4th Parliament · 3rd Session
Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., andread prayers.
page 637
Motion (by Mr. Fowler), by leave; agreed to -
That leave of absencefor one month be given to the honorable member for Fremantle, on account of bis absence from the Commonwealth.
page 637
Debate resumed from 10th July (vide page 637), on morion by Mr. Bennett-
That the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech, as read by the Clerk, be agreed to by theHouse.
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.”
.- I desire now to refer to the admirable speech of the honorable member for Brisbane. Its importance was intensified by the favour with which it was received, and the fervour with which its sentiments were ‘ indorsed by. Ministers and their supporters. I listened to the whole of the speech. Its general tenor was that the Brisbane complications were very serious. In it are to be found these phrases - 1 dreaded the advent of the next day. . . Armed policemen were drawn across the street . . From the very first day of the strike the strike committee guaranteed that neither the hospitals nor the sanitary service would suffer . . It. did not matter whether a man was a unionist or a non-unionist, he had only to come to the Trades Hall and say that he was out of work and had no food in his house. … It was the unions who opened the doors. . It was the action of the strike committee in making arrangements with butchers, bakers, grocers, and carters that enabled the people to get supplies The strike committee took charge because the Government had absolutely refrained from exercising proper control of affairs.
Those sentences are evidence that in the city of Brisbane the government had been taken out of the hands of those constitutionally responsible, and vested in an irresponsible authority. Notwithstanding the gravity of the situation, the honorable member expressed himself opposed to any demonstration of Federal power to secure the constitutional rights of the State Government, and applauded every indication that the Federal Government was not prepared to interfere, complimenting Ministers on not having done so. Not only did the honorable member object to the exercise of the powers of the Federal authority for the restoration of constitutional government, but, going further, he said -
I charge the Queensland Government with having raised a military force in Brisbane, armed them, and sent them out into the streets to shoot down citizens.
The gravity of that charge can hardly be overlooked, but the State Government did not send an armed force into the streets of Brisbane to shoot down the citizens. Although an armed force was constituted, not a person was shot by it. The point I wish to make is that the honorable member objected to the exercise of power by either the Federal or the State constitutional authority for the restoration of the proper conditions of government. In’ what position do the honorable member for Brisbane, and those who applauded his speech, place themselves? They have expressed their opposition to proper and legitimate authority being exerted to securer constitutional government in Brisbane, and were prepared to allow the disorderly rabble which bad temporarily taken charge of the city to remain in control of it. That is the logical outcome of their statements. The honorable member for Brisbane, a man sworn to uphold the laws of the country, spoke of the rebels as “ noblemen,” and said that he was glad to be associated with them, but this is what was published in the official organ of the Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia -
Its leaders and spokesmen, by their errors, excesses, recklessness, and ambition, are bringing dishonour to the party, and compromising the cause by causing, as they did a few weeks ago, a disaster to unionism in Brisbane. Their excess of fanaticism was not even excusable, as the Court granted the tram men the laudable object for which they asked. They swept away the Constitutional method of obtaining their demands, and; as the result of their methods, they lost prestige, lost the strike, and caused endless pain and suffering. Their very first step was to cut off all food supplies; and to prove the fallacy of the argument of the leaders, the very next day, when the pinch of hunger was felt, they themselves immediately withdrew their mighty ordinance in this regard, proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the worker cannot live without food even it he can live without money. The Brisbane strike ended, like all other strikes, in disaster. While Constitutional methods gave more than brute force could effect, mob rule, or martial law, enunciated by strike committees, cannot do any good.
– What is wrong with that ?
– Coming from the source that, it does, I say that it is a severe condemnation of the Strike Committee. It is a clear indication that this particular organ saw the outrageous evil which at; tached to it-
– The honorable member for Brisbane quoted authorities to show that the Strike Committee did not cut off the food supplies, and he was on the spot.
– We have evidence that they did. Mr. Coyne boasted of it. He said, “ We have the city in control ; we are maintaining peace, and will continue to do so unless the police intervene.”
– Would the honorable member have sent the soldiers there?
– The Attorney-General took up the position that it would be necessary, as a last resort, to send the military to maintain law and order. I wish now to deal with some unworthy ideals which are being countenanced by the Government. In this connexion I desire to say that a Government is responsible, not only for its overt and positive acts, but also for the light and leading which it gives to the people generally in regard to important matters. Quite a number of paragraphs have appeared in the public press from time to time expressive of the determination of labour unions to considerably reduce the hours of toil. They wish to make conditions easier. “ Do as little as you can, and get as much for it as you can,” appears to be their motto. I wish to call special attention to one of these resolutions, because it appears to have the indorsement of the Prime Minister. It was published in the Argus of 10th June of the present year, and subsequently that newspaper printed the following : -
asked on Saturday if he was in accord with the resolution which had been passed by the Labour Congress in Sydney, to the effect that there should be established a. working week of six days of five hours each. In reply he remarked -
Somebody once said something about hitching one’s wagon to a star, and I think that is very good advice in this matter. I do not think that the drudgery of life can be too much relieved. Labour as we know it now is indeed a drudgery.
I do not pretend to know to what particular star the Prime Minister has hitched his car. It appears to me that he has more probably attached it to a rooster than to a star. If I were asked what particular rooster, I would say, “ The gold-bespangled rooster who is in charge of the Home Affairs Department.” But, on further consideration, I do not think that that is the particular star to which the Prime Minister has attached his car. In my imagination I see certain falling stars. These stars for a moment captivate and rivet attention, but they soon pass into oblivion, and are heard of no more. I feel perfectly satisfied that it is to one of these stars that the Prime Minister has attached his political wagon. I come now to the serious part of this business. I say that no great nation can ever be built up without strenuous and energetic effort on the part of its people. To my mind, eight hours for labour, eight hours for recreation and mental enjoyment, and eight hours for sleep is a fair division of the day. But the unions, who control the Government, are forcing it in the direction of reducing the hours of labour to such an extent that our people will become effete. Does the Prime Minister suppose for a moment that it is possible to adopt a five hours’ day for six days a week for the whole community? And if it cannot be extended to all why should it be extended to any? Would! the honorable gentleman give it to the housemaids as well as to the workmen in the fields ? And if we give it to the housemaids, can we extend the same privilege to the housewives? I fear that one result of the determination of the men to thus reduce the hours of labour will be to impose increased toil upon the housewives. I would also point out that this proposed reduction in the hours of labour means a corresponding diminution in the production of the land. If the production of the land be seriously interfered with, the amount of wealth in the community will be considerably diminished. Who will feel the disastrous effects of that first ? Will it be the fairly well-to-do, the rich, and the opulent ? Wherever the available amount of cash and of good things is reduced, the first adverse effects are felt by those whom honorable members opposite are supposed specially to protect, and who are least able to protect themselves. For the maintenance of this fair land of Australia and its development, as we would fain have it developed, it is absolutely necessary that those who are in the prime and vigour of life should put energy, stress, vigilance, and skill into their work, and seek to do not as little, but as much as they can for their own advancement and for the genera] good.. Evidently, expert and active men are not wanted by the party in power. The policy of the Liberal party is to encourage men to do their best. The policy of the people who are behind the present Government is to enforce conditions under which men shall not do their best. A short time ago two men who were particularly skilled in bricklaying in Melbourne wanted to have a competition to decide who could lay the most bricks, in a proper, tradesman-like way, in a given time. The matter was made public and attracted a good deal of interest, but the organizers of the Labour movement stepped in and put their foot upon it, with the result that the competition never took place. They did not want to have it demonstrated how much a man could do. What they want to demonstrate is how little a man can do, and yet demand full wages. The President of the Arbitration Court, Mr. Justice Higgins, was recently examining Mr. Peter Macdonald, secretary of the Mildura branch of the Rural Workers Union. On the question of piece-work and speeding up, . this was Mr. Macdonald’s utterance -
Speeding up ‘ was against the interest of the men’s health, and he, therefore, could not agree to piece-work. If some men were more expert than others, the worst should get the minimum pay or be discharged -
But the Labour unions always object to a man being discharged if he happens to be a unionist, and if an inferior workman were discharged, it is ten chances to one that it would cause a -strike, so that this evidence will hardly bear investigation - and the best should get high wages. He was always willing to make concessions for aged and infirm men.
I seriously question whether the union officials are willing. A man has to show that he is very inferior indeed before he can obtain the sanction of the Court to work for less than the prescribed rate of pay. They are rigidly conservative in that aspect of the case.
– Has not the slow worker the right to live as well as the fast one?
– I claim that he has, but the Labour unions are introducing conditions which make it ‘ impossible for any one who is past his prime to get employment. Many men who were in their, prime in the unions a few years ago are now beginning to experience that condition. Now that they are past their prime the unions do not conserve their interests as they did when they were in their prime. In other words, all this legislation is in the interests of the men who are best able to look after themselves, and against the interests of the poor* necessitous, and, -comparatively speaking, inefficient men. In the Rural Workers Union the same condition is being introduced, and for the same reason piece-work is not to be undertaken. Piece-work means that a skilled worker will receive vastly more than the unskilled one. These unions are opposed to it, because they do not want any man to put forth his best effort.
– What evidence have you of that?
– There are many evidences all over Australia that they want to get as much as they can for doing as little as they can. I wish to refer now to what appears to be still another unworthy ideal, an outcome of the condition of things which is being engendered under the aegis of Labour and Socialistic Governments. The want of fairness in the minds of men is simply appalling. This matter affects the Electoral Branch, and I am sure that when
I mention that I touch every member upon, the raw, because we are always keenly alert for anything that affects us so directly. At the Hobart Labour Conference a certain notice of motion appeared on the agendapaper. It is to the honour of the Conference that it was not carried; but the very fact that any union of men could adopt such a motion and forward it to the Conference for indorsement is, in my judgment, simply staggering. The motion was as follows : -
That Conference consider the desirability of urging the Federal Labour Government to appoint labour supporters, where practicable and other things being equal, as officials at the polling booths in connexion with Federal pollings.
That is a poser. It is simply astounding that so unfair and partisan a proposition could find a lodgment in any brain. Let us consider it in the light of what happened recently in South Australia. An article headed “ Electoral Irregularities “ was published in the Melbourne Herald of the 4th January, 191 2. It dealt with grave irregularities practised in the State tr> which I refer by certain men whose names I want to put on record. They have since resigned their positions as justices of the peace because of those irregularities. They were E. L. W. Klauer, M.L.C., W. G. Ciough, F. C. Hahn, and T. B. Merry, all leading lights of labour. Here is a motion favouring the appointment, wherever practicable, of none but labour supporters to the office of returning officers for the Commonwealth and here in the ranks of the labour unions is a revelation of corruption such as has never been made in regard to any other political body in Australia. I wish now to refer to another matter connected with the electoral arrangements. Under the Constitution, the Commissioners are at liberty to adopt onefifth more or one-fifth, less than the quota ; so that if the quota be 40,000, they may make an electorate of 48,000 in a town, or in a country electorate with only 32,000 electors. That has been the principle observed in the State of Victoria so long as I have any political recollection. I do not know the position in the other States ; but,, whatever it may be, we have found in Victoria that the difficulties of country representatives have been increased as compared with those of town representatives. The areas are so extended in the country that it is extremely difficult for a man to get over the whole of his electorate. I venture to say that, in my own case, there are many districts of considerable importance, which. although I have represented the constituency for some time, I have been unable to visit. This equalizing of the number of people to be represented in the town constituencies is, I take it, the result of an Executive act. That may or may not be so; but, if it is, it will bring considerable odium on the Government in the country. The electors will be alive to the fact that this particular method - for I take it that the report of the Commissioners will be indorsed by the House - has had the result of depriving Victoria of two country representatives, and increasing the suburban representatives by one.
– I do not think that the Government have anything to do with that matter ; it is one for the Commissioners.
– I am open to correction on this point ; but I think I am justified in assuming that there has been a sort of general direction given to the Commissioners as to the basis on which they shall work.
– The honorable member must not impute improper motives to the Ministry.
– I do not know whether it is altogether an improper motive; the ‘Government may feel quite justified in the action they have taken, but, in my opinion, they have made a fundamental error.
– The honorable member’s speech is all based on assumption !
– And some interjections are based on presumption. I now wish to draw attention to what appears to me a great fallacy in regard to land settlement. There is evidently an idea in- the minds of the present Government and their supporters that people can be settled on the land while impossible conditions of working the land are imposed. Within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Higgins, there is the Rural Workers Union. The honorable member for Flinders last night directed our attention to the important point that the Judge of that Court is really vested with legislative powers, and he has been exerting those powers according to his wisdom. With that I have nothing to do ; I am now merely stating the fact so pertinently and plainly put before us yesterday. The Rural Workers Union, which has come into existence under the shadow of the Arbitration Court, has submitted a log, the result of which, I venture to say, must be that hardly a farmer in the community will be able to submit to the rates of pay and con ditions prescribed. They will not be able to submit, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to do so; and the first result will be to drive a very large proportion, who are now carrying on mixed farming, into the adoption of the old unfortunate system under which land was used practically as sheepwalks. Let us examine some of the conditions laid down in the log. There is, first of all, a demand for increased wages and overtime, ranging from is. 3d. to 2s. per hour. An eight hours’ day is provided for, with a minimum rate of pay, with an allowance of 7s. 6d. per week for attending horses. I should like to place two examples on record. In the case of a ploughman, one week’s wages of forty-eight hours, at the wages laid down, will mean £1 15s., with an allowance of 7s. 6d. for attending horses, and if he has ten hours overtime at is. 3d., totalling 12s. 6d., and an allowance of 12s. for keep when not provided, the total is 7s. In the case of a harvest hand, the wages for a week of forty-eight hours is £,2 5s., with 7s. 6d. for attending horses; and if ten hours overtime be worked at is. 3d.- and overtime is inevitable at harvest and seeding time - such a man, with the allowance for keep, will receive £3 17s. 6d.
– There will not be much wheat-growing under these conditions.
– There will be no wheat-growing.
– Are the farmers not going to contest this log before the Court?
– That may be, but I am not in their confidence. I know that the industry cannot be conducted on such lines.
– If the log is an unjust one it will not be indorsed.
– But there are further conditions imposed. The Rural Workers Union is asking for preference to unionists, which really means the creation of a ring or a monopoly in labour ; and I suggest that not only outside labourers, but even farmers’ sons, will be driven into the union. Then, again, before a farmer can employ an aged or decrepit person, he has to secure the consent of the union; and union officials are to have the right to visit and inspect any farm., factory, or place to investigate complaints. Under such conditions, a farmer will not be manager of his own farm. On public holidays half rates of pay are to apply; and I presume that this means that when on such holiday a man shall be paid half that which he would have been paid if at work. As a practical man who has had to do with the country districts of Victoria all my life, and speaking with a considerable knowledge of New South Wales, I maintain that those conditions are absolutely impossible in the farming life of Australia, as I know it on the eastern side of the continent. I pass from that subject to the evident desire of the Government to hasten the day of Socialism. In proof of this I need only refer to the speech made yesterday by the Attorney-General in answer to a deputation of the unemployed. The Government want, apparently, to hasten the day when every one shall be under State employ, when the ideal of His Excellency - I mean the honorable member for New England, who has been reading that wonderful book, Bellamy’s Looking Backward - shall be realized.
– That was twentyfour years ago.
– Yes, and the Socialism proposed to-day is what it was intended to be when Bellamy wrote that book.
– I do not think that it refers to Socialism at all. It would do the honorable member good to read it.
– Socialism, as depicted by Bellamy, is a condition of dull, drab uniformity, when the medical man will be no higher than the man who sweeps the gutter, when all enterprise, skill, and inventive genius will be taken from the people, when every incentive to promote the best interests of the community will be taken away, because the genius is not to receive the reward which he earns, but only the weekly dole which will be given by the head of the Government. That is the position which is presented to our mental vision. When the Attorney-General was speaking in this debate the other day, he used a phrase which I was hardly able to understand. He said, “ What is there in teetotalism? If we are all teetotallers there is nothing in it.” But I venture to say that if the rest of the people in the world were teetotallers, and the honorable and learned gentleman was unfortunately a confirmed drunkard, there would be a very great deal in teetotalism to him if he became a teetotaller, too. Let me apply his argument to this idea of Socialism. Those who are in organized Labour are for the time being receiving very considerable ad vantages at the expense of the general community, but when they all become Socialists, where will be the distinctive advantage that any one can enjoy as against another? The same argument will apply to the- Civil Service. At the present time a large number of people are enamoured of the Socialistic proposal, because they look with a more or less envious eye upon those who are in the Civil Service. They see that civil servants have certain advantages which outsiders do not possess. But if we could all become civil servants, where is the distinctive advantage which any one can enjoy ? We shall all be on a dead level. I want to bring this matter practically home in regard to the wearing of kilts in the Scottish Regiment. I have in my drawer a number of protests, which I shall hand in due time to the Minister of Defence, against the abolition of the kilts. One of the things which, I think, militate, and will continue to militate, against our defence system is the dull, drab uniformity of all men being practically in the same regiment and wearing the same kind of uniform,, with no distinctions whatever. There are inthe Old Land regiments which will do battle for the country the more valiantly because of the prestige which is attached* to their name, their uniform, and themcolours.
– Therefore the honorablemember is in favour of preference.
– I am decidedly in: favour of stopping all absurdities in thematter of interjections. Unfortunately, we have not the Minister of Defence in this chamber, and his representative has not been here for some days. I think that the Government are making a grievous mistake in not giving to the military some distinctive dress which will enable regiments to vie with one another, for, after all. that is the secret of success. Competition makes for success. It is clear from his report that Lord Kitchener is not quite on all fours with the determination of the Ministry in this case. On page 22 he says -
The process of merging the existing units into the National Citizen Force will be gradual, and I shall advise that the designations and historical associations of the present regiments should be continued under the new system, in which eachregiment shall have a territorial title as well as a number. In this way the esprit de cor fs of the militia and volunteers would be transmitted to the new Citizen Force.
– That is already arranged “ for.
– If it is arranged for, so much the better. But I take it that in abolishing the distinctive uniform of the Scottish Regiments the Government are aiming a fatal blow at some of the men who, in the past, have proved themselves to be the most valiant soldiers whom the Empire has ever had. I think that the Government should give pause to a determination which they appear to have arrived at somewhat hastily before they strip these men of a distinction which they value, and one which, I venture to say, would prompt them ‘ to serve more valiantly than they would do if they were compelled to adopt the dull, rigid uniform of the forces generally.
– Does not the honorable member know that the men are allowed to continue to provide their own uniforms?
– I know that an official announcement has been made that the men who are now in the Scottish Regiments will be permitted to wear their kilts until their time has expired, but that no man who joins hereafter will be allowed to wear them.
Sitting suspended from 3.15 to 5.5 p.m.
– We are led to suppose that the Labour party is a very solid party, and is working for the interests of the actual toiler. I have before me the report of a case tried at the Melbourne General Sessions in January last, before Judge Eagleson. A man named George Oakes was put on his trial, convicted, and brought up for sentence. He had been receiving from the Trades Hall authorities a wage of 25s. per week. The Judge wanted to know why so low an amount was paid -
George McPherson, general secretary of the Federated Fuel and Fodder Trades Union,s aid that the organization which employed Oakes was only in its infancy, and it was probable that it could not afford to pay more. Oakes had told him that he used to make about10s. a month at outside work. Sentencewas deferred till the following morning.
I am sure that the general body of workers would never consent to so low a wage being paid by an organization of employers. The dictum has been laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins that the wages of the workmen must be the first claim upon an industry. It would be no argument in the Arbitration Court that an industry was newly established, and that, therefore, it should be allowed to employ labour at a reduced rate. But, as the case shows, when the Trades Hall party are employers, they set up as a reason for the payment of so pitiful a wage as 25s. per week, the miserable excuse that one of their organizations is a new one and cannot afford more. Honorable members opposite, and those outside whom they represent, ought to recognise that what is sauce for the employing goose ought to be sauce for the gander employes when they employ labour. We also have evidence of a peculiar state of things existing within the ranks of this disinterested party, which professes to be 60 great a friend of labour. Some time ago,trouble occurred in connexion with a Labour newspaper in Sydney. It was a serious affair, for a strike took place. Fancy that, Mr. Speaker ! I am sure that you will hardly credit what I say, yet it is a fact. Absolutely, there was a strike.
– Where?
– In the Sydney Worker office. Once again, this case shows that those men, who are for ever upholding the rights of the workers, the actual toilers, figure quite differently when they are themselves employers. I suppose that the greatest authority in Australia upon the rights of employes is my honorable friend the member for Darling, who always has a smile upon his face. I really esteem him, and for his credit’s sake, I hope that he has been misrepresented in what I shall relate. He is reported as having made some observations concerning these men who struck in Sydney.Why did they strike? Because they demanded the same conditions as were enjoyed by employes of non-Labour concerns.
– No; that was not the reason.
– They asked for the same wage as the “ Capitalistic Press” was paying..
– No; they did not ask for that at all. - .
– I understood that they wanted to receive the recognised rate of wage. My honorable friend the member for Darling, was credited with Raying that they were -
Nothing but a lot of bushrangers.
The honorable member said to a newspaper interviewer that these strikers were -
A most unfair body of men, and they make me feel that it is no wonder that the employers complain sometimes about the coercive tactics of the employes.
That was a fairly strong statement. I venture to assert that if any employer of labour on this side of the House had spoken in that way of unionists, he would have been howled down. The honorable member for Darling, however, has not denied the accuracy , of this report. He smiles’ as he listens to the reading of it, and continues to smile; but such a statement would have been condemned by honorable members opposite had it come from any one who was not a memberof a Labour organization.
– The usual complaint of the Opposition is that we never rebuke the unionists; yet when one of our party does do so, the honorable member still complains.
– I am simply stating the facts. I leave this matter, because it carries on its face its own condemnation of honorable members opposite. I wish now to refer very briefly to the Northern Territory. The honorable member for Corio, amongst others, visited the Territory recently as a member of a parliamentary party; and in an interview with the press he gave a somewhat serious list of faulty arrangements. In the Argus of 19th ultimo he is reported as having said on his return from the north to Brisbane-
He had never been on a Parliamentary trip on which the arrangements were so faulty. He probably forgets that he is somewhat infantile in the political arena.
– I am not afraid to travel over my country and to judge for myself of its wants.
– The honorable member had not previously gone on tour under the wing of a Minister. When he visits his own constituency he has to pay his own expenses ; but on this occasion he went under the wing of a Minister who, apparently, was. expected to carry out the arrangements on the “ Lady Bountiful” principle. As he did not do so, he did not satisfy the honorable member. The honorable member for Corio went on to say -
A mistake had been made in trying to establish a stud farm at the Batchelor experimental station on the Pine Creek railway sixty miles from Darwin. The site was bad, and the horses and cattle which had been taken there were doing very badly indeed.
– I think that information is very valuable.
– I agree that it is; but the point that I desire to emphasize is that the mismanagement of which the honorable member complains has occurred under the more or less Socialistic scheme which he and his party advocate.
– I told the House that if the Government which I was supporting did wrong, I should not hesitate to condemn it.
– Then let the honorable member come over here and support the motion of want of confidence. Leaving this matter, which is comparatively unimportant,
I come to the question of leasehold tenure. Iask honorable members in all earnestness what is it that induces’ men to leave more congenial situations to work under circumstances that are by no means so advantageous - to work where there are no social advantages, where everything is newand many hardships have to be endured? Is it not the hope that they will thus be able to secure some substantial gain over and above that which they could anticipate making in more settled conditions? The only way in which we can induce people to settle in the Territory is to offer them a freehold tenure. I would give every man who goes there a certain area of land, subject to the condition that it should be within his power to acquire the freehold of a defined portion of it. If that course were adopted, a settler would develop his freehold, and in doing so would of necessity increase the value of the leasehold portion still held by the Crown.
– Would the honorable member impose any conditions upon the granting of a freehold ?
– Certainly.
– Would the honorable member insist upon residence, or the making of certain improvements?
– I should insist upon both residence and improvements. In the early stages of the settlement the required improvements would have to be comparatively light. ‘In every other part of Australia where settlement has taken place the population and improvements have increased ; but in the Northern Territory the position is different. A short time ago there - was a considerable population there, but it has been continuously and seriously diminishing.
– Would the honorable member give a settler straight away the freehold of his land?
– I would allow him to acquire it in a certain number of years. What is the use of offering a leasehold to a man, more especially when it is to be subject to a recurring valuation ? Where such a condition was imposed, the settler would recognise that in improving his leasehold he would be working in the interests of the owner - the State - and he would be disposed to say, “ I shall not improve my leasehold, because by doing so I shall cause my rental to be increased.”
– The honorable member surely does not believe that ?
– I am not in the habit of making statements in which I do not believe, and I certainly think that what I have- just suggested would really happen. Coming to the question of finance, it seems to me that the huge Commonwealth expenditures that are inevitable will, if provided for out of revenue, become a very serious tax upon the people. The only possible way in which we can carry out the great schemes which have been foreshadowed, or are actually in progress at the present time, is to allow futurity to bear a portion of the cost. We can do that only by means of a loan policy, with the provision of a proper sinking fund, so that those who come along hereafter will bear a portion of the cost of these works, which will be for their benefit as well as for the benefit of the people of to-day. 1 shall not detain the House further. I have put in a homely way a number of facts of vast importance to our producers, and to the people generally; and I feel satisfied that, whatever their effect may be upon honorable members, they will make an impression on the minds of readers of Hansard wherever it is distributed. No more important debate has ever taken place in this chamber than that in which we are now engaged, and it has been brought about largely by the wantofconfidence . motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, which will have my warmest support.
– I desire to reply to some of the statements that have been made by the Opposition, but I shall do so as briefly as possible, since I recognise the necessity for giving every honorable member an opportunity, before we proceed to a division to-morrow, to express his views on the question now before us.. This debate is remarkable for two things : it is remarkable because of the number of charges that are contained in the indictment against the Government ; and remarkable, also, for the number of lengthy speeches that have been made in support of that indictment without substantiating any one of the charges contained in it. It seems to me that the Opposition, in discussing the situation at their caucus meeting, came to the conclusion that they had a good case, and that they would have no difficulty in showing the public that the Government had done wrong in connexion with the administration of the law so far as the Brisbane strike was concerned, as well as in the administration of the public Departments and the appointments they had made. There is one feature of the debate which is, I think, without precedent. The Leader of the Opposition had to make out a case for his side, but, after labouring the question of industrial unrest for a whole sitting, with the exception of about twenty minutes, he sat down without touching upon any other charge mentioned in the indictment. Later we had the honorable member for Parramatta, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the honorable member for Wentworth, endeavouring to substantiate the charges of maladministration and corruption in appointments. Then we had two other leaders on the other side taking part in the debate. The honorable member for Mernda, acting as the financial expert, was evidently the man set aside to deal with that particular phase of the question, and later, on the same subject, we heard from the honorable member for Flinders, whom we are always delighted to hear. One thing about that honorable member is that he is candid. He says what he believes, is consistent, and can be thoroughly understood. The events connected with the industrial trouble at Brisbane have been fully explained from the point of view of the Opposition. But I think that if it were possible they would get away from the position they have created for themselves by their explanation. Whilst they have not committed themselves to approval of the military being sent to Brisbane, the fact remains that the only construction the people of Australia can place upon the censure motion is that, had the Opposition been in power, they would have complied with the request of the Government of Queensland, and would have sent the military to quell the disturbance. That is their position as clear as noonday, and there is no escape from it. When the more intelligent members of the Opposition realized that that was the position in which they were being placed, they left the Brisbane strike severely alone. They could see that there was no advantage to the party to be gained by any reference to it. But there is no escape for them from the position which they have themselves created. It is strange that, whilst honorable members opposite have been condemning industrial unrest and strikes, not one of them has said a word in condemnation of the man who was the cause of the trouble in Brisbane. I am of opinion that we should not have one-half the industrial trouble, strikes, and locks-out that we have if a little more humanity were practised by those in charge of industrial concerns. Very often industrial strife may be avoided by the exercise of a little tact and discretion. I have in mind at the present moment one of the biggest departments of labour in Australia, and the gentleman who is in charge of that enterprise, and controls, perhaps, a larger number of workmen than any other man in the Commonwealth, rarely has any trouble at all with’ his men. He meets them, and comes to a mutual understanding with them, with the result that there is no strike or lock-out. If we had more employers like him, it would be better for the people of Australia. Referring to the Brisbane trouble, if the manager of the Brisbane Tramway Company had exercised a little tact, had realized that he must march in line with the times, that the time is past when it is possible to coerce men who wish to become unionists, that it was not his place to object to his employes becoming unionists or wearing a badge to denote that they were unionists, the trouble would never have arisen. I point out that, whether honorable members opposite approve of his action or not, they have never once raised their voices in condemnation of it. In dealing with such matters, they are always prepared to blame the poor working man. In their opinion, he is always at fault. The honorable member for Flinders has told us that arbitration is of no use. What is the difficulty in connexion with arbitration which is causing working men to discard it? The reason is that, whilst the workers are compelled to go to the Arbitration Court to secure decisions in their favour, the employers, who possess the wealth, always appeal against those decisions, as the honorable member for Flinders clearly proved. The result is that the decisions of the Arbitration Court in favour of the men are set aside. How can we expect working men to have confidence in the tribunal under such conditions? They are prepared to obey the law, only to find that the employers are not prepared to accept the decisions of the Court. The employers do not say to the men, “ We shall defeat you in the Arbitration Court,” but they say, “ We shall go to a higher tribunal and get the decision set aside, and you will be in the same position as before.”
– If we compel men to go into litigation, we must expect both sides to use all the weapons at their command.
-I say we should go a little further ; we should extend the principle, and make the ‘provision dealing with locks-out and strikes of such a character that no employer should be able to enforce any. industrial condition without the consent of the Court. If that course were followed, we should have no strikes. Though the Opposition complain of industrial un rest, we find that whenever we have gone to the people to obtain greater powers to deal with these matters they have advised- the electors not to grant the powers which are necessary for the purpose, I should except the honorable member for Flinders in this connexion, because he believes that greater powers are necessary, but I have truly stated the position in regard to this question of arbitration so far as the Opposition generally are concerned. If that be so, their charge referring to industrial unrest has signally failed. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the Prime Minister had the opportunity of a lifetime when in connexion with the Brisbane strike he received the same request both from the Government of Queensland and the strikers, and that he refused to do anything. The only request made to the Prime Minister was to send the military to Brisbane, and he simply notified those who made the request that he could not comply with it. The honorable member for Parramatta endeavoured to make out a case against the Prime Minister for not doing something to bring about industrial peace on that occasion. I wish to ask the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and every other honorable member opposite, whether they remember November, 1909, when the biggest industrial upheaval that has occurred in Australia for a very considerable time took place? The Brisbane affair was a bagatelle in comparison. The present Opposition party were in power Tat that time, but did any one of them move in an endeavour to bring about industrial peace in connexion with the coal disturbance? NoAnd why? It was because they realized that the settlement of the difficulty was a matter for the State Government. They were willing that it should be left to their friends in the State Parliament. If they were consistent, they would admit that if the Prime Minister of to-day had endeavoured to interfere in the Brisbane dispute he would have been told to mind his own business, because it was a State matter. They are the people who, at the referenda, advised the electors not to give this Parliament the additional powers which would have permitted a man in the position of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth to interfere in such a matter. The public of Australia require consistency in political action. It is not fair, merely because honorable members are in Opposition, to make any kind of statement across the floor of this House with a view to getting on to the
Treasury bench. Every honorable member opposite must know that the Labour party had their birth in the sending of a military force to quell an industrial disturbance. Just as that action may be credited with the birth of the Labour party, I say that the death of the party would have followed the sending of. troops to Brisbane. It would have been the end of the Labour Government, and nobody knows that better than do the members of the Opposition. That is why they will not saythat they would have sent the military to Brisbane. They do not wish to commit their party to such a statement. But they have no care for consistency, or what they say on questions of this kind, if they can gain a political point, and get on to the Treasury bench. They know that if they had been in office, and had sent the military to Brisbane, that would have been the end of them so far as the control of affairs in the Commonwealth was concerned. I remind honorable members also that the Government were bound to give some consideration to the new system of compulsory military training which has been established, and which members on both sides approve of. Will honorable members say that if the military had been ordered out to deal with the disturbance in Brisbane it would have been possible for our military system to have continued to live? We know that it would have meant, not merely the political death of the Government of the day, but the death of our military system as well. THe members of the Opposition know all this as well as I know it myself. Yet they submit a motion censuring the Government for not doing an act which they would not have done themselves, because of the consequences which must have followed. I do not wish to traverse the whole of the ground in connexion with the Brisbane strike. I have put the position, as it appears to me, in a nutshell. I wish now to
Say a word or two with regard to the financial position as placed before this Chamber by the honorable member for Mernda. It is easy for an honorable member to make an estimate. One need not be a financial genius to do that ; but everything depends on the premises. If you build on a foundation of sand, you may expect your edifice to fall to pieces very soon. The honorable member for Mernda says that if we do not borrow we shall, within five years, have to increase taxation, because, within that period, we shall have to find £51,000,000, in addition to the ordinary expenses of the Government. I propose to show that the honorable member’s premises were false. He said that our military outlay was £2,000,000, our naval outlay ,£5,000,000, the expenditure on the Post Office ;£2, 000,000, the Northern Territory expenditure ,£500,000, and the cost of constructing the railways from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta and across the continent to Port Darwin, £5,000,000 each. But had he made himself acquainted with the policy of the Government, he would know that last session the Prime Minister stated that these railways must be looked upon as works which would ultimately become reproductive, and, therefore, should not be paid for out of revenue. He said that he proposed to borrow in the first instance, I think, £1,000,000, from the note issue fund, to go on with. Therefore, the honorable member for Mernda took account of an expenditure of £10,000,000 which he should have left out of his calculations. Is anything to be gained by inaccuracy of this kind? According to the honorable member, the expenditure on the Federal Capital within the next five years is to be .£3,000,000. That is only an assumption for which there is no data. My opinion is that the expenditure will be much less.
– The Minister of Home Affairs said last session that the vote for which he asked was to be the first instalment of a probable expenditure of
£3,000,000.
– Within ten years.
– In that case, the estimate of the honorable member for Mernda must be reduced by another £.1,500,000. He has stated that the expenditure on the Fleet will be £20,000,000 within the next five years; but Admiral Henderson reported that only ,£23,000,000 odd would* be required within twenty-one years, and that, for the first seven years, £3,500,000 would be sufficient. We have provided almost the whole of that sum already; so that it may be deducted from the estimate. The honorable member assumes that the expenditure on the naval bases and dockyards will be ,£15,000,000, but the Minister of Defence, who has experts to advise him, says that he believes that it will be about half that sum. Adding the deductions which should be made, from the estimate o°f the honorable member for Mernda, namely, £10,000,000 in respect of the transcontinental railways, £20,000,000 in respect of naval construction, £7,500,000 in respect of the naval : bases and dockyards, and ,£1,500,000 in respect of the Federal Territory, the -honorable member’s total of £51,000,000 must be reduced by £39,000,000. Not- ; withstanding the statement in the press, and by die Opposition, that we are driving the country headlong to destruction, it will -be seen, when the position is analyzed, that this criticism will not bear investigation. Let me deal now with the remarks of the honorable member for Flinders. He has pointed out that the expenditure on Departments has been increased. That, no doubt, is so. He supported Governments which starved the Post Office. That that Department was starved is admitted on all sides, and the Opposition is always attacking us for not spending more than we are spending on it, although we have increased the expenditure by hundreds of thousands of pounds. According to the honorable member, the increase in the expenditure of the Department has been about 21 per cent., and that of the revenue about 12 per cent. I do not. know where he got those figures. According to a departmental return supplied to
me, the revenue of the Department for the year in which we came into power was £3>73I>741-> and the total expenditure £3,136,776. In the. year 1910-11, the revenue was £3,906,015, an increase of 4.67 per cent., or, making an allowance for the reduction caused by penny postage, which the .honorable member “said he made, £3>984>348, an increase of 6.77 per cent. ; while the expenditure was £3>455,928, an increase of 10.17 Per cent. In 1911-12, the revenue was £3,925,000, an increase of .49 per cent, on that of the previous year, or, making allowance for the reduction caused by penny postage, £4,395,000. an increase of 10.31 per cent, while the expenditure was £3,836,116, an increase of 11 per cent. The increase of revenue for 1911-12 over 1909-10 was 5.18 per cent. The increase of revenue, with the loss occasioned by penny postage added, was r 7.7 per cent., and the increase of expenditure was 22.29 Per cent. I hold in my hand a statement showing the percentage increase in expenditure for the years 1909-10, 1910-11, and 1911-12 under subdivisions and principal items. It reads -
In other words, allowing for the loss sustained consequent upon the introduction of penny postage, the revenue and the expenditure of the Department just about balance. Had it not been for the adoption of penny postage, we should have been able to grant all the increases which have been granted to employes in the Department without incurring a farthing loss.
– The increases quoted by the honorable member are practically those which I gave.
– I have proved that, after allowing for the loss occasioned by the adoption of penny postage, the revenue and expenditure of the Department are practically identical.
– The honorable member must be mistaken about the revenue, because the figures which I used are those set out in the Budget-papers.
– The statement from which I have quoted is an official one. It emanates from the Chief Accountant, and is addressed to the Secretary of the Postmaster General’s Department. It reads -
Appended is a statement showing the revenue and expenditure from the votes of this Department omitting new works, additions, &c., for the years 1909-10, 1910-11, and 1911-12.
Mr.W. H. Irvine. - What does the honorable member say was the revenue of the Department for the years 19 10- 11 and 1911-12 ?
– The honorable member is at liberty to peruse the document for himself. The figures which I have quoted conclusively prove that he is labouring under a delusion. Instead of the Government deserving censure for their administration of the Department, they are entitled to the highest commendation. We must recollect that the Post Office is an ever-expanding Department. Every honorable member in this House is constantly fighting to secure additional postal facilities for country districts, which necessarily mean additional expenditure. I would also point out that when we adopted penny postage the volume of postal correspondence was materially increased. Can we increase the volume of that correspondence without increasing the number of employes? Obviously we cannot. We have increased the number of employes, we have provided further facilities for postal communication, and we have also granted the employes in the Department additional pay to the tune of nearly£300,000. Having done all this, and having made the revenue and expenditure balance, I say that the Government have done remarkably well. We cannot expect the Postal Department always to pay its way. As we open up fresh country, additional expenditure must be incurred. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying that there was not the slightest justification for the attack which was made upon the administration of the Department by the honorable member for Flinders.
– The figures with regard to the revenue given in this return are the same as those that I gave, and if you add to the figure for this year the sum of£300,000, you will find it exactly 12.8 per cent. higher.
– The honorable member wants me to go outside the official document.
– I accept the official document, the figures are the same; but I do not accept their mode of calculation of the percentage.
– If the honorable member is going to set up, in opposition to the officials of the Department, a method of calculating for himself, he may prove anything. Although I may ‘be considered an inexperienced member, if I were given any problem and allowed to work it out as I thought fit, I would undertake to bring out a position suitable to my own argument. We have to rely upon the figures presented by the officials whom we employ for that purpose. They are men who have been educated to hold their positions, and, in many cases, are chartered accountants. If they supply a return such as I have quoted, and state that it is accurate, as far as they can make it, we and the country must be guided by it.
– The figures on which the calculation is based are exactly the same as those I gave, and I accept them-. I shall have an opportunity later of showing exactly how the discrepancy has occurred.
– The honorable member for Parramatta, during this debate, said that no benefit had accrued from the imposition of the unimproved land value tax, according to the statement of Mr. Beeby, Minister of Lands, New South Wales. If the honorable member for Parramatta had quoted further from Mr. Beeby’s speech at Finley, he would have found that that gentleman did not quite say what he alleged. After referring to the necessity of breaking up large estates in districts which railways were going to traverse in the interests of the people, and to the advisableness of the owners placing them on the market, rather than that the Government should be compelled to resume them’, because he thought the money could be better utilized in constructing railways, Mr. Beeby, in the very speech to which the honorable member for Parramatta alluded, said that already the progressive land tax which had been imposed by the Federal Government had been the means of placing a good deal of land on the market. I cannot read the exact words, but that is the purport of what Mr. Beeby said, plainly showing that the honorable member for Parramatta simply took Mr. Beeby ‘s utterance and construed it to suit his own ends. He did not quote all that Mr. Beeby said, but made it appear that Mr. Beeby had stated that the tax had been ineffective, and that no benefit had been derived from it. What Mr. Beeby was dealing with was the fact that, although the Federal land tax had been imposed, it had not been in operation sufficiently long, up to that time, to break up all the large estates, and that he was going to do something to prevent the unearned increment going to those who owned large estates where he was building railways. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Beeby, in reply to a statement made by a big land-owner, pointed out, at Tocumwal, that he had indisputable knowledge that the Federal land tax . had caused a million acres of land to be placed on the market in New South Wales. Consequently, the honorable member for Parramatta, in making it appear that Mr. Beeby had said otherwise, was doing him an injustice. Strange to say, whilst members of the Opposition on the public platform, for the purpose of catching votes, charge the present Government with having increased the cost of living since they have been in power, we do not hear one word from them to that effect in this Chamber. They are prepared to make a charge of that sort in the country; but I ask them to state here and now in what way we have increased the cost of living. We have imposed no tax except the unimproved land value tax, and that is a direct tax. We have not interfered with the Customs Tariff, except to rectify anomalies. How, then, have we increased the cost of living? There is no foundation for the statement, and honorable members opposite know that they cannot make it on the floor of the House, because it will not bear investigation. I have been looking up Webb’s
Dictionary of Statistics on the question of the cost of living in the Old Country, where a Liberal, and not a Labour ‘Government, are in power. I propose to show, from the figures given in that publication that the cost of living has increased considerably more than the increase in wagesin the United Kingdom. Particulars are given in regard to bread, flour, beef, mutton, pork, bacon, butter, eggs, cheese, potatoes, currants, raisins, rice, tapioca, oatmeal, tea, cocoa, sugar, jam, and treacle, articles which are required for the daily, life of every family. Rents, which are very high, are excluded. The index number of 100 is taken to indicate the standard of cost in the year 1900, and the figures showing the increase in the cost of living up till 1907, the latest vear available, are as follow -
Coming now to the question of wages - and it is fair to make a comparison between them and the cost of living - I find, by the same dictionary, that the wages in the building trade were the same in 1907 as in 1900. In coal mining, taking 100 as the index number for 1900, the percentage in 1907 was 96.3, or a decrease of 3.7 per cent. ; so that the miners in England are worse off than other trades in that connexion. In engineering, the percentage in 1907 was 102 ; in textiles, the figure was 108.9 in J9°7 > and for agricultural labourers it was 101.3. The average increase of wages, including agncultural, was 1.7 per cent, from 1900 to 1907. As against that, the increased cost of living, was 5.8 per cent., excluding rents. This means that the worker in Great Britain was paying 4.1 per cent, more for his living in 1907 than he was in 1900. With those figures staring us in the face, how can honorable members opposite accuse us of increasing the cost of living, and producing industrial unrest? Only recently, President Taft invited the rulers of different countries to co-operate in the appointment of a convention to inquire into the increased1 cost of living. The question is a very vital one in America, where there is noLabour Government in power ; and the cost of living has increased also in Canada,
Germany, France, and other countries. Only two or three weeks .ago, Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, stated, according to the cables, that the industrial unrest was caused by the high cost of living and the increased rents. In face of these facts, the members of the Opposition have the audacity to tell the people of the country from the platform that the Labour Government of the Commonwealth are responsible for the increased cost of living, when they know that the same thing is happening in other countries all over the world, and that we have imposed no direct taxation, with the exception of the land tax. If that be so, what is the reason? The reason is that there are combinations all over the world which fix the prices. When this party is sensible enough to say to the people, “’ You have returned us, but we cannot legislate as we like ; we want to prevent this additional cost, and, therefore, we ask for an extension of legislative power,” the men who condemn us on the platform for bringing about the increased cost of living are those who tell the people that they ought not to give us additional power in order lo enable us to deal with that question. I do not wish to take up much more time. In regard to the censure motion, the Leader of the Opposition, although he spoke for four or five hours, touched only .one phase of the indictment ; he proved nothing against the ^Government. It has been proved by the speech of the honorable member for Brisbane, by the reply of the Prime Minister, and also by the reply of the AttorneyGeneral, that there is no case against Ministers. Honorable members on the Opposition side realize that fact to the full, and so do the people in the country. Their own newspapers in New South Wales and Victoria are asking them to “ pull off,” because they know that unless they do the matter will come up -against them at the next elections. The House of Commons will not listen to an honorable member who speaks for more than an hour, but we have the Leader of the Opposition here talking for a whole day, and sitting down without having proved a charge against the Government, stating that he was exhausted, and that he had been unable in the time he had occupied to do justice to his amendment. He was followed by the honorable members for Parramatta and Wentworth, who indicted the Government for maladministration in certain matters. It is very strange indeed that neither of them made a direct charge. Not one direct charge has yet been made from the other side. It has been merely said that the Government have made certain appointments. Some of the appointees, occupying minor positions, happen to be supporters of the Labour party, but those who received the most important positions from this Government are opposed to Labour. Simply because we appointed some men who hold the same political faith as we do, it is corruption in the minds of honorable members opposite. Has it come to this pass that, because men who have every qualification for filling public positions support a certain party, they are to be ignored? I hope not. What would have been said by our opponents if, when we were sitting in Opposition, we had said that they were guilty of corruption in making certain appointments, and that they ought to have appointed Labour men? Their complaint is not worth consideration; it ought to be beneath the notice of honorable members. The honorable member for Wentworth came along and said, “ I do not make any charge in this direction, but is it not- a curious thing that so and so has happened ? Mr. Denison is connected with the Tobacco Trust, and also with a newspaper in Sydney dealing with ‘the Cable Syndicate, which Mr. Watson expects to employ when another daily newspaper is started in Sydney, and no action has been taken against the Tobacco Trust by the Government, notwithstanding the fact that their own Attorney-General has said that there are only three cases which could be initiated with any hope of getting a verdict - the Dried Fruit Combine, the Confection Combine, and the Coal Vend. Yet I do not impute any motives. It is said that you have been guilty of maladministration, but I only say that the facts I have mentioned are curious. I want you to tell me how it is that these things have happened.” Now. what do the Government know about the business of Mr. Denison, or any other gentleman in the financial world? They know nothing of such matters in their administration. If we can get the necessary power from the people at the approaching referendum we shall soon deal with Mr. Denison’s Tobacco Trust, and every other trust in Australia. Honorable members on the other side can depend upon our ‘doing that. All we want is the power to go ahead, and the very men who are trying to stop us from obtaining legislative authority are the members of the Opposition. While they complain of these things, while they say that the trusts ought to be dealt with, and that they are not responsible tor certain things, they continue to shelter themselves behind these very trusts. They depend upon the votes of vested interests for their places in this House. Whilst they are doing that, they accuse others of not dealing with trusts and combines. When we go to the country in April next, and make the question of additional powers our fighting platform, these will be the same gentlemen who will fight our proposals. They are anxious for us to ask for additional powers ; they say that if we do it will be their opportunity, that we shall have to convert a very large minority of the people to a majority, and that it is not possible for us to do so. They think that in our appeal lies their hope of getting on to the Treasury bench ; but they will find that since the last vote was taken the people have become more enlightened, and that they understand the matter very much better to-day. Honorable members will not find the workers divided on this or any other question; they will find that they have to face a solid vote, and this Government, which has carried out its platform, and has a record of honest administration, will be returned again to the Treasury bench with an increased majority.
