View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
30 October 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- LAND TAXATION
QUESTION
- CONTROL OF THE PACIFIC
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- TEMPORARY TELEGRAPHISTS : WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- HARVESTER EXCISE ACT 1906
QUESTION
- FLAG ON AUSTRALIAN FORTS
QUESTION
- LETTER-SORTING : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY
SURPLUS REVENUE BILL
BUDGET
- In Committee of Supply:
- December, 1906, £90,000; March, 1907, £100,000; June, 1907, £148,000; September, 1907, £150,000; December, 1907, £158,000; March, 1908, £107,000
PAPER

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

Quorum formed.

Mr. Speaker read prayers.

page 1789

QUESTION

LAND TAXATION

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Has the Prime Minister read a paragraph in this morning’s Age, purporting to have been telegraphed from Adelaide, in which it is announced that the Premier of South Australia, in introducing into the House of Assembly proposals for a progressive land tax- warned opponents that if they did not accept the State proposals, the Commonwealth Parliament would come along andmake the tax heavier.

Was there any warrant for that statement? Is the introduction of land taxation part of the policy of this Government?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The Premier of South Australia has not done me the favour to inquire, either my personal views, or the intentions of the Government on this subject. His remarks can therefore be regarded only as such a forecast as every one is entitled to make.

Mr.REID. -Will the Prime Minister answer the concluding question put to him by the honorable member for Cowper, as to whether the introduction of land taxation forms part of the policy of the Government? That is a matter upon which be may have some knowledge.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Had I continued my reply, I should have said that any change in the incidence of taxation or proposals for the imposition of. new taxation would be too important to be broached in an offhand answer to a question without notice. It was made plain at the last election that the Government did not intend to propose a land tax during the existence of this Parliament. What will be proposed to the next Parliament will depend entirely upon the necessities of the country at the time.

page 1790

QUESTION

CONTROL OF THE PACIFIC

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister read the statements which recently appeared in the newspapers to the effect that Japan desires to confer with the great powers regarding the control of the Pacific ? In the event of such a conference, will the honorable and learned gentleman take care that Australia is represented?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– So much in the daily press is mere speculation that Ministers give it only the casual attention it receives from other honorable members. I have not hitherto regarded these suggestions as serious, though they may be intended to pave the way for a conference. Until a definite proposal has been made, it would be premature to express an opinion.

page 1790

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday next at 3 o’clock p.m., or such time thereafter as Mr. Speaker may take the Chair.

page 1790

QUESTION

TEMPORARY TELEGRAPHISTS : WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs upon notice -

Is it a fact that temporary telegraphists are employed in Western Australia at 7s. per day?
Does the Public Service Commissioner re gard this as a fair wage for skilled labour of this class?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions’ are these -

One is so employed.
The wages are governed by the class of work to be performed and the ability of the employe. Temporary telegraphists are usually started at 7s. per day. until their competency is proved, when, if the work warrants it, the pay is increased.

page 1790

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Protection for Fishermen and Consumers

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister upon notice -

Whether his attention’ has been drawn to the followingparagraph in the Age : - “ Mr. Dannevig said he had made some calculations on the subject of the price of fish. He found it cost the fishermen about 2s.1½d. a box to get the fish to town. It was sold in the market at about 11s. 6d., out of which the fishermen got 7s. 6d. The agents’ commissions and market dues amounted to1s. 4d. and1s. 6d. The fishermen got about 58 per cent. of the wholesale price of the fish, but they did not get 58 per cent. of the public price. As a matter of fact, the fishermen got about1½d. per lb. as net return. Out of that he had to maintain his boats and nets, and to live. The public paid from 8d. to1s. per lb. for the same fish. This money was absorbed to a small extent by conveyance ; but it was mainly commission and profits of agents and middlemen.” Also, “ that the market was not allowed to become cheap at any time to the public, while the fishermen did not get the benefit of the high prices “ ?
If he has seen the paragraph referred to, will he say if it is the intention of the Commonwealth Government to develop the fishing industry by duties and bounties?
Is it the policy of the Government to develop industries, in a general sense, in orderto maintain middlemen between the producers and the consumers?
Does he propose to take action, under the circumstances detailed above, to protect the fishermen and the consuming public. If so, when and how?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
Both the methods indicated for the stimulus, of the fishing industry are already in operation.
No. 4.TheGovernment cannot undertake to regulate every detail of business, but in regard to the particular “matter brought under notice inquiries are in progress as to the most efficient methods of distribution of the fish food supply. These fall primarily and principally under the control of the States.

page 1790

QUESTION

HARVESTER EXCISE ACT 1906

Mr McDOUGALL:

asked the Treasurer upon notice -

Whether itis a fact that, as soon as the Governor-General signed the Tariff Act of 1908, the Harvester ExciseAct of 1906 was repealed?
If so, from that time were not the har vester manufacturers free to charge the farmers such prices as they pleased ?
When the Tariff was passed, did he not promise to pass an amending Bill tomake good the omission?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s questions, Ibeg to state-

The honorable member probably refers to the Customs Tariff 1906 (No. 14 of 1906), which was repealed by the Customs Tariff 1908.
The repeal mentioned left the question of price free from regulation by Statute.
A Bill dealing with the subject is now under consideration.

page 1791

QUESTION

FLAG ON AUSTRALIAN FORTS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it not a fact that the Union. Jack was hauled down at all Australian forts and the Australian Ensign substituted for it under an amendment of the regulations which he made last session? 2- Is it not a fact that, on representations made by members of the Opposition that the Union Jack was symbolical of the union of British peoples throughout the world, he agreed to instruct his officers to hoist the Union Jack and the Australian Ensign side by side in all Australian forts?
Have not these flags since been hoisted side by side in all Australian forts?
Have the regulations yet been altered to legalize the use of the Union Jack in our forts?
If not, why not?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The honorable member’s suggestion, that the Union Jack has been “ hauled down” anywhere in Australia-, is misleading, since the Australian ensign itself consists of the Jack with the Southern Cross added. There has never been a proposal to omit the Jack. All parts of the Empire use flags which include the Jack, and distinctive local symbols. Each State of the Commonwealth has a similar flag. Last year the practices prevailing in the States were harmonized by authorizing the display of the Australian ensign, as the official flag, upon our forts, in the same way as it has been flown on our vessels and public institutions. The Union Jack symbolizes the union of the countries which make up the United Kingdom, and, as used in the Australian ensign, the union of the Mother Country with the people of the Commonwealth. No regulations were required to legalize the use of the Australian ensign, which is flown, as are the Other ensigns of the Empire, with the King’s sanction. The real objection appears to be to the Australian symbol, the Southern Cross, because the Union Jack appears as part of the Australian flag.

Mr Kelly:

– I rise to order. I have placed on the notice-paper a series of questions, which the Minister had the right to refuse to answer, and to which he can reply as he thinks fit. But is he in order in improperly imputing to me motives for seeking the information desired? The questions are couched in language so simple that if the honorable gentleman honestly wished to answer them straightforwardly he could do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– An honorable membet giving notice of a question can frame it in any way he pleases, so long as he complies with the Standing Orders, and the same may be said of the Minister’s reply. It is, however, not in order at any time, whether in answering a question or making a speech, to impute improper motives, and I ask the Minister not to do so.

Mr EWING:

– I shall not. Questions may be divided into two classes - genuine and otherwise. I regard these as coming within the second class.

Mr Kelly:

– We know within which class the Minister comes.

