workers being misled by the promise of a heaven upon earth, I think minor differences of opinion on this side of the House might easily be set aside in the endeavour to open the eyes of the electors to the true position.

The proposal to abolish dual income taxation has been given much prominence in the newspapers of the different States. Personally, I have yet to be convinced that the proposals of the Government will result in the reduction of taxation.

Representatives of the States appear to be under the impression that with the loss of the per capita payments, and the interest on transferred properties, increased taxation will be necessary. Possibly the Treasurer may be able to tell the House why no mention has been made of certain loans which were issued free of taxation so far as the States were concerned. Many investors are very anxious to learn whether the contract made with them will be kept, or whether the Commonwealth will make some arrangement with the ‘States. I hope that on this and other important matters more information will be made available when the particular .proposals are brought before the House.

Like many other honorable members, I have received a number of letters from the employees of the Taxation Department. They suggest that some scheme of compensation similar to that arranged for the employees of the Defence Department should be applied to them. It is quite apparent that not more than onethird of the present employees of the Department will be taken over by the States, and, undoubtedly, many cases of hardship will result. This is one of the problems which the Government must take into consideration.

Probably the most important problem with which the Government has to deal at the present moment is that of immigration. This question has been debated from many platforms, and in every Parliament, for many years past. We are all familiar with the arguments. We are told that Australia abounds in empty spaces, and that there are 1,000,000,000 coloured people near us crying out for elbow room. It is a fact that until recently the immigration policy of Australia consisted in collecting the city workers of London, dumping them down in the capital cities of Australia, and leaving them to shift for themselves.

Mr Scullin:

– That policy has not undergone much change.

Mr MACKAY:

– I am inclined to think that some improvement has been made; but I hold that, in the future, the Government must make better arrangements in Australia than they have made hitherto. The time has arrived for doing big. things in Australia. The bringing of carefully-selected men, women, and children to this country will do much to solve the important problem of defence. I would rather spend’ money in schemes of water conservation and land settlement than in the purchase of guns and the building of warships, which so soon become obsolete. It ought to be clear to all thinking people that we should aim at getting 20,000,000 people in this country before talking seriously of spending money on guns and ships for the purpose of defending long reaches of coastline, which at the present time have not a single inhabitant.

Can we claim that our soldier land settlement has been successful ? It is painfully true that we have had a large number of very expensive failures. Everybody will admit that the successful farmer can only be reared on the land, not in the city. It is too much to expect men to become successful farmers who, before the war, were working in factories, behind counters, or in offices. Those who are being brought from overseas will be handicapped to an even greater extent. From the experience gained in connexion with soldier land settlement, we should endeavour to establish training farms, and expect every applicant for land to put in a period of training on one of them, so that his suitability can be determined before we supply him with money or land. We must improve our methods of farming. The general opinion is that the dairying industry has been successful, but .the average yield per dairy cow in Australia is less than it is in New Zealand, and about half of that in Denmark. Our fruit industry is very indifferently carried on. The London cables recently notified the sale of 45,000 cases of tinned fruit, and the rejection of a similar number of cases because of inferior grading and packing. ‘ These matters require very careful investigation, so that increased land settlement will not result in huge disappointment and very heavy financial loss. If the policy to promote production is to be successful, the industrial unions of Australia must assist in the scheme to bring migrants here to take part in the development of our secondary industries. While the Labour party refuse to assist this branch of national development, it will be difficult to formulate a successful scheme.

I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) for his promptitude in officially visiting each of the States, and

I hope he will fulfil his promise to visit the coastal districts of Northern Queensland. He can then form an estimate of the possibilities of successful development of those splendid tracts of agricultural land. If it were possible for the people of the southern States to visit the sugar ‘ districts of Queensland, the growers there would not need to ask a second time for effective protection for their industry. The visitors would see for themselves what sugar production has done for both the State of Queensland aud the Commonwealth. “ When in Queensland, the Prime Minister made the statement that the Government would not discriminate between town and country or State and State. If the Prime Minister maintains that attitude, and is bold enough to brave the criticism of the southern States, he will give to the sugar industry the measure of protection to which it is justly entitled.

Mr Forde:

– What is the attitude of the honorable member to the proposals of the Government?

Mr MACKAY:

– The proposals of the Government concerning the sugar industry are not worthy of a moment’s consideration. The continuance of the existing embargo on black-grown sugar for a further period of two years is, at most, but an insurance to the Government against the loss of £280,000. Speaking in the Brisbane Exhibition Hall recently, on the sugar question, the Prime Minister said -

In formulating its plans the Commonwealth Government have been faced with two important circumstances’, which unavoidably dominated the situation : First, that there will be in Australia at the end of 30th June, 57,500 tons of Government sugar; second, that sugar alone of our primary industries has no outside market whereby this surplus could be sold by virtue of the fact that all com-, peting sugar is produced by black labour, which is paid wages far below the standard prevailing in Australia….. This dilemma can be escaped by the Commonwealth Government selling its surplus abroad, but that course would involve a loss of probably £(! or £7 per ton on 49,000 tons (the excess carry-over), equivalent to from £240,000 to £280,000.

After stating that the surplus was a direct result of the greatly-increased acreage and production brought about by the sugar agreement, the Prime Minister added -

Under, the circumstances the Commonwealth Government will continue the existing embargo on black-grown sugar for a period of twoyears subject to the following conditions: - It. is to be distinctly understood that under no circumstances will the embargo lie continued after 30th June, 1925.

In view of those statements, what is the use of. pretending that the. sugar proposals of the Government are intended” to assist the industry? To the cane-grower they mean simply nothing. Since the early days of Federation the sugar-growers have been asking for security of conditions. If the Government were to increase the import duty then the proposal of two years? embargo against black-grown sugar might be immediately scrapped.

Mr Forde:

– Is the honorable member prepared to vote, against the. Government on the. proposal ?

Mr MACKAY:

– It is the honorable members’ endeavour to create an awkward situation. I am just as greatly concerned as is thehonorablemember in the interests of the. sugar-grower,; and if he attempts to trap me into making a statement. I shall decline to give him any information.I am anxious to do all I can for the sugar industry, but I amnot prepared to penalize the national interests of Australia: because of my views’ on one question. While I intend to fight for my beliefs,I shall, at the same time, exercise discretion.

Mr Makin:

– When it. comes to a choice between the Government and the sugar-growers, the honorable member decides in favour of the former.

Mr MACKAY:

– The honorable member is speaking out of his turn, as, until the opportunity arises, he. does not Enow what I intend, to do in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon F W Bamford:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr- Charlton)’ not one interjection was made by honorable members supporting the Government,, and the same courtesy should be extended by the members of the Opposition to & member onthe other side when he is addressing the Committee.

Mr MACKAY:

– The sugar-growers’ in Queensland are now asking for the extension of the embargo for at least five years, or as an alternative an increase: of the import duty. The sugas industry has been subject to restrictions and- interference since the early days of Federation. At no time have the growers been able to look forward to a period of security. I stated previously in this House that I believed in a renewal of the sugar agreement.

Mr Forde:

– Yet you support the Gosveimment in turning that proposal down.

Mr MACKAY:

– The honorable, member can criticise my remarks when. he. speaiks, but there is no pointto his interjection. I. should like a renewal of the sugar agreement in a modified form, but the Government have definitely decided against it. While theGovernment refuse to renew the agreement, they are seeking, to enter into another agreement with the growers which is not acceptable. The price of sugar outside Australia, has advanced because of a world’s shortage, and- it may happen that the aggressive attitude now adopted by the southern States against a. renewal of the agreement may be changed’ in a very short time to a demand that the Government make other terms with the growers.

Mr Forde:

– There is the opposition of vested interests, such as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and the jam manufacturers.

Mr MACKAY:

– Is the honorable member defending those interests.

Mr Forde:

– I intend to expose the methods of vested interests. The honorable member knows all about them.

Mr MACKAY:

– A correspondenty writing to me, put the position in a nutshell, when he stated that the Government, in effect, says to the grower, “ We expect you to supply Australia with sugar more cheaply than it can be imported when the world’s prices are high, and to compete against the cheap black-grown sugar when prices are abnormally low, with a duty only sufficient to. protect you when the price of sugar is normal. That statement describes appropriately the value- of the present sugar’ proposals of the Government. People in the southern Statesdo not seem to realize that the sugar industry is one of the most important activities of the people of Queensland, and one in which a great deal of labour is employed. Only by sugar-growing can theempty spaces of North Queensland be- permanently settled. I can readily imagine that the Government would cheerfully expend millionsof pounds if they were sure that a considerable population could be successfully settled in the Northern

Terrirtory. There areproperous nasal communities an North. Queensland, and a number oflarge towns, and at is the clear duty of the Commonwealth to regard the sugar industry asa national one,and to endeavour to retain the population there. Instead of doing that, it appears to me that theGovernment have shaped their policy with a view to meeting thewishes of those who contend ithait the industry has been pampered and spoonfed. The honorable, member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook)stated a few evenings ago that concessions had been madetoQueensland. Considering what the sugar industry has done for Amstr-alia compared with what the Commonwealth has done for the industry, ione is forced to the conclusion that Chose engaged in it are entitled to much better treatment than they have so far received. It is not often that I have the pleasure of quoting from the daily newspapers of Melbourne in favour of this industry, but I was particularly glad to notice the following comments in . a leading column of the Melbourne Argus, of 7th June last -

It is time thatthe sugar questionwas settled on some sure foundation, it is politically dangerous that it should remain as an issue whichcements all the members from one State into a solid party regardless of all other political considerations. For that reason, if for no (other, it would, have been advisable to fix a duty now, and to have done with it.

I hope that even yet the Government may act on that advice. The view of the Argus is corroborated somewhat by the following statement in one of the leading columnsof the Melbourne Age of the same date : -

Thesugar industry is entitled to effective protection at the Customs - protection sufficient to enable the product of “ White Australia “ to compete in the home market with the product of black labour abroad.

Critics in the southern States pretend to encourage the industry when sugar prices outside Australia are high, but the industry needs a duty that will give the growers sufficient protection when prices abroad are low, because when prices are high the growers can take care of themselves. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) cannot think that Queensland has sufficient protection at present, oi else he would not consider the proposed embargo for two years necessary to enable ‘him to dispose of the stocks of sugar at present on hand. The people of Queenslandare anxious to know whether their two representatives in theCabinet were consulted when the Government’s proposals were recently announced. I cannot imagine that the Attorney-General (Mr.Groom) or Senator Crawford agreed to the suggested conditions, and the electors in my State are asking whether these. Ministers willquietly submit to such an important matter being dealt with in the manner indicated. The industry does not ask to be pampered, but it desires the settlement of conditions over a period of years. Owing to interferences in the past, themill proprietors have felt unable- to make extensive alterations or add to their plant, because they have been quite at a loss to know what to expect in the course of twelve or eighteen months. Thesugar crop takes at least eighteen months to mature, and the suggested embargo of two years is practically of no use to the industry. It is quite possible that the growers, realizing that they have little option inthe matter, will accept the Government’s proposal. Without an embargo or an increased import duty, the industry would soon become a thing of the past. People in the southern States should not think that the Queenslanders areonly humbugging them when they talk of the importance of keeping Australia white by stabilizing the sugar industry in North Queensland.

Mr Bayley:

– The Minister for Customs has asked tor leave to introduce a Bill relating to Customs matters. Possiblyto is his intention to have the duty on sugar increased.

Mr MACKAY:

– If that were so, it would be very pleasing news. If the Government increased the duty to £14 per ton the growers would be satisfied. I hope -that the Government will reconsider their proposals, and that the growers will receive better treatment than has been meted out to them in past years

Mr.FORDE (Capricornia) [6.8].- I am glad to have the assurance of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay) that both parties on the Government side are now one. It is evident, in view of the proposals of the Government on the sugar question and on other questions appertaining tothe welfare of the man onthe land, that the Country party has been swallowed completely. It has no ‘ ‘ punch ‘”’ in the present Cabinet. A perusal of the policy on which many members of the alleged Country party won their seats shows clearly that a great number of the electors who had very little sympathy for the Nationalists were cajoled into voting for the Country party, believing that it was a separate party. These electors .were inclined to vote on the Labour side, hut certain candidates declared that they would have noticing whatever to do with the Nationalist party. They pointed out that, they were as strongly opposed to the Nationalists as were the Labour candidates, and that, if elected, they would be an independent group, prepared to fight for the interests of the men on the land. Owing to those representations numerous electors throughout Australia were cajoled into casting their votes in favour of the nominees of the so-called Country party. The fourteen points enunciated by it were no doubt drawn up with the authority and assistance of the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), and they were published for the purpose of deceiving the farmers of Australia. We find that certain definite promises were made in those fourteen points. Here is one of them -

The Assurance of stability of employment in the cities and towns is dependent upon pur-, chasing power created in the country. That purchasing power can best be secured by making primary production profitable by the establishment of ia Commonwealth Land Bank, with a system of co-operative and rural credits, as an integral part of the Savings Bank Department.

That was a definite promise made by the Country party to the people of Australia on the eve of the elections. Has any reference been made in the Government policy speeches, or by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) when speaking to-day, to the establishment of a Commonwealth Land. Bank? In the Governor-General’s Speech there is no indication of the widening of the scope of the Commonwealth Bank, although we are told that the management of that institution is to be vested in a Board; indeed, it appears that the idea is to restrict the power of the Bank to compete against private banking institutions. When the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank was proposed by a Labour Government, and a Bill to that enid was before Parliament, honorable members then in Opposition bitterly opposed the idea on the ground that the pri- vate banking institutions were well able to carry on the banking business of the country. Personally, I believe that the scope of the Commonwealth Bank should be widened so as to provide for a rural credit system. The Australian farmers have very good security to offer in their productive lands, and a scheme is required to enable them to procure capital on reasonable terms so that they may not, in a period of depression, be harassed as they are to-day by the many exacting private banking institutions. A rural credit system on the lines of similar systems in America and Canada would perform a very useful function in this country. We have every right to expect the Government, which includes in its ranks men who call themselves Country party members, to bring such a scheme to fruition. .Rural credits in. America and Canada have altogether changed the very life of those countries; they have created prosperity where previously there was adversity, keeping at bay the usurer and speculator, and enabling the genuine farmers to obtain loans on the best possible terms.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is what we want!

Mr FORDE:

– That is what the Labour party aims at, and I ask the present Government to introduce a scheme of the kind. We do not want this matter to be put aside until Labour is in power; and if the Government introduces a scheme, I am certain honorable members on this side will support it, and further endeavour to improve any banking policy that will tend to help the majority of the agriculturists. We recognise that the successful farmer of to-day has to be more of a business man than his predecessor ; he must make improvements, and have the most up-to-date implements. I .greatly deplore the fact that the Government, although it promised, through certain candidates who are now members of the Ministry, to introduce a land bank or rural credit system, has foreshadowed no proposal of the kind in the Governor-General’s Speech. The Hughes Government some years ago was urged by Labour members to widen the scope of the Commonwealth Bank, so as to provide rural credits; but absolutely nothing was then done, because behind that Administration there were all the big banking institutions of Australia, which were, of course, averse to any competition.

I now turn to point 13 (a) of the Country party’s fourteen points -

The encouragement of all industries essential to national development by -

  1. The formulation of comprehensive plans to secure the ready mobilization of our resources, the elimination of waste in primary and secondary production, the proper valuation of skill in workmanship and the encouragement of industrial standardization.

I do nOt know whether that was meant to convey that the Country party stood for some rural organization for the men on the land. In Queensland the Labour Government has established such a scheme, and it is doing great work. Although that scheme is only in its infancy, it is confidently anticipated that it will improve the status of farmers generally, and help them to help themselves. Although there are country members in this composite Ministry they have done nothing whatever towards launching a rural organization scheme for the whole of Australia, or to assist the States in a work of the kind. Yet the effect of the promises made on the eve of the elections was that this would be done. One of our greatest problems is how to secure a large and virile population, and its solution, I believe, is to be found largely in the development of agriculture. It is recognised that all wealth springs from the land, and if we are to settle people in the remote parts of Australia we must be prepared to assist them in the initial stages. It was found in Queensland, and, indeed, all over Australia,” that there were party political organizations exploiting the men on the land. These organizations were controlled by men who could not secure selection, as candidates under the Liberal or Nationalist banner, and who saw an opportunity to get into Parliament by forming primary producers’ organizations, and in working up some of the farmers into a frenzy against the Labour party and the existing Tory party. For a time in Queeusland these men did exploit certain sections of the farmers by such Tory organizations, but their weakness was found in the fact that Labour farmers, and also certain Conservative farmers, were against them. Then the Labour Government in Queensland introduced a rural organization scheme on non-party lines, embracing all sections of political thought and every producer in the country. The scheme is a great uplift to the men on the land. It is recognised that it will encourage co-operation, and teach the farmer the great power he can wield by organizing on industrial lines. Primary producers in- Queensland to-day realize that co-operation can reduce the difficulties arising from the fluctuation of markets, and keep down the charges which accumulate between the cow and the counter, between the field and the factory, and between the orchard and the dinner table. This i3 what the Labour party is aiming at in the northern State to-day. A unified organization of farmers is the first important step towards the establishment of a rural credit system, and that is why Labour supports such a scheme. An organization of the kind could be called the Australian Producers Association. The Queensland organization is called the Queensland Producers Association. In brief, the scheme I propose for the whole of Australia provides for the establishment of a branch of the Australian Producers Association in each State by - (1) the formation of local producers’ associations in local centres and consisting of not fewer than fifteen primary producers; (2) the constitution of district councils by the’ election of representatives from local producers’ associations; (3) the constitution of a Council of Agriculture by the election of representatives from district councils. The association is to be open to every person engaged in the occupation of dairy farmer, wheat, maize, or cereal grower, sugar grower, cotton grower, fruit grower, grazing farmer, and general and mixed farmer. These embrace practically all the men engaged in primary production. The objects of the association should be the development of rural industries, the investigation of and dealing with problems relating to rural industries, the advising of agriculturists with regard to matters which require scientific knowledge, research work, the securing of effective action for the controlling of diseases and pests, the question of markets, and improved means of transport and other matters appertaining to the welfare of the man on the land. I recognise that these schemes should, if possible, be taken up by the various State Governments, but the Commonwealth Government could work in co-operation with them, and assist .them in the initial stages. I would be prepared to support the placing upon the Estimates of a sum of money to enable the Commonwealth Government to assist such- a scheme to the extent of one-half the cost during the initial stages. The Queensland Government are paying the whole of the cost of the local scheme, for the first twelve months. In that State, we have local producers’ associations in each district discussing the grievances of the farmers in their respective’ localities. These local associations, have the. right to send a representative to the district council, and the district council has the- right to send a representative to the Central Council of Agriculture. In this way we have: established a veritable farmers? parliament, discussing the views and opinions of those engaged in primary industries in the different localities, and im a position to put before the Queensland Government practical propositions for the benefit of the man on the land. Such a scheme to be really effective* must be extended to1 every State- in Australia. Then, in addition to a Council of Agriculture in each State, we could have a Grand Council of Agriculture sitting in Melbourne, with access to- the Prime Minister and Federal Departments. If there were, such a grand’ council sitting in Melbourne at the .present time,. Queensland representatives would be expressing’ their indignation at the treatment meted out to the sugar-growers of their State by the Commonwealth Government. The rural organization scheme provides for the appointment of experts to assist tha men on the land, and in Queensland it is recognised by men engaged in rural industries who have been opposed to the present Government of that State-,, that the scheme enunciated by the Government represents the first constructive proposal ever put forward by any Government in the history of Australia to organize the men on the- land along nonparty lines, and furnish them with the machinery whereby they will be able to uplift themselves and secure- a larger share of profit from their labours. I find that, other countries in the world are interested in tha Queensland rural organization schemes. The Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, Canada, recently communi- cated with the Queensland Minister of Agriculture, asking for particulars of the scheme. The Canadian Commissioner mentioned that in Ottawa he had seen a book on the matter, and it had so stimulated his interest that he was writing for a copy for his own use. The rural industries of Australia, and amongst them the fruit industry, and the meat industry, have during recent years experienced very trying times, and any action which the Government can take for their assistance will tend to further development and progress in Australia.