– I desire, first, to congratulate the honorable member who has just resumed his seat upon the fire, the vigour, and the animation which characterized his speech.
– And the telling points, too.
– And his telling points, if honorable members desire them to be included; also his brevity, too. I may remark, in regard to the last matter that brevity on that side of the House in present circumstances is a very admirable quality, because the least said the soonest mended. Honorable members opposite, if they become too discursive, will find that they leave too many openings for attack by us, and, therefore, the honorable member for Hunter was wise in his generation in not having exfended himself at very great length on the subject. I notice that there seems to be a great desire on the other side that honorable members on this side should also curb their criticism of the misdeeds of the Government. Our honorable friends do not desire that any more light than can be possibly helped shall be shed upon the shortcomings of Ministers. And the honorable member for Hunter, taking his cue from leading articles in certain newspapers, referring to speeches in the British Parliament, echoed the views therein expressed, and exhorted the members of the Opposition to take heed of what those journals are saying, and to be as brief as possible, or, preferably, I take it he meant, to be absolutely silent. Notwithstanding what the newspapers may say, and notwithstanding the desires of the honorable member - and I am always anxious to defer to his wish as far as possible - the members of the Opposition have to recognise that they owe a duty to other people besides the members of the Government, the party sitting behind them, and the newspapers. Their first duty is to their constituents. They are not guided by any limitations which are put on their actions or their modes of procedure by any Caucus decision; they are responsible to their constituents alone, and to the country at large-. And neither a newspaper, Caucus, nor a party has the right to step in between honorable members on this side and those who directly sent them here to represent them. The duty I have to perform is not a pleasant one; but it is one I owe to my constituents, and I am. not going to shirk it at the bidding of any one. I think that I have in my constituency at present upwards of 50,000 electors. Am I going to sit dumbat the bidding of any newspaper, Caucus, or party, when I* have to justify my position here to 50,000 electors, when I have to make known to them, as far as I possibly can, what is going on in this Parliament, and what they have to expect at the hands of the Government of the day? At any rate, I shall, as briefly as is consistent with the magnitude of the subject, deal with a few matters which ought, in the public interest, to be ventilated in this chamber. First, I have to remark on the emphasis laid by a number of honorable members opposite on the part that trusts are supposed to play in connexion with political questions and political parties.
– There is no supposition.
– It has been flung across at us, most unjustly and untruly, that the Opposition support trusts and combines, and that they, as a party - and I suppose individual members are also included - are helped by the money of trusts and combines. I distinctly repudiate that suggestion, insinuation, or charge - however it may be described. I can truthfully assert that, personally, I do not know of a single penny that has come into the coffers of our party from those sources. I do not know personally any individual connected with trusts, and I have never in my life been approached, directly or indirectly, by any member of a trust, or any one representing a trust, nor have I received a single farthing in the way suggested. I have always had to pay my own election expenses ; and it comes as news to me, who have taken no inconsiderable part in connexion with the affairs of the party to which I belong, that it is in any way associated with any trusts, combines or monopolies. When legislation was introduced to deal with these organizations, there was not a single member of the party to which I belong who espoused their cause - not one member stood up in their defence. Can honorable members opposite say the same in regard to themselves or their own party ?
– Yes.
– I propose to prove that they cannot, and I shall do so from the pages of Hansard. If we wish to find the supporters and friends of trusts, combines and monopolies, and the creators of some of these, we have to go to that side of the House. That is a statement that I propose to support with proof before I sit down. It is all very well for member after member opposite to speak in disparagement of honorable members on this side, and endeavour to connect them with trusts, combines and monopolies; but the only connexion that can be established as between any party, or any member in this House, and such organizations, is on that side, and not on this.
– It never happened.
– Perhaps the honorable member will say that Hansard lies. Will the honorable member say that Hansard is not a reliable source of information ?
– -I say it never happened.
– Will honorable members listen?
– Get on to the coal business now.
– I intend to throw some light on the “ coal business,” and the formation of the Coal Vend; and honorable members will be a little surprised when they hear what I have to say - not only what I have to say, but what others have to say. I fancy that my statements willtake a considerable amount of time to answer and explain away.
– This is a very long preamble.
– I am not to be thrown off my course by interjections of that kind. I am somewhat older as a parliamentarian than the honorable member for Batman, and I am, therefore, not likely to be diverted from my purpose.
– Where did the Opposition get the money from to fight the referenda campaign ?
– Perhaps the honorable member will tell us where his party got the money with which they fought that campaign.
– We got it by collecting “bobs” and threepenny “bits.”
– The Labour party seem to have spent enormous sums - more than the Liberal party. So far as I am concerned, I fought the referenda campaign at my own expense, without receiving any pecuniary help.
– But the honorable member’s party received money.
– I know nothing of it. My part in the campaign was inspired by my public duty to warn the people of the trap laid for them. Notwithstanding what honorable members opposite may say to the contrary, there are men in this House who still believe that they owe some duty to the country, apart from any mere sordid considerations of£ s. d. The honorable member may learn to appreciate that fact after he has been a few more years in the House.
-The Opposition must have got hundreds of thousands of pounds to fight the referenda.
– That is a wild, irresponsible’, statement. Honorable members opposite, who have short memories, may require some confirmation of the statements which I have made regarding the attitude of Labour leaders to trusts and combines. When the measure popularly known as the Anti-Trust Bill was before us, and it was proposed to insert clauses enabling Parliament to deal effectively with trusts and combines of an injurious character, we found member after member on the Ministerial side defending those combines.
– It never happened.
– Of course’ “ it never happened “ ; but let me put the Government Whip in the witnessbox.
– Where did the Opposition get the money from ?
– I shall pass by those inane interjections. I propose to quote from a Hansard report of 3rd July, 1906, pages 936-7. The Government Whip, the honorable member for Newcastle, desired, with other honorable members opposite, to exempt certain persons and combinations from the penal provisions of the Bill, and he said -
At Newcastle, miners have practically gone out on strike to get a general agreement with their proprietors, and incidentally to bring the proprietors into a combination, so as to put the business on a fair basis.
– The word “combine” is not used.
– The quotation will be found in Hansard. “Combination “ is the actual word, and “combine” is merely a contraction of “ combination.”
I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not wish the position at Newcastle to be disturbed, because I believe that to disturb an arrangement of that description would be to do something which would bring an injury, not merely upon the combination of proprietors, but on all the employes of their collieries.
The honorable member for Melbourne Ports, with that assurance which characterizes him, and that lack of knowledge by which he is also distinguished, wishes the House to believe that this statement was never made; but it was made on the floor of this House, from the very spot where he is now sitting. The honorable member cannot explain it away. Honorable members opposite forget, when they talk about wanting effective machinery to deal with trusts and combines, that it was the leaders of the Labour party in this House who formerly defended combines, and asked that they should be exempt from penalties. This is one instance. Then, again, the late Leader of the Labour party, Mr. Watson, said in this House -
Hansard for 1906, page 639 -
I am quite with the honorable member for Newcastle that we should take care that nothing is done to prevent such legitimate combination -
Again the word “ combination “ is used - amongst coal mine owners as may be necessary to enable them to get a fair profit on the capital invested, and insure fair wages to the employes,
Will the honorable member for Melbourne Ports still say “it never happened”? Will he again try to get behind the facts? I wish the honorable member would put in an occasional hour in the study of
Hansard. Then he would not be led into such a false position as to publicly assert that events referred to by older members of the House than himself and recorded in Hansard “ never happened.” In the same speech of Mr. Watson I find that I interjected -
Will not the raising of the price be acting detrimentally to the public?
Mr. Watson replied, “ Not necessarily.” So that the raising of the price of an article according to him is not an injury to the public. I venture to say that every man who finds that he has to pay £1 more for a suit of clothes to-day than he paid a few years ago feels the injury to his pocket, and that every poor householder who has experienced the snap of cold weather recently realizes that he is injured in pocket because of the increased price that he has to pay for such a necessary commodity as household coal.
– Hasthe miner got any of that increase?
– The honorable member ought to know. Here is a little bit of interesting history which it is worth while to place on record. I find that the Newcastle Coal Vend was brought about in the first instance by a conference between the representatives of the Miners Federation and the colliery proprietors. It was not the proprietors who initiated the Vend. It was initiated by the leaders of the miners themselves. A conference was arranged, and I will tell the House what occurred at it. The Newcastle Morning Herald of 26th March, 1906, contained the following information -
Mr. F. Livingstone Learmonth, representing the A. A. Co., and, in the absence of Mr. Keightly, the Newcastle Coal Mining Co.’; Mr. John Brown, representing Messrs. J. and A. Brown ; Mr. A. Thomas, representing the East Greta Coal Mining Co. Ltd. ; and Mr. Morrow, representing the Caledonian Co. - were present at a meeting called at the instance of the Colliery Employes Federation to discuss the question of an increase in the hewing rate of coal.
These companies are the owners of thirteen collieries, including some of the largest in the Newcastle and Maitland districts. The Collieries Employes Federation was represented by Mr. Peter Bowling, President; Mr. Jas. Curley, General Secretary ; Mr. A. Lewis, District Treasurer; and the other members of the Committee of Management, Messrs. J. Patterson, W. Brennan, W. Rees, J. McWilliams, S. Rees, A. Burns, and W. Wardell. Mr. Bowling was elected Chairman of the Conference.
The report goes on to say that Mr. Bowling
In opening the Conference, explained that the reason for calling the Conference was because the Miners’ Federation had decided to ask for an advance of Sd. per ton in the hewing rate. He explained that this demand was regarded as reasonable, in view of certain conditions and contingencies which would have a direct tendency to enhance prices at the port of Newcastle.
That is to say, it would have a tendency to fleece the public. Then Mr. Bowling went on to point out that by a combined effort on both sides, not on one side only - this could be materially advanced in market value, and thereby be the means of advancing the miners’ hewing rate.
So that here is a conference actually taking place between the Miners’ Federation and the colliery proprietors to raise the price of coal to the public by means of a vend. The public were to be made to suffer in pocket, and the poorest class of people were to be compelled to pay more for this indispensable household necessity, in order to secure larger profits for the colliery proprietors and to put more money into the pockets of the miners. The Vend was therefore a joint affair. It was not only a capitalists’ combine, but a combine of capitalists and workers, and after calling the Vend into existence the very leaders of the men who were partners in the proposal called the Vend the hardest and ugliest names in their extensive vocabulary.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to -p.m.
– Continuing at the point at which I was interrupted by the untoward advent of the adjournment for dinner, I propose to proceed with my quotation from the Newcastle Morning Herald of 26th March, 1906, in reference to the meeting called at the instance of the Colliery Employes Association to discuss the question of an increase in the hewing rate of coal. Mr. Curley, general secretary of the Association, after referring to the objects of the conference, said -
The Committee was there at the request of the miners working at the various collieries in the district. The men desired that the proprietors should be approached upon the subjects of an advance in the price of coal trade prices, and an increase in the hewing rate. This (the foreign Inter-State and home trade) was a large market which the proprietors could to some extent control, in the way of preventing undue competition. My proper combination the same preventive measures might also be applied to some extent to the operations of foreign trade.
Mr. Curley, after indorsing the remarks of the Chairman as to the market outlook, and regretting that there was not a larger attendance of proprietors, said that unless conferences were held there was a probability that results of a disastrous character might ensue at any time. The proprietors themselves knew this.
Honorable members will see that this was really a conspiracy between the Colliery Employes Federation, who initiated the movement, on the one hand, and the colliery proprietors on the other. It was not the colliery proprietors who went to the men and suggested that this arrangement should be made ; it was the men who, according to this report, approached the colliery proprietors. It was as a result of this conference, at which the president of the Colliery Employes Federation, Mr. Peter Bowling, presided, that the combination was really brought about, and it is a curious thing that the same Mr. Peter Bowling, who, as a leader of the Labour party so far as the miners’ organization was concerned, urged upon the colliery proprietors the desirableness of working in combination for the purpose of raising the price of coal, so that they would secure a larger profit to themselves, and be able to give a better hewing rate to the miners, should have been, later on, the loudest in his denunciation of the Combine.
– Peter Bowling was never a member of the Labour party.
– I fail to see how he could be president of a federated labour organization, and yet not be a member of the industrial Labour party.
– He is not a member of the Labour party.
– He was, at all events, at this time a member of the Colliery Employes Federation. I am not alluding to their political views. When honorable members say that he is not a member of the Labour party, they might just as well say that the president of the Employers Federation is not on the side of the capitalists. Such a contention is too feeble to be seriously noticed.
– Mr. Curley was a Liberal.
– Nevertheless, he was general secretary of the Employes Federation. When I speak of these people as being members of the Labour party, I am merely seeking to distinguish, between the capitalists and the workers. I employ the term in its industrial, and not in its political, sense. The Labour party, however, adopted and supported the Vend, and were responsible for bringing it into existence.
– The honorable member for Newcastle, in this House, said that it was the best thing that had ever happened.
– I have already quoted the honorable member’s statement, and have shown how he pleaded. that the Newcastle Coal Vend shouldbe excluded from the operations of the AntiTrust Act. In the Sydney *Daily Telegraph of 6th December, 1910, there appeared the following references to the same Peter Bowling, who had brought the Vend into existence-
Mr. Peter Bowling’s opinion of the vend is not a flattering one. In fact he has at different times declared that it was the principal thing the miners were fighting against.
After calling it into existence they had to fight against it.
In Saturday’s Daily Telegraph a number of extracts from speeches made by Mr. Bowling were printed, showing clearly ‘what were his viewson the subject. Some of his phrases describing the vend were : - “ The combination that is trying to smash up the workers of this community and get its claws on our industries “ ; “Save the public from its octopus grip”; “ The vend has crushed out employment “ ; “ The conspirators of the vend “ ; and others of like character. In view of these remarks - the Sydney Daily Telegraph very pertinently remarks - it may come us a surprise to most persons to learn that he was one of the principal actors in bringing the coal vend into existence.
Member after member of the Labour party in this House defended the Vend when the Anti-Trust Bill was before us, and many of their members pleaded for the Newcastle Coal Vend to be exempt from its provisions. They said that vends were wholesome combinations, that they were working in the interests of higher wages, and were really beneficial concerns. Contrast those terms of praise with the remarks I have just read, as applied to the Coal Vend, by Mr. Peter Bowling, the actual originator of the combination. Mr. Watson, then Leader of the Labour party, did his best, with others of his party, to’ prevent the anti-trust law being made effective against those trusts, by seeking to impose qualifications which would exempt certain monopolies, trusts, and combinesfrom the penal provisions of the Bill. He is not now Leader of the Labour party in the Federal Parliament, but he is still one of the leaders of the party in New South Wales and throughout the Commonwealth; and, since then, speaking from a public platform on behalf of Mr. S. E. O’Brien, who contested the North Sydney seat with the present honorable member for North Sydney, he is reported by the Daily Telegraph, no later than the 4th of March thisyear, to have said -
He did not object to the Coal Vend in so far as it meant the combining of the colliery proprietors to fix a fair price for coal, and to do away with the cut-throat competition that ground down prices and wages.
Honorable members will see that prices and profits come first in the opinion of the exLeader of the Labour party in this House. He did not object to the Vend, so long as it continued to be a conspiracy between the colliery proprietors and their employes to keep up the price of coal, with the dual object of increasing the profits of the owners and the rates of pay of the men. The Vend was only denounced as an iniquitous monopolistic combine when one section of the parties to it thought they were not getting a fair deal out of the increased price charged by the Vend for the coal. Are we not entitled in the circumstances to question the sincerity of honorable members opposite who, after having taken up this attitude, come to this House and denounce honorable members on this side as being hand and glove with these combines, trusts, and monopolies? It is clear that the leaders of the Labour party are the persons who have stood up as the champions, and the only champions, of vends, trusts, and combines. I shall turn now to another leading member of the Labour party , and a member of the present Labour Administration. I refer to the present AttorneyGeneral. In the Daily Telegraph of the 3rd March last year, he is reported in this way -
Prices of half the things we ate, drank, and wore to-day were regulated by an arrangement between combines, trusts, and rings in the country. He did not condemn that.
Honorable members will mark those words -
He had no criticism for it. It was an inevitable stage in industrial and social development. Rings, combines, and trusts were as much a consequence of modern progression as man was really a development of the baby. . . . Rings, trusts, and combines were not all evil, and in some respects had been instruments of good.
It is not a bloated capitalist, or an honorable member on this side and who is supposed to be the special protege of the bloated capitalist, who utters these sentiments, but a Labour Minister; and yet we have honorable members opposite professing to denounce trusts, and accusing honorable members on this side of being hand and glove with them, though we have never raised our voices in then favour. Members of the Labour party should, in this connexion, criticise their own leaders and Ministers. They should clean out their own stable before they throw dirt at those who have not merited such treatment. To show how these utterances of the Attorney-General were regarded by some Labour newspapers’ perhaps it will be opportune to quote something that was said by such a radical newspaper as the Barrier Miner. This is what that newspaper had to say about the AttorneyGeneral, his writings and speeches, in regard to trusts -
If trusts, as he says, are such useful and altogether admirable institutions, being the stepping stones, if not the very gates, to the paradise of that co-operative Commonwealth we all dream of - if these things are so, then why on earth is Mr. Hughes trying to smash the coal trust or coal vend at this particular moment.
That was a very pertinent question for the Barrier Miner to ask. If this beneficial combination was doing so much for the workers, and was such an angelic instrument for raising the condition of the wageearners, why was the Attorney-General, at the time when he was saying and writing these things, engaged by legal process in trying to wipe out the Newcastle Coal Vend ? The Barrier Miner said, further -
If trusts are such useful machines in preparing the way for the control of industry by the people, if they are “ a phase of industrial evolution, a triumph for co-operation over senseless competition, and so a step towards control of industrial enterprises directly by the people “ - see Mr. Hughes’ letter - if trusts are so good as all this, why on earth is Mr. Hughes trying to smash the Coal Vend that has kept up the wages of both miners and seamen whilst “triumphing over competition”?
We may well ask the same question. If these trusts, combines, and monopolies are a natural stage in evolution, as man is from the baby, and, if, as the AttorneyGeneral said, they are beneficial to mankind, why does he denounce them, and why do honorable members opposite accuse us of being hand and glove with them? If we were hand and glove with them, and if the Attorney-General’s description of them be true, we should be commended by honorable members opposite as people who are trying to benefit society. As a matter of fact, these sentiments regarding trusts, monopolies, and combines, are entertained by the Attorney- General and leaders of the Labour party ; and if honorable members opposite do not agree with them., they should attack, not honorable members on this side, who have never raised their voices in favour of trusts, vends, monopolies, and combines, but their own leaders, the AttorneyGeneral, the ex-Leader of the Federal Labour party, and other members of the party. The Attorney-General, in one of his articles on “ The Case for
Labour,” published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, wrote as follows -
It is not only illogical and unfair to complain about the trusts, it is also very foolish. For the trust is really a labour-saving device, and the latest and most effective. The antiSocialist who wishes to destroy trusts is like the old Luddites who wished to destroy machinery.
– Who said this?
– This is the present Attorney-General attacking the anti-Socialists for wishing to destroy the trusts. He does not refer to members of his own party as wishing to destroy trusts, and I take it that he assumes that it is their desire to maintain trusts, and preserve them in all their hideous ugliness. The article continues -
The early trade unionist fell into the vulgar error of regarding machinery as a device of the Evil One which ought to be destroyed. They have now learned better ; they no longer seek to destroy machinery but to control it. But the anti-Socialist is still a troglodyte in this matter. He wants to club the trust.
Because we object to trusts, combines, and monopolies, and believe that those which are injurious to the public should be suppressed by legislation. Notwithstanding the charges levelled against us by the members of the Labour party, we have the evidence of the Attorney-General that we are the people who desire to club the trusts. He continued -
The trust or combine is not merely a laboursaving device, and the best and latest at that, but it marks a notable epoch in the history of production and civilization. . . . The central ideas of the combine are co-operation and systemization. … It substitutes order for chaos and combination for competition. It takes cognisance of factors utterly ignored by the old barbaric ways of cut-throat competition.
One might suppose that the writer was Rockefeller or Astor, or some other big monopolist and representative of capital, but the words are those of the AttorneyGeneral of the present Labour Government one of the leaders of the Labour movement. The Barrier Miner criticised these statements, and the Attorney-General replied to the criticism in these terms -
What I said about trusts then, and whatI say about trusts now, and always have said, is that trusts and combines are phases in industrial evolution, and a triumph for sensible cooperation over senseless competition.
The Attorney-General is the champion of champions of the trusts, and there has not been a word of condemnation or protest from his supporters. No utterance coming from a member of the Opposition is to be compared in any way with the AttorneyGeneral’s eulogium of trusts and combines. But let us see what are the opinions of some other members of the Labour party. In 1907 Senator Henderson, speaking in another place about the Coal Vend - his remarks will be found on page 3695 of the Hansard report of that year - said -
It has materially increased, not only its selling price, which I candidly believe it was entitled to do, but also the wages paid to the men engaged in producing the coal. The coal combine has done a very great service up to the present moment.
– Senator Henderson was for about fifteen years secretary to the Southern Coalfields.
– Then he should be regarded as an. authority on this matter. On 25th September, 1907, Senator Millen moved in another place to direct attention to the operations of the Coal Vend, and in the debate which followed Senator Henderson said this -
For years I have advocated the formation of just such a combination of the coal trade as exists in that State (New South Wales) to-day . . The coal combine of New South Wales has done, up to the present moment, a laudable work. It has already very materially increased the output of New South Wales. It has materially increased, not only its selling prices, which I candidly believe it was entitled to do, but also the wages paid to the men who are producing the coal.
That was said in laudation of the Vend against which a prosecution has just been successfully concluded. Senator Guthrie, continuing the debate, said -
I can largely agree with what has just fallen from Senator Henderson.
He illustrated his thesis by telling the history of the cut-throat shipping business, and approved of the subsequent Shipping Combine. Senator Lynch, who followed, said -
In season and out of season it was pointed out that in the maritime carrying trade it was owing to suicidal competition that the steamship companies were unable to pay a decent living wage. He urged them to combine, and they were very tardy in taking our advice.
That Shipping Combine has often been denounced by honorable members opposite, but it was originated, not by the capitalists, but by members of the Labour party in this Parliament. It was at their suggestion that it was brought into existence. How, then, can they honestly charge us with being the supporters and champions of the trusts and vested interests. It is they who are the champions of combines and trusts. The quotations which I have made are not from reports of speeches published in what honorable members opposite stigmatize as the “ capitalistic press “ - as though their press organs were not also sup ported by capital - they are quotations from the official report of the debates of this Parliament, whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Senator McGregor, speaking in the same debate, said -
Senator Findley ought to keep his mind easy and should not object to combines. When, however, a combine becomes a monopoly, then is the time for the honorable senator to act, and I am sure he will always find me ready to cooperate with him.
Senator Findley. What is the object of a combine if it is not for the purpose of, getting a monopoly ?
Senator McGREGOR. I ask the honorable senator whether there would be any chance of nationalizing the coal industry if it were in the hands of small coal miners or master miners?
That sentence shows us why Labour members favour monopolies. They realize that while there is competition the chance of nationalizing industries is small, and counsel the formation of combines with the object of bringing about monopoly by nationalization. Some honorable senators, and indeed some honorable members of this House, when they are taken off their guard, occasionally let the cat out of the bag, and then the public become seized of the true inner meaning of things which otherwise would be inexplicable. The Labour party support monopolies because their members realize that it is easier to nationalize industries after they have become monopolies than it is to nationalize them one by one as small competitive concerns. Then Senator Turley expressed himself as follows -
I understand that Senator Millen, like myself, does not object to combines, but he does object to combines who say, “ We fix the price of the commodity that we produce at 10s. a ton, but we will not supply it to every person who comes along.” . . . From a common sense point of view, especially as pointed out by Senator Henderson, combination is necessary, because for years, on account of the low price of coal, the miners were practically starving, and could get only two and three days’ work per week.
Here is another champion of the Newcastle Coal Vend. Vet we do not hear a word from theLabour party in denunciation of that gentleman. Then, in speaking of the tobacco duties on the 24th January, 1908. Senator McGregor said -
I have no desire to scotch the monopoly which Senator Pearce is so exceedingly anxious to scotch.
There we have the declaration of Senator McGregor, as a representative of labour, that he has no desire to scotch the Tobacco Monopoly. He proceeded -
I want it to continue to expand until it has a complete monopoly of the manufacture of tobacco in Australia.
It is not often that we get these candid admissions from members of the Labour party, but it is just as well to remind the public that they have been made in a place where their accuracy cannot be challenged. They are upon record for all time, so that one may turn to them for the proof of his statement if necessary. Honorable members opposite have no justification for endeavouring to associate the. Liberal party in the public mind with combines and monopolies. If there is any party in this House which can justly be associated with trusts, combines, and monopolies, it is the Labour party. Prominent members of that party, not only in this Chamber, but outside of it. have in their utterances conclusively shown this. Take, for instance, the statements made by Mr. Edden, the Labour representative of Newcastle in the New South Wales Parliament. But, before dealing with his utterances, I would remind honorable members that, notwithstanding that the Labour party take so much credit to themselves for the prosecution of the Coal Vend, they did not initiate that prosecution. The whole case was worked up before their advent to power by the Liberal party. The Labour party merely took up the proceedings at the point where they had been left by the Liberal Government when the latter resigned office. The initial steps connected with that prosecution were taken by the honorable member for Angas, who was Attorney-General in the Deakin-Cook Government at the time. When proposals for dealing by means of Commonwealth legislation with the Newcastle Coal Vend were before this Parliament, Mr. Edden was interviewed by a representative of the Sydney Daily Telegraph. That interview is thus reported on the 28th February, 1911 - tie thought that if the vend were dissolved it would be a most disastrous thing for the Newcastle district.
– Who said that?
- Mr. Edden. who was Minister of Mines in New South Wales at the time. As the representative of the Newcastle district, a Radical, working-man’s constituency, he stated that if the Vend were dissolved it would be the most disastrous thing for that district. He added -
Any successful attempt made to smash up the vend would, under the circumstances, therefore, in his opinion, be a terrible thing for the district.
I think I have said sufficient about combines, trusts, and monopolies to show that if there is one party in this House which can be charged with exhibiting sympathy with them it is the party which now occupies the Ministerial benches. The Federal and State .Labour parties are one, and we have to regard them as such. They are merely divided into a Federal and a State section. They are not separate entities. They form one party. We know that members of both the State and Federal Labour parties are constantly stumping the country declaring that the only cure for bad conditions of employment and low wages - the be-all, endall, and cure-all - is State employment. But what has been our experience of the State as an employer ? I venture to say that in no State of the Union has the experience of the community been such as to suggest that better conditions or greater contentment will prevail, or more satisfaction exist among operatives, if they are employed by the State than when they are employed by private individuals. Whenever a strike occurs, members of the Labour party, both in and out of Parliament, urge nationalization as the only cure. They say, “ Make it a State concern and you will put an end to strikes.” But what has been our experience? In almost every State concern that we have seen there has been, if anything, more dissatisfaction than there has been in private employment of late years. Where the State has stepped in as a competitor with private enterprise in various industries, strikes have been just as readily resorted to as if those employed by the Government were employed by private individuals. In fact, I think the tendency to go on strike is even greater among Government employes in industrial concerns than among employes in private capitalistic-owned concerns, because the strikers know that they have the votes in their hands, that a Labour Government depend upon the industrial sections of the community for support, and that if they want to save themselves they must go even to the length of sacrificing public interests in order to placate what may, perhaps, on occasion be unjust demands. I do not say that they are unjust demands ; but occasions may arise when they may fairly be regarded as unjustifiable. There is always a danger, when the State is an employer, that rather than risk the loss of office, or political extinction, many a weak Minister would be prompted to give way to demands which his own conscience would tell him were not reasonable, and which, inthe public interest, should not be conceded:
Let me allude, in passing, to the instance, already quoted by an honorable member of a strike in the office of a Labour-owned newspaper in Sydney, The Worker. In that case, even the leaders of the Labour party were called upon to sul> mit to certain demands by their employes. They refused at first, or there was some difficulty, and the workers on the paper actually went on strike because they wanted to receive the same pay as was given for similar work on the much abused capitalistic journals of the same city. For this they were designated by the president of the Australian Workers Union as a “ lot of bushrangers.” In New South Wales an attempt has been and is being made to employ a large number of workers in various occupations on Government works, and the result has been a succession of very serious strikes. When the Labour party in New South Wales, together with the Labour party in this Parliament, were before the electors, they told the workers that they had o’nly to put a Labour Government in office, and let them give work to the wage-earners, and they would soon find that there would be an end of strikes. They said that so long as the Government was the employer, the incentive to strike would be done away with; but as soon as they attempted to put this principle into operation, strike after strike took place in New South Wales. The same thing happened in Victoria, and, in fact, in every place where the Government stepped in as an employer. There have been more strikes during the Labour party’s regime as a Government than ever previously. The New South Wales Labour Government found themselves faced with exactly the same difficulties as private capitalistic employers had to face. They did not seem able to meet the situation with any better grace than did those capitalists about whom we have heard so much, when they thought that the demands of the men were not justified. For instance, when the men employed on the Moree and Mun.gundi railway threatened to strike for more money, after vainly endeavouring to get a rise, to which Mr. Griffith, the Secretary for Public Works in New South Wales, thought they were not entitled, that gentleman is reported in the Daily Telegraph of the 3rd February, 1912, to have said -
If the men go on strike, it will be their funeral ; if they go on strike, I am prepared to close down the works or get other men, but >the strikers will lose their jobs.
If those words were uttered by an ordinary private employer whose men went on strike, every Labour member in this or another place would be stumping the country from end to end, denouncing him from every platform. We, as an Opposition, are too meek and mild to do that sort of thing, as some of our friends on the other side would do if the boot were on the other foot. We know that these things are going on, but we are too considerate; as a matter, of fact, we are too affable arid courteous, as an Opposition, to hammer them home as we ought to do, and sls those on the other side would hammer them home to us if they had the chance. Here is a Labour Minister who tells a number of workmen that they may go on strike, for all he cares ; and that it will be their funeral if they do. He even goes further, and makes a threat to lock them out if they strike. If a private employer said he was going to get other men, and that the strikers would lose their job, they would call it “ victimization.” They would refer to it as putting “ scabs “ in the place of unionists, and as, “ blacklegging.” In fact, they would use all sorts of ugly and uncomplimentary ‘names which I ‘must ask the pardon of the. House for using, even by way of quotation. ‘I ‘ do not like those terms; but I h’ave to use them because they are employed by our friends opposite. We do’ not hear a word about “scabs” and “blacklegs” and “ tyrants “ when a Labour Minister threatens to close down Government works and put other men in the place of those who think that they are being unjustly treated. Mr. Griffith told these men plainly and simply that if they went on strike he’ would close down the job and get somebody to , “ black-leg “ upon them-. . There was to be no discontent; everything in the garden was going to be lovely, if only they would put the Labour party in office. As soon as we got a Labour Government in office, and a Labour Minister was faced with the situation which . an ordinary private employer has to face, he became a human- being with the same elements in his composition as every ordinary human being has, and he gave vent to his feelings accordingly, although the money was not coming out of his pocket, as it would come out of the pocket- of the private employer, who, in the. circumstances, would certainly have greater justification for making use of these expressions. Let us :see what some of the Labour newspapers had to say on the subject. I think that ample justification has already been shown for every count of the indictment which we launched against the Government. But what has not been done, and what I propose to do, is to show what the Labour party outside members of Parliament, what the Labour organs and their friends outside think of them. Take, for instance, the Labour Call, which, I think, is not altogether unknown to some honorable members of the House, especially those sitting on the other side. In March last, the Labour Call, referring to the Labour Minister of Public Works for New. South Wales, said -
Because Arthur Griffith -
It does not even give him the “Mr.” -
Because Arthur Griffith (Labour member) committed a breach of faith with the members of the Railway Workers and General Labourers Union -
We did not accuse him of committing a breach of faith, but the Labour Call acuses him - and didn’t pay them the extra shilling a day he had pledged himself to pay them, the roadmakers at Kosciusko downed tools and declared a strike ; and then Arthur Griffith (Labour member) ordered the victimization of all of them, and instructed that they be “ paid off.” He said the strikers were “ industrial outlaws with whom he could hold no communication.” Arthur Griffith (Labour member) thus assumes exactly the same attitude as all the other sweaters and exploiters of the working men.
This opinion is expressed, not by what our honorable friends opposite term a capitalistic newspaper, but by one of their official organs, published in this city. Let us take another newspaper, which cannot be classed amongst the capitalistic journals, and see what it says on the subject - “Industrial Outlaws” is Griffith’s title-
There is not even “ Arthur Griffith,” just plain Griffith - “Industrial Outlaws” is Griffith’s title for striking workmen. Last week a number of honest toilers at Kosciusko, discontented with the conditions of wage-slavery surrounding them, sought redress of grievances by means of the strike. They informed Slave-Minister Griffith of their intention, provided their wrongs were not righted.
Nobody on this side has ever dared to apply such an epithet as Slave-Minister to any Minister, either in this House or any other ; but the Labour organs have no hesitation in applying these epithets to their leaders, and the foremost members of their party -
The Department turned a deaf ear to their appeals. Exasperated and determined, the men ceased work - went on strike. Then the “ Blueblooded “ God-Almighty of the Government
Slave-yard declared those striking workers. “ Industrial Outlaws,” fired them off the job, and scab herded others to take their place, thus playing the same capitalist game he himself denounced on his first appearance at Waratah as a “Labour” candidate - a seat which Billy Hughes was warming before the Labour plum dazzled his eye. These be thy gods, O Labour, strike-breakers, scab-herders, and political hangsmen?
That is the opinion, not of a capitalistic newspaper, not of the Daily Telegraph, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Age, or the Argus, but of a modest little newspaper called. The People.
– It is not a Labour newspaper, but a boodle paper.
– Is it not a capitalistic newspaper ?
– Is it not funny that any newspaper which has anything to say against the policy of the Labour party, or any of their acts, or attempts to criticise them, becomes at once a capitalistic newspaper, although it may not have a penny to fly with ? The only newspapers which we are told are not capitalistic are newspapers like The Worker. Is the Labour Call, by the way, a capitalistic newspaper? It has hit the Labour Ministry very hard. I propose to quote later from The Worker, and we shall then see whether honorable members opposite will call it a capitalistic newspaper. We want to show what the other side has to say about that side, not what this side has to say about them. What this side has to say about the Labour party is more than ten thousand-fold justified by what the other side’s organs and friends have to say about them.
– I thought that we all said the one thing.
– I think that very often my honorable friends wish that they did, because then we would not have had the Attorney-General speaking with one voice, and the honorable member for Capricornia speaking with a totally different voice, and contradicting everything which the former had said.
– Yet you, talk about Caucus rule.
– That is one of the things which happen. It occurs when my honorable friends are not able to exercise the controlling influence of the Caucus ; they cannot get together and compare notes. Let us glance at something else which may happen under a Labour Government. In
Sydney, recently, we had a mild demonstration of the unemployed, and, as a result of that, some of the leaders of the unemployed were arrested, though not by a capitalistic or Liberal Government. I have never heard yet of a leader of an unemployed movement having been arrested by a capitalistic or Liberal Government. It remained for a Labour Government to be in power for men to be denied the right of free speech, the right to address their fellow-unemployed, and to have the police hounded on to them, and arrests made. Let me read what occurred only the other day in Sydney, from the Daily Telegraph of 15 th June -
BUSY UNEMPLOYED.
The Arrested Seven.
Daily Telegraph, 15th June, 1912. As a result of the unemployed meeting near the Labour Bureau, on Thursday morning, George C. Thompson, Joseph Warner, Arthur Rutherford, Thomas G. Phipps, Cecil Whitmore, Frederick Cassell, and George Hirst, on remand, appeared at the Water Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Smithers, on a charge of having behaved in a riotous manner in Princessstreet, city, the previous day.
Addressing a meeting of unemployed is behaving in a riotous manner, apparently, with a Labour Government in office -
Senior-sergeant Carson deposed that about to a.m. on Thursday, in company with other constables, he went to 135 Princess-street, and stood outside the office of the Labour Bureau. There he saw the accused Thompson. He was arguing with several people, who were out of work. Accused was noisy, and was interfering with men going into the office. He was condemning the actions of the Labour Government, and a large crowd was congregating. Witness told him to “Get away out of this, or I’ll lock you up.”
Fancy the police, under a Labour Government, going to a leader of the unemployed in Melbourne and addressing him in that way ! But it appears that things may be done under an alleged Labour Government that woud not be tolerated under any other Government. A Labour Government is the only Government that has ever set up a claim to be exempt from criticism. Recently legislation was threatened by the State Labour Government to punish criticism of the Government, and in this connexion imprisonment for three years, and other penalties, were proposed. The report proceeds -
For the defence, Arthur Rutherford, describing himself as a general worker, deposed that, after having unsuccessfully applied for work at the Labour Bureau, he addressed a crowd, urging the people to form a deputation to wait on the Premier. He was then arrested.
A deputation of the unemployed may not beformed to wait on Mr. McGowen, a LabourPremier; but I venture to say that if a Liberal Premier had been in power no such embargo would have been placed upon them, and no arrest would have taken place -
The remainder of the accused each gave evidence denying that their behaviour had been riotous.
– It depends on the law under which they were arrested.
– It is a law administered by a Labour Government, who find it convenient to ignore the law when sentences are passed on convicted criminals. Why do they not administer the law impartially in all cases? They do not. administer the law in the case of convicted criminals, but they made a criminal of a man for exercising his right as a free citizen to ask for an opportunity to earn bread for his wife and family.
– The Commissioner of Police, and not the Premier, caused the arrests.
– Under the administration of a Labour Government. - that is the point.
– It is “ law and order “ !
– I must ask the honorable member for Bass, and the honorable member for Nepean, not to interject.
– The report goes on -
Mr. Smithers found all the accused guilty, and fined Warner and Thompson, who had had previous convictions, £1, in default seven days’ imprisonment. The others were each fined10s, in default three days’ imprisonment. Time was allowed to pay in each instance. 1 read the extract to show what is possible under the administration of a Labour Government. They are prepared to set the law at naught, and revoke sentences passed on convicted criminals, even including murderers; but they cannot set aside the law or the Police Act in the case of an inoffensive man, against whom no crime can be charged. except that he has exercised the right of free speech in a public place, impelled by the pangs of hunger suffered by himself and his wife and children. I come now to the much- discussed Brisbane strike.. Although much has been said on the subject, a great deal has not yet been touched on. We have heard all sorts of wild, unfounded charges, and reckless assertions from the other side that those on this side of the House who condemned the tactics. of the Brisbane Strike Committee, and the active partisanship of the Prime Minister in their illegal proceedings were actuated by a desire to see bloodshed. Such statements are a wicked perversion of facts, and the members responsible know it. It is a most cruel insinuation on the part of honorable members opposite who have thrown it across the chamber. I am sorry that this should be so, because it has dragged the debate down to a level I very much regret. However, honorable members opposite know perfectly well that there is just as much humanity in the breast of every member of the Opposition as there is in that of any honorable member on the Ministerial benches. This must be admitted by every man who is a man, and who does not merely want to make political capital out of that unworthy insinuation. We are, unfortunately, obliged by the exigencies of political warfare to divide ourselves into hostile camps; but I have always tried to make that hostility purely political, and not personal. I do not think it can be charged to me that I have ever levelled a personal insinuation at any of my opponents. I am prepared to fight every ounce in me, with the gloves off, in regard to political principles and in fair political warfare; but I am not prepared to descend to anything like the gutter type of political controversy. I limit myself purely to the political side, to questions which properly come within our purview as members of the Legislature. I think I am in the happy position of being on most excellent terms of friendship with every member of the party opposite; I entertain no feelings other than those of the highest personal regard and esteem for every one of my colleagues in this House. If I have to criticise their actions or their administration or policy, it is only in the course of my duty, and possibly it causes me more pain than it does to honorable members opposite. When 1 look across at the seraphic countenance of the most innocent looking man who represents Brisbane, and who is usually found smiling at his desk, I find it hard to imagine that he was so recently helping in the effort to overthrow constituted authority in Brisbane, and took a leading and active part in the strike operations. We all recognise that the honorable member’s heart is in the right place, but I am afraid that his heart very often runs away with his head. He does not always take time to consider his responsibility as a legislator, or he does not allow -that consideration to influence and temper his dealings and conduct outside. I am not saying that his conduct outside is to be reprobated in any way, but, on the public platform, it is indiscreet in a legislator to give too free rein to impulsive and illconsidered words. Although I do not think the honorable member intended it, the Brisbane strike was, in my opinion, prolonged largely by the influence which he exerted, and by the fact that he wrote a letter to the Brisbane Courier. The accuracy of that letter, as printed, has not been impugned or in any way called into question, and therefore I quote it, as follows -
I am convinced that prior to 6 p.m. on Tuesday the matter in dispute could have been amicably arranged, as Mr. Badger had, I understand, expressed his agreement to refer the question, as to the right of the men to wear the union badge, to the Arbitration Court. Both parties being thus willing to accept the finding of that Court, the other matters would have been very easily arranged but for this unaccountable attitude towards the employes union.
Nevertheless, at that very time the subject in dispute was really one of the plaints in the case before the Arbitration Court. I am surprised that the honorable member for Brisbane did not make any reference to this subject in his speech the other day.
– The honorable member for Darling Downs read his disclaimer afterwards.
– But he did not disclaim this. This is what_ the honorable member for Brisbane said in a letter to the Brisbane Courier -
I have to-day examined a certified copy of the claim, and assure the public that there is not a word of reference to the matter of wearing badges.
Not a word as to the matter of wearing badges ! Well, let us see. Messrs. Frank Brennan and Rundle were the solicitors for the employes in the case which had been referred to the Arbitration Court. The plaint of the employes was lodged in October, 1911. The letter of the honorable member for Brisbane was dated the 31st January of the present year. In the plaint there was set out, under the heading “ Conditions of Work,” the following paragraph, which was numbered 39A -
The employes shall be permitted to wear and display the badge of membership of the association.
To that the Tramway Company had filed a reply as follows:-
This respondent disputes the claim in paragraph C, 39b, of the plaint, and says that no distinction between members and non-members of the association should be allowed.
So that honorable members will see that a plaint with reference to the wearing of the badge was distinctly included. The solicitors in the case knew that these words were in the plaint. The words are as plain as they can be. Yet the honorable member said that there was no reference to the badge question in the plaint and that if this particular matter were referred to arbitration he was assured that both parties would be willing to accept the finding of the Court, and that the other matters in connexion with the strike could easily be arranged. The honorable member said later on in his letter -
The whole difficulty revolves around this question as to the right of the men to wear the badge, and failing a mutual agreement between the company and its employes on the matter, it seems eminently reasonable that it should be referred to the highest Court of Industrial Appeal in the country. By the decision of that authority either party stands or falls, and a note from Mr. Badger to the union, that he is prepared to so refer the matter, will open the way for a prompt and satisfactory settlement of other difficulties.