Mr EWING:

– To sum up, the Australian flag was approved by the Imperial authorities, it appears in the Imperial Gazette and Flag Book, and has received the approval of His Majesty the King. I may add that similar flags are used in every other part of the Empire.

page 1791

QUESTION

LETTER-SORTING : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he is aware that considerable confusion and inconvenience is occasioned in the Mail-sorting Branch of the General Post Office, Sydney, owing to the congestion of work between the hours of 3.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. inclusive, this being the time immediately before the departure of trains conveying long-distance and Inter-State Mails?
As an alternative to the proposal for increasing the number of persons engaged in the work, and also the space required for such increase, will he take steps, so as to provide against such inconvenience and congestion caused by the posting of mail matter immediately before the time of closing mails, to distribute the work of letter-sorting over the earlier hours of the day, by initiating a system of collecting mail-matter from premises situated in the business” parts of the city, at regular intervals from, say, 11 a.m.?

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– Inquiries are being made, and answers will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1791

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

Tasmanian Solicitor-General’s Opinion.

Mr STORRER:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice - 1.’ Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing in the Tasmanian papers of Wednesday, 28th inst., setting out that the opinion of the Solicitor-General upon the Surplus Revenue Bill was laid on the Table of the House of Assembly on Tuesday last?

Has he read, in the opinion of the said. Solicitor-General, the following : - “ I think that it is within the competency of Parliament to pass the Bill, and in my opinion the Bill is not in conflict with any provision in the Constitution. The general power to appropriate moneys out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund is contained in section 81, and it seems to be plain that moneys appropriated by law are no longer surplus revenue of the Commonwealth “ ?
Can the Treasurer say whether the opinion referred to was or was not given before the Premier of Tasmania issued .the writ against the Federal Government; if he is unable to say, will the Treasurer kindly ascertain, and inform the House?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s questions, I beg to state -

I have not seen the report, nor has my attention been previously drawn to it.
I have not read the opinion.
I cannot say, but will inquire.

page 1792

BUDGET

In Committee of Supply:

Debate resumed from 29th October (vide page 1758) on motion by Sir William Lyne -

That the item, “The President, ^1,100,” be agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The other evening the honorable member for Fawkner said that there is no evidence that Mr. Walpole, the paid organiser of the Employers’ Federation, made the statement which I have attributed to him, that marriage is a luxury for the workers. I have taken the trouble to look up the newspaper files, and in a letter written by Mr. Walpole, and published in the Age of 15th October, 1904, I find this passage -

On the 12th April, 1902, I gave a lecture at Lilydale, and was asked to define a “ living wage.” I declined, as the Employers’ Federation had not empowered me to speak on that point. After the lecture I was asked to give my private view of the question. This I also declined doing, but in order to give some information to the gentleman asking The question I gave him the calculations of leading American economists as to what a muscular man, capable of doing hard work, could live upon. I was then asked, “ What about a married man ? “ and replied that “ Economists in dealing with these matters looked upon marriage as a luxury,” and jokingly added, “ Like long sleevers and theatre parties.”

On the following Monday I wrote to the Age as follows : -

Sir, - I have read Mr. Walpole’s letter in your issue of to-day, which purports to be a denial of a statement which I made in my speech in the recent debate, namely, that he had stated at a Lilydale meeting that “ Marriage was a luxury, and so was long sleevers, attending theatres, &c. It was not fair to compel employers to pay foi such things.” Mr. Walpole, in the first paragraph of his letter, asks to be permitted to give that statement a flat denial ; but in the second paragraph he admits that he said exactly what I stated, “ Marriage was a luxury, &c.” But he explains this was said in a private conversation after the meeting. If that explanation is correct., so much the worse for him and the cause which he advocates, as he evidently has one doctrine to be used publicly and the other for private use only. Mr. Walpole further states that he does not think the reporter took any notes of what took place. Your readers should be told that Mr. Walpole sent on (or took with him) a stereotyped report of his lecture for the use of the local paper, so no reporter was needed to take any record of What he said during the lecture ; but any person reading the report can see that after the lecture a reporter must have taken notes. We see that Councillor Hutton indorsed the remarks of the speaker, and moved a resolution against the Factories Act, which was carried unanimously. Mr. .Lithgow moved that steps be taken to form a branch of the Employers’ Federation. This was also carried unanimously. The Chairman then asked some one to propose a vote of thanks to the lecturer, and as it was in the reply to the vote of thanks that Mr. Walpole made the statements referred to, I will give the report verbatim : - “ The Rev. K. G. Burke would do so with very , great pleasure, as he was quite in accord with the doctrine expounded by the lecturer. Mr. B. Morey, in seconding the motion, was somewhat puzzled as to how a married man could exist on the amount stipulated by Mr: Walpole as a ‘ living wage.’ The motion was carried with acclamation. Mr. Walpole, in replying, expressed his thanks for the cordial reception he had met with at the hands of the meeting. What was lost in numbers was made up by the appreciation and intelligence of his listeners. Touching the matter of a living wage, he said marriage was a luxury, and so was long sleevers attending theatres, &c. It was not fair to compel employers to pay for such things. . . . He had to thank Councillor Hutton for the action that gentleman had taken in bringing about his visit to Lilydale, and he was also grateful to the President of the Shire for presiding. The proceedings then terminated.”

Mr. Walpole has never replied to that letter from that day to this. On the following day, a letter signed by Mr. T. Oliver, proprietor of the paper in Lilydale, appeared in the Age -

Sir, - I observe that Mr. R. S. Walpole, Secretary to the Employers’ Federation, in writing under the above heading in Saturday’s issue of the Age, denies that he used the words “ (hat marriage was a luxury, as were long sleevers and going to theatres, &c, and it was not fair to compel employers to pay for these things.” He also makes the bold assertion that the report was a sheer distortion of what he had said. Mr. Walpole further says, “ I do not think the re? porter took any notes.” Now, sir, the facts, shortly stated, are as follows : - On the 12th April,1902, Mr. Walpole was announced to deliver a lecture in the Red House, Lilydale. I attended with a view to reporting the lecture, but in conversation with Mr. Walpole beforehand I was informed that if I cared to publish the whole of the lecture I would be supplied with stereo blocks of the matter. I agreed to accept the offer, and intimated to Mr. Walpole that I would report the Chairman’s remarks and any question that he (Mr. Walpole) might be called upon to answer. At the conclusion of his lecture Mr. Walpole was asked the question as to what was a living wage. In his reply, Mr. Walpole quoted the views of several American economists, but as there was a doubt what Mr. Walpole himself considered as a living wage, he was asked what he thought was a fair living wage. He replied that he was of opinion that a man could live very well on 30s. a week. He was then asked, “ How about a married man with a family ? “ and he replied that marriage was considered a luxury, as were long sleevers and going to the theatres, &c. ; it was not fair to compel employers to pay for these things. The answer provoked considerable laughter, and oneor two persons present said, “ Hear, hear.” I have no desire to enter into the discussion between Mr. Tudor and Mr. Walpole, but in justice to myself, I think it only right to vindicate my report of Mr. Walpole’s remarks. Several gentlemen who attended the lecture affirm that they have a distinct recollection that, when pressed, Mr. Walpole gave the meeting his own opinion as to what is a fair living wage and his reference to marriage, &c. It seems strange that after the lapse of two and a half years Mr. Walpole should now question the accuracy of what was reported, seeing that he had several copies of the Lilydale Express forwarded to him on the day of publication, thus affording him the very earliest opportunity to have had any mistakes in the report rectified.

Yours, &c, T. Oliver.

Lilydale, 17th October.

On 20th October, Mr. Walpole replied in a long letter.

Mr Reid:

– The honorable member cannot make any one else responsible for asinine remarks like that.

Mr TUDOR:

– We were told the other day by the president of the organization which employs Mr. Walpole, that there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Walpole had made these statements.

Mr Johnson:

– Will the honorable member take the responsibility for the article in last month’s International?

Mr TUDOR:

– No, seeing that I do not employ the editor of the International, but Mr. Walpole was, and is, employed by the Victorian Employers’ Federation. I am simply replying to the statement made by the honorable member for Fawkner.