The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay),1, said that, seeing that the Labour part)7 have embraced the “ Red “ objective, there are now only two political parties in the Commonwealth. All that I need say in reply is that the alleged “ Red “ objective is preferable to the “ black “ objective advocated by Conservatives in Australia, whose opinions have been voiced by Sir Henry Barwell, the Premier of South Australia.

Mr Jackson:

– He is the only person who has supported coloured labour.

Mr FORDE:

– He said that he was expressing views that were held by a great number of people in his political party throughout Australia, who had not the courage to avow them. He, at least, has had the pluck to stand up for his opinions and give public expression to them. We know the feeling that animates many of the captains of great industries, the representatives of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and representatives of wealthy interests ever ready to exploit the people-. If they were able to do so they would reintroduce black labour into Australia as they did’ in the sugar industry before the influence and power of the Labour party were exerted, in the interest of Queensland and Australia generally, to prevent its continued use.

Mr Fenton:

– The present Commonwealth Government is a black labour Government.

Mr FORDE:

– Yes. Many of the members of it would like to- see black labour introduced. It is supported by the big interests who are represented by the Premier of South Australia. We did not find the members of the Nationalist party in South Australia expelling Sir Henry Barwell from their organization, ‘because he advocated coloured labour.

Mr Cunningham:

– He expressed their ideals1.

Mr FORDE:

– Yes, he expressed their ideals, and very shortly afterwards received a knighthood. The recipients of such honours have to be recommended by some one in a high position, and Sir Henry Barwell was certainly not recommended for the honour of knighthood by supporters of the Labour party. The honorable member for Lilley referred to the sugar agreement, and said he was very solicitous for the sugar growers of Queensland, and Stood for their interests. He also said that he stood for the interests of his party, and, although they had not done the right thing by the sugar industry, he was noi prepared to vote against them.

Mr Mackay:

– I did not say that.

Mr FORDE:

– If the honorable member says that he will vote against his party that is something different from, what I understood him to say. What he said was that he put his party first. It is action we want, and not mere platitudes. The honorable member said that he was pleased that the Prime Minister had visited Queensland, but was dissatisfied with the proposals of the .Government with regard to the sugar industry. He had an opportunity, even in the last Parliament, of showing his disapproval of the attitude of the Government towards the sugar industry and of proving his bona fides, but he failed to take advantage of that opportunity. The same applies to other Queensland1 Nationalist and Country party members.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr Gabb:

– I call attention to the state of the Committee. [Quorum formed.]

Mr FORDE:

– The Commonwealth Government’s proposals in regard to the sugar industry will give no real security nor, indeed, any prospect of stability to those who are engaged in growing sugar. The price which has been fixed is far below the world’s parity, and will cause a- loss of £1,000,000 to the growers, on the present season’s crop. It is little* wonder that, recently the: Brisbane) Daily Mail, commenting upon this condition of affairs, said -

The duty of Queensland members in! thisconnexion is plain- enough. They must consider Queensland first and party second.

The sugar industry should be regarded, not from the point of view of Queensland only. It is a question of national importance and it is just as well that the conditions which led to the making of the first sugar agreement should be. reviewed. It is closely bound up with the White Australia, policy. Previously the conditions under which theindustry was carried on were exceedingly bad. The growers were not making, a decent living, and they were not in a position to pay a: living wage to the. workers. In 1907-8, field labourers were paid. £1 2s. 6d.. a week and keep in the off season, and £1 5s. a, w.eek and keep in the crashing season,. These wages- were not sufficient to- enable a man to keep his wife and family.. In 1911,, the cane cutters asked for a. wage of 30s. a-. ‘ week of forty-eight hours, and were. -. forced, to declare a strike. On that, occasion the growers proved that, they could not afford to pay a living wage to the workers. It was demonstrated that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company had the growers, so much in their power that the latter were obliged to sweat their employees. On the 9th August, 1911, in an article commenting on the sugar industry,, the Melbourne Age said -

The Colonial Sugar Refining Company controls the price which the consumer must pay for sugar. Then, seeing that the company fixes the price for raw sugar, the sugar monopoly also regulates the price paid to the cane-grower for hia raw material. Every stage of the industry, from the growing of the cane to the bagging of the finished article, is ordered and’ directed by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. Its vice-like hold upon one of the necessities of human life is a- most striking example of commercial monopoly probably without a parallel in any part of the world.

And in a. leading article published a few days later, the Age said -

The Government should have long ago taken a hand in the matter by the establishment of a national refinery.

Before a Labour Government came into power in Queensland the cane-growers were absolutely at the mercy of the Colonial Sugar Refining1 Company and the millers, and were obliged to accept whatever price the millers offered. In many instances cane inspectors passed through, the districts offering 10s. or 12s. a ton, or very little more, for the cane, and the growers had to take these prices or allow their cane to rot in the fields. When the Labour party came into power in Queensland it passed the Cane Prices Act Amendment Bill through the Queensland Parliament, under the provisions of which the growers and millers were represented on a Cane Prices Board, whose duty it was to see that there was paid to the grower a reasonable price which would enable him to pay a decent wage to his employees. However, recognising that even this was not sufficient, the Labour Government of Queensland took steps to bring about what is known as the first sugar agreement, and successfully sought the indorsement of the Commonwealth Government, led by Mr. Andrew Fisher. That first agreement, thus brought into existence by the Federal Government, acting in conjunction with the Queensland Labour Government, fixed the price of sugar at £18 a toil - an increase of £3 4s. per ton - but, in 191S, the growers were successful in having the agreement renewed with the price fixed at £21 a ton. However, the increased cost of production, machinery, and everything else during the next two years necessitated a corresponding increase in the price of sugar, and the growers were successful in getting the price set out in the 1920 agreement increased to £30 6s. 8d. a ton, due largely to the action of the Labour party in Queensland. The increase gave the industry a great fillip. It enabled the growers who, through bad seasons, had got behind, to recoup themselves to some extent. It caused a steady increase in the value of the crop which, last year, was £9,000,000 as compared with £1,500,000 in 1915, before Labour intervened on .behalf of the growers. There are 25,000 people employed annually in sugar operations. It is one of the greatest means of giving employment In Australia. From the southern States at least 4,000 workers proceed to Queensland each year to. obtain employment during the cutting season. The amount of capital invested is £16,000,000. [Extension of time granted.] Machinery valued at hundreds of thousands of pounds is supplied by the southern States to Queensland for operations connected with the sugar industry. Towns such as Bundaberg, Childers, Gin Gin, Mackay, Cairns, and many others depend almost solely on this industry. It is the bulwark of the White Australia policy. It would not be possible to populate the great north of Australia without it; indeed, it would be necessary for the Commonwealth to maintain a standing army there for the purpose of keeping out the black races. It has enabled the north to be settled. For example, the number of electors- in the Herbert division has increased by about 13,000 within the last eleven years. Without the sugar-growing industry we could not induce many people to lea ve the southern parts of Australia and settle in those districts where cane can be grown successfully by Australians. The sugar cane-growers are thus blazing the track for Australian settlement. For many years the pioneering work was done with little return. If given the opportunity, this industry will do a great deal more for Australia thanit has already done.

I hope that supplies of raw sugar will be made available for the Millaquin Company at Bundaberg, which. employs a large number of men. I regret to say that this refinery, through not getting a reasonable supply of raw sugar, has recently had to dismiss fifty or sixty hands. The Nationalist and Country party members have tricked the sugar farmers.

The sugar cane-growers were led to believe, that if they voted for Nationalist and Country party candidates at the last election the Commonwealth Government would see that the sugar agreement was renewed, or, failing this, that there would be an embargo on the importation of black-grown sugar. The ex-Prime Minister (Mr. W. M. Hughes) toured Queensland, and used- the sugar industry as a great electioneering “ stunt.” He was feted and entertained everywhere. Complimentary speeches -were made in regard to him, but he was dexterous enough in his utterances to do everything hut definitely promise the growers what they desired. He left them .hoping while he was hesitating. He said that the industry was ot great importance to Australia, and he would see that it received a fair deal.

When the elections were held all the Nationalist candidates throughout Queensland made definite promises to the sugargrowers. I quote the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Bamford) as an illustration. Mr. W. B. Biggs, of Proserpine, writing to the Brisbane Telegraph, said -

In view, of the assertion that it was doubtful if Queeusland favoured a continuation of the sugar agreement, and taking into consideration the result of the Queensland elections, I wish to ‘make it quite clear that the Nationalist candidates of Queensland all pledged themselves to a continuance . of the agreement. . . The following questions were put to Mr. Bamford at his election t meeting at Proserpine ‘by me: -

Are you in favour of the continuance of the sugar agreement?

Mr. Bamford: Yes, for a further term of five years.

In the event of your party, as a party, refusing to vote for same, will you cross the floor and vote against them?

Mr. BAMFORD Yes, I will, and, further., when I aim returned, I will pledge myself to make it my business, at the first opportunity, to bring the extension of the agreement before the House, as lit will give me the opportunity to .put the acid on the Country ‘ and Labour parties, and prove their sincerity to the sugargrowers,

It will be admitted that, the honorable member for Herbert having made that definite promise, the growers have* a right to expect that it will be honoured. But equally definite promises were made by other honorable members opposite. I turn now to the attitude of my own leader. The Brisbane Daily Mail of 28th October, 1922, reported Mr. Charlton’s speech at Maryborough as having included the following statement: -

Mr. Charlton said the Labour party had used every endeavour to have a renewal of the agreement. A protective Tariff was inadequate, and if returned to power the Labour party would immediately take steps to bring about a sugar agreement.

The same journal reported the honorable member for “Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) as having said at Nambour on 28th November, 1922 -

If the Nationalist Government is returned to power further sugar proposals will be submitted, and I feel confident that the existing sugar agreement will ,be renewed, probably in a slightly modified form, but nevertheless satisfactory to the industry as a whole. Mr. Hughes os most anxious that something should be done to maintain the sugar industry, which was mainly responsible for the carrying on of the White Australia policy, and sugar- growers can rest assured that their interestswill .be adequately preserved by the Nationalist Government,

I do not know what attitude the honorable member adopts now, but if he is loyal to the sugar interests of Queensland he must be disgusted with the policy of the present Government. He has failed to get them to do their duty by the industry. . I am waiting to see if honorable members opposite will force their Government to adopt a policy that was definitely promised to the sugar-growers. The Bundaberg Daily News of 16th November, 1922, thus reports a question asked of the Leader of the Country party and Treasurer in the present composite Ministry (Dr. Earle Page) -

If your party are returned in sufficient numbers “to constitute a controlling factor in thenext Federal Government, will you insist on the retention of the control of the industry by the Federal Government as at present enacted, until such time as a system is evolved that will assure to the cane-grower a fair and reasonable return for the labour and capital he has invested.

Dr. Earle Page immediately returned an emphatic Yes.

What has happened ? Having ‘ ‘ managed “ himself into a composite Ministry, the honorable member has forgotten all about the sugar-growers, and it is no wonder that the fanners are losing confidence in him as is evidenced by the disgust expressed recently at Bendigo by men who have the interests of the fanners at heart. The Age of 22nd June, 1923, contains the following paragraphs in its report of the meeting of the Bendigo Branch of the Farmers Union -

Mr. T. S. Penrose said ho felt that the indecision in the composite Government would lead to the eventual destruction of the party. He. did not favour the secrecy that accompanied the formation of the composite party. He did not think the farmers could hope for any relief from. the composite Ministry in regard to the Tariff. They did not know where they were to-day in connexion with the disposal of their surplus .produce.

Mr. Penrose submitted the following notice of motion, which will be dealt with at the next meeting of the branch : - “ That this branch views with concern the Prime’ Minister’s intention to prorogue Parliament during his absence abroad. We consider the holding up of public business in this way to be unnecessary and unwarranted, especially in view of the fact that in the formation of the composite Government Mr. Bruce mentioned that the country was to have an equal say and equal rights, and that Mr. Page could act as Prime Minister at any time during Mr. Brace’s absence”

Mr. Penrose felt that the farmers could not expect anything from the present Government. Certainly the sugar-growers cannot. Both Nationalist and Country party candidates made all sorts of promises, and a Country party manifesto included these words -

The sugar industry to be safeguarded by legislation securing it against unfair competition, detrimental to the White Australia policy.

Was there any business in that 1 No, decidedly not. Apparently, those statements were made merely for electioneering purposes, and the candidates who made them had no intention of carrying them into effect. Apparently, the National Federation, which is financed by great corporations like the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, had brought honorable members opposite to heel, because, just after Mr. Hughes made a tour of Queensland he was confronted with this resolution from the National Federation -

That at the end of the present term, in June next, the sugar agreement be discontinued.

The influential members of that Federation represent Flinders-lane and the big business interests of Australia. They have not at heart the interests of the struggling farmers. There .is nothing in common between them. They subscribe money to the funds of the National Federation, which financed the Nationalist candidates during the last election. At the next election Nationalists and Country party candidates will most likely go before the electors as one party, and all will draw their financial sustenance from the National Federation. Naturally, if the Federation pays the piper it will also call the tune. The Prime Minister is a Victorian ; his -name is Stanley Melbourne Bruce; he is Melbourne in sympathies as well as in name. I believe the former Prime Minister (Mr. W. M. Hughes) was more sympathetic to the sugar industry than is the gentleman who has succeeded him.

A conference of growers discussed the position of the sugar industry in January, 1922, and submitted the following proposals to the Commonwealth Government. Firstly, that the existing sugar agreement be renewed, and, as an alternative, the following: - A Commonwealth Sugar Pool to be established for five years. The second resolution was only a machinery one, by which the sugar would be acquired, and also, made provision to include New South Wales sugar in the Pool. Resolutions 3 and 4 directly affected the Commonwealth, and read as follows : -

While the Pool is in operation, the Commonwealth Government to prohibit the importation of black-grown sugar except so much as is required from time to time as determined by the Pool to make good any Australian shortage; this embargo to be applied subject to conditions stated in clause 4 relating to price to be charged to the consumers.

Resolution No. 4 ‘read -

During the currency of the Pool 1A refined sugar to be sold at such a price as will insure that the retail price of refined sugar to the consumer shall not exceed 4jd. per lb. in capital cities.

The growers asked for a continuance of the embargo on black-grown sugar for a period of five years, and guaranteed to supply consumers with sugar at 4d. per lb., a reduction of 1 1/4d. on the price which had ruled since 1920. A deputation was sent, all the way from Queensland to wait on the Prime Minister in Melbourne. At first he said that no good purpose could be served by receiving them, but eventually he did so. The first request .was for a renewal of the agreement, which they had a right to expect, but it was turned down. The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay) said to-night that he personally was in favour of a renewal of the sugar agreement, but the honorable member and other Nationalist members had an opportunity in the last Parliament, when the Nationalist Government had a majority of only one over the combined numbers of the opposing parties, to force the Government to renew the sugar agreement. In failing to take action then the honorable member for Lilley, and every other Nationalist member from Queensland, betrayed the trust that had been reposed in them by their constituents. The fact must be borne in mind that there are in the present Cabinet two Queenslanders, in the persons of the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) and Senator Crawford, and it is, therefore, no wonder that the honorable member for Lilley says that it would be interesting to know whether .those Ministers indorsed the action of the Cabinet in rejecting the requests of the sugar-growers. If they had been true to the trust reposed in them by the people of Queensland, the sugar agreement would have been renewed, or, failing that, the alternative proposals adopted. In reply to the second proposal submitted by the deputation, the Prime Minister promised to give consideration to the matter. Three months have elapsed, and that delay has caused stagnation in the industry. There was a feeling of uncertainty; the growers did not know what to expect for their sugar, and one result has been that the establishment of the TullyRiver mill has been hindered. Settlement has been retarded. The foundry at Bundaberg has put off thirty men, because there was uncertainty as to what woTk would be offering; the mills were not renewing their machinery, and the outlook for the foundry was dull. Early in June the Prime Minister went to Queensland and made certain proposals, but by that time sugar in Java and Cuba had risen to £28 10s. and £30 per ton respectively. There was a shortage in the world’s production of, approximately, 300,000 tons, due partly to the failure of the beet crop in Europe and partly to speculation in the worid’s markets. ‘ The world’s supplies had decreased, and the world’s parity had correspondingly increased. The proposals put before the sugar industry by the Prime Minister in Brisbane, no doubt after the city organ had pealed forth for an hour,’ were for the continuation of the agreement for two years only -

  1. The industry to form a Pool free from the control of the Commonwealth Government, and to buy raw sugar for the 1923-24 season at not more than £27 per ton of 94 net titre f.o.b. mill.