So that the honorable member assured the public that if this badge matter could be referred to the Arbitration Court, the whole strike would be brought to an end. It had been so referred; but was the strike brought to an end? Later on the attention of the honorable member was drawn to the fact that he had made a mistake when he said that he had examined a certified copy of the plaint, and that it contained no reference to the badge matter. He must have read the document with his eyes shut. But he had Mr. Brennan with him, who could have corrected him. In a subsequent issue of the newspaper, the honorable member had to admit that he had misled the public, and that, as a matter of fact, these words were in the plaint. But did he then call the strike off ? Was any attempt made by him, or by the Prime Minister, or by any member of the Government, or by the Strike Committee, to call the strike off? Notwithstanding this plain declaration, the strike was allowed to go on. Then we had the Prime Minister saying that he was delighted with the way in which the strike was being conducted. We have read the newspaper reports of the occurrence of daily acts of violence; we know that the law and the constituted authority were set at defiance; that an irresponsible body elected itself into a dictatorship in the city of Brisbane; that these people conducted an illegal strike in defiance of the law; that they actually held a city of this Com- monwealth in a state of siege. In the face of these circumstances, we have the Prime, Minister, who is charged, on his oath, with the responsible duty of administering the. law in the interests of the whole people, taking sides in a dispute which meant injury to a large number of innocent men, women, and children, who had not the remotest connexion with, and, in some cases, not even a knowledge of, what was going on. I listened attentively to the speech of the honorable member for Brisbane, and expected him to refer to this subject. We might have thought that a matter of such grave importance would not have been overlooked by him.
– I deny that it was a grave matter.
– Was it not a grave matter to mislead the workers of Brisbane into the belief that this question of the wearing of the badge was not in the plaint; that Mr. Badger was keeping it out; and that,if he would only put it in, the strike would be brought to an, end? Was it not a grave matter that thousands of people were by the acts of the Strike Committee and leaders, reduced to the very verge of starvation? If that be the honorable member’s opinion, I’ can only say that his ideas of proportion are sadly warped. I do not wish to enter into the merits or demerits of the Brisbane strike. I wish to express no opinion as to whether the strikers were right or wrong. But I. shall express my opinion of the head of the Government, who, notwithstanding his oath of allegiance as Prime Minister, took sides in an industrial dispute when he should have held the balance in the interests of the whole community. He showed a lamentable lack of a sense of responsibility and of appreciation of the duties of his office. He showed no sense of what was due from one in his position, and he showed how dangerous a thing it was for representative government to have a Labour party in power. 1 am not referring to the sending of soldiers, or anything of that sort. I am referring to the contribution made by the right honorable gentleman as Prime Minister of this Commonwealth to the strike funds, and to his active participation in the dispute. I maintain that by that action he assumed responsibility for every illegal act done during that strike by any one connected with it. What would have been thought if, in the case of a lock-out, the Prime Minister, in- stead of associating himself with the workers, had contributed to the funds of the Employers Federation, and had sided with it? What would honorable members opposite have said about him and his occupancy of the post of Prime Minister? They would have denounced him from every platform in Australia. The principle is the same, no matter on which side it is practised; and whatever Mr. Fisher in his private capacity might have been at liberty to do, this act on his part, as Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, was one that he had no right to do, and for which he certainly deserves the severest censure. We have been asked whether, if we had been in power, we would have sent the military to Brisbane. In reply to that question, I shall quote what the Prime Minister himself said at Brisbane, and also what the Attorney-General said in this House a few days ago. The Prime Minister said that if necessary he would “ place all the resources of his Government at the command of those responsible for protecting life and property.”I didnot hear any. member of his party say that he was “ out for blood “ when he made that statement. Then, again, the Attorney-General said -
It is perfectly true that in certain circumstances it is the duty of the Commonwealth under the Constitution to supply military forces for the purpose, where a State is unable to do it, of suppressing domestic violence.
I did not hear any member of the honorable gentleman’s party ask him if he was “ out for blood “ - if he “ wanted to shoot down the unionists.” When those honorable gentlemen made these statements, no member of their party asked them if they wanted to see the strikers shot down, nor did any honorable member ask, “ For what is the military wanted if not to shoot them down?”’ No; they are too cunning for that. But I am going to bring out these facts, and to prematurely explode the mine which honorable members opposite have been so clumsily trying to lay under our feet. They must not forget that when these little matters are trotted out by them, these facts will go side by side with them. Let honorable members opposite put the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General upon the defensive. Let them put them upon the political gridiron and call upon them to explain their own utterances. I express no opinion on the subject; but when the Labour party want to know what would be done by us, I quote the utterances of members of their own Administration. I let them supply the answer. What did the Minister of
Defence say on this subject? Speaking in the Senate on 2nd November last, he said, referring to the present Administration -
This Government, or any Government, if there is to be government, has the obligation of defending the laws which are upon the statutebooks of the Commonwealth, whether the attack on the law comes from without or from within, and I say that anything short of that is anarchy, and not government at all. Anything short of that is licence and not law. No Government can be true to its principles unless it is prepared to take up that position.
That is not a statement by any member of the Opposition, or any alleged representative of the capitalistic class. It was made by the present Labour Minister of Defence, a colleague of the Prime Minister.
– Is the honorable member likely to conclude his speech before11 p.m. ?
– I am endeavoring to condense my remarks, but the enormities of the present Government are so extensive that it. would occupy the best part of twelve months to deal with them even in a more or less cursory fashion. I refer to these matters because it is necessary to do so in’ order to counteract some of the charges which have been levelled at us by the other side, arid to show the position in its true relation to all the circumstances. I recognisethat honorable members of the Labour party do not care what we think of their actions, and pay no regard to any criticism by the Opposition, or the so-called capitalistic press. I propose, therefore, to quote a few references to the Brisbane strike by their own friendly organizations and organs. It is not necessary for us to say one word in condemnation of the attitude of the Government towards the Brisbane strike. No word of condemnation that we could utter would be half as stinging or as strong as the words of condemnation of the strike, and the conduct of the strike, which have fallen from those who cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be antagonistic either to the Government or the party to which they belong.
– Then why blame us?
– In this case, honorable members opposite were blamed by representatives of their own friendly organization. Mr. Miller, president of the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, said -
We can’t have any tin-pot union -
He described the Brisbane Tramway Association as a tin-pot union. Imagine what would have happened if any one on this side of the House had referred to that, or any other union, in such terms, merely because it was not a wealthy or influential organization. Mr. Miller said -
We can’t have any tin-pot union ceasing work and then calling for a general strike without the Council knows the exact demand.
Then the Transport Workers Union of New South Wales, of which the Attorney-General is president, passed the following resolution concerning the strike which the Prime Minister has justified, and with the conduct of which he has expressed his approval -
Whilst in sympathy with any union individually, or a group of unions, confined to one industry, resisting oppressive regulations or conditions, we are not in sympathy with the principle of general strikes. They are illogical, and injure indiscriminately and wantonly destroy amicable relations.
We know that the Combined Strike Committee at Brisbane did all they could to get other unions to come to their assistance, but were not successful. But, whilst the Prime Minister was expressing approval of the Strike Committee, and said he was delighted with their conduct of the strike, we have his own Attorney-General condemning general strikes in very strong terms as being illogical and tending to wantonly destroy amicable relations. Then the Minister of Home. Affairs had something to say in connexion with the same strike. He said -
The defeat of the .Labour party in South Australia was, in a great measure, due to the Queensland and other strikes. The workers must decide what they preferred : Strikes, Wages Boards, or the Arbitration Court. Whatever course they took they must use it, and that alone, to make war against the serried ranks of the capitalists. Instead of wasting money on strikes the workers should buy shares in industrial and like concerns, and so acquire the influence necessary to control the industry and’ regulate wages.
The Honorable George Beeby, Labour Minister for Lands in New South Wales, speaking at Orange, on 12th February, declared that the general strike at Brisbane was - 111 conceived ; and the rash act of men blind to the teaching of past experience.
Still another Labour Minister dealt with the same subject. Mr. Griffith, Minister of Works in New South Wales, said -
He agreed as to the South Australian elections - that the result was not a mere automatic backswingof the political pendulum, but was a direct result of a definite cause, namely, the Brisbane strike. South Australia, too, had had strikes, although every prominent Labour poli- tician regarded the strike as a barbarous and obsolete weapon, and a general strike in particular as a nice blend of imbecility and barbarism.
Whilst the Prime Minister was justifying and upholding the work of the Brisbane Strike Committee, all these other leaders of the Labour party condemned it in these very strong terms. I find that at a meeting of the Newcastle Labour Council, on 13th February, telegrams were received from Mr. Coyne asking, that Newcastle should “ fall into line.” But did the men of Newcastle fall into line? What did they think of the Brisbane strike and those who were conducting it, including some honorable members who are sitting opposite me at the present time? I find that Mr. Musgrave said, speaking of the telegrams referred to, “ Throw them under the table “ ; and it was decided by the Council that the Brisbane unionists could not be helped by calling out the Newcastle men. Representatives of various churches also referred to the strike, and, amongst them, Rev. G. E. Rowe, of the Methodist Church, Brisbane; Rev. Canon Garland, of the Anglican Church, Brisbane; Rev. W. H. Lewis, of the Congregational Church, Brisbane ; Rev. Father Wright, of the Roman Catholic Church, Ipswich ; Rev. Father Brady, of the Roman. Catholic Church, Rosewood ; Archbishop Donaldson, of the Anglican Church, Brisbane ; and Bishop Duhig, of the Roman Catholic Church, Rockhampton, and a number of other Church, dignitaries of various denominations. They were all agreed that the strike was wrong, unjustifiable, and an injury to the community, and they denounced it. I have reports of their remarks here, but, with a desire to economize time, I refrain from reading them. Honorable members who care to do so can read their statements for themselves. I want to point out that the city of Brisbane was in a state of siege. An irresponsible self-elected committee arrogated to themselves the powers of local government. They ignored the civic power and the local legislative power, and attempted to set themselves up as dictators and controllers of the city of Brisbane, with” the right to issue permits to people to trade, to supply food, or to do anything that an ordinary free citizen has a right to’ do under democratic government. I have here facsimiles of letters which were sent to various people, and of permits and the conditions governing them. I propose to’ read one or two of these for the sake of reference later on. This letter is from “ The Trades Hall- Affiliated with the Australian ‘Labour Federation “ -
Combined Unions Committee,
Brisbane, 6th February, 1912.
Dear Sirs,
We have been informed that you are conveying supplies from your stores to various establishments in this city.
This Committee wishes to intimate to you that the only conditions under which work can be sanctioned by this Committee -
Not by the Government or by the municipal authority, but by this self-elected Strike Committee - is by permit and according to the conditions as per enclosed slip.
We remain, Dear Sirs,
For the Combined Unions Committee,
Then follows the form of permit, of which I have a facsimile. It reads -
Combined Unions Lock-out Committee,
Brisbane, 1st February, 1912.
PERMIT.
No. 55.
This is to certify that - has permission to - provided that such work or goods supplied is carried out solely by unionists.
H. Coyne, President.
That form did not go by itself, because there were certain conditions attached to the issue of a permit. These are the conditions -
Combined Unions Committee,
Trades Hall, Brisbane, 30th January, 1912.
Sir, - The provisions governing the enclosed permit are as follow : -
All work to be carried out solely by unionists.
The said unionists not to receive any remuneration direct from you, but such remuneration to be forwarded to the Strike Committee, who will pay strike allowance to such employes on application, providing they produce fidelity voucher signed by you.
Any infringement of the above provision will render the permit liable to forfeiture.
The Committeehold the right for the withdrawal at any time of this permit.
A. Moir, Secretary.
So that a man’s employe’s had to be unionists; he had to get the permission of the Committee to employ them ; and to pay the wages earned, not to the persons who should have received them, but to the irresponsible self-elected Strike Committee that was controlling, and was in possession of, the city of Brisbane. If that was not a con dition of revolt almost equivalent to civil war, and calling for the most determined action on the part of the Government for its suppression, I cannot conceive of any disturbance that should call for Government intervention. These are the terms of another letter, of which I possess a. facsimile
Trades Hall, Brisbane, 1st February,1912.
Sirs,
The provisions governing permit granted to you for the -
I have also to state that if Mr.- ‘s men are not desirous of joining a union, we can give you the necessary complement of men to carry out the work.
Yours truly,
Combined Strike Coupon.
Value, 3½d. 4172.
Negotiable for Foodstuffs Only.
February 1st,1912.
One could not enter a shop and make purchases unlesshe presented a coupon.
– Honorable members opposite approved of that.
– The Prime Minister approved of everything that was done; he expressed himself as “de- lighted “ at the way in which things were conducted. A foreign foein possession of the city of Brisbane could not have held its citizens under more complete subjection. One could not spend 3½d. on food without presenting a coupon. No properly balanced mind could pretend that the state of affairs evidenced by these documents should not have called for serious treatment at the hands of any Government, whatever political party might be in power. In a country where every adult man and’ woman have the right to vote, and the samevoice in the election of parliamentary representatives, there is no justification for any section of the community setting the law at defiance, nor for its leaders acting as dictators, and displacingconstituted authority. The assertion has been made that fault has been found with the action of the strikers only by the friendsand supporters of capital and those antagonistic to the workers ; but I shall now proceed to show that the severest condemnation of what took place, and of those responsible for it, came from persons and press organs which cannot, in any sense, be regarded as hostile to the workers. Let me read first from the issue of the Bulletin of 7th March last, in which these statements occur -
The general strike is a landmark on the road to the cemetery of unionism . . . the hopelessly crazed doings of the strike leaders of Brisbane show that the best of institutions can be discredited if the administration of them falls into bad hands, and the unionist is liable io break his agreement at any moment, at the bidding of some reckless outside person or selfadvertiser of the brand of Coyne, M.L.A.
I ask the honorable member for Brisbane to take notice of those words.
– I was not a member of the Strike Committee.
– The honorable member said that he took an active part, although not a member of th» Strike Committee, and he was therefore partly responsible for what occurred.
– I might as well be held responsible for what the honorable member does.
– To continue my quotation -
He, the unionist, would be expected to be a habitual liar . the one animal in the community that was in no way amenable to fair and honorable treatment . . . just as dangerous about the premises as a dingo among the sheep. The best unionists will revolt, simply because they will grow weary of receiving sudden orders, as if they were slaves or hireling bravos, to declare war under grossly incompetent leaders, or being called on to forfeit their positions, eat up their savings, cut off their own and their children’s food supplies, and doing their best to ruin the only kind of employer they care to serve under.
As wreckers of a good case they were about the limit, and the last possibility. It will be some time before the Labour cause recovers from the effects of these disastrous alleged friends. What is wanted in Queensland just now is a new set of leaders. The old ones have too great a capacity for mishap.
In reply to Coyne’s statement that the men had been sold, the Bulletin puts this very pertinent query -
Why were they sold? . . ‘. On the face of things, they paid certain eloquent blatherskites, or leaders, to prevent them being sold, and if they were sold, all the same, it seems they badly want new blatherskites. While the strike was in its dreary middle age it was discovered the Court had been sitting on the original dispute (the badge question) and had decided in favour of the tramway men, thereby declaring the whole strike business to be a superfluous fatality. The leaders tried to cover up their awful blunder by declaring that, but for the strike the case would never have got to the Court. This tacit declaration that they did not know how to do the simple job of getling a case to the Court, also suggests the need for new blatherskites. . . . The net result of the strike is that some hundreds of the staunchest unionists in the town have lost their jobs, while anti-unionism has received the biggest boost on record.
– Is it in order for an honorable member to compile a speech by reading continuously quotations from newspapers and other documents, thus filling Hansard with extracts hardly connected with any words of his own?
– A moment or two ago I was on the point of asking the honorable member to discontinue the reading of a certain document which he said he desired to get into Hansard. The passage which he was reading had been quoted by two or three of the speakers who preceded Kim.
– I was not aware of that.
– It is difficult for me to remember every quotation that is made, but on page 316 of the nth edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, the powers of the Speaker in reference to the control of debate are discussed as follows : -
A member who resorts to persistent irrelevance may, under Standing Order No. 19, be directed by the Speaker or the Chairman to discontinue his speech, after the attention of the House has been called to the conduct of the member; and akin to irrelevancy is the frequent repetition of the same arguments, whether of the arguments of the member speaking, or the arguments of other, members ; an offence which may be met by the power given to the Chair under Standing Order No. 19.
That means that I have the power to ask an honorable member to discontinue his speech if he be guilty of frequent repetition of the same argument, or of the arguments of other honorable members. I would point out - because the practice has been indulged in by honorable members upon both sides of the chamber - that during this debate the same’ extracts have been read over and over again. That is distinctly out of order. It is, however, very difficult for me to remember every document that has been read, and I would further remind honorable members that, under the motion which is now before the Chair for the adoption of the AddressinReply, to which an amendment of a very broad character has been moved, it is practically impossible for me to curtail a speech. The only thing I can do, under the Standing Orders, is to prevent honorable members from indulging in language which is not parliamentary.
– In regard to the intervention of the honorable member for Gwydir-
– The honorable member must not refer to that.
– I will not. But concerning the reading of speeches-
– Order ! The honorable member must proceed with his speech.
– Certainly. I have already explained why I have deemed it necessary to read the extracts which I have quoted. The whole aim of the speeches delivered by honorable members opposite has been to throw the onus of opposition to the Brisbane strike upon honorable members on this side of the House, and to make it appear that that opposition arose from antagonism to the workers. My object has been to prove that that accusation is absolutely baseless. The most hostile criticism of the Brisbane strike has emanated, not from our party, but from those who are friendly to the Labour party. I come now to a statement which appeared in The Worker on 26th March of the present year. It reads -
The Brisbane strike lasted five weeks too long ; it should never have occurred. Now that the trouble is over, officially over, the truth may he told.
Are we to understand from that remark that until the strike was over the truth could not be told - that it had to be concealed from public observation? The Worker proceeds -
And the plain truth is that the Brisbane men caused industrial turmoil throughout the Commonwealth, and sacrificed the positions of a large number of unionists, in order to obtain a verdict that could have been obtained without one man leaving his job.
That is just what we have contended.
The spirit of solidarity displayed in the Brisbane strike was beyond praise. That it should have been called for under such circumstances must be deplored by all who know what suffering such solidarity involved. . . . The right to strike as a last resort cannot be given up, but at best it is a double-edged sword to be used only on grave provocation, and when all other methods have failed. To use it lightly is to direct a blow at trades unionism itself.
Nothing has been said by honorable members upon this side of the House in condemnation of the attitude of the Government, and of those responsible for the Brisbane strike, half so strong as that which has been said by members of workers’ organizations, by those who are intimately connected with unions, and by the Labour party’s own press organ. There are many other matters to which I might have referred, but owing to the large number of interjections with which I have been assailed, my speech has already exceeded the limits I had intended. But I cannot conclude without making an allusion to the question of defence. During the course of this debate we have heard member after member upon the opposite side of the House proclaiming the virtues of the Government in respect of what they have been pleased to term its defence scheme. I wish to say that that scheme is not the defence scheme of the Labour Government at all. It is the defence scheme of the Liberal Government.
– Rubbish !
– My honorable friends cannot be told the truth too often.
– I would point out to the honorable member that the very question which I mentioned a moment or two ago has again arisen. During this debate I have heard the statement which he has just made fully twenty times, and arguments have been based upon it. The reiteration of that statement is tedious repetition, and I must ask the honorable member to confine himself to the question which is before the Chair.
– Am I to understand that I am not permitted to refer to the question of naval defence?
– The honorable member is not to understand that.
– Then I am unable to appreciate the position. I was about to refer to the claim of honorable members opposite to having originated the present defence scheme. They are not carrying out their old policy, but are putting into effect, in a wrong way, a policy that was inaugurated by their predecessors. When they say, “ Look at the Navy we are building out of revenue,” I ask them where it is. I have been looking for it for a long time, and all I can learn is that we are to have something in the future. We have no Navy at all now beyond three little destroyers, that are used in warfare only to put the finishing touches upon battleships that have been rendered useless in an engagement with other battleships. They cannot, in any sense of the word, be termed a Navy at all. The present naval policy was evolved as the result of a Conference inaugurated by the last Liberal Ministry, who sent one of the members of the Cabinet to the Imperial Conference to confer with the Imperial authorities; and, as a result also of the action of another Minister, the honorable member for Parramatta, who was then Minister of Defence, and who asked that Australia should be given the benefit of expert advice, both naval and military. In this way, he obtained the advice of Admiral Henderson and Lord Kitchener out here. The naval policy of the previous Fisher Government was to establish a fleet of twenty-three small vessels, consisting of nineteen little torpedo-boats of the River class, and three destroyers, with, I think, also a cruiser; but Admiral Bridges, and other naval authorities, pointed out that this scheme of naval defence was absolutely unthinkable. RearAdmiral Bridges said -
If the recent Russo-Japanese war did not show us much that was new, it confirmed at least some old lessons. One of these was the weakness of a localized and defensive system of defence.
That is exactly what the Labour party’s system of defence was -
The Russian torpedo craft in the Yellow Sea kept within a short distance of their ports, and stood on the defensive. They effected nothing.- . Yet, what is proposed . . is to adopt the Russian method. . . . It is practically certain that the system of defence recommended would do very little to protect Australian interests from their (raiders) depredations.
That is only one of many condemnations by expert naval authorities of the naval, defence scheme of the previous Fisher Government. Yet the supporters of the Government say, “ Look at the Navy that we have built. Look at our naval and military defence policy.” It is a policy which they themselves condemned from one end of the country to the other. They set up another policy in opposition to it, which was condemned by the best naval experts as useless; so that when they go about the country claiming credit for what the Liberals have done, we are justly entitled to show that they are indulging in false pretences. Their claims have no solid foundation, and, as a matter of fact, they are only carrying out the policy of their predecessors which they condemned in unmeasured terms. Whenever they feel tempted to talk about “ our naval policy, and our military policy,” let me remind them of those facts, in order that they may not speak in ignorance of what took place, perhaps, before some of them entered this House. If they want to know where that policy originated, and the real truth about it, all they have to do is to look up the records of the House, and they will find that it was initiated by the Liberal Government that preceded them. The whole credit for that policy belongs to that Government, and had they remained in power, it would have been very much further advanced than it is to-day under the maladministration of the Labour Government. I really fear that we shall shortly have to consider very seriously whether something ought not to be done to expedite the construction of the Fleet, in order that we may not continue in our present helpless condition. We are likely to remain in it for the next few years, to judge by the rate at which the ships are at present being built. In conclusion, let me emphasize one great point of difference between the position of the Labour party and the position of the Liberal party. The Liberal party have always been associated from their inception with reforms that have had for their object the amelioration of the conditions of the poorer classes of the community. The most permanent reforms which have laid the foundation of many minor reforms, and which are on the statute-books of this and the Old Country, originated with Liberal Administrations, as the result of Liberal thought, Liberal effort, and Liberal initiative. The fundamental difference between the Liberal policy and the Labour party’s policy is that the Liberals represent all sections of the community, and not one class only. They stand for equal opportunities to all and privileges to none. They do not stand, for preference to certain sections of the community to the disadvantage of others. They say that every man has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that every man has an equal right to earn his living, and to live his life in the way he thinks best, restrained only by regard for the equal rights of others. A Liberal Government, therefore, conserves the rights of the community as a whole. On the other hand1, the Labour party, not as originally formed, but as it has developed, and as it is today, stands for the representation of only one class of the community. It regards all other classes as foreigners. In the words which the honorable member for Dalley interjected during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party to-day stands as a nation within a nation, having no interests or sympathy with any other section of the community. That is a very peculiar and very dangerous position for any party to be in, and particularly a very dangerous position for the Government of the country to be in. When we have a Government which represents only one class, and that class a minority of the community, how can we say that we have a representative Government ? How can we say that we have a” Democratic Government? How can we say that we have the voice of the people represented in Parliament? We have nothing of the kind under the Caucus system at the present time. A policy may be laid before the people at one election, but ;the people have no guarantee that within the next year the whole policy may not be altered, because the policy does not rest with the Labour Government. The Labour Government is merely the mouthpiece of its own party, and that, again, is the mouthpiece of a conference outside, which meets annually, and is really the Parliament of the country. No matter what arguments are used here, no matter how closely or critically, or carefully, or conscientiously Bills may be examined and faults pointed out, no matter how honorable members’ on this side may try to mould legislation in the public interest, all their efforts count for nothing against the decisions of the Caucus. Honorable members opposite are not here to- listen to arguments. They arrive at their decisions on any measure which is submitted before they take their seats here. They are not free agents, either of themselves or as directly representing the people. They have to wait till a conference sits in Hobart, or Sydney, or Melbourne, or other place, and draws up its marching orders. The Caucus has to dance to the tune of these marching orders, and the Government, no matter what the personal opinions of its constituent parts may be, must carry out the dictates of that Caucus, as they in turn must carry out the dictates of the Conference. This system might be less objectionable if it were not for the fact that, whereas the House is elected for three years, the party’s platform may be changed three times during that period. A platform may be submitted to the electors for their approval, and perhaps be approved of, and a majority of Labour members may be returned to carry it out. But when the delegates meet at the next Conference, that policy may be entirely changed, and a policy exactly the reverse may be set up. That is not referred to the people for their confirmation; it stands as the policy of the Caucus, and as the policy of the Government, and the latter have to carry it out. In another twelve months, without reference to the people, that policy may be once more changed, so that there is a possibility that the whole character of a policy which may have been submitted to and approved, by the country at one election may, before three years have elapsed, undergo two fundamental changes of the most important character, and the people have absolutely no opportunity to say whether they approve or disapprove. That is a travesty upon popular representation, it is a travesty upon Democratic government ; and the Liberal party is against anything of the kind. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Liberal party stands, not for class legislation, as the Labour party does, not for conserving, the interests of one class to the disadvantage of every other class in the community, but for equal representation, equal rights of citizenship, equality of all before the law, equality of opportunity for all, special privileges to no section of the community, equal justice, and equal freedom.
.- The extracts which have been read by the hon.orable member who has just resumed his seat were very long and very numerous. He has shown remarkable industry in collecting the quotations, and no less remarkable power in the recitation of them. I. may inform you, sir, that if the Standing Orders Committee should suggest an amendment of the Standing Orders to prevent any. honorable member from reading more than nine-tenths of his speech, I shall be a supporter of .the amendment.
– Honorable members on your side made it necessary.
– Order !
– Much that the honorable member said was interesting. It might be absolutely true, but it would be interesting to know what any deeds, or misdeeds, of the Government of New South Wales have to do with the indictment before, the House. The honorable member read lengthy extracts. He affirmed that a number of men within the ranks of Labour disagree with this or that Government. Why not? Men who follow the Government, whether they are inside or outside Parliament, are not called upon to worship the Government, because Labour is but a fetish. We are not called upon, whether inside or outside Parliament, to blindly follow its trail to worship it. When the Government fails to fulfil the mission for which it was called into existence,, in that hour, I venture to say, men within Parliament will fail to obey its mandates. But, in any case, I would ask you, sir, did you read the leading article in the Age of .yesterday ? Did you, gentlemen of the Opposition; did you, members who sit behind the Government, read the article? It commenced solemnly with these words, “ At last there has arisen a man in the ranks of the Opposition who has laid a serious charge against the Government. “ Gracious! What more commendation does the Government want than the statement of fact in a newspaper hostile to all it stands for, that in the three weeks of talk here - from the voluminous speech of the honorable member for Ballarat right along to the rising hope of the Opposition, the honorable member for Richmond - we had no serious charge brought against the Government? What more commendation does the Government need than for the Age to say, “ At last some one has arisen to formulate a serious charge against the Government ?” Ah, indeed ; and who is this Daniel who has come to judgment, who is this resurrected Solon, who is this modern Solomon who has come with all the trappings of his greatness minus his wives and concubines, to enter up judgment against this Government? Where else do we find him but in the honorable member for Mernda, who comes here in all the glory of his wisdom, and wearing on his breast the white star of his unadulterated mustard ! He was listened to with respect by honorable members. He is a man with a long political experience, and certainly no one will deny that he has had some experience in matters of finance. He might well have afforded to rest upon the laurels of his arguments, but he could not pass the hours, and say what he had to say, without making disparaging references to honorable members about their black-fellow ignorance and their dishonesty. Sir, that gentleman has done many things. He has been associated with many things which would make the retort to him very obvious. But, then, to make the retort would not conduce to the good temper of the House, or the well-being of the country. We can pass the references by. The honorable member has arrived at a period at which we must all arrive - a° period which is marked by the limitations of age, and by the vicissitudes of political fortune - and thus we can afford well to match the meanness of his disposition by the generosity of our own silence. He spoke for four hours. The press reported him, and said that it was a scathing criticism. Yet, in the four hours’ dissertation, there were only two points which the honorable member took and thought fit to give to the public: What were they? One was in connexion with the note issue. He indulged in arguments and slanders about gold- being drawn from the banks and notes being poured forth. What does it matter to the Government, or what bearing has it upon this amendment, whether the banks of Australia take six million or seven million pounds worth of notes and hand over £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 in gold to the Treasury ? The Government does not force the notes upon the banks. The banks need not take any more notes than they require. There is no law which says that they shall, do so. If they have £6,000,000 of notes in their coffers, it is to suit their own convenience, not to suit the convenience of the Government. What bearing, then, has it upon the amendment?I have heard of a man being charged with the misdeeds of his ancestors - of the sins of the father being visited on the third and fourth generation - but I never heard of such a preposterous charge as that which has been formulated against the present Government. We are not charged with something we have done in the past, but we are held responsiblefor the misdeeds or presumed incapacities of posterity. We are charged, not with what we have done, but with some guesses, calculations or estimates as to the commitments of the future - not with misdeeds of the past, but withincapacity to meet the requirementsof the future. Admitting for a moment that the honorable member is absolutely correct in his guesses, calculations, and; estimates, what do they prove?. Whenthis Government first came into power and met this House, it was known that it was unquestionably pledged to an enormousincrease in expenditure for responsibilities, social and otherwise, undertaken on behalf of Australia. Any other Administration would have been in the same position. The Opposition then told us that we could not fulfil those obligations without borrowing. We said that we could ; and for two years we have met all responsibilities without resorting to thosemeans that we were told were unavoidable. We have demonstrated our capacity to meet those obligations; and, just as1 we have met them during the past two years, so webelieve we shall be able to meet them next, year, and every other year. The responsibility is on the Government ; and we on this side are not called upon to provide ways and means for the Opposition, who have demonstrated their inability to do> without borrowing. When they are on the Treasury bench it will be for them to say how they will meet the commitments. But the honorable member said that, in 1909, the revenue was £11,000,000; but we were told the next morning by the Age that it was never so low, but must be about £15,000,000. But, of course, to the Age and these gentlemen of finance, the difference between £11,000,000 and £^15,000,000 is a matter of no moment. How much, then, are their guesses worth ? If they can make those miscalculations as against the Government in matters of fact, which can be tested and verified, we may rest assured that, when they use arguments depending solely upon the powers of the imagination, they will not be less capable of stretching them. So much, then, for this gentleman who came to deliver judgment - who has made no accusation as to the past, but merely as to commitments for the future. What are the other charges levelled against the Government? It does not matter whether the ^Caucus or somebody else claims the policy, the question is, what is the indictment -against the Government? The charges, I understand, are six in number; the first being that the Government are guilty of reckless extravagance. The Age of yester.day, speaking of the speech of the honorable member for Mernda, said that he had established his claim on the last charge of the indictment, namely, reckless irresponsibility in matters of finance. In to-day’s issue, however, we are told that all the honorable member’s arguments and facts had no bearing on that charge. In short, of all the speakers of the Opposition, only one has made a serious charge; and, after -.going to sleep on it, or considering it for a few hours, the newspaper comes to the conclusion that it has no application to the indictment formulated. We are further charged with, maladministration of the Departments ; and with an abuse of power and patronage in making partisan appointments. Following these three charges, the next is that of neglect and dereliction of duty, followed by the charge of failing to maintain peace and good order by refusing to apply the laws of the Commonwealth ; and by that of having failed to fulfil our national and -constitutional obligations. These are the charges in the indictment; and, as closely and clearly as I can, I propose to confine myself to them in the time at my disposal. “What has been said in support of the charge of reckless extravagance? The charge is formulated, the Court is formed, and the witnesses have given their testimony. But the witnesses are not in agreement with each other, and not even in agreement with themselves. The honorable member for Kooyong has said that the Government are inciting outside workers by the extravagant manner in which salaries have been raised in the Post and Telegraph Department; and the honorable member for Flinders has expressed the opinion that the raising of salaries and other expenditure is altogether beyond the limits of reason. On the other, hand, however, the honorable member for - Parramatta has affirmed that it is the duty of the Government to remove the disorder and dissatisfaction that exist amongst the public servants by the only means possible, namely, by raising the expenditure on salaries in the Post and Telegraph Department. By what means can we satisfy the honorable member for Flinders, on the one hand, and the honorable member for Parramatta on the other? Then an honorable member demands additional expenditure on quarantine ; while the honorable member for Lang declares that we ought to have spent more money on the Federal Capital. The Opposition formulate, on the one hand, the charge of enormous expenditure, while, on the other, they declare that there should be increased expenditure in a variety of directions. What sort of Government would the Opposition make if they did reach the Treasury bench ? They would not be able to agree amongst themselves. Some of them demand a reduction on a variety of items, while one honorable member, of a ferocious aspect, who would have liked to see an armed force ride over unarmed people in the streets of Brisbane, denounces the Government because the expenditure has not been increased on the fortifications at Thursday Island and on the north-east coast. How can we satisfy such an Opposition? The Opposition make accusations unsupported by any evidence, and, in so far as they furnish evidence, they are in disagreement with themselves, and are. absolutely incapable of laying their finger on any item of public expenditure they would call upon us to reduce Such an Opposition is discredited out of its own mouth, and the charge goes by the board. This Government came into power two years ago, and the Opposition, or such as was left of it,, bequeathed to us a deficit of £500,000.
– Be fair ! It must be remembered that the Braddon section was in operation.
– I shall remember everything.
– The honorable member must remember that fact.
– I shall remember it with pleasure. The interjection reminds me that the attitude the right honorable member took up was, “I do not know how much you spent, or how you spent it; but however you spent it, you are wrong.” There is an admission : from a representative man - that, in hisopinion, no matter what this Government did, they were wrong ! Well, it isafact that the Opposition left office, and that we came into power with the responsibility of facing a deficit which they left to us. We have been in power two years; and after two years of so-called extravagant administration we present this country with a surplus of something like
£2,165,000.
– The Government have had £4,000,000 more than we had, through the expiration of the Braddon section.
– The right honorable member for Swan tells us that this changed situation is capable of explanation. In fact, it is capable of two explanations - one they ascribe to God, and the other to the fortunes of finance. They say that God was especially good to a party that is supposed to have no God! They say that on the day we came into power the Heavens opened and the earth yielded its fruits in great abundance ; that money flowed freely, and that the horn of plenty was full. They are so concerned about the goodness of God that they accuse Him of partisanship ! Yet, in Victoria, they “ turn down “ Mr. Samuel Mauger because they say he is too godly. Having denounced this party for many long years as one which has assailed the purity of the home, their fashionable women object to Mr. Samuel Mauger precisely because he believes in a policy which conduces to the purity of the home. The goodness of the Almightyto the Labour party is one explanation of the change which has taken place in the financial situation of this country; and, secondly, they ascribe this change to the fact that the Braddon section of the Constitution having ceased to operate, we are now paying to the States 25s. per head instead of threefourths of the Customs and Excise revenue.
But they know perfectly well that, whether they or we occupied these benches, any Commonwealth Government in the future would have to pay to the States 25s. per head. During the two years 1909-10, the Federation had to pay to the State Governments, under the Braddon section,. £16,000,000. During the last two years we have paid all that was due, in addition to wiping off the legacy of deficit which the last Government left us.
– The present Government got more than they ought to have done by anticipating the expiration of the Braddon section by sixmonths.
– May I be allowed to explain my own case?
– It is easy for the honorable member to explain the matter in his own way to those who know nothing about it, but it is useless for him to talk to me like that.
– In addition to paying the 25s. per head, this Government has paid interest on the transferred properties, which their predecessors never paid in the whole course of the years they were in office. We have paid £12,000,000 to the States in the last two years. That is £4,000,000 less than our predecessors paid, but the expenditure of honorable members opposite was less than that which we had to incur, because we were bound, in accordance with our programme, to undertake social responsibilities which were not incumbent upon them. Their expenditure, therefore, was necessarily less.
– What were those undertakings ?
– First, there were oldage pensions.
– We paid old-age pensions.
– I know that they were paid during the year 19 10 to the amount of £1,300,000. We have had to pay that sum for two years, and on the top of it we have extended the pensions to women between sixty and sixty-five years of age, and have also extended them to invalids, in accordance with the social responsibilities to which we are bound. In these ways we were inevitably committed to greater responsibilities than our opponents were called upon to meet. But I also direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that while our opponents were committed to less expenditure, they could not make both ends meet. The only means by which they could face the situation was by going to the money market and mortgaging this continent to the foreign Jew. That was the only instrument of finance which they were capable of using.
– The Customs House receipts have increased very much.
– I shall explain why they have done so. In these two years we have paid £5,000,000 for defence ; we have paid £4,000,000 in old-age and invalid pensions; we have paid £3,750,000 on new works to make up for defects caused by the starving of the Departments in preceding years ; we have paid a large increase in the sugar bounties, which, instead of being £830,000, have increased to _£i, 200,000. In addition to that we have had to undertake responsibilities in the Northern Territory, from which honorable members opposite were free. They simply took over the Territory, and left us to carry the burden. In the two years since we have been responsible for the Pine Creek-Port Augusta Railway, we have paid away £[750,000, which our predecessors had not to meet. We have undoubtedly, by increasing salaries, enlarging the staffs of our public offices, and adding to the facilities in the Post Office, been called upon to pay another £[750,000. What would, honorable members opposite have done to meet the situation? They had no means of providing for these enlarged responsibilities except by borrowing.
– We planted the crop, and the Government have been reaping the harvest.
– For ten years, the right honorable member and his colleagues were planting the crop, and tares sprang from it. We have, without borrowing, found the money for every one of the responsibilities which we were called upon to meet in accordance with our policy. We had to find the necessary ways and means. We found them by the imposition of a land tax, and that land tax has brought lis in, during the last two years, some £2,700,000. But it is not merely the question of revenue, as suggested by the right honorable member for Swan, that we have to consider in this connexion. The question is whether this new form of taxation, when established, had not merely a revenue-raising purpose, but a definite social purpose. It has produced, as I have said, £2,700,000, and we have now to consider whether it has had any beneficial effect on the country. I do not wish to waste time by arguing this ques tion with honorable members opposite, but the Agc, in January last, said that the large estate-holders were unquestionably compelled to make better use of their land, because they could not wait for the unearned increment. It gave a number of illustrations in support of that statement, and there is not a trade journal that does not confirm it. Turn to the trade and finance columns of any newspaper, no matter what its political views may be; read the reports of stock agents; turn to The Farmers’ Monthly of New South Wales ; examine the cable messages from England, and you will find that all demonstrate that the effect of the Federal land tax has been to place a large number of properties on the market? Then, again, quite recently, we have had the report of the Land Tax Commissioner, which shows that, in the first nine months of the operation of the tax, 630 properties were cut up into something like 19,000 holdings. According to this report, in the first three months of the operation of the tax - from June to October - £2,700,000 worth of properties were placed on the market, £400,000 worth being in the State of Victoria alone. In short, some 21,000 small farms were created, the majority of them being of an average value of £650, while the small minority of sales were of an average value of £3,000, which, in addition to the value of the land held by the owners, brought them within the operation of the tax. The Argus of 22nd ultimo said of the Federal land tax that the owners of city properties, in order to safeguard their investments, were compelled to spend large sums of money in turning the land to the best account. They were compelled, it said, to rebuild or make alterations or additions to their existing buildings in order to get the utmost value possible, out of them. That means that they were, and had been, getting all the rent they could possibly obtain from the buildings already on the land. The Age, on the one hand, and the Argus, on the other - both hostile to the Government and its policy - admit then that the Federal land tax has had the effect of causing the subdivision of many large estates, and that it has given a stimulus to the building trade in the cities of Australia. That has been the inevitable effect of this tax. It has caused large properties previously held in idleness to be subdivided into small farms. It has given rise to an increased call for the bricklayer, the carpenter, and other tradesmen.
It has resulted in a call for men to sink wells, to drive teams, and erect fences in country districts. It has given an immense impetus to the building trade. Owners of properties in our great cities found that it would not pay them to retain poor or inferior buildings on valuable land, and they have been compelled either to pull down, to alter, or to add to them. All this has led to a demand for increased labour. Honorable members opposite say that the land tax in its application to city properties has simply been passed on by the landlord to the tenant, who has been called upon to pay an increased rental. But the Argus, in the issue to which I have just referred, demonstrates that the property-owners, before ever the land tax was imposed, got as much by way of rental as they possibly could. That being so, how could they get more? Rentals are governed, not by what the tenant thinks he ought to pay, hut by the supply of properties on the market, and a land-owner who can get £i for a building will not take 19s. for it. He takes care to charge right up to the hilt, and when there is no longer a margin of profit, the only way in which he can make his land pay is to increase the improvements upon it. The land tax then has stimulated the agricultural interests and the building trade, and it has also stimulated our manufacturers. The output of our manufactories has increased by leaps and bounds. Manufactories had new demands to meet because of the increased activity of the building trade. The demands made upon them by the erection of large buildings in the cities of Australia and other big enterprises could no longer be coped with by their great industrial resources. Factories were accordingly developed, machines were multiplied, buildings enlarged, and labour called in from every direction after local labour was no longer available. The enemy has charged us with refusing to flood the country with a supply of labour to keep down prices in the local labour market. Every one knows that a temporary demand cannot be continued, and the workers of our country were entitled to whatever advantage flowed from this demand. They were entitled to all the advantages of a close market. The stimulus thus given to our manufactories and their incapacity for a time to meet local demands necessarily meant that more goods had to be brought in from abroad. Increased importations had to be made to meet the requirements which our own factories were unable to supply.
It was inevitable that under such condition* our Customs revenue should increase. That was the inevitable outcome of the Federal land tax - the first social policy of the Go,vernment - and, just as soon as our factories are developed and become capable’ of meeting local demands, so soon will our imports fall to their normal level. To sum up the position, we have formulated a clearly defined policy, and, as the result of its administration, we have been able to meet all our responsibilities in connexion with the Army and Navy, all the demands in respect of the staff and the facilities of the Postal Department, all the requirements up to date in respect of new works. We have been able, also, to enlarge our sociallegislation by providing for invalid pensions; and extending the payment of old-age pensions to women between the ages of sixty and sixty-five years, and, after doing all this, at the end of two years we are able fo show a surplus of over £2,000,000. How, then, can the Opposition charge this Government with extravagance or waste? What have we undertaken that they would dare to repeal ? Nobone thing. And again I repeatthat the Opposition, who cannot lay theirfingers upon waste, and cannot show whereor how it is possible to sweep away the alleged extravagance, stand self -condemned1, by the weakness of their own evidence.
– They are- marching to their doom !
– I wish the honorable member would not give these unpleasantreminders. One of the great charges in connexion with finances is that we propose to grant a maternity bonus. It has beenannounced from one end of the country to.another that this is a bribe and an instrument of corruption. Senator McColl and/’ other gentlemen of the Opposition party, have said so. An honorable member interjects, “Mr. Deakin said so,” but that is not quite correct. The honorable memberfor Ballarat is not too sure on the subjectHe lives in a different district; and,- therefore, wants to hear more about it. The Op-> positionists held a meeting of their own notso long ago, and the Age came out with an announcement that this Liberal party, such as it is, was about to formulate a programme, and sa’id, further -
At this Conference of Liberals a strong desire was evinced to associate with old-age pensions a widowhood and social insurance scheme.
They wanted to give pensions to widows.! Had we embodied such a proposal .in. our;- programme, it would have been bribery and corruption. They talked about it, and they had every intention of having it on their banners at the next election. The Age, further, said -
It will be extended as a result of a consultation with the Parliamentary party.