Mr. Walpole, in the course of his letter, stated -

In his letter, Mr. Oliver varies his report by. referring to the fact that I quoted the views of American economists on the matter. But in what he printed in the Lilydale Express on18th April, 1902, there is no reference at all to “ economists.” It is all “ employers.” It is upon Mr. Oliver’s unfortunate substitution of the word “ employers “ for “ economists “ in his report that the whole of the calumnies against myself have been based.

– Under my original proposal, in 1930 the States would have all their revenue producing and nonproductive public works absolutely free of debt, the Commonwealth having assumed their debts and the obligation to pay the principal and interest. It has been stated that it would inflict an injustice on some, of the States - that it would cause Victoria, New South Wales, and some of the larger’ States to carry a very large proportion of the interest on the debts of Queensland and some of the other States. That ‘argument is also associated with the per capita argument. To my mind, one of the great advantages of the proposal which I have submitted, is that it would at once rid us of any necessity of going into the question of per capita. That is a very shifty and troublesome element to deal with, and I shall show honorable members how I got rid of it. It is impossible for any man to say what will be the population of the various States twenty years hence. It is possible that within a few years some of the States, which at present show the largest debt per capita, may then show the lowest.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– But the honorable member does not propose to take over the future debts in the same way.

Mr HARPER:

– If they do, they show very little prudence in allowing the time to pass without a settlement.

Mr Crouch:

– Let us get to the scheme.

Mr HARPER:

– All this is eliciting points that should be stated, and, perhaps, will have to be stated. T was told just now that the States Premiers were going to make an electioneering cry of this matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Judging from the temper of this House, they would be justified in doing so.

Mr HARPER:

– It appears to me that this House will have to make an electioneering question of it.

Mr HARPER:

Mr FULLER:

– The tendency of late has been to avoid going out of Australia for experts, even when that has been desirable. I, like other honorable members, have suffered considerably from the bad administration of the Department of the Postmaster- General. Last year a sum was voted for the construction of a trunk telephone line from Sydney to Wollongong, a town which is the centre of the second largest coal-field in Australia. There are at present sixteen coal mines in full work near by, as well as many coke ovens and factories. Wollongong has a port of its own, and is very near to Port Kembla, where steamers as large as 8,000 tons load coal for other parts of the world. Tenders for the supply of material were accepted on 6th July last, and it was then found that the line would have to be repoled. This important district is very much inconvenienced by the error of judgment which prevented that fact from being discovered earlier. I am unwilling to attempt to fix the blame for the occurrence on any official, but some one is responsible for the delay, and I trust that the Postmaster-General will now see that the work is expedited as much as possible. Two memoranda have been submitted by the Government, embodying their new protection proposals. The first was put before us on the 13th December, 1907, and the other laid upon the table this week. We know that votes were secured for many of the Government’s Tariff proposals because of the promise that, under the new protection, not only manufacturers, but also their employes and the general public, would benefit. One of the contentions of the free-traders has been that protective duties merely give manufacturers the opportunity to grow rich at the expense of the community, and it was alleged that the new protection would require them to share the benefits which they gained with their workmen and those to whom they sold their goods. The leader of the Labour Party stated very clearly that the benefits of protection should be shared by employes as well as by employers, and that the general public should get a share. Hestated that in the magnificent railway workshops at Newport the Government of Victoria is saving at least 21 per cent., and tried to make it appear that if the new protection were put into effect all the industries of the Commonwealth would be similarly managed. The Labour Party, however, is not prepared to socialize or to nationalize every industry. It would take over only what it calls monopolies - that is, good paying businesses. Its members would not risk the success of their theories by applying them to other industries than those which now show a substantial profit.

Mr Reid:

– Those are the trimmers. Some members of the party are more thorough Socialists.

Mr FULLER:

– I understand from the memoranda which has been put before us that if manufacturers unduly raise their prices the protection given to them will be reduced. Under such a system, however, manufacturers who were dealing honestly with the public would be punished for the fault of those who were not. If effect is to be given to the new protection, the employers, the workers, and the consumers should all benefit. But I fail to discover anything in the memorandum recently laid on the table making provision for the protection of the consumers. Paragraph 16 of the first memorandum stated -

So far, reference has been made only to that aspect of the proposals which is concerned with the protection of the manufacturer on the one hand and the employes on the other. An essential part of the completed scheme, however, is the protection of the consumer by the establishment of machinery to prevent the undue inflation of prices.

In the memorandum recently made public there is no mention of the consumers.

Mr Reid:

– Nor of the imposition of Excise duties, which was the original new protection.

Mr FULLER:

– That was a feature of the scheme outlined in the first memorandum, but so far as I can gather, no mention is made of it in the second memorandum. On the second page of the new document, it is stated that -

The object of the proposed amendment of the Constitution will be to endow the Parliament of the Commonwealth with a grant of power to do economic justice in. protected industries -

I fail to understand what that means, or how it can be brought about - with due regard to the unity of the Commonwealth, and the diversity of local circumstances.

To ascertain just where economic justice lies, having regard to those matters, and then to apply it to all the protected industries, will be rather a complex task. We find then that -

The electors will be invited to empower the Commonwealth to determine the employment and remuneration of labour in protected industries in view of the protection granted to the manufacturer under the Commonwealth Tariff.

At first sight, it would appear to any ordinary individual from that statement that the’ idea of the Government was to apply the new protection only to what we know as the manufacturing industries, because the word “ manufacturer “ is actually used. But when we come to the new paragraph, which the people of Australia are to be asked to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to insert in section 51 of the Constitution, we find the proposal put in a very different way. Proposed new paragraph xxxva is as follows : -

The employment and remuneration of labour in any industry which, in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission, is protected by duties of Customs.

– A good deal is agreed upon in caucus by way of compromise, but iri- this case we had two caucuses fighting one another. Senator Givens submitted the following motion to the Conference -

That the plank “.uniform industrial legislation, amendment of Constitution to provide for same,” be included in the fighting platform.

After the mover had spoken in advocacy of the motion, it is reported that -

Mr. McGowen, leader of the State Labour Party in New South Wales, said that in a year or two, with the fiscal issue out of the way and a. fusion of conservative free-traders and protectionists, there would possibly be an ultraconservative development. He cautioned them to look ahead and see if such happened in the future with an ultra-conservative party in power, what a lever this would be for such a party to work its will. Might he use a homely saying, and ask, “ Is it a good thing to put all your eggs in one basket ? “ With the six States remaining as now, where one State had better wages than others, there was a spirit of friendly emulation amongst the other five, but where they had only the one centralized authority a kind of medium would be struck, and there would be in reality a levelling down for some of the States.

In those words, Mr. McGowen struck the exact position. The tendency throughout the history of our Federation has been to level down to the position of the weakest, and not up to the position of the strongest. I advised the railway employes of New South Wales to be very careful in connexion with this matter, in view of the wages that they enjoy, lest it should happen - as in all probability it would - that they were brought down to the level existing in some of the other States.

Sitting suspended from 7 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr FULLER:

– I was calling attention to the utterances of Mr. McGowen, leader of the New South Wales Labour Party, last year, and pointing out that, in that gentleman’s opinion, we ought to be careful lest the higher wages in certain States were not brought down to the level of the wages paid in other States. In further support of that position, I should like to quote the following from a speech delivered on the same occasion by Mr. Holman, M.L. A., of New South Wales-

Having touched on the possiblepersonnel of the High Court Bench in years to come, Mr. Holman went on to say that he would sooner have the Legislative Councils, which could be “ swamped,” than a judicial tribunal that was unassailable and immovable. The argument - if he could dignify it with the name of argument - that because a Parliament imposed the Tariff it should have charge of all industrial legislation would not stand investigation. The step that was suggested meant, in the long run, the end of the State Labour parties. First, industrial legislation would go, then in three years there would be a request for the railways, then in another three years, lands, education, and control of mining.

