View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
9 July 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)
QUESTION
- SYDNEY QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
QUESTION
- OUR CREDIT ABROAD

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 524

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)

Assent reported.

page 524

QUESTION

SYDNEY QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I wish to know from the Minister of Trade and Customs, in the interests of humanity, whether, if the Prinz Sigismund is quarantined in Sydney, he will arrange that the thirdclass passengers may have hot water baths?

Mr Tudor:

– Yes.

page 524

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Defence Act - Regulations Amended (Provisional) -

Universal Training - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 125.

Military Forces - Financial and Allowance Regulations -

Statutory Rules1912, No. 123.

Statutory Rules 1912, No. 124.

Statutory Rules 1912, No.126.

Northern Territory - Ordinance of 1912 - No. 5.- Health.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at -

Harm’s Inlet, Westernport, Victoria - For Defence purposes.

Public Service Act - Department of Home Affairs -

Promotion of J. E. Cathie to new office in 3rd Class, of Clerk in Charge, Electoral Branch, Western Australia.

Regulation Amended - No. 48. - Statutory Rules1912, No. 92.

Telegraphs and Telephones Special Works Account Act - Transfer of Moneys (dated 3rd July, 1912).

page 524

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Debate resumed from 5th July (vide page 523), on motion by Mr. Bennett -

That the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech, as read by the Clerk, be agreed to by the House.

Upon which Mr. Deakin had moved -

That the following words be added to the Address : - “ And to inform Your Excellency that the Government merits the censure of the House and the country for its failure to realize its national and constitutional obligations, for flagrant neglect of its duty to secure industrial peace and good order, and to uphold the law within the Commonwealth; for its maladministration of public affairs and public departments ; for its grossly partisan actions and appointments, and its reckless irresponsibility in the financial affairs of the Commonwealth.”

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- In the speeches which we have heard from the Opposition side during this debate, the Labour party have been blamed for all the industrial unrest that has existed in Australia for some years past, it being forgotten apparently that industrial unrest is not confined to this country, but prevails all over the world to-day. Opposition members, knowing that they could not repeal the measures with which the Government have honestly endeavoured to advance the interests of Australia, are using the Brisbane strike as a weapon with which to fight the next elections. They forget that the great coal strike which occurred in Great Britain a few months ago was settled, not by a display of the military, nor by the imprisonment of the leaders, but by the passing of the Minimum Wages Act, which recognises a principle which has been fought for during the last fifty years, and recognition of which has opened a new path for the advance of the workers. Along that path many sections besides the coal miners are now rapidly marching. The Prime Minister has been blamed by the so-called Liberals for not sending the military to Brisbane; but in Great Britain, when Messrs. Houlder Brothers and Company applied to a Liberal Government for the protection of some men whom they had engaged during the strike of the transport workers, the reply of. the Home Secretary was that it was not the duty of the police to protect strike breakers, , but that had actual disorder arisen it would have been the duty of the Government to restore order. At Brisbane no actual disorder had taken place ‘when the Premier of Queensland asked for the military, and he had the police at his command for the maintenance of order. The intimidation of the people by the military, the seizure of union funds, and the imprisonment of strike leaders is all that the intelligence of the Fusion suggests for the settlement of industrial disputes. The honorable member for Brisbane, in his very fine address, . proved conclusively that, in the first place, the men were deliberately locked out by the manager of the tramway company, who hates unionism as much as the Fusionists hate the Labour party, and endeavoured to kill it at the start, so far as his company was concerned. The Leader of the Opposition asked what the Prime Minister had done to settle the Brisbane dispute, although he knew well that there was no opportunity for Commonwealth interference. Under the Arbitration Act, which he himself framed, the Commonwealth Court cannot take cognisance of a dispute until it has extended beyond the limits of one State, and for five months after the New South Wales coal strike commenced the honorable member, who was then in office,’ did nothing, because he was powerless to interfere. We had to go to the miners of Jumbunna and other centres, and ask them to make a common issue, before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court could be approached. But when we tried to extend the powers of the Court so that its jurisdiction might be more effective for the settlement of disputes, the Opposition and the press persuaded the people to vote against the referendum. We realize that the present system of settling disputes is experimental, and it is our duty to do what we can to make it effective when opportunities arise. The Opposition have never assisted us in this, but have, on the contrary, thrown obstacles in our way. Therefore, it is rank humbug .for honorable members opposite to try to place on the shoulders of the Government the blame for the present industrial unrest. The Leader of the Opposition intends to introduce something which will prevent strikes. He proposes to introduce cooperation and profit-sharing. I have always been a very strong advocate of these principles, because under the conditions I found existing I thought it was o the best policy ‘which, could be established ; but I would tell the honorable and learned member that at this stage his proposition is made too late. We have driven the honorable member and his party from ditch to ditch, until now, in the defence of their citadel, he proposes to capitulate and offer us something which we do not want. When we are dealing with the interests of the nation, we cannot simply turn to a section of the community who may be fortunate enough to be in a co-operative concern and say, “ Yes, we are quite willing that you should receive the profits of this industry.” What is going to happen to the casual employe”, the ordinary farm hand who works for only a few months in the year, the clerks and the girls in offices who are not permanently employed? What, I ask, is going to happen to these persons under this system of profit-sharing? When we are dealing with the interests of a nation, it is absolutely essential that our legislation shall be moulded in the direction of seeing that every individual in the community gets his share of the profits produced. From time to time I have heard many leaders of the other side roundly denounce Socialism from the platform. They could not say anything bad enough about the system. But when they propose to introduce co-operation, or profit-sharing, is not that piecemeal Socialism’ ? When we teach the community in sections to co-operate and share the profits, does it not mean that eventually all the sections will unite and the Government: will control the whole of our production and distribution in the interests of the nation, and that thus we shall attain to that Socialistic regime which honorable members opposite are so happy in denouncing? As I stated previously, it is not my desire to traverse the ground so ably covered by the honorable member for Brisbane, but I wish to mention that when the case came before’ Mr. Justice Higgins he distinctly called the occurrence at Brisbane a lock-out, and not a strike. Furthermore, he found that the claims of the men were absolutely just, that they were within, their right in wearing a badge. We are told now that the whole trouble with arbitration is that the men refuse to obey the awards of the Court. But Mr. Justice Higgins has told us that the men have obeyed every award of the Court during its term. As far as the employers are concerned, what do we find? Although His Honour found in favour of the men, we find Mr. Badger, the manager of the Brisbane Tramway Company, not only refusing to recognise the award by appealing to the High Court, but endeavouring to victimize the men by refusing to employ them again. That seems to me a most unfair way of dealing with great industrial questions. While I am against strikes ; while I realize that strikes are like war - very fruitless only too often to those who win; while I desire to see a system introduced under which we could have as little loss as possible, at the same time words fail to adequately express my contempt for the action of men such as Badger. The honorable member for North Sydney, in speaking the other day, could not say anything bad enough about unionists. I realize that he is a new member of the Opposition, . and perhaps he is not yet acquainted with the views expressed by many of its leading members. Therefore, for his information I shall quote from Hansard a few remarks made by them as far back as 1904. The Reid-McLean Government gave legislative recognition to preference to unionists. In 1904, when the honorable member for Ballarat introduced his Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, he said -

The issues as we put them are : Preference? Yes! Unionism? Yes! Encouragement to unionism besides preference? Yes! For what purpose? For the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Who said that?

Mr OZANNE:

– In 1904 Mr. Deakin, the Leader of the Fusion Government, said he was absolutely in favour of preference to -unionists. Why do these gentlemen opposite go about the country and tell the people of Victoria particularly that they have never been in favour of preference to unionists? Why does their leader, with his silvery tongue, go round the country and tell the people that he has never been in favour of the principle ? He cannot say anything bad enough against it now.

Mr Deakin:

– The honorable member is in .error in both statements.

Mr OZANNE:

– The quotation is taken from Hansard. Furthermore, the honorable member for Wentworth expressed himself only last year as being in favour of preference to unionists. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in dealing with this question in 1 904, said -

I have no sort of sympathy with the man who will work alongside of another and see that other paying every week of his life into an organization to get his rights and maintain his position, while he himself is skulking and deriving the benefit for which the other is paying’ and working?