Gentlemen of the Opposition, what do you intend to do? Where is your social insurance scheme, and your widows’ pensions ? Do not indorse them ; beware of bribery. A second charge is that of maladministration of the Departments. Where ? Against the Prime Minister, and in his Department? No. Against the Minister of Customs? Silence. The PostmasterGeneral ? No. The Attorney-General ? No. Against what Minister and what Department? Against none and against no man. There is not a single word, from beginning to end of this debate, connecting maladministration with any of the Departments, except in one connexion involving the third charge against the Government of having made partisan appointments. So that the second charge depends wholly and solely upon the capacity of the Opposition to prove the third. What has happened? A large number of men have been employed by this Government. Some four men are said to be unfitted for the positions to which they have been appointed. Suppose that were absolutely true? Does it not speak volumes for any Government that could select so many for appointment, and amongst them so few incapables? We know that neither the Public Service Commissioner, nor any man in any Department having the power of “patronage, or the selection of men for appointment to official positions, can select any man without some disappointed aspirant for the office coming forward and saying that he was better qualified for the position. What do honorable members opposite say? Let us hear the right honorable member for Swan. “ Jensen ! Who is Jensen ? Wrote a book called The Rising Tide. Favours the Labour party. Outrageous appointment.” Why is it an outrageous appointment? Because he wrote a book called The Rising Tide, which favours the Labour party. Is that a proper reason for opposing a man’s appointment ? I wonder what would have been said if he had written a book against the Labour party. No doubt he would then have been held to be eligible and full of merit. A man of European reputation, and world-wide experience, applied for a posi tion, and the only reason that can be given against his appointment is that he wrote a, book supporting the principles of the Labour party. What a miserable subterfuge ! And yet, upon these grounds alone, honorable members opposite have the audacity to formulate a charge against the Government. Who is Chinn ? He is from the Western Australian Railways. Recommended by Scaddan. Who is Scaddan? Premier, of Western Australia - Labour Minister. What right had he to recommend anybody for appointment? lt is wrong and rotten. He is unfit. Why ? Because he was recommended by a Labour Minister. I want to know what would have been said if he had been- recommended by one of the “ six families” of Western Australia? I think that, when the AttorneyGeneral was asking for a few illustrations of men who had been appointed without proper qualifications, it was the honorable member for Ballarat who said, “ Oh, the honorable member for Parramatta gave half-a-dozen illustrations.” Turn up the speech of the honorable member for Parramatta, and see did he question anybody’s merits. No; but he raised an objection to Dr. Jensen’s appointment because he was a Labour man. Mr. Chinn - Labour man. Mr. Ryland - sympathizer with Labour ! It is most remarkable that honorable members opposite have found no demerit in any officer appointed, except that he is a sympathizer with the Labour movement and the present Government Are we alone amongst the mcn who have made appointments? Honorable members opposite for many years held the reins of government, and I do not remember any man of Labour sympathies who ever got an appointment from them. They put over the portals, “ No man associated with the Labour movement need apply.” This Government have torn that down and have said, “ To hold Labour views shall not be a disqualification.” If, on this account, there should be any objection to the present Government, it should come, not from the Opposition, but rather from the members on this side, who may have some justification for saying that the Labour Government ought not to have shown any more scruples than did the Opposition, and should have opened wider the door to Labour sympathizers, and have torn down the banner of prohibition against men who hold their views. Where do we find, in any place, any man of our shade of political opinion, holding an appointment under the previous Government ? Not one. They could never get such appointments. I take the honorable member for Wimmera, who is the advocate for a square deal. I wish the honorable member were here ; but he is not here. His brother got an appointment under this Government. I will say that no one questions the merit of that man. I will not question his merit. But I will say that his appointment, and scores of appointments made by him, are evidences of the square deal administered by the present Government. They are not like their predecessors, who were absolutely partisan, and prohibited anybody getting an appointment belonging to the Opposition. The present Government have given a square deal, and made appointments of men, irrespective of their shades of opinion. And yet, the only objection we have from the other side is that a few men holding Labour sympathies received appointments. The brother of the honorable member for Wimmera got an appointment which carries with it powers of patronage, and the power of recommending local valuers in this State. I will defy the honorable member for Wimmera to tell me the name of any local valuer in his constituency who is not hostile to the present Government, and a strenuous supporter of the present member for that electorate. I say that this man should have given a square deal in the appointments he recommended, as he was given a square deal in his own appointment. I ask any man to go down into the district represented by the honorable member for Wannon and see whether he can find, in that district, one local valuer who is not an actively hostile canvasser against this Government and their policy. I ask the honorable member for Corangamite how many Labour sympathizers he can name among the local valuers appointed in his constituency?
– I cannot name one.
– And yet the Opposition have the impudence to talk about partisan actions and appointments. Where is Mr: Wilks? Did the Government give him a square deal? I take the State Government of Victoria, and refer to the Closer Settlement Board. Where is Mr. Kennedy, the late member for Moira in this House, who was on the Closer Settlement Board ; and Mr. Duggan, who went out ? Who are the members of the Geelong Harbor Trust? Imagine men of such a party having the audacity to come here and speak of the appointments that have been referred to as proofs of maladministration.
They have never raised a single question as to the merits of the men whose appointment they object to. These are the mer who talk about having no objection to a man because of his religious, political, or social views ; and yet, because a few men holding opinions similar to our own, have received appointments, they make this charge against the Government. I reckon they ought to be ashamed of themselves. That disposes of these charges. Then comes this charge: It is said by honorable members opposite that this Labour Government has failed to apply the laws of this country to the Coal Vend. That, in brief, is the complaint of the Opposition. We are told that the Labour party’s hostility to the trusts is a mere pretence; that we are not really hostile to them, and that we are not hostile to them because certain members of the Government are financially interested in one or other of them. Our friends opposite do not say this to our faces ; they have not the courage to say it here or on the public platform - that is, they do not say it directly. What they do is to slide it upon the audience by innuendo and suggestion. Questions are asked, “ Is it not a fact that such and such a Minister has so many shares in such and such a company ?” “ It is a question that may fairly be asked,” says the honorable member for Ballarat, “ whether so-and-so is not the case. “ “ I do not say that So-and-so committed bigamy, but I ask if it is not a fact that he has two wives ?” “ I do not say that So-and-so has committed theft ; but, if it is a fair question to ask, ‘ Did you ever lose anything when he was about ?’ “ It is in this way that beliefs are built up in the popular mind by the Opposition; but beyond anything that the members of the Opposition may do is what their paid agents and organizers do for them, especially their women organizers. We have from them statements like that of Miss Eleanor Cameron, that members of this Government are interested in certain affairs. By subtle innuendo and suggestion the public are made to believe that the Government will not do anything against the trusts and combines because Ministers are financially interested in them. The honorable member for Ballarat, speaking at Geelong, said, “ I appointed ‘ a Sugar Commission. Its members were ready to commence operations, but directly the Labour party came into power the investigation was suspended.” Later, at Murrumburrah, he told’ the electors of Werriwa that the Labour party permits the sugar industry to remain in the hands of a monopoly without moving a finger ; that it was responsible for the sugar strike; and, going still further, he said that it was responsible for the rise in the price of sugar. When I read the utterances of some of these men, I am surprised at the magnanimity of the Prime Minister, and the courtesy with which he treats his foes. I do not understand him. What is the position in regard to rings, trusts and combines ? A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the operations of the Tobacco Trust. It made its investigation and presented its report. But what can Parliament do? Nothing. Why? Because it has no power. The industry does not come under the trade and commerce provisions of the Constitution, and does not extend beyond the borders of any one State. The Sugar Commission may sit as long as it likes, and make what reports it likes ; but afterwards Parliament will not be able to do anything. Why ? Because the industry does not come under the trade and commerce provisions. The sugar business is an industry, and an industry may be carried on in a factory, and a factory is a fixture, and does not move from State to State. These Commissions are of no utility except in supplying facts and materials. The Attorney-General said to the honorable member for Ballarat, “You were in power from 1906 to 1910, and did not initiate a prosecution of the Coal Vend.” “ Oh, but you,” replied the honorable member for Ballarat, “ were in power for six months during 1908.” What is the insinuation ? - again we have no direct statement made - That in the six months during which the Labour Government was in power it could have done what the Deakin Government failed to do in the two preceding years, or in the ten months that followed. If the Labour Government of 1908 could have initiated a prosecution of the Coal Vend and failed to do so, it would merit the condemnation of every Labour man inside and outside Parliament. But the Opposition, in blaming the Labour Government, demonstrates its own shameless criminality, because what the Labour Government could do in six months’ tenure of office the Deakin Government could have done in a tenure of two years and ten .months. The Attorney-General, however, has proved that the Labour Government of 1908-9 could not prosecute the Coal Vend. The Deakin Government caused queries to be put to various members of the Shipping Combine and of the Coal Vend. The Huddart Parker Company refused to answer the questions, and was proceeded against in the lower Court.
It appealed, and the appeal was to come on in October. At that time the Deakin party was in office. It let the day of appeal come and go, until December, when the Labour party came into power again. Then the Judge who was to hear the case - not the Government, or its officers or agents - said that he was unable to go on because of illness, and the hearing was postponed until the following March. He heard it, and gave his decision two days after the Labour Government of 1908 went out of power. It was the Deakin Government’s turn to act, and it refrained from doing anything. Since then the Labour Government has put the law into force and got a verdict. The Court has declared that the Combine is illegal, and the Combine has been broken up. What more can we do? Honorable members opposite say, “ You can collect the fines.” But the Vend has appealed. Nothing more can be done. In theory and in law the Combine .no longer exists; but in actual fact it does exist, and every one knows it. The prosecution was a sham, a fraud, and a waste of public money. It is asked why/ did we prosecute.
– We had to vindicate the” law.
– I am not denying that. We can fairly say that we were called upon to carry out the law. But the Labour party in every State and in the Commonwealth has distinctly declared that it sees no solution of the question of ‘how to restrain and suppress rings, trusts, and combines, except the nationalization of them. The honorable member for Lang has read long extracts to prove that the Labour party believes in trusts, rings, and combines. I believe in combination, in the power of association. It is only as men associate their efforts that they rise from a lower to a higher social plane. The law of human progress compels association. We base our movements on combination in place of competition. We believe that competition is of the animal, and that combination is of the brain, born of human sympathy and kindness, and that it will do more to uplift the human race than can be hoped for from blind competition.. And if we believe in combination for ourselves, not less do we believe in the organization of industry - not less do we believe that it will ultimately be far better for society if all industries are organized than that the three-fold competition of man with man, manufacturer with manufacturer, and manufacturer with workman should continue. To what, then, do we object ? We. object to the powers of trusts and combines being utilized by private individuals for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the great majority, when, by means of ownership by the people and for the people, they might be utilized for the benefit of the industrial Democracy. Upon that ground we stand. The late Government stood for private enterprise and the application of the anti-trust law. I understand that when the Preservation of Industries Bill was under consideration in this House, the then Leader of the Labour party, Mr. Watson, distinctly declared that we did not believe that that legislation would prove effective in operation. Speaking in the light of the experience of America, he urged that it would be ineffective. But we were driven by the very force of the situation to vote for that legislation for the purpose of giving it a trial. We have given it a trial, and the facts of history have demonstrated that our belief was correct, and that the solution of the evil has yet to be found. In this connexion, nothing has been said by honorable members opposite which is to the detriment of the Government. Indeed, from the time the Attorney-General spoke until the honorable member for Lang rose, not a single word had been uttered in regard to this question. The last point upon which I desire to touch has reference to the charge that this Government have failed to maintain peace and good order - that they have failed in their national and constitutional obligations. It has been said that they have failed to maintain peace and good order. The answer to that is that within the ambit of their powers peace reigns throughout Australia. Wherever the arm of the Federation stretches there is peace. Disorder exists only in those places to which the Federal authority does not extend. The honorable member for Fawkner asked, “ What about Wonthaggi ?” What power have we over that centre? The State Government have refused to establish a Wages Board there. The Leader of the Opposition stated “ that the present Government stand for lawlessness - that the unions are lawless. Similarly, the honorable member for North Sydney affirmed that unionists are worse than barbarians - that they are among the worst ruffians on earth. He would have us believe that they are advocates of the use of dynamite and would-be assassins. Boiled down, that is his accusation. The dynamite charges are absolutely ridiculous. The honorable member for Ballarat spent a long time in detailing the awful attempts made to destroy life and property during the Brisbane tramway strike. His statements were published in the press the following day. They were not referred to as “ attempted “ dynamite outrages, but as actual dynamite outrages. Is there anything new about alleged outrages in times of industrial disturbance? Supposing all Brisbane had been loaded with dynamite, what harm could have been done? At the right moment the man who, for the past twenty-five years, has always put in an appearance to pick up the dynamite two minutes before it exploded would have materialized. In all forms of crime we can discover a victim, and the vigilance of the police will sometimes unearth a villain. It is a remarkable fact that for twenty-five years prior to the advent of the Labour party in politics, there never was a strike in Australia, or an effort made to alleviate the condition of the workers, without a socalled dynamite outrage. The victim may have been procured, tied down in a lone place, a charge of dynamite put under him, and a time fuse attached to it, but at the psychological moment, two minutes before the -explosion was bound to occur, somebody has put in an appearance and rescued him. Even if a plug of dynamite were put down a ship’s hold, and tons of coal were shovelled upon it, at the right moment, just as in melodrama, some person would detect its presence, and thus avert an awful catastrophe. I remember the great strike which took place in the Southern collieries during the middle eighties, and I also recollect the maritime strike. In connexion with the Bulli strike, which occurred in 1886, there was an awful dynamite outrage. The bomb was there, the clock was there, and everything was in readiness for the explosion to take place. But suddenly the same old party turned up, apparently from nowhere, and just in time to save the situation. In connexion with that outrage the authorities arrested a watchmaker at Wollongong. But, for some reason which was then unexplained, his prosecution was dropped,- and nothing more was heard of the matter - at least, for a time. Two years elapsed, and it was then discovered that a man who had served time in gaol was put up to steal the clock from a man who was known to be a sympathizer with Labour, and whom certain persons wanted to make their victim. But, instead of stealing the clock, he purchased it, and had it marked, with the result that when the scheme had been worked he said to its authors, “ I want money to get out of this country, and a free pass to San Francisco, otherwise I will blow the gaff’ when the case comes into Court.” Upon another occasion, for an alleged outrage, a man was imprisoned for nine months. In the Brisbane tramway strike the villain of the piece is supposed to have placed dynamite upon the tramlines. The Leader of the Opposition exclaimed, “ If a tram had only gone over it, the dynamite would have exploded.” What was necessary to produce an explosion eventually happened. Another awful bomb was placed on the line, the tram actually passed over it, and the thing did not go off. Then a man came along, and probed in the right place for the dynamite. He found that it had been laid down a little too deep. Next day news of the “ outrage “ was published. Not only that, but there was actually a dynamite outrage in Brisbane a week before the strike took place. So the poor devils of strikers were made responsible, not only for what happened afterwards, but for what happened before they became strikers at all. I put it to you, sir, and honorable members generally, after twenty-five years’ experience of industrial troubles in this country, if they think there was anything genuine in these so-called attempted outrages. Could they possibly have happened without the villain who perpetrated them being discovered? Do the Opposition expect the people to Believe that the trade unions have a kind of organization,- a body of dynamitards, more powerful than the Camorra, more secret than Nihilism or Anarchism? There never was an organization of that kind in the world which did not contain some kind of Judas to give it away ; but the Opposition ask us to believe that the Labour organizations in this country are so potent that they have been able to keep the police from laying their hands on the authors of the outrage*. The thing is so preposterous that no sensible man would believe it for a. moment. When this is pointed out to them, honorable members opposite say, “ I did not mean that the Labour Government were responsible for it.” Then why introduce it? What part does it play in the indictment of the Government? They say again, “ We are quite aware’ that the trade unionists are all respectable and decent men, and we do not say that they were responsible for the outrages.” If unionism had no part in it, why use it? What is the object of bringing it into this attack upon the Government? “ But,” say the
Opposition, “ no sooner do disturbances of this kind begin than they bring out the criminals and the weak-minded of the community.” So does the Melbourne Cup; but are the V.R.C. responsible because the Cup carnival attracts to Melbourne the sweepings and the villainy of Australia? To cope with that situation there comes into Victoria at that period a special detective force. To charge the Government with responsibility for acts of criminality with which it has no connexion, and for which it cannot possibly be responsible, is to utter an unreasoning slander. I shall not deal further with the strike in Brisbane, beyond saying that there were certain difficulties in the tramway, service, a plaint was lodged with the Arbitration Court, and was to be heard by a Judge; but suddenly one man stepped forward and took the law into his own hands. He dismissed his men. The first trouble in Brisbane in that matter was a lock-out - a strike of the employer against his workmen. The first act was that of a man who took the law into his own hands. We are asked why the trade unionists of Brisbane could not have waited ; but the tramway men had no chance to wait. They were hurled out on to the streets; but what member amongst the Opposition has denounced the action of the man who was responsible for it? He was not even an Australian; he was an alien. He simply had the power, and he tied up the street traffic of a great city to wreak his vengeance on men who had submitted their case to the law. He broke the law, he attempted to do that which had been left to the law to do, and he struck against his workmen. His action was an insult to the law. He was an alien in the land ; he was the creator of all the discord ; and he should have been dealt with. What cared he for the interests of men, women, or children ? What cared he that the men were cast out on the streets, or whether their women suffered or not? Yet there has not been one expression of disapprobation of his action by honorable members opposite. When the trouble developed, the Government of Queensland made a demand on the Commonwealth Government for armed troops to shoot down unarmed people. The honorable member for Ballarat said that the strikers in Brisbane were worse than savages and barbarians, because, said he, savages and barbarians put their womenkind out of the struggle; but the trade unionists of Brisbane left their women to suffer. Yet the honorable. member wanted a military force sent to Brisbane. What for? When the constabulary have the task of maintaining law and order they can distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, between the innocent and the guilty, between men and women and children. They can make the distinction for which the honorable member for Ballarat was so anxious. But when an armed military force is brought into the field, it stands there obedient to orders ; it must fire at the word of command; it cannot discriminate between the innocent and the guilty, between father’ and mother and child. The military forces fire, and mow down all indiscriminately, and that is what the honorable member for Ballarat desires. The Argus of 8th February said it was a good thing that the military were not sent, “ because it might have excited sympathy with the strikers.” It also pointed out another disadvantage, saying that “the military could act only in’ moments of violence, and not upon suspicion of violence.” Therefore, the request for the military was only an excuse. Those who made it thought they would get a political weapon against the Government. If troops are ever sent by a Labour Government, it should be to show that the military can be used as much in the interests of the people as in the interests of property. If the military had been sent to Brisbane, they should have been used to deal with the man who started the disorder and tied up the traffic of a great city. They should have been utilized to restore that traffic, to lay their hands on the author of the disorder, and exile him as other aliens have been exiled. The Argus did not want the military because it could be used only in moments of violence, and not upon suspicion of violence! The Argus was anxious to see repeated the scene of twentytwo years ago, when in the parks of this city, men, women, and children were assembled to discuss a great question. They were in no sense in proximity to the scenes of industrial disorder, for they were not near the shipping; but when they assembled >on that Sabbath day they saw armed troops all around them. What for? Had the populace violated the law ? Honorable members will remember that passage in The Conflict, by Phillips, where Martin Hastings, the great capitalist, says to his daughter, “ We will teach them a lesson.” She replies, “ Father, there has been no trouble,” and he says, ‘.’ When I say there is a riot, there will be a riot.” That sort of thing has happened many times in this country. The troops are there, and there is no semblance of disorder ; but they must make no distinction between father and mother, son and daughter. They are told, “ You have simply to do your duty ; fire low, give them a dose of lead in the guts, and make it effective, so that the dose will not need to be repeated.” That is what certain people wanted in the State of Queensland this time, if they could have got it; but it is what they never will get while the Labour party control the government of this country. The Government did not send the troops, and the fact that the ordinary processes of law were found to be quite sufficient to maintain peace and order is a sufficient answer. That completes my reply to the indictment. The Government stand, as the Age said, untouched and unscathed. The honorable member for Mernda stated that the Government had but one policy - “ to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” We find that advice given somewhere in Holy Writ; but Mitford, in his History of Greece, tells us these words were inscribed on the walls of Anchialos and Tarsus by Sardanapalusof Assyria. Byron has made it a theme. “ Say what you will of me,” says the Assyrian King, “ but in those few words there is the history of all things human. Others have destroyed ; I have created ; enough for me if I have made my subjects feel the weight of misery the less, that they may glide ungroaning to their tomb.” Life is short and death is long ; and if this Government have made merry the hearts that were sad - have enabled them to enter into the joy of life - they have contributed no small part to the happiness of our people and the progress of our race.
.- 1 am somewhat at a disadvantage in not having heard the speeches which have been delivered on this motion of censure; but if the previous speakers did as much romancing as did the last speaker, I am extremely thankful that T was spared the ordeal of listening to them. I did hope that the Government would introduce a commonsense system of administering the Departments ; but we find that the old system of red-tape has been more accentuated by them than ever it was by their predecessors, until at last the Minister of Home Affairs has admitted that the Departments are one tangled knot of red-tape, and that
Ministers are merely animated rubber stamps. Under the previous Administration we had a system of semi-official postoffices; but this has been wiped out by the present Government, and I think that, in many instances, this has added considerably to the cost of running the Department. It has shut out extremely good men and women, too, from the Postal Service. I would like to refer to special cases, because any one can get up and make a haphazard statement as to what has been done. I shall refer the Government to some specific cases, so that, if they wish to do it, they may hold an investigation. We have a semi-official post-office at Rosewood. A contract was entered into three years ago. We had in the office a splendid man, who was able to do the operating, and under his management the business increased by leaps and bounds. The people esteemed him as a good officer, and when his contract expired he was informed that his services would not be any longer required.
– I suppose that they sent telegrams to increase his returns as a matter of pleasure.
– If the honorable gentleman has any far-fetched idea like that in his mind he is quite at liberty to go on supposing as long as he likes. This gentleman was entitled to enter the Civil Service, not on the clerical staff, but on the general staff. What has the Department done ? It advised him that he might go on as assistant postmaster at Rosewood. That means, I suppose, that the Department will put a man over him at a salary of about £200 a year or more to do the work which he has done up to the present time, and is quite capable of doing in the future. The residents of Rosewood are extremely sorry at the thought of losing the services of such a very capable officer; but the PostmasterGeneral has said that the semiofficial office must go, and the status must be increased, and a man who is qualified to enter the Service in the clerical staff must take charge.. I have a suggestion to make with regard to the checking of telephone calls. I have the unique experience of spending one-half of my time in this city and the other half at home; but I notice that my telephone charges average the same, whether I am at home or not. I do not wish to charge any one with neglect of duty; but I do think that the public are entitled to some means of checking the accounts. There is no business in the world other than the telephone business which is carried on without such means. I would suggest to the Department that if there is no means by which the accounts can be checked, the pennyintheslot system might be extended to every user of the telephone, so that he could register the calls. That would be more satisfactory than the present system of having no check at all. I hope that if the Government intend to deal with the Navigation Bill, they will secure some protection to shippers, if not by insisting upon a uniform bill of lading, at least by having some just system to apply to bills of lading. I notice that an Agricultural Bureau is, so far as appearances go, as far off as ever. The Lighthouses Bill has, I regret to say, had the effect of retarding any progress that might have been made by the States towards the proper lighting of our coasts. We may expect in the near future that the distance will be shortened between this and other parts of the world by the opening of the Panama Canal ; and, before that time arrives, I hope the Commonwealth Government will have done something towards the safety of our shipping, and the establishment of the confidence of the travelling public in these waters. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech, as a whole, indicates a barren session; as a matter of fact. to my disappointment; there is practically nothing at all in the Speech. The reference to the Customs and Excise revenue should be carefully read by the people of this country. A Customs Tariff which yields a revenue so enormous requires looking into. For some time now the verdict has been in favour of a Protective Tariff; but, at present, the large revenue shows that the Tariff does not protect. The taxation which we have to bear under the Commonwealth Government is as follows : - Customs and Excise, £2 18s. 9jd. per head; postal, 17s. 8£d. ; coinage, 10¾d. ; land tax, 6s. 2½d. ; other taxes, is. 7d., making a total of £4 5s. 1¾d. per head. This, together with the State taxation, places us in the unenviable position of being the highest taxed people in the world. The honorable member for Bourke seemed to indicate that the Government have had a really “ good time,” with a little to spare. I remind the honorable member, however, that the people of Australia have had to pay for that “ good time,” and that the revenues of the States have been diminished in consequence of those collected by the Commonwealth. Further, we have passed through very prosperous times, which we all hope will continue, but which our experience of the past shows us must be varied. If hard times do come, and we continue to spend right up to the hilt as at present, we shall find ourselves in a bad way. While our imports have increased our exports have decreased. In 1910 our imports represented £58,682,39 c, and in 191 1 the figure was £64,997,907. In 1910 the exports represented £69,855,873 in general merchandise, and £4,635,277 in specie and bullion. In 191 1 the exports of general merchandise represented £67,435,172, or a reduction of something like £2,250,000, and the exports of gold and specie in that year were valued at £12,047,086; so that, while the exports of general merchandise have decreased, the exports of gold and bullion have considerably increased. This brought our total exports up to more than in previous years; but, as £12,000,000 was in gold and bullion, we are not in a very happy position. Paragraph 8 of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech expresses the hope that “ an early opportunity “ will present itself for settling the question of the consolidation of the State debts ; but, in my opinion, the opportunity was given by the electors of Australia on 13th April, 19 10. The Prime Minister, in a flight of imagination and to influence the people of Queensland at the last general election, made a critical reference to the finances of that State, and I notice that the Labour party particularly dwelt on the fact that, in the next two or three years, the loans maturing for Queensland amount to something like £14,000,000. When the referenda were before the people, the argument of the Prime Minister, and the Labour party generally, was that the State debts would be taken over by the Commonwealth, and to that end it was sought to get authority for an amendment of the Constitution. Personally, I advised the people not to ratify an amendment of the Constitution, but, the people having given the mandate to consolidate the debts, are the Government going to wait until an “ early opportunity “ presents itself, or are they going to make the opportunity for themselves, as directed at the general election? I desire. to say a few words in reference to paragraph 9 of the Governor-General’s Speech, which, I think, is rather unfortunately worded. It is as follows -
Although there has been a very marked increase in the volume of oversea immigration, to which the hind tax and general policy of My Advisers has largely contributed, they are un- able to regard the rate of natural increase of population in the Commonwealth with other than the deepest concern. The birth rate, for a young country, is too low ; the death rate, though comparing most favorably with older countries, is too high. Last year nearly 9,00a children died under the age of one year - very many of these from preventable causes. My Advisers, considering its men and women to be’ the greatest asset of the nation, after most careful consideration, have decided to lay before you a proposal for a Maternity Grant to the mothers of children born in the Commonwealth.
The reason given for granting this bounty nullifies any good intentions which the Government might have in proposing it. As one who has reared a fairly large family, and has had to support it by the sweat of my brow, I sympathize with any one who has had to go through a similar experience. But there are other ways of helping people than by insulting them. No doubt, the object, if we may assume it to be a laudable object at all, is to help the poorer classes. It has been suggested that the object is to catch votes. I hope there is a higher intention behind. But I say that the words used concerning the proposed bounty in the Governor- General’s Speech are insulting to every married woman in the Commonwealth who is a mother. The inference is that there is some artificial check on the birth rate, and that a £5 note will have the desired effect of removing the check. That is “ playing the game rather low.” The following words regarding preventable diseases is also most insulting. Would any mother see her child done to death for the sake of £5 ? Would £5 help the average mother to rear a child which she could not rear without it? I am afraid that this is putting rather a low estimate upon the love of the mothers of Australia for their offspring. The paragraph is also unfair to Australia as a nation. If we compare our birth and death rates with the figures of other nations, we find that we are not in such a bad position: after all. The latest figures are as follow : - The birth rate for Russia is 48 per 1,000; Germany, 32; ‘ Austria, 26.4;. United States of America, 26.3 ; Switzerland, 26.8; Norway, 26.2; Sweden, 25.7; Belgium, 25.3; Ireland 23.3 ; Canada, Ontario, 23.3; France, 20.2. It will be seen that our birth rate is next to that of Russia and Germany, and is amongst the highest in the world. The net result is very much in favour of the Commonwealth figures. The death rates of the various countries are these- Commonwealth of Australia, 71.56 per 1,000; Denmark, 106; United Kingdom, 114; Switzerland, 141; Canada, 162; German Empire, 176; European Russia, 256. The German birth rate of 32, and the Russian of 48, are high, but compare their enormous infant death rate with ours. I pass on to paragraph 10 of the Speech, dealing with Royal Commissions which have been appointed. First on the list is the Sugar. Commission. We were promised by the Government that that Commission would be non-partisan and above suspicion. As a Queensland representative, and one who had been asking for an inquiry, I felt it to be my duty to say nothing when the Commission was appointed about its personnel, especially as at that time I knew very little about it. I regret to say, however, that events have so shaped themselves that one can come to no other conclusion than that, as an honorable member has said, the Commission “is a daisy.” We are all well aware of what took place in Sydney. I was particularly struck with the remark of the Secretary of the Commission before the Police Court - if he is correctly reported in the press - that they “ objected to the other side raking up every twopenny-halfpenny argument in connexion with the Commission.” There should not be any “other side” with a Commission of this kind. If the Commission has gone out in the interests of the Government or of any one side, the sooner it is disbanded the better. I am sure that it will contribute nothing useful to the work of this House, because its report will naturally be regarded as onesided. I regret very much indeed that we have to come to the conclusion that the Commission is partisan. I pass on to paragraph 15, in which the Government refer to the problems connected with the development of the Northern Territory, and tell us that -
The work of preparation for the reception of settlers is being proceeded with.
I should like to know what problems in connexion with the Northern Territory have been settled since this Government took control. What preparation is being made for the reception of settlers? As far as I can learn, a great number who went there this year have returned, and practically nothing has been done. I know that Mr. Ryland has been appointed to a very important position in the Territory, and I suppose that he, too, is going to make provision for the reception of settlers. I hear some honorable member ask, below his breath, “Who is Mr. Ryland?” He is one of the Labour candidates who had the misfortune to be “ bumped out “ at the recent general election in Queensland. That, together with the fact that he has some ideas of his own with regard to leasehold, as opposed to freehold, tenure, appears to be the only qualification he has for the position into which he has been pitchforked. I regret that the identity of the Scottish Regiment is to be suppressed by the abolition of the kilts.
– No one can suppress the Scot.
– I do not think any one is likely to do so; but an attempt is being made to suppress the identity of the Scottish Regiment. I am quite sure that a Scotsman is able to take care of himself ; he will, at least,make a determined effort: to do so. But it is rather unfortunate that the Government should try to damp the enthusiasm of men who have always been willing to spill their blood in the service of the Empire. When they ask. to be allowed to continue to wear the grand uniform that has never been disgraced, their request ought certainly to be complied with. The Minister of Home Affairs promised us some time ago something in the direction of electoral uniformity, but on examining the redistribution schemes of the various States I find that we have got further away than ever from any system of electoral reform such as we were promised by the honorable gentleman. It appears to me that the whole trouble is owing to a quarrel between the Commonwealth and the State Departments. I wish now to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the following paragraph which appeared in the Brisbane Courier on the 7th February last: -
Mr. J. S.Collings said that it had been wired all over the country yesterday that the strike was broken and that the trams were running as usual. This did not get far ahead of them, however, and they telegraphed the good news of their successful progress to contradict the misstatements. Incidentally, he might say that they were never far behind in getting information, and they had some one in every Government Department, on the press, and elsewhere whose sympathies, unknown to the authorities, were with them, and who supplied them with information on every move before it was given out. The success of the strike was nearer, and the fight was practically over.
Mr. Collings was second in command during the recent Brisbane strike. But for an experience of my own, I should not perhaps, have taken very much notice of this paragraph, although I think that the Department, for the sake of its own credit, should have immediately inquired into this statement, and have ascertained whether or not there were “ pimps “ in the Service. We have always prided ourselves, and have tried to think, that we had a Public Service on which we could depend. We have always tried to believe that when we sent a telegraphic message to any one, its contents were held sacred by the Department, and would not leak out. On 6th February, however - the day on which this statement was made, I think - I sent a telegram to the honorable member for Parramatta, and I heard the contents of my telegram read out from the window of the Trades Hall, in Turbot-street, Brisbane.
– Fifteen years ago I sent a telegram from Western Australia to London to secure certain shares there, but the news got out locally long before the message reached its destination.
– Is that any excuse for the reading of a private telegram at the Trades Hall?
– This report of Mr. Collings’ statement is a condensed one, but as one who sent the telegram, I perhaps knew more of what was going on than did the reporter, whom I had not seen at the time, and to whom I have not spoken about the matter since. When I heard the contents of my telegram read out in this way, I immediately saw Mr. Templeton, the Deputy Postmaster-General,
– Was it the honorable member’s own telegram that he heard read out at the Trades Hall?
– It was almost word for word as I had sent it. Any one who compares the telegram that I sent with the report in the newspaper to which I have referred will see that the reference could have been to no other than my own message.
– What did Mr. Templeton say?
– He said that if I would make a specific charge, he would be most happy to investigate it thoroughly. Honorable members know, however, how difficult it is to make a specific charge in such a case. Even in making a statement like this one may cast suspicion upon an innocent person. There may have been a -dozen who knew the contents of my telegram, and perhaps the man who actually transmitted it was as innocent of the pub lication of its contents as a new-born babe. I am not accusing any particular person. All I know is that I wrote out the telegram and handed it to the messenger at the Federal parliamentary room in Brisbane; that I heard that message read out next day at the Trades Hall, and Mr. Collings made the boast that the Strike Committee had “ pimps “ in every Department, who gave them information quicker than the Government themselves were able to obtain it.
– The charge is a very serious one.
– I suppose the Deputy Postmaster-General has investigated it?
– No; he asked that a specific charge should be made.
– Quite right, too.
– How could I bring a specific charge against any individual in the office? My charge is against the Department. Let the Department sift it out.
– When the honorable member could not find out who was responsible, how could he expect the Department to do so?
– I am rather surprised to find that any honorable member would condone such an act.
– How can the honorable member say that any honorable member would condone such an act ?
– It is a difficult matter to trace.
– I know that it is. We have the statement made by the second in command of the strike movement that they had “ pimps “ in the Department, yet the Department has not even taken any action to find out where those “ pimps “ are. The Prime Minister, in discussing the strike in this House, said that the lying statements of the press did not influence the metropolitan electors where they knew the truth and where they swept the polls during the last elections. Let us analyze this “ sweeping of the polls !” In the metropolitan area there are sixteen seats. The Government won ten of these, and the Socialists six; so that, after all, the movement cannot be said to have been very “sweeping.” I give the figures for the different electorates of the metropolitan area. For Brisbane, the Government polled 2,249 votes, and the Socialists 2,281 votes. Bulimba: Liberals, 2,315; Socialists, 1,752. Buranda : Liberals, 1,824; Socialists, 2,276. Enoggera:
Liberals, 2,076; Socialists, 1,814; Fortitude Valley: Liberals, 1,640; Socialists, 2,456. Ithaca: Liberals, 1,837; Socialists, 2,265. Kurilpa : Liberals, 2,204; Socialists, 1,765. Maree: Liberals, 2,000; Socialists, 2,096 ; Merthyr : Liberals, 2,119; Socialists, 2,115. Nundah: Liberals, 2,801; Socialists, 1,222. Oxley: Liberals, 2,2x3; Socialists, 1,580. Paddington: Liberals, 1,973; Socialists, 2,678. South Brisbane: Liberals, 1,914; Socialists, 1,882. Toombul : Liberals, 2,648 ; Socialists, 1,447. Toowong - the constituency in which the honorable member who represents Brisbane in this House lives - : Liberals, 2>734; Socialists, 1,145. Windsor: Liberals, 2,448; Socialists, 1,837. The totals are : Liberals, 34,495 vci.es ; Socialists, 30,622 votes; or a majority of some 4,000 votes in favour of the Liberals in the constituencies in and around Brisbane. It may be interesting to give figures with respect to the movement of the Labour party in Queensland for some years past. When the last Parliament was dissolved, the strength of the parties was : Government, 40; Labour, 26; Independents, 6. During the ‘last ten years, the State Labour party has moved up and down. In 1899, Labour had 22 representatives in the State Parliament. In 1902, the .number was 24.; in 1904, 34; in 1907., 17 ; in 1908, 23 ; in 1909, 27 ; and in 1912, the number has fallen back to 25 ; and, since these figures were made up, I believe that number has been reduced to 24. That shows the clean sweep which the Prime Minister spoke of in connexion with the recent State election. It may be interesting, also, to give an analysis of the votes cast in the metropolitan area and in the country. In the metropolitan aarea, the Liberals polled 32,957 votes, and the Socialists, or Labour party, 29,771 votes. These figures are not quite as late as those which I previously gave for the metropolitan constituencies. In the country constituencies, the Liberals polled 70,468 votes, and the Socialists 58,334 votes. The totals are: Liberals, 103,425 votes; and Labour, or Socialists, 88,105 votes. I may further add that four members representing Liberal seats were returned unopposed^ Notwithstanding the great outcry there has been against the use of special constables, the bushmen, who so gallantly rode into Brisbane to restore law and order, I may inform honorable members that the majority of them, came from the four electorates Which were uncontested bv r><». Labour party at the last election. They had evidently learnt a lesson from! what they had seen of the bushmen a few weeks previously. Some honorable members opposite may be interested to know how the voting went in the Federal electorates of Queensland. In the Brisbane Division, the votes cast were : Liberals, 14,149; Labour, 14,533- Oxley: Liberals, 13,015; Labour, 11,686. Moreton, in which there were four seats uncon tested at the recent State elections, the votes polled were: Liberals, 7,265; Labour, 6,346. In these figures, I have given Labour credit for every vote recorded against the Government. I have counted every vote given for an Independent candidate as a Labour vote. In the new Federal Division, the voting was : Liberals, *13>&53’> Labour, 8,405. Wide Bay: Liberals, 12,331 ; Labour, 10,174. Darling Downs: Liberals, 15,511; Labour, 9,506. Maranoa: Liberals, 6,778; Labour, 9,035. Capricornia : Liberals, 10,607 ; Labour, 11,976. In the Kennedy Division, in which one State seat was uncontested and went to the Labour party, the voting was : Liberals, 9,631 ; Labour, 8,708 ; and in the Herbert electorate the votes polled were: Liberals, 9,759; Labour, 11,330. These figures are for the Federal Divisions on the lines of the proposed new distribution, and they will give honorable members some idea of what we may expect at the next Federal election, when T hope that a similar “ sweeping movement “ will take place ; and, if it does, judging from the Prime Minister’s remarks, he should be very well satisfied also. I wish to say a few words now with regard to the recent rebellion in Brisbane. It has fallen, I regret to say, to the lot of the present Prime Minister to be the first to break the Federal compact. When the States surrendered the right to maintain troops, they did so on the distinct understanding that in the event of the invasion of foreign foes, or of domestic violence, the Commonwealth would give them protection. Personally, I do not think that, had the request of the Queensland Government been complied with, the military would have been used ; but when the leaders of the strike told their people that because a Labour party was in power the troops would not be used against them, and that they could do practically what they liked, it was the duty of the Commonwealth Government to see that law and order were not flouted. What I have to say about the rebellion I say as an eye-witness ; and if my conclusions do not coincide with those of the honorable member for Brisbane, it is because we viewed the proceedings from different stand-points. In the first place, I was down among the people, and took part in the marches.
– Where was the honorable member for Brisbane?
– He was on top of the Turkish baths during part of the time. He led his people from the housetops. My conclusion during the strike was that he had a sneaking regard for high places until the Socialistic flag was struck by lightning. That appeared to be taken as a warning to climb down.
– Did he come off the roof then?
– He came off the roof. The Prime Minister and other speakers have said that no violence was used by the strikers - that there was no cause for alarm. Yet the honorable member for Brisbane said that he dreaded what might take place on the morrow.
– And that he was living on the edge of a volcano.
– Yes. The strike leaders attempted to starve not only the people of Brisbane, but also the live stock belonging to them. Mr. McCook, who lives at Nundah, purchased a consignment of hay at the municipal markets, to feed his cattle. That was on the Thursday. I was there at the time. When the produce was about to be carted away, it was stopped at the market gates by an infuriated crowd, and Mr. McCook was obliged to take it back and load it into railway trucks consigned to Nundah. He told me afterwards that he had to go with an escort of police at 6 in the morning, as if he were a thief stealing something, to get the produce away from the station, so that he might feed his starving stock. To mention another case : Mr. Thorpe bought some fowls, and then found that he could not remove them to his premises to feed them. The auctioneer suggested that he should go to the Trades Hall for a permit. He went there, and put his case before Mr. Moir, the secretary, saying that he did not wish to sell the fowls, but merely to keep them at his premises from the Friday until the Monday. He said that if the permit’ was not granted, the fowls would have to starve. Mr. Moir told him that they could “ bally well starve,” but that he would not get the permit. Even a revolutionary Government might give its citizens a chance to live. This self-constituted Government, however, refused a permit to allow the feeding of fowls between Friday and Monday. Yet the Prime Minister says that he was delighted with what was done. Those responsible for the strike defied the laws of the Commonwealth as well as of the State, their actions being a direct insult to this Parliament. In 1904 we passed a Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which was an honest attempt to provide for the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes. In 1910, when this Labour Government came into power, it had the Act amended, and further amended in 191 1, when it was brought right up to date, and made to thoroughly accord with their ideas. Yet the strike leaders - I blame them solely - ignored the Act altogether. The wearing of a badge seemed to be the cause out of which the trouble arose, and the dispute was referred to the Arbitration Court, the plaint of the United Tramway Employes being lodged in October, 191 1, by Messrs. Frank Brennan and Rundle, solicitors for the employes. One of the matters in dispute was set out in these terms -
The employees shall be permitted to wear and display the badge of membership of the association.
To which the Tramway Company filed this reply -
This respondent disputes the claim on paragraph C 39 b of the plaint, and says that no distinction between members and non-members of the association should be allowed.
Yet the honorable member for Batman, notwithstanding that his firm had lodged the plaint - and if he did not see the reply which was filed by the respondent company disputing the right of the men to wear the badge, that was his fault - led the people of Brisbane to believe that the wearing of the badge was not included in it.
– I challenge the honorable member to prove his statement.
– Perhaps it is just as well that I should recall the point which was at issue. In the first place, the only matter in dispute was the right of the men to wear a badge. That matter had already been referred to the Arbitration Court, but either the tramway employes had been persuaded that it had not been so referred, or they were not content to await the decision of that tribunal. Upon the 2nd February - and I think this is a strong piece of evidence that the men were misled - the honorable member for Brisbane wrote to the Courier, stating -
May I supplement what I have previously stated in reply to Mr. Badger’s statementthat the right to wear the badge has already been included in the plaint filed by the men in the Arbitration Court by adding that I have consulted with Mr. Brennan, M.P., of Brennan andRundle, solicitors. Melbourne, who prepared the case for the Tramway Employes Association, and who is at present in Brisbane, and he assures me that this particular item is not so included.
If the honorable member for Batman says that the honorable member for Brisbane misled the public, I will accept his word. But, until to-night, he has not contradicted the statement which I have just made. In fact, he told the people of Brisbane that he would accept all responsibility in connexion with it.
– The honorable member said that I stated that the right of the men to wear the badge was not included in the plaint.
– I have already quoted the letter of the honorable member for Brisbane in that connexion. He adds -
Further, I have to-day examined a certified copy of this claim, and assure the public that there is not a word of reference in it to the matter of wearing the badge.
– Who showed him the copy?
– I do not know. During the speech of the honorable member for Ballarat, the honorable member suggested by interjection that he had seen a senior sergeant or sub-inspector of police fire a shot, although he afterwards denied having seen it. If he read the plaint so carefully, and could not see that the question of wearing a badge was included in it, it is hardly reasonable for him to expect us to believe that he saw a policeman fire a shot. He continues -
The whole difficulty revolves around this question as to the right of the men to wear the badges, and, failing a mutual agreement between the company and its employes on the matter, it seems eminently reasonable that it should be referred to the highest Court of Industrial Appeal in the country. By the decision of that authority either party stands or falls, and a note from Mr. Badger to the union, that he is prepared to so refer the matter will open the way for a prompt and satisfactory settlement of other differences.
It has been said that nothing was done by the Premier of Queensland to bring about a settlement of the strike. The remarks of the honorable member for Brisbane lead me up to that statement.He says -
A note from Mr. Badger to the union, that he is prepared to so refer the matter will open the way for a prompt and satisfactory settlement of other differences.
– Is that the alien?
– If the Minister of Trade and Customs wishes to insult a citizen of that great nation, the United States, he is at liberty to do so. But I have no hesitation in saying that it is beneath the dignity of the Minister to refer to Mr. Badger in that way.
– He is not an Australian citizen. He is an alien, and the honorable member cannot deny it.
– I merely desire to point out that Mr. Badger attempted to bring about a settlement of the dispute.
– He did more to cause it.
– No doubt, if he had shown weakness by caving in, there would have been no strike. But he did not. It seems to me that the unions nowadays want the employers to do all the caving in. I had a chat with the honorable member for Maranoa about the time that this industrial disturbance arose, and I know that he was opposed to the strike from the outset. Without divulging any confidence, I know that he advised the Strike Committee and the honorable member for Brisbane not to take the action which was contemplated. I naturally went to that gentleman thinking there was a chance of doing something to bring about a settlement of the dispute. We decided upon a certain course of action, and then the first thing I did was to see the Premier, Mr. Denham, and ask him if anything could be done to bring about a settlement. He told me that, unfortunately, nothing could be done. He said, “ I appreciate your laudable desire, but a gentleman has just been here on the same errand as yourself. He has been to Mr. Badger, and Mr. Badger told him that he would reinstate two- thirds of the men who were discharged if they would go back without their badges, and allow that matter to be settled by the Court, and that he would allow them to appoint their own committee to decide which of the men so discharged should be reinstated.” Mr. Badger said, further, “ I will undertaketo re-employ the whole of the men within twomonths.” That goes to prove that Mr.Badger was quite prepared at that time to submit the question to the Arbitration Court.
– He could not help himself.