If Australia had to depend on the world’s market it would have to pay from £37 to £40 per ton for sugar, for if you add to the prices of £28 10s. and £30 per ton in Java and Cuba respectively the import duty of £9 6s. 8d. per ton, you have the landed cost in Australia, exclusive of freight and handling charges. Therefore, the proposal submitted by the Prime Minister was not fair, and was put forward in the interests, not of the sugargrowers, but of those people who dictated the policy of the Government. It was an offer of £27 for one year, when sugar brought from abroad would cost Australia from £37 to £40 per ton. The Prime Minister further proposed -

  1. The Pool to provide sugar for the purpose of manufactured goods for export’ at a price equal to the current’ world’s parity.

The sugar-growers have always been prepared to do that.

  1. The price for raw sugar for the 1924-25 season to be determined after investigation by a tribunal, and to be based upon the cost of efficient production in reasonably good districts and under normal conditions; such price not to exceed £27 per ton.
  2. The tribunal to have regard in ascer taining the cost of production to excessive wages (if any) paid in the sugar industry as compared with other primary industries.

Let us examine the Prime Minister’s offer to the sugar-growers. Raw sugar was £30 per ton in Cuba, equal to £39 6s. 8d. in Australia, exclusive of freight and handling charges. And the Prime Minister offered the Queensland growers £27 per ton for their product! Generosity; forsooth !

Mr Blakeley:

– He is a friend of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

Mr.FORDE. - Yes. That offer was absolutely unfair. His offer to give the growers £27 for one year, and to then appoint a tribunal to fix the price for subsequent years, with a maximum of £27 per ton, was a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition. The attitude of the sugar-growers has been most fair and reasonable, and naturally they are very dissatisfied with the treatment they have received. As an alternative to the Prime Minister’s scheme, they asked for £27 net at the mills for raw sugar, an agreement for two years instead of one, as offered by the Prime Minister, the embargo upon the importation of black-grown sugar to continue for three years instead of two years, and the appointment of a tribunal to determine the price for the third year. The representatives of the sugar-growers consider that their request is reasonable in view of the fact that world’s parity is greatly in excess of £30 6s. 8d. per ton, which price will obtain until the end of the present month. The opinion that the Commonwealth Government have not treated the sugar industry fairly is not the opinion of only those engaged in the industry. The Brisbane Daily Mail, of 6th June, 1923, said in its leading article -

With very great regret it must be stated that the sugar policy put forward by the Prime Minister last night is disappointing. Mr. Bruce summed up his position correctly when he said that what the sugar producer principally needed was certainty as to his future. The Government’s proposals are for two years., ‘but that is not enough. If, at the end of that period, the industry is again to be the sport of chance, or worse, of politics, .which may be defined from the sugar-grower”s viewpoint as- chance, with the dice loaded against the industry, then it .is certain that the prospects of the sugar districts will immediately be affected, and that expansion will definitely be checked. The inadequacy of the Government’s proposals will best be appreciated by comparing them with the reasonable demand of the industry.

The Brisbane Telegraph, another Nationalist paper, said in a leading article -

It may bo said a.t once that the Federal Government’s sugar policy, which was enunciated in Brisbane last aright* by the Prime Minister, is deeply disappointing. It does not give in any considerable measure that security which the sugar industry demands, and which it must receive, if it is to survive and play its part, not only in supplying the present needs of the Australian sugar market, but also in developing the waste spaces of Australia.

The Brisbane Courier, which is one of the greatest supporters of Nationalism in Queensland, said on 6th June, 1923 -

It would ibo futile to suggest that tlie sugar policy as outlined last night by Mr. Bruce will give that measure of protection to the growers that the great national industry warrants. . , The scheme cannot be regarded as satisfactory by the people of Queensland. . . . Mr. Bruce recognised the special importance of the sugar industry as a factor in upholding the White Australia policy, and its capacity to provide an effective garrison for the tropical north, but at the sarnie time he failed to appreciate that such an industry was entitled to any greater, consideration than was given to minor industries in the south that are merely of commercial importance to certain business interests in Melbourne or Hobart. Obviously the Government’s policy is in the nature of a. makeshift. Like all such halfmeasures it can please nobody.

The growers are most emphatic in their condemnation of the Commonwealth Government because they have in mind the fact that, during the period of Government control, the sugar industry saved Australia £17,000,000. They know that during the last ten years the consumers of Australia have been provided with sugar at an average price of 4d. per lb., and that the people of England and France were compelled to pay as much as ls. 6d. per lb. In England to-day the people are paying 8 1/2d. per lb. for their sugar. I have received the following telegram from Mr. J. Clayton, president of the Childers Mill Cane-growers’ Association : -

My association urgently requests you urge Parliament to agree embargo on foreign sugar for four years at least.

That request is a fair one, and I support it. In January, the period asked for was five years: the growers are prepared to modify that claim now to some extent, but they desire that they should have accorded to them a measure of support, which the Federal Government have not given them. It is no wonder that the Primary Producers’ organization at Mackay on 13th June passed the following resolution : -

That we cannot reconcile the Federal Government’s adhesion to the policy of a White Australia with the proposal to acquire our sugar, grown under Australian conditions as. to labour and tools, at a price lower than the landed cost of black-grown sugar. We, the white settlers of Queensland, must look on it as an attempt to force on us black conditions of life.

You, Mr. Chairman, know the conditions existing in the sugar industry; you know that the industry has not been treated properly. The following telegram is typical of scores of communications that I . have received from sugar-growers and people who are interested in the sugar, industry during the last five weeks: -

Growers view with alarm the Commonwealth Government’s callousness towards the sugar industry;. Position decidedly unsatisfactory from growers’ point of view.

We know that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company does not want Government control; it desires the same freedom to control the sugar industry as the Melbourne Age said it possessed prior to the agreement in 1915. Just as the rack-renters, the profiteers, the speculators and the market-riggers do not want Government interference, so the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and those who desire to filch great profits from the sugar industry do not favour restriction of their actions by Government, control in any way. I maintain that the growers’ demand could have been acceded to without the consumers suffering any detriment. The price of £27 per ton net could have been given for an extra year and the sugar could have been sold to the into the figures and have found that it consumers at 4-Jd. per lb. I have gone could be done in this way: -

Therefore, it will be seen that I have not said something that I could not prove. Sugar should never have been sold at a higher price than 4Jd. per lb. if the Commonwealth Government had not bungled to the extent of importing 116,000 tons of sugar at prices ranging up to £80 per ton, and averaging £44 6s. 2d. - which was world’s parity. Instead of selling that sugar to the consumers at the price at which they imported it, they reduced the price with a view to catching votes at a general election, and sold at less than half the price at which they had bought. They thus incurred a loss of £4,000,000, which afterwards had to be made good by charging for local sugar the price of 6d; per lb. that led to all the opposition in the southern States. The price of sugar in Australia was 3d. per lb. up to 1915; it was 3d. per lb. from January, 1916, to 26th January, 1920, and 6d. per lb. from that time until recently, when it was reduced to 5d. per lb., the price at which it stands today. The Government now propose reducing it to 4£d. per lb., a price at which it could have been sold since 1920, even though the Government had done the - fair thing and had acceded to the demands of the sugar-growers. Australian jam manufacturers got their sugar for £26 12s., while British jam manufacturers had to pay £48 10s. pelton. The sugar industry in Australia during the period of Government control saved the people of Australia £17,000,000. Foreign raws, purchased from 1915 to ,1922 inclusive, totalled 475,947 tons, and the average rate per ton gross was £37 19s. During the same period the Australian raws purchased totalled 1,412,000 tons, at an average price per ton gross of £25 17s. lid. Had the whole of Australia’s requirements in sugar been purchased on the world’s market at world’s parity Australia’s sugar bill would have amounted to £71,000,000 instead of £54,000,000, inclusive of £5,000,000 worth of foreign raws. The present proposals of the Commonwealth Government do not afford’ the measure of protection which, is warranted; but the Queensland Premier and the officials of the Sugar Growers’ Association have decided that it will be better to have some measure of protection rather than have none at all. Even though the Commonwealth Government do not offer the protection which was really promised to the growers by the Government candidates at the election, the growers take the view,” Under duress we must accept what we are offered rather than throw ourselves on the mercy of the Colonial Sugar Refining monopoly.” In an interview which I gave to a representative of one of the Queensland newspapers, I said I thought it was better for the growers to accept the proposals with a view to liberalizing them later.

The CHAIRMAN (HonF W Bamford:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON:
Lang

– I desire to bring before the notice of the Postmaster-General some matters which I think are worthy of his serious consideration. I have been requested by local municipal bodies to endeavour to obtain increased postal facilities for Hurlstone Park, portion of which has been added to my constituency. Apparently the Department is not prepared to consider favorably their suggestion that a post-office, which is very badly needed, should be erected in that populous suburb. A few years ago, when I passed through this neighbourhood, it consisted almost entirely of paddocks with habitations scattered here and there in what was then bush land. During the recent election campaign, when I had occasion frequently to travel through the district, I found that these paddocks were now covered with houses and handsome business premises; the trams had been extended, and several lines’ of motor buses were running out. Notwithstanding the recognition by these activities of the necessity for meeting the convenience of residents of this wonderfully rapidly settled new suburban district, the Department has not increased its postal facilities. At the request of the municipal council, I addressed a communication on the subject to the Postmaster-General some days ago, but so far have not had an acknowledgment. I understand that my friend, the honor able member for Parkes (Mr. Marr), who represents the adjoining constituency, which also impinges upon this particular locality, has been in communication with the Department, but his representations have met with an unfavorable reception. The opportunity exists for the PostmasterGeneral to pursue a more progressive policy in regard to the extension of postal facilities, not only in suburban, but also in country districts. There is, I think, too much of a tendency to regard the Post Office as a commercial concern, that should be run on business lines in order to show a handsome profit. I do not regard the postal service in that light; it is a public utility which should assist the development of the country. So long as the Post Office can pay its way, I do not think it is necessary that ‘ it should be managed in such a way as will enable it to show a profit. I hope that this matter will receive more favorable consideration from the Postmaster-General than apparently it has received from some of the officials in the Department.

Another portion of my electorate - Marrickville - is badly in need of increased postal facilities. We have had there, for many years, a post-office, which proved adequate to the needs of the popution when it was built. At that time the population was only about one-third its present size. Notwithstanding the large increase which has taken place, and the fact that the district now contains a population of something like 42,000, compared with 15,000 when the postoffice was built, very little has been done towards increasing postal facilities. There is need for a post-office in Addisonroad., in the vicinity of Newell-street, a very thickly populated area of this important municipality.

A matter which has been brought under my notice is a practice of the Department which requires business firms that receive large parcels of registered letters to sign a receipt for each individual letter. It appears to me to be a very cumbersome method.

Mr Gibson:

– That matter has received attention.

Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON:

– I am very glad to know that. Another matter which has been brought under my notice is. the. necessity for reducing the rate of postage, if not over the whole of Australia, at any rate in metropolitan areas.

Mr Blakeley:

– How about the country areas; they are more deserving?

Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON:

– -Action ought to be taken in connexion with business letters. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General is aware of the fact that many business firms in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and other cities in Australia, which conduct a large quantity of local correspondence, have found it very much more profitable to engage a man to deliver their letters within the city areas. That practice has resulted in a big loss to the postal revenue, and I do not think it should be encouraged. I would like the Postmaster-General to look into the matter, and see whether some other arrangement can be made.

I take this opportunity, before resuming my seat, of complimenting the Government on their decision to increase the invalid and old-age pensions, and I trust that, when dealing with this matter, they will also consider the advisability of amending the Act in several much-needed directions to remove a number of disabilities that at present hamper the administration of the Department to the detriment of the pensioners themselves.

Mr. Forde. - The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) said the other day that he was opposed to any increase in pensions.

Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON:

– Well, that is a matter for the honorable member himself. The general feeling of the community, I am sure, is in favour of increasing invalid and old-age pensions at the earliest possible moment. I am sympathetically disposed towards any such proposal, and I hope that as little time as possible will be lost in bringing down a measure which will have the desired result.

Mr McNEILL:
Wannon

.- I desire, in the debate on this Supply Bill, which includes an item of expenditure in connexion with the New Hebrides, to suggest that the Government take action to improve the administration in those islands. Recently there appeared in one of the Victorian provincial newspapers a letter, written by theRev. F. J. Paton - the missionary maintained, by St. Andrew’s Kirk, in the New Hebrides - dealing with the condition of the natives under the administration of the Con- . dominium. It is a matter of which the Government should take cognisance, and for the information ‘ ofhonorable members I shall read portion of the letter -

A local Frenchman signed on a school woman against the wish of her husband for a year. This is allowed toy the French under the Condominium. A decent Frenchman working for this man complained to me that he was not able to sleep because his master’s labourers were hunting the woman all night. He said:. “ It is not good for a school woman,” and added: “It may not be the woman’s fault. Her master gave her to one of his employees, though her Teal husband is a school attender.” The latter asked me what he could do, and I could only say, “Nothing.” You see, this Condominium allows it, and you in Australia allow the Condominium. The girl was then sent to another place along the coast, and this time a native fought a second Frenchman for her. This Frenchman, a drunken specimen, bolted, but last Sunday took her off as she was coming to service. They crossed a river naked. Even the lowest cannibal would not have done that. And she is a school girl. Can you not denounce those in the Commonwealth Parliamentwho allow this Condominium? Another girl working for this Frenchman was recruited near midnight on Ambrim, as she and others were shell-fishing with torches on the reef. Site was rseruited by a half-caste. She alleges that she was rushed by the boat crew and kidnapped. In any case, she has a husband on Ambrim, but the native that recruited her was rewarded with her. She was beaten by her mistress and ran away. Natives with loaded muskets hunted her and brought her back. Later she ran away, this time to the French magistrate at Port Sandwich, and pending an inquiry into her ill-treatment, she is held there under the care of the ‘ French sisters, I think. One of our church members, recruited on a cutter whose captain is a pure- blooded native, a well-known scoundrel. How she got on board, no one knows. Her husband was not asked forconsent. This is illegal. I reported the matter, and the woman is now dead. No notice was taken of the report. Another school attender ran away to work for a Frenchman. He put her on board a cutter. Her husband refused consent. Later the French Resident interviewed the husband, and there is not a, shadow of doubt about the illegality. The woman is not returned. A third woman was recruited by a half-caste. Her husband, not being able to get her hack, went with her. But the recruiter has taken her for his wife pro tern, and she is round with him in the recruiting ship while the husband has to work on the plantation. These are about all the women who have been recruited here since the war, but multiply every other place where recruiting has been done, and you get a horrible result. And this is the Condominium you in Australia allow. In London they say it is purelya matter for Australia, as these islands, with their magnificent ports, are vital to her alone.

A British subject can recruit only local women for three months without the consent

We have a fine British Administrator. He is upright and generous, and does all he can for white and native. Australia is the deciding factor, and df you are indifferent the punishment is already begun. The Japs are settling. I passed one on Maleluka, working in shirt and lavalay, starting a plantation. They are settling in the group - a group_thai will support millions of them, and the White Australia policy will ‘be a joke. They will simply own these islands by settling in thousands, if you delay.

We have’ a definite responsibility with regard to the treatment of these natives, and it should certainly be the duty of this Government to take the necessary steps to prevent drunken Frenchmen, or any other persons, from molesting women in the manner described by the writer of the letter which I have quoted. I hope that the Government will take prompt action.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce)., in his reply to the statements made by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) concerning the sale of the Commonwealth Woollen Mill at Geelong, charged honorable members on this side with insincerity and hypocrisy. We are just as sincere as the Prime Minister himself, or any other member of the Ministerial following. Our earnest desire is to do the right thing by the people of Australia. When the Woollen Mill was established, I, for one, cherished the hope that one day we would have distributed throughout the Commonwealth similar mills engaged in the manufacture of our own raw material. We are in a better position to do this than are the people of any other country. The Prime Minister also suggested that the honorable member for Yarra was using poison gas. As a matter of fact, every statement which he made can be verified from the official files. From 1916 to 1922 the Nationalist party have been using, not only poison gas, but politically they have poisoned wells and used dum dum bullets. If a man dares to say anything against them he is sent out of the country without the privilege of trial by jury. The charge, of using questionable methods is at their door, and not at the door of the Labour party. The Prime Minister has

Harbors are of national importance, but are, of course, under State control. Warrnambool, Portland, and Port Fairy are among the finest harbors in Victoria, and when a State Government, owing to lack of funds, will not improve such harbors and protect them by breakwaters, it should be the duty of the Commonwealth Government to assist by contributing at least one-half of the necessary expenditure.