I do not think that any honorable member on this side ever spoke more strongly in favour of unionism than did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the remarks which I have quoted. Why do honorable members opposite still endeavour to delude the electors? What is their object? Surely we desire to see our politics as . clean as possible? I believe that every politician has a sacred duty to discharge, and that is to lay the truth before the people, and not to deliberately mislead them. None know better than do the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy that without unionism our Arbitration Court would be useless. They recognise that point freely. Arbitration was introduced in the interests of peace, consequently unionism is in the interests of peace. We organize our men they place their case before the Arbitration1 Court, and we trust that a satisfactory setTtlement will ensue. But by their actions the Fusion are practically encouraging strikes. With the spread of education the people are recognising their strength, and if honorable members opposite do not act more fairly with the workers they will see strikes which will, to my mind, be a disgrace to Australia. Who will be responsible for the ‘result? Simply honorable gentlemen sitting on the Opposition benches. While we are trying to do our best to make our Arbitration Courts more effective they are trying to do their best to make them ineffective. This question of industrialism is closely allied to the question of immigration; After travelling over the greater part of Australia I have come to the conclusion that this continent, which is as big as Europe, is practically unpeopled with its popula-tion of under 5,000,000. Our only right to Australia is that of occupation, and if we fail to occupy the land it means that some greater power will use the same argument that we used to the land-holder when we told him that, as he was not putting the land to its best use, he must “move on.” It is essential that we should invite population, if only as a defence precaution ; but I must condemn very severely the immigration policy of the States, and of the Victorian State Government inparticular. The wealth of the community comes from the soil, and it is no use bringing out artisans and casual labourers until the raw material has been produced. Under the circumstances, the right sort of immigrant is the man who producesthe raw material, and not the man who deals with it. The Victorian Government are going all over the world and inviting, not farmers but artisans and casual labourers, to swell the market and afford employers cheap labour. Sooner or later the calamity of unemployment will come upon us - indeed, it is here to-day - and it means, that the taxpayers have to shoulder another burden. As Australians we cannot possibly, allow any man, woman, or child to starve; we must feed and house them, and, consequently, we have to bear the cost. I know, that Mr. Watt, the State Premier, and his officers have stated through the press that there is no unemployment, but that any able man can get work. I give that state-, ment a flat denial. Only recently, in the: city of Geelong, notwithstanding its prosperity, I had the sad duty of addressing a meeting of the unemployed ; and yesterday I had to bring before the Minister of Mines the same grim subject, and ask him to find work. I see from the newspapers that there are a number of unemployed in Melbourne, some 900 in Sydney, and goodmess knows how many in other centres of population ; and yet we find casual labourers being introduced. I have an objection, not only to the immigration of the casual labourer, but also - and a still greater objection - to the preference that is being shown by the Victorian State Government to immigrants over Australian-born applicants. Of course, the State officers say that this is not so, but I will read the following paragraph from the Age -

The preference which is being shown in the employment of immigrants on railway works is exciting considerable indignation among railway employes. Yesterday it was reported to the Victorian Railways Union that trouble was threatening among the casual labourers employed at the Melbourne Goods Sheds, since five immigrants, said to be Germans, who had recently arrived, were given employment, whilst men who had been working at the sheds for nine or ten years were forced to stand aside. It has been the practice for years, that the men in the “ A “ and “ B “ sections, numbering about 400, should be regularly employed while there is any work . to do. The fact that they, as well as others who have been working at the sheds, had been overlooked in favour of the newcomers caused much dissatisfaction, as it was understood that labourers were to be granted preference since there has always been enough labour of this class available.

Here we have a definite statement to the effect that rive Germans have been given preference over Australian-born men. Furthermore, the report from, which I have just read an extract states that Air. R. Jones moved. -

That a protest be made against the State Government giving preference to immigrants for railway employment. At Newport Workshops (he said) a large number of casual hands were being put off to make place for immigrants, which was grossly unfair to Australians.

Mr. Watt and his officers say that employment can be found tor any man willing to work ; but I should like to’ know why, if that be so, when Mr. Plain, the State member tor Geelong, made application yesterday to have 250 nien placed, he was told by the Premier that the Railways Commissioners would be able to find work for only twenty. I have no objection lo an immigrant simply because he is an immigrant. I realize the dreadful conditions that prevail in the Mother Country, where millions of people are starving and millions more are on the verge of starvation, and I should only be too happy to extend a hearty welcome to them in Australia in order, if possible, to secure them happier and brighter lives. But if it means that by reason of such immigration our own men and women have to walk the streets wanting food and homes, I am totally opposed to the present system of immigration’. Mr. McLeod, the immigration representative of the Victorian Government in England, has, as I say, been sending out casual labourers instead of the right class of immigrants ; and the position became so acute that only the other day he received word not to send any more on the same lines. The Age newspaper said-

Now that the sending out of farm labourers had been checked, it would be possible for Mr. McLeod to devote his attention to securing land seekers as a class of immigrants whom the Government desired particularly to encourage.

In such circumstances the creation of a combine is amply justified. But a combination which is formed merely for the purpose of exploiting the worker and consumer must necessarily be detrimental to the best interests of the public, and the sooner we are empowered to restrict its operations the better.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Why do not the Government deal with the trusts which are already in existence?

Mr OZANNE:

– Because under, the Constitution we do riot possess effective powers. The Government have already prosecuted the Coal Vend and the Shipping Ring, but both are still in existence. In the absence of increased powers under the Constitution, we are absolutely helpless tosuppress them. We have heard a good deal’ of talk in reference to the increased priceof commodities, but I say that though prices have gone up during recent years,, wages have risen much more considerably.. I believe that the condition of theworker to-day is much better than> it was several years ago. But under our Wages Board system the moment that the employes in any industry are granted a slight increase in wages - an increase of say 5 per cent. - the employers in that industry raise the price of their commoditiesto the tune of even 50 per cent. Not long, since, the employes in the chaff industry, were awarded an increased wage of is. ad. per ton. The middlemen at once raised: the price of chaff 5s. per ton, thus insuring to themselves an absolute profit of 3s. 3d. per ton. If we choose to investigatethis question, we shall find that wherever the employer is called upon to pay an additional 3d. in wages to the worker, he takesvery good care to pass on to the consumer an additional impost of is. Until this Parliament is vested with increased powersunder our Constitution, this- unfortunate state of things will continue. I have nothing to say against the price of a commodity being increased slightly, as the result of an increased wage being granted to those engaged in its production. I do not believe that any man desires to obtaincheap goods at the expense of his fellows. It is true that some increases in the costof commodities have resulted from- the granting of increased wages to the employes engaged in their production ; but, in other cases, the manufacturer has insisted upon grabbing a much larger profitthan he was entitled to. When this motion was launched, a number of very serious^ charges were levelled at the Government. They were accused, for example, of the misuse of public funds, of maladministra- tion, and of extravagance. But the only act which was cited as one of extravagance was in connexion with the building of the Warrego, although the honorable member for Flinders declared that the employes in the Postal Department were being paid too highly. Now, in connexion with the construction of the Warrego, what happened? That vessel was brought to Australia in sections. Underlying that action was a recognition of the fact that in the future we intend to build other vessels of a similar pattern. In accordance with our Protective policy, we desire to do all the work that we possibly can in the Commonwealth, and to this end, it was necessary that our men should be instructed in the methods of shipbuilding. Unfortunately, in assembling the various parts of the Warrego, one man omitted a few bolts. This may have been the result of faulty supervision, I believe that the Government of New South Wales are responsible for the omission, and that they had to make good the loss which was thereby occasioned. Though that omission cost a few thousand pounds - a circumstance which is to be regretted - our men have received invaluable knowledge, and this they will be able to impart to others when similar operations require to be undertaken in the future. But what was the attitude of the Fusion Government towards defence? They did not propose to spend only a few thousand pounds, but millions of pounds.- They said, “ We intend to build a Dreadnought costing £2,000,000, and to send her Home for use in the North Sea. We also purpose to borrow £3,500,000 to enable us to establish our Navy.” In other words, their policy involved an expenditure upon defence of £5,500,000. I need scarcely point out that the interest upon that amount would have meant a huge sum annually. Yet, in face of these facts, because one man happened to omit a few necessary bolts in re-assembling the various parts of the Warrego, the Government have been accused of extravagance. I think we have shown the Opposition how to build a Navy without borrowing a penny. The financial year closed with a magnificent surplus, notwithstanding that we granted pensions to invalids, and that we gave many of the employes in the Post Office a more adequate wage. We completed the financial year with a credit balance of £1,800,000.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Where is that navy you have built? Nobody has seen it yet.

Mr OZANNE:

– The honorable member will see it later on. The Leader of the Opposition, when in office, said it would take £2.000,000 to make our postal service effective. We have not spent £2,000.000 extra in wages, but we have increased the wages of civil servants hy some £300,000, and have made our postal and telegraphic services much more efficient than they ever were before. The honorable member for Flinders, when speaking at Camberwell the other night, said -

I have made a rather careful investigation into the affairs of the post office since Federation.

He did not go into it in a haphazard way like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went into the land tax question, but he went into it carefully, and arrived at this conclusion -

What has happened in the last two years? One would expect, where the business was increasing, to find some increase of expenditure, but one would not expect that increase to keep pace with the increase in revenue. I find that the revenue of the post office, after making due allowance for the reduction caused by penny postage, has increased by about io£ per cent., and T find that the ordinary expenditure on ordinary working expenses, leaving additions and extensions out altogether, has been 23^ per cent.

Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rose in this House and denounced us hecause we were not paying enough to the employes in the Postal Department. He said, “ Do you not know that the telegraphists in Sydney are going out on strike because you are sweating them ?” At the same time, an equally capable member on that side of the House says that the expenditure on the Postal Department has increased enormously, and that we are paying additional wages to the extent of 23$ per cent. Although we have increased the wages pf the postal officials, we shall have to increase them still more. I know men who have been twenty odd years in the Service, and are not receiving a wage commensurate with the work they do. Consequently, it will be necessary for us to increase the expenditure, because, while we tell the outside employer that he must pay a living wage to his employes, we should set the example by seeing that our employes are properly paid. I have quoted the speeches of the honorable member for Flinders, and the honorable member foi Parramatta, to ShOW how diametrically op: posed are two of the leading member’s on that side of the House. I find that the Federal expenditure, according to the last Budget, included £5,776,000 paid to the States, £2,190,000 for invalid and oldage pensions, £673,000 for interest and sinking fund on transferred properties, £1,873,000 for defence, £3,930,000 for the Postal Department, £4,306,000 for new works, £200,000 for naval subsidy, £621,000 for the sugar bounty, and £’433,000 for the Northern Territory. Do honorable members opposite propose to reduce the expenditure on any of those items ? They do not, with the exception of the item of old-age pensions. The honorable member for Flinders, in the same speech, said, regarding old-age pensions -

Now, another enormous expenditure of the

Government is that on old-age pensions. In regard to this I want to be perfectly frank. 1 think the system is not only wasteful and extravagant, but is based on a principle that is fu itself rotten to the core.

Is it any wonder, then, that when we turn to the platform of the so-called Liberal party, ye find that old-age and invalid pensions are embodied in plank number 13? As soon as the Opposition get into power, it will be a case of “Good-bye”; those pensions will tie wiped off the slate, and then we shall have the condition of things that once existed in Victoria. When the finances were very low, the Government of this State, instead of going to the wealthy of the community and asking them to make up the deficit, cut down the wages of the civil servants, and reduced the amount of money that was going to the old-age pensioners. Yet the members of the party opposite will go round and ask the aid-age pensioner for his vote, and the civil servant for his vote, telling the people that we are their enemies and that they, the members of the Opposition, are their friends. If a man put his hand into my pocket and tried to take some of my money, I should soon know whether he was a friend or not. When revenue has to be raised and great national works- to be carried out, ‘the members of the party opposite always put the taxation on the shoulders of the people who a,re least able to bear it, and then they talk about class legislation. Our party have legislated in the interests of every section of the community. We have tried to introduce a condition of things that will he fair to £very man, woman, and child. The Opposition cannot say the some, or anything like it. They also tell us that since we have been in power we have given all the good jobs to Labour supporters. Surely the members of the Opposition know that the chief complaint amongst our Labour people is that all the good positions are going to the Liberals, and I think that complaint is borne out by the facts. In appointing our officers, we ought to select the best men, whether they are Liberal or Labour, and I believe that that has been the aim of our Government. They have endeavoured always to select the best men, because they realize that their administration is on trial, and they could not possibly afford to appoint a man who would be likely to be a failure. They do not ask a man whether he is a Labour man or a Liberal. Members of the Opposition have quoted the appointments of Mr. Ryland and Dr. Jensen. I could quote the names of twenty other gentlemen who do not belong to the Labour party, and who yet have been placed by the Government in very responsible positions. Is Mr. Miller, the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, a Labour man? Is Mr. McKay, the Land Tax Commissioner, a Labour man? Is Dr. Gilruth, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, a Labour man? Are Professor Baldwin Spencer, Mr. Francis, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Beckett, and Mr. Deane, Labourites ? Yet they have been given absolutely the best positions that we could offer to any individual. All that the members of the Opposition can say in support of their charge is that we have appointed Mr. Ryland and Dr. Jensen. From the information I have, I can say that those two are very capable men ; and when the result of their administration is known, honorable members will find such to be the case. I wish to touch lightly on the proposition for a maternity bonus. This is a question about which the unthinking will laugh and smirk ; but , I am confident that throughout Australia the judicious and the humane will applaud it. I can cite instances from my own knowledge where, if the bonus had been available, the lives, not only of children, but of mothers, would have been saved. Our friends opposite, instead of giving us credit for this humane measure, go round to the ladies’ leagues and other meetings, and make fun of it. They say that it is a political bribe. What care they about the suffering of the poorer section of the community? The members of the Women’s National League can afford to smile at this proposal. Born with a silver spoon in their mouths, nursed in the lap of luxury, they have not to worry in the most critical period of a woman’s life. They have no consideration tor their less fortunate sisters.

Of course, when they want a vote they ask them round to a cup of tea, and are very nice. The honorable member for Flinders said of this proposal -

As a piece of political fly-paper it might be considered one of the most profitable articles put- on the market. It was not a dream altogether; it was an inspiration. (Laughter.)

They say that inspirations come from Heaven. If that be so, this proposal is Heaven sent.

But how ought they to receive a proposition of this kind? He said they ought absolutely to oppose it by every means in their power. If they were to pay always increasing old-age pensions, invalid pensions, and unemployment pensions, why not extend the principle in other directions? There was no end and no stopping place to this kind of thing. Why not provide for young couples who wanted to furnish?

This most serious question is treated as a huge joke. The Premier of Victoria also characterized the proposal as a “ monstrous bribe “ to secure for the Labour party another lease of power. He said that he considered it to be a monstrosity, and that he thought that it was meant as a stepping stone towards pensions to infants, national pensions to widows, and the public feeding of children at school. Had the Fusion Government continued in power, it might have had in the near future to look after the feeding of the children, because there would have been no work for the breadwinners. These gentlemen are anxious to have the military called out, and we know that when the military commence to fire, widows begin to appear. It is not many years since a Royal Commission, reporting on the State schools of Victoria, said that the condition of some of the children in them was dreadful, and only last night the Rev. A. R. Edgar, a great Melbourne philanthropist, stated to a Herald, .interviewer that much misery and sorrow exist, notwithstanding the humane legislation which the Labour party has introduced. The old conditions have been ameliorated, but further legislation is needed to thoroughly cope with the evil. If we should ever be called upon to help the parents of big families, I, for one, should be ready to assist them, and I should be glad to give assistance to widows struggling to bring up families. As to the public feeding of school children, my vote will always be cast to prevent starvation, especially the starvation of the little children, who are the future citizens of the Commonwealth, and on whose healthy development the prosperity of the country depends. Last year, when the Notes Bill was under discussion, the honorable gentlemen opposite prophesied all kinds of calamity as the result of its passing, but they have proved themselves to be bad prophets. Whereas the States received from the banks something like £90,000 per annum in note tax, the Commonwealth makes £180,000 from the issue of notes, and instead of only £4,000,000 worth of notes being in circulation, there is more than £9,000,000 worth in circulation. Those figures show something wrong about the old state of affairs. Furthermore, as the Prime Min:ister has pointed out, when 10s. notes are issued, an additional profit of £35,000 willbe made. Although this party has been charged with extravagant finance, honorable members opposite fail to show that we have been extravagant. The honorable member for Kooyong has told us that because of the Labour party being in power Australia’s credit has suffered in Great Britain. But Mr. W. L. Baillieu, recently Minister of Public Works in Victoria, when interviewed by a representative of the Age,. after a trip to the Old Country, had a. different tale to tell. This is the Age report of the interview, published on the 28th November last -

page 535

QUESTION

OUR CREDIT ABROAD

Confidence of Investors

Australia as an Imperial Factor.

Australia was never better known in Great Britain than at the present time, and her detractors were mostly to be found within or emanating from her own boundaries.

Those who cry stinking fish are to be found in this Chamber, in the National Women’s League, and other Liberal associations -

Australia never stood higher in the Imperial world than it did to-day. It had a record worthy of imitation. He did not hesitate’ to say that some of the most clear-headed men in England were proclaiming that one of the safest places in the world for investment was Australia.

Does not that prove conclusively that the honorable member for Kooyong did not know what he was talking about?

It was certain that Australia offered to theinvestor a relatively steady condition of security.