– He offered to do it, but he said, “ Of course, that is the position to-day. I cannot say what I will do to-morrow. I am gradually filling the places of these men, and at the present time one-third of their places have been filled. I am not going to discharge men who have been put on, but the men can go back and work if they like without their badges, pending a settlement of the case in the Arbitration Court.” This offer was communicated to the tramway men who had been discharged, and their answer was that they would not go back unless every man was reinstated in his former position, that they would only go back wearing their badges, and that the arrangements should be made through the Strike Committee. That is the sort of men who were asking for some means of settling the strike. They want the other man to cave in every time. There is such a thing as a law of cause and effect, and I regret to have to charge the Strike Committee, and those who aided and abetted them, those who urged the men on to strike, with having done to death three of our Brisbane citizens during the strike. Three homes to-day are minus their breadwinners, and, although, perhaps, some can afford to make light of these things. I should like the minds of honorable members to go to those homes to-night, where the bread-winner’s place is vacant. It is all very well to say that these men who were killed in the execution of their duty should not have done what they did, but the fact remains that they were killed during the strike, and as the result of the strike. The greatest sufferers by the strike were the working classes themselves. When we analyze the position, we find that quite a number of men were thrown out of employment, and have never regained their positions. Although we were assured by the Strike Committee, by Mr. Harry Coyne and Mr. Joe Collings, that they had a glorious victory right along the line, the sort of victory they had was shown by the facts given in answer to questions put by Mr. Kirwan in the Queensland Legislative Assembly on the 4th July last. He asked -
Thus 1,956 people went out, and 202 got back again. There were 260 or 270 tramway men who did not get back to their positions, and various others in private employment lost their billets. Let me show the House how employers who showed a leaning towards the Labour party during this industrial trouble were treated. It appears to me that the policy of the unionists, or of those who led the strike, was to hit hardest their own friends and their own people: The Daily Mail was brought out daily almost entirely by union labour. The. honorable member for Brisbane made a desperate attempt to bring out the men on all the daily newspapers in Brisbane.
– One of them is run by nonunion labour, and it was of no use to bring them out.
– The Daily Mail was run by union labour, and the Courier by non-union labour. The Daily Mail was reduced to a sheet of about 15 x 10 inches during the strike, but the Courier came out larger than ever. The strike authorities thought that they had the key to the situation when they took out the stereotypists, but they found that they made a mistake. Two of the office boys did the stereotyping. Here was a newspaper that had some leaning towards Labour, which employed unionists. It was hit ; its business was completely paralyzed whilst the firm that employed non-union labour got off scot free and brought out their newspaper very much to the satisfaction of the general public.
– There is no charge of partisanship there.
– It was stupidity, not partisanship.
– I call it downright madness to victimize your own friends.
– You victimize your own friends.
– I am not out to victimize any one. I believe in a fair go for everybody, and I defy the honorable member or any one else to say that I have acted otherwise.
– I am speaking of you generally.
– I quite understand that. Sometimes, of course, one has to sheet these things home personally. Tradesmen, such as the firm of Finlayson and Sons, who employed non-union carters, were able to carry on their business with scab carters.
– Not the honorable member for Brisbane?
– No, he would not be in the business.
– I do not know what interest the honorable member for Brisbane has. in this business, but he is the son of the leading member of the firm.
– Did he employ scab labour ?
– I do not say that he did, but his firm did. So did Foggitt, Jones, and Company. Mr. Jones was one of the Strike Committee.
– They looked after themselves.
– Yes, it was a case of looking after themselves. They tried to shut up the whole of the business places, except one Or two.. I want to point out that the question of the Tramway Company Union affiliating with the Federated Tramway Association was only settled the night before the command was issued to the Brisbane men to wear the badge. We were told that the men decided themselves to wear the badge, but the decision was arrived at in Melbourne. It was only an accident that the strike took place in Brisbane, and that accident was Mr. Badger, who happened to say that the men should not wear the badge. The other tramway managers said that the men should not wear the badge, but they had not the same backbone as he had to insist upon the men carrying out his command. I do not think it was generally known to the unionists of Queensland that it was finally decided the night before the wearing of the badge that the Tramway Union should affiliate with the Federated Union. At first it was only intended that there should be a sectional strike in Brisbane. It was thought that the key to the situation was held by the waterside workers ; but these men were, no doubt, tired of carrying the responsibility of these movements, and so they refused to come out unless all the unions went out in sympathy, too. The result was that the whole of the unions were asked to down tools on a certain day. The honorable member for Brisbane has said - and I am sorry that he is not here to interject - that the unions were not responsible for the bread supplies having been cut off. I have read the statements which he made to the House, and the letters which he read. Now, the Bakers’ Union was called out with other unions. The master bakers were told that the men could go to work if they got permits from the Trades Hall and paid the wages into the strike fund. The master bakers replied that when they asked for permits they would get them from the legally-constituted Government, and not from the Trades Hall, so that the Strike Committee and tho unions were responsible for the shortage of bread supplies in Brisbane. The honorable member for Brisbane went on to say that there was really no shortage. I know that scores of persons got their bread from Rosewood and different country centres. I .know thousands of loaves of bread were sent from Sydney to Brisbane during the strike.
– Probably he meant that the Finlayson family were not short of bread.
– I shall deal with that later. I know that Mr. Sheard, one of our leading bakers, made an attempt to supply people with bread, and had to have police protection round his premises in order to serve it out. Persons could be seen flocking there in thousands at 4 o’clock in the morning to be supplied with bread, which he baked in spite of the unions. Again, there was a widow who carried on a bakery on the south side. She decided to bake. Some one entered her premises and asked her how she was getting on with her bread. She replied, “ I have just drawn one batch, and I have the dough in the trough for another.” Within twenty minutes sixty red-raggers were there and took the dough out of the trough and threw it into the street. Yet we are told in this House that the unionists did nothing to prevent the people from getting bread. The Government decided to come to the rescue by establishing depots The Government have been charged with not having done so; but the fact is that, before they were able to establish those depots, Major Cahill and his forces had “ knocked the stuffing “ out of the unionists, and people were able to carry on their ordinary vocations. We, and also the unionists, have to thank Major Cahill for the fact that there was no bloodshed in Brisbane. I think I need not say anything further in regard to the bread supply. The honorable member for Brisbane has tried to lead us to believe that there was no shortage.
– I would sooner believe the honorable member for Brisbane than I would the honorable member who is speaking.
– The people in Brisbane know the facts.
– What are the chances of the honorable member for Brisbane coming back to this House?
– I would not give two pence for his chances. The honorable member for Brisbane has informed us that there was no shortage, and that he had three meals a. day. But there is a very good reason why the honorable member for Brisbane should be able to have three meals a day. Some time ago, there was a slump in Brisbane tramway shares, which went down to £2 7s. 6d. on account of the prevalence of dengue ; and some friends of mine, including the honorable member for Brisbane, bought at that price - the honorable member taking 100 shares. On the Friday - Baton Friday - I heard that the honorable member was anxious to sell some of the shares; and, knowing his views in regard to absentee companies, I thought it would be a very good thing if they could be kept in Brisbane. With a view to purchase, I tried to hunt him up ; but, before I found him, he had sold fifty of the shares in London, having sufficient canny Scotch blood in his veins to cause him to hold on to fifty until the Monday in order lo ascertain how the market was likely to go. On the Monday, he sold his remaining fifty shares at £8 5s. I was anxious to have those shares, because J quite expect to see them go to £t2 ; so that I think the honorable member has lost about £3 15s. per share by not waiting. The fact remains that the honorable member made nearly £600 out of his deal - out of Badger’s ill-gotten gains - and a man with that amount in his pocket can well afford to go home and have three meals a day. A very strong charge is made by the strikers against the Government in regard to the special constables and their treatment of the crowd. On the Friday morning, when this charge was first made, I notice that, according to the honorable member for
Brisbane, there was no procession; but if 15,000 people marching down the street do not constitute a procession, I do not know what does. I joined the march as far as Parliament House and back again, until we met the policemen ; and I saw those people disperse. I say that the police under the trying circumstances - for they are only human after all - behaved in a most manly and straightforward way. When the procession met the police, the women and children were thrown into the front to receive the charge of batons. I was following up one who was very pronounced in his orders and so forth, and who seemed to be a self -constituted marshal. The police did not baton the women, as we are told they did; they divided their horses, let the women go through, and then rode in between the men and the women and began to operate on the men.
– They were very clever horsemen to do that. e’
– They were clever. I may say there was no necessity to do very much batoning. I am prepared to say that there were thousands of men there who did 100 yards in less than nine seconds. Talk about the Olympic games ! I had no idea we had such athletes in Brisbane, or such jumpers as I saw getting over the fence. They took the line of least resistance, and very few minutes were required to clear the crowd off the streets. I should like to add my tribute of praise to Major Cahill for the way in which he handled that very difficult, infuriated crowd, who were bent on doing mischief, and would have done so had it not been for the firm stand taken. I now desire to put the honorable member for Batman right with regard to some statements he made. The honorable member is reported to have said -
The Brisbane cars were running, or some of them. They looked like river destroyers. The men of Melbourne complained of the inconvenience of car driving. They ought to be in Brisbane. The cars there bristled with bayonets. The cars were all crowded, but no fares were taken. The passengers were all police. There were, all told, about twenty cars moving ; some of them were covered with armour plate.
I am repeating a report, that was read to the House by the honorable member for Darling Downs, and when it was then quoted the honorable member for Batman said, “ I think that that report is substantially correct.” I do not know what the honorable member means by “ substantially correct.” The legal fraternity have a happy knack of twisting words; and the honorable member may have meant that it wa- correct he was so reported, or that it was correct that affairs in Brisbane were as reported. I am going to deal with the conditions as I found them in Brisbane. I rode on the first tram that was used after the strike. I wanted to see what reception the trams would receive from the people of Brisbane. Therefore, I rode on this car and paid my fare. I kept the two tickets which I bought, one for the journey out, and the other for the return journey. I have them at home framed, and shall keep them as a memento of the Brisbane strike. The difference between the two numbers on the tickets was over one hundred, which shows that more than that number paid their fares on that tram. There was not a policeman upon it. There were no bayonets, no armour plate, no special protection. I admit that the tramway company’s steam traction-engine was protected when it was carrying coal. I saw it passing the Trades Hall once or twice under protection. But to say that the trams were bristling with bayonets, or that they were armour-plated, or that they were loaded up with policemen, is an absolute misstatement; and if the honorable member for Batman continues to make statements of that kind, he will soon earn such a reputation that no one will believe him. I have dwelt long enough on this unfortunate industrial upheaval. I am sure that every one admits in his heart that the whole thing was a blunder from beginning to end.
– Is that why the tramway company have sent Badger away?
– Would the honorable member have sent the military up to Brisbane?
– As far as I am personally concerned, I think that the military should only be called out as a very last resource. I will go further, and say that if military protection had been granted to the Government of Brisbane, the troops would not have been called out. But the effect of the refusal was that when the strike leaders saw that the military, which were under the control of the Federal Government, would not be called out, they said, in effect, “ You can go and do what you like ; commit all the depredations you please.” That was an incitement to violence. If, however, the Government had Stepped in and let it be understood that, in case of need, the services of the military would be granted to the Queensland Government, they would never have been called out. But the Government acted without making any investigation or in quiries, except from the strike leaders, as to whether it was necessary to send the troops.
– Did the honorable member read, in a recent issue of a Queensland newspaper, that a policeman had been “sacked” for nearly killing one man?
– 1 believe that one “ special “ was discharged. That goes to show that the Government did their duty when they found that one man had exceeded his duty. In my opinion, the Prime Minister really had no option in the matter of granting assistance to the Queensland Government when it was asked for. The Government have distinctly broken the Federal compact. I hope that as this is the first time the question has been raised, it will be tested by the Queensland Government, which should insist on the Federal Government paying the extra cost incurred in protecting the State against domestic violence.
– None of the honorable member’s party takes up that absurd position to-day. To their credit, they have abandoned it.
– I am not responsible for what any party may have abandoned. I hold that a great and important question is at issue - Can the States, in time of industrial unrest or internal violence, depend upon that protection which they were led to expect, or must they protect themselves? It is ‘just as well that we should know where we are. Personally, I think that it was much better, from the point of view of the suppression of the strike, that Major Cahill had a free hand, and was able to raise forces to suppress violence. I do know, on good authority, that it was intended to renew the attack on the Tuesday, on the day when the honorAble member for Brisbane was on the Turkish baths - it was intended to march in spite of the police; and not only so, but it was proposed to resort to firearms as well. I was told on the Friday afternoon that the men had gone quietly home when dispersed by the police in order to look up their firearms. As to whether there was any intimidation or danger of an outbreak, I know that half the people of Brisbane were armed. It was impossible to buy a revolver at any of the stores in Brisbane, because people had bought them up. Is it a safe thing to allow things to be worked up to such a state of excitement that people arm in order to be able to protect themselves as they walk about the streets? I know of several cases where men were asked if they .had a permit from the Trades Hall authorities; and they drew out revolvers and said, “ This is my permit.” I am not in favour of violence. I am a man of peace, and believe in constitutional government. I say that there was an attempt in Brisbane to upset constitutional government, and that the Federal Government aided in that attempt. I regret that His Excellency the Governor-General did not, in consequence, ask the Prime Minister for his resignation.
.The honorable member who has just concluded has repeated statements in connexion with the strike at Brisbane, and in relation to myself, that have been made before in this House. I entered the chamber just in time to hear him refer to some alleged inaccuracy in my reference to the running of a tramcar when the strike was coming to a conclusion. He said that if I persisted in statements of that kind I should not be believed as a general rule. I should like to tell the honorable member at once that my reputation for veracity is not in his keeping, and that I hope it stands on firmer ground than his opinion of me, whether that be good or bad. I was not present to hear the honorable member quote what I said, but if I am right in assuming that he quoted what was read by .the honorable member for Darling Downs,- I repeat what I said then - that the statement was substantially correct. As will be seen from the .report - which even yet I have not read, but which I heard read - I spoke in a figurative sense. I say now that the precautions which were taken to protect that tramcar were on just such an extravagant and unnecessary scale as were the demonstrations made throughout ‘ that great industrial struggle by the police under the direction of a weak, and, I had almost said, wicked Government. There are many things in the challenge that have been directed at the Government of which I am a supporter to which I should have liked, in other circumstances, to make some reference. But having regard to the fact that this debate has to be brought to a termination to-day, and that there are others still to follow me, I shall confine my attention to what I conceive to be an imperative duty resting upon me - the duty of defending the tramway men, who suffered under grievous and unreasonable oppression, from the slanders that have been uttered against them in this Chamber, and of protecting, also, that great body of unionists in regard to their conduct when a general strike had been declared in the city of Brisbane. The Leader of the Opposition said that no reference had been made in the Governor-General’s Speech - and this he regarded as a most significant omission - to the question of the prevention and cure of industrial unrest. He appeared to overlook, the fact that there was, in effect, in clause 12 of that Speech, a very significant reference to the prevention of industrial unrest. I refer to the proposal to submit to. the people a referendum for enabling the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court to deal with such a matter, not piecemeal as in the past, not subject as in the past to constant technical difficulties - but in a whole-hearted and thorough manner. As a fact, this reference to industrial trouble on the part of the Leader of the Opposition was merely an introduction to what has been die gravamen of the charge in this motion of want of confidence, namely, the attitude of the Government to the Brisbane strike. That strike was used by the Government of Queensland as an election cry. It was deemed wise by them to go to the country at once, in the belief that the people of Queensland would register a decisive vote against the unionists.
– So they did.
– My answer to the honorable member is that I believe .the people decided honestly in accordance with the evidence before them. The citizens of Brisbane recorded their votes in accordance with what they had seen with their own eyes, and the people of the rural districts, with equal honesty, no doubt, recorded their votes in accordance with the only evidence before them - the biased and prejudiced evidence of an unscrupulous press. Dealing first of all with the tactics of the Opposition in this debate, I think it would have served their purpose better had they kept back this question for the general election. They might then have used it on the platform in places where an effective reply was not available, and with the assurance that any reply that was available would not have much publication in the daily press of this city. The Opposition, however, have chosen to ventilate it in this chamber, and to every charge made by them there has been an answer.
– We have wiped the floor with the Opposition.
– Yes ; there have been many answers, and effective answers, too, to these charges. The strike in Brisbane arose, as has. been pointed out more than once, from an industrial dispute between the manager of the Brisbane Tramways Company and his employe’s. I desire to take as my text the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that these men defied the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, defied the Court, and the Parliament which passed that Act and created the Court. That charge is not sustainable against the men at whom it is directed, but every word of it is sustainable against the man who was immediately responsible for this great industrial upheaval and against the Queensland Government. The part that the Opposition have played in this matter, and it is an unworthy part, is that they have condoned and indorsed the acts of a man and a Government directed to the humiliation and, if possible, the degradation of this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, when charged with suggesting that unionists were responsible for the outrages to which he referred, and greatly exaggerated, said that those who set the grass on fire must be responsible for the damage caused by the spreading of that fire. My answer is that very often when the grass is fired the rank and bitter herbage is burnt out of the ground, with the result that wholesome green verdure prevails. And in this matter, the grass having been set on fire, the rank, dank, and bitter herbage ‘ of misrepresentation and falsehood shall be swept away, and the sweet verdure of fair play, honesty, and truth will, I am sure, prevail. Even at this late hour I shall repeat and answer the question : Was this action on the part of the manager of the Brisbane Tramways Company and his employes a strike or a lock-out? Honorable members opposite are persistent in saying that it was a strike. Honorable members on this side are equally persistent that it was a lockout.
– The honorable member for Moreton admitted that the men were dismissed.
– I do not think that fairly represents what he said.
– I am glad to hear that he admitted so much. I think he has the distinction of being the only honorable member on his side who has gone so far. However, I ‘do not depend on any casual observation by the honorable member for
Moreton. I do not even accept the judgment in this matter of honorable members on either side. As they are apparently in honest disagreement on this point, we can hardly do better than refer to the decision of some more competent tribunal legally appointed to determine the question.
– It is not a legal tribunal.
– The honorable member is making an assertion which I fear he will not have an opportunity to prove during this debate-, and which, I think, is not susceptible of. proof. I quote the following from the judgment of Mr. Justice Higgins
The Manager, Mr. Badger, gave the men distinctly to understand that no man was to remain on the cars wearing a badge ; they were to choose between their billets and their badges. It is idle to affect that this was not a dismissal for wearing the badge. ‘ The Manager certainly used the words in speaking to the men that he was not dismissing them, and that the work was there for them ; but, in considering whether there is. a dismissal or not, we must look at the facts and not at the words merely. The men were willing to go on working, and were deprived of their work and of their pay. What more is necessary to constitute a dismissal ? It is absurd to call such a’ dismissal a “ strike,” whatever name may be given to the conduct of other unions. Under the agreement the em-, ployer could discharge an employe without giving any reason, on two days’ notice; but’ no such notice was given.
If one felt bound to go any further than this judicial utterance of a man eminently qualified to decide, we have only to press the question to a logical conclusion and assume for a moment that Mr. Badger had imposed even some more oppressive condition of employment than the one which he thus suddenly sprang upon the men. I wonder if honorable members will honestly argue that these employes of the Brisbane Tramways Company were bound to accept service, and continue their work, no matter how startling, unreasonable, or unlawful the new condition of service imposed by their employer. If that is what they suggest, then I say the employes of the Brisbane Tramways Company were not free men ; they were not masters of their own lives; they were not men at all, but slaves. I think we need not go any further than the decision on that point of Mr. Justice Higgins that these men were dismissed ; they were locked out. Now let us consider the circumstances. Let us consider what these men, against whom the charge is made in this chamber that they deliberately defied the Court, the Act, and this Parliament which passed the Act and created the Court, had to put up with. T quote from the evidence of Mr. Badger in cross-examination oh oath -
Were you manager of the company in 1904? - Yes, I think I was.
Do you remember an attempt to form a union in 1904? - I cannot say I remember any attempt in that particular year. I believe there have been several attempts, but I cannot locate them in regard to the time.
Did you, some years ago, dismiss men for trying to form a union ? - Some time ago there were nine men dismissed for an attempt to form a union, and afterwards reinstated.
Was there any condition of their reinstatement? - The condition was to drop the matter of forming a union.
Right along you have been opposed to the union? - Some kinds of unions I have, some kinds not.
What kinds of unions are you not opposed to? - I am not opposed to an organization of our employes amongst themselves. They have had one for most of the time I have been there. I am not opposed to an industrial organization of the Brisbane Tramways employes amongst themselves.
You object to the Australian character of the organization? - I object to their affiliating with other organizations so that they will be drawn into other people’s trouble. I object to any form of union by which if there is a strike in Perth the men in Brisbane will be involved.
What is your main objection? - That is my principal objection to a union having outside affiliation.
How do you account for the fact that you dismissed men for joining a Brisbane union in 1904? - Because, in my opinion, that is not what they were endeavouring to form. My idea was that they were going to form a union that would affiliate with the Trades Hall or some other body.
They had not affiliated when you dismissed the men? - They had not formed the union.
You thought they might do it ? - That was my view. They had an organization of their own at that time.
Are you opposed to your men joining the Australian organization? - As a matter of business policy, I am.
Are you aware that it is registered under the Act ? - I am informed that it is.
So much for that sworn evidence. Again, we have the evidence of Mr. Champ on the question of persecution, and the way these men were treated. Mr. Champ was asked with respect to clubs on the company’s property -
What happened to those clubs? - There was a notice issued to the various secretaries of the clubs giving them seven days to quit rooms for reconstruction of clubs.
When Hie rooms were reconstructed, were the old members invited to resume occupation? - No.
Who got into occupation ? - A body known as the Brisbane Tramways Employes Association.
Were those reconstructed clubs restricted to members of the Tramways Association or the Brisbane body?- To the new club. Now, there is no member entitled to admittance unless he can produce the pence card of that organization, and also show a clearance from the Australian Tramways Association.
Then His Honour asked the question -
I suppose that the clearance means that you have ceased to be a member? - Yes.
On the subject of promotion this question was asked -
Can you give cases of their having promoted members of your association? - None whatever.
Another aspect of this important matter is that there was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the manager of the ‘Brisbane Tramway Company to drain the men who were in his employ out of the Association in order that they might not have the right to approach the Federal Arbitration Court. In other words, there was a conspiracy to deprive the Federal Arbitration Court of its jurisdiction. We find this later on in the report of the address by the chairman of the company in England these significant words -
All the vacancies having been filled, the men who went on strike found themselves without work, and the company was accordingly placed in a position to plead in the plaint that there was no dispute, for the reason that no members of the claimant association were in its employ.
This is borne out again by this evidence from Mr. Champ -
What was the object of telling the men to wear their badges on the 18th? - During the last twelve months we have seen our rank and file of the association falling out one by one, and an organization fostered by the employers on the other side growing up with mountain strength.
In respect of the facts we get these words in His Honour, Mr. Justice Higgins’ judgment -
The company’s union could not last but for the company’s coddling- This creating and fostering of a rival union, this encouragement of its members and discouragement of the members of the other union is the root of such bitterness as there is; and the companies could easily get rid of the bitterness by ceasing to bestow exceptional favours on the company’s union.
The badge is not to blame. The word “ intimidation “ is much more applicable to what the companies have done than to the wearing of the badge.
In I904, Mr. Badger - as he admitted - dismissed several men for attempting to form a union, but he reinstated them on the condition that they would drop the idea. The tramway men in Brisbane enjoyed the use of a recreation hall, which they most prized ; but when Mr. Badger formed his company’s union he handed the hall over to it, and forbade the other to enter. From the point of view of the companies, the endeavour to stifle unionism may seem justifiable, but from the point of view of this Court the endeavour cannot be treated as legitimate 01 reasonable, for the very Act which created this Court expressly sanctions and encourages union.’
Under section 2 (VI.), one of the “chief objects “ of the Act is to “ facilitate and encourage the organization of representative bodies of employers and employes and the submission of industrial disputes to the Court by organizations.” The system of arbitration would be unworkable without organized unions; and it is my duty to carry out the Act and to give effect to the will of Parliament.
My award, therefore, is distinctly against the attempts to forbid the union badge. If the badge operates to some extent, as .1 think it does, In win public support and to attract employes to the union, it is a device which is legitimate, lt would indeed be well if all unions aimed steadily at getting the support of the public by reasonable conduct. It is monstrous to think that the union should be forbidden to use such an influence in its favour, while the companies, wilh their great resources, the command of money, of employment, of place, pay, and privilege, use every effort against the union, and in favour of a parasite growth which they plant and foster.
Let me add some further remarks which appear to me to put this matter so succinctly, clearly, and fairly that it would be well to have them on record. I invite attention to the opening words -
It is unfortunately incident to our Constitution that in place of giving all the energy I have to a consideration of what is right and expedient to be done in an industrial struggle, I have in every case to puzzle out as best I can what- is constitutional to be done.
That is what he is able to do within the limits of the Constitution -
In this case, after careful consideration, I overrule all the technical objections, and find the facts, so far as they affect the objections, in favour of the Association. Is it reasonable that the employer should order his employe not to wear the badge of the union ? There is no question of neatness involved - the badge would he regarded as rather an embellishment. It is a brass pendant somewhat like a* free pass with the Australian arms, a blue oval, and the full name of the union. The men wear the badge on their watchchain. Mr. Badger has a quaint theory that he has a common law right to tell the employ^ what he should wear, apart from the power given to make regulations. I know of no such common law right. A servant has to obey all lawful commands; not all commands. A servant does not commit a breach of duty if he refuses to attend a particular church or to wear a certain maker’s singlet. The common law right of an employé is to wear what he chooses to ; to act as he chooses in matters not affecting his work. Prima facie, a man may wear what he likes as long as he does not offend against decency, and the burden lies on the employer to show the contrary. Of course, the employer may by due notice get rid of an employ£ who does not dress to his liking; but the employe” is not guilty of a breach of duty in refusing. “Of course, there may be a contract for obedience to the master’s directions as to livery or uniform of any kind, but this Court has power to interfere with contracts, and to say what contracts may and what contracts be made or enforced between parties.
In this connexion let me refer again to the boast made by the chairman of the company in England, who, in congratulating his directors and the shareholders upon the fact that there were no longer any members of the association in the employ of the company,’ said, “ We are free of the Federal union.” There are, on the Opposition side, those who in happier times have done some service in the Federal cause, but to-day they join hands with this absentee representative of a foreign company.
– Does the honor- able member term an English company a foreign company?
– It is in fact and in law a foreign company. Honorable members opposite are joining hands with this representative of an absentee company, with an alien, and the State supremacy party. They are all linked together in the sorry business of bringing Acts passed by this Parliament into disrepute. That was the position when the plaint was filed. The tramway employes were not dismissed for joining the Australian union - the manager was coward enough to persecute men for taking advantage of a Commonwealth Act, and cunning enough to know that he dare not dismiss them for that reason - but they were persecuted and injured in every way, bereft of their club comforts, such as they were, their furniture and belongings thrown into the street. Finally came that gross invasion of personal liberty, the prohibition of the badge by a man to whom I have referred as an alien, and whom I now call a petty alien despot. It has been said more than once that this matter was before the Court, and, consequently, there was no excuse for the drastic action which was taken by the men - if, indeed, it can be urged that they took any action. But what are the facts? In the first place, we have seen the respect which Mr. Badger had for the Court. We know the extent to which he desired to appeal to it. We have seen the respect which he had for organizations that were formed under the provisions of -the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was passed by this Parliament. Let us further examine the contention that the matter was before the Court, and that, consequently, there was no excuse for the men standing out of their employment when they might, by abandoning their rights as free citizens, have continued in it. The plaint was filed on the 1 2th October, and the resolution as to the wearing of the badge was arrived at in
Melbourne on the 25th April. Who composed the Australian Tramways Association at that time? Not the Brisbane tramway employes only. New South Wales contributed no less than 3,500 affiliated members, all of them wearing their badges undisturbed - a loyal service. Victoria contributed 1,750 members, all of whom wore their badges; Western Australia had 180 members, all of whom wore their badges with impunity ; and Tasmania contributed 70, all of whom enjoyed the like freedom ; making a total roughly of 5,500. On the other hand, there were about 700 members in South Australia, and about 480 in Queensland, or 1,180 in all, who were denied this fundamental right of free citizens. But by far the greater number of members of the Association enjoyed, unhampered and unhindered, the right to wear this little trinket. Consequently, at the time this trouble arose, the status quo was the right of the members of the Association to wear the badge. The man who anticipated the judgment of the Court, and who attempted to settle the matter by force, was the manager of the Brisbane Tramway Company, who deliberately forbade his little handful of men this common law right. He based his action upon a regulation which reads -
The employees agree to observe and be bound by as well, all the clauses of the rules and regulations which relate to employees now in force as published from time to time.
Does that mean that they were bound to accept any regulation which might be passed at any time, no matter how oppressive or gross in its incidence it might be? Surely it does not. mean that they are bound to accept a regulation which, according to a High Court Judge, was both illegal and oppressive? “ To the infinite credit of the men, be it said that, although at the time they proceeded to wear the badge, a considerable number of them were nonunionists, immediately this gross invasion of their personal liberty was attempted by Mr. Badger, they flocked back to the union and stood side by side in the assertion of their common right. We have been told by the honorable member for Moreton, as well as by the Leader of the Opposition, that there was no tittle of excuse for the action of the employe’s, as the question of their right to wear the badge had already been included in the plaint. In respect of that, it has been said that we misled the men. Now the question as to whether or not the right to wear the badge was inserted in the plaint was first raised by the honorable member for Brisbane. The honorable member for Moreton has attempted to shunt some responsibility for this trouble on to the shoulders of that honorable member who stood out prominently - and this is admitted by toose who disagreed with him politically - as the one man who of all others was most strenuous, persistent, and honest in his efforts to quell the trouble.
– And he employed scab drivers on his carts.
– I do not know what the honorable member is murmuring in his sleep. ‘When this question was raised by the honorable member for Brisbane it had only an academic interest. It was something which he had ferreted out in his diligent search for some basis, however slight, upon which he could found a settlement of the trouble. It was a matter purely of academic interest, the point being that this elementary right of free men was not deemed a matter necessary to be put into the plaint at all. It was only because of the very careful and exhaustive draftmanship of the man who drew the plaint that it happened to be included in it. But honorable members oppo site, especially those who are lawyers, know perfectly well that the right of the men to wear the badge could have been inserted in, or taken out of, the plaint at any time. So that even if the men had been deceived in regard to it, it was a matter which might have been amended at their instigation at any moment. There were 20,000 men on strike as the result of the general strike, and 400 who had been locked out. Not one of those ever suggested that he had been deceived. Yet that was the cry which was raised by Mr. Badger, and which was greedily echoed by a certain section of the public. The claim that the men were misled is absolutely without foundation. Nevertheless, it was repeated by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, who not merely attacked the political integrity of others, but the professional capacity of the gentleman with whom I am proud to be associated as a partner, and whose name I feel bound to say is a synonym for patience, caution and thoroughness, in his conduct of this particular case.
– What about the certified copy of the claim ?
– I really do not understand what the honorable member wishes to learn ; but I will cheerfully tell him all that I know about the matter. As has already been acknowledged in the most public manner in the press by the honorable member for
Brisbane, a mistake was made - an immaterial mistake - in connexion with the question of the inclusion of the right of the men to wear the badge in the plaint. It arose from the fact that a copy of the plaint which had been examined in Brisbane contained no reference to the badge. So that the matter upon which the honorable member for Brisbane is charged with a want of veracity does not admit of that construction at all.
– Mr. Badger made exactly the same mistake.
– Nevertheless, I wired to Melbourne, and in reply I received from a person connected with the. Tramways Association a communication which was the cause of the misapprehension concerning the right of the men to wear the badge being included in the plaint. That is the whole explanation of this trifling circumstance which has been magnified into a question of great importance. As a matter of fact, the men took no interest in it whatever. Their curiosity was aroused merely by reason of the circumstance that the matter was thrust before them in the press. A number of them were thus prompted to ask what it all meant. I can readily understand a conservative gentleman who represents Queensland in the Senate being suddenly seized with an inspiration to write to the press in regard to this matter six months after the event as though he had made a new discovery. I can easily understand the letter which was subsequently published, and which emanated from a certain independent worker - a leader of the Independent Workers Association, the union which was described by the learned Judge as a “ parasite growth.” I can easily understand this man who attacked the registration of the Association, who was defeated and would have been mulcted in costs if the Act had allowed of that being done, raising this question at the eleventh hour. May I say a word at this stage in reference to these independent workers. When I hear of these men claiming to be a union of independent workers, I ask myself of whom and of what they are independent. Is it more or less than the truth to say that they are merely independent of their moral obligations! to theirfellow workers, and very often men who, to their shame be it said, have entered into a conspiracy with their employers to defeat their fellowemployes? So much then for the tramway trouble ; so much for the oppression and persecution under which these men laboured; so much for the judicial determination of the unreasonable and illegal act on the part of Mr. Badger, which was the immediate cause of this industrial upheaval. It developed into a general strike. Let me say at once that we are not called upon either to justify or condemn the general strike. In that matter, we have nothing to defend, because the charge cannot properly be made against us. We did not originate the general strike. We have not condoned it; we have not’ even approved of it. We have not given honorable members opposite any satisfaction in that way ; and yet they have laboured this motion of want of confidence with reference to the general strike as though we had to bear the whole responsibility of its commencement and prolongation. The honorable member for Parramatta desired to know what the Prime Minister had done to prevent the general strike. It was a fatuous question in the first place; but the honorable member looked more foolish when he was asked what he had done in respect of the great strike that took place in his own State when he was somewhat similarly circumstanced. He first wanted to know what strike, and when he was told, his answer was, “Well, what could I have done?” Whether the determination of the men to undertake a general strike was wise or unwise, they arrived at their decision in a perfectly orderly and regular manner. I am able to give the statement that it was the work of a few active agitators at the head of the men an absolutely flat contradiction. The men who assembled to consider the question were representatives deliberately chosen by their separate unions. Not one representative spoke at the meeting which ultimately determined upon the general strike without having behind him the full authority of a union which had already considered the question. So much for the orderly way in which the decision was arrived at, and the representation of the men in regard to it. It shows, at any rate, how intense the feeling of the unionists of Brisbane was regarding the wrong which they conceived to have been done to their fellowunionists in the tramway service. Although the unionists of Brisbane paid the price, as they always must pay it, of a general strike, and indeed of any strike, I do not believe that even the general strike was wholly futile. I think it has so riveted public attention upon the facts, and so stirred the popular mind, that it will be many a long day before other men situated as was the manager of the Brisbane Tramway Company will bring about similar trouble.
While I take no responsibility for the general strike, for the decision to undertake it, or the manner in which it was carried on, I have a good deal to say as an eye-witness regarding the conduct of the men, and the conduct of those who were there to preserve order amongst the citizens of Brisbane. Let me refer first to a matter that has been already dealt with very trenchantly and effectively by the honorable member for Brisbane and the honorable member for Bourke. I refer to those deadly engines of destruction, those bombs, that were intended to be exploded in the streets of Brisbane if we can believe those who have spoken of them. There was only one such incident reported”, so far as we have been able to find, during the whole of the industrial trouble; and that was referred to in the Brisbane Daily Mailof the 24th January, 1912. The following is the blood-curdling description published in that paper, and fitting in most admirably with the dramatic language used by the honorable member for Bourke tonight, when he poured the acid of ridicule upon this aspect of the case : -
A DASTARDLY ACT.
Gelignite Placed in Points.
Hitherto anarchists’ methods have been placed to the credit of Russia, and it is in that land that bomb throwing and other dastardly acts are indulged in, while here in Brisbane it seems that there is a person of so degenerate a turn of mind that he would ruthlessly hurl to destruction a number of innocent persons. . By nothing short of a miracle yesterday, Brisbane, and in fact the whole of Australia, escaped learning of the awful sensation of a tram car having been blown up right in the midst of a peaceful community.
Concerning the incident,’ the police maintain the utmost reticence, but from an authoritative source a Daily Mail representative gleaned some authentic proofs yesterday.A motorman of a tram car which was journeying to Bulimba along Commercial-road a little after 7 o’clock yesterday morning had reached the vicinity of Doggett-street, near which are points, and observed a dark-looking object lying in the points. Thinking that perhaps it was a piece of wood or leather hose pipe he did not stop to make a close examination, but passed over the object lying there, after which something prompted him to go back and make another investigation. There were not many passengers travelling at the time, but among the few was a constable, who returned with the driver and the object was removed.
I cannot help commending the driver for his discrimination, after suspecting that it was an explosive, in first driving over it and then going back to see what it was -
It was seen that the object was no less than a stick of gelignite measuring about three inches, and to it a detonator was attached. How the car passed over it and, together with the passengers, escaped being blown to atoms is an unsolved mystery. The explosive was taken possession of by the police who were investigating the matter, and are in hopes of effecting an arrest.
That was a harrowing story to be published in a Brisbane paper at this time, one that might well inspire the residents with awe, if not with horror, but it appears that the representative of the Courier had not been in the swim, and next day that paper gave a description of the incident in these few lines -
Yesterday a small quantity of explosive was discovered in the points on the Bulimba tram line. The car actually passed over the obstruction before it was discovered, and no damage resulted. Had it really exploded, the noise might have occasioned some alarm.
I quite admit that if the representative of sensationalism in the person of the Courier representative had known what was going on, he would have been out also, and would have written quite as blood-curdling a story as did the representative of the Daily Mail. No reliance can be placed upon these dramatic and awe-inspiring stories written by those who are sent out by the proprietors of certain journals to make a case against the men. It is . sensational journalism of a kind which tends to bring discredit upon an honorable profession. The reading of the message sent by Mr. Coyne to the Prime Minister has occasioned honorable members opposite a certain amount of amusement. I am not going to say that the request by him for the military to be sent up was wise or justified, but in view of the charges that have been made against the strikers in Brisbane, I feel bound to publish some of the facts which go to show that Mr. Coyne’s allegations about unnecessary force, and even brutality, on the part of special and regular constables were justified and true. I propose to prove it, as the honorable member for Maribyrnong said the other night, out of the mouth of an adverse witness, namely, from the columns of the Brisbane Courier itself. The Strike Committee sent out their vigilance officers to preserve order, and appeals were made hourly by the leaders of the strike for the preservation of order. In fact, it was absurd to suppose that the general strike could have been other than futile in view of the gloved hand with which its managers proposed to conduct it. Their orders were emphatic that no necessary services were to be disturbed, and that law and order were to be preserved. Although I do not approve of the general strike, I think its futility in such condi- tions, and in the face of orders of this kind, is a foregone conclusion in any circumstances. These vigilance officers were posted in different parts of the city of Brisbane, and wore upon their arms the legend “ V .O . “ Commissioner Cahill , of the Brisbane police, in his childish pettishness, imagined that this was an invasion of his prerogative as the guardian of the peace in Brisbane, and he wrote a most foolish letter to Mr. Coyne, calling upon him to withdraw these men, and threatening to have them arrested as loiterers if they were not withdrawn. The Strike Committee had sufficient self-respect to write back to the Commissioner that they presumed he knew his duty in regard to the preservation of public order in Brisbane. I am not ashamed to say that I told the Commissioner, from a platform in Brisbane, that we dared him to arrest any man merely because he wore upon his arm a badge indicating that he was there to assist in the preservation of public order. We told the Commissioner from the platform that, although this trouble had originated in an act of wrong-doing on the part of Mr. Badger relating to the badge, things had not quite reached that pass in which a Commissioner of Police could forbid the wearing of a badge on the part of any civilian in the city, and, of course, the “V.O.’s,” as they were called, were allowedto remain on their beat, and did a great deal, as every one who was there knows, to preserve public order. It is a singular thing that, at a time when we would suppose that the excitement was at its height, namely, the very day after the men came out, and the big procession was held, perfect order was preserved in the streets. The police were not so very much in evidence, and, although between 15,000 and 20,000 men marched through the streets, there was practically no disorder. I do not expect to live to see a more impressive sight than that which was presented by that body of men walking shoulder to shoulder, in silent, orderly, and yet emphatic, protest against what they conceived to be a gross injustice done to their fellow- workers. From every platform - one cannot insist upon this too much when we hear about the leaders who were alleged to be responsible for this trouble - public men and the leaders who were associated with the strike urged the men to abstain from any kind of violence. Now we come to a report in the Courier, of the 3rd February, and. this is the adverse wit ness from whom I propose to show that the violence in Brisbane was not violence on the part of the men. I propose to show that, in that paper, by innuendo, by suggestion, by hints, an endeavour was made to create an impression that the men were rioting, violent, and boisterous, but all the hard facts quoted go to prove that the violence was the violence and the foolishness of these wrong-headed men of mistaken zeal and little brief authority. It is not pleasant to me to have to charge the constables and special constables with unnecessary violence; in fact, I do not greatly blame them. I blame the men and the Government who incited them to act in this way. I blame, in particular, the Government who suggested to them that conduct of that kind was necessary, and would be palliated. Here is the account as told by a witness who went out on the and February in order to get evidence and publish it against the unionists. I have taken three examples from different parts of the city, and I shall quote exactly from the Courier this biased witness -
UNPRECEDENTED SCENE.
Police Act Firmly. determined baton charges.
Would-be Rioters Injured.
Albert-square Sensations.
The city was thrown into throes of an unprecedented tumult at about 10 a.m. The crowds of strikers and onlookers had by then swelled to some thousands, filling Turbot-street, Marketsquare, and the adjoining thoroughfares. The unionists, who had mustered in force in Turbotstreet outside the Trades Hall, displayed a manifest intention of organizing a procession.
That is just a sample. The men displayed a “manifest intention” of doing something which we know they had no intention of doing, because they had been urged by their leaders, and had by their applause and approval showed that they had no intention of holding a procession. But the charge is that they displayed a manifest intention of doing so -
The police were determined to prevent anything of the sort, and to exert their authority strong measures were taken. The intention of the processionists was to march into Marketsquare and thence round the city. Accordingly the police were drawn up across the roadway from Roma-street Barracks to Albert-street. A double line of mounted men, and a few yards in front of them a double line of foot constables. It was deemed well to arm the latter with carbines, and in order to make the position more secure bayonets were fixed. The great crowd was in front of this human barricade, and a bigger crowd behind.
Let honorable members not forget that there were 20,000 of these men in the streets who had to be somewhere with their wives and families, who were naturally curious to know what was going on. This is how it is further described -
The show of force answered to the extent of persuading the processionists that they would have to abandon their intention.
Note the reference to an intention which had never crystallized into an act -
It is stated that at the Trades Hall the crowds were in that direction counselled by some of their leaders to disperse -
It is known that they were counselled to disperse, and that they were dispersing as far as was reasonable and practicable - and they were informed that arrangements would be made with butchers and bakers to prevent any shortages of food supplies.
The honorable member for Brisbane has shown that these arrangements were to some extent frustrated by a combination of master butchers and master bakers, who decided that they would not supply the necessaries of life to the people of the city -
The intention of the “badgeites” was, however, centred on the police, who were under the personal direction of Commissioner Cahill, Chief Inspector Urquhart, Inspectors Gerigety and Short, and Sub-Inspector Carroll, and some others. The crowd began to close in, and further dangerous pushing and occasional rushing made it necessary for the police to charge and clear the square.
The crowd across Ann-street, on the Georgestreet side, was first driven back, and showed a desire to resist, some of the more obstreperous persons staying behind until the troopers literally rode them off their feet.
They had stayed behind, and for doing so, troopers literally rode them off their feet -
For the moment it seemed as if a determined attack on the police was contemplated -
Mark the word “contemplated.” It has not crystallized into an act or a fact, but it is contemplated - but the crush was backed about 100 yards along the street without serious trouble, and held there by the officers, who then pushed another batch of men along Roma-street and held them there. For a considerable time the police refrained from any really aggressive move -
Up to that time, they had literally driven the men off their feet, but we are assured they were not aggressive - in the direction of the crowds,’ an admirable restraint being displayed by officers and men alike. Presently, however, there was every indication of them and the specials being swept from their positions by the excited mob, and prompt action was then taken eventually in pursuance of a well thought out plan. The first step was to place a’ cordon of police armed with carbines and batons across the upper Albert-street where it leads to the Trades Hall. The crowd, however, were forced back, and behind the armed men the special constables were drawn up. Then the armed men drove back the crowd which surged from the upper end of Ann-street into the square, and another cordon was placed across the street.
Yells and cries were followed by blows at the police -
Honorable members will remark that they were so ill-directed that no policeman was struck - and it became necessary to detail a squad of foot constables with batons drawn to assist in the task of clearing the square. Commissioner Cahill, in person, led the charge in different directions, and when some of the crowd went so far as to aim blows at him he drew his baton and cleared a way around him. A stirring scene was witnessed as the crowd was forced back against a hoarding which surrounded the Town Hall side, many of them stood against the wall and refused to move until they were actually forced back by the breasts of the horses. Some of them had got around at the back of the hoarding, whence they were ultimately dislodged. Others climbed a tree which stands there, and, being beyond the reach even of the mounted men, weathered the storm. “ weathered the storm “ is good -
Others took refuge in doorways, from which they had to be forced. The police gradually forced the people back. This action was forcibly resented - 1 should think it would be - by some of the men, until at last the officers were compelled to use their batons, and a number of blows were struck. The determination of the force quickly made itself felt, the still shouting crowd being steadily dispersed, but not before a number of them had been struck down; and the Ambulance Brigade was on the scene attending to the injured promptly. Some of those who were struck down were able to leave unassisted, others had to be carried off by the bearers.
Then the report finishes with this remarkable statement -
No such determined effort at mob rule has ever been witnessed in the hitherto peace-loving community of Brisbane. “ No such determined effort at mob rule !” The men who were chased into parks and out lot them, dislodged from doorways where they had taken refuge, gouged with bayonets and struck down, carried off in an ambulance, ridden literally off their feet, as is stated in another place, were the men who made a determined effort at mob rule. Did the authorities expect the men, like birds, to fly away, or like rabbits or wombats, to get into their burrows, or where in the streets of Brisbane did they expect the men to go? Will any reasonable man, examining that report of a biased witness, tell me that it does not bear on its face the strongest evidence that there was unnecessary and foolish violence on the part of the . excited police, and that, in the circumstances, the men were grossly ill-used.