I should also like to quote from the remarks of Mr. Bowman, leader of the Queensland Labour Party, reported as follows -

Mr. Bowman, leader of the Queensland State Labour Party, was not in accordance with the arguments of the Federation taking over the wholeof the industrial legislation of Australia. He would say, in passing, that he favoured the principle of arbitration in preference to Wages Boards, but he did not think it advisable to hand over the local work which those Boards might safely do, to the Federation. The present proposal might be all right as applied to the big industries, but what about the little industries? They could, he thought, be belter handled in the State than in the Federal sphere. He was as anxious as any member to consolidate the Commonwealth and State labour forces, but he was not going to sit tamely by and allow the Australian Government to take over the State railways or other functions without very solid reasons being adduced. So far. as the new protection was concerned, he thought that this should be carried, but he resented anything that looked like undue interference in legislation which they could manage in the States.

We have this testimony of three representatives, including two leaders of the Labour Party, which is entirely in opposition to the policy advocated by honorable members in the Government corner. On page 2 of the memorandum, which has been circulated by the Government, it is stated -

The electors will be invited to empower the Commonwealth to determine the employment and remuneration of labour in protected industries in view of the protection granted to the manufacturer under the Commonwealth Tariff. In some industries the existing protection may enable the payment of fair and reasonable rates of wages. In other industries, not sufficiently protected to enable the full standard of remuneration to be paid, the payment of at least a minimum wage can be required, pending the enactment of effective protection. Unprotected industries will not be affected.

It is admitted that under the existing Tariff, there are industries which can pay fair and reasonable wages, but it is also admitted that there are other industries in which the Tariff enables only a minimum wage to be paid, pending the enactment of effective protection. It appears, therefore, that, while an apparent concession is made to Labour representatives, and to employes - I believe “employes” is the proper word - the idea is to sneak in very much higher protective duties than prevail at present. ‘ In considering the new protection proposals, we have to guard against, first, the handing over of the full control of all industrial matters to the Commonwealth, and also against Labour classes being fooled through their representatives being fooled. I do not believe that the new protection will achieve the result Labour men desire, namely, that of raising wages. I have no desire to enter into a discussion of fiscal matters, but I am justified in saying that the labouring and producing classes pay quite enough under the Tariff at the present time. Any further remarks I have to make in this connexion, I shall reserve until the new protection proposals are submitted by the Prime Minister. I have taken this opportunity to shortly place my views before honorable members, and to draw attention to the fact that, more particularly in the country districts, industries may be adversely affected by those proposals. Before sitting down, however, I should like to remove any misunderstanding there may be in regard to the remarks I made in reply to the interjections of the honorable member for Cook and the honorable member for Maribyrnong, in regard to the employment of child labour in the dairying districts. I hope I made it clear that I am not at all in favour of sweated labour; but, in the meantime, remarks have been made which render it necessary for me to emphasize the position which I then endeavoured to place before honorable members. There is another matter to which I desire to refer. When the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was addressing the Committee last night, honorable members, including myself, made some pertinent interjections, which apparently led the honorable member to believe that we were glorying in the fact that Victoria was losing population: I tried at the time to disabusethe honorable member’s mind of any such idea, because I have no desire whatever that Victoria, or any other State of the Commonwealth, should be in any other

but a flourishing position. It would be to the disadvantage, not only of Victoria, but of the whole of the Commonwealth, if that or any other State were retrogressing from the position it occupied at the initiation of Federation; and my hope is that not only Victoria, but the whole of the States, may flourish.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

.- The Treasurer took exception to some figures which I submitted when I last addressed the Committee ; ‘but I have since compiled a statement, which I personally submitted to the honorable gentleman and to the Secretary to the Treasury in support of my contention. I trust the Treasurer will agree to the publication of this statement in Hansard, without the necessity of my reading it now.

Sir William Lyne:

– I wish the honorable member would in the same way include his speech in Hansard I

Mr KNOX:

– That makes it necessary for me to read the statement, which is as follows -

The position in regard to Tasmania, particularly supports my contention that these debits are entirely in contravention of section 87 of the Constitution. If the Treasurer is entitled to deduct the amount named in the case of that State, there is no reason why he should not deduct any further amount that is necessary for him to make up any deficiency that he finds himself likely to have to meet at the end of the current financial year. I know that this matter will be dealt with by the Treasurers of the various States, and as it is highly important, I felt constrained to ask the indulgence of the Committee in order that the return I have read might appear in Hansard for the purposes of reference. I thank honorable members for permitting ma to make this reply to the Treasurer, who challenged the figures which J submitted a few days since.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have listened with interest to the speech on the financial question delivered by the honorable member for Mernda, who I think has struck the right keynote in this debate. He pointed to the raid that is being made on the local money market by the States Treasurers, and the fact that within the next twenty years loans amounting to something like £180,000,000 will mature, and will have to be provided for. That is a vast sum, and the work of making adequate provision for the redemption of those loans will require careful handling on the part of the Treasurers and financial experts geneTally. The advice which the honorable member for Mernda has tendered is well worthy of consideration. We ought certainly to attack the problem as soon as possible, and endeavour to arrive at a speedy solution. It is not a purely State or Federal question. It is one in which the whole of the people are vitally interested, and we shall not arrive at a satisfactory basis of settlement unless we deal with it from that stand-point. The Treasurer has intimated that we shall have an opportunity later in the session to deal with the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States, and that his reference to the question in his Budget statement was only an incidental one. Having regard to the contributions te the debate which it has drawn from the honorable member for Mernda, the honorable member for Koovong, and several others, I cannot help thinking that it was well timed. I do not pose as an authority on high finance, and I shall leave the question for future consideration. There is one matter to which I desire to make special reference, inasmuch as it relates more particularly to the party to which I have the privilege to belong. The leader of trieLabour Party, in speaking to this question, made some sarcastic references to the change of front on the part of some of those who stand before the electors as anti- Socialists. Those honorable members now wish to hold1 up the placard of moderate Socialism. They claim to be the pioneers of everything; in the nature of Socialism which they are pleased to describe as “ sensible “ and wish, to brand the Labour Party as extreme ai.’d unreasonable Socialists.

Mr CROUCH:

– The honorable member claims to be a moderate Socialist?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not claim to be a Socialist. I belong, not to any socialistic organization, but to’ the Labour Party, and that is good enough for me. In the heat of political battle a great deal is said that perhaps in calmer momentswould be considerably modified, but it cannot be denied that a frontal attack has beenmade on the Labour movement. An attempt has been made to prove that it is intimately allied with the worst phases of Continental Socialism. I do not hesitate to say that with that class of Socialism no honorable member of our party is in sympathy. An attempt has been made tosaddle the Labour Party with every possible enormity. It has been urged that the members of it would destroy the Christian religion, abolish the marriage tie, and do away with all the accepted principles of our modern civilization. It was reserved to the honorable^ member for Parramatta, however, to charge our party with being in sympathy with the teachings of Malthus.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is incorrect.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then what was the object of the honorable member’s reference to that matter?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall explain intwo minutes if the Chairman will permit me to do so.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall be glad to give the honorable member an immediate opportunity to explain the matter,, because I desire to clear the Labour Party of the charge that it favours the teachings of Malthus.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am much obliged to the honorable member for Calare for permitting me this explanation. If the honorable member will read the report of my speech he will find that I was speaking in reply to statements by his leader and the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, who certainly made some very pointed references to the party with which I am associated, as holding Malthusian premises. Nothing has been said about the Malthusian remedies. They :have not been touched upon by either side. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie, however, was at infinite pains, with the approval of his leader, to give a statement of the Malthusian premises, and -to try by implication to fasten them on to our party.