Notwithstanding all the industrial unrest: honorable members speak of, there was, according to Mr. Baillieu, a condition of security which was not eclipsed, if equalled, in the world. Again, if we turn to the banks, what ‘ do we find ? Notwithstanding the issue of the Australian notes, and the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, we find that, whereas in 1907 the deposits in the banks were £117,758,255, in 1911 they amounted to £143,446,910, showing an increase of £25,688,655. When we turn to the Savings Banks, we find that, in 1908-9, the increase in the number of depositors was 62,536; in1909-10 the increase was 85,117; but when Labour came into power, that is in 1910-11, the increase amounted to 116,539. What did that show ? It simply showed that our legislation was securing a fairer distribution of wealth ; that, whereas previously many of the workers were in a state of semistarvation, and many of them only got sufficient to enable them to live, now they are able to save a little for a rainy day ; they are becoming depositors. The amount at deposit in 1908-9 showed an increase of £2,930,467; in 1909-10 there was an increase of £4,039,559; while in 1910-11 the increase amounted to £6,276,184. The greatest increases in connexion with the Savings Banks have occurred during the regime of the Labour party. I claim that, since our advent to power, we have kept every pledge which we made to the electors. Here is the constitution of the Labour party, which I took round with me when I fought the last election. On our fighting platform you will find these planks -

Maintenance of White Australia.
The New Protection.
Nationalization of Monopolies.
Graduated Tax on Unimproved Land Values.
Citizen Defence Force.
Commonwealth Bank.
Restriction of Public Borrowing.
Navigation Laws.
Arbitration Act Amendment.

With the exception of the Navigation Bill, every measure referred to in the fighting platform is the law of Australia. On. our general platform we find the nationalization of monopolies, and, if necessary, the amendmentof the Constitution to provide for it. When we found that an amendment of the Constitution was necessary, we accordingly passed a Bill, and I am pleased to notice that, although we were so badly beaten at the referendum, the Victorian Government, and other State Governments, are going to confer upon us the increased industrial power which we asked for. Although the Victorian Government fought so bitterly against us, 1 see that there is a proposition in the last Governor’s Speech that the power shall be conferred upon the Federation.

Mr OZANNE:

– I know that the State Government promise many things, and carry out very few of them; but, still, that proposition is contained in the recent Governor’s Speech. When we turn to the Fusion programme, what do we find? The Leader of the Opposition went to Ballarat and told the Women’s National League that the party were going to give them a programme which would astonish the world. Apparently, it more than astonished the honorable member for Flinders, because, when he read it over, he described it in these words-

All the bones had been carefully removed) and nothing left but a kind of gelatinous compound, political food for infants and invalids, warranted not to cause the slightest inconvenience to the weakest digestion.

Mr Riley:

– Who said that?

Mr OZANNE:

– The honorable member for Flinders. Continuing, he said -

Unless they could arrive at something the people could grasp and understand as a definite, clear, and progressive policy, and not a vague tissue of generalities, it might in the long run be best for Australia if the Labour party had another three years’ tenure of office.

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

– But what were the causes ?

Mr HARPER:

– It matters not what the causes were; if honorable members will restrain themselves a little, I shall show them that I am riot taking an unreasonably unfavorable view of the position. The revenue last year was estimated at £19,500,000, and the returns issued the other day show- that it is now something like £22,000,000. The tide, it seems, is still rising, and the .Government, so far as the Governor-General’s Speech is concerned, gives us no promise of any consideration of the great question of ways and means for the future. They are bringing forward new schemes for expenditure every day, the latest, estimated at £500,000, for a maternity grant. I shall not discuss that grant, nor shall I discuss the merits of other items of proposed expenditure ; and I merely mention the fact so that we may get, if possible, a clear view of our present position and of our prospects when times change, as they are bound to da Last year, the revenue was estimated at £19,500,000, but our expenditure kept pace ; and, from what we can see, there will be the same process in connexion with our revenue of £22,000,000. I wish to ask the Treasurer this question: Has he, as the responsible head of the Government and the leader of his party, ever set down on paper the obligations of this country, incurred not only by the present Ministry, but also by their predecessors? Has he ever set down the amounts that he will have to meet ere long, and asked himself where he is going to find the money? I have tried in vain to find in the speeches of the Prime Minister and his colleagues any clue to the method by which the grand total of the commitments of the Commonwealth is to be met. Therefore, I have been driven in upon my own resources, and have tried to compile a list, which I shall put before honorable members. I am conscious of its incompleteness. I do not think that it covers the whole of the contemplated expenditure. But it is, at all events, sufficient to make us pause.

There is one thing that of course stands out as a primary duty of this country, in its own interest, ‘and for its own preservation. That -is the organization of defence.

The policy of military and naval defence now being carried out is not that of any one party, but of all parties. The proposals were initiated by the late Government, and are being realized by the present Government. I believe that the people of the country will insist that whatever happens the policy that has been introduced in that regard shall be continued. That being so, defence is not a party matter. But defence depends upon finance. Like almost everything else, it comes back to a matter of money. One would therefore be entitled to expect that in facing the great question of ways and means, the Government would have endeavoured to pursue in regard to finance a policy of a non-party character. I feel sure that had the Prime Minister, when he came into power, with an unexampled majority in both Houses, realized his responsibility, and invited, as he might well have done, the aid and assistance of men on this side in settling the finances of the country on a reasonable, businesslike, and proper foundation, he would have secured effective support from all sides. I can say for myself, and I believe also for others, that we should have been only too pleased had the right honorable gentleman taken that view of his position. Had he done so, he would not have adopted the course that he has followed, and which, ere I sit down, I shall show is not. the success which he and his supporters desire to make us think that it is. It is defective in many respects, and, in view of the obligations which have been incurred, will be positively dangerous if continued. The estimate which I have before me deals first with defence. Lord Kitchener’s scheme for a seven years’ period involved an expenditure of £1,834,000. But Senator Pearce, the Minister of Defence, said in the Senate not long ago -

So far as I have been able to judge, Lord1 Kitchener’s estimate of ^1,800,000 will be exceeded. I’ believe that in round numbers it may be said that the Defence Force when in full operation will cost us not less than £2,000,000 per annum. 1 may say., in passing, that I believe that probably £2,000,000 is considerably under the true estimate. However, I do not wish to overstate the case. I would rather give . my honorable friends opposite the benefit of any doubt, and let the difference be on their side. I now turn to the naval scheme. It seems to me -that if the Government proceed as- they have been doing with our financial affairs, drifting on and enjoying the prosperous day while it lasts - following the maxim of the Epicurean, “ Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die” - they will be doing a serious injury to the interests of this country.

– It is marvellous how much honorable members opposite know about England and how little they know about their own country. They can tell us all about British statesmen, and about what they ought to do. But I fear that I am digressing somewhat. The PostmasterGeneral has stated that he would mot borrow for the purpose of building ships of war. His reason, I apprehend, is that these ships will be obsolete in twenty years. Or is it that they are to be used for defending our shores or for attacking the enemies of the Empire?

Mr Frazer:

– My reason is that I regard expenditure upon defence as a national insurance, and I think that we are justified in paying the premium.

Mr HARPER:

– But does not the PostimasterGeneral see that payment for the Fleet-the possession of which is the primary consideration - may well be distributed over a term of forty or sixty years, and may be advantageously provided for by the establishment of a small sinking fund representing½ per cent. upon its capital cost?

Mr West:

– No.

Mr HARPER:

– The honorable member is satisfied, and I am delighted. That is the best way to silence him. In addition to the £20.000,000 annually which we are now. expending, we have to face ob ligations during the next seven years representing another £10,000,000 annually, or an increase of 50 per cent. That is on the assumption that we borrow £50,000.000. Are honorable members opposite possessed of such marvellous powers that they may be able to say, “ Heigh, presto, come forth,” and thus secure the money that is required ? If we do not raise £50,000,000 within the next seven years, the whole scheme for the formation of the Fleet will break down. My view is that the head of the Government has not realized his position ; that he has not taken advantage of his unexampled opportunity ; and that he has lost the chance of a lifetime, not merely from the stand-point of his own reputation hut from that of his country’s good. Although the Government have thus acted, they have at various times professed great anxiety in connexion with a cognate subject to that with which I have been dealing, namely, the taking over of the State debts.I was very much interested when I heard a chaffing allusion made by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition in connexion with the appointment of an Inter-StateCommission. The honorable member for Ballarat was reminded that in several Vice-Regal utterances his Government had stated that it was their intention to appoint such a tribunal. To the best of my recollection, when the honorable member interjected that they had not the power to do it, the Prime Minister replied, “ That is not the way with our party. When we have the power, we will do it.” But what do I find in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech? Only the mildest possible reference to it. We are told -

It is hoped that an early opportunity will present itself for settling the question of the consolidation of State debts.

Now let me read the statement which was put into the. Governor- General’s mouth on the 1st July, 1910, by the present Government. Honorable members will recollect that that was immediately after the taking of the first referenda.

My advisers view with satisfaction the result of the referenda on the financial agreement and State debts.

The question of consolidating the debts of the States is becoming more urgent as time passes. It is hoped an early opportunity will present itself to enable all necessary steps being taken to deal with this question.

That strikes a good bold note for a start.

Mr Archibald:

– That is as far as you can go, too.