– What would the honorable member expect the Government to do?
– I would have expected the Government to exercise reasonable restraint, and to allow the men to walk about like free citizens, instead of chivvying them about like sheep or wild animals in their own streets.
– Does the honorable member blame the Government for swearing in special constables?
– No; butI blame the Government for inciting, as we know they did incite, the police to take drastic and unnecessary offensive measures ; and I blame the men who were employed for taking these measures, though I do not blame them so much as I do the Government. I shall now take another witness from Georgestreet -
HOT WORK IN GEORGE-STREET.
Ugly Rushes by the Mob.
Desperate Charges bythe Police.
The Ambulance Busy.
With the disturbance at its height in Marketsquare opportunity was taken by several thousands, men, women, and some young folk, to make a dash along Turbot-street towards Georgestreet. Mounted and foot police, with batons drawn, were quickly at their heels, but the crowd, angry and turbulent, gave way by inches, hurling epithets of defiance at their pursuers. George-street quickly became a seething mass, in which could be seen intrepid constables keeping the populace on the move, a portion of the crowd invading the grounds of the Supreme Court. “ Intrepid constables,” armed with carbines and batons against unarmed men, with no weapons of offence or intention of offending, kept them’ on the move.
The police here attacked with determination - “Attacked with determination” men they were keeping on the move ! -
The police here attacked with determination, and the grounds were soon cleared. Some of the red ribbonites escaped by way of the north gate, others over railings in Ann-street, and the remainder by the great gates through which they had entered. A section of the crowd had in the meantime taken up a position in Georgestreet, in the vicinity of the Railway offices. Major Cahill spread out his main force without difficulty. There was another fierce outburst, and batons were called into use with such effect that several of the more vicious men bit the dust, and were taken in hand by the ambulance men who were in attendance with the motor. Some mounted the verandah at the Railway offices, and also, in some cases, forced their way on the colonnades and on one or two hotels near by. They were given peremptory orders to disperse, and their sullen refusal necessitated a further charge by the constabulary, who pressed them direct across Queen-street, whence they continued down George-street in some sort of order in the direction of Parliament House. They kept on the move accompanied by a large squad of foot police and a number of mounted men. While these individuals interested themselves in their inarch towards the Legislative building the police were kept busy clearing the streets running at right angles with Georgestreet, and this they successfully did despite the menacing attitude of the aggressors.
The “ aggressors,” mark -
The return of the processionists, or partial processionists, was the signal for further demonstration of angry resistance to the rules of law and order. At the intersection of Queenstreet Major Cahill rode into the crowd, which scattered into Queen-street on the one and Victoriabridge and North Quay on the other. The Commissioner rode to the Elizabeth-street corner and visited the police offices, and here some of the mob made a desperate rally, and one constable at least received a blow which felled him to the ground.
Beaten back by the determined pommelling which they had received at the batons’ point, some of the crowd backed up Elizabeth-street into William-street and thence towards North Quay, while others took refuge on the bridge.
Now, just one short extract as to the position at North Quay -
THE NORTH QUAY.
Charges by the Police.
The police who had come along William-street joined with those holding back the crowd at the Quay, Sub-Inspector Ferguson taking command. They were formed up in double line in the middle of the street, and waited until a few mounted men had come into position, then, on the order from Sub-Inspector Ferguson, they charged the mob, which seemed quite unprepared for such a course, and fled towards the railway gates.
I should think they would be quite unprepared for any such course -
Some of them took refuge in the enclosures along the river bank, but they were quickly driven out in all directions. The charge was one of the most spectacular and opportune during the morning, and ‘ removed what appeared to be a very ugly situation. Shortly afterwards, there was some trouble when a special constable was obliged, in self defence, to use his truncheon, and felled a man.
I should now like to read an account of what occurred in Queen-street, because, of all the wild and foolish manoeuvring on the part of the police, this was, I think, the most fatuous -
A QUEEN-STREET RUSH.
Following upon the North Quay disturbance, the rowdies collected their force again in Queenstreet, and a shout outside the Courier building about11.30 sounded the warning of another rush. It was a comparatively mild incident. Mounted and foot police soon had the crowd on the move in Queen-street, until they began to pack up tightly between Edward and Albert streets.
I invite honorable members’ attention to this-
Seeing that persuasion was useless, the police, with batons flourishing, charged the crowd. The crowd fled round Albert-street and dispersed up and down Elizabeth-street. Taking warning from what had occurred, many people proceeded without further delay to barricade their shops.
I should think that it was about time. There we have the story told by a number of biased witnesses, who went out in order to get evidence against the men. We are told how the men were harassed unnecessarily through the streets - men who, as I have said, had no weapons to defend themselves, and no intention of offending, who were dislodged by bayonets from ‘ doors where they had taken refuge, who were ousted by the force of the horses ridden by the troopers, and who were eventually, to the shame of those responsible, carried off blood-stained on ambulances. And this is the best case that the mover of this motion of censure has against the men in connexion with the general strike. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that he would be proud to be associated with men of this kind. I should be proud to be associated with men who, under the provocation that these men suffered, and in the circumstances by which they were surrounded, preserved their self-restraint and sense of manliness to such a degree that, notwithstanding the incitement to resist and take some active offensive or defensive measures, they did not do anything of the kind. So far from the city being held up in defiance of law and order, they were guilty of scarcely any more disorderly conduct than we should expect to find on an ordinary gala day, when people are out for their own amusement. When I read in the press the names by which these men are designated - the “ pack,” the “mob,” the “disturbers of law and order “ - and when I consider those terms in the light of the people and the facts to which they relate, I could well understand and sympathize with a man, perhaps a horny-handed son of toil, who, on reading such accounts, might make his way into the office of the Courier, and, in the language of Banjo Patterson -
He seized the nearest gilded youth
And tried to break his neck.
But it is to the infinite credit of the men that nothing of the kind was done. We have heard a great deal of the city of Brisbane being held up by force. What kind of force? Was there any discipline by which these men were bound one to another, except the sense of moral obligation which binds man to man in circumstances of the kind? If there was any force, it was entirely a moral force, that force which has made unionism respected and unionists beloved of one another - that sentiment which binds man to man, mate to mate, comrade to comrade, in times of trouble and adversity - a moral force which, if I may say so, has made of a miner and a unionist the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. An honorable member wishes to know what would have happened if the police had not overcome the strikers. In face of what I have already read - a great deal more could be read, but I shall not further weary a wearied House by a repetition of incidents - what an absurdity it is to ask such a question ! There was nothing to overcome ; and I confidently assert that there would have been nothing in the nature of riot or turmoil if it had not been for the action of the police. I have not the least doubt that that is literally correct - the whole of this turmoil in Brisbane was due to the unnecessarily repressive measures taken in regard to the men. The honorable member for Brisbane has already pointed out that, notwithstanding the excited public feeling, and the extent to which these men were incensed - notwithstanding the degree to which they had been injured as well as incensed - there was practically no damage to property or injury to life or limb. That is a very remarkable record in all the circumstances. I now come to the final stage.
– The honorable member has not answered one statement of the honorable member for Moreton.
– I did not have the pleasure of hearing all that the honorable member for Moreton had to say ; but, so far as I did hear it, I answered his statements there and then on the floor of the House, though, perhaps, I was guilty of disorder in doing so. As to the employment of the military for the suppression of disorder in Brisbane, the fact is abundantly clear that the Premier of Queensland thought that, on a technical interpretation of the Constitution, he could force the Commonwealth Government: to send troops to be employed against the strikers. Indeed, that is clear, on Mr. Denham’s own admission; and I shall quote from the columns of the Courier in order to show that he still persists in the view that he could compel the Commonwealth Government to send troops into the State to quell what he considered’, or’ pretended to consider, to be domestic violence.
More than once he has told the public and the press that the terms of the Constitution are mandatory - that the Commonwealth shall protect the State against domestic violence. I am pleased to know that it is acknowledged by constitutional authorities opposite that in this Mr. Denham is absolutely wrong. I am glad to know that the Commonwealth has not reached that condition of humiliation in which it may be dragged at the chariot wheels of a Premier, who, for his own electioneering purposes-, desires to compel this Government to pour troops into any particular State. That position has been abandoned. But I will quote the Brisbane Courier of a recent date, in order to show the arrogance and insolence with which the Premier of Queensland still insists on his position, even in spite of the Opposition. I hope that honorable members opposite enjoy the position in which they are placed in defending Mr. Denham in the attack which he makes upon the independence of the Commonwealth Parliament. Then, it was said that the troops ought to have been sent in any case. We have, however, been able to quote Mr. Denham to show that, at the very time when he received the telegraph message from the Prime Minister, he admitted that he had abundant power in his own State to preserve public order, without the interference of the military at all. It is true that he absolutely contradicted that in a letter to His Excellency the Governor of Queensland; but, at all events, this is what he said to the public -
Ican assure the citizens that ample protection is afforded by the enrolment of special constables, foot and horse. I see no reason why, early in the week, normal conditions of trade should not obtain in the metropolitan area.
Yet, in his letter to the Governor, Mr. Denham said -
It showed how very grave the situation was, and how unprepared the State was to deal with it;
And this, after assuring the citizens that ample protection was afforded by the enrolment of special contables, foot and horse ! I want now to quote from the Brisbane Courier to show the attitude of Mr. Denham towards this Parliament. On the 19th February, he addressed a further communication to the Governor of Queensland, supplementary to that of the 5th. In this document he said -
I have the honour respectfully to inform Your Excellency that Ministers will seriously consider the question of calling on the Commonwealth to reimburse the State the expenditure that has been rendered necessary by the deliberate neglect of the Commonwealth Government to fulfil its obligation to the State. . . . It is now evident that the strike executive, from the very beginning of the reign of terror it established, was confident that, in spite of the Constitution, the appointed guardian of the peace in such circumstances - the Commonwealth Government - would at least be neutral in the conflict of order with anarchy. In fact, the Prime Minister, in a published interview with a press reporter, admitted he had received representations from the strike executive as well as from the State Government, which should have been his sole adviser on such an occasion ; and it is clear that the views of the former body prevailed with him. While the Prime Minister has up to the present made no serious effort to justify his violation of the Constitution -
No one in this House, except the honorable member for Moreton to-night, has suggested that the Prime Minister violated the Constitution - he has by means of interviews with press reporters indicated the line of defence he will take if his conduct is challenged, as it undoubtedly ought to be, by Queensland representatives in the Federal Parliament.
The honorable member for Moreton has taken his cue from that.
Apparently he intends to plead that the situation in Brisbane was not grave enough to warrant Federal interference, and that the Federal Defence Act gave him authority to disregard the Constitution and to remain inactive. These two contentions are very easily disposed of. As I have shown in my previous letter to Your Excellency on the subject, the Constitution, which has transferred from the State to the Commonwealth the military power that was indispensable to the security of the State in the strike of 1891, obliges the Commonwealth to place its armed forces at the service of the State when in a period of civil disorder it calls for such assistance. The Commonwealth cannot constitutionally decline the application. Its duty is to comply without question, and to cast on the State the onus of the action. When the Constitution was being framed an attempt was made to insert in it a phrase which would have given the Commonwealth the discretion the Prime Minister has exercised unwarrantably. But the attempt was unsuccessful, and the obligation is as binding as words could make it. But even if the Constitution in specific terms gave the Commonwealth a discretion in the matter. . . .
Mark that ! We have no discretion, according to the Premier of Queensland. I think that that document is remarkable alike for its insolence and its ignorance of the true constitutional position. I am very glad to find myself in agreement with those distinguished lawyers in the House and out of it who say that there is no constitutional obligation upon this Commonwealth to send its troops into any State at the mere behest of a State Premier who chooses to allege that there is a condition of domestic violence in his- State, and that immediately a request is made. The true position is that a discretion is vested in the Commonwealth Government as to the operation of its troops. It is perfectly obvious that they cannot be manipulated by a State. They must be manipulated by the Commonwealth ; and the manner, and time, and extent to which they shall be operated must rest in the discretion of the Commonwealth. Consequently, I say that the contention now made in the letter published in the Brisbane Courier is alike insolent and ignorant. When the matter was pressed further, the Attorney-General was able to show that, in any case, the Queensland Government had not complied with the conditions which would render it lawful for the Commonwealth to send troops to Brisbane. So that, apparently, both upon the law and the facts, the Commonwealth Government was right, whilst the Queensland Government and those members of the Opposition who have supported them and indorsed their action were absolutely wrong. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any sane man, no, I will not go so far as that, but will say that it is hard to understand how any sane man, in view of what I have read, and of what other honorable members have stated in this House as to what was the real condition of affairs at Brisbane, can come to any other conclusion than that it would have been disastrous to send troops of armed men into the streets of Brisbane. The statement of the Queensland Premier himself in one place was that they were not required, and that he could do without them. In another place he said that he was helpless without them. The fact is that they were not required. It has been pointed out that the Premier was not entitled to them at the time when he said he wanted them, and for the purpose for which he said he wanted them, namely, to supply food to the people. There are two outstanding facts which will for ever redound to the credit of this Commonwealth Government - two matters widely separated in time, but associated in nature and in kind. The one is that they refused to be drawn into that jingoistic enterprise of presenting to Great Britain a Dreadnought, of which we heard so much not long since ; and the other is that they declined to be coerced by the State Government of Queensland, which, for political party purposes, desired to force their hand into sending troops on an enterprise for which they were not required. I set out merely to speak upon these points, and, do not desire to open up any others. I will conclude with a reference to some observations made the other night by the honorable member for Kooyong, who spoke of the rush of unionists to appear before the Arbitration Court. The honorable member said, ‘ ‘ They promote disputes ; they make artificial quarrels for the purpose of getting within the jurisdiction of that Court; they abandon their local tribunals and the operation of their local Acts in order to get within the purview of that Court.” For what purpose? The honorable member for Kooyong does not “join with some illmannered persons of equal ill-judgment in the country, who have sufficient lack of grace to attack the President of the Arbitration Court. The honorable member gives to the President his highest encomiums, admitting him to be a man sound in law, of the highest personal integrity, and in every way fitted for the position he holds. Yet he says that men from all sides are endeavouring by every means in their power, legitimate and otherwise, to bring their claims under the jurisdiction of this Court. For what purpose, then? Is it not obvious that such a man, in such circumstances, must be administering justice, and nothing more nor less than justice? And does it not follow logically that, if there are these persistent and continuous efforts to come within the jurisdiction of the Court, they must spring from a simple and natural desire to obtain justice? The more honorable members opposite prove that the tendency in that direction is strong and irresistible, the more they prove that these men have been denied justice only too long in other places. I should very much like to have said something upon an observation made last night by the honorable member for Flinders as to the Arbitration Court generally and its alleged failure. I do not admit that it has failed, but I do say that it has worked under very great and pressing difficulties, and that it will never be wholly successful until the shackles are removed from it, and it is given that freedom of action which the Government that I am supporting desires to accord to it. The honorable member for Flinders quoted the President of the Court as saying that he was - 1 do not pretend to remember the exact words - vested with legislative functions, and not simply with the functions of a Judge, and that consequently his work was greatly increased, and the difficulties of his position rendered more complex. But there is a great and striking difference between the attitude of the two. men. The honorable member for Flinders argues that the Court should be abolished or abandoned, whereas the President of the Court merely made that statement, as he has made others, some of which I have quoted to-night, to show that the utility of the Court is greatly hampered by the constitutional limitations by which he is bound, and that when they are removed, as we hope they will be, its usefulness will be largely enhanced. At this early hour of the morning honorable members are too tired to listen to, and I am too weary to go into, an academic discussion of the question of industrial unrest, and how we ought to cope with it. I desire, however, to express regret that this motion of want of confidence, which might have been turned at least to some useful purpose by honorable members of the Opposition temperately suggesting some means by which industrial unrest might be checked, has been made the occasion for a carping, chiding, bitter attack against our fellow men in another State. That is really what the action of the Opposition amounts to. It is perfectly idle for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he makes no charge against these men, and that he does not suggest that they would be guilty of any of these atrocities which, in my view, are, to a great extent, imaginary. We know perfectly well that the suggestion, as first made, that the men are associated in some way with these acts of violence, so far as acts of violence are proved at all, is allowed to travel all over the Commonwealth, and to influence and poison the minds of people outside this Chamber, whereas the deduction that the Leader of the Opposition afterwards mildly draws, that we are not justified in supposing that the strikers were privy to the acts of violence, is not half so widely advertised. I look forward to a time when we shall be able to approach these questions of difference between employer and employ^ with less bitter feeling. I regret very much that what I have felt bound to say, even in these most difficult and trying circumstances, has had to be by way of defence of the men against whom these charges have been levelled. Twenty thousand of these unionists are concerned. Many of them are the fathers of families. They are men who, if I may so express it, are the backbone of the great city of Brisbane, and it is pitiable to find two or three weeks of the time of the CommonwealthParliament devoted to an attack upon, and a defence of, them.
– The attack was not upon the men, but upon the Government action.
– I am well aware that the attack was nominally upon the Government for their action in the matter; and it must be acknowledged that the attack, so far as it is an attack upon the Government in respect of the Brisbane strike, has absolutely failed. I do not think that any honorable member of the Opposition can honestly believe that, so far as the Brisbane strike is concerned, he has made out any case against the Government. I do not think that the Opposition believe that they have made out a case against the Government on any of these points. When I heard the striking and drastic terms of this motion of want of confidence, I thought that the Opposition would be able to point to something on which we had gone wrong, and, indeed, I should not have been greatly surprised if they had found us wrong in something. None of us is infallible ; bin, the motion, and the discussion that has taken place upon it, constitute in themselves the highest testimonial that the Government could possibly have.
– I join with the honorable member who has just resumed his seat in regretting many of the expressions which have been used during this debate, and the amount of time that has been devoted to the Brisbane strike, which may be regarded as the central point of the discussion. I agree with him also in deploring the failure of our present-day methods of dealing with industrial troubles. My mind goes back to the time when the question of conciliation and arbitration was first brought before the Federal Parliament, and when it was discussed with a freedom and absence of ill-feeling that had much to do with the successful passing of the Bill through the House. Honorable members on both sides seemed to bend their minds in the direction of devising some means of saving Australia from those blots upon industrialism which undoubtedly exist in other parts of the world. We were anxious to save this young country from the ill effects of strikes. I am one of those who believe - and I speak with some personal knowledge - that no strike has ever yet occurred that has not done injury to some one. Honorable members opposite are too prone to assert that there has never yet been a strike that has not been in the end beneficial. I do not go with them to anything like that distance. I was in the Old Country when the great Scottish railway strike took place, and I had opportunities of seeing the inner and after effects of that strike upon a very large body of people, who had absolutely nothing whatever to do either with initiating or continuing it. They were the innocent sufferers, and their sufferings made such an impression upon me that I determined, if ever the opportunity offered, to do my utmost to prevent Australia, the land of my birth, being subjected to a similar experience. After all the energy, ability, industry, and intelligence that were brought to bear by this Parliament upon this question of conciliation and arbitration, what have we really accomplished ? We have placed an Act upon the statute-book of the Commonwealth, and have amended that Act in certain respects, yet we find that it is entirely impotent in fending off the results which seem inevitably to follow modern industrialism. My idea, and that of ninetenths of those who took part in the debates on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, was that, once it came into operation, no matter what the nature of ah industrial dispute might be, there should be no cessation of industry. That, indeed, is the essence of the measure. It was round that point that all our energies were concentrated. Our desire was to avoid the disastrous effects that undoubtedly do impinge upon the individual, and to save the community from this unnatural and barbaric system of carrying on our industrialism.
– A tram car and a railway train have been driven through that Act.
– To our shame, as well as to our sorrow, be such a confession made. I think that the difficulties that have arisen have been due to our inability to fix responsibility, and to follow it up by the imposition of penalties. Had we once been in a position to do that, our Act would, I believe, have been effective, and effective, not as a penal instrument for bringing punishment to those who infringe it, but as a deterrent; and in preventing those things which all sides say and, 1 believe, hope, that we should be able to avoid. 1 am not going to say anything more about the Brisbane strike. Enough has been said about it. I have sat here for nearly six hours, and have heard very little else discussed.
– I give the honorable member credit for being very patient.
– I do not know whether my patience will meet with its proper reward; but I am giving my experience as a reason why I do not desire, at this juncture, at any rate, to pursue this question further. I hope the time is not far distant when the people of Australia will insist upon those who represent them in the National Parliament enacting such a law as will prevent this awful waste of human effort, and this terrible and disastrous embitterment of relations that should be of the very happiest character.
– Why not support us in getting the constitutional power to do so?
– Under the Constitution we have ample power if we can only insure obedience to that power. That is all we need. We have ample power to prevent the deplorable occurrences that follow in the wake of strikes.
– Can the honorable member show that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act has ever been disobeyed ?
– Yes, it is constantly being disobeyed. I scarcely know of an instance where a strike has occurred in which the Act has not been violated by the very existence of the strike itself. There should not be a strike until the opportunities for the settlement of a dispute which the Act undoubtedly does present have all been exhausted. I do not wish to go into the merits of the Brisbane strike, but as an Australian I feel ashamed of men who, on a question of whether or not they should be allowed to wear a badge, declined to await the decision of the Court, and were prepared to precipitate what all must admit was a most deplorable strike.
– Is not the honorable member ashamed of the man who would not meet the men in conference?
– I do not attempt to defend that refusal ; but I desire honorable members to look at this question from another point of view. If the men had been accustomed to follow a certain procedure, and the manager of the company had said, “ You shall not work if you continue that procedure,” then he would have been in just the same position as I believe the men were.
– I suppose that underneath it all was the breaking up of the union.
– The honorable member knows my opinion of industrial unions, but that is another point. The ostensible reason for the strike was undoubtedly the question of the badge. It is said of every great war that it is not the actual reason assigned for its occurrence that has led up to it, but that a number of matters coming together give such a momentum to the dispute that eventually the crisis arrives. The reason given for the crisis may be very far from the truth. I .deplore the action of employers or men in making alterations in the methods of carrying on a business, without giving an opportunity to a proper authority to deal with the proposed alterations involving new procedure. There is another matter which I wish to bring before the House, which I consider of some importance. In its neglect to deal with this matter, the Government are, in my opinion, deserving of censure. I refer to the question of electoral reform. This country, with adult suffrage, and, up to a recent period, at any rate, opportunities for the exercise of the franchise not exceeded in any other part of the world, has been suffering for some considerable time from an imperfect system of election. The proper choice of the people has not been secured. We have in this Parliament a number of men who do not represent a majority of the people whom they are supposed to represent. They represent minorities. I do not wish to mention individual members, because, in most cases, it has been purely accidental that it is so. But the fact gives a sense of insecurity to the member, and a. sense of dissatisfaction to the electors, which, might be removed by a proper system of election. The facts have been referred to in the press from time to time, and I notice that the figures with regard to the present Parliament, which 1 intended to quote, are quoted in a leading article in the Age of this morning. At the last Federal election in April, 1910, .we had a result which should have called for immediate action by a Democratic Government. We had in one House of this Parliament the whole of the members returned at that election on a minority vote. In the State of Victoria, there was a majority of over 40,000 votes cast against the three candidates who were returned for the Senate.
– I do not see how the honorable member makes that out.
– The records of the Electoral Branch of the Home Affairs Department show that it is so. I will give the figures for the three Labour candidates, and the five other candidates who contested the election.
– The honorable member proposes to count Miss Goldstein’s votes in his favour?
– I could not count diem for the Labour candidates, because it is not the practice of the Labour party to permit any more than three candidates to run in their interest for the Senate.
– It is against the rule with another party now.
– The honorable member is wrong there. There is no claim made by any other party that I know of, except the Labour party, that those who desire to stand for an election shall sign a pledge to stand down if they are not selected by the party.
– What about clause 39 of the constitution of the Liberal party in South Australia, which was quoted last night ?
– I am talking about the Federal party:
– So am I.
– I have here the red-covered book with which my honorable friends opposite must be quite familiar, and I quote from it the wording of their pledge -
I hereby pledge myself not to oppose the candidate selected by the recognised political labour organizations.
That was framed by the Labour organizations who meet in conference at certain intervals. It does not apply in the party to which I belong.
– The letter from Senator Symon read last night shows that it does apply to the Liberal party.
– In the party to which I belong there is no pledge that a man will retire if he is not selected, or that he will support the candidate who is selected.
– How did the honorable members opposite induce Mr. Trenwith to stand down?
– I do not know what the Minister is talking about. 1 understand that Mr. Trenwith left the Labour party because of their pledge. He never signed a. pledge in his life. I should like to quote the results of the last Senate elections from the official returns. The voting in the State of Victoria was : - Findley, 217,573 votes; Barker, 216,199; Blakey, 215,117. Each elector is entitled to three votes, and the total Labour vote was therefore 648,889. The votes given for the other candidates were : - Best, 213,976 ; Trenwith, 211,058; McCay, 195,477; Goldstein, 53,583; Ronald, 18,380. The total non-Labour vote was 692,474.
– The honorable member is counting the votes given for Miss Goldstein. This mustbe a joke.
– I said exactly what I proposed to do. I propose to show that the Labour votes recorded were so many, and the non-Labour votes so many more. Surely the honorable member will not claim that the votes given to Miss Goldstein were votes given to the Labour party.
– I should not.
– The Minister is too sensible to do so.
– I should not claim them for the Fusion party, either.
– I can claim that they were non-Labour votes. I wish to show that the three candidates who were returned had cast against them a majority of no less than 43,585 votes. Yet they have the right to hold their seats for six years.
– Quite right, too.
– That is the very complaint I have to make - that members of a Democratic party, who believe in government of the people by the people and for the people, are going to allow a system to continue which permits of not one or two, but of the whole of the members of one House of this Parliament elected at one election to be elected by a minority vote.
– What about the Senate elections in the other States ? We are dealing with an Australian question.
– Victoria is more familiar to me than are the other States, and I think we are justified in taking some notice of what happens in our own State. As the honorable member for Maribyrnong desires some information in regard to Australia, I take the facts as they apply to the House of Representatives, which represents the whole of Australia.
– The honorable member will not stick to Victoria for these figures.
-I have all the figures here, but I do not wish to weary honorable members by quoting them all. I am trying to give the honorable member for
Maribyrnong what he wants, or, to put it in another way, what I believe he requires. In the election of the House of Representatives for the whole of Australia, Labour.” polled 686,842 votes, and secured forty-two seats in this House, whilst those opposed; to Labour polled 689,104 votes, or nearly 3,000 more than Labour, and yet with the greater number of votes secured only thirtythree seats.
– Does the honorable member count on his side the Socialist votes polled in New South Wales?
– The honorable member is adopting the familiar method of attempting to detract from an argument, the force of which he feels, by endeavouring to show that some unfair advantage was taken in the compilation of these figures. I started out by saying that, in my opinion, no man should hold a seat in Parliament on a minority vote. The figures I have been quoting show that men. do hold seats in this Parliament on minority votes, and that the Labour party, as a. whole, hold their place in this Parliament: on a minority vote.
– Every member on this side was returned by a majority vote, whilst there are four on the other side who were not so returned.
– I ask the Minister whether he intends to go back upon the professions of his party, and deal with this question from a sectional standpoint, or willhe, as he ought to do, take the Commonwealth, as a whole, into consideration? I was charged just now with dealing only with Victoria, and I then proceeded to deal with the whole of the Commonwealth. My honorable friends opposite are anxious that I should not do so, and that I should deal with Victoria, or with particular electors. In the circumstances, I charge the Government with going back upon their democratic principles, and with being unfaithful to the professions which they have so loudly made. They would? have us believe that no individual or body of men have more deeply engrained in them the true spirit of Democracy than they claim to have themselves, and yet the very positions they hold are held by grace of an Act which is an outrage upon Democracy.
– The honorable member’s party were in power for about ten years, and did not alter it.
– We made some efforts to alter it, and did make some alterations. Honorable members opposite have also made some alterations, not, however, in the direction of giving greater facilities to people to express their opinions, but in the direction of curtailing the opportunities they previously possessed. By the abolition of the opportunity which was given to a large number of people at the last Federal election to record their votes by post, the Government have shown, either their mistrust in themselves or their administration, or a woeful want of trust in the people of Australia. The improper and unjustifiable abolition of the postal voting provisions will, in my opinion, rebound against the Government in a fashion which, I venture to say, they scarcely dream of at (present.
– No chance in life. I received more postal votes than my opponent.
– I cannot believe that the honorable member is so selfish as his remark would indicate, but he is bound to consider the party with which tie is associated, and also his masters outside, who would give him a very short shrift if he expressed any opinions other than those which he is expressing now. After the last election, the fiat went forth that the postal voting provisions were operating against the Labour party, and therefore must be altered.
– We tried to alter them before that.
– The quiet, almost secret, way in which the thing was done was evidence that the Government was ashamed of its action. If honorable members opposite are under the delusion that they have strengthened their position by this action, they will be undeceived at the next election. The people from whom they have ifilched the highest right of citizenship will :.not allow even illness to prevent them from protesting against this outrage on democracy. “The members of the Labour party were in -the front rank of those who fought for adult -suffrage, equal voting power, and one-man electorates. They have proclaimed that all should have the same opportunities, and yet ,they make it impossible for those who are nil to exercise the suffrage. This is hastening the evil day which they hope to stave off. Country electors especially, knowing how :they a rs handicapped, prize the right of voting; and it has been the Labour party, the Democratic party in excelsis, which has struck a blow at the franchise.
– There will be greater facilities for voting at the next election than ever before.
– Those who are confined to their homes, or laid up in hospitals by illness, will not be able to vote.
– There will be polling- booths in the hospitals.
– How will the sick get to them? Will there be a polling- booth beside each bed? Do those who are such sticklers for the secrecy of the ballot suggest a perambulating ballot-box for the collection of the votes of the patients ? The proposal would be ludicrous if it were not tragic. And do honorable members say that the sick in charitable institutions shall have the privilege of voting, but that those who are confined to their own homes shall be prevented from exercising the franchise? Directly this restrictive measure was passed, the Labour party found itself in trouble, and it will be in more serious trouble later. Far too many people are prevented from various reasons from casting their vote to give any excuse for limiting voting facilities.
– We have extended the opportunities for voting.
– I hope that honorable members do not put the absent voters’ provision as a set-off against the abolition of postal voting, which, in my honest opinion, is as pure and clean a system as voting at the ballot-box. I am not a child in politics, and that is my view.
– Most immoral practices have been carried on in connexion with postal voting.
– Immoral practices have occurred in connexion with ordinary voting, but that is not given as a reason for the abolition of the ballot. It is the motive underlying the abolition of postal voting that I attack. It was unworthy of honorable members, for the preservation of their political safety-
– The honorable member is imputing an unworthy motive. That he may not do.
– Then I shall say that there is a party outside this House which, for ils political purposes, has restricted the opportunities for voting, and gone back upon its professions in regard to securing equality of opportunity for all.
– Why did the Queensland Liberal ^Government abolish postal voting? It was because of evil practices such as occurred in the working of the system of Commonwealth elections.
– The honorable member’s experience has been unfortunate. Of course, wrong things were done; but if honorable members examine the cases brought under the notice of the Home Affairs Department, they will find that 90 per cent. of the charges were made by members of Labour organizations, and against persons who had no evil intent, and nothing to gain by acting illegally. I know that, in my own electorate, a number of persons were prosecuted for merely falling into error. When friends came to me about what had been done on the other side, I said, “ For Heaven’s sake, do not constitute yourselves public informers. If improper things were done, it was through want of knowledge of the law.” I remember two cases in which’ the authorized witness, in the presence of a justice of the peace, assisted a voter to sign the ballotpaper. That was done in pure ignorance of the law. The illegal act took place in the presence of a witness. No one would do such a thing for the sake of one vote, and it was known how the electors would cast their votes. Similar things happened on both sides. There are irregularities, too, in connexion with voting at the ballot. In one case, of which the particulars were published in the press, a man who had voted was asked to go back and vote for some one else who was ill and could not go to the poll. He did this, apparently thinking that he was entitled to vote as often as he liked for persons who could not vote, and on whose behalf he was authorized to act. That man, of course, was prosecuted for personation. In this connexion, let me draw the attention of the Minister of Home Affairs to the fact that there are being returned through the post-offices hundreds of cards bearing names at addresses which cannot be found. This is a matter which should be inquired into immediately. The Department should take steps to see that our rolls are not stuffed. If my dearest friend were guilty of anything of that sort, I would have no hesitation in saying that a very heavy penalty should be inflicted upon him.
– The card system ought to help us very materially.
– It ought to. There is just one other point to which I wish to direct attention. In addition to our electoral system being faulty, there is a grave defect in our existing method of voting. We shall never obtain a true reflex of the will of the people until we adopt some preferential system of voting. I am aware that honorable members opposite are quite satisfied with the present system.
People are always prone to be satisfied with a system which gives them an advantage. The party opposite have succeeded under the existing system, and it is not likely that they will alter it. Nevertheless, I would urge them to afford the people an opportunity to exercise the widest and most unrestricted choice in the matter of their parliamentary representatives. Under the system which at present obtains, it is possible that the true choice of the electors may be returned to Parliament in cases where there is a multiplicity of candidates. But there are enormous odds to one that he will not be, and that a candidate will be elected who represents a minority. In Victoria the Labour party always use the preferential system. It is part of the rules of their organization.
– It is optional in the case of elections for the House of Representatives.
– A member of the Labour party is at liberty to plump if he chooses to do so.
– At any rate, in connexion with the State elections, it is part of the Labour party’s programme.
– No.
– I hold in my hand the rules of the Political Labour Council of Victoria, and, on page 10, which deals with candidates and the methods of their selection, I find the following -
The voting shall be by ballot on the preferential system, an explanation of which must be printed on the ballot-papers.
– I can assure the honorable member that a ballot took place only last night, and the Argus this morning states that the electors were at liberty to plump if they so desired.
– I base my statement upon the authority which I have quoted. If the preferential system is good enough for the Labour party in connexion with its own elections, why is it not good enough for the State? If that party can use it with advantage, why should they not extend that advantage to the Commonwealth ? Honorable members opposite know perfectly well that they would never have won the eighteen seats for the Senate which they captured at the last elections if a preferential system of voting had been in operation.
– What fools we would be to alter it.
– That is the attitude of which I complain. Because the existing system confers an advantage upon them, honorable members opposite hang on to it. When they find that any part of it is working to their disadvantage, they immediately abolish it. If they do that sort of thing, they must accept the opprobrium which will undoubtedly attach to them. The Minister of Trade and Customs has been so helpful to me during the course of any remarks that I feel I almost owe him an apology for having to say a word or two in reference to his Department. I wish again to express my deep regret that he has not been able to live up to his political professions. When he was upon this side of the House, there was no more ardent advocate of a Protective policy than ihe was. Upon every conceivable occasion he delivered the most fiery and convincing Protectionist speeches. Yet he now reclines at ease upon the Ministerial bench, caring very little indeed for the industries whose welfare he had so much at heart only a few months ago. Have things altered so considerably since then that it is unnecessary that assistance should now be granted to industries which are suffering from undue competition? Are the prosperity of the Commonwealth and an overflowing Treasury so consoling to him that he can view with equanimity the competition to which our people are being subjected? Is he so satisfied with the industrial position of the workers that he is prepared to allow the cold blasts of outside competition to continue to blow upon them? I view with sorrow, as well as with an amount of righteous indignation, the attitude which he has adopted ever since he became Minister of Trade and Customs. It will not’ be long before we have to face our constituents
– We are quite prepared to -meet them.
– The honorable -member is always prepared to meet them, because he has behind him a splendid phalanx which makes itself responsible for his presence here. But I venture to say that there are one or two representatives of Victoria in this Chamber who are not feeling -at all comfortable regarding their prospects at the next election. Something will have to be done upon the question of Protection if they are to come back here. Some of these honorable members actually gained their seats in this House because .they were regarded as staunch Pro tectionists. How have they discharged the obligation which undoubtedly rested upon them? They have followed the Minister of Trade and Customs.
– They have done about as well as has the honorable member.
– I wish that the honorable member had given as many Protectionist votes in this House as I have. Of course, he was not here when we were engaged in the strenuous fiscal fight. But I would ask him whether he is satisfied with the present position, from a Protectionist stand-point.
– Not by any means.
– He dare not be satisfied, because he has in his electorate one of the most important manufacturing centres in the Commonwealth. In his constituency there is to be found a body of men who, although they be members of Political Labour Leagues, place Protection to Australian industries even above their fidelity to those organizations. He also knows that the Labour Leagues in his electorate are nothing like sufficiently strong to insure him a majority. Their members will require some explanation from him of the lamb-like docility with which he has followed the recumbent Minister of Trade and Customs.
– My principal support comes from the railway employes.
– That body of men contains some of the finest supporters of Protection that we have in this country. They think a great deal of the policy which has done so much to build up the wealth of Australia.
– The honorable member for Maribyrnong is a thorn in the side of the Government, I can assure the honorable member.
– The electors of Maribyrnong will require something more than a thorn in the side of the Government. They want some real assistance.
– And they will require that from the honorable member.
– When will they get it from the Labour party?
– Sooner than they will from honorable members opposite.
– They will never get it while that party is constituted as it is to-day, because the Minister of Trade and Customs is not in a position to come down to this House with proposals of a Protectionist character. But if a Liberal Government occupied the Ministeial benches, they would be in a position to carry protective duties through this House, just as would be the Minister of Trade and Customs. If he were to come down next week with proposals of that character, he would carry them. The pity of it is that he is losing such golden opportunities. But I leave him now to the tender mercies of those who will find it so difficult to explain to the electors the cause of their marvellous inaction. After the next election, when a Liberal Government is in power, probably the honorable member for Maribyrnong will be in Opposition, and I can imagine with what alacrity he will cross the floor of the chamber to assist them in imposing duties upon those articles which are manufactured by industries in which he is so strongly interested. I look forward to the time when honorable members will not be so trammelled as they are under present conditions. If this question were once brought forward - no member of the Opposition has power to bring it forward - those who are lagging behind would be brought into the van. They would be placed in the lead, instead of acting as a brake on the industrial progress of this country.
– I do not intend to engage in recrimination such as has been indulged in by some honorable members during this discussion. I would like to congratulate the honorable member for Laanecoorie upon having maintained a conciliatory attitude throughout the whole of his remarks. Extreme utterances upon either side lead to extreme utterances on the other side, and do honour to neither party in this House. So far as our standard of civilization and the extent of our good-will towards our fellow men are concerned, there is not much - difference between the members of the opposing parties. We are both regulated by public opinion, and this party could not be too extreme if it would, any more than the other party could be too Conservative if it would, because it would be brought up with a round turn. That is a great element of safety. In all self-governing communities, the tendency seems to be more or less towards a fairer adjustment of the opportunities of life, and the distinctive feature of this party is that it has taken more definite steps in that direction all along the line than any other party. That is why I am with it. The strength of our party lies in the fact that we have gone ahead in this direction, and the weakness of our honorable friends opposite lies in the fact that if they would move in this direction they must cover the ground we have already trodden. I shall not argue that all we do is right, or that all that any party doesis right. No doubt there are’ points which may rightly be indicated as weaknesses in the party’s armour, but I cannot see any justification for such a sweeping indictment as that moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to be born of party prejudice more than of calm- thoughtful consideration of the situation. It is most trenchant criticism. One would think that we had been playing ducks and drakes with the Commonwealth and its affairs, and I am sure that very few of our enemies would believe that. If the Opposition sat upon the Treasury bench, and had pursued the course that we have pursued, and I sat on the other side, I, as an impartial critic,, should not vote for such a motion of censure on them. I should not be able to find it in my conscience to do so. ‘ The main ground of offence, of course, relates to the Brisbane trouble, upon which I shall not dwell. The allegation that we have not maintained law and order, or upheld the laws of the Commonwealth, simply indicates that we have not taken those drasticsteps which, by imputation, the Opposition would have had us take, and which I make bold to say they would not have taken themselves. Had the Leader of the Opposition been upon this side of the House, and in charge of the affairs of the country, I admit that he would probably have sent to Brisbane a more diplomatic answer than the Prime Minister sent,, that would have appeased the enemies of the Democracy, and, at the same time, have saved the Government from the necessity of sending the troops. But the Opposition, no more than this Government,, dare send troops unless there has already been absolute bloodshed. The most pertinent remark that has come from the Opposition during the debate was made by the honorable member for Parramatta. The honorable member for Indi said that the Government had falsified the predictions of its enemies, and the honorable member for Parramatta added that it had also falsified the predictions of its friends. I am free to admit that it has falsified the predictions, of some of its friends, as well as of most of its enemies, and I am pleased to think it has. Some of our friends, if we had listened to their counsel, would have led the Government astray. Any Government might have that sort of thing said about it, and there is no sort of indictment in it. It is rather to the credit of the Government that they have not been hustled and bustled into doing things which the country would regret, and for which they would probably have paid the supreme penalty of political death. If they had done that, they would have rendered themselves of no avail in that march towards greater industrial peace and general prosperity which we are at present negotiating. I am fully aware that many of our people are disappointed. I hear comments outside indicating that they are bitterly disappointed ; but many men, more particularly the Radical section of the community, expect too much of a Government. They do not realize the limitations placed upon responsible government. We who have served a term in the House know by experience, and many men outside who go more fully into such matters, also realize, those limitations, and do not expect too much from responsible government. Once we represent the whole community, and are intrusted with the conduct of their affairs, the Government can no longer be partisan to the extent of passing legislation on certain lines only. I do not know of any case in the past where the expressed will of the people, or of a large section of them, in the direction of revolutionary reform has been accomplished by responsible government except at the point of the sword. Drastic reforms have been -accomplished, as history shows, but only after tremendous stress and strain upon the multitude of the people, and through the agency of a Cromwell or a Napoleon. There is no call for that sort of thing in Australia. “We must move along constitutional lines. Reforms that are slow are sure, and the Government are pursuing a safe course in going slowly, because they are thereby doing what they are doing more surely. For that reason any who support this party expecting revolutionary reforms are doomed to disappointment, just as surely as our opponents are disappointed because the Government have not been Jed astray. If the Government had done all that some would have them do, the indictment levelled against them might have had some firm foundation; but, because they have not, they have caused bitter chagrin to the Opposition, and have probably consider- ably disappointed a number of -people outside. It seems to me that the -Government have gone .practically as far as they oan in the matter of ‘industrial reform by the legislation that has already been enacted so far as concerns securing more of the results of men’s labour to them than they have hitherto received. The Government have established Arbitration Courts and made them a final test of the relationship between employer and employe. Parliament has virtually said, “ Thus far and no farther can we go.” I believe Parliament might have done a little more, so far as its own Departments are concerned, in the matter of regulating the conditions of employment. I was adverse to handing over our own Departments to the Arbitration Court, although I realized that the alternative was a difficult . one. But since we have done so, I of course submit to the situation, but that does not alter my view, or that of many outside who had hoped for great benefits from this Government. They say, “ What is the use of the further extension of Government employment if it simply means that we are placed under the control of the Arbitration Court, and are therefore not one whit better off than our fellows in any other form of employment? “ Under the system adopted by the Government of handing their employes over to the Arbitration Court, the extension of government functions, entailing the same control by the Arbitration Court, will not place men in a better position, or secure them any greater reward fpr their labours, than anybody else might get ; and I contend that the Government should be a model employer, and the conditions of Government employment ideal, so that the best men in the community may be attracted to the Government service. I admit that Parliament cannot go into all the details of the staffs employed in the various Departments ; but it can surely lay down certain broad lines, providing, for instance, that men who have been a certain length of time in the service and are in responsible positions shall not receive less than a certain amount. I know men who have been postmasters for thirty years, and are still under the .£200 mark. They are engaged in arduous and responsible work, with no limitation of hours, living, as they do, on the premises, and being at the beck and call of the public. The Government might have done more in this direction if anything, but ,it is altogether out of the question at present for them to extensively control wide fields of enterprise.
– Red tape kills it.
– It does. The fact that the bank that we have established .has had to be absolutely freed from- political control, and placed entirely beyond our reach, with complete power given to the bank manager - I realize that that is necessary, and do not cavil at it - tends to show how difficult it is for the reforms which are so dear to the hearts of many men to be accomplished per medium of the politician. The politician can do very little more than we are doing. On entering into other arenas, he has to engage men outside the political sphere altogether, arid .versed in the particular line of business concerned. Unfortunately for reform generally to-day, the men who are specially qualified for those responsible positions have not by birth and training, that human sympathy which is in accord with the Democratic spirit of the age. That is one of the troubles from which we suffer. The men in whom we nave to repose our trust, and whose aid1 we have to enlist, are, for the most part, opposed to us politically, because they are Conservative by birth and training. That is one of the undoubted difficulties in getting any real reform effected. It shows clearly that, before we can have any extensive system of Government enterprise or nationalization, which is more or less in the air to-day, the rank and file of the people must know better what they want, and understand more fully the system of society which they desire to reform and remould. For that reason, I incline very much to the idea that the proper stages upward are throughunionistic movements of a cooperative and co-partnership nature. I do not say that that should be the one end and aim. Some honorable members of the Opposition, I know, have put this forward as a solution of the industrial problem. I do not regard it as a solution, but as a necessary step in the way up for the masses of the people. Then they will know more fully what they want ; they will understand more fully things which they set out to reform, and will be better able to grasp a wider and larger situation when it comes to the turn of the State to take control of any of the industries which supply those things essential to a civilized community. This seems to me to be a matter in which the unions and the toilers generally will have to school themselves in more, and depend less upon any Parliament to do things for them, as society at present exists. I am pleased to see that in Sydney the Saddlers Union is qualifying itself for more effective work by entering the arena of business on its own behalf, not looking to Parliament, but tendering and getting contracts for the supply of saddlery, and so forth and in so doing, it is making better termsfor its individual members than it could possibly get in the Arbitration Court. In other words, by helping itself it is getting along much better than it would do by looking to Parliament to help it and uplift it.