The members of the Labour party are wrongly charged with doing everything possible to retard immigration. The honorable member for’ Lilley (Mr. Mackay) said that he hoped, the day was not far distant when the trade union organizations in Australia would support the policy of the various Governments in the matter of immigration. The Labour party of Australia does not oppose immi- gration in certain circumstances. There are thousands of starving people inEngland, Scotland, Ireland, and elsewhere, and if this great young country can do anything to relieve their suffering and misery, it is our duty to assist them to come here. The Government, however, are not acting fairly to these people. Our opposition to the present policy is based on the fact that the Government are encouraging thousands of young men and women to come to Australia, and, twentyfour hours after they land, are throwing them on their own resources to find work wherever they can when thousands of our own men and women are unable to find remunerative employment. It was reported in the press of Saturday last that a number of returned soldiers were sleeping in the SydneyDomain, and were receiving some help from a hostel controlled by the Anglican Church. When the Government unlock large areas of country,at present not available for settlement, and find employment for men and women seeking it,the members of . the Labour party will welcome settlers from overseas. A large number of German settlers in Australia are anxious to bring their relatives , and friends to the Commonwealth, but a National Government, in 1920, two years after the signing of the Armistice, passed an Act prohibiting Germans coming to Australia until 1925. Great Britain is trading with Germany, and we are doing the same, notwithstanding that the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) said that we would never again do so-. Prior to the war the Germans were good customers of ours, and as we are willing to dp business with them, is there any reason why they should not be admitted to the Commonwealth? Many of those who pioneered South Australia and the Wimmera District in Victoria were members of that cultured race, . and they have undoubtedly proved themselves to be good Australian citizens. Hundreds of young Germans who desire to migrate are going to Canada and America, and the Government should seriously consider the desirableness of allowing them to enter Australia. Germany was our principal enemy during the recent great conflict, but just as she has been on our side before, so she may assist us in the future. Scotland and England have opposed each other, but are friends to-day. I trust that we have seen the last of great international conflicts, and that England and Germany will now be friends.

I hope the policy of the Government to appoint a composite tribunal for the settlement of industrial disputes will not be pursued, because we are justly proud of having blazed the trail in the settlement of industrial disputes by compulsory arbitration. Prior to 1907 the great pastoral industry in Australia was always in a state of turmoil, but in consequence of compulsory arbitration, for which the Labour party was largely responsible, that great and important industry has since worked under peaceful conditions. I do not think any country can produce the industrial results that we can. This happy position has been brought about in consequence of our strict adherence to the principle of compulsory arbitration. No country has fewer strikes than Australia, and although America boasts of her freedom, the American people work longer hours than those of any other nation. The conditions here compare favorably, with those of any other country.

Mr.Gregory. - I suppose our industrial statistics are all wrong?

Mr McNEILL:

– Very often they are; much of the information I have seen compiled by the statistical authorities is quite inaccurate. Notwithstanding the information which the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) may have in his possession, no other country, not even America, can show the good results that we can under compulsory arbitration.. The people of the Commonwealth have accepted and appreciate arbitration, and the Government’s proposal to appoint some hybrid tribunal will result in creating, instead of preventing, industrial unrest. If there is congestion in the Court additional Judges can be appointed. I move -

That the proposed vote be reduced by £1.

I do this as an intimation to the Government that it is the desire of this House that provision should be made in this vote for the payment of increased old-age and invalid pensions, and that such increased pensions be paid as from the 1st July, 1923. Instead of proceeding with the numerous Bills concerning which notice has been given, the Government shouldimmediately introduce a measure to give effect to their promise to increase these pensions, because they must realize that a large number of people in Australia are suffering in consequence of the meagre allowance they are now receiving. Hundreds of people do not know how to get their next meal. When poor people get an increase in wages, the rent-lords seize it as rents, and as soon as the poor old-ago pensioners receive an increase in their pensions, the rent-lords will thieve it, as they have done in the past. Something should be done to control those people who rent to old-age pensioners, at 4s., 5s., or 6s. a week, dirty hovels in which no one should be allowed to live. These poor old people, who have pioneered this country, ought not to have their money extracted from them in this way. They are entitled to all they are receiving, and. the action of the rentlords is an outrage and a disgrace. The principle is wrong, and I hope the Government will do something to clip the wings of these rapacious individuals who are robbing the poor.

Mr CORSER:
Wide Bay

.- It is absurd for the. Opposition to propose an amendment providing for increased invalid and old-age pensions when the Government has already made a definite statement that it is the wish and intention ofthis party that an increase should be made in the old-age pensions.

I intend to deal with three or four other matters which I consider important, and I hope the Ministry will take note of my remarks. The first relates to the sugar industry, which is very important to Queensland and the Commonwealth. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) was in my electorate I went into the matter very thoroughly with him, and tried very hard to obtain something better than he has now notified the sugar-growers will be granted. I understand that after the conversation I had with him some improvement was made in the schemer, but I regret that it did not go far enough. I -should have dealt with this question earlier but for the fact that a conference of growers, manufacturers, and representatives of the Queensland Government was sitting in Brisbane, and to-day we were to be informed whether the Prime, Minister’s offer would be accepted. I have many telegrams from people in my electorate asking me to oppose the offer, and endeavour to secure an amendment of it in the direction already suggested by me to the Prime Minister when he was in Queensland.

My request was that he should make the embargo for four, instead of two, crops. An agreement for two crops would apply to the crop now about to be harvested, and next year’s crop. The price of sugar overseas will be greater than the price the growers will have to accept for these two crops. The world’s parity to-day is higher than the price the Prime Minister is offering, and there is every prospect of that condition continuing for at least another twelve months. It is reasonable and equitable that the growers should be granted an extension of the agreement for four years at the same rate as is proposed for two years. This important industry would, I think, have been sufficiently stabilised if Parliament had accepted the suggestion made by the Nationalist party for a protective duty of £14 per ton. The proposal was rejected, and a duty of £9 6s. 8d. imposed. A duty of £14 per ton would” have stabilized the industry; in some circumstances a duty of £9 6s. 8d. cannot do it. The people of the Commonwealth are under an obligation to the sugar industry for settling a white population . along the immense coast-line of Queensland - a coast which could not be settled in any other way. It is absolutely essential, in view of our White Australia policy, that we should have sufficient white men on that coast to assist, at any rate, in protecting us from the importation of a coloured race. We should not lose sight of the fact that the League of Nations would not allow the Commonwealth of Australia to continue to hold the enormous territory it now occupies with a mere handful of 6,000,000 people. The Commonwealth’ is larger than the United States, where there are 112,000,000 people. We know that strong appeals have been made to the League of Nations, urging that it is not fair that the Commonwealth of Australia should hold such a vast territory, and- yet not allow the enormous surplus populations of other countries to enter.

Mr Yates:

-Where did the honorable gentleman get hold of that?

Mr CORSER:

– Where the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) could have got hold of it if he had done his business properly. I read it in newspapers published in the country not far from the Australian coast. It is very difficult for the Government of the

British Empire, where there are so many hundreds of millions of coloured people, to [refuse to allow them to enter the Commonwealth, unless we do our’ share towards try hig to settle’ a white race here. We do not want to HH an industry which is employing a large number of men and paying enormous amounts in wages. It should be encouraged, instead of being hampered. During the crushing season, no fewer than 4,000 or 5,000 men go from the southern States to work in the industry in Queensland. The Courts in that State recently decided that these men should be paid a higher wage than other workers, because they have to travel from and return to the southern , States, and have to wait a little time before the crushing commences. That extra cost is paid by the cane-growers. I do not think a four years’ agreement would inflict any injustice upon the consumers. After the Government has sold the surplus sugar which has been accumulated because of the amount of black-grown sugar imported at a very high price, it will be able for four years to supply the consumer in Australia at from 4 1/2d. to 4£d. per lb. Further, the industry would be so stabilized that the people who would purchase sugar for the purposes of manufacture, whether for local consumption or export, would know exactly where they stood. Sugar used for export is sold at world’s parity; thus everything possible is done to protect the secondary industries using sugar, and the primary industries con connected with them. I sincerely hope that the Government will not take advantage of the fact that probably a majority of the sugar organizations of Queensland will consent, under pressure, to accept the proposed agreement, because there is insufficient time before the taking off of the crop to make arrangements for financing the crude sugar factories. These factories, unfortunately, are not now in a position to produce a mill white sugar, which, I believe, could be sold in large quantities. There is not time for them to arrange to produce that class of sugar in the present season, and they are thus under a great disability. There is no doubt that if the growers and crude sugar manufacturers of Queensland accept the agreement it will be because of difficulties connected with finance, and because they will be unable without the agreement to carry on successfully during the next twelve months. The sugar industry is different from every other industry in Austrafia in that it is dependent upon protection against the sugar grown by black labour in other parts of the world. Cane sugar is not produced in any other part of the world except by black labour. The sugar industry is unlike any other industry. Honorable members often attempt to compare various industries with the sugar industry of Queensland, but they forget that when the States decided on Federation, black labourers from the Islands who were engaged in the industry received only £6 a year, were well clothed and well fed, and at the end of three years were returned to their native homes. The abolition of black labour was agreed to . so as to help the White Australia policy, and the promise was made that this industry should be protected right up to the hilt.

Mr Gabb:

– That promise has been kept.

Mr CORSER:

– The promise has not been fulfilled, The present proposal of the Government leaves much doubt as to the future. A protective duty of £14 was proposed by the Nationalist party last session, and, if carried, would have given adequate protection; but the proposal was defeated on the floor of the House, and honorable members opposite voted against it.

Mr Gabb:

– Because they wanted an extension of the Agreement.

Mr CORSER:

– Why did not the honorable member support the proposal ? He was not game to do so, as his constituents were opposed to it.

Mr Blakeley:

– The honorable member is an instrument of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

Mr CORSER:

– That is an absurd statement. I have no brief for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

Mr Gabb:

– The honorable member is called by us the member for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company!

Mr CORSER:

– The honorable member has not sense enough to call a man by his right name. It was stated in this House to-day that the Government should establish a sugar refinery. The Royal Commission on the sugar industry considered this aspect, but found that it would be impossible for such a refinery to compete with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. One honorable member to-night mentioned the Millaquin Mill, at Bundaberg. When I represented that district I succeeded in getting sugar from the north sent to this refinery for milling, but the manager would not take the balance of the sugar which arrived after the factory had been closed down, because, as ha said, it would not pay the mill to carry on at such a small price. I pointed out that he was getting 6s. a ton more than the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but he still contended that it would not pay him. I asked him why it paid the Colonial Sugar Refining Company,, and he stated that its overhead charges were spread over an enormous output, and, in consequence, it could produce the sugar at a much cheaper rate than any other refinery. The members of the Sugar Commission obtained similar information, and further stated that the grower received from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company in most instances a higher price than was paid by any other mills, including the Central. Mills. They instanced the districts in which higher prices were given by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I mention this because of the absurd notions that I am connected with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I have no reason to advocate its interests except in justice; it is quite capable of taking care of itself. Honorable members opposite should state what is true, and not place on the records of the country statements which are absolutely inaccurate. I sincerely hope, in common justice, that the Agreement will be extended to four years.

An alteration in postal rates has been mooted, the proposal being to reduce the charge from 2d. to either 1½d. or1d. in the principal cities. I was a member of two conferences of the Chambers of Commerce, which were held respectively in Tasmania and Queensland within the last fourteen months. The reduction of postal rates was mentioned, and it was pointed out that before any appeal was made to the Postmaster-General, adequate arrangements should be made to grant all necessary conveniences to the man on the land, especially the man out west, who has very few advantages. It has been urged that our first duty is to encourage people to migrate to Australia and settle on the land, and, speaking as a merchant, I would pay an extra postal charge rather than deprive the man on the land of any (conveniences to which he is justly entitled.

The honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McNeill) mentioned immigration, and stated that we should be very careful to get the right class of man.

Mr McNeill:

– I did not say that.

Mr CORSER:

– The Government should ohoose farmerswho have made good from the survey peg, and are now in affluent circumstances, to go abroad and interview the second and third sons of farmers in Great Britain in order to induce them to settle in Australia. By instituting this innovation more good would be accomplished than by appealing to the crowded cities of Great Britain and inducing people, who know nothing at all about agriculture, to come, out here as immigrants. In my own electorate there is a large number of successful second and third sons of farmers, who originally were farming in Victoria.

In Queensland, a bounty has been paid by the Federal Government on. the export of meat; yet we read, of a vessel arriving in the port of Melbourne from New Zealand ‘with a cargo of live fat cattle. Thevoyage commenced with 730 head, but 103 died en route. These cattle were brought into Victoria because the price of fat cattle to-day is up to £30 and £34 a head, whilst in Queensland.it is difficult to sell equally good stock at £2 a head, and many are sold at 35s.

Mr Prowse:

– The honorable member should consider the Navigation Act a little.

Mr CORSER:

– We must give this matter consideration. It is not right to send money out of Australia to purchase a product which can . be obtained cheaper and in large quantities in the Commonwealth. The Victorian Government is really to blame for these conditions, as is shown by a letter which I, together with the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. J.Francis), and the honorable member f or Macquarie , (Mr. Manning), have received from the Commonwealth Minister for Health,as follows : -

With reference to the question of the importation into Victoria and South Australia from Queensland of fat cattle, it has been ascertained that, under the regulations of the Victorian Stock Diseases Act, the importation of fat cattle is not permitted unless the owner can certify that the stock are free from ticks or Texas fever, and that, for the six (6) months next preceding the date of the declaration, the stock have not been in direct or indirect contact with stock so affected.

There are other requirements, hut these are sufficient to indicate that carriage by sea from Queensland is not permitted, in as much as the coastal districts are all tick infested and the Victorian State authorities do not recognise the possibility of givingthe declaration as above in respect of any cattle which have travelled through the coastal districts of Queensland.

On the other hand, with respect to the importation of carcasses or of meat, the following is the regulation prescribed by the State Government of Victoria under the Health Act:-

In the case of any carcass or meat imported from outside Victoria which has been certified as wholesome by an inspector appointed for that purpose by the Government of the State or country from which it has been exported, the person importing such carcass or meat shall produce the certificate of wholesomeness to the municipal authorities into whose district such carcass or meat has been brought for sale or disposal, and a meat inspector shall examine it and if satisfied that such carcass or meat is wholesome shall brand it in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (2) to these Regulations with regard to imported meat.

Inquiries are actively in hand as to the practicability of making available vessels of the CommonwealthLine of Steamers for the transport of either carcasses or fat cattle, and I shall keep you advised of the progress of this question.

Honorable members who represent Victorian electorates should join in making arrangements with the Victorian Government whereby the consumer in Melbourne and elsewhere in this State would be able to obtain meat from Queensland at a reasonable price instead of paying1s. 2d. or more per lb. The danger from tick could be obviated by dipping the stock prior to embarkation. If cattle were landed at some isolated point on the harbor, and slaughtered, there would be no more danger to the public than in admitting the hides of cattle that have been affected by tick. If the cattlecould not be brought in alive on account of regulations, at least an arrangement could be made to convey chilled meat directly to Melbourne by a special steamer from one of the northern ports of Queensland. The people could then be supplied with meat of the best quality at the lowest possible figure, and at a price far below that charged for New Zealand meat. I hope that honorable members who are particularly interested in Victoria will move in this direction, and endeavour to help the poor to whom they so often refer, and also help their fellow beings in another part of the Commonwealth, who are raising cattle under adverse circumstances as to price, and Commonwealth steamers, now idle, could be used for transport.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the honorable member help us force the hands of the Government ?

Mr CORSER:

– It is a Victorian matter, and I am appealing to the Commonwealth Government to arrange for steamers to take delivery of chilled meat in Queensland, although my contention is that it could be treated far more cheaply in Victoria than in Queensland. Moreover, there is not as much risk to navigation between Queensland and Victoria as there is between New Zealand and Australia. It is’ an anomalous position to be paying¼d. lb. as a bonus on the export of meat from one part of the Commonwealth, while in another part meat is being imported from’ New Zealand, necessitating the sending of ready money out of the Commonwealth.

Mr Lazzarini:

– It is time the honorable member opposed this Government.

Mr CORSER:

– I have already indicated that the Victorian Government are the responsible authorities, and I trust that the Commonwealth Ministry will give early attention to the matter of steamers. This, I feel sure, they will do.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- The honorable member who has just resumed his seat passed a remark about my mentality, simply because honorable members on this side choose to refer to him as the member for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I have not been in this Chamber for three years without noticing that when any honorable member on the Opposition side mentions that particular combine he is sure to provoke an interjection in support of it from the honorable member for Wide Bay.

Mr Corser:

– I always like to see justice done.

Mr GABB:

– It seems to me that, whilst the honorable member pretends to plead especially for the interests of the cane-growers of Queensland, his uppermost thought is consideration for that wealthy company. He takes the stand that the promise of” protection for the sugar industry was one of the inducements which led to Queensland entering the Federation. That may he so; and I desire to say, as a South Australian, that. Queensland ought to he grateful that that promise has been more faithfully observed than the undertaking entered into with my State regarding the construction of the North-South railway, when the Northern Territory was handed over to the Commonwealth. So far, that pledge remains practically unredeemed in any particular. Furthermore, we have the spectacle of those honorable members behind Queensland interests doing their best to see that the agreement with South Australia is not carried out. I did not rise to speak on the subject of sugar. I am -much more concerned about the amendment of the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McNeill), who has moved for a reduction of the item by £1 as an intimation to the Government that the Committee desires that the promised increase of the invalid and old-age pensions shall take effect as from the 1st July next. If, in the next seven weeks, we are to pass the Estimates and the fourteen Bills of which notice has been given, I am afraid that the old-age pensioners’ increase will be among the “ slaughtered innocents.”

Mr Austin Chapman:

– No fear !