Mr HARPER:

– If I were a little younger, I might challenge the honorable member on that point. I come now to a year later. In the Governor-General’s Speech delivered on 5th September, 191 1, the following appears - honorable members will see how the tone goes down -

My advisers regret that no settlement of the question of the consolidation of State debts has been arrived at.

They never made any attempt to arrive at it -

The matter continues to engage the most serious consideration of the Government.

– No.

Mr HARPER:

– I have said it.

Mr West:

– A man of the honorable member’s age ought to be respectful, anyhow.

Mr HARPER:

Let me now refer to the note issue, which is the Government’s one little ewe lamb. We are told, in the Governor-General’s Speech, that it is a great success. During this debate, the Prime Minister, as well as the mover and seconder of the AddressinReply, emphasized this point ; and the Honorary Minister, by way of interjection, asserted that the Opposition are becoming so envious of its success that, in a very short time, they will be claiming it as their own.

Mr HARPER:

– As I feel somewhat exhausted, I ask your leave, sir, to finish my speech sitting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may do so if he so desires.

Mr HARPER:

– I thank you, sir. I shall not avail myself of the permission unless I feel it necessary to do so. Before I proceed to deal with the question of the note issue, and in order to prevent possible misunderstanding of my remarks with regard to the Commonwealth expenditure foreshadowed in the future, I wish to say that I purposely avoided criticising the amounts of or the necessity for the proposed expenditure. I leave that for discussion on the Budget. I meant to deal only with the question of the liabilities which are spoken of, the character of which I do not inquire into at this stage.

I should like to have heard from the Prime Minister something more than a mere allegation that the note issue is a success. T observe that the right honorable gentleman is not present. I wish he were, because I desired to ask him some questions on the subject. I personally am of opinion that when a vote of want of confidence has been tabled against a Government, it is the duty of the head of the Government to be in his place.

Mr Tudor:

– What, all the time?

Mr HARPER:

– Yes, all the time. I say so deliberately. In the old days, when I was trained as a politician, it was invariably the case that the chief Minister, and his colleagues were present during the debate upon a motion of no-confidence in the Government. In such circumstances, I say that the least that members of the Government can do is to be present to hear what is said, and to judge of the character’ of the criticisms which may be passed upon them.

Mr West:

– The honorable member does not wish that they should have to be sent to an asylum.

Mr HARPER:

– I take it as a compliment from the honorable member for East Sydney that what has been said on this side has driven him silly. T wish, further, to say that [ purposely refrained from going into the question connected with the defence of. the Commonwealth except in regard to the character of the obligations undertaken. I did so because T have to complain that none of us know what is in the mind of the Government on this question. The only light T have had on the naval policy of the Government is contained in a statement made, not by the Prime Minister, but by Senator Pearce. In another place, Senator Pearce gave his view of what is- involved in the Government’s naval policy. I wish to put this in because it may be said by honorable members opposite who follow me, “ We are only going in for the fleet unit. That is all we are committed to.” On the 9th of November last Senator Pearce said in the only deliverance I have been able to find which throws any light on the intentions of the Government in this matter -

We had a report from Admiral Henderson as to what, in his opinion, were the best lines on which to base the Commonwealth naval policy. In their naval policy the Government are endeavouring to follow these lines, as far as the recommendations made cover the immediate future. In his report Admiral Henderson saw fit to refer to a period of time covering twenty-one years, which he divided into three periods of seven years each.

The honorable senator was wrong in that, as Admiral Henderson dealt with a period which he divided into four periods of five years each; but perhaps it comes to about the same thing. Senator Pearce went on to. say -

So far the Government are directing their attention to the first period of seven years; although, as Admiral Henderson points out, what is done to-day ought to be done with aview to the period ahead and the development which will follow from the taking of the pro-, posed steps.

I claim that that shows that the Government, while necessarily dealing only with the present, are doing so on the supposition that the policy adopted is to be continued and carried out. As a matter of fact, and, as I have already said, it stands to reason thatwe cannot and dare not stop. We have taken up a certain position with respect to the Government of the Mother Country, and in the eyes of the world. It is a right and proper position. We say that we are going to defend our country, and we must pay the cost. My objection ‘ to our friends of the Government is that they, apparently, have not counted the cost. I say that we must count the cost which we shall be called upon to pay and provide the money.

Banks with head offices in Sydney strongly deprecate any alteration in the gold reserve to be held against the note issue of the Commonwealth Government as agreed after a very full discussion between yourself and representatives of the Australian banks. I will remind you that a very large proportion of notes outstanding are held by banks themselves as part of their cash reserves.

Mr. Hallimore, the Melbourne chairman of the Associated Banks, also wrote to the Prime Minister. I need not read the whole of his letter, which has been in Hansard before, but I will read the following passage from- it -

The effect of the proposal has not yet been sufficiently ascertained.

That was the proposal to confine the amount of the reserve to one- fourth of £7,000,000, with 100 per cent, for the balance -

From the public returns it would appear that a total issue of £9,718,000 was in existence on the 25th October last. Of this sum it is estimated that notes amounting to about £3,682,000 are in the hands of the public, the banks holding upwards of £6,000,000. The purpose of the Government in holding a reserve of pound for pound beyond £7,000,000 was understood to be the protection of noteholders by insuring a payment in full in coin of notes presented. If, however, the fixed proportion is altered as now suggested, and the banks for any reason found it necessary to materially reduce the amount of their Commonwealth notes it would seem that the reduced gold reserve would not suffice to pay in full the notes held by the banks. The banks have freely given their assistance - which they have done honestly and fairly - in regard to the establishment of a Government note issue. They hold at present upwards of 60 per cent, of the issue. It is, however, a matter of considerable disappointment and regret to find that it is proposed to make a change in conditions which they have regarded as essential both for their own protection and that of the public at large.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What was the date of that?

Mr HARPER:

– The 4th December of last year. I would say to the Prime Minister that he is committing an act of political dishonesty if he does not keep up the reserve. He will be practically taking from the banks a forced loan of £6,000,000, and lending it out at 3$ per cent. He will be getting a beggarly amount out of it which is not worth considering in the light of our public credit and honour. I feel that in that respect, having taken away £10,000,000 which the banks would otherwise have had in their coffers, and which would have enabled them to keep up their advances in accordance with their usual practice, the Prime Minister, his Government, and his party, have done this country a grievous wrong. Whenever the fact becomes known - if what I am saying secures publicity - it will have a great effect. Because the facts are incontestable. To claim that a measure that does these things is a success is ridiculous. I say that the coin held by the Treasurer, as far as it is represented by notes issued in excess of £7,000,000 ought to be retained in the Treasury, so that these notes should be in Australia, as in Canada, equal to gold certificates ; and that the hankers should be able to take them into their balance-sheets as equivalent to coin, knowing that they have only to send to the Treasury for coin if they want it. What has been done with this money ? We are informed that it has been lent to the States. I told the Prime Minister last year that I thought that his views about the State debts question were such that it was a wrong thing for him to grant loans to the States. He ought to have made them face the music of finding their money elsewhere, if he wanted to come to terms with them for the transfer of their debts. Nothing does more to convince me that the right honorable gentleman does not mean to touch the State debts than his action in lending the States money. I have been greatly interested in tracing out a peculiar series of transactions in connexion with the note issues of which I should like to have an explanation, and pending which I do not desire to characterize as I should do under other circumstances. I confess that I was put on the track as to these peculiar transactions by the Prime Minister himself. The Age asserts that Hansard is not read by the people. I confess that I do not read it very often, but I occasionally turn to it, and sometimes discover in it some interesting items. In pursuit of information concerning the note issue and its alleged success, as claimed by the Prime Minister, I turned to Hansard to see what the right honorable gentleman had to say in respect of it when making his Budget statement last year. I found that on 26th October, 191 1, he described the actual position, and, foreshadowing the introduction of a Bill which was to increase the public convenience, he spoke very strongly of its success. The Australian Bank Notes Tax Act came into operation on 1st July, 1911, and since that date the banks have ceased to issue their own notes. The Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard, Vol. LXI., page 1900, said of the Australian notes issue -

At the close of the financial year the Australian notes in circulation amounted to £8,031,217. In addition, the fund .had received interest amounting. to £6,400. The total amount to be dealt with thus amounted to £8,037.626. We disposed of the amount in the following way, viz., we obtained gold amounting to £3,352,281 ; we made investments, of which I shall give details presently, amounting t0 ^4,642,500; we held on current account in the banks £^,346, and we had spent in purchase of note forms and other expenses £23,4°Q. . Under this Act we aTe required to hold not less than 25 per cent, in go’d up to the first £7.000,000. and £r for £1 in go’d above £7.000.000. We should have complied with the statutory requirement if we had held 2,781,217 sovereigns, but as we held 3,352,281 sovereigns we held 571,064 sovereigns more than we were compelled to hold. The investments I have referred to were : - New South Wales funded stock, ^1,000,000; Victorian Government Debentures, £686,000; Western Australian stock, ^650,000; Tasmanian Inscribed Stock, ,£200,000 ; Fixed deposits : New South Wales Government, ,£1,000,000; sundry banks, ,£1,106,500. Total, ^4,642,500.