– That is a much more sensible thing than to spend money in” strikes.
– Undoubtedly. I agree with what the Prime Minister said some time ago in my hearing, at a public meeting. He said, “ We do not want to lift the people up ; when you do lift the people up you have to hold them up, but we want to give them the opportunity to lift themselves up.” That is a function of government, and one which we shall have to discharge more fully before the people can be fairly lifted up. This question of opportunity is a big one. I began my remarksby saying that the tendency through selfgoverning communities is to see that thereis a fairer adjustment of the opportunitiesof life. Given that fairer adjustment, 1 am of the opinion that there is sufficient self-reliance in the Anglo-Saxon to enable him to help himself and’ get along all right. If we want an illustration of it, there is a very simple onewhich has appealed to me for years, and that is the fact that, when a natural opportunity was given, the hard-up men of thecommunity who were travelling about country districts were not slow to take advantageof it. Thousands of these men went out rabbiting on their own account, and aremaking good money. It is a very commonplace occupation probably, but it showsthat where a natural opportunity exists, there is any amount of energy and independence left in people to take advantage of it promptly. They have done so, and” the rabbit has been by no means an unmixed curse to Australia.
– Are they co-operatively marketing ?
– In some places the menhave tried it. I do not know whether they are doing so to any great extent ; that is st thing to come.
– The banks shut downupon us once when we tried it.
– There is the Commonwealth Bank now to back up a venture of that sort. Men must look more to themselves and less to Parliament for thosegreat changes in the social structure which* are quite essential, I admit, and which can only come permanently and surely when they spring from that intimate knowledge and acquaintance with the affairs of life which will enable the rank and file to grapple successfully with them. Give the Government control of the outlay by all means, and I make bold to say that it will be easier for the Government to control cooperative bodies of that sort than to control proprietary concerns. There will always lue a large element in such bodies in full accord with the humanitarian sentiments of a Government, such as the present one, in full accord, with a fellow-feeling, which will prevent them abusing the opportunity. The Attorney-General lightly skimmed over this matter by saying that he would like to know where the profits in the concerns were to go, and how the public were to get on. Well, the public are not getting on much better, so far as I can see, under the system of arbitration which has been devised. We simply order and regulate wages, and up go the prices of goods. And to say that the only cure for that is for the Government to nationalize these concerns in a wholesale way seems to be courting disaster, and to involve too long a process to do much good to the people who are bearing the heat and burden of things. We want something which will help them along now, while they are in the hey-day of their manhood. I think that by providing better opportunities than have been provided by other lines of legislation than those yet indicated - I mean lines other than the Socialisation lines - we shall do more good to them, and make better citizens of them, than we should do by any special coddling which we might undertake. I would like to see the great land question dealt with more effectively. We have done very good work. The Government deserves the support of the community for no other reason than the fact that it has attacked the great land monopoly of Australia. This monopoly of the source of all wealth is, in my opinion, the worst form of monopoly. It has been attacked, some say, without result. It is most singular that simultaneously with the imposition of the graduated land tax has come a greater movement in land than was ever known before in Australia. I know it. I live in it country district, where I have seen more land sales than were ever known to take place before. It has not cheapened land particularly, I admit. 1 did not expect that it would do so. All that I believed that it would do would be to make more land available. I know that land which could not be had for love or money before the imposition of the tax - land the value of which could not be ascertained because the owners would not put a price upon it - has since been on the market, at a high price if you will ; but it is better for it to be on the market at a high price than not on the market at all. It only wants an extension of the system to do still further good for Australia. Of course, I am not advocating any whole-hog single-tax proposition. I realize all the chaos which would follow from the expropriation of the unearned increment. I am fully alive to the injustice which would be done to those who have paid modern values for the land, even though those values have been publicly created. It is a source of wealth, however, which we may tap with less compunction than any other source I know, because it is most, equitable from every point of view, and it is most necessary from the national point of view, that we should have the way to the land more clearly open than it is. In a country with a huge asset - with an asset comprised principally of land - it is a great shame and a disgrace that it is not managed on better principles. It should not be laid to the charge of this country that there is any one man in it with money in his pocket and prepared to go on the land who cannot get a bit to go on. Yet I can find a score of these men in any town in my electorate to-day, with money in their pockets, waiting to go upon the land, but unable to get a piece. If a b;t of good land is available, there are hundreds of applicants for it. Some persons have put in several applications through friends or members of a family, but there are always, at least, 200 or 300 bond fide settlers for every decent area of land.
That is bad business management. A man who has other forms of goods for sale takes all the conceivable methods possible to place them before the people and supply them. Yet we have men who are ready to build up our finest asset - a yeomanry - waiting with money to go on and develop the land, and increase our population, which follows as a natural corollary. Many young fellows will not marry until they get a bit of land ; and the country has not yet displayed suffcient business canacity to see that they are supplied. I would compel every man who wants land, and has money, to register his name, and see that he was piloted round the country until he was supplied. Some very pronounced means should be adopted in order to meet this case. I am aware, of course, that this is not so much a Federal matter just now as it is a State matter, although it seems to me that there is a very wide scope for the Federal Government in this arena, and that by some conciliatory approach to the State Government much good might be done. That, I say, clearly is the way in which we should progress.
– We might do a great deal in the Northern Territory.
– In the Northern Territory there is much land which might be dealt with without going right down to the humid coast. However, I shall deal with that matter directly. I wish to refer for a moment to the suggestion that has been made with regard to establishing a system of co-operation and co-partnership. I think that legislative action is possible in that direction, at least to this extent : that all co-operative concerns should have their shares made available to their employes, and the un watering of stock should be insisted upon. I hope that the new company law which is projected by the Government will be so comprehensive as to make it easily possible for the employes in any concern to become shareholders on a bedrock basis, and buy, too, half an interest in it. I think that some such legislative lines will have yet to be followed. I believe that greater success will meet our efforts in that direction than will be the case if we attempt to do too much all at once, probably gratifying the more rabid section of the community, and certainly pleasing our enemies by attempting to do more than they know we can perform. I think that the more business-like, if less ambitious line, is the one which the Government should follow. The industrial unrest and the arbitration system which has been adopted have been severely commented upon by the Opposition. I am free to admit that the machinery as at present applied is not effective in doing away with the barbarous strike. Here, again, I think we have more to hope for from the growing intelligence and knowledge of the men themselves than from legislative action by the Government. It seems to me that when a better grasp of the complex commercial system, which is the growth of ages, and has not been constructed in this or the last genera tion, has been achieved by the men themselves, they will begin to talk in a business way to their employers. They will begin to make arrangements which will secure industrial peace, and to back their opinions up by putting their funds up against their guarantee to give peace in their industry. That, I believe, must come; and I think it is only fair that there should not be a merely one-sided arrangement ; that is to say, that while an employer shall have his property attachable for breaches, there shall be no property of the employes attachable for breaches. We know that employes cannot be gaoled for breaches. I think it is a fair and square business proposition that when an agreement has been made the funds of the organization should be attachable as well as the property of the employer when it is broken by one party or the other. While it is possible to make penal conditions apply only to one side the contract is not a legitimate one; and the sooner that fact is realized the better, and the greater chance we shall have of industrial peace. I am quite aware that, in speaking in this strain, I shall probably court some opposition ; but I can assure my friends, both inside and outside this House, that there is no more ardent advocate of Democracy than I am - there is no man more hopeful for the evolution of the race, or none who has greater confidence in the essential qualities of the British people. Those qualities are, in my opinion, as much to be found amongst the masses as amongst the classes ; they only require the opportunity to develop, and with free education, universal suffrage, and so forth, there is no reason why this country should not be the first to secure industrial peace and the fairest adjustment of social conditions. I feel firmly convinced that those possibilities are ahead of our race, and of this branch of it in particular, untrammelled as we are by those Old World conditions which at Home make the task herculean. We are building up a new race, certainly on the old foundations, so far as system is concerned, but we are not surrounded with the moss-grown associations of the Old Country. I desire to say a word or two about some of the other charges that have been levelled at the Government. The appointment by the Government of friends to positions has been a very loud-mouthed charge. It is a remarkable fact, however, that out of all the appointments only two have been shown to be those of friends. I have not heard any effective criticism of those appointed, who are evidently good men, thoroughly well known to those responsible for the appointments. It seems to me to savour purely of partisanship on the part of the Opposition to denounce the Government so bitterly on this score. I go so far as to say that if a man in a responsible position like that of Prime Minister, or if the Government as a whole, have to make appointments, and they know that certain individuals are good men, they would be untrue to their trust if, other things being equal, they did not give preference to those whom they know. In private life, if there is something going in the nature of a job, and amongst the applicants there is some one who is known to be as well qualified as any other, it would be foolish not to appoint him ; and the same thing applies in the case of a public appointment. Indeed, it has always applied in the past; and no Government has hesitated, other things being equal, to appoint those they know in preference to those they do not know. That is a perfectly justifiable and natural thing to do, and no harm results to the community. As I have said before, it unfortunately happens that those who are specially qualified for high positions are for the most part by birth, training, and association, not in accord with us ; they have not that human tolerance, generous judgment, and fellow feeling, which, to my mind, are essential in all rightthinking men, and certainly in those who seek to improve the condition of society. Most men who qualify for high positions do not share such sentiments, though I am glad to say there is a growing number, including the product of our universities, of the class of men we desire to see in public life. At the present time they are limited in number, and the Opposition has little enough to complain about in regard to the appointments made. I quite agree with the honorable member for Swan, who says that more of our friends would have been appointed had they been qualified. In regard to the alleged extravagance, the honorable member for Mernda drew up a very heavy indictment, and showed that considerable intimacy with the financial world we all know he has. It seems to me, however, that his speech was more of a tribute to his own special knowledge than it was an effective attack on the Government. One cannot see eye to eye with him, if he was reported correctly, when he censures the Government for taking, as he said, 10,000,000 sovereigns out of cir culation, and thereby limiting the lending powers of the banks by ^50,000,000. That seems to be giving away his case entirely. I always contend that banks, with a certain limited capital, lend it over and over again merely making book entries. Such banks are probably solvent enough ; the money is never out of the bank, but is always in reserve. If that is what the honorable member means I can understand the line of his argument; but I do not admit that the Government have taken ^10,000,000 out of circulation. On every sovereign put into the Treasury is based a bank note, which is legal tender, and which is to all intents and purposes a sovereign. If there is any weakness about the note issue it is that the Government have not decreed that the banks shall retain a proportion of notes as bullion reserve. If the notes are in the bank and the gold representing the notes is in the Treasury - or an adequate proportion of gold is in the Treasury - the value of the notes is not deteriorated in any way, there being an adequate backing. The gold may not be in the banks, but it is in the Treasury, and, therefore, quite as accessible; and the note being equivalent to a sovereign, the lending power of the banks is not limited one iota. The only possible trouble can arise from the fact that the Government have not laid it down that the banks should retain a regular proportion of the notes as part of their reserve. While public confidence is maintained, all that can be desired is assured, and nothing can upset the validity or value of the notes unless some great calamity happens which shakes public confidence throughout Australia. There can be no danger unless there be an invasion, an earthquake, or some other disaster which practically sets the country back for many years. Then only can I understand there being a depreciation of the country’s note issue. While the Commonwealth maintains its position as a nation, and our integrity ig preserved, our credit must remain good. The talk about danger is based on a mere fancy - on the mere chance of the most unlikely thing in the world happening. In my opinion, the keeping of a gold backing is only a matter of sentiment ; because, with the security of the Government, while a country maintains its integrity, our notes will always be good. The honorable member for Flinders said that the danger was that while these notes might be ultimately paid, they could not be immediately paid ; but here again the idea is based on the most unlikely thing when he assumes that the bank notes will be forced on the Treasury in one heap, in a special design on the part of the banks to discredit the Commonwealth. I do not think that any one will give credence to such a possibility; an action of that kind would damn the banks as much as the Government, and blast public credit. However, if there is anything in the argument it can safely be met by the Government decreeing, as I said before, that a certain proportion of the notes, as in Canada, should be held as a gold reserve. On the charge of extravagance, I quite agree with what has been said on this side of the House. The Postmaster-General pointed out that certain works must be carried out, and I have no doubt that if these works had not been undertaken the omission would have been made the gravamen of the Opposition’s charges. Such are the vagaries of party politics, vagaries which I am pleased to say I do not feel inclined to share in. What has been undertaken would have to be undertaken by every responsible Government, or otherwise those at the head of affairs would be untrue to their trust. The payment of all the expense out of revenue is another question. I quite admit that we shall have to borrow, particularly for the construction of railways, and I should like to see an immediate loan for the construction of the transcontinental line to the Northern Territory, which, in my opinion, is more vital to this country than is the line to Western Australia. I should like to see that northern railway taken in a direct line, according to the contract with the South Australian Government; and for this and such works we shall have to borrow money. The Western Australian line will require us to go to the money market, and so, I suppose, will the Federal Capital. We shall be doing quite enough if we extract from the present population insurance against war, which means the maintenance of the military and the navy. This we shall have to provide for as out of pocket expenses, because it is unfair to ask posterity to bear the cost of the protection of this generation. We as the posterity of the past have inherited quite enough of that sort of obligation, and our sense of justice will restrain us from passing on any further burden. Railways, however, do not return to the one generation the full benefits of their construction, and, therefore, it is only fair that the cost should ‘ be shared by those who come after us. As to military matters, I wish to say a word or two concerning what I regard as a weakness in our new system of training. Every one knows that it has been laid down that boys shall be drilled sixty-four days in the year. That means that if they fail to put in the necessary number of attendances, they are not brought to account till the end of the year. I do not know whether it is contemplated to amend the Defence Act to meet the particular difficulty which I am about to mention; but it should be amended. In my opinion, it would be far more sensible to prescribe that the boys shall be drilled on sixteen days per quarter, instead of sixty-four days per annum. By that means, they would be brought to book at the end of each quarter, and there would not be such a large accumulation of offences at the end of the year. The present system means that many boys are not trained efficiently at all, simply because there is so much to be done by area officers that it is impossible for them to devote that attention to delinquents which they require even more than the regular trainees, on account of their having missed their proper period of training during the earlier part of the year. The result is that many toys are set to do fatigue duty instead of being trained in the proper manner. It is very important that this matter should be attended to immediately ; and the most effective method is to prescribe sixteen days of training per quarter, so that delinquents may be brought to book at more frequent intervals. Another matter which I desire to mention is that, in our defence system, we seem to waste a considerable amount of trained ability. I find that officers have been sent to India to take part in military manoeuvres at considerable expense to the Government, and that when they come back to Australia they have returned to their ordinary civil avocations without being called upon to participate in the new military system. These officers are smart military men, who have had the advantage of being trained in what, I suppose, is the best field for practical soldiering in the world. India affords special facilities for an officer to attain to military efficiency. Yet knowledge and experience so acquired are allowed to go to waste. I could put my hand on three or four officers who have been to India for training, and who have not even been called upon to lecture when they returned to this country. Another matter to be brought under the notice of Ministers is that . I am informed, on good authority, that boys are being taught musketry without any preliminary instruction in the use of the rifle. Many exercises should be gone through before they are allowed to go on the ranges with ball cartridge. Apparently, this is done because officers are in haste to get their contingents through. So great a risk ought not to be allowed. There ought to be a careful system of graduated training in the handling of the rifle, and in the mere mechanism of its use, before boys are allowed to use ball cartridge. Reverting to railways, I find that the transcontinental railway, when constructed, will run through country in the centre of Australia, the altitude of which is at such a degree that the climate will be almost equal to that of the sanatoria in our various Stales. Alice Springs, for instance, is at an altitude of 2,000 feet, which is considerably higher than Bourke, in my own State, which is at an altitude of only 350 feet, whilst a large area of the country at the back of Bourke is below sea level. The MacDonnell Ranges are even higher than Alice Springs. These facts seem to suggest that we may anticipate important developments from the opening up of this country. 1 urge the great importance of -this railway from many points of view. I want to see the Government do even bigger things than they have accomplished. They have a splendid opportunity before we go to the people. Ministers have done well, and I congratulate them on their record. I consider that the Opposition are not doing their best by any means in submitting this motion of censure, which is unworthy of the best intelligence on the other side. I urge the Government to justify their existence still further by tackling more of the big questions awaiting solution before we have to go to the country. As to the leasehold system in the Northern Territory, I think that we could not offer better inducements than the Government are holding forth. I am aware that belief in the freehold system has become a kind of creed with many people. I quite recognise their sentiments in that regard, and would not disturb freeholders in settled districts. Nevertheless, I believe that if an option were given to people t” take leaseholds instead of freeholds, many would in the course of time make that choice. Certainly in a country like the Northern Territory, where settlers will not have the spectacle of some of their neighbours rejoicing in the holding of freeholds, and the consequent excitement of envy, the seeming disadvantage of the leasehold system is considerably minimized. One of the chief troubles in connexion with leasehold is the fact that “the other fellow” has a freehold, and, therefore, naturally enough, the leaseholder is prompted by jealousy to desire a proprietary tenure. If in the Northern Territory over which this Government has jurisdiction we have no freeholders at all no feelings of jealousy can be aroused, because all will be on an equal footing, and money which might otherwise be applied to purchasing land will be used for development. Under the extremely liberal terms that have been offered, I predict a promising future for the country as soon as the railway is constructed. That, however, is the key to the position. Apart ‘ from the question of national defence and the construction of a highway for our commerce, we want to get people to settle in the Northern Territory. We shall not succeed in that unless we give them railway connexion. As to immigration, I indorse the sentiments uttered by the honorable member for Flinders, when he said that the policy should be tackled as a great business proposition. Machinery should be devised for selecting men in England, and for taking them in hand when they arrive in Australia. They should not be allowed to drift, but should be taken in hand in a systematic manner. They should be piloted about as our own people who want to select land ought to be piloted. A policy in this regard has not yet been carefully thought out. It has been tackled in a haphazard fashion. Yet immigration is a vital question. We must people this country, which is not yet settled in anything like an effective manner. We require a business-like handling of the situation - careful examination and selection of immigrants on the other side, and proper handling of them at this end. If immigrants come here and find that there is nothing for them to do, not only do they become discontented, but they tend to swell the ranks of the unemployable and be a burden to the country. We want to restrict the unemployable class as much as possible, as they are one of the greatest menaces to our Democracy. I suppose there always will be some who will be unemployable from their very nature, due, perhaps, to hereditary conditions’. When such people are born amongst us, we have to be charitable towards them. But there is no reason why we should add to their number by bringing them from oversea; and we can only prevent that by proper regulations. I agree with much that has been said on the subject of Protection. I wish to see a proper system established. Our Tariff is bringing in too much money. It is not essentially protective at all. It is more in the nature of a revenue Tariff. The tendency will be for it to develop in that direction. I do not care to see that source of revenue mounting up and up. It is a reflection on the business capacity of this House that we have not adopted a more scientific system of Protection. I am prepared to-morrow to make our Tariff more protective if I get a chance. The goods which we cannot produce here should be brought in, as far as possible, without duties at all, whilst the goods which we can produce here should be prevented from being imported by means of an effective protective Tariff. I am aware that the view is commonly entertained on this side of the House that the Government requires greater power to control industrial affairs. I am at one with those who voice that desire, and am prepared to work to secure extended authority over industrial matters for the Federal Government, so that they may be effectively regulated. But we failed to get our proposals in that direction accepted at the last referenda. “We are hoping that at the next general election the people will give us the powers we desire. But still we may fail again. In the meantime, I urge the Government to appoint the Inter-State Commission, so that we may deal with the industries of the country on a sounder basis. Personally, I believe that we shall be successful with our referenda proposals next year. But, whether we are or not, it behoves the Government to utilize the powers which we have at present, and to take the only steps which we can now take in this direction by appointing a Commission to supervise the conditions of trade, particularly in regard to the conduct of protected industries. In this way I think a considerable improvement may be effected in connexion with the manufacturing concerns of the Commonwealth. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on what has been done, and express the pious hope that still more good will be accomplished before we have to give an account of ourselves to the e lectors
.When His Excellency the Governor-General, at the conclusion of the long Speech which he read to us at the commencement of the session, left us to the discharge of our “ high and important duties,” not even the honorable member for Bourke, with his rare eloquence and gift of prophecy, could have foreseen that honorable members would, in order to serve their country, be prepared to make the sacrifices which they have endured during this debate. We have all read of the Roman soldier sleeping at his chariot wheels waiting for the dawn. But on this occasion we have honorable members struggling hard to keep awake until the dawn, or at least until they have an opportunity of recording their votes on this important question. I shall endeavour not to arouse honorable members to too great a pitch of expectancy ; I shall seek rather to emulate the calm, moderate tones of the honorable member for Macquarie, who has just given us one of the most thoughtful and interesting addresses of this debate, and I shall try to follow his example by moderately stating what I regard as the fundamental political and economic principles separating the two great parties in the Federal arena to-day. To my mind, political principles, even in the heat of debate, must always count for more than mere personalities. In the first place, I desire to congratulate the honorable member, who has just spoken, on what I regard as his statesmanlike views in connexion with the Northern Territory. I hope to take another opportunity of dealing at greater length than is possible this morning with that important subject, but I should like, now that the matter has been mentioned, to draw attention to the paragraph in the Governor-General’s Speech, wherein we are informed that many problems connected with the Northern Territory have engaged the attention of the Government. Might I express the hope that before this session closes the Government will give honorable members a full: and ample opportunity to consider whatI regard as the greatest problem confronting Australia to-day? Indeed, I think that if we were to occupy the greater portion of this session in dealing with that problem, and in considering its various phases, we should not be wasting the time of the country. On the contrary, we should be considering the welfare of the people, and doing the best we could for this young nation.
– Discussing the problem free from party influence.
– Quite so. If there is mentioned in the Governor-General’s Speech one subject on which, more than on any other, we should be able to rise above party politics, surely it is the question of settling the tropical lands of Australia, which are at once a national heritage and a national peril. The honorable member for Macquarie has properly pointed out the importance of the railway connexion between south and north. If there is one thing that I consider more binding than a contract on parchment, it is the honour of a country, and I make bold to affirm that the national honour is involved in this question of linking up the south with the north. That is a matter upon which I shall not dwell, save to say that when doubts have been cast upon the obligation of the Commonwealth in respect of this railway, it has always seemed to me most remarkable that members of this Parliament should have been prepared to take over the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta railway, which is just as much a State railway as is that from Melbourne to Echuca, if it was not understood all the time that that line, with its financial loss of something like £80,000 a year, was merely to be one link in a great chain stretching across the continent. Much has been said about the development of the Northern Territory. We have sent to tropical Australia with the idea of attracting settlers to the semi-tropical parts of the country highly-paid and some very capable officials; but I make bold to affirm that there is only one way of settling the Territory. I refer to the old-fashioned method by which we have settled every other portion of Australia - the method of gradually carrying the population from the sea-board into the interior by means of good roads and railways. That is the only sure way of peopling the Northern Territory. We must carry that railway northwards in order gradually to induce the people to turn their backs upon the civilization of the south, and to go steadily out towards Central Australia and the north. Mention is made in the Governor-General’s Speech of the appointment of a Commission of inquiry in order to inform the Commonwealth Government concerning the route which this railway should take. Such a Commission is unnecessary, in view of the obligation resiling upon the Commonwealth, and also be cause there are in existence to-day complete surveys and plans showing the route, and the only possible route, that can be followed if the Commonwealth is prepared to face its obligations. I wish to call the attention of honorable members to what seems to me a very important matter in connexion with these railways. On the first day of the session I asked the Prime Minister whether it was proposed to give Parliament an opportunity to review the determination to adopt 4 ft. 8½ in. as the standard gauge. The Prime Minister replied that, as I knew, the decision of the Federal Government was irrevocable ; that the gauge fixed for the Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie line must be accepted as the national gauge of Australia. I am going to ask the Government to-day whether they propose to continue the railway from Pine Creek to the Katherine on the 3-ft. 6-in gauge, or whether they are prepared to make the first start in unifying the gauges of . Australia by reconstructing the line from Port Darwin to Pine Creek and continuing it on the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge as the standard for Commonwealth railways ?
– What is the gauge of the line to Pine Creek?
– Three feet six inches ; but to continue it to the Katherine on the basis of a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge would be to perpetuate the mistake of broken gauges and to fly in the face of the decision of the Commonwealth Government that the gauge for trunk railways throughout Australia shall be 4 ft. 8½ in. I do not propose to make further reference to the Northern Territory, save to say that I think that the Minister of External Affairs seems to be obsessed with the leasehold system. I should like to remind the House that we had practically nothing else but the leasehold system in operation during the forty years that South Australia was endeavoring to develop the Territory. Of the 335,000,000 acres which constitute the area of that great tract of country, only some 400,000 acres have been sold. That is a very infinitesimal portion of the Territory, and when I tell the House that the bulk of that country can be repurchased by the Government for less than what was paid for it - something like 5s. per acre - honorable members will see that it is not a very difficult matter for the Commonwealth to start from scratch, so far as the leasehold system in the Northern Territory is concerned. Whether that will be the proper policy to pursue in the development of the Territory remains to be seen, and may be left for future discussion ; but so far as ninetenths of the Territory are concerned, no one has asked for anything more than a leasehold with reasonable tenure. I am convinced that for this generation, at least, the greater portion of the Territory is going to remain a pastoral proposition, and for pastoral purposes no one would ever think of the freehold system. When the Prime Minister, in the course of his address, referred with much regret to his failure to induce the Slates to come into line in respect of the savings bank department of the Commonwealth Bank, I ventured by way of interjection to inquire whether the scheme which he explained had been submitted to the States subsequent to the passing of the Act. The Prime Minister in reply said it had been. That, to my mind, marks the fatal mistake that was made last session when, in order to meet the obligations of the party pledges, undue haste was shown in carrying the Commonwealth Bank Bill through this Parliament before negotiations had been opened up if not concluded with the States. I ventured on the second occasion on which I had the honour to address this House to point out that, in my opinion, though a Commonwealth Bank was not wanted immediately, it would in due time be one of the necessary adjuncts of a complete Federal system; that we should require a National bank of some description, in order, for one thing, to manage the loans which are inevitable in the future, and in order, also, to deal with the note issue. I suggested to the Prime Minister that no great time would be lost if he accepted the amendment moved by the honorable member for Ballarat, and postponed further consideration of the Bill for six months, and thus give opportunity for bringing the States into partnership in connexion with this bank. That advice, as we know, was rejected on the ground that the Government were very anxious to appoint a Governor of the bank, in order that he might get the complicated machinery into working order, so that before six months elapsed we should have the Commonwealth Bank in full swing, doing a big business. For reasons I do not know, it was not found practicable to appoint a Governor of the bank until some time in May. Naturally, it has been impossible for that officer to get the machinery started and the bank in working order in the meantime. So that if during the recess opportunity had been taken to consult the State Governments, to ask them if it were possible to make arrangements by which they would utilize the Commonwealth Bank for State and national purposes, by this time possibly some better understanding would have been arrived at between the Commonwealth and State Governments. Instead of that, the policy of placing the pistol at the head of the State Governments was adopted, and the gentlemen with whom the Prime Minister was to open up negotiations, instead of being approached in a spirit of conciliation, were threatened by the right honorable gentleman himself. He said, in effect, “ We will create this bank in spite of you, and, in addition to conducting it as a great commercial institution, we are going to tack on to it a Savings Bank Department.” The right honorable gentleman further pointed out that he thought it would be found impossible for two Savings Banks to be carried on in the same post-offices without some difficulty arising. That was an absolute threat to the States that the creation was proposed of a bank which would not be friendly disposed to those institutions, which have given excellent service to the public of the various States, and have done much to assist the State Governments in respect to their financial obligations. Now, what do we find in connexion with the Commonwealth Bank ? What some of us ventured to predict has happened. Many promises were made upon the hustings about this great bank. The electors were told that if the Labour party were returned to power in the Federal Parliament they would create a National bank which would safeguard the depositor and the borrower, and that the influence of the bank would be towards cheaper money. Now that we have seen the regulations issued by the Governor of the institution, we . find that after all this Commonwealth Bank is to be only one of a number of other banks catering for public business in the old-fashioned orthodox banking way.
– With the State Savings Banks competing from the commencement.
– Yes, with the State Savings Banks in direct and active competition. No sooner was the Act passed than we saw the trustees of the various State institutions forestalling the order to leave the post-offices by preparing to establish branches of the State Savings Banks throughout the States. So that before the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank was appointed, and certainly before he had an opportunity to get the machinery of his bank into working order, we found the whole of the States - even those in which Labour Governments are in power - in active competition with and aggressively fighting the Savings Bank Department of the Commonwealth Bank, lt must be very disappointing to those members of the public who were led to believe that the Commonwealth Bank was to do something extraordinary to find that, after all, it is to proceed on sound business lines. I remember when speaking on the Commonwealth Bank Bill in November last, pointing out that it would be absolutely necessary for the safe management of the Savings Bank Department for the Commonwealth Bank to fix a limit to deposits upon which interest would be paid, just as the State Savings Banks had always to fix such a limit. I said that the principle underlying the management of Savings Banks is that people having a large amount of money should not be allowed to deposit with the bank sums of any considerable magnitude at call. The honorable member for Maribyrnong asked “ Why ? “ The Minister of External Affairs sought to put the reason into my mouth by interjecting that it might interfere with private banks 1 Yet one of the first things the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank did in framing his regulations was to fix a limit, as we knew he would, of ,£300 as the maximum amount upon which interest should be paid, or only £50 above the maximum interest bearing deposit fixed by the Savings Bank in my own State. As one who has always taken a very deep interest in the Federal movement, and who desires, above everything else, to see in his native country a national spirit developed, I do implore the present Federal Government, and any other Government, that may succeed them, above all things, to attempt to sink the party spirit in their negotiations with the States. No matter whether it be a State Labour Government or a State Liberal Government by all means let us be broadminded in our dealings with one another, and endeavour to inspire confidence as between the National and State Governments, and to carry on all negotiations in an amicable spirit. I very much regret that the Postmaster-General was led by interjection, inadvertently T hope, to express himself in the terms he used when trying to explain some little delay which has taken place in the starting of works at Port Augusta for the transAustralian railway. He said that it had been a difficult and a delicate matter for the Federal Labour Government to deal with the State Liberal Government in South Australia. I do not intend to pursue that subject except to give the House the assurance that so far as my knowledge goes there was no party spirit displayed in the negotiations by the State Government. There was no unnecessary delay on their part, and the negotiations, which have been happily concluded by a satisfactory agreement, were to my certain knowledge carried on in a friendly spirit. I do hope that the time is not far distant when the relationship between the National and State Governments, whether Liberal or Labour, will be of a more amicable character than we have been led to suppose they have been in times gone by. Much has been said during the present debate concerning the alleged conflict of statements between members of the Liberal party; as if it were not one of the privileges of Liberals to enjoy, not only liberty of thought, but liberty of expression. The inference sought to be conveyed was that our friends on the opposite side are altogether a happy family ! We need not gp beyond the present debate to find plenty of instances where prominent members on the opposite side have agreed to differ and to differ on principle. We had the Prime Minister in the course of his speech bestowing his blessing, as it were, on profitsharing. We had the Attorney-General, a few hours later, righteously indignant at an honorable member on this side who had suggested that profit-sharing might be a desirable thing to bring about ! The AttorneyGeneral, not only opposed it, but denounced it in anything but measured terms. Then we had one honorable member opposite strongly in favour of extending our industrial legislation in order to strengthen the Arbitration Court, and we had another honorable member on the same side just as warmly opposing any further extension of our arbitration tribunal ! We have had some honorable members condemning the Wages Board system, and others on the same side enthusiastically supporting that system. Judging by the GovernorGeneral’s Speech I suppose it will’ not be long before we shall have another opportunity of considering certain proposed amendments of the Constitution. It is not many months since we saw the Federal Labour party making a frontal attack on the Constitution, and the Labour members of the New South Wales Parliament valiantly resisting it with all their force ! State opposition is again anticipated. That is evident from the following resolution, recently carried at a meeting of a New South Wales Labour League -
That it is essential that a pledge should be given to support the referenda proposals to ‘be brought forward by the Federal Labour party at the next election before this League will accept any nomination of any candidate desirous of selection for either Parliamentary or municipal honours.
Once more, a heresy hunt is to be commenced, and the happy family to which honorable members opposite would have us believe they belong is to be divided again on one of the most momentous questions likely to come before the electors.
We have heard some extraordinary statements during the debate, but for audacity commend me to the remarks of honorable members who have gone out of their way in order to prove that the present Socialistic Government has brought about the unparalleled prosperity of the past few years ! As a matter of fact, had it not been for good seasons, resulting in a great increase in the national wealth, and a demand for labour exceeding the supply, many of its Socialistic experiments would not have been possible. Whatever Government may be in power, there must be prosperity and good social conditions so long as we have good seasons. According to Mr. “Knibbs, the value of our agricultural productions rose from ^23,000,000 in 1901 to £25,000,000 in 1906, and to ^39,000,000 in 1910, the figures for the pastoral and dairy production for these years being respectively £36,000,000, £59.000,000, and £74,000,000. There has been a wonderful forward movement in all lines of industry, and concurrently with our increased production, an upward tendency in the world’s markets. The increase in production began before the present Government took office, showing that a change of Government does not bring about a change of seasons. In 1908 our total trade was valued at £114,000,000. It rose, to £116,000,000 in 1909, and to £134,000,000 in 1910, a wonderful jump. In 1.911 it was £146,000,000. The exports of Australian produce were valued in 1909 at £62,000,000; in 1910 at £71,000,000, and in 191 1 at £76,000,000, a record production per capita and one never equalled in any other country. In 1908 our export trade per head of population was j£.i$ 6s. 8d. ; in 1910, £17 os. rod. ; and in 1911, £17 14s. 4d. Those are wonderful figures, and testify to the great prosperity in recent years. But, turning to statistics showing the excess of exports over imports, I find figures which suggest that the balance of trade is beginning to move against Australia. In 1910 the excess of exports of merchandise over imports was £11,173,000, and the excess of exports of specie and bullion over imports, £3>3°3>°°°, a total excess of £14,476,000. In 191 1, the excess of exports of merchandise over imports had fallen to £2,437,000, and the excess of exports of specie and bullion over imports had risen to £10,000,000. That seems to be the display of a danger signal. I shall not weary the House with details regarding revenue and expenditure, but it is remarkable that at this time of unparalleled prosperity, when revenue is flowing into the Treasury in a broad, deep stream, we have no proposal for the reduction of the burden of taxation with a view to giving this Government and its successors a margin for future taxation. We are banking to-day on prosperous seasons. But a change may come, and if the Tariff is effective, the Customs revenue, at least, must decrease. How will the Treasurer provide against any falling-off? To-day our taxation per head of population is very high. We are financing our national existence upon abnormal, not upon normal, years. That suggests that caution is needed. We are told that one of the main planks of the Labour party’s policy is to extend Government ownership, so that the Government may become more and more an employer of labour. In my opinion, no Government can offer to the employe such good wages and conditions as can be obtained in private employment. The average worker in the average private employ is infinitely better off to-day, enjoys better wages and better conditions than does the average employ^ under the average Australian Government. Let honorable members ask - as I have done recently - the average employe of the Post and Telegraph Department, or the average railway servant, which he would prefer, and I venture to say that in the majority of instances they will be told that the employ^ wishes that, in his youthful days, he had entered private, instead of Government, employ.
– Let the honorable member put the question to the man outside the Government Service and see what he will say.
– I have put it to a very great number of my personal friends who are strong supporters of the Labour party. I have done so during the past fortnight, and in almost every instance their reply has been that if they had their lives to live again they would enter the employment of the private wage-payer iri preference to the Government Service. What hope is there for the man who enters the Public Service in Australia to-day ? Every morning of his life he is face to face with that cursed system of promotion bv seniority - a system which does not prevail to the same extent in private employ, where the wagepayer is concerned only with the efficiency and merit of his men. Have we not seen thousands of examples of the wageearner in Australia rapidly rising into the position of the wage-payer? Until we are prepared to instil that hope into the breasts of Australians - until we are prepared to encourage the belief that they will get the opportunity of some day becoming wagepayers, instead of wage-earners - we cannot expect that efficiency in employment that it is essential we should develop.
– There are greater opportunities for a man entering business to-day than there ever were before.
– What I wish to emphasize is that there is not a Government in Australia vhich can compare with the muchabused tobacco companies from the standpoint of the way in which the latter treat their employes. There is not a Government in the Commonwealth which is extending to their employes the same consideration that this company is extending to their workmen. For instance the company pays one-half of the membership contribution for sick, funeral, and medical benefits, which any of their employes, male or female, pay to any registered friendly society. This applies to all employe’s who have been twelve months in their service. A life assurance scheme has been adopted to encourage the male employes to make provision for their old age, and I am given to understand that the company are arranging to build houses in order to provide cheaper rents for their employes. Then I turn to the muchabused Colonial Sugar Refining Company and I find that it is a splendid employer.
– Has the honorable member been through its works?
– No. I am merely taking the statement which has been published regarding the way in which their employes are cared for. From the point of view of the wage-earner himself there is in the policy of my honorable friends opposite, very little hope that the wage-earner will obtain better wages and improved conditions by reason of the nationalization of industries. There is one other matter to which I wish particularly to direct attention. I desire to express my surprise and disappointment at statements which have been made during this debate concerning Wages Boards. In the first place, I want to refer to an interjection by the Minister of Trade and Customs to the effect that one explanation of the failure or unpopularity of the Wages Board system in Victoria is the suspicion that men who act upon the Boards are victimized for so doing.
– It is so. and I can give the honorable member instances of it.
– Very good. I accept the statement of the Minister so far as Victoria is concerned. But, in South Australia, I number amongst the employes sitting upon Wages Boards many personal friends just as I have personal friends on the employers’ side. I frequently have conversations with these gentlemen, and I have never yet heard a suggestion that victimization has been practised in connexion with an employ^ sitting upon a Wages Board. I was particularly disappointed when I listened, to the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh in condemnation of these Boards. Well do I remember when he and the honorable member for Grey were at the head of the movement in South Australia which induced the various Governments of that State to inaugurate the Wages Board system, which, if my memory serves me aright, had its birth in Victoria. Well do I recollect the hopes that were raised in the breasts of the workers there by the promise that if only the Victorian system could be introduced into that State, the industrial salvation of the wage-earners would be close at hand. Have not South Australians listened for years to the denunciation of the Legislative Council, not because it refused to create Wages Boards from time to time, but because it would not multiply them fast enough and on the Victorian plan? It has been one of the trump cards of our friends in South Australia to argue that the Legist, lative Council of that State would not create these beneficent institutions quickly enough.
– What is the system over there? Have both Houses of the Legislature to approve?
– Yes. I make bold to affirm that though Wages Boards in South Australia may not have realized all tha* was expected of them-, they have proved a splendid institution in bringing employers and .employes into closer relationship with each other. These gentlemen have been taught, as they sat round a table discussing their problems, to respect one another, to understand the difficulties which confronted each other, and as a result the general movement during the past ten years has been an upward one in wages. That has been due primarily to the good seasons experienced, and, secondly, to the good feeling which has been cultivated by employers and employes through the medium of these Wages Boards. We are all familiar with the various panaceas which have been introduced from time to time for the purpose of providing the wage-earner with that fair and square deal which we all desire to give him ; we all know the evolution which has taken place from the old unionism to the new - the distinction between the two being very marked and very significant owing to the new unionism being largely a political unionism, and when we are told that Wages Boards have proved a failure, and that the State Conciliation and Arbitration Courts which were created first in New Zealand, then in New South Wales, and some of the other States, have also resulted in failure, we must confess that we feel grievously disappointed. Do we not all recollect that Mr. W. P. Reeves travelled all the way to London to proclaim the glad tidings that in Maoriland they had discovered a medium for settling all strikes, so that henceforth New Zealand would be known as a land of no strikes. Do we not also remember that Mr. B. R. Wise, of New South Wales, made a great speech in England, in the course of which he said that he, too, was the bearer of a message of glad tidings to the benighted people of Britain - that his message was that the Government of New South Wales had created an Arbitration Court, through the medium of which employer and employe” were to be brought into such close relations that, like New Zealand, New South Wales would have to be proclaimed a land of no strikes !
– We give the honorable member another message - that we are going to have strikes.
– I am only taking the argument in stages to show how the general public of Australia have been led from stage to stage in this movement towards industrial salvation, and how Wages Boards, State Conciliation Courts, and finally Federal Arbitration Courts have all been tested and expected to do what is almost impossible - to force up wages to such an extent that the wage-earner will find that, whilst he is getting a sovereign, its purchasing power is not being correspondingly reduced in the process. On the question of the Federal Arbitration Court, it has been remarkable to me to listen to the statements made by the various speakers. The Prime Minister charged the Opposition in plain unmistakable language with being responsible for the continuation of the Broken Hill strike. If I understood him aright, his argument was that it was the fault of the Opposition, because some difficulty had been placed in the way of allowing the men at Broken Hill to get into the Federal Court without their dispute being an Inter-State one. When the dispute took place between the men and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, no fairer offer could have been made to a body of men who thought they had a grievance than was then proposed by the company. The men asked for certain conditions, including wages, and the company replied, in effect, “ We do not see our way clear to give you those increased wages, but, pending the opportunity of our coming together before the Arbitration Judge, we shall pay to every man in our employ the full wages that he is now receiving, and the difference between those and the wages for which he is now asking, will be paid into his credit at one of the banks. If in a few weeks’ or a few months’ time we are able to go together before the Federal Judge, and he decides that your request is fair, we shall pay over to every man the full wages due to him.” But the men at Broken Hill refused this offer, and went out on strike. Subsequently they were able to carry the dispute over the border to Port Pirie and so bring it within the purview of the Federal tribunal. The Judge,’ generally speaking, gave his award absolutely in favour of the men, but instead of their getting the difference between their ordinary wage and the wage they had: asked for, retrospectively, they got it only from the date of the award.
– Did not the employers appeal against that award?
– I think not.
– Did the company not say that the Judge had no right to give 6s. a day at Port Pirie? They wanted the men to work seven days a week.
– I do not think the Minister’s statements affect the line of my argument. The award of the Federal tribunal was for a period of about four years, but we read in the papers to-day that, before half that period has expired, the men at Broken Hill are considering the advisableness of taking a referendum to break the award and seek for even better conditions, on the ground that the company are in a position to concede them, owing to the higher metal market.
– Hear, hear ; why should they not get a share of it?
– It is a very poor principle that does not cut both ways, and what would be said of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company if, with a falling metal market, they had set to work to break the award and throw the men out ?
– Is there anything in the award to stop the company from shutting down in the event of bad times?
– No; and they did shut down.
– The whole point is this : We have the minimum wage fixed by the Wages Boards, we have the State Conciliation Courts, and the Federal Arbitration Court, created one after the other in response to the popular demand, and one by one being regarded as a failure. It all goes to show that whilst Parliament can do much, it cannot perform miracles, and any political party which promises to do what is impossible isonly deceiving those who are prepared to be duped. Let me point out the next movement that is coming. During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition the following interchange took place across the chamber -
– The honorable member is laying his axe at the root of the tree of industrial legislation.
– The honorable member is quite right.
This was said straightforwardly and without hesitation by the honorable member for Dalley. Mr. Culliney, secretary of the United Labourers Union of Victoria, goes further. He says that his union is utterly sick, not only of Wages Boards, but of Arbitration Courts. There is nothing to be gained, he remarks, by waiting for Boards or Courts, or for action through political channels. He adds -
We are satisfied with our own working class basis of organization, as we find we are only able to get as much as we are well enough organized to drag from the employers by force. We are disgusted with craft unions, and are dissatisfied with craft federations as they are maintained for the purpose of going to the Arbitration Courts.
The president of the South Australian United Labourers Union, Mr. A. K. Wallace, said at a conference -
It is plain that the Labour party’s arbitration scheme is the most effective weapon the employers ever had put in their hands.
I am not complaining about these gradations of the industrial movement, but am pointing out, after all the political fighting and the struggle within the unions over a long period of years to get these palliatives, if you like to call them so, how disappointing it must be to the wage-earners, the general public, and the employers, to find that one after the other is being condemned by those who agitated for them.
– I agree that it is bitterly disappointing.
– Yes, and after all these numerous Acts have been placed on our statute-book we find a growing movement in favour of going back to the old system of strikes.
– Ask the waterside workers or the shearers that question.
– When such statements are made by responsible persons, when the honorable member for Dalley says that there is an undercurrent of feeling in favour of doing away with these tribunals, it is disappointing to the public of Australia to find that, after all our experiments, we are face to face once more, as the Attorney-General told us in unmistakable language, with the same old “ ghastly problem “ ! I read, in “ The Case for Labour,” by W. M. Hughes, published in the Daily Telegraph of 2nd December, 1911, these ominous words -
I am for settlement of all industrial disputes by legal tribunal as a palliative, and I am for the removal of the main causes of industrial disputes by legislative action, carried gradually to the point of national ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
That is the new movement. We are told : “ We have done with Wages Boards ; we are tired of your State Conciliation Courts, and your Federal Arbitration Court.