Mr GABB:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister. He has advocated the granting of the increase on many occasions, and I would be exceedingly disappointed if the proposal were dropped owing to the curtailment of the session. Seeing that notice has already been given of no less than fourteen Bills, why has .the measure relating to the pensions ‘been omitted? In the GovernorGeneral’s Speech it was definitely stated that the pensions would be liberalized.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– And increased. /

Mr GABB:

– I am glad to know that. [ heard the remarks on the subject to-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), and I hope he will keep his word; but it is possible to tell part of the truth and not the whole of it. In the case of the exPrime Minister (Mr. Hughes), honorable members on this side were accustomed to look beyond his actual words. Are we to understand that the reason why the Government have not brought down their old-age pensions proposals before now is that they desire to ascertain the exact financial position, in order that they may be able to give the last penny to these needy people? I wish that were the only reason. The concluding observation of the Prime Minister, like the postscript to a lady’s letter, contained the. sting. He said lie hoped honorable members would allow the measures on the notice-paper to he disposed of so that, the Bill relating to old-age pensions could be brought forward. It seems to me that by keeping hack this Bill the Prime Minister wishes to hold a whip over the heads of the Opposition, and to have the Victorian press charging us with blocking legislation, and thereby preventing the granting of increased .pensions to the aged and infirm. The- amendment of the honorable member for Wannon seeks to eliminate such a possibility. It fixes a definite date for the payment of the increase, and brings honorable members opposite up to the collar. Speaking for myself - and, I think, also for the Labour party - I would he quite satisfied to actcept to-day such an increase as the financial position as now known would justify. I understand the Labour party sufficiently well to he able to state with confidence that the lips of honorable members on this side cannot be closed on the other measures to be brought forward by simply holding a whip over ns in the shape of a suggestion that by discussing them we shall delay the passage of the measure dealing with pensions. It is not the fault of our party that we are brought here for only three months in -the year. Honorable members are paid to attend Parliament as often as required, and df the Government limit the session to three months the blame for neglect -of the pensioners’ interests cannot he placed on the Opposition. One honorable member stated that if we had the opportunity we would agree to the measure” in halfanhour, hut the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) wisely pointed out that he would not commit himself until he had seen what the Bill contained. If the Government bring down a measure to remove the present anomalies in connexion with the pensions, I feel sure that every honorable . member on this side of the House will assist to make it law. While listening to the speech of the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. DuncanHughes) I particularly noted his statement that he was not in favour of an increase in the old-age pension. Few members on the other side of the House have spoken at all this session, and there may be others who are opposed to the increase. Is this straw floating on the water an indication of the direction of the current beneath the surface?

Mr Mann:

– No.

Mr.Corser. - The honorable member for Boothby comes from your State.

Mr GABB:

– We have many “ true blue” Conservatives in South Australia. We have there a prominent advocate of black labour, but we have good things as well as bad. The honorable member for Boothby appears to be kindly hearted, and is possessed of such a mild and gentlemanly manner that it shocked me greatly when he said he was opposed to an increase in the pensions. When asked by way of an interjection from this side of the House to state the reason for his attitude, he gave only one reason, andthe essence of it was that it would mean increased taxation. He remarked that Parliament was the trustee of the people’s money, and that we had no right in the present financial situation to sanction any increase. No right! I have endeavoured to ascertain the extent of the honorable member’s income, and - although I am open to correction - I make bold to say that, while an old-age pensioner receives 15s. per week, the honorable member draws an amount much over £15 a week. He does not have to manage even on £15 a week, which is less than his parliamentary salary, and I was pained to hear an honorable member, who is at any rate wealthy, say that Parliament has no right to grant an increase to the pensioners. What is Parliament for? It has many duties, and one of these is to hold the scales of justice evenly. If it is found that one section of the community is benefiting too greatly at the expense of another, Parliament should remedy the wrong.

Mr Yates:

– Does this Parliament hold the scales evenly?

Mr GABB:

– With my experience, of even only this day, I should be one of the last to say that; but that is, undoubtedly, the duty of Parliament. There is not an honorable member present but who will admit that most of the old-age pensioners have been the pioneers of this country, and that, as a result of their labours, profits have been made by many others, and means thus provided for the payment of taxation. This money, of course, may not come directly from these old-age pensioners, but, as Mr. Speaker has said, in the end all taxation filters right down through the different strata of society until it reaches the manual labourer. There is a great deal of truth in that view, and much of the revenue from taxationHas, in that way, indirectly come from those who are now drawing pensions. There are on the Government side others besides the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) who are against any increase of old-age pensions ; but to that honorable member and those of like mind, I should like now to repeat an illustration that I have previously presented to my own constituents. In this illustration I use my own case as, perhaps, the fairest to take under the circumstances. I do not smoke, and it is possible that there are people who would say that I am too mean to do so. I do not drink strong drink, and that is, perhaps, why I am not sufficiently interested in the measures relating to beer and spirits to desire them to be introduced beforewe deal with old-age and invalid pensions. I neither drink nor smoke, because I like to do as I choose, allowing every other man the same right. If a man chooses to smoke and drink, let him do so; it is his business. Now, let us suppose that my brother both drinks and smokes, and he spends his money in that way, while I save. Let us further suppose that we both live to the age of 65 or 70; it is probable that, through being careful,’ I do not need an old-age pension, whereas my brother may require such assistance. But the point is that, owing to the heavy duties on tobacco and liquors, my brother will probably have paid considerably more money than 1 have into the revenue of the country, and to an extent may be regarded as more entitled to a pension than I. T do not wish it to be understood that I am advocating a spendthrift life. I believe in a man being thrifty, though I know that that is opposed to the ideas of some people. Under the circumstances, when I hear an honorable member say that Parliament has no right to increase oldage pensions, I have to join issue with him at once. What is the honorable member for Boothby afraid of? In Australia there are eight very wealthy men, and three out of the eight are in South Australia, and each pays income tax on over £100,000 per annum. If, by the imposition of extra taxation, I can drag a portion of those incomes from their possessors, for the purpose of increasing the pensions to those who have assisted in creating the wealth of this country, have I, as a mem. bar of Parliament, no right to do so? I deny the force of any such claim; and it annoys me when 1 hear it made by those in “ soft “ places - by those who are wealthy - not because they have created the wealth, but because they have inherited it. I at once rise in the defence of the old-age pensioners when I find a man with inherited wealth unwilling to afford the old people an additional ls. or 2s. 6d. “per week. The honorable member for Boothby told us that, in this connexion, he was- looking to the future, and he could see the time, perhaps one hundred years hence, when the population of this country would be 50,000,000, and we should be faced with an annual expenditure’ on old-age pensions of £50,000,000. But what is the difference between 5,500,000 people paying £5,500,000 in pensions, and a population of 50,000,000 paying £50,000,000 a year? There is no difference whatever, so that the honorable member .really cuts the ground from underneath his feet.

There is another point in regard to old-age pensions which I desire to emphasize, and to which I draw the especial attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden). I have repeatedly heard that honorable gentleman on the floor of the House urge the’ Government to do justice to the old-age pensioners in some of our State institutions j and I presume that, like myself, he has one of these institutions- within his constituency. I have approached the Treasurer (Dr. Earle

Page) in the matter, but have obtained no satisfaction, though I hope that when we have the promised ‘announcement we shall hear something is to be done. I have repeatedly urged that there is no reason why an old-age pensioner in a State institution should be differently treated from an old-age pensioner in a Roman Catholic or a Salvation Army home; and I think that the position I take up is a fair one. An, old man may come down from the back-blocks, and enter a State institution. If he does so before he applies and obtains a pension, it is no use his applying for a pension afterwards unless he leaves the institution permanently. Many of the old folic do not know of this regulation, and when they go into a State institution, not having previously obtained a pension, they may find 200 or 300 other inmates receiving their 2s. a week, simply owing to the fact that they had secured their oldage pension before entering. If an old man, already a pensioner, ‘enters a State home’ the Commonwealth Government pay the State Government concerned 10s. 6d. a week on his account, and the pensioner is allowed 2s. a week for himself. An old man who, under the circumstances . I have outlined, find’s himself cut off from the small allowance, may leave the institution, and get some friends to look after him while he applies for the pension. But if he obtains a pension and then returns to the institution, he is denied any money and finds himself in a different class altogether from the other inmates. Mr. John Gardiner, the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions in South Australia, has written me the following : -

In response to your personal interview on Wednesday, the following ruling was received at this office some .years ago:1 - If an asylum inmate leaves the asylum with the intention of getting a pension, and afterwards returning to the asylum, ‘the pension should not be granted.

The time is “ rotten-ripe “ for such a ruling to be over-ruled, and I hope the Treasurer will take the matter in hand, because there is a distinct injustice, which could be removed at- no great expense to the country. What is the difference between an aged person in a Salvation Army or a Roman Catholic home - the authorities of which take care that he obtains a pension after entering - and an aged person in a State institution?

There is no difference whatever, and I can only hope that the position does not arise through any miserable quarrel between the Federal Government and the State Governments as to their respective duties to the old people. I have been patiently handling this matter for months, and if I cannot get support from any other, member of the Government, I do look for it from the Minister for Defence, in view of the claims he has made on behalf of the pensioners in the past. The time has now arrived when, I understand, we are to be “ gagged,” and, therefore, I shall resume my seat.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I submit that a wrong impression will be created unless something is said in regard to a matter that has been debated tonight. As for the amendment, I take it that it has been moved for one purpose, and one purpose only, namely, to embarrass the Government. We have a distinct promise from the Government in regard to the matter, and those who are in favour of increased invalid and old-age pensions are prepared to accept that promise.

As to any proposal to place an embargo on sugar, I think I can say that the majority of honorable members on this side are against any such idea; indeed, I believe that a majority of even Queensland representatives are opposed to it. We are all ready to treat Queensland fairly, and, after a thorough examination, give a fair duty. I wish it to be clearly understood that if the Government propose to place an embargo on sugar, even for one year, and which I, for one, will not support, the position must be clearly defined, as it affects the fruit-growers throughout the States. The Western Australian people will wish to know whether they are to have sugar at the same price as the people of Sydney, in view of the £2 10s. per ton freight to the western State, and how the export parity is to be arranged. All these questions must be considered by the Government before any proposal for an embargo is submitted. An enormous number of people in Australia are interested in the fruit industry. The answers given to questions I asked on the subject only recently showed that there has been a great increase in the cost of production of jams and fruits, and unless we are very careful about what we are doing in this matter we shall destroy one of the biggest industries in the country. From the discussion which has taken place here to-night one might assume that a majority of honorable members on this side are in favour of an embargo on the importation of sugar, and I have risen merely to say that so far as I am concerned, unless care is taken to protect the interests of other producers than those who grow sugar, there will be very decided antagonism to any embargo or any further concessions.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP
Mr Charlton:

– I rise to a point of order. The Treasurer proposes to speak, and I wish to know whether his speech will close the debate?

The CHAIRMAN (Hon F W Bamford:

– The Minister may speak as often as he pleases in Committee.

Mr Charlton:

– So long as he does not close the debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not know whether his speech will close the debate.

Mr Anstey:

– That is of no use to honorable members on this side. If the honorable gentleman’s speech is going to close the debate we will put the “ gag “ on and close it now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Treasurer’s speech will not close the debate unless he moves the closure.

Mr Anstey:

– Then that is all right. The explanation is quite clear.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I should like to refer to a few of the questions which have been raised to-day, but as the hour is late I shall confine myself to a reference to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McNeill). I regret very much indeed that the Opposition should have adopted such tactics. They are playing the old game which they tried to play in the late Parliament. They are trying to make capital out of the sufferings of the aged poor.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable gentleman helped us last time.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– No; I said on the last occasion when the matterwas dealt with, as I say now, that this kind of action is too contemptible for words.

Mr Anstey:

– What about making capital out of the woollen mills?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Honorable members opposite are -trying, for political purposes, to make use of the destitution and sufferings of the aged, and that is something which one cannot endure in silence. They are trying to obstruct the business of the country.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I am sorry that I was out of order in making that remark. I will say that in trying to delay the business of this House they are delaying the time at which the benefits, which they are so keen to bestow, will be available’ for the aged of this country. The very form of the amendment is such as to delay the business of the House. The amendment proposes a reduction of £1 in the amount proposed to be appropriated, as an instruction to the Government to include in the appropriation an amount to increase old-age pensions.

Mr Anstey:

– What is wrong about that?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The amount proposed to be appropriated, as I pointed out to-day, is barely sufficient to cover the salaries of the public servants of the country. If it is also to include the amount necessary for the increase of oldage pensions the message must be withdrawn and a new message of appropriation from the Governor-General must be brought up. That would involve a delay of at least another day. The Prime Minister has stated the position of the Government? with regard to old-age pensions in such a way as to leave no room for doubt as to their intention. The increase of the pensions has been deliberately promised by the Government in the Governor-General’s Speech. The amount required for the purpose will be incorporated in the Budget, and the necessary measure to bring the proposed increase into operation will be introduced immediately the Budget is presented. The Government desire that the increase of old-age pensions should be dealt with in a considered way, in order that any increase decided upon may be permanent. They desire also to remove the anomalies which have arisen under the existing legislation, and to which the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) referred so eloquently.

Mr Fenton:

– And the Government will starve the old people in the meantime.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The old people appreciate what is being done for them. If a policy of waste and squander is adopted, as advocated by the Labour party, whilst it may be possible to increase the pensions this year the increase may not be continued next year. We have to consider the ways and means necessary to effect our purpose, and we are proposing to deal with this question in such a way that we shall be able to continue the payment of the pensions at an increased rate. In a matter of this kind we must look to the future, and I ask who would be the first to go short should a financial calamity happen in this country ? Hon- orable members opposite would bring forward a measure without consideration. They would submit it almost as a bait to a dog instead of as a measure of justice to the people who pioneered this country.

Mr Makin:

– The honorable member looks very miserable about it.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I can tell the honorable member that during my life I have probably done more for the sick poor than he has done.

Mr West:

– That is in very bad taste.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I think I am entitled to reply when a personal interjection is made from the other side. When I have had an opportunity to assist the sick poor I have always made full use of it. If we do not give proper consideration to this matter, we may find ourselves unable to continue the payment of any increase in these pensions which we may decide upon now. I’ should like to know why members of the Opposition should arrogate to themselves the right to speak on this matter all the time. Who introduced the measure for the payment of old-age pensions in the first instance? I think it should be put on record that the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Austin Chapman) had more to do than any other man in the Commonwealth with the introduction of old-age pensions. He was associated with the question in New South Wales, and was Chairman of the Royal Commission whose report made the payment of these pensions a live issue in this Parliament. He was, further, a member of the Commonwealth Government who introduced the first Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. Since that time, what increases in these pensions have been made? There were two such increases. One was made by a Labour

Government in 1916, in the sixth year after their return to power, and the other increase was made by a Nationalist Government in 1919. We hear a great deal of talk from honorable members opposite on this subject, but the party to. which they belong was in office for many years before they made any move in the direction of increasing the old-age pension. I give every member of this House credit for being anxious to see justice done to the aged people in this country.

Mr Anstey:

– The honorable gentleman should not say that; it is bad policy.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Whether it is bad policy to say so or not, I believe it is true that every member of the House is anxious to do the best he can for the aged poor of the country. Honorable members on both sides, quite irrespective of party considerations, have been persistent in requests for the removal of anomalies under the Act, and for an increase in the pension. I regret that any attempt should be made to make this a party matter. . The intention of the Government to increase the old-age pension is . mentioned in the Governor-General’s Opening Speech, and the measure to give effect to that intention will be proceeded with immediately the Budget is presented to this House. The amendment before the Committee will not help us at all. Its effect, if carried, can only be to delay the introduction of the measure by the Government:

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

-The honorable gentleman who has just resumed his seat is a godsend to the Opposition. The speech he has delivered may be regarded as an outstanding reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) should object to leave this country and leave the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) in charge here.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Is the honorable member speaking to the amendment?

Mr ANSTEY:

– Surely it is in order to pass a few complimentary remarks upon the gentleman who has preceded me, especially in return for the compliments he has passed upon members of the Opposition. I intend to say but a few words most complimentary to the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page). Ifthe honorable gentleman would only take a few lessons from his chief in diplomacy, culture, and good manners, he would get on better. All that he appears to be able to do is to shake a red rag at a bull. He cannot hope to expedite the business of the Government in that way. I am prepared to agree that the Treasurer in his lifetime has given a great deal away to the poor, but what he has given away is nothing to the millions I have given away. I cannot allow the honorable gentleman to take advantage of this occasion to refer to his generosity and good qualities without directing attention to the very fact that my poverty to-day is wholly the result of . what I have given away to the world at large. The Treasurer has tried to teach the members of the Opposition their duty. Permit me to tell him that we do not want any lessons from him as to our duty. Honorable members opposite would not take instructions from the Opposition as to their duty. They will carry out their duties, as the Prime Minister has said, in the manner they think best, and we on this side will conduct the business of the Opposition as we think best. Wo never impute motives to the Government, except occasionally, nor do we admit them ourselves. The Treasurer has told us what the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Austin Chapman) has done. He will permit me to advertise the fact that the reason why a certain Government brought the old-age pensions legislation into existence was because they were compelled to do so. The action taken was not of their own volition, but because they were dependent for their continued existence as a Government upon the votes of members of the party on this side of the House. In like manner the present Government do things because they are dependent on the votes of a certain number of honorable gentlemen sitting in the Corner. They protest that they propose to pay increased old-age pensions. We promptly say, “Do it now,” but they say, “ No, it is not time to do so,” to which our reply is, “ The time should be from 1st July next.” The Treasurer says that he has not made provision for it in this Supply Bill. Who has prevented him from making the necessary provision in this Bill ? Our amendment is merely “ putting the acid “ on him by declaring that if he means what he says he must make the necessary provision in this Bill. As a matter of fact, if the £4,500,000 provided in this measure is only for the payment of the salaries of certain public servants, it is ample demonstration of the fact that the Government propose to postpone until the latest possible date the fulfilment of their promise to pay increased pensions, and is likewise the fullest justification for the amendment of the honorable member for Wannou. What is the duty of an Opposition if it is not to take every opportunity of drawing public attention to the shortcomings of a Government in matters of this sort ?