There is no doubt as to the accuracy of those figures. 1 have here the AuditorGeneral’s report, in which he certifies that they correctly set out what was the position on the 30th June, 191 1, so that we have therefore a starting-point. Now comes the funny part. The Prime Minister went on to say -

The total annual rate of interest which was being earned by the fund at 30th June last was ^157,070. After 30th June, 191 1, the demand for notes continued -

The right honorable member was speaking on 26th October, 191 1 - and on 30th September, 1911, the total circulation amounted to ^9,421,775. Probably at an early date it will exceed ,£10,000,000. On an issue of ^10,000,000 the Act requires that we shall hold in gold not less than ^4,750,000, or 47-5 Per cent, of the circulation. As we were holding a greater reserve than that required by the law, I directed that while the Treasury was not to part with any gold except in redemption of notes- which, I may say, is the only purpose for which it could be parted with except in the case of investments - no further gold should be obtained in respect of additional issues until the sovereigns in the Treasury were only slightly more than the statutory requirement. I felt quite justified in this, because- two or three million pounds of notes would have to be presented for redemption before the circulation was reduced to the limit of ^7,000,000. Thus, the Treasury would have ample warning, and would be able to make its arrangements for obtaining gold even if such an extraordinary demand was made upon it.

This is rather cryptic -

At 25th October, 1911, the gold held by the Treasury amounted to ^4,686,148, the note issue amounting to ^9,718,084. The investments, of the Notes Fund -

I particularly ask honorable members to note this - were then the same as at 30th June, namely, £4,642,500, but. in addition, we had invested in Tasmanian inscribed stock an amount of ^300,000, and in Victorian debentures an amount of ,£294,000. Also we had made an additional fixed deposit in a bank amounting to ^25,000. These additional investments amounted to ,£619,000, and have been made temporarily out of the General Trust Fund. I have, however, directed that as soon as the amount at the credit of the Australian Notes

Account is sufficient, the investments shall be transferred from the General Trust Fund to the Australian Notes Account. We may expect that, owing to additional issues and receipts of interest, the transfer can be made at a very early date, and when it has been made the annual rate of interest earned by the Notes Account will be ,£179,695.

In justice to the right honorable gentleman at the head of the Government, I ought to say that he was not in Australia when this procedure was adopted, so that, as far as I know, he was not the author of it, unless it was entered upon before 30th June of that year, or after his return. The present Postmaster-General was then in charge of the Treasury, and the present Attorney-General was acting Prime Minister. Those two honorable members were discharging the duties of the Prime Minister during his absence. The right honorable gentleman returned to Australia just before Parliament opened in September, 19 ci, and on 26th October following he made the statement I have just read. I was puzzled to know what it meant, but I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the Government had violated the law in its essence. I am not a lawyer, and possibly I may be in error; but I have come to the conclusion that the Government had defeated the intention of Parliament, and had broken the law in its essential principles, even if they had not technically done so. That is a very serious matter. I do not know of any parliamentary offence that can be compared with that of misleading the House. I would not for a moment’ attribute that to the Prime Minister, but I mention the fact so that the matter may be cleared up. I did not content myself with these statements, but spent several days very laboriously ferreting out this thing. It is not an easy matter for an outsider to deal with the public accounts. I found a most extraordinary state of things. This fund had apparently been played with, because in the Auditor-General’s report, which I have here, he distinctly shows that certainly on one occasion when he made an examination of the position of the Note Issue Department the coin had fallen below the statutory amount in proportion to the notes which had been issued. Th’.s has nothing to do with the question of the investment of the money. I hope that I am not trespassing too much on honorable members’ time, but this is rather a serious business. I quote now from the AuditorGeneral’s report, which appeared in the

Commonwealth Gazette, No. 33, dated 8th May, 1912. He gives particulars of his examination on 30th June, 191 1, to which I have already referred. He gives particulars of other examinations he made, and he generally says what the proportion’ of notes to coin was. But I quote his own words concerning an examination he made on the 14th November, 191 1 -

Singe the 30th June last a number of visits have been made to further check the gold coin reserve, the total gold verified on the 14th November, 1911 -

I ask honorable members to note the date - the j 4th November, tq 11 - and the fact that Mr. Fisher’s speech was made on 26th October - being £4,692,077, of which sum £4,668,000 was placed under seal ; £23,000 was seen in the Inner Treasury; and £1,077 was held by the Treasury Teller on account of the reserve. As the notes in circulation then amounted to £10,076,335, the reserve was equal to about 46 per cent. of this amount.

But Mr. Israel does not go on to add what I have added. I took out the figures, and I find that the statutory reserve of coin which should have been in the Treasury on the date of that examination was not £4,692,077, which Mr. Israel says was there, but £4,826,335, so that the gold reserve was short by £134,248. I am not now discussing how the money was afterwards invested, but the fact that the coin which, over the signature of the AuditorGeneral, is said to have been held at the date of that examination was £134,248 short of the amount required by law. That needs answering or explanation. To go back to my question as to how the money was disposed of, a very strange thing Happened in that connexion. The right honorable member for Swan was last year very exacting in making inquiries as to the Trust Fund. His appetite for information is sometimes insatiable. The honorable member for Parkes was equally persistent. It is really almost laughable to consider the way in which this matter was handled, lt remains to be seen why it was so handled. I find that, on the 31st October last, the honorable member for Parkes asked the Prime Minister the following questions upon notice -

The difference between the amount of the notes issued (£9,718,084) and the gold coin reserve (£4,686,148) being £5,031,936, will he say on how much of the latter sum the Treasury is actually receiving interest?
Will he say to whom those moneys out of the latter sum have been lent, and at what rates of interest are the borrowers being charged on the several advances?

To this, the Prime Minister replied -

£4,959,048. This sum is arrived at in the following manner, viz. : -

Then followed a list of investments, which is the same as on the 30th June already referred to. But the sting, as usual, is in the tail. There is an item of £316,548 described as

Portion of investment of £619,000, as explained below.

That is money which was received at some period, which was paid into the Trust Fund, and, instead of being invested for the note issue, was left there in order, as I consider, to conceal the fact that if the Department had paid for these investments it would have brought the gold reserve considerably below the statutory amount. This is the explanation -

The amount of £316,548 is portion of an amount of £619,000 which has been invested from the general trust funds in the following way, viz. : -

As funds were not available in the Notes Fund when the investments were made, the amount was invested temporarily out of the General Trust Funds. As funds accumulate in the Australian Notes Account transfers are made to the Notes Account.

When I read these answers I am irresistibly reminded of the Prime Minister’s first Budget, when he balanced the income with the expenditure to a penny. I come now to the experience of the right honorable member for Swan some three weeks later. Upon the 12th December of the same year, as well be seen by reference to Hansard, page 4123, the right honorable member asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amount has been received for Commonwealth notes up to the 30th November, 1911 ?
How much was in the Treasury in gold on the 30th November, 191 1?
How much was invested on the 30th November, 191 1, and in what securities, and at what rate of interest?
How much was in the banks on the 30th November,1911, and what interest does it bear? Is it at call, or for fixed periods?

The Prime Minister’s replies were -

Amount received for Australian notes to 30th November, 191 1, £9,883,969.
Gold held in Treasury in respect of Australian notes on 30th November, 1911, £4,697,034.
Investments in State Government securities at 30th November, 1911 -

New South Wales Funded Stock, £1,000,000, due 10th August, 1919, at 3¾ per cent. per annum.

Victorian Government debentures (face value, £1,000,000), £980,000, due 1st May, 1921, at 3½ per cent. per annum.

Western Australian Stock, £650,000, due 1st January, 1926, at 33/4 per cent. per annum.

Tasmanian Inscribed Stock, £470,000, due 1st April, 1921, to1st October, 1921, at 3¾ per cent. per annum.

Fixed Deposit with State Government of New South Wales, £1,000,000, due 13th to 21st June, 1912, at 3 per cent. per annum.

Total - £4,100,000. 4.(a) On fixed deposit in banks : -

Sydney, £381,500, at 3 per cent. per annum.

Melbourne, £400,000, at 3 per cent. per annum.

Brisbane, £175,000, at 3 per cent. per annum.

Perth, £150,000, at 3 per cent. per annum.

Total - £1,106,500.

In banks at call, not bearing interest, £5,616.