Mr Crouch:

– Malthus never advocated any remedies.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I believe neither “in his remedies nor his premises. Speaking in reply, I quoted from an article in the Sydney Worker a statement to the effect that in Japan - and the writer of that article declared that he was stating the case for the Labour movement in Australia

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the Socialist movement, not for the Labour movement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am speaking of his claims which -are set out in the Worker. He made a statement that in Japan Malthusianism was practically an accomplished fact. I made this comment, and only this : that if a charge of accepting the Malthusian premises could lie anywhere it would seem on the authority of the statement, to lie more properly in the Labour corner than on the Opposition side of the House. As a matter of fact, I ‘…. never believed that the honorable member’s party favours such doctrines. But when we are attacked in that way the honorable member will forgive me it I, on the other hand, try to defend my own party from any such implication or inference.

Mr Fisher:

– I should like also to make a personal explanation. I said when speaking on the Budget, that charges of immorality were made against the Labour Party at the last general election by candidates standing in opposition to us, and who declared that we were prepared to violate the sanctity of the home, to destroy altars, and so forth. I stated also that our opponents then quoted against is assertions made in other countries, not by exponents of the Labour platform, but by representatives of other phases of thought, and that I thought I should be meting out equal justice by quoting the definition of individualism given by Malthus.

The honorable member for Robertson challenged the accuracy of my reference to Malthus, and denied that such a statement had ever been published. I was able later on to turn up the reference and to hand it to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, who spoke next day, with the result that he was able to absolutely prove everything that I had said on the subject.

Mr Bamford:

– I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in accordance with the Standing Orders for personal explanations to be introduced during an honorable member’s speech?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Fowler:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I would remind the honorable member that we are now in Committee, and that the Standing Orders impose no restraint on honorable members in regard to the number of times they speak in the course of a debate.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad that we have had these explanations since they will enable me to deal with this matter from a different aspect than I should otherwise have done. I should not have attempted to introduce this subject but for my desire to correct a false impression that the editor of the Sydney Worker indorsed the articles to which reference has been made. In an introductory note published in the Worker the week before the appearance of the first of those articles the editor disclaimed any responsibility or ‘them. He wrote -

The Worker has arranged for the early publication of a series of articles upon Australian Socialism. They are written by a keen student of social problems who brings to his task a well-trained mind and independent judgment. The Worker will not indorse every line of the articles, but prints them as a valuable addition to the scanty literature of Australian Socialism.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And then those articles are boomed all over Australia as “ The Rising Tide.” Surely all that does not mean nothing.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member is scarcely fair. The editor of the Worker went on to state in this introductory note that he hoped to be able to publish the first article in the following issue. The honorable member charged me deliberately with having suppressed something that appeared in that statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Only the last sentence.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was simply an intimation that the editor hoped to publish the first article in the next issue.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not mean that sentence.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member charged me with having suppressed something vital to my explanation that the editor of the Worker did not indorse every line of the articles which he was publishing. Now the honorable member says that these articles are boomed as “ The Rising Tide “ ; but that is their title. They are an exposition of Australian Socialism by a writer who is not imbued with the theories of Malthus, and who shows, by an extract from Darwin, that the principles of that philosopher do not apply in Japan or elsewhere. The articles were written bv a leading professor in one of the universities of the Commonwealth, a gentleman, who, by his scholarly attainments, and his keen study of social questions here and in the old world, is qualified to speak with authority.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I regard the articles as very able.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad to hear the honorable member say so. I do not see the point of his attack on the members of the party in reference to the first article published.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member, if he reads my speech again, will find that he has misinterpreted my remarks.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very sorry. Had not the honorable member accused me of suppression, when I was endeavouring to set the Committee right as to facts, I should not have referred to the matter. Malthus has been described as a leading thinker on the individualistic side in economics.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I showed in my Speech that we, on this side, began by disproving his doctrines, and put constructive individualism on a proper basis.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Malthus has played a considerable part in forming English opinion on economic questions, and his doctrines have prevented Governments from dealing properly with grave questions affecting social conditions and the lives of the people. They were published at a time when England was becoming disturbed bv the radical teachings of France. He was welcomed by the wealthy and privileged classes as a sort of prophet.

Mr Wilks:

– He was a minister of religion.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, and had a cure of souls, living and dying in the odour of sanctity. But the result of his teachings is that England is now fifty years behind where it would have been had they not interfered with her political progress. Malthus laid down, as his guiding principle, the thesis that population, when unchecked, increases in geometrical ratio, whereas the means of subsistence increase only in arithmetical ratio, and that, therefore, demand must exceed supply, and misery and degradation ensue. He says that these two great natural forces must bi kept equal, and speaks of checks upon the increase of population. He says that the avoidance of irregular gratification may be called moral restraint, and in the passage quoted by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, speaks of Nature’s mighty forces and the “ uninvited guest “ in these words -

A man who is/ born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim or right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At Nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders.

That passage appeared in the second edition of the Essays on the Principles of Population, revised and enlarged by the author; but was omitted, with others which were considered objectionable, from succeeding editions, though Malthus did not recede from his position. When Sir Robert Peel brought in his poor law reform, Malthus was one of his strongest opponents, contending that poor laws depress the general conditions of the poor, by assisting to increase population without increasing food supplies, diminishing the share of the worker. He went on to argue that they contribute to raise the prices of provisions and to lower the prices of labour. The honorable member for Parramatta says that neither he nor his party hold similar views, but the honorable member for Yarra to-day substantiated the statement which was denied by the President of the Federal Employers’ Union, that its paid agent intimated that it is not an obligation of the capitalist to enable his employes to marry, marriage being a luxury, in the nature ° of “ long-sleevers ‘ ‘ and theatres.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What have we to do with that?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The fact shows that there is still a leaven of Malthusian doctrine in the views promulgated by organizations supporting the party to which the honorable member belongs. Coming to another matter, I have here the September number of that eminently respectable publication, the Westminster Review, in which an article “ Socialism through biological spectacles,” by Bernard Houghton, takes pride of place. I commend it to those who say that Socialists harbor the ideas which the honorable member for Parramatta properly describes as “devilish” and “ghoulish.” The writer says -

If there is one point more than another concerning Socialism, which is impressed on us - is impressed on us with studied irritation - it is the right of all human beings to employment - “ From each according to his powers, to each according to his wants,” is, perhaps, not strictly the utterance of a Socialist, but similar shiboleths are amongst the commonplaces of Socialism. “ Every infant that came into the world,” say Morris and Bax, “ would be born into full citizenship, and would enjoy all its advantages, whatever the conduct of its parents might be.” Or, again, what can be clearer than the statement of Deville - “ The support of children will no longer depend on the chance of birth. Like their instruction, it will become a charge of society.”

Then follows this paragraph, to which I direct the honorable member’s special attention -

Now, Malthus will have lived in vain, the numerous examples drawn by him from the history of the world in general, and from that of England prior to the Poor Law Reform of 1834, will have fallen on deaf ears if such principles as these, which abrogate all responsibility of adults for their offspring, are ever translated into actuality. The swiftness of increase in population under a civilized Government, that is to say under the so-called capitalistic regime, is, in fact, often lost sight of ; it has to be actually verified to be believed. . . . The main fact, indeed, stands out clearly enough, namely, that under a civilized Government, given security of life and property, and an assured abundance of food for the parents and their offspring, the population will increase with a most embarrassing rapidity. The difficulties, miseries, and perils springing from such a condition, form one of the most obvious obstacles which confront the enthusiastic Socialist.