Mr Bruce:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ANSTEY:

– It is also the right of an Opposition to take every advantage that political warfare affords to put the acid test on this Government for the purpose of ascertaining clearly when it proposes to carry out its promise to the oldage pensioners. Indeed, we should be avoiding our responsibilities if we failed to put such a question, and the fault, if there be any for the submission of this amendment, is due to the Government’s refusal to make any definite announcement as to the specific date upon which increased old-age pensions will be paid. The amendment is perfectly justified. It is well within the functions of an Opposition to submit it, and it is submitted by honorable members on this side without imputing motives, though, indeed, if motives be imputed, ours are just as clean as are those of honorable members on the other side of the chamber.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce)put -

That the question he now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 23

Majority .. . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the proposed vote bs reduced by £1 (Mr. McNeill’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable tlie (remaining stages to .be passed without delay.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister. This measure, which provides for two months’ Supply, amounting to over £4,000,000, came before the Chamber about 5 o’clock this afternoon. It is being rushed through with indecent haste, and honorable members are being denied a chance of properly discussing it. It appears that, although the schedule contains many items, involving large sums, it is the Prime Minister’s intention that the Bill shall be passed during this sitting, and for that purpose he desires the ‘suspension; of the Standing Orders. Honorable members on this side of the House cannot consent to that course in order that legislation may be dealt with in this hurried maimer. The result of undue haste may be a serious mistake in connexion with the Bill, and the Opposition will not accept any responsibility therefor by agreeing to the suspension of the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister says that the urgency of the measure is due to the fact that it must reach the Senate to-morrow. Is it not remarkable that this Chamber, which is supposed to control finance, should be allowed only a few hours in which to debate a Supply Bill, whilst the Senate may spend to-morrow and Friday on the Bill, although, in respect of the majority of its members, it is a dying institution. The Senate, as at present constituted, will expire on the 30th June. Why should men who will no longer bo members of the Senate after that date have two days in which to discuss a Bill, when the House which controls money matters is allowed only a few hours for that purpose? This House, and not the Senate, must accept responsibility for all financial measures. Why cannot the Senate deal with the Bill on Friday? Is there any reason why a dying Chamber should not dispose of the measure in one day? So far this House has had no opportunity of dealing with the items in the schedule. Our mouths are to be sealed, and we are to be denied our rights as representatives of the people. The Prime Minister has decreed a new procedure. This is the ‘ first time in the history of the Commonwealth that, in the early stages of a new Parliament, legislation has been bludgeoned through without proper discussion. The Prime Minister cannot expect us to agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders in order that the Bill may be put through Committee practically in globo.

Mr West:

– One item alone involves £1,000,000.

Mr Jackson:

– “ What is a million ?”

Mr CHARLTON:

– Apparently, “so far as honorable members- opposite are concerned, millions of .pounds are of no account; they are prepared ;to scatter them about as if the Commonwealth owed no money, and there was no obligation on us to reduce the public debt. At a time when we should be giving earnest consideration to the finances, and looking for opportunities to save money, we are to be forced at the point of the bayonet to agree to a Supply Bill for £4,000,000. And all this is done for the one purpose of enabling Parliament to be closed in a few weeks so that the Prime Minister may go to England. It is impossible for the session to terminate so soon if we are to deal with the legislation that the Government have promised, and the sooner the Prime Minister realizes that if he wishes to go abroad, he must permit Parliament to remain in session, the better for all concerned. Surely the business of the country is not to be held up because the head of the Government desires to go abroad. Such procedure is without precedent, and there is no necessity for it. Indeed, it will be a reflection upon every honorable member opposite, for it will be tantamount to saying that they are incapable of carrying on the, work of government in the absence of the Prime Minister. I would not object to the suspension of the Standing Orders if this House were to be given a couple of days in which to discuss the Bill,, hut I know that the suspension is proposed only for the purpose of bludgeoning the Bill through by means of the closure. I will offer no opposition to the Prime Minister’s motion if he will agree to allow the House to discuss the Bill to-night and tomorrow. We have no desire to delay the payments that will be due at the end of the month to pensioners and public servants, but if the Bill reaches the Senate to-morrow we may safely predict that it will be passed in the same sitting.

Mr West:

– The Senate cannot make any alteration in a finance measure; its members are only dummies.

Mr CHARLTON:

– As this House has the sole responsibility for the care of the finances, we should take every precaution to see that all financial measures are dealt with in a proper way. There may be, in the schedule many items to which honorable members on both sides of the House desire to draw attention. The remarks of each member might occupy only a few minutes, but they may relate to matters of vital importance to the community. Apparently, we are to be denied the traditional right of members to ventilate grievances on Supply. Are honorable members opposite prepared to fritter away the privileges of the House merely in order that the Prime Minister may leave for England by a certain date? The programme of legislation promised by the Government, if it were properly digested, would occupy Parliament to the end of the year. It is equal to legislative programmes which in other years have occupied Parliament for five . or six months and have only been disposed of by sitting four and five days a week towards the end of the session. How can the Prime Minister expect this Parliament to put through a programme of such magnitude in seven more weeks of sitting? The. Treasurer has promised to introduce the Budget towards the end of next month. Discussion on the Budget ought to occupy a couple of weeks. Then we have to deal with the Estimates of every Department. I remember the criticism which was levelled against members of this House by newspapers which, to-day, are urging the Government to adopt this course for passing the Budget and the Estimates in three, or four weeks. The Government propose now to put through the whole of their programme in that time. They will be whipped with scorpions in the near future by those who now approve of their action ; they will be told that they did not give these matters proper consideration. We know what occurred in the last Parliament because we did not exercise sufficient scrutiny; millions of pounds of public money were wasted. Knowing that, we yet are endeavouring to put -measures through in a manner which renders probable the making of mistakes. I did not think . I would sit in a deliberative Parliament which would permit such a thing. A paper from the Old Country which I read recently disclosed the fact that the taxation proposals which the Commonwealth placed before the recent Conference of State Premiers were known in London last February. Everything appears to have been cut and dried. It is apparent that some influence is at work outside this Chamber to bring about certain results. That demonstrates the advisability of this House remaining in session to see that no advantage is taken of the public. We are the watchdogs of the public, and: are supposed to look after their interests. The Prime Minister would be well advised if he agreed to allow this matter to stand over until to-morrow. This side of the House has never, to my knowledge, endeavoured to hold up Supply and prevent the public servants being paid at the proper time. We are quite justified in complaining of this attempt to rush the matter through. If the Prime Minister desired to attend the Imperial Conferencei this House ought to have been called together at an earlier date. The Government are solely to blame for the’ condition in which we find ourselves. It is idle to contend that they had to wait until the Conference with the State Premiers was held in order that they might know what programme to place before this House. A sufficient number of Bills was tabled to-day to keep this House occupied for two or three months. There was nothing to prevent the Conference being held while this House was sitting. The proposals emanating from the Conference could have been brought before this Chamber after the other legislation had been disposed of. We would then have been in a position to deal with the businessin a reasonable manner. I am more than surprised that responsible members opposite should submit tamely to this action. From the day the composite Government was formed, it -has been evident that they planned to sit as short a time as possible in order to avoid trouble. I cannot understand how men ofintelli- gence - and all men who are elected to this Chamber must possess intelligence - can permit this sort of thing to be done without entering a protest. In State and Commonwealth Parliaments I have known of parties in which there was rigid discipline, members often supporting action of which they did not approve; but never have I sat in a Parliament in which such a condition existed as exists here. Honorable members, whether they be independent or belong to the Country or Nationalist parties, have a duty to perform. They are not doing their duty in accordance with the best traditions of Parliament, they are not looking after the interests of their people as they should, when they agree to allow this Chamber to be closed down inside ten weeks. I have heard some honorable miembera talk about freedom of speech. When they ought to be exercising their freedom to speak they allow the Prune Minister to dominate the whole position. I have read about a domineering personality that once held sway in this House. I know of nobody who has been able to dominate the House so successfully as the honorable gentleman who leads this Government. There are honorable members opposite who made certain statements in the press before the House met, but they have not said a word from their places in this Chamber ; they have been effectively “ gagged” This thing cannot continue for any length of time. The general publio are looking on and observing the manner in which legislation is being put through without proper consideration. When they get the opportunity - it may be soon or it may be in a couple of years’ time - they will exercise their prerogative in the correct way, and say to these honorable members who sit behind the Government, and who assist in applying the closure when important matters are under, consideration, that they have no further confidence in them.

Honorable members interjecting -

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Order ! Almost from the inception of the honorable member’s remarks audible conversations have been proceeding in the chamber, and there has been a vigorous fire of interjections. It is impossible to conduct a debate in that manner. I urge upon honorable members the necessity for respecting the call of the Chair.

Mr CHARLTON:

– This is a matter of very great importance. If honorable members take their duty so lightly and value their rights in this House so lowly, this will become a deliberative assembly in name only in the near future. We should deal with legislation in the best interests of the country. The Labour party has never been guilty of obstructive tactics. We may be forced into that position. My object has been to deal with business in a proper and deliberative manner, giving full consideration to the dif-. ferent questions that come before us. It is because I see that there is no chance of our being given the opportunity to exercise our rights properly that I protest against the action of the Prime Minister. If I did not make a protest in the early stages, later on I would be told that I had acquiesced in what had been done. In the last Parliament business relating to some most important Departments which had been created was rushed through, and when everything went wrong, with consequent big expense to the people, all sorts of excuses were made. If mistakes are made by this Parliament, honorable members opposite must shoulder their responsibility. If they do not desire to speak, that is no justification for their voting to “gag” those who do desire to discuss matters affecting the welfare of this country. I ask them to consider the position before they go too far. Let them realize that honorable members on this side have rights. They are sent here to look after the interests of their constituents. I am reminded that the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), speaking on this very question, made the following statement : -

We have to consider whether this Parliament is going to be extravagant in the future.

We are now called upon to consider whether there is going to be extravagance. Here is a Bill covering an expenditure of over £4,000,000, and honorable members opposite do not propose to give it any consideration. The honorable gentleman stated, further -

It is time parliamentary government was restored, and the control of the public purse properly placed. We expect assistance in this direction from honorable members in this corner, and from others who ought to be here. Ever since. I entered this House I have been reminded of Browning’s lines as my glance runs along the Government benches -

Just for a handful of silver he left us,

Just for aribbon to stick in his coat;

Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,

Lost all the others she lets us devote. “

The Treasurer saw things with different eyes then, when he was leading the Country party. Now that he is in power he is taking exactly the opposite course. He said further - lt seems to me that the first step towards economy is for us to consider how much is to be spent, and then to insist that it shall be spent wisely. The Country party has adopted the attitude that it should exercise some control over the spending power of this Parliament, even though there is very little of the current year now left.

In the present case we are at the commencement of our parliamentary work, and yet at the instigation of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer we are expected to pass without debate a Supply Bill totalling over £4,000,000. May I ask the Treasurer how he reconciles his present attitude with his views of 4th March, 1920 ? In his speech oh that occasion he quoted with approval certain remarks made by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Poster), when speaking in Adelaide four weeks prior to that debate, thus -

He made an appeal for the restoration of parliamentary authority to end what he termeil the Bolshevik regime. He said that war conditions had made Parliament a cypher, and uncontrolled Cabinets had become intoxicated with their own unlimited authority, and in the absence of effective criticism and proper parliamentary safeguards often drifted into demoralization.

That is our present position. We are drifting into demoralization. There is no war, and no occasion for hysteria. We are supposed, as common-sense men, to have got back to normal. Nevertheless, we are expected to continue to be a cypher when dealing with the affairs of the country in that we are to be denied the opportunity to devote our time and our talents to seeing what can be done to reduce the financial burdens placed on the shoulders of the people as the result of the war. We are to remain a cypher because the closure is to be applied whenever the Prime Minister feels so inclined. The Treasurer quoted further from the speech of the honorable member for Wakefield, thus -

The people were staggering under OUt:rageous prices …. There was one remedy left, and that was a vigorous determination by the people that Government be supreme and parliamentary authority restored.

This is the way the Government propose to restore parliamentary authority ! It only shows how cherished ideals are discarded when honorable members opposite get on the Treasury bench. Their desire now is to keep Parliament closed as long as possible, and to that end they feel justified in taking any steps available to them. The application of the closure is ridiculous. We might just as well admit that Parliament has no responsibility, and is a mere cypher in the hands of the Government. I appeal to honorable members opposite as intelligent men and representatives of the people to withstand this pressure by Ministers, and to honour their pledges. Did they tell the people that, if returned, they would acquiesce in this policy of stifling discussion, and preventing the searchlight of public opinion from being directed upon the transactions of the Government? I venture to say that, on the contrary, they declared that, if elected, they would give diligent attention to all those matters about which complaints have been made, and particularly the treatment of our returned soldiers, and the position with regard to the War Service Homes scandals. The only way in which this may be done is for Parliament to be allowed full opportunity to debate all subjects that may be intro.duced. This, hitherto, has been the privilege of al new Parliaments, but, unfortunately, there now appears to be a disposition among members opposite not to do so. , The Treasurer also said -

The Estimates are rushed and closured through frequently in a couple of days.

They are going to be put through in a few hours now, apparently.

Mr Prowse:

– But this is a Supply Bill, is it not?

Mr CHARLTON:

– And is it not also part of the Estimates? Since he has become Assistant Government Whip, the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) seems to have lost all sense of proportion. Let me quote further from the Treasurer’s remarks -

That has been done by a Government which, for the time being, has had the good fortune to have an overwhelming majority in the House - a thing which I hope will not occur during the life of this Parliament. Under a proper system, I hope that we shall be able to get Estimates that will disclose the fullest information to members who are sent here to see that the country’s funds are properly disbursed.

That statement contains much common sense, and is one which honorable mem- bers should note because it throws into relief the changed attitude of the Treasurer, who is now endeavouring to stifle discussion. In 1920, he made a plea that all proposals should be probed to the very bottom. He said, further -

But the expenditure bythe Government of huge sums raised eitherby loan or taxation is a matter with which wo can deal immediately, and is one which this Parliament alone ought to control.

Contrast his views then with his present attitude. He now expects honorable members to dispose of this Bill in two or three hours. However, I have made my protest, and I do not intend to delay the Committee. I do not expect honorable members opposite to be disloyal to the Government. No doubt it is their duty to support the Ministry, but they should not be docile followers, nor should they be a party to any action which prevents other honorable members from, exercising to the full their rights and privileges. If members on this side had been obstructing the business of the country, there might have been some justification for the application of the closure.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I do not wish to delay the House. I understand the reason for the protest made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton). It is natural, and, no doubt, a proper thing for him to do ; but every honorable member knows exactly-

Mr Blakeley:

– We know what you mean.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) is out of order.

Mr Blakeley:

– I know I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Then the honorable member will have to be dealt with.

Mr BRUCE:

– All honorable members know that this Supply Bill is based upon the Estimates of the last financial year.

Mr Fenton:

– There are a number of new items, and you know it.

Mr BRUCE:

– Honorable members opposite complain that there has been no time for adequate discussion. We have only to remember what has taken place. Throughout the debate there has been no reference whatever to the financial provisions of the Bill, but honorable mem bers have talked upon a number of other matters which, no doubt, they considered of paramount importance. No new expenditure is contemplated. I can assure honorable members that when the Estimates are submitted they will have the fullest opportunity to discuss the financial provisions of the Government. There has been no unreasonable limitation of honorable members’ privileges. I felt, while listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that apparently he was a little apprehensive that, on some future occasion, the Government might not permit adequate discussion of business before the House; but I can assure him that we will give honorable members ample opportunity for a reasonable consideration of all measures brought forward. We have no desire to force Bills through the House without debate. All we intend to do is to see that the House does the business of the country, and it is jjossible that at times we shall have to take action which might not appeal to honorable members opposite. It is a task we have to carry out, but I can assure honorable members that in the future, as in the past, reasonable opportunities will be given for the discussion of measures which come before the House.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister having replied, the debate is now closed.

Question - That the Standing Orders be suspended - put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 21

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Standing Orders suspended.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed

That the resolution be adopted.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- At this late hour I ask the Prime Minister

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 21

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the resolution be now adopted - put. The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 20

Majority .. … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution adopted.

page 376

QUESTION

WAYS AND MEANS

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee to consider the ways and means for raising the. Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Mr Mahony:

-Ona point of order, Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– No point of order can be raised at this stage. The Standing Orders . are mandatory. ‘ A motion such as that which has been moved must be put at once.

Mr Mahony:

– I submit that until a question has been stated to the House by you it is not competent for the Prime Minister or any one else to move that the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Dalley will refresh his memory by a reference to the standing order in question, he will find that the Chair has no option, but must submit the motion to the House forthwith.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 20

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

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

AYES: 80

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the services of the year ending 30th June, 1924, a sum not exceeding £4,154,085 be granted out of the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund.

Mr CHARLTON:

Sir,-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 18

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the resolution be reported - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the Committee have leave to sit again.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the questionbe now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Committee hare leave to sit again - put. The House divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 1.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the resolution be now adopted.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider the position.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 17

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the resolution he now adopted - put. The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution adopted.

Question - That Dr. Earle Page and Mr. Bruce do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution - put. The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the Bill be now read a first time.

The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the Bill be now reada second time.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Bill be now read- a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

– I desire to move, Mr. Chairman-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– That you report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon. F. W. Bamford) . - The Prime Minister has moved “That the question be now put.”

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Is it your ruling, Mr. Ch airman, that while I am in the act of moving a motion the Prime Minister can interpose with the motion “ That the question be now put “ ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion of the Prime Minister can be moved at any time. It has been moved several times during these proceedings, and no exception has been taken to it. I do not see that any exception can be taken to it now. I rule that the Prime Minister was perfectly in order in moving his motion.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I move-

That your ruling be dissented from:

I do so on the ground that it is not competent for the Prime Minister to move “ That the question be now put “ when a member is on his feet moving that progress be reported. I very reluctantly disagree with your ruling, but I consider that that ruling is bad and contrary to all parliamentary practice and procedure.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question cannot be debated.

Question - That the ruling be dissented from - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

A (a) After any question has been proposed, either in the House or in any Committee of the Whole, a motion may be made by any member, risingin his place and without notice, and whether any other member is addressing the Chair or not, “ That the question be now put,” and the motion shall he put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

Therefore, in having allowed this discussion and division, I have done what is not strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question - That the question be now put - put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Issue and application of £4,154,085).

Mr CHARLTON:

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

– I move -

That progress bo reported.

It is quite clear-

The CHAIRMAN (Hon F W Bamford:

– The question before the Chair is “ That clause 2 be agreed to.” That question cannot now be debated.