To say the least of it, with the information before me, it appear to me that the replies of the Prime Minister were rather disingenuous. As Hansard will show, there is no greater stickler for the sacredness of the Trust Funds than is the Prime Minister. I recollect the occasion upon which the honorable member for Ballarat, as head of the Government, proposed to temporarily transfer from the Trust Funds the sum of £1,500,000 for the construction of ships of the Fleet unit. Thereupon, the present Prime Minister rose in his place and repelled the idea with great warmth. He said that these Trust Funds should be kept sacred to the purpose for which they were set apart, and that he, as a trustee, would not consent to anything of the kind proposed. Upon other occasions he has taken up a similar attitude. Yet what do we find? To my mind, as a layman, the law is perfectly clear on the subject. Section 8 of the Australian Notes Act reads -

The moneys derived from the issue of Australian notes and any interest thereon shall be placed to the credit of an account called the Australian Notes Account, which shall be a Trust Account within the meaning of the Audit Acts 1901-1906.
Part of the moneys standing to the credit of the Australian Notes Account shall be held by the Treasurer in gold coin for the purposes of the reserve provided for in section 9 of this Act, and the Treasurer may invest the remainder, or any part thereof -
1. On deposit in any bank; or
2. in securities of the United Kingdom,or of the Commonwealth, or of a State. 1 submit that when the Treasurer had a surplus in hand, if he did not keep it in gold, he should have placed it in a bank at interest, so that he might be in a position to get the money if he required it, as he might do if a demand suddenly arose for gold. That is the whole object of the provision which I have quoted. It is no answer to me to say that nothing has happened. That is what many defaulters have said. I remember the case of a high official in a bank in Melbourne who was the custodian of the treasury. I believe that in every other respect he was a thoroughly honest man. But he observed that a certain quantity of gold was lying in the bank earning no interest. He thought it was a great shame that it should lie there idle, and accordingly he took the liberty of abstracting it and substituting copper for it. He invested that money, and did very well, and ultimately he repaid it all. He did not mean to swindle the bank. But where did he land ? In gaol. I say that for any trustee - it does not matter whether he is going to make a profit or not - to use Trust Funds in that way is extremely reprehensible. If the object was to make money out of it for the public, he would be doing a very wrong thing. These funds were there for a purpose. It might be that they would never be required for the purpose, but, inasmuch as it was provided by Statute law that they were to be there for that purpose, no official, and no political head, has any right to depart by a hair’s breadth from the obligations of the trust deed in any circumstances whatever. I should like to hear the explanation of these transactions, and I hope it will be satisfactory. If it is not, it is a very bad example to set to the officials in the Public Service, and others. If the law is not to be supreme, if it is not to be obeyed, not only in the letter, but in the spirit, if the intentions of Parliament are not to be carried out because an official or a Minister thinks it is better to do something else, we might as well shut up Parliament. In making this inquiry I was like a man steering a ship by dead reckoning, but I got four standing points. I got the statement of the 30th June, 1911, as a good start, because the figures are audited by the Auditor-General ; I got the statement made to the honorable member for Parkes on the 31st October; I obtained the statement made by the right honorable member for Swan on the 12th December; and, last, I obtained the Prime Minister’s statement of the 26th October. That is the speech which I read to the House. Honorable members will see how the amounts of the investments came in. There was no mention of those represented by £619,000 until after the Treasurer came back. I suppose the Treasurer and the Under-Treasurer came back, and finding the fund in this position, set about putting it right. It is a great pity, if that is the case, that the honorable gentleman did not make a clean breast of it and clear the matter up. I suppose that he will contend that he did, but he did not elucidate the circumstances to the House. There is one fallacy of his position to which I shall allude. In part of the speech which I read, the honorable gentleman said that if there was a rush for notes, he would have time to get the money. That statement shows that he has not realized the difference between immediate and ultimate ability to pay. If a captain of a ship that ‘is caught in a tornado lets the tornado come down on him, he finds . it too late then to reef in his sails. He must reef them in before the gale catches him; and, unfortunately, in financial matters the gales very often come without much notice. A panicky feeling enters the public mind, the people without any reason become uneasy, and want gold, either from the banks or the Government. Th’ey may be suspicious that they cannot get gold, although the suspicion may be quite unfounded. The banks are suddenly called on, the people begin to withdraw their money and demand gold for their notes. The gold is then demanded from the Government, and’ that is the very time when, the Government, might not be able to raise any money at all on the securities they held against thenote issue. It has happened in London that men could not get an advance on consols, and the same thing1 has happened in New York, where securities could not be realized except at a ruinous price. What is the good of telling; a man who wants gol’d for his notes that i6 will be all right next week or next month when we get the money out from England, or some other place? That showsthe necessity for strictness in this provision. There should’ be no doubt about the money being in the Treasury, and it should be known to be there. These are matters of which Parliament ought to take . notice. I can say, from my experience of past days in the State Parliament, when- therewas.no Caucus-bound’ majority, that any Government that could not clear up a statement of this sort would be turned out incontinently, because even their own supporters would not sanction it. I am assuming, of course, that it can be explained. The only explanation I think is that, in their eager desire to show that the notebusiness was successful, they found when they went into it that, after all, it was not going to be anything very great, if they were confined to the terms of the contract.

The Australian Notes Act has been singularly successful, notwithstanding the opposition to it and the fact that honorable members opposite suggested that it was dangerous legislation.

We only said it was dangerous if the Government did not keep a proper reserve, and I have shown that they need looking after, to say the least of it. The honorable gentleman also said -

The point I wish to emphasize is that# the basic principle of our note issue is that neither the banks nor private persons are asked to bring their gold to the Treasury and accept notes instead of it. If at any time they want gold they can bring their notes back to the Treasury and get gold for them.

In a rather undignified way, the Prime Minister stated by interjection that there was plenty of gold in the Treasury, and that if the notes were presented by the lorry load, they could be paid. The honorable member for Indi suggested that were the banks to make a demand on the Treasury for gold - to which they were entitled according to his own statement - the Treasurer would retaliate by withdrawing the Government balances in the hands of the banks. The return which I have prepared shows that there is very little money with the banks. In the middle of June of last year there was £1,100,000, and on the 26th June of this year only £425,000 with the banks. The Treasurer, instead of leaving his money with the banks, is putting it into investments of a long-dated character. It is possible that the banks would prefer the Government to take away its money. Bankers are timid men, and they might argue, “ The Treasurer has deposited £200,000 for a period of twelve months, but if he becomes hard up, he may say, I want that money, and therefore I must break my deposit.’ “ Politicians have done that before. It might be considerably inconvenient, for a bank to have to find £200,000 under such circumstances. Apparently, the Treasurer intends to invest his surplus money in fixed securities of long date, but if he suddenly finds himself in want of money, he will’ have to pay a ruinous price for it. Any attempt to sell his securities, even in England, would bring down the value of Australian securities generally, both here and in the Old Country. Parliament has empowered him to reduce the reserve behind the Commonwealth notes to 25 per cent, on the whole; amount issued, and he has promised that it shall not be less than 40 per cent, until after the next election. Probably he finds it necessary to keep a reserve of between 25 and 40 per cent, as a working balance. We are entitled to a full and complete explanation, so that Parliament may know’ the position. At some future time a Government might find itself in want of money through lack of foresight, and might use the 25 per cent, reserve, making the currency inconvertible, in which case the country would be in a helpless position. Reverting to the statements of the Prime Minister, although in; one column of Hansard he is reported as saying that the banks have only got to bring their notes to the Treasury to get their money, on the next he says -

I go so far as to say what I recently said on the platform in the electorate of Werriwa, that the banks are too intelligent and too careful of their interests to make a raid on the Treasury.

It is a “ raid on the Treasury “ to make a demand for the repayment of one’s own money !

Because such an act would undoubtedly recoil upon themselves.

A distinct threat.

But if they did make a disloyal attack upon the Treasury -

It is disloyal to ask for your own ! If t ‘ went to the Treasury, and it were inconvenient for the Prime Minister, or any one in his position to pay, he would say, “You disloyal man, 3’ou blackguard., I shall make your demand recoil on your own head.” -

But if they did make a disloyal attack on the Treasury we could meet it, and afterwards -

Here comes the sting in the tail again - they would require to be dealt with as people should be dealt with who endeavoured to do an injury to the community.

Good heavens ! A man goes to the Treasury and says, “ I want my 1:0,000 sovereigns “ for Commonwealth notes; the Treasurer has not the money, and says, “ Clear out, or I will have you put out.”. It seems almost madness. These statements are on the same page in Hansard. On one side is the statement, “ Come one, come all, your:’ money is here ready for you”; while on the other side we are told -

If they did make a disloyal attack on the Treasury we could meet it, and afterwards they would require to be dealt with as people should be dealt with who endeavour to do an injury to the community.