The honorable member for Parramatta will therefore see that the doctrines of Malthus. either here or in the Old Country, are not quite so dead as he imagines. On which side of the great line which divides modern civilization into two camps - the camp on the side of social humanitarian reform, or the camp who believe that things as they are are the best that can be ob tained - does the honorable member really believe that the truth lies? The teachings of Malthus, although not so powerful as they were at the outset in the Old Country, are still a factor to be reckoned with. The honorable member for Dalley was good enought to remind me that Malthus was a member of the church. When the great capitalistic East India Company founded a college for the training of its cadets in England, the man appointed as first professor of the chairs of history and economic thought was the Reverend Mr. Malthus. He occupied that position from 1807 until 1834 - a considerable period.

Mr Webster:

– Does not the honorable member think that the advertisements issued bv the employing classes, asking for married couples without families afford the best evidence of their sympathy with the teachings of Malthus?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that a great section of the employing class act on the principles laid down by their paid agent, and that as soon as a man employed on a station marries, and begins to get a family around him, he is speedily asked to look elsewhere for employment, his place being taken by some one who is not so’ encumbered. With respect to the question of applying Socialism, which is the very opposite to the doctrines of Malthus, I am reminded of the severe attack made on the Labour movement at the last general election. I am reminded also of a statement by the late Lord Salisbury, one of the Prime Ministers of England, who had a long experience of the public life of the Empire, and knew all its movements, and all its tricks. He is credited with having said, speaking of the wealthy and privileged class in England, a class which to alarge extent is the ruling class there, that -

The classes ‘ never join issue on a measure which hits them hard in order to beat you onthat. They prefer to select other matters on which they appeal to prejudice, and to upset you on a matter to which they think the masses will be indifferent.

That fairly correctly expresses the attitude of the anti-Socialists towards the Labour movement of Australia. At the beginning of the last election campaign little, if any,, of their attack was directed to the programme put forward bv the Labour Party. Labour candidates were rather charged with being Socialists, and all the prejudice of ignorance was appealed to in order to turn public feeling against the Labour movement, with, I am bound to admit, a considerable degree of success. At the beginning of my political campaign I’ heard the Labour Party charged with being hostile to the Christian religion, with being actuated by a desire to destroy the marriage tie, and the relations of the home and family, to divide up accumulated wealth every Saturday night and have a good carouse. Those statements appeared to me so utterly ridiculous as to be’ unworthy of serious attention on a public platform, but I found as I progressed that it was no small matter but a real issue that had to. be fought. The anti-Socialists, adopting the tactics of the class interests of the Old World as described by Lord Salisbury, were able by those means to score to an extent that would not have been possible had they confined their attack to a fair, straight-out fight with the principles espoused by the Labour movement. Since then the people have had an opportunity to think. Attention has been directed to the teachings of leading socialistic thinkers, with the result that the public generally have become better informed than they were then. We now find a number of declared anti-Socialists, who came into this Parliament with the one objective of fighting all forms of Socialism, announcing that they are Socialists. They claim that practically every one is a Socialist, but the line of demarcation that they draw is that there are two kinds of Socialists in the world - the sensible, or moderate, and the extreme. Thev belong, they say, to the moderate and sensible section, while the men who owe allegiance to the Labour movement are the extremists, of whom the public would be well advised to be afraid.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member says that he is not a Socialist.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not claim to be a Socialist. I do not belong to a socialistic organization. I belong to the Labour movement. If the honorable member says . that that movement is socialistic, then, if he is right, I am a Socialist.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member’s late leader said that it was a sine qua non that a man should be a Socialist before he could enter the Labour movement.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a very interesting phase of the question. I wish to call honorable members’ attention to the utterances of some leading thinkers on the subject of Socialism. First, I wish to quote the views of the leader of the Opposition. He had a good deal to say about the question during the last election, and repeated a lot of stuff compiled by the Women’s National League. There is, of course, a considerable difference between the leader of the Opposition and a large number of other honorable members, in that he is a humorist, and most of us, unfortunately, are not so gifted. One of the troubles with a political humorist is that, like the spring poet, he wants a lot of licence, and picturesqueness often counts for more than actual statements of fact. 1 prefer to regard the right honorable member for East Sydney from that stand-point. At one time he was infected with the microbe of Socialism, or alleged Socialism, to some extent, because early in the Federation, when the relative merits of free-trade and protection were under discussion, and the point was raised as to how the establishment and development of industries could be encouraged, he committed himself at Toowoomba to the following position : -

If industries cannot be established without protection let the Commonwealth Government establish them, because we can be quite sure of the conditions of the factories, of proper wages being paid, and decent hours being kept. There would be no one to sweat, because there would be no one to make a profit.

He afterwards practically repeated that in the House. In the great anti-socialistic campaign that he led at the last general election, it was reported that -

Mr. Reid, speaking at Terang, in Victoria, said the doctrine of the Socialist was in contradiction to the first commandment, and was in effect, “If thou cannot win any “prize in the race, share and share alike with those who can - let those who have not divide with those who have. Do not sacrifice thyself “for the sake of others, but sacrifice others for the sake of thyself.”

The honorable member for South Sydney, who then represented Bland, was called upon to reply to that statement. His reply was very neat. He referred to Exodus, chapter xx., 18, and chapter xxiii., t which I leave honorable members to turn up for themselves. The texts were very appropriate. I wish to refer honorable members to an undoubted authority, Professor Kirkup, whose article on Socialism in the Encyclopaedia, Britannica contains the following : -

The ethics of Socialism axe closely akin to the ethics of Christianity - if not identical with them.

Professor Laveleye, Professor of Political Economy at the Liege University, stated in an essay -

Every Christian who understands and earnestly accepts the teaching of his Master is at heart a Socialist, and any Christian who opposes what is commonly known as Christian Socialism misunderstands Christ or Socialism, or both.

I next refer to Professor F. D. Maurice, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge some years ago -

The watchword of Socialism is co-operation. The watchword of anti-Socialism is competition. Any one who recognises the principle of cooperation as a stronger, a truer principle than that of competition has the right to the honour or the disgrace of being called a Socialist.

Another leading authority is Professor Woodward, who has written a very valuable treatise on this subject -

The two ideals presented by the Socialist’s programme and the Christian Church are not essentially inconsistent, for in the perfect state each includes the other. The fundamental demand of Christianity is to love Cod; but the second is like unto it : “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And Socialism, however its teachings may be distorted, has its real hold to-day on the open public misery of individual suffering which is both produced by and in turn produces degraded moral conditions.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Doss the honorable member subscribe to all those opinions?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I quote the extracts as against those who represent Socialism as anti-Christian- as opposed to the tenets of the Christian religion. The gentlemen I have quoted have studied the question, as neither I, nor, perhaps, a number of other honorable members have had the opportunity to do; and they are certainly in a” better position than is the right honorable member for East Sydney to. express an opinion as to the real essence of the teachings of Socialism.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is defending Socialism, and yet he says he is not a Socialist !

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think it only fair that this presentation of the case should be considered. Though «I do not belong to the community, if is only justice to show what the teachings of the community are. I should like to refer honorable members to a report of the proceedings of the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England, held as far back as 1888, when this question was considered, and when a Committee was appointed to deal with it. The Chairman of that Committee was no less a person than the well-known and respected Bishop Moorhouse, formerly of this ‘State, while one of the members was a prelate well known in my own State, the Rev. Dr. Barry. The definition of

Socialism arrived at by that Committee was -

Any scheme of social reconstruction may be called Socialism which aims at uniting labour and the instruments of labour (land and capital), whether by means of the State or of the’ cooperation of the poor.