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Chairman, I dissent from your ruling. The Committee will, no doubt, stand a good deal, but the time has arrived when honorable members on this side must take some action concerning the attitude you are adopting.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Prime Minister moved “ That the question be now put,” and the division that has just been taken showed that that motion was carried. I am now putting the question that the clause be agreed to.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Sum available for the purpose set forth in the Schedule).

Mr ANSTEY:

– I move-

That progress be reported.

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr Anstey:

– What action is to be taken on my motion?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion of the Prime Minister must take precedence, and on that motion the Committee will now divide.

Mr Charlton:

– We are not dividing on clause 3, but on the motion “ That the question be now put.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I called clause 3, and the Prime Minister moved “ That the question be now put.” That is the question now before the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– On a point of order. As the Chairman will not accept a motion from this side of the Chamber-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable . member cannot raise a point of order at this juncture.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4(Limit of periodof expenditure).

That progress be reported.

That the question be now put.

Question - That progress be reported - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 28

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In division:

That clause 4 be now put.

A motion may be made during the proceedings of a Committee, “ That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.”

That is a specific motion which must be accepted by you Mr. Chairman. Any subsequent motion that the question be now put must apply to the motion provided for under standing order 237. The Standing Orders provide for a certain procedure, which was adopted by the honorable member for Bourke when putting his motion. You called on him to move the motion. It was not until the honorable member for Bourke had moved, as provided under standing order 237, that the Prime Minister moved the closure.

Mr.Fenton. - The Prime Minister cannot rise on a, point of order as the honorable member for Darling is at present speaking on a point of order.

A motion may be made during the proceedings of a Committee, “ That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.”

The Standing Orders relating to the closure states -

After any question has been proposed, either in the House or in any Committee of the whole, a motion may be made by any member, rising in his place, and without notice, and whether any other member is addressing the Chair or not, “ That the question be now put,” and the motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

That clearly indicates the position. The Prime Minister withdrew his motion so that the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) might have precedence for the motion submitted by him. I cannot accept the dissent.

Question - That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 27

Majority … …. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

Th at the question he now put.

A motion without notice may be made, That a member who is speaking “ be not further heard,” and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

I distinctly moved, when the Prime Minister rose, that he be no longer heard, and you have no right to disregard that motion. Our Standing Orders and the ordinary parliamentary practice-

Mr.Fenton. - I should say the Chairman ought to take notice of it!

Question - That the question be now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the question he now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Hon D Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– There is only one schedule to the Bill, and it includes the votes for the whole of the Departments.

Mr Charlton:

– Then I desire at once to take your ruling on the submission of the schedule in that form. It has always been the custom in this Parliament for the Minister in charge of a Supply Bill, if that is thought desirable, to ask that the whole of the items for the different Departments be taken together. But should any one object that cannot be done, and the schedule must be submitted in separate Departments. I trust that you will see that the practice of this Parlia- ment in that regard is observed on this occasion. I claim that the Committee should take, first of all, the vote for the Parliament and then the votes for each of the succeeding Departments.

Mr Fenton:

– When an ordinary Bill containing a number of clauses and an attached schedule is under consideration the practice has been, when the clauses have been dealt with, to put the question that the schedule stand part of the Bill. But we are here considering the schedule to a Supply Bill, and it has been the uniform practice for the Chairman of Committees to put the vote for each Department separately. I hope that the Committee is not going to be muzzled by any Chairman, by the Clerks, or by anybody else.

Mr Anstey:

– There should be no need to consult the Standing Orders to decide the point of order that has been raised. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) has stated the ordinary practice adopted in this Parliament.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Standing order No. 169 deals with the consideration of Bills in Committee, new clauses, schedules as printed, and new schedules; but I take it that a Supply Bill differs somewhat from an ordinary Bill. The schedule includes, votes for a number of Government Departments, and I think the Prime Minister would be well advised if he agreed to the submission of the schedule to the Committee in different Departments.

Mr Bruce:

– I have no desire to have the schedule taken as a whole, if that is unusual and if your ruling is that it would be better that it should be taken in Departments.

Mr.Fenton. - Ordinarily the schedule to a Supply Bill is taken in divisions.

Parliament, £10,910

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now before the Committee is that the proposed vote for the Parliament - £10,910 - be agreed to.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

Mr. Watkins-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 19

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Parliament “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Prime Minister’s Department- £76,865

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Allow me to state the question first. The question is that the proposed vote for the Prime Minister’s Department, £76,865, be agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I object to the honorable member’s remarks. I am not taking action merely because another has taken it. When I stated the question the Prime Minister immediately moved, “ That the question be now put,” and under the Standing Orders that is a motion which must be put without debate.

Mr Blakeley:

– There is an item of expenditure for the investigation of oilfields, and I want some information from the Prime Minister in regard to the waste of money.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! There can be no debate.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . 9

In division:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I appoint the honorable members for Reid and Cook to act as tellers for the Noes.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Prime Minister’s Department, £76,865,” be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of the Treasury, £140,075.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question he now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 8

In division:

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I appoint the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr) and the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook) tellers for the “Ayes,” and the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) and the honorable member for Denison (Mr. O’Keefe) tellers for the “ Noes.”

Mr Lazzarini:

– As one teller from this side was not protected from threats of violenceby the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) during an earlier division, I decline to act as teller.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I appoint the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) to tell for the “ Noes.”

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Department of The Treasury” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Attorney-General’s Department, £21,445

Motion (by Mr.Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority .10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ AttorneyGeneral’s Department “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Woes . . . . . . 15

Majority . . 12

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Home and Territories, £102,390

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority….. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Department of Home and Territories”be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Defence, £671,060

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 19

Majority … … 8

In division:

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I appoint the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) and the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) tellers for the “ Noes.”

Mr Lazzarini:

– I decline to act because of the threats of the honorable member forForrest (Mr. Prowse).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then I appoint the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr.Fenton) as one of the tellers for the “Noes.”

Mr Anstey:

– Will the Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden) state what it costs per year to instruct Naval cadets at the Jervis Bay College?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Mr Anstey:

– I am merely asking for information from the Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Unless the honorable member for Bourke resumes his seat, there is only one thing left for me to do.

Mr Anstey:

– Will the Minister for Defence give the information I am seeking ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Will the honorable member resume his seat?

Mr Blakeley:

– Are we dealing with the Department of Defence or the Department of Works and Railways?

Mr Anstey:

– Surely an honorable member has the right to submit a question to the Minister in charge of a Department.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Will the honorable member for Bourke obey the direction of the Chair. A division is in progress.

Mr Blakeley:

– It is time we took a stand.

Mr Anstey:

– I am anxious to submit a few questions to the Minister for Defence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable member resume his seat?

Mr Anstey:

– Will the Minister for Defence answer a few questions I propose submitting concerning the Naval College ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Bourke, who is one of the oldest members of the House, should know better.

Mr Blakeley:

– So should the Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I again call upon the honorable member for Bourke to obey the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– Is the Minister not prepared to give some information concerning the expenditureincurred by his Department ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee are now dividing on the Department of Defence - £671,060.

Mr Anstey:

– The Minister is dumb.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “Defence

Department” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Trade and Customs, £133,205

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be nowput.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I demand some information from, the Government. We are now dealing with the expenditure of the Customs Department, which is a very important division of the schedule, and I insist upon being furnished with some information.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:

– The honorable member is out of order. He must sit down.

Mr WEST:

– I will not sit down. I shall stand here until I obtain the information I want. The Minister for Customs (Mr. Austin Chapman) has done things that have never been done before in Australia, and I protest with all the vehemence I can against bis action in giving concessions to one State that he has not given to another.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask the honorable member to sit down.

Mr West:

– And I refuse to sit down. I am only asking for information, which should be furnished to me as a right.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN I ask the honorable member again, will he sit down?

Mr West:

– I will not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I must point out to the honorable member that unless he will obey the ruling of the Chair, there will be nothing left for me to do but to name him.

Mr West:

– Then name me! I insist upon the information being given.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The motion has been agreed to “ That the question be now put.” The question cannot, therefore, be debated. I ask the “ Ayes “ to pass to the right of the chair, and the “Noes” to the left.

Mr West:

– Send for Mr. Speaker, young man. We have stood this kind of thing too long already, and we do not intend to stand any more of it. A man would be no better than a worm if he allowed such bludgeoning tactics to continue. I desire to ask an ordinary, proper question, such as a Minister ought to answer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member must obey the Chair, and sit down.

Mr West:

– I insist upon my right to ask a question regarding the expenditure of money in the Trade and Customs Department.

Mr Gabb:

– This “ strong, business Government “ cannot control its own House !

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I appoint the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Lacey) as a teller for the “Noes.”

Mr Lacey:

– I decline to act as teller.

Mr McGrath:

– There will be no more telling until we get the information that we are seeking. The questions we desire to ask must be answered.

Mr West:

– Does this side of the House or the other represent the people? We cannot stand here any longer and allow the Government to do what it is doing. In two hours we have agreed to expenditure amounting to ?4,000,000, and we have not received the least information as to how the money will be spent.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I appoint the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) and the honorable mem ber for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) to act as tellers for the “ Noes.”

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– I deeline to tell.

Mr McGrath:

– And I decline to tell until some information is furnished regarding the expenditure of public moneys.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I have asked several members on my left to act as tellers for the “ Noes,” and they have refused. I now call upon any two members on my left to act as tellers for the “Noes.”

Mr.Fenton. - We want information first.

Mr Blakeley:

– Yes, we want information, but I will tell. You are not going to put that over us.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There being no tellers for the “ Noes,” I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr. West, continuing his speech,.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I name the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West).

Mr Charlton:

– Before the Prime Minister speaks, I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, whether you have named the honorable member ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I have named the honorable member.

Mr Charlton:

– Might I be permitted

Mr Cunningham:

– Let him put the honorable member out.

Mr Fenton:

– He will have to put us all out.

Mr Gabb:

– Why do you not try your bullying tactics outside?

Mr WEST:

– I am sober and in my senses, do not make any mistake about that. I shall have my say if I stay here all night. I am a Britisher of the bulldog breed, and I will not stand any more nonsense. I have never experienced anything, like this before in public life. We are not allowed to ask questions in Parliament.

Mr Charlton:

– You, sir, have named the honorable member. Do I also understand that because you did not get tellers during the confusion you have declared the motion carried ?

Mr Blakeley:

– You are not going to put that over.

The . TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, let me say that I called upon several members and asked them to act as tellers.

Mr Blakeley:

– You did not call me.

Mr West:

– You did not call me.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Nor me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I asked honorable members to act as tellers for the “ Noes “ and they refused. I then called for volunteers.

Mr Blakeley:

– I volunteered. You are telling an untruth.

Mr Lazzarini:

– You are telling an untruth.

Mr Blakeley:

– Your statement is a deliberate falsehood.

Mr West:

– You did not ask me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I called for volunteers,but no one responded.

Mr Blakeley:

– I volunteered.

Mr Makin:

– I heard him.

Mr Charlton:

– If there is disorder in this Chamber, the duty of the Chairman is to name the member responsible, and the business of the Committee should not proceed, pending the arrival of the Speaker. During a commotion a motion was declared carried. That is absolutely unfair. That is not the proper way to conduct the business of the Chamber. If the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West) persisted in his defiance of the Chair, you, sir, should have named him and brought the Speaker in. You have no right to declare the motion carried. In the commotion no one could tell what was being said. There is a proper way of conducting parliamentary business. This sort of thing cannot go on; that must be definitely understood. It has gone far enough. I have put up with a good deal. I am prepared to do the proper thing and obey the rules of this House, but men are put into the Chair who do not know how to conduct the business of the Committee. It is about time this farce stopped.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister · Flinders · NAT

– A situation has arisen which is very unfortunate.

Mr Blakeley:

– It is your own fault. By God, you will get it; you are a lot of damned dumb men !

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is not in order in addressing the) Chamber in that manner.

Mr Blakeley:

– It is the rottenest exhibition of constitutional government that Australia has ever seen.

Mr BRUCE:

– At times-

Mr Anstey:

– Keep your mouth shut; you cannot gag everything.

Mr BRUCE:

– At times, during long sittings, we all get a little heated. I ask houorable members to remember that this is the national Parliament of Australia, and it will do very little good to ignore parliamentary practice.

Mr Blakeley:

– You are responsible for what has occurred. You intend to bludgeon your way through, but you will not do so while there is one member left on this side of the House.

Mr BRUCE:

– The Chairman has named the honorable member for East Sydney. Whatever the honorable member’s feeling against the Government or its actions may be, he should express disapproval in a manner which accords with the practice of this House.

Mr Coleman:

– You will not give him the opportunity.

Mr Blakeley:

– The sharp practices of Flinders-lane will not go down here. You tried to put it over, but you cannot do it here.

Mr BRUCE:

– I ask the honorable member for East Sydney, who has been named, to recognise the authority of the Chair and to withdraw his statement, because what has occurred certainly does not add to his dignity or that of the House. I make this appeal to the honorable member, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to request the honorable member to withdraw.

Mr Gabb:

– He is one of the most modest of men.

Mr Blakeley:

– Whatdo you want him to withdraw? What did he say?

Mr Anstey:

– The Prime Minister has clearly and definitely laid down the procedure which the Government propose to adopt, that of gagging this side of the House. They have the right to adopt any policy they think fit, and in the same manner we have the right to resist.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Will the honorable member resume his seat, as he is not in order? There is another matter before the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– What is before the Chair?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for East Sydney has been named by the Chair.

Mr Blakeley:

– Do not lose sight of the other point.

Mr BRUCE:

– The honorable member for East Sydney has been named by the Chair, and, as Prime Minister, I appeal to him to admit that he was not acting as an honorable member of this House should act. When called upon by the Chairman to resume his seat he should have done so.

Mr Anstey:

– What has he to withdraw ?

Mr Blakeley:

– Why should he withdraw ? Cannot a man express an opinion in this Chamber?

Mr Anstey:

– This has gone on long enough. The time has come when we must get information or go out of the place.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We must stand up for our rights.

Mr BRUCE:

– The honorable member for East Sydney defied the Chair and has been named. We must realize that the business of this Parliament cannot be conducted in a proper manner unless we support the Chair. I ask him to give the Chair the opportunity to withdraw the naming of him.

Mr Anstey:

– The next step for this Government to take is to expel every member of this party.

Mr Coleman:

– Expel us all.

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Chairman, you stated that no honorable members-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order.

Mr Blakeley:

– Many things are not in order. You have stated that no honorable members volunteered to act as tellers. That is not so. . Sharp practices are being put over, and I will not stand for it.

Mr BRUCE:

– I move-

Mr Blakeley:

– We will not be slighted in this matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I must name the honorable member.

Mr Blakeley:

– I do not care a damn whether you name me or not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I name the honorable member.

Mr Blakeley:

– You cannot put over sharp practices.

Mr BRUCE:

– There is no other course for me to take than to move -

That the honorable member for East Sydney be suspended from the service of this Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.It has been moved that the honorable member for East Sydney be suspended from the service of this Committee. Those in favour say “ Aye.”

Mr Blakeley:

– What a brutish lot! What a brutish lot! You ought to be’ damned well ashamed of yourselves. You call this a British institution. You are worse than the militaristic Czars. But you cannot put every one of us out. Talk about constitutional government! A fine lot of bludgeoners you are. You may grin and sneer, but the people of Australia will not stand it. This House will not stand it. Your sharp practices will not go down.

An Honorable Member. - You cannot bring your faked ballot-boxes here.

Mr Coleman:

– This is a faked Government.

Mr Blakeley:

– These sharp practices, the morals of big business, are not the morals of a self-righteous community. God protect us from such a Government!

Mr Mahony:

– Do I take it that you, sir, have withdrawn the naming of the honorable member for East Sydney ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.A division is being taken.

Mr Lazzarini:

– You cannot take a division in Committee on the expulsion of a member.

Mr Blakeley:

– The honorable member for East Sydney was only demanding information from the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The question is that the honorable member for East Sydney be suspended from the services of this Committee. The “ Ayes “ will pass to the right of the Chair and the “ Noes “ to the left.

Mr Gabb:

– You cannot do it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I call upon the honorable members for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) and Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) to act as tellers for the “ Noes.” As there appears to be some difficulty in securing tellers for the “ Noes,” I call upon-

Mr Blakeley:

– Whom did you name? No more sharp practices.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! I call upon any two volunteers among the “ Noes.”

Mr Blakeley:

– Name them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I call upon any two volunteers among the “ Noes “ to act as tellers.

Mr Mahony:

– Name them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have called upon the honorable members for Werriwa and Ballarat.

Mr Mahony:

– I will volunteer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) and the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) will act as tellers for the “Noes.”

Mr Blakeley:

– I am not at all sorry for what I have said to-night.

Mr Corser:

– The honorable member ought to be.

Mr Blakeley:

– No Government has bludgeoned us as this one has.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order.

Mr Blakeley:

-I know I am not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I understand that the honorable member for Dalley volunteered to act as a teller. I ask him to hasten.

Mr Mahony:

– That is a reflection on the tellers.

Question - That the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West) be suspended from the service ofthe Committee - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the House:

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– My duty is quite, clear.

Mr Bruce:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister will pardon me. The Standing Orders are quite clear in this case. I deeply regret the intelligence conveyed by the Temporary Chairman of Committees, but there is no option. A motion similar to that carried . in Committee must be put by the Speaker forthwith, without adjournment or debate.

Mr Charlton:

– Do I understand that I would not be in order in saying a word in regard to what led up to the motion for suspension ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It would not be strictly in order.

Mr Charlton:

– It is a very serious matter to expel an honorable member, especially one like the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West). There has been a great deal of confusion in Committee, and the honorable member, who has not, I think, spoken to-day, became much incensed because he could not get information he desired. During the hours we have been here we have heard little from the Ministry except the motion, “ That the question be now put,” and in consequence the honorable member felt his position very keenly, and may have gone too far. In the circumstances, however, Mr. Speaker, you may have it in your power to ask him whether he feels inclined to apologize, and, if so, to give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In reply to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton), I have to point out that it is not the practice in this House to take the course suggested, but I have no hesitation whatever in assuming the power. If it is desired by the honorable member for East Sydney to put himself right with the House, in full respect for the authority of the Chair, as exercised by the Temporary Chairman of Committees, I am prepared to hear him.