That is a curious idea. I do not know how far that will enhance in the minds of the public, or the bank’s, or anybody, confidence in this note issue. The fact is that the banks have behaved well. They pushed the Commonwealth issue as they pushed their own notes. They do not pretend that they do it because they are loyal, or disloyal, or anything else. They say that it is good business, that it is more convenient than to send coin to their branches. But suppose that all the banks said, “ Very well, we are not going to keep any notes, but to pay in coin.” and that they had no notes in their tills, how long would the Treasurer’s note issue continue? That is the treatment which the banks get. The Government supporters suggest that the bankers might rush the Treasury; and the Prime Minister, after saying that they have only to come and ask for their money and they will get it, says that they will be dealt with as disloyal men if they do. It is time that we understood where we are. It is time that the people in this country understood the position. This policy of talk, talk, talk–

Mr West:

– Ask leave to take another day. There is plenty of time.

Mr HARPER:

– I feel greatly nattered to have the honorable member here all the evening. On page 113 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said -

Up to the 30th June of the year we shall have doubled that amount. Up to the end of June, allowing for £35,000 expenses, we shall have £180,000 net income, which is being reinvested, and is earning interest itself, as a double protection against the presentation of notes at any time.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is that £180,000 after paying all expenses?

Mr FISHER:

Mr RILEY:

– They did a ‘little better in Western Australia when the chance presented itself. I have complained about the length of speeches made by honorable members. 1 believe we can condense our speeches into a shorter space than we have hitherto done, and as I do not want to offend by making a long speech myself, I shall content myself by saying that T shall be only too glad to record a vote for this Ministry, who refused to send the military to Brisbane. I hope there will be a division on the question, and there will be one if I can force it. This is the first time in the history of the Commonwealth or of any of the States that a Government have been in power with the backbone and the courage to say, “ We will not send the military to put down what is called a riot, but what was really a disturbance caused by one of the subinspectors in the ranks of the police.”

– The honorable member is doing what I have said he may not do.

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not desire to refer to the removal of the mace. What I wish to say is that the sovereignty of Parliament, of which, the mace was the symbol-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have twice told the honorable member that only on a specific motion dealing with my action may he refer to the removal of the mace. If he insists on referring to the matter now, I must take a course that will prevent him from doing so.

Mr FOWLER:

– I wish to point out that the Prime Minister and his Government, at the time of the Brisbane strike, were prepared to relegate the rightful authority of this Parliament to the Trades Hall at Brisbane. The substitution of industrial for political control is the inner meaning of syndicalism and the general strike. Those who expound syndicalism point out that it is the method by which the workers will achieve the control of the industries, and, incidentally, of all the affairs of the country. It is a reasonable deduction that the Prime Minister and his Government, in indorsing the strike at Brisbane, are, with the syndicalists, prepared to put aside the authority of Parliament in favour of that of the statesmen of the Trades Hall.

An honorable member on this side remarked a few nights ago that one could not very well criticise a Government which had produced a surplus of £2,000,000; but, to my mind, the fact that such a surplus has been piled up without regard to the financial necessities of the country, is a matter for condemnation. It has been the practice of this Government to put surplus money into Trust Funds. I contend that it is opposed to all the canons of taxation that the Government should do this kind of thing. They may plead that the money is rolling in upon them. There is no doubt that it has done so. But I do not think that they can claim any very special credit for the nourishing state of the finances. The good rains that Providence has sent us probably had more to do with that than anything else, and the way in which the money is splashed about is a fair indication that they are not concerned so much about conserving the resources of the country as exploiting them to their fullest extent. In their anxiety to spend this money, they are embarking on almost chimerical schemes. The Northern Territory question is undoubtedly a very serious one for this country. We have there a problem requiring the most complete statesmanship, the most serious consideration, apart from party altogether, but we find the Government proposing to adopt a method of settling the land which has not’ yet been tested with good results anywhere in the modern world, and that is the system of leasehold occupation. In Western Australia, if in any part of the Commonwealth, the Government might very well have learned a lesson. There we have a Labour Government, and one of the leading planks of the Labour party of the State is no further alienation of Crown lands. I may say that I always regarded it as quixotical, and it kept me from taking any part in the Labour movement of the State. A Labour Government has been in office there for over eighteen months, but has not yet taken the slightest step to reduce that important principle of the party to practice. What does that mean? It means that members of that Government are so fully seized of the injury which would occur in applying this plank of their platform that they have refrained from doing so. There is no doubt that it is not a very courageous attitude for them to adopt, perhaps not even an honest attitude, but it is a very significant commentary upon the weakness of this policy of non-alienation of Crown Lands, that a Labour Government in a young State, with a large amount of land settlement before it, should be very careful indeed to refrain from putting into practice this one important phase of its own platform. I would not mind these experiments so much, although they may cost the country a great deal, if the Government were carrying out its obligations in other directions, but that is just what I find it is not doing. The report of Admiral

Henderson on the Naval Forces laid before the members of this House a year ago contains some very important recommendations indeed. Among other things, it points out that two primary bases ought to be established in Australia, namely, one at Sydney and the other at Fremantle. The Fremantle base is at least as important as the Sydney base. To my mind, it is even more important, lying, as it does, at the very front door of Australia towards Europe. Admiral Henderson is very definite in connexion with the importance of establishing a large naval base at Cockburn Sound, near Fremantle. This is what he says -

The harbor of Cockburn Sound, including Owen’s Anchorage and Jervoise Bay, to b examined thoroughly as soon as -possible by experts, with a view to locating the site of the future Naval Dockyard. The site should include space for graving docks, building slips, work-shops, storehouses, and all plant, &c, for the building of ships and for the repairs and maintenance of a Fleet. It appeared to me that a site in the vicinity of Jervoise Bay was best suited for Naval Dockyard requirements. A channel for deep-draught ships would have to be dredged through the Parmelia and Success Banks, and slight dredging would be required in other places. It would probably also be necessary that a short .breakwater should be thrown out from Woodman’s Point.

Admiral Henderson, speaking of this naval base, indicates that the needs of the Fleet will be met by - 1st. The completion of the dock now building at Fremantle and of the repair and refitting shops proposed to be attached thereto at as early a date as possible. 2nd. The temporary provision of a base for six destroyers and three submarines in the Swan River. 3rd. The dredging of the channel, so that large vessels can find a safe anchorage in Cockburn Sound. 4th. The provision of adequate reserves of coal and oil fuel, &c.

In another part of his report, Admiral Henderson again refers to the matter. On page 12, he says -

Port Western is a very good harbor, and until Cockburn Sound (Fremantle), which is far more important from a strategical point of view, is ready, this port should be utilized by the Western Division as one of its principal anchorages, and as a place where ships should be able to replenish with coal or oil fuel.

What I have read goes to show that Admiral Henderson was very anxious that the work of establishing a naval base at Fremantle should be undertaken as early as possible, that no time should be lost in commencing the work, and that while Westernport should be utilized for certain purposes, the Fremantle base, together with that of Sydney, should be rapidly developed also. What is the position to-day? On account of a certain amount of noise made in this State, a great deal of work is about to be undertaken at Westernport, much more, I believe, than Admiral Henderson ever contemplated, but not a single stroke so far appears to have been done at this important base in Cockburn Sound.

Sir John Forrest:

– They are applying to the local Government to help them.

Mr FOWLER:

– I know that a pleasure trip was undertaken a few months ago while I was in the State, but beyond that, there appears to have been nothing else done.

Sir John Forrest:

– The Government want the State to help them.

Mr FOWLER:

Mr King O’malley:

– He is a very able man.

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not want to extend my remarks further. I have no desire to make it appear that ruin is staring the country in the face on account of these acts of maladministration of the Labour Government. But I do contend that what I have indicated are straws showing very clearly the way in which the wind is blowing. I take it that it is our duty to speak out in plain unmistakable language of the extraordinary actions of this Government during recess. ‘ There’ is much more that might be said by way of criticism, but, out of regard for honorable members, I do not propose to speak .at greater length tonight. I feel sure, however, that the country will agree at the next election that the net result of administration by this Labour Government is utter demoralization in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, degradation of public life, and the corruption of the citizenship of those to whom this Government is looking for. its political support.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Frazer) adjourned.

House adjourned at 11.30 j>.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 July 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19120709_reps_4_64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 9 July 1912

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)

QUESTION

SYDNEY QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS

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

Mr Tudor:

PAPERS

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr OZANNE:Corio

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Deakin:

Mr OZANNE:

Sir Robert Best:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Harper:

Mr OZANNE:

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

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Riley:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Fenton:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr OZANNE:

QUESTION

OUR CREDIT ABROAD

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Riley:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr Riley:

Mr OZANNE:

Mr HARPER:Mernda

Mr Riley:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Riley:

Mr HARPER:

Mr West:

Mr HARPER:

Mr West:

Mr HARPER:

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

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HARPER:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Frazer:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Scullin:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Scullin:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Finlayson:

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

Mr HARPER:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Archibald:

House of Representatives
9 July 1912

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

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

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

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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

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

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

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

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

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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