Later on, the Fabian Society, which is more academical, in a report in 1896, defined Socialism as -

Socialism, as understood by the Fabian Society, means the organization and conduct of nil the necessary industries of the country, and the appropriation of all forms of economics, rent of land, and capital by the nation as a whole through the most suitable public authorities, parochial, and municipal, provincial or central.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– The honorable member is not saying that he believes in those definitions.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It does not follow ; at present I am giving various definitions of Socialism. A later definition has been given by a practical politician, Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, who is not unknown in Australia, in his little) work Socialism and Society -

Socialism is a theory of individualism in which the individual is regarded as being in organic relationship with his fellows in the community, and in which, consequently, the State, the community, and the individual are seen to be pursuing the same ends.

That is the definition of a leading politician on the social reform side in the British House of Commons. I now come to the question - What is not Socialism? The honorable member for Lang desired to show that certain State enterprises, such as railways, tramways, and so on, do not give expression to socialistic thought, and that, therefore, anti-Socialists are not to be regarded as inconsistent if they supported such enterprises.

Mr Chanter:

– That is what honorable members opposite call “safe” Socialism.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This shows the progress honorable members opposite are making. I suppose that the honorable member for Parramatta, who, I regret to say, is not present, will accept the honorable member for Parkes as a leading political thinker, and an authority on antiSocialism, and will admit that he is now on the same side of politics as himself. The honorable member for Parkes, during the last elections, had some criticism to offer on his own party ; and he is reported in the public press as follows -

Mr. Reid has recently expressed approval of the recommendation of the Old-age Pensions Commission, which is distinctly socialistic Com- pulsory arbitration, which Mr. Reid supported rn the Federal Parliament, is unmistakeably a socialistic measure. His own Sea Carriage of Goods Act was equally socialistic j and he has always failed to give the true anti-socialistic answer to the argument in regard to the railway and tramway and telephones being already State socialistic functions, namely, that he is prepared to see them placed in the hands of private enterprise as in Great Britain and the United States.

That is the opinion of an anti-Socialist, who looks on this question purely from the individual stand-point, and he occupies an important place in the councils of the party to which the honorable member for Parramatta, the honorable member for Robertson, and the honorable member for Lang belong.

Mr Chanter:

– They were not “ playing marbles “ then 1

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand there was some difficulty at -that time, because the honorable member for Parkes did not like the trimming of his anti-socialistic-, friends in regard to the socialistic operations I have indicated. -Then, during the last elections, the honorable member for Robertson had a good deal to say, in the way of adverse criticism, of Socialism, and yet to-day we find him charging the Labour Party with not living up to their objective. The honorable member for Parkes tells us that, if we wish to be practical anti- Socialists, we must be prepared to hand over to private enterprise railways, tramways, and so forth ; and that is not all. I remember that, just prior to the last general election, a Conference of the Employer’s’ Federation, held in’ Adelaide, was addressed by a number of representative men, including politicians. One of’ these was Mr. Brentnall, of the Legislative Council in Queensland, who showed how modern Socialism had evolved. The first step, he said, was payment of members, the second was adult suffrage, and the third was arbitration, or interference by legislation, in industrial matters. These he laid down as the main planks’ of Australian Socialism; and if the honorable member for Parramatta asks me if 1 indorse all the extracts I have read, I ask if he indorses the state-‘ ment of his colleague, the honorable member for Parkes, namely, that if we are truly anti-socialistic we ought to hand, over our railways and tramways to private enterprise, as in England and America. Having asked the honorable member that question, I atn prepared to say that, if old-age pensions be an expression of Socialism, I am a Socialist. If the regulation of trade to which he takes exception - if adult suffrage, payment of members, and legislation for the settlement of industrial disputes are expressions of Socialism - than I am to that .extent- a Socialist. ‘ But the Labour movement is not tied to any one economic thinker. The Labour Party do not regard the writings of any particular economic thinker in the light of Holy Writ, that cannot- err. They are prepared to take from the writings of Adam Smith, Carey, McCulloch, Ricardo, Stuart Mill, or any. other of the standard economic teachers, or from the writings of Karl Marx, Henry George, and others on the socialistic side, anything that appears to them to be desirable, and in harmony with fact, and to work for its realization. They formulate their platform, and the party is wide enough to comprise within its scope all who are at one as to the desirableness of carrying into effect a policy of practical politics. They do not look merely to the theories of political writers; they turn rather to the practical side. Their place in the political world is not merely to advance theories, but to do something practical to uplift humanity. Although at times our party- may make mistakes, they are prepared to remedy them. Who suffers most from mistaken legislation? Is it the man with the well-filled pocket, the man with large landed interests, or the man who has great wealth- at his command ? Do any of them suffer from legislative mistakes as much as does the man who has to depend upon his muscle for his livelihood, who has to fight for his. position amongst his fellow men, whose existence is on the verge of starvation? Mistaken legislation must vitally affect such men. All that the Labour movement seeks to do is to give such men the birthright that they have been denied, and which they can never hope to get as long as. advocates, of the teachings of Malthus and those who fortify the position they take up by such teachings prevent them from obtaining it. Even in the Old Country, with all the advances that it has made, there are thousands of men, as well as the whole of the women folk of the. community, who are denied a voice in the determination of who shall make the laws of the land. The first principle we lay down is that every man and woman is to be considered a human being, equal in the sight of man, as well as in the sight of God,, and that all should have an opportunity to determine what remedial . legislation should be undertaken for the uplifting pf humanity. Look at the condition of affairs in the days of .Malthus. England was then _ in the throes of poverty, die like of which, has never since befallen her. Thousands of her people were dying of starvation by the roadside. The only remedy which the wealthy at that time could offer them was the damnable, devilish doctrine of Malthus - they could only . tell them that their Creator was practically responsible for their misery and degradation. We happily have ‘ been able to remedy that state of affairs, and to-day we -have reached such a standard that the anti-Socialists, who are looked upon as the hope of the Conservatives, not only in Australia, but in the Old Country, have to throw the teachings of Malthus to the winds, when the test of intelligence and fact is applied. I welcome this further indication of progress on the part of those who took up that line of thought, and .who to-day are prepared to accept certain State operations, that have_ proved serviceable to the general community,- even if they do come under- the heading of Socialism, and are condemned as such. Within the small space of three years, honorable members who went before the electors and denounced the Labour Party and the social reform movement as socialistic - who denounced the Labour Party as being’ animated with hostility to Christianity and to modern civilization - are prepared to claim that they are sensible Socialists. I hope that their good sense will grow, and that the time will speedily come when they will Be prepared to support legislation which will remedy - as far as we can hope ‘ by legislation to remedy - the conditions that destroy the lives of innumerable fellow creatures.

Mr Johnson:

– What about the antiChristian socialistic Sunday school at Broken Hill, established by Tom Mann, the Labour organizer of the honorable member’s party?