Mr West:

– I was indignant that, sitting in the National Parliament, I should witness the acts of the Government during the last twelve hours, and in my passion for the liberties of my country, Australia, which I love, I could do no other than point out that the Ministry were breaking every tradition of the Parliament to which I yet hope to be of some service. I desire young members to realize that Parliament is a great institution, the rights and privileges of which should be preserved in their integrity; and so long as I am a member I shall endeavour to conserve all that goes to form the foundations of the liberties of the people of this country. I know that we have to obey the laws and regulations of Parliament, and, in the opinion of the Government, I may have exceeded my duty. But those on the Government side are not obeying those laws and regulations, and it may be imagined’ how that affects a man with the spirit of the nation to which I belong.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not taking his opportunity.

Mr West:

– I hope that what we have gone through to-day will be an objectlesson to the Government; but I have served my purpose, and I now withdraw anything I have said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members will admit that I have given the honorable member for East Sydney a great deal of latitude. At the end of a speech not suitable to the occasion, that honorable member has withdrawn what he said, but, according to the report of the Temporary Chairman of Committees, he has been guilty of repeated disorderly acts in this Chamber, and I must demand an apology from him.

Mr West:

– I thought I had humbled myself enough, but if it is necessary to humble myself farther, I apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have only to say that I accept the -apology, and the House will resume in Committee in a moment. It is well known that honorable members who have participated in an all-night sitting tend to lose their temper in the early hours of the morning, whether they sit on the Opposition or the Ministerial side, but it is incumbent on all of us to restrain our natural impetuosity, and conduct the business in as orderly a way as possible.

Mr Anstey:

– May I make a few comments ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not.

In Committee :

Mr Blakeley:

– Where does the Temporary Chairman intend to resume the work of the Committee?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:

– The work of the Committee will be resumed at the point where I named the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) for disobeying the Chair.

Mr Charlton:

– During much commotion, Mr. Bayley, you put a motion, and declared it carried. I submitted at the time it was your duty to name the honorable member first, and leave the business of the Committee to be dealt with subsequently. I should like to know where we stand now.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The vote before the Chair is that for the Department of Trade and Customs, £133,205.

Mr Charlton:

– Is that the vote that was previously declared carried ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Mr Charlton:

– And you are again putting that division?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Question - That the vote “ Department of Trade and Customs, £133,205,” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Works and Railways, £130,955

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “Department of Works and Railways” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Postmaster-General’s Department, £1,260,390

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ PostmasterGeneral’s Department “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Health, £19,780

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Department of Health” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

War Services, £287,010

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the Question he now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Refunds of Revenue, £300,000

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question was put, and declared carried, there being no “ Noes.”

Mr Gabb:

– That is an untruth.

Mr Blakeley:

– I protest. The motion was not put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Will the honorable member resume his seat. I desire that the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) should withdraw the statement which he has made.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- I say that I called “ No,” and if you say that I did not, it is untrue.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I called “ No.”

Mr Cunningham:

– I also called “ No.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot accept that. I call upon the honorable member for Angas to withdraw his statement.

Mr GABB:

– I have said what is the truth, and I will not withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I am sorry, but there remains only one thing for me to do, and that is to name the honorable member.

Mr Blakeley:

– It is your fault; yon are not competent to conduct the business of the Chamber.

Mr Charlton:

– I realize that a good deal of feeling, has been manifested during the night. When a misunderstanding has arisen, the practice always has been in Committee for the Chairman to submit the matter again. I think there is a misunderstanding in this case. I said “ No,” and I know that one or two others did so. The difficulty would be overcome and there would be no further trouble if the item were submitted again

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– When I declared the motion carried there was no call for a division.

Mr Mahony:

– I said” No,” and if you did not hear it you were deliberately deaf.

Mr Blakeley:

– You were asleep at the time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I heard no call for a division. I am willing to accept the explanation of the Leader of the Opposition, and if it be the will of the Committee, I shall again submit the question. Before doing so, however, I must call upon the honorable member for Angas to withdraw his statement and apologize to the Chair.

Mr Gabb:

– What I said was the truth and I will stand to it. I am not going to withdraw.

Mr Mahony:

– The Chairman was deliberately deaf.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I remind the honorable member for Angas that I have informed the Leader of the Opposition that when I stated the question I heard no call for a division on the part of the “ Noes.” In view of my statement, the honorable member should withdraw the statement which he made earlier.

Mr Gabb:

– I cannot help it if these proceedings are conducted in such a manner that you- cannot hear me when I roar out. I refuse to withdraw what is the truth.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then I name the honorable member.

Mr Bruce:

– Might I ask the honorable member for Angas to look at the matter in this way : The Chairman did not hear any calls, and he has now said that if there has been a misunderstanding he will repeat the question.

Mr Blakeley:

– The Chairman has made three mistakes ; they may have been purely mistakes or they may have been sharp practice - we do not know.

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The Chairman has said that he will re-submit the question. The honorable member for Angas could, I think, without sacrificing any views that he holds, withdraw the expression which he has used, and allow business to proceed.

Mr Gabb:

– The very fact of the Chairman agreeing to again put this motion is practically an admission by him that he is not sure in regard to the matter. I am sure; and when I have spoken the truth here, I am not going to withdraw it.

Mr Blakeley:

– I think that the Chairman ought to apologize to the House.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Mr Blakeley:

– It is you, Mr. Chairman, and not the honorable member for Angas, who has made a mistake.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have already informed the Committee of my acceptance of the explanation offered by the Leader of the Opposition, and in view of that I now ask the honorable member for Angas to withdraw the statement which he made concerning the Chair.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Angas is unaware of the charge made against him.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Then the honorable member for Angas may speak for himself.

Mr Gabb:

– I certainly do know the charge which the Chairman made against me. He said that no honorable member called “ No “ when the question was put. I did call “ No,” and by his acceptance of the explanation offered by the leader of my party he has practically admitted his error. Now he asks me to withdraw my statement, which was true, and apologize.

Mr Bowden:

– You said more than that. You said that the Chairman was not speaking the truth.

Mr Blakeley:

– And he was not speaking the truth.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I have asked the honorable member for Angas twice to withdraw his statement concerning the Chair.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What statement? You are trying to think of it. You are trying to frame it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Angas made a reflection upon the Chair, and as I have accepted the explanation of the leader of his party, I again ask him to withdraw his statement that what I said was untrue.

Mr Cunningham:

– If what you said was true why are you prepared to put the question again?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Because of the explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that he also called’ “ No “ when the question was put.

Mr Cunningham:

– Then you must have been wrong.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have already accepted the explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I againask the honorable member for Angas to withdraw his statement as an act of courtesy to the Chair.

Mr Blakeley:

– I think it is time this Committee demanded some courtesy from the Chair.

Mr Gabb:

– What I said was true and I intend to stand to it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then there is only one course for me to take and that is to name the honorable member for Angas.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think the Chair should apologize to this Committee.

Mr Bruce:

– May I suggest that the honorable member for Angas is treating this incident as if he were being asked to withdraw an untrue statement. It is nothing of the sort. He has used an unparliamentary expression, which, if used by any honorable member, is usually withdrawn at the request of the Chair. In the circumstances, and in the interests of orderly debate and the dignity of this Committee, I think the honorable member should withdraw what was really an unparliamentary expression.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Hume is not in order.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– May I then move something ? I move -

That Sir Neville Howse take the chair.

Will you accept this motion?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is not in order.

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Chairman, apparently you are quite incompetent to conduct the business of this Committee, and I think you should be superseded by the honorable member for Calare (Sir Neville Howse). You have already made three grievous errors during this debate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Darling is not in order.

Mr Blakeley:

– And I think you should apologize to the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Darling is not in order in reflecting upon the Chair.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And you, Mr. Chairman, are reflecting on the honorable member for Calare.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I desire the attention of the honorable member for Angas.

Mr Anstey:

– What about my attention, Mr. Chairman?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Bourke has not been called by the Chair. He may not speak until he has the call.

Mr Anstey:

– What have I done that I am unworthy of attention ? I know the

Prime Minister himself would like to hear me, so I think you should allow me to speak.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– . Will the honorable member for Bourke please be seated? He is not in order in addressing the Chair at this stage.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to know if you are prepared to accept my motion, Mr. Chairman, that the honorable member for Calare take the chair.

Mr Coleman:

– I second Mr. Parker Moloney’s motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I desire the attention of the honorable member for Angas. In view of the appeal made by the Prime Minister I ask him to reconsider his position and, even at this stage, withdraw the statement which he made reflecting upon the Chair, inasmuch as in its. terms it was unparliamentary and contrary to the Standing Orders.

Mr Mahony:

– I rise to order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member may not raise a point of order at this stage.

Mr Mahony:

– Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I assure you that you are wrong. It is always competent for an honorable member to raise a point of order; one may be taken at any time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member may not discuss a point of order at this stage.

Mr Mahony:

– Then I say, Mr. Chairman, that you are distinctly out of order yourself. I desire, in all kindness, to put you on the right track, but if you persist in going to destruction, then all I can say is, you may go. I again say that I desire to take a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.And again I inform the honorable member that he may not do so at this stage.

Mr Mahony:

– Very well, I desire then to move dissent from your ruling.

Mr Bruce:

– May I-

Mr Mahony:

– The Prime Minister cannot intervene now.

Mr Bruce:

– The honorable member for Angas has been named by the Chair. I desire to make one more appeal to him, for the goodname of the Committee and in the interest of orderly parliamentary procedure, to withdraw his reflection upon the Chair. If he cannot see his way to do that, then I must support the authority of the Chair. As the honorable member for Angas declines to withdraw his statement, I move -

That the honorable member for Angas be suspended from the service of the Committee.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I draw attention to the fact that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) has raised a point of order and has intimated his intention to dissent from the ruling of the Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is not in order.

Mr Gabb:

– I appreciate the motive’ prompting the Prime Minister’s appeal to me to withdraw, in the interests of orderly debate and the good name . of this Committee.

Mr Cunningham:

– It has no good name. It was lost during the night.

Mr Gabb:

– In view of the manner in which the debate has been allowed to proceed, I feel that I shall not be injuring any good name which this Committee might have possessed if I am suspended from its sittings; but that, on the contrary, I should be doing myself credit by declining to withdraw and in being put out of such a gathering.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The question is

Mr Mahony:

– I desire your attention to my point of order, Mr. Chairman. I repeat that I am entitled to raise a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There can be no point of order at this stage.

Mr Mahony:

– Then I rise to privilege.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.There can be no privilege.

Mr Mahony:

– Then all I can say is that you are quite unacquainted with parliamentary procedure, and you are the most prejudiced Chairman I have ever seen.

In division:

Mr Blakeley:

– Before the vote is taken I desire to know if it is your intention, Mr. Chairman, to apologize to the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) for your gross reflection upon his character ?

Question - That the honorable member for Angas be suspended from the service of the Committee - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the House:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:

Mr. Speaker, I have to report that as the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) has repeatedly disregarded the authority of the Chair, the Committee have decided that he be suspended from the service of the Committee.

Mr Anstey:

– May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee has also decided to suspend the Chairman of Committees.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Order !

Mr Blakeley:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) is out of order in addressing the Chair when the Speaker is on his feet. This is the second occurrence of an unfortunate character which has arisen during this sitting.

Mr Blakeley:

– Provoked by the Chairman of Committees.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am sure on reflection1 honorable members will see that it is quite impossibleto carry on the proceedings of Parliament when incidents such as this are frequently occurring.

Mr Cunningham:

– You have never uttered more truthful words.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! In view of what transpired at an earlier stage of the proceedings, I feel that I cannot do other than offer the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) an opportunity such, as I afforded the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West), to conform to the requirements of the occasion, and in doing so I appeal to the best judgment of the honorable member for Angas and of honorable members on both sides of the House.

Mr Gabb:

– I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement of the case and the appeal which you have made to me. But I uttered a true statement, and having done so, I cannot see why I should be called upon to withdraw and apologize. If the Government appoint weak men to occupy the responsible position of Chairman of Committees, who cannot conduct the proceedings of the Committee, the Government are to blame. If the uproar in the chamber is so great when a division is being taken, that my voice cannot be heard - and I shout very loudly- I can only express regret that incapable men are appointed to the position. I feel, however, that the proceedings of this sitting have been such that it is no dishonour or disgrace to leave the chamber, and sooner than withdraw a statement I know to be true I shall do that.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Before inviting the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), as Leader of the Government, to assert the authority of the House, I would like to remind the honorable member for Angas that the Government have nothing whatever to do, as he has stated, with . appointing the Temporary Chairmen . of Committees, as that is done by Mr. Speaker under the Standing Orders.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the honorable member for Angas be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Blakeley:

– On a point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member cannot submit a point of order at this juncture.

Mr Blakeley:

– Cannot a point of order be taken at any time? Is it the intention of the Chairman of Committees to apologize to the honorable member for Angas?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order. I would suggest that the honorable member for Darling refrain from provoking further disorder.

Mr Blakeley:

– I am endeavouring to get the Chairman to apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Preserving silence is the best way of assisting in maintaining order.

Mr Blakeley:

– I have tried that.

Question - That the honorable member for Angas be suspended from the service of the House - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority … … 7

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honorable member then withdrew.

InCommittee:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

I move-

That yon do leave the chair.

I desire to know, Mr. Chairman, whether you will accept this motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Hume is not in order in moving such a motion at this stage.

Question - That the vote “ War Services “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 18

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Refunds of Revenue, £300,000

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority … … 6

In division:

Mr. Anstey rising to speak,

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I would remind the honorable member for Bourke that a division is in progress.

Mr Anstey:

– I am aware of that fact, Mr. Chairman, but this is the only chance I have of speaking. I do not desire anybody to listen to me; I merely wish to carry on a conversation with myself. I know of no standing order to prevent a member from speaking to himself. It is the duty of the Chairman to see the honorable member who first rises on his feet, whoever he may be. Those in this Chamber have equal rights.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– The bells should be stopped while this speech is being made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Bourke is not making a speech.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is an insult to the honorable member for Bourke and his constituents.

Mr Anstey:

– I know I am not making a speech. The Chairman does not recognise it, therefore it is not possible for the speech to be out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is distinctly out of order.

Mr Anstey:

– I cannot be out of order, because you do not recognise me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is out of order in speaking during the taking of a division.

Mr Anstey:

– There was never a time in my life when I was in better order. I am speaking to a supposititious or imaginary Chairman who has some sense of justice. The Prime Minister is not satisfied with his colleagues. He is unable to leave the chamber because his colleagues are incapable of carrying on in his stead. He should be afforded some relief, and we on this side will be only too pleased to provide him with at least a dozen gentlemen to assist him in upholding his position in the Chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is distinctly out of order.

Mr Anstey:

– We on this side would be only too willing to provide a few members so that the Prime Minister could leave the chamber in safety.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member hasnot been recognised by the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– I quite agree with that decision, and therefore I carry on. For the first time in the history of this country we are appropriating £4,000,000 without an opportunity of discussion. I am carrying on this conversation with myself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Refunds of revenue “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority … … 9

In division:

Mr. Anstey rising,

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Bourke will please be seated.

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is not in order in carrying on an audible conversation with himself. The honorable member must cease his remarks, otherwise I shall be compelled to name him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.While the division was being taken, the honorable member for Bourke, although on. numerous occasions requested by the Chair to cease his remarks, refused to do so. I now ask the honorable member, who has been in this House for a considerable time-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member did so.

Advance to the Treasurer, £1,000,000.

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 18

Ma jority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the vote “ Advance to the Treasurer “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority . . … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Preamble

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bayley:

– Each item of the schedule having been put and passed, there is nothing further left to pass.

Mr Fenton:

– The total sum of £4,154,085 remains to be passed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee has dealt with every item of the schedule.

Mr Fenton:

– The Bill will not be legally passed unless the schedule as a whole is passed.

Question - That the questionbe now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 16

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the preamble be the preamble of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Preamble agreed to.

Title

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the title be the title of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title agreed to.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the Bill be reported without amendment.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

. Mr. Bayley-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. .

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority .. … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Bill be reported without amendment - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question - That the report be adopted - proposed .

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 21

Majority … … 6

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Yes, it would be out of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the report be adopted - put. The House divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 5

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– I point out to the honorable member for Dalley that no point of order can be properly raised after the question has been moved and stated by Mr. Speaker. On the merits of the question, apart from the procedure adopted by the honorable gentleman, the standing order relating to the application of the closure says that any member may move it at any time, whether a member is addressing the House or not.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Bill be now read a third time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 18

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question soresolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 417

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I move -

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence on all sitting days except Thursdays, when general business shall take precedence until half-past 6 o’clock p.m.

Motion (by Mr. Mahony) proposed -

That the Prime Minister be no longer heard.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– The honorable member knows that the motion just submitted is pursuant to notice, and that the Prime Minister is entitled to submit it to the House.

Mr Charlton:

– I understand that the passing of this motion will permit honorable members to discuss private business this afternoon.

Mr BRUCE:

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 417

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That on Thursday in each week, unless otherwise ordered, general business shall be called on in the following order, viz.: -

On one Thursday -

Notices of Motion

Orders of the Day.

On the alternate Thursday -

Orders of the Day.

Notices of Motion

page 417

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 3 o’clock p.m. to-day.

page 417

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.I think the Prime Minister ought to intimate what business will be before us when we meet to-day. Will private members’ motionsbe taken?

Mr Bruce:

– Yes. That is why I submitted the motion relating to the precedence of Government business. The Government business will be the second reading of the National Debt Sinking Fund Bill, and probably one or two smaller measures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.6 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 June 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1923/19230627_reps_9_103/>.