Mr J H Catts:

– He is not.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honorable member will give a moment’s consideration to the attitude which the party he represents takes up towards a great number of the poor unfortunate people who are ground down under harsh conditions, he will find himself wondering why so many can look beyond the mere instruments of the Christian religion to the Great Founder of that religion, and still have faith in it, despite the contradictory lives and actions of many of its professed teachers. I know that the honorable member for Lang and the honorable member’ for Parramatta, and others, were at one time in this movement

Mr Johnson:

– But never associated with the irreligious portion of it.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They have turned their backs on it. But I ask them to exercise a little Christian sentiment in dealing with those who remain in the party, even if they do believe that they are mistaken. Let them -credit them with not being actuated by base and degraded motives.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member might himself exercise a little of that spirit.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am prepared to do so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is no evidence of that.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am prepared to welcome the honorable member’s advance along the line of progress. I remember with considerable gratitude the pioneer work undertaken by him as leader of the Labour Party at a time when he was considered to be its rising star. The opinions to which he then gave utterance constitute some of the best propaganda work that the movement has to-day. I only regret that he cannot see his way to continue along the same line. That, however, is his business, and not mine. I respect his opinions.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not aware of any change. If the honorable member’s party choose to jump about, I cannot help it.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member must have been made aware in some mysterious way of a marvellous change on the part of some of his old opponents who now sit behind him and are looking to him as an armour-bearer in their great fight against the social reform movement’. I well remember the time when the honorable member for Lang was a leading advocate of the single tax. In those days the Conservative forces of New South Wales regarded the single tat as the great opponent they had to fight. The single-taxers then occupied in the political world much the same position as the Labour Party occupy to-day. There was nothing that the Conservatives could say of the honorable member that w.as too bad. I believe that he is still honest and earnest in his advocacy of the single tax, but he has fallen amongst the Philistines, and when my honorable friend and those who think with him seek to push their single tax theories to the front again, they will find that their strongest opponents are those who sit with them to-day.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I candidly believe that the. honorable member is far more canny politically than is the honorable member for Lang.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have had a little experience. When I last visited my electorate, I was shown one of what appeared to be a series of “ chain letters “ that were in circulation there at the last elections. These chain letters are a new method of political warfare. The substance of the letter - I do not give its exactwords - was this : “I know that you have been a great supporter of the Labour movement and of Mr. Brown. So have I. But he is no longer a free-trader and a Labour man. He has joined the Socialists, as they are termed in Germany, a body opposed to the Christian religion and to good government. In France they are called Communists.; in Russia, Nihilists; in Ireland, Fenians, while behind the movement- are the Jesuits,’- who wish to dominate the world. If ever they do, then good-bye to religious and civil freedom.” The writer, who is well known to me, was perfectly honest, and did not originate those views. But his credulity having been traded upon he was made the’ vehicle of their expression by others opposed to the labour movement. I have discovered that good religious people, who would not originate a lie, such as that men like myself wish to break down the Christian religion or to loosen the marriage tie, will take advantage of - one, by repeating it, salving their - consciences by saying that they are not its authors, and that no moral responsibility attaches to them in its repetition. The honorable member for Yarra has referred to the Malthusian opinions expressed by the paid agent of the Employers Federation. The matter is dealt with in the Age of 1st December last. Mr. Hewison, who claimed to be one of the originators of the Women’s National Association, but who had evidently got into its black books, said, in addressing a meeting, that he had done the preliminary work of organization, but that the League had afterwards employed some one who had changed the whole tone of its political work, so that, instead of opposing Socialism, on individualistic and economic grounds, it was trying to injure the Labour Party by, asserting that its members would loosen the marriage tie and destroy religion. He said that he ha.d told the League that these tactics were a mistake, and if persisted in would not be successful. He was asked to see Janet, Lady Clarke, on the matter and she told him that this cry- was thought to be a good one, and that it should be repeated. She said, “ We wish to stick to it, and. as we do not want to lose your services either, we ask you to hold your tongue about it.

Mr Chanter:

– Some of the members of the -League repeated the charge at the Sydney Conference lately.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– The honorable member objects to be identified with the statements of Mr. Tom Mann and Me Brisbane Worker.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I. repudiate the extreme statements of my own side; but the leader of the Opposition, prior to the last general election, repeated all over New South Wales statements such as those I have objected’ to.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– That is not so. He certainly did not’ repeat the charges about the marriage tie.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He repeated others.

Mr. -Dugald Thomson. - What are they?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no wish to be unfair; my statements are correct. It has been said quite recently that the Labour- Party has never repudiated this charge ; but at a Conference held’ in Melbourne, .in 1905, the following resolution was carried on the motion of Mr. D. McDonald, M.L-A..,. of New South Wales, seconded by the Reverend Mr. Culliford -

That this Conference repudiates with indignation the charge levelled against the Australian Labour movement- of endeavouring to weaken the sanctity of the -marriage tie, ‘and to sap the foundations of religious belief. And we furthermore declare it to be our ‘firm conviction that the success of our efforts to improve the national condition of the community will result in the elevation and not in the degradation of marriage, and enable the sublime teachings of the Founder of Christianity to be brought home as a living reality to the vast number to whom in the misery* and privation which society as now constituted has engulfed them, they remain but mere abstractions.

I do not charge the members of the antiSocialist party with having pursued the tactics of the Women’s National Association; but they should tell the Association that it is not using weapons which will ultimately advance its cause, The honorable member for Flinders gave these ladies very wholesome advice when, at their recent Conference in Sydney, he told them that they should accept the fact that the misery anddegradation against which the Labour movement is a protest exists, and should do something practical to alleviate it. When they try to do so they will unlearn a good deal of their anti- Socialism and learn something of Socialism.

Mr ARCHER:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– Yet many members of the Labour Party have branded the honorable and learned member for Flinders as a reactionary.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not propose to speak at any great length, but only to introduce my remarks, and then ask leave to continue them on Tuesday. I am anxious to close the debate, and in spite of the courteous, kindly, and gentlemanly remark of the honorable member for Hunter, I shall take my own course. My only desire now is to deal with a few figures quoted by the deputy leader of the Opposition. I do not in any way wish to prevent the honorable member for Darwin from speaking. I did not know that there was an arrangement between that honorable member and the honorable member for Calare ; but I know that the honorable member for Darwin this morning told me that his remarks would not be lengthy, and that he would not make them to-day. I take it that, after we have disposed of the first item, honorable members will be confined to the items immediately before the Committee, but I have no objection whatever to the honorable member for Darwin, or the honorable member for Hunter, exercising their full privilege of speaking. Statements were made the other night, mainly by the deputy leader of the Opposition, in regard to the investment of money. With my officers I have taken -I shall not say pride - but considerable credit for not allowing money to lie idle, and on that point the deputy leader of the Opposition said that money had lain for very many months without earning interest, until he had goaded the Government, and compelled, them to invest the money.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I did not say that at all ; I said that there was some money, which had evidently lain for a long while without earning interest.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I could have told the honorable member that, with the exception of a few small amounts, handed over to adjust expenditure made by the officer in charge, no payments have been made by the Agents- General until July last. In that month the first payment was made to Captain Collins of the balance of Commonwealth moneys in the hands of the Agents-General in accordance with instructions issued by this Department some time previously. These balances are, approximately : New South Wales, £3,000 ; Victoria, £22,000; Queensland, £2,000; South Australia, £400 ; Tasmania, £400. It is expected that the whole of these amounts will be shortly paid over. These are amounts that have been lying in London in connexion with the accounts between the Commonwealth and the States. In August, 1906, £15,000 was placed on loan to the market. The amount in loan, which varied from time to time, was as follows: -

– I think that I shall be able to point out to the honorable member where they do appear. There are still several other matters to which I wish to refer, but as honorable members are anxious now to catch their trains I propose to continue my remarks on Tuesday next.

Progress reported.

page 1822

PAPER

Mr. HUME COOK laid upon the table the following paper -

Lands Acquisition Act. - Land acquired under, at Adelong, New South Wales - for postal purposes.

House adjourned at 4.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 October 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19081030_reps_3_48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 October 1908

QUESTION

LAND TAXATION

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

CONTROL OF THE PACIFIC

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

QUESTION

TEMPORARY TELEGRAPHISTS : WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr McDOUGALL:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

HARVESTER EXCISE ACT 1906

Mr McDOUGALL:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

FLAG ON AUSTRALIAN FORTS

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr Kelly:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr EWING:

Mr Kelly:

Mr EWING:

QUESTION

LETTER-SORTING : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

Mr STORRER:BASS, TASMANIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

BUDGET

In Committee of Supply:

Mr TUDOR:Yarra

Mr Reid:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Johnson:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr HARPER:Mernda

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Mr McWilliams:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Page:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Mr Crouch:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Crouch:

House of Representatives
30 October 1908

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr STORRER:
BASS, TASMANIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917