The next thing we want the public of Australia to grant us, the next movement that is going to bring industrial salvation to the wage-earners of Australia, is the national ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” If we have had these failures in the past, how can we trust the same party to ‘lead us in the future in the direction of national ownership ? The honorable member for Macquarie, in a thoughtful contribution to the Sydney press, deliberately retorted to his chief, the honorable member for West Sydney, to this effect : “ It is all nonsense that you are writing ; you are seeking to remove the bulwark of responsibility which is the safeguard of all business.” “ I wish that my name could have been put to the bottom of that letter, which was signed “ E. S. Carr, M.H.R.,” and dated 19th February. It is one of the finest and most thoughtful contributions to the discussion of the evolution of Democracy that I have come across for a long time. I entirely agree with many of the deductions drawn by the honorable member. His contribution to the press - and he followed the same lines in his admirable address to-night - was most thoughtful and sincere, and I believe he is moving along the evolutionary lines which must be followed if we are to bring about better conditions, and establish lasting prosperity in Australia. The honorable member wrote -
My reason for taking up this subject is because I think Democracy has reached its economic limit in the particular direction in which it has been moving. The chief political instrument which Democracy has used to attain its ends has been the Labour party; but all parties have, to a greater or lesser degree, been ready to placate popular demand. We have reached a stage at which, so far as the industrial community is concerned, legislation can do little, if anything, more on the lines obtaining.
Yet the tendency is, on the part of a large section of Democracy, to demand further concessions for the worker, by some statutory fixing of higher rates of pay, with a view to securing to him the full results of his labour. At present, rates of pay are left to the judiciary, except for certain half-declared minimums, by several Australian Governments. Whatever increases are awarded, however, are met by the simple process of adding them to the prices of goods made or handled. This, of course, must reach finality, hence the economic limit referred to. That a minimum-wage decree, to prevent the sacrifice of humanity to the law of supply and demand, is necessary on racial grounds is admitted, but to make of Parliaments the irresponsible levers for raising wage rates generally is an indefensible proceeding. To advocate that Parliament shall nationalize industries in any general way, with the object of securing to the worker the full results of his labour, ii equally illogical.
What stronger language could possibly be used to denounce one of the main planks of the Federal Labour party as shown in the report of the Hobart Conference than these weighty words written deliberately by the honorable member opposite? He continues -
The time has certainly arrived, in my opinion, when any further effort on behalf of those who toil, to secure for them the rightful results of their labour, must be put forth by themselves.
Means of transit and communication are essentially matters for the control of a central government, that trade and intercourse may be as untrammelled as possible. To enter other arenas as sole caterer for the public, however, means (apart from the State incurring the odium of “ boss “ or playing the part of indulgent parent to Democracy, before referred to) that a central administration comprised of permanent heads of departments, nominally controlled by Ministers, who come and go, will have the management of socialized industries. This would prevent any intelligent continuity of policy on the part of the people’s direct representatives, and place dangerous powers in the hands of a bureaucracy ; a bureaucracy which permanent heads of departments constitute at present, and must constitute unless we elect Ministers to their portfolios permanently, which would be the greater of two evils. Such centralized socialisation will, in addition, leave the sense of ownership so widely diffused that the self-interest which is the bulwark of responsibility would cease to operate.
Then he goes on to say -
One thing is certain, whatever is done must be of an evolutionary nature to be permanent, and not revolutionary. We may alter the economic superstructure, but to be safe must build on the foundations that have formed through the centuries. We cannot afford to dispossess the men of ability and genius who have helped build the present superstructure, but must retain their services for a democratised ownership.
He proceeds to outline a few of them. He favours a system of profit-sharing and cooperation which was so vigorously denounced by the Attorney-General, but he concludes this remarkable weighty letter with these words -
Society is too immobile to benefit by sweeping reform, and it is for our Democracy to show its wisdom by advancing by such slow graduations as I have indicated.
I commend the letter, not only to honorable members opposite, not only to honorable members on this side, but to the public of Australia as one of the most thoughtful contributions to the present discussion of industrial affairs, in which I venture to say honorable members on this side are quite as much interested as are our honorable friends opposite. I shall always endeavour to give a fair and square deal to the worker.
I shall always be prepared to give such conditions that the worker of to-day may reasonably hope to be the wage-payer of to-morrow. But I shall never be a party to subscribing to any doctrine that I believe is flying in the face of God-made laws which are irrevocable, even by an Act of Parliament passed by sympathetic legislators.
I turn now to the Attorney-General who, with that acumen which distinguishes him, placed his finger, too, on the weak spot of the policy of the Labour party. He said early in this debate -
The workers of the world will be able, some way or other, to get enough wages to live upon. But there is no method at their command by which they can control profits and prices, and therefore there follows after every strike a turn of the wheel - prices go up, and the whole ghastly business has to be gone over again.
Notwithstanding all the efforts to ameliorate the conditions of the worker by legislative enactments, notwithstanding all the machinery created for the purpose of pursuing these alleged combines or trusts he said plainly “What are we doing? We are running in a circle; we are harassing the ship-owners to no purpose; we are harassing the coal miners ; we are putting them to a lot of expense, and whom are we benefiting?” Why, sir, he told the House that the very people whom we were getting verdicts against were growing larger and stronger, that the business men and the employers of labour were being unnecessarily harassed bv the legislation of the present day and that the worker was not being benefited.
– Because our legislative powers are so limited.
– Notwithstanding any powers which might be given even to this National Parliament you would never be able to control that inevitable consequence, that whenever you force wages up beyond the limit at which they can be naturally paid from the natural wealth of the country, you create one set of a’rtificial conditions that immediately calls into operation another set which counterbalances.
– That is because the land is monopolized by a few.
– If that is at the root of it, you see how impossible it is for us by legislation to alter what is such an accomplished fact as the control of the land throughout even young Australia, how impossible it is for us to get at that economic position which would enable this House, or any other legislative body, to control prices or to control profits, and, least of all, to control wages. Wages are only paid from one source. It is only by the creation of the natural wealth of the country, it is only by maintaining the increase which we have enjoyed in recent years, that we, as a people, can, as I hope we shall be able to do, preserve the present standard of wages and that standard of social condition and social comfort which is to-day the envy and the admiration of the world. What is it that led honorable members who had the opportunity of going through Canada to come back to Australia and tell us what we believe to be the truth, that the condition of the worker is infinitely better in Australia than it is in Canada? What is it that led the Prime Minister, in the admirable speech he delivered in London when he addressed the wage-earners at a big meeting, to point out what a glorious country Australia is, and to say, as a man who was born in the Old Country, who had come out to a new country, who was able to weigh, as we native-born Australians cannot weigh, the various advantages of the new land compared with the Old Land - “ I ask for nothing better than that Australia and Australians shall be allowed’ to go along the lines of development which have characterized the statesmen of the past “ ? My object in referring to the matter is to go just a little deeper than the mere exchanging of political opinions from one side of the House to the other, because, like the honorable member for Macquarie, I believe that these causes which we wish to regulate and improve are really more deeply seated than we sometimes imagine. Admitting, as we do, the impossibility of controlling conditions just to that extent that we - from our proper feelings of brotherhood, the better feelings that must arise in every one of us - would desire to do, I believe that conditions can be improved only so long as we recognise natural laws. I believe that the only way for Australia to continue prosperous, the only way by which the employer of labour, whether he be a Minister sitting on the Treasury bench with every sympathy towards the employe or a private company, or a private person, can pay good wages, by which he can give good conditions, by which we as Australians can maintain that standard of comfort that we want to maintain, is by increasing the natural wealth df the country.
It is only by developing the great natural resources of the country that we can attain the end we all have in view. We must increase our lines of communication, whether these be good roads, waterways, telephones, telegraphs, or, preferably, railways, in order that we may extend rural occupations and bring into productivity the waste lands of the continent. It is only by this oldfashioned but natural process of increasing production - of increasing our exports and building up our factories - that it will be possible to give to wage-earners those improved conditions which, I am sure,” we all desire to see.
– We may accelerate the pace, surely?
– I shall be happy to join with the honorable member at all times in any efforts to accelerate the pace along right lines.
– Is the honorable member in favour of big estates and land monopoly ?
– I am not. My desire is to see the lands of this country brought into occupation. May I remind the honorable member that this process of closer settlement is not a new one, but that it was proceeding very rapidly throughout Australia long before the Federal land tax was thought of?
– Estates were being bought up at fictitious values with borrowed money - in my State, .at any rate.
– Closer settlement in South Australia, to which I am alone referring, has been going on for a number of years.
– Since 1897.
– Yes, it must be quite as far back as that since the Government began to buy back large estates, and introduced the system of placing settlers on smaller blocks. That process, I say, was a necessary and a natural one. In South Australia we have had the principle of land taxation, and a progressive land tax, for a good many years, but I venture to say that the process would have begun, and would have continued with accelerated pace, altogether apart from the influence - and I am not denying that it has had some influence - of either a State or Federal tax. As the pioneers died they subdivided their lands amongst their families - a natural but very slow process.
– Hear, hear.
– But in South Australia that process was begun many years ago, and it was hastened by the Government. The chief cause, however, of accelerated closer settlement was higher land values,, which induced people to take a good thing when they saw it, and to stick to it. I am speaking of higher land values due to the increased prosperity of the country.
– And the monopoly of land.
– Again, I am now speaking only so far as my own State is concerned. I have gone through the whole process. I am the son of a farmer, and was brought up on a farm. I watched the evolution of the farm implement in South Australia, and a most interesting evolution it was. It began with the old single-furrow wooden plough, and I remember how we used to ride for many miles in order to see a three-furrow plough. Then we had the stump-jumping plough; and, indeed, we may say that, so far as agricultural machinery is concerned, South Australia has been the salvation of the continent. We evolved the stripper from- the Ridley reaping machine, which was pushed in front of the horses, and from the old-fashioned reaping machine which required four or five horses to drag it along; indeed, I remember riding on one horse and driving four. Next we had the pony stripper; and, I believe, I am right in saying that it was Victorian genius which gave the complete harvester. But it was the introduction of the fertilizer, above all else, which led to improved farming, and, giving increased land values, enabled the old-fashioned farmer - this may come as a surprise to some honorable members - who existed for twenty-seven years in South Australia on less than a ten-bushel average, to extend his little holding, and put his sons into such a position that they could buy land from the squatter within the rainfall area. As I say, the process of closer settlement was, more or less, a natural and gradual one throughout Australia; and it must be by a continuation of that process, by the reclamation of waste lands in the valleys of our great rivers, that we shall be able to make for increased production. Every man who is prosperous in the country can afford to keep three persons in the city. If we have prosperous rural conditions, brought about by the development of our natural resources, there will be no difficulty in extending the manufacturing system throughout the Commonwealth. I look in vain through the Government’s programme for one ray of hope that any effort is to be made by the Government to extend our knowledge of our natural resources, as is being done by the Federal Government in America. I listen to figures that are quoted, and I hear that we, as a people, intend to spend ,£4,000,000 or ,£5,000,000 on defence - on the making of forts and the building of ships of war - but I do not see any forecast of a vote for extending information in the field of agriculture. One of the most important Government Departments in the world to-day is the United States Department of Agriculture. That Department is spending large sums of money on agricultural education, and is sending agents throughout the world to gather seeds and plants, and obtain all possible information for the benefit of the various States of the Union. While we have at present admirable institutions carrying on this and similar work in the various States of Australia, there is plenty of scope for a Department or Bureau of Agriculture able to obtain information from sources not always available to the States, and to perform other work possible only to a Federal Department. I have placed on the notice-paper a motion in the support of which, should it be reached this session, I shall outline what I have always considered to be the proper policy for the conservation of the natural resources of this country. The great hope of Australia would be a Federal Government prepared to give some attention to the development of our great resources. I am ready to sorrowfully admit that the large expenditure on the military and the navy may be necessary ; but I believe that the man behind the cultivator is the better man for Australia than the man firing a cannon. Being naturally anxious to find out on what lines this Government, with its solid following, are prepared to lead us and the country, I am constrained to make a search into matters over and above what I have been able to discover in the Governor-General’s Speech. I wish to find out what are the real objects of this party in power. The depths of the political ocean are fathoms beneath the surface that sparkles above ! We have to dive deep, and I am quite sure that my honorable friends opposite will not in any way object if I proceed to discuss this important question in what I consider to be a fair way. I have searched in order to ascertain, if possible, whether we are marching - in what direction the Labour party will, if it continues in power, lead Parliament and the country. I think that possibly we may, by searching, understand more clearly, perhaps, than some of us have hitherto done, what are the fundamental political principles of the Labour party. First of all, I shall read what I take to be a perfectly fair quotation from an address delivered in the Australian Church by the Prime Minister^ whom I take to be the mouth-piece of the party, and the highest authority on its policy. The right honorable gentleman made an important and very significant statement - one so frank, so free, and so easy to understand, that it possessed qualities not always to be found in political utterances.
– The Prime Minister is always frank.
– I am not reflecting upon him. I would not do the right honorable gentleman or any honorable member an injustice. I am sure that he will not repudiate this utterance -
Are we to stand by and utter platitudes about social progress and the economic progress of this country ? I shall not do it. The present economic wage system must come to an end.
Loud applause from the pews ! But where in this Governor-General’s Speech can we find anything tending in the direction indicated by the Prime Minister in that address outside? Then we have the Minister of External Affairs in another pleasant Sunday afternoon address making this statement -
There is existing at the present time a slavery of wagedom, and the time will come when the people will cease to acquiesce in this form of slavery.
That reminds me of a story of Charles Mackay singing his song, “ There’s a Good Time Coming Boys.” An interjector called out from the back of the hall, as interjectors will call out, “ Will you please fix the date, Mr. Mackay !’’ I ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs, and the other Ministers, to give us some information as to how their policy will be formulated so that it will lead us to the desired condition of “economic justice,” and as to when there will be removed that form of slavery to which the Minister of External Affairs refers?
– The honorable member’s co-operative proposals are along those lines.
– Possibly, but the AttorneyGeneral, who is of course to be reckoned with in the party opposite, says that he will not have such co-operation at any price.
– He is not the party. He is only a. unit.
– Ah, but the AttorneyGeneral is a great force. Let us proceed further with this inquiry, , which I hope is not uninteresting to honorable members. I take the view that if a party has political principles - and the party opposite professes not only to have them, but to be prepared to insist upon them in season and out of season - it ought to be ready to give the country some indication that itsmembers are prepared to put their principles into operation. Listen to a siren-like voice, the Brisbane Worker -
The Labour party has got to leave off tinkering with palliatives that don’t palliate, and start the real business of the movement. We need a programme that will hold out an inspiring measure of hope for the toiling multitudes. Socialism alone can fill the bill.
The Brisbane Worker, commenting on a Brisbane Labour Conference, also said-
The Convention has given us the socialistic objective. It has declared the aim of the movement to be the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange ! There is no ambiguity about it. It is no mere theatrical property - all front, like a painted canvas castle, through the front door of which you enter, only to find yourself immediately at the back. The objective is solid and rugged, built upon the rock of economic justice. It stands four square to all the winds that blow. . . . The Convention has given us new heart. ‘ Socialism,’ it has said in a voice ringing throughout Australia ‘ is the ultimate goal of this party.’ One feels that obstacles can no longer impede ; that we can take the tallest rocks at a bound, and walk up perpendicular cliffs like flies on a wall, and fall over precipices without hurting ourselves. . . Henceforth, in the Federal arena, the issue is to be Socialism versus anti-Socialism Let us gird up our loins for the fray.
Where, I ask, is the Socialism that is to give us “ economic justice,” in this GovernorGeneral’s Speech? Where is the great foundation stone of the structure on which shall be raised the ideal of honorable members opposite - that ideal which is to stand “ four square to all the winds that blow”? I turn again to that deep well of wisdom, the writings of the At torney-General. I find him saying that Socialism is -
The apotheosis -
It is a fine word that; I have often heard the Attorney-General use it - of industrial economic and industrial systematization.
How beautiful, Mr Speaker ! How delightfully vague ! Talk about “ boneless skeletons 1 “ as the Attorney-General did 1 Where could one find a more “ boneless skeleton “ than that outlined in this statement? Then I come to Mr. Watson, the late Leader of the Labour party. He said this -
It is the wisest thing to make it a sine’ qua non that those who come into the party are Socialists, and the sooner it is made clear that the movement is Socialism the better.
That is definite and straightforward. It prevents any feeling of resentment if we employ the term Socialists to our honorable friends opposite. I think that my honorable friend the member for Brisbane openly said in his speech the other day that he is a Socialist. I commend his example. We have it therefore, .from the best official sources, that this party opposite invites thepublic of Australia to regard it as a party that believes in the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That was admitted at the Hobart Conference. I shall not read extracts, but there are passages strongly in favour of the policy I have described. A resolution was carried by the Conference expressing sympathy with the Socialists of GermanyAgain I find that the Attorney-General, speaking the other day with a modesty which became him in every way, said, referring to the Labour party -
With us there is no banner, no flag, no army,, no navy. We simply go marching on, a gloomy formidable body of men, arrayed in sober garb.
That was the honorable gentleman’s overmodest description of the Labour party. But I find that my honorable friend, the member for Adelaide, in the vigorous language whicli always characterizes his utterances, chastised his colleagues in the Hobart Conference for their desire to put on more “gold lace.” He said-
They appear to think it is quite impossible toreach the top of the mountain unless they are burdened with a heavily-laden banner bearing a strange device.
– Read the debate that followed.
– I have done so with very much profit, and have marked a number of passages though I do not propose to read them all. I can clearly perceive the direction along which the Government and the party opposite would lead the country, but I want to point out in passing how inconsistent they are. I read that their Conference carried a resolution-
That, in the opinion of this Conference, the nationalization of the iron industry is a public necessity.
Yet we read in the daily newspapers that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company are about to establish iron and steel works on a large scale at Newcastle. I suppose the work will be started long before this nationalizing Government makes a commencement in the same direction. Consequently we shall find growing up in our midst, with the blessing of the Labour Government upon it, another great monopoly which, once created, it will be difficult to remove - just as difficult as it is to remove the monopolies that already exist. Again we find the party’s Conference carrying a resolution in favour of the establishment of a Commonwealth sugar refinery. As if their policy were not sufficient to engage their attention for the next century or two, we find that a resolution was actually carried that the Commonwealth should own and control a fleet of steamers with full provision for the carriage of perishable and other produce. That resolution was carried unanimously, and with others, which I have not read, it was embodied in a straight-out objective for the party. The point that I wish to emphasize is that either the Federal Labour party are humbugging this House and the country, or they do not intend to carry out anything of the kind.
- Mr. Watson said that it would take them thirty years to carry out what they had already proposed.
– He indicated that the party had bitten off more than it could manage to chew for a long time to come. We already have financial obligations in respect of naval schemes, the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, the railway north and south through central Australia, the Capital site, and lighthouses and quarantine- all works which this Government will be naturally called upon to carry out in the next few years. We have to recognise that the calls upon the Federal Government are daily growing, and that these obligations mean a very large expenditure for which we shall have to provide. Are we to add to this list an expenditure of £20,000,000 in respect of other proposals to which I have referred? That is only a rough estimate made as the result of some inquiry, but a million or two on either side is not material. Something like £20,000,000 would be required to nationalize the Inter-State shipping industry of Australia. The Attorney- General told us quite recently that the Shipping Combine was growing stronger every day, and from £6,000,000 to £9,000,000 would be required to start anything in the shape of adequate sugar refineries. By their very platform and the principles which they have enunciated, the Labour party are committing the country to an enormous expenditure which cannot be met by the ordinary means of revenue, and not even by borrowing. The Labour party are committed to a non-borrowing policy.
– No.
– If it is not, then I can only say that some honorable members speaking in this House and from outside platforms, in my presence, have been very successful in using language that concealed their thoughts.
– Non-borrowing is in their platform.
– No; our platform provides for the restriction of public borrowing.
– At the by-election for Boothby a circular was issued in the name of the Labour party of Australia in which the first plank of my opponent’s policy was given, not as “ the restriction of borrowing,” but as “non-borrowing.” I am quite prepared, however, to accept the honorable member’s statement that the platform provides only for the restriction of public borrowing, but I would remind him that his party cannot blow hot and cold. When they talk of the restriction of public borrowing, I want to know to what extent they intend to apply the restriction.
– We shall not borrow for military purposes.
– The Labour party would restrict public borrowing to reproductive works?
– To a large extent that is so.
– I desire to point out that it is impossible to face the ordinary obligations of the Commonwealth, let alone the extraordinary proposals to which the Labour party are committed, even if we go in for an extensive system of borrowing. Where are they leading us when they talk of the nationalization of the shipping industry, the sugar industry, and various monopolies ?
– The nationalization of shipping intended was the establishment of a line of oversea steamers to carry produce from Australia. The South African Government have been inclined to join with us, because, like us, they have been under the whip of the shipping ring.
– Even if the proposal for a line of State-owned steam-ships were limited to ocean-going vessels, and I say unhesitatingly that it has been very widely suggested that the policy of the Federal Government is also to take over the InterState shipping business, such an undertaking would mean a very big borrowing scheme and the creation of a Department very difficult to manage. When I was contrasting the comparative benefit of Government and private employ, I intended to refer to the fact that Liberal Governments of the past have given to this country the management of the postal service, leaving out of consideration for the moment the State-owned railways. And what do we find the Federal Government doing in regard to the Post and Telegraph Department? Do we find them dealing with their employes as the steam-ship company have to deal with their employes - listening to their complaints and dealing out justice from day to day? No; we find that this Government, which is asking for power to nationalize industries, is not prepared, even in respect of one comparatively small Department, to deal with the grievances of its officers. They came down to this House last session, and, in the face of the biggest petition from employes of the Post and Telegraph Department ever laid on the table, carried an Arbitration Bill which provided that no longer should they go with their complaints and grievances to their responsible Ministers, but that they should take them into the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Let me put a pertinent question to honorable members opposite. Is it contemplated that the employe’s on the proposed Government-owned line of steamers shall go to the Conciliation and Arbi tration Court for a settlement of their grievances, or is it proposed to deal with them as private shipping companies have to deal with their employes? The very introduction of that Bill last session was, to me at least, an indication of a desire on the part of the managers of this branch of the Public Service to shirktheir obvious responsibilities, and to shift them to the shoulders of some irresponsible tribunal, notwithstanding that the very employe’s themselves implored the Government not to do so. What encouragement is there for the people to give the Government the power for which they are asking to nationalize one industry after another?
– I fail to see the force of the honorable member’s argument.
– I am anxious that the honorable member should do so, because I am trying to discuss this matter free from party considerations. My point is that if the Government are going to ignore their responsibilities in regard to such an important branch of the Public Service as the Post and Telegraph Department, no encouragement is offered us to agree to the creation of a line of State-owned steamers. Shipping, with all its intricate workings, the control of officers and men, and the building of ships and so forth, is one of the most difficult commercial undertakings to manage. What encouragement is there for the people to respond to the call of the Labour party, and to allow them to establish a line of Government-owned steamships when by their own showing they are unable to manage the Post and Telegraph Department ?
– Would the honorable member hand over the Postal Department to private enterprise?
– Certainly not.
– Good old Socialist.
– I am a Socialist to the extent that I believe that public utilities such as the railways and postal services, which it was decided seventy years ago should belong to the people of Australia, should continue to belong to the people. When the honorable member for Denison was talking of the borrowing proclivities of the various States, and making special reference to the extravagance of the State of which he is a representative, I ventured to interject that the money had been well spent. I did not mean to suggest that every mil lion of borrowed money had been well expended, but I wanted to emphasize the point that we, as a people, have borrowed roughly £300,000,000, more than half of which is represented in our -Government railways, which are paying working expenses and giving a good dividend to the people. Our public loans have also been expended on waterworks, telegraph lines, and other reproductive undertakings. Our public debt is represented by national assets, whereas the public debt of every country in the Old World has been dissipated in gunpowder smoke. I can never understand why honorable members opposite, and such a financially sound paper as the Bulletin, should always be complaining of the borrowing proclivities of Australia.
– They understand what they are talking about. Australia has been robbed in the past.
– I am ready to admit that there may have been a good deal of extravagance on the part of various Governments, but that does not affect the principle I am trying to explain. When it was agreed that railways should be owned and controlled by the public, it became clear that if we were to develop this country it was necessary to borrow money to build those railways - and this has proved to be a good business undertaking. I am sure that the honorable member for Denison will agree that there are very few business enterprises in Australia to-day, no matter how prosperous, that are not working on an overdraft. It is a good business proposition on the part of the private individual to borrow money at 3 or 4 per cent, to carry on a business, and to earn 10 per cent., and surely the same applies to a State that is able to show profitable works against its indebtedness. Admitting, as we all must admit, that great mistakes have been made in the past by State Governments, it was inevitable if we were to have our great public utilities that we should borrow, and but for our Australian railways, waterworks, and other public works Australia would not be in the position which she is in to-day. ,
– We had to borrow money because we gave away our asset, the land.
– Order ! I have repeatedly called the honorable member for Denison to order, and he has ignored my call. If he continues to do so, I must take other steps.
– I was anxious to reply to the honorable member because the principle I am discussing is a very important one, and this is the proper place to discuss it. It is as well that we should understand that this principle must be applied to the carrying out of national works which the Federal Government will have to face in the future, as it has been applied in respect of works undertaken by the State Governments, with more or less success, in the past. I was about to refer to the fighting platform and the general platform as adopted at the Labour Conference at Hobart in January, 1912. I read this objective -
In the picturesque language employed by the Attorney-General to caricature the platform of the Liberal party, I say that as we read these words we can in imagination hear the tramp of badge-bedecked men with flags flying, and bearing banners with strange devices. We can hear the trumpets blaring loud enough to cause the walls of the Federal Capital to fall down. We can imagine the loud “ Hurrah,” for are not the Socialists coming into their own) and are we not promised “ Socialism in our time.” With the cry of “ Excelsior,” the knights are bearing the banner with the strange devices up to the top of the mountain. I wish to deal in all friendliness and good temper with my honorable friends opposite in regard to what I fear I must call their “cuckoo” platform.
– Is the honorable member in earnest, or is he stone-walling?
– I say to my old shipmate with whom I voyaged along the shores of Australia, and with whom I underwent great privations in the interests of the country, that as we risked those dangers together my heart goes out to him, and I am anxious that he should be informed regarding those principles to which, as an individual, he is committed. Let us take the first plank of the platform - a White Australia. Why is that on the Labour platform ? Why is it on the platform of the Liberal party? The honorable member for Hindmarsh periodically reminded us in the South Australian Parliament, as I am glad he is reminding us in this Federal House, of that gem of philosophy to- which I entirely subscribe, and to which I ask the honorable member for East Sydney to subscribe - “ When things are different, they are not the same.” If my reading of Australian history be correct, the White Australia policy was irrevocably laid down fifty years ago, and it does not belong to the party opposite, but to this party.
– The White Australia policy was laid down in 1878.
– The White Australia policy was laid down by Dr. Lang, Sir Henry Parkes, and Sir Samuel Griffith years before any of us in this Parliament came into political life.’ I say unhesitatingly that if there is one thing to the credit of the State of South Australia of which I am proud it is this : That when we had but a small purse, and demands were made upon us from all quarters, which it was very hard at times to resist, we were ready for forty years to carry the burden, if it was a burden, of the White Australia policy for the benefit of the Commonwealth that was to be, even though departing from it would have meant to us some temporary gain. I say, without hesitation, that the White Australia question does not enter into the Federal arena.
– Sir Henry Parkes, in New South Wales, introduced the first Chinese Immigration Restriction Bill many years ago.
– I affirm that there is not an honorable member opposite who is stronger in his desire to keep Australia racially pure than are members on this side. That policy has been laid down irrevocably, and I ask the Liberal party, as I ask the Labour party : Why continue the humbug of putting that on your platform? I say that the White Australia policy is as fixed as the Dandenong Ranges, and it is quite unnecessary for honorable members to come along and say “We are’ in favour of the Dandenong Ranges being retained in the State of Victoria,” Or that “ the Blue Mountains shall be in the State of New South Wales.” I like to have our history a little accurate. When I see these new parties in the political arena claiming planks of policy which were laid down by our fathers, I say that it does not become us to-day to claim for ourselves that which our fathers and mothers established.
– It was laid down in 1878. I have been on the wharf with a big stick to knock out the Chows.
– I have more than once called the honorable member for East Sydney, to order, and if I have to do so again it will be in a way which the honorable member will not forget.
– I do not know, sir, what you mean by that. You can do what you like, I am not afraid.
– Order I I ask the honorable member for Boothby to proceed.
– I hope that the harmony which has existed throughout the evening will not be disturbed. I am not seeking to introduce any warmth into this debate. I am desirous that we should appreciate fully as members of the National Parliament the true history of the political affairs of our country.
– And I told the honorable member that he was wrong. ‘
– If it can be shown that I am wrong no one will more welcome the information to be supplied by the honorable member for East Sydney. I have always been a student of the history of my native country, but I am ready to admit that I am as capable as are other honorable members of making mistakes. I am trying to give what I believe is the true political history of Australia, so far as these questions, which are not the monopoly of any one party, are concerned.
– I know something about it.
– I am quite prepared to admit that. I recognise that the honorable member for East Sydney, who is an older man than I am, has possibly had a longer acquaintance with some of these questions. I know that he has taken a very deep interest in them, and I appreciate his strong feelings on the matter, but I wish to discuss calmly one or two of these important subjects to see if we cannot come to a general understanding upon them. If what I say be correct, and as two parties we are committed to a great national principle on which, as a community, we propose to stand or fall, we had better get down to bedrock, and find out just exactly where we are. Believing, as I do, that the White Australia policy was laid down for us some years ago, I shall not now say how many, I ask : Why proclaim it as a plank in the platform of either party? We might just as well put upon our respective platforms that we intend to hold Australia for the British Empire. Why state the obvious ? As to the second plank, old-age and invalid pensions, I propose to show that the establishment of such a pensions system by the Commonwealth was rendered possible only by the action of one of the prominent and most respected Liberals in South Australia, who is a member of the Legislative Council of that State. For many years prior to 1897, the Honorable J. H. Howe .was a strong advocate of pensions, and on the 3rd August of that year, when the Federal Enabling Bill was before the Council, he seized the opportunity to put his ideas into practice. That Bill had passed through the Assembly, in which there were at the time about half-a-dozen Labour members, without any effort being made to amend it in this direction. But Mr. Howe was the author of an amendment of clause 52 of the Constitution, containing the powers to be given to the Commonwealth and, included therein, legislation in regard to invalid and old-age pensions. No similar action was taken, anywhere else in Australia. As a member of the Convention, Mr. Howe endeavoured during the Adelaide sittings to obtain a following in support of his pensions scheme, but being unable to do so, did not bring the matter forward. At Sydney he again canvassed energetically, and obtained sufficient encouragement to justify the tabling of a motion, but there being an obvious difficulty in getting it passed, the matter was again postponed. At Melbourne, Mr. Howe risked pushing the principle to a division, and lost by five votes, the ayes numbering 20, and the noes 25-
– I did the canvassing here that got it through.
– A singular thing about the division is that the only Labour member of the Convention, Mr. Trenwith, and the President of the Arbitration Court, both voted with the noes. Mr. Howe persevered, and a fortnight before the Convention separated, redoubling his efforts, was magnificently rewarded. I was not before aware that for this we had to thank the cooperation of the Minister of Home Affairs.
– Mr. Hassell, of Western Australia, seconded it.
– The motion was carried by a majority of 29. Later, the Deakin Government took the matter up, and on the 5th June, 1908, passed a Bill through this Parliament establishing a pensions system. The honorable member for
Ballarat, quick to give credit to whom credit was due, thereupon sent the following telegram to Mr. Howe -
Re passage of Old-age Pensions Bill, hearty congratulations on having witnessed the fruits of your labour.
– I introduced the question in this House.
– Without wishing to detract from the merits of my progressive friend, I say that no party can claim a monopoly of sympathy with the invalid and aged. With the first two planks of the Labour party’s platform those on this side of the House have, as I have shown, at least some connexion.0 The graduated land tax we leave wholly to our friends in the Labour party. As to the compulsory military training of citizen defence forces, and the construction of an Australian owned and controlled navy, I understand that honorable members on this side claim to be the author of the scheme. For the Commonwealth Bank entire credit is due to the Labour party, and to the Minister of Home Affairs for the monumental speech which stands in his name in the Hansard archives. Coming to the planks made law, we have, first, “ Electoral reform.” Any one reading the platform might imagine that the Labour party had just carried some great measure for widening the franchise, but this socalled reform was a deprivation of the women of Australia of the right to vote by post, a privilege of which at least” 30,000 availed themselves at the election of 1910. It must always be remembered to the credit of the Liberal party that the Convention which framed the most Democratic Constitution it is possible to imagine, a Constitution which our honoured guest, Mr. Bryce, has characterized as a noble instrument of government, was entirely a Liberal Convention. I am astounded that after that Convention had provided for adult suffrage, the Labour party whittled away the franchise. Its actions are the more surprising because of the speeches of its members in former years in favour of postal voting. This is what the Prime Minister said then -
I am sorry to hear so many of my friends attacking the postal vote provisions of the Electoral Act. I regard those provisions as the necessary corollary to a universal franchise. I have a very lively recollection of the time when you, sir, and I spent a great deal of our time in endeavouring to educate the people ai Queensland up to an appreciation of the justice of universal suffrage, and of the wisdom of offering special facilities to those engaged in nomadic pursuits to record their votes. Nothing has since occurred to cause me to alter my opinion in that connexion. Because certain persons may have misused the privileges conferred by an Act of Parliament, Ave ought not to deprive even one eligible voter of the opportunity to exercise the franchise. One would imagine, from the statements of some honorable members, that these postal votes are open to the public. As a matter of fact, they are, and ought to be, as secret as if they were placed in the ballot-box.
I am entitled, I think, to quote in favour of a system which his party has abolished the well-thought-out views of the Prime Minister.
Having taken pains to carefully examine the political movement with which the Labour members are connected, I have come to the conclusion that it is economically wrong and politically unsound, and that no one will suffer more from it than will the wage-earners. I agree entirely with the following opinion which recently appeared in the Age -
In this country we need more active democratic faith in democracy. … It is quite obvious that, if by Act of Parliament we were to double the price of everything, nobody would be any better off. Yet labour manages to persuade itself that it wins each sectional rise of wages out of capital, quite forgetting that in the long run it takes it out of labour. The present vogue of socialistic theory is harmful, because it concentrates labour attention on the comparatively small triumphs that might possibly be scored over capital, and diverts it from the sure reward to be gained by systematically working ahead with the vast developments still awaiting science in its application to the lives of the people in every department.
I claim that the fundamental difference between the two parties struggling for supremacy in the Federal arena to-day - a difference before which everything else is insignificant and non-essential - is this : One party is politically revolutionary in its methods while the other party stands by the Divine law of evolution. One party would merge the individual in the State by enlarging the scope of governmental activity ; the other party which years ago established government ownership of railways, post-offices, and waterworks, would encourage the individual to work out his own industrial destiny under the promise that he shall reap where he has sown. One party stands for a false Democracy, which shouts, “Every man down to the level of the average.” The Liberal party has for its motto “Efficiency. All men up to the height of their fullest capacity for service and achievement for themselves, their family, and their country.”
This country is entitled to know the real objectives of the party which appeals tothe people for ‘the right to rule. It is not politically honest to unfurl these banners bearing “ strange devices,” only in the seclusion of the camp or conference. Let the parties seeking the goodwill of the electors show their colours, and stand or fall on the principles to which they subscribe. We are entitled to have those banners displayed in this House, and exhibited from every political platform by the party which is committed to them.. On the one hand, we have a party which preaches Socialism in secret places, and openly practises sectionalism - using public funds to give preferential treatment to its own political adherents - a sectionalism which makes for industrial turmoil and civil strife; a sectionalism which, if successful, would destroy Democracy and substitute a bureaucracy ; a sectionalism which means, not merely looking backwards, but going backwards, which seeks to restrict individual liberty, destroy initiative, substitute the State for the individual, and bring the more efficient into line with the less efficient. On the other hand, we have a party which, many years ago, decided that public utilities should be publicly owned and worked, but that in the conquest of the wilderness - in the winning of wealth from the soil - men and women should be encouraged, to develop their God-given qualities, inspired by the knowledge that they and theirs would be free to reap where they had legitimately sown. It is not less wealth that we want in this country, but more wealth. It is not more restriction for which we should be legislating, but less restriction. The Liberal party stands not for more restriction, but for less restriction; not for less freedom, but for more freedom ; for greater efficiency, for increased production, as the only lasting basis of prosperity. It has been identified throughout with the evolution of Democracy in Australia, a Democracy which has made possible the enactment of laws, the introduction of social reforms, and the creation of a standard of comfort which are at once the admiration and envy of the world. What has happened in Australia - the political and economic history of which is unparalleled in history for progress and prosperity individually and nationally - to warrant any party coming along with a political programme such as I have indicated? It is a programme which practically invites the people of this country to wipe off the slate, as a child would wipe off a finished sum, those political principles which have made this country - and, indeed, the British Empire - what it is to-day, and to substitute for them a political policy which, if history teaches us aright, has proved a colossal failure wherever it has been practised ? I make bold to affirm that Australia can stand against drought, it can stand financial stress, it can stand recurring financial depression, it can, with its great wealth, stand doubtful and costly political experiments. But it cannot stand the continuation of industrial unrest and social disorganization. It cannot and will not stand preferential treatment of one section or special privilege for another. Australia will not stand if there is to be class bitterness and sectional hatred.
– I have listened to nearly all the speeches which have been delivered during the course of this debate, but to none with greater pleasure than that of the honorable member for Boothby. It is a great pity that he had not a larger audience, but I hope that, although his deliverance may not have very much effect on some honorable members, it will exercise a big influence upon the electors of the country. As the Minister of Home Affairs is gracing the chamber at the present time, I propose to take advantage of his presence ‘to refer to a very important matter, namely, the Federal Capital. I do not know whether the Minister has seen an article which was published in a paper called Building, -which is issued in Sydney, and which draws special attention to the way in which matters are proceeding at the Capital. I know that the Minister has visited Yass-Canberra on several occasions, but if affairs there are anything like what they are reported to be in this journal, it is high time that he took a hand in them. The article from which I propose to quote was not written by a gentleman who paid merely a hasty visit to the Federal Capital site, and had a casual look round there. In order to justify his first impressions, he made a second visit, and that visit quite confirmed him in his previous judgment. He writes -
During a. recent wide-awake tour through the Federal Capital area I made certain observations that are of such vital importance that I am forwarding them for publicity through the medium of Building. A most serious condition of affairs is prevalent in connexion with the constructional progress. The fact that the day labour system is in operation is in itself explanative of certain irregularities; but in the present case the position is emphasized. Not only are the men generally inefficient, but the supervision is lax, and the work approximates more to a holiday under the most favorable day labour auspices.
I understand that the Government are determined to push on the work of constructing the Federal City. We had that assurance from the Postmaster-General last night, and I know that that is the intention of the Minister of Home Affairs. But we also know perfectly well that some members of the Labour caucus have made very different statements. The honorable member for Indi, in speaking to this motion, expressed himself very strongly in regard to the Federal Capital. As a representative of New South Wales, I desire to know whether the Minister agrees with that honorable member, who said-
I would particularly tell the Minister of Home Affairs that I hope he will keep down the expenditure on the Federal Capital during the next twelve months to about the same amount as during the past two years, if he cannot make it less. I continually hear it said at their meetings, by organizers for the other side, that the Government are lavishing millions on the bush Capital, as they call it.
– Should not the Government be honest enough to keep a compact?
– While we are abused by honorable members opposite for not spending more on the Federal Capital, we are blamed by their supporters outside for spending too much on it. Nightly, their organizers are telling the people in my electorate that the Government are lavishing millions upon it. In order to answer that assertion, I intend to quote figures to show the amount expended on the Capital site during the past two years. In the first year, ^4,292 was spent, and in the two years there has been spent altogether ^60,236. Seeing that the sum of ,?60,236 is all that has been expended, I do not think it is fair for opponents outside, in order to make political capital, to accuse the Government of spending millions.
– £60,000 was expended last year.
– I know that certain surveys and works of an initial character have to be undertaken. It would be foolish to spend large sums of money in the absence of proper initial surveys. The honorable member for Indi proceeded -
All, I can say is that, as in the past, so in the future, my vote would not go towards the expenditure of another farthing on the Federal Capital ; but the expenditure there has been is about the smallest that could have been made on a proposal to which we were committed by honorable members opposite.
I hope that is not the opinion of the Government or of their supporters. Of course, I know that throughout Victoria there is such a strong national feeling that every little shire feels called upon to hold meetings to discuss this matter. The honorable member for Indi, in order to justify himself with the Melbourne people, has taken up this attitude in connexion with the Federal Capital. He said it was a proposition to which the Government were committed by honorable members on this side. Let me tell him, and others who support the present Government, that, according to the division lists, Senator Pearce and Senator Russell, two Labour members, and one of them a member of the Government, in the Senate, and, in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister, the AttorneyGeneral, the Minister of External Affairs, the Minister of Trade and Customs, the honorable member for Gwydir, the honorable member for New England, the exhonorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Hall), the honorable member for Coolgardie, and the honorable member for Kennedy, voted for establishing the capital at YassCanberra.
– It is a grand site.
– I quite agree with the Minister. It lias been most pleasurable to me, after being the Minister who had the opportunity of passing the Bill, to know that all those who previously were so strongly opposed to the site, once they had an opportunity of visiting it, came back satisfied that the best place had been chosen for the Federal Capital of Australia. Those names show that the site was not fixed solely by honorable members on this side.
– The principal credit of setting the thing going belongs to the honorable member who is now speaking.
– I did, my best when Minister ; but I did not wish to refer to that part of it.
– If the honorable member had pledged himself to his electors to oppose the carrying out of a certain work, what action would he take in the House?
– I should stand to the pledge given to my electors, as I have always done during the whole of my political life. If that is the position of the honorable member for Indi, let him stand . to it, but the magnificent national feeling shown throughout Victoria in regard to this and other matters is remarkable. Anything which it is proposed to do outside the Victorian borders is not a national work, but everything done within Victorian borders; to benefit this part of the Commonwealth! is acclaimed as essentially national. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to furtherstatements by the writer of this article -
A quaint system was at work in respect to theselection of the men. They were engaged at Sydney and entrained to the site. If they were discovered unsuitable they were bundled back. The result was that the Federal authorities were sending men to the area in “ twenties “ and rushing them back in “ tens.”
That really meant giving a number of men a free trip to the country.
– That is absolutelyfalse. Every man in charge there has been selected by the Department, and not by the Minister.
– I am glad to hear that the statement is incorrect. It is further stated -
In the absence of the supervision I have complained of, it is unnatural to expect that things should be different. The various trades are each under a foreman. An officer from Sydney visits the site weekly, and one from Melbourne, I believe, takes a run up every month. I maintain that in the interests of the people there should be a greater and a more efficient system of supervision.
– Mr. Scrivener, the Director of Lands and Surveys for the Commonwealth, is the absolute emperor of the district while he is living there, and heis a New South Wales man. .
– The honorable member isquoting from the contractors’ journal.
– Even if that is so, I happen to know Mr. George Taylor, the editor of the journal, and he is not a man: to write that sort of thing unless he is going on absolute facts.
– How long have you knownTaylor ?
– I have known him for fifteen years.
– I have known him for a long time, and would not trust what he wrote.
– I believe the honorable member for Illawarra’s GovL-rnment appointed Mr. Scrivener.
– It was one of the best appointments we ever made, and I hope the Minister of External Affairs will also give that officer a free hand in the Northern Territory. The article further states -
The Federal authorities seem to imagine that in this out-of-the-way hamlet there is no need for the same attention to public interests considered necessary under public gaze. I trust that this epistle will be a means of altering that view.
On receipt of that -letter we communicated with the Sydney office of the Home Affairs Department; and were subsequently informed that the allegations contained in the note were unfounded.
That is in accordance with what the Minister said just now, but after the letter from the Minister was received the same gentleman visited the site, carefully investigated the work that was going on, and reported -
That the correspondent’s statements respecting -the snail-like pace of work and absence of system were perfectly correct, and careful notes -were made of the state of the works then in progress, and a few days ago a second visit was made to compare the present condition of things with that of seven months back.
That is a serious charge.
– Every man we “‘sack” goes to Sydney, and is interviewed by those gentlemen, and, of course, they say that everything we do is a public scandal.
– It is not a question of interviewing at all. The writer of the article has been on the site more than once. A period of seven months elapsed between his two visits, and he found1 on his last visit that there was every justification for his action in pointing out on the first occasion the state of affairs the existence of which was denied by the Home Affairs Department. It is also said -
We can now unhesitatingly say, and are prepared to prove, that the day-labour system of work at the Federal Capital site is a public scandal.
I know on absolute authority that the stables were put down with a concrete floor covered by a sort of boarding in such a way that not a single horse put into the stables was able to lie down in them. If it did get down, it was not able to get up again.
– Was it hardwood?
– It was a hardwood covering. The covering has been taken off and put on one side, after great expense had been incurred in connexion with it. The concrete underneath was badly put down, and the whole floor will have ito be taken up again in a very short time. That is the sort of thing 4hat wants watching. There has been a (great deal of talk, especially in one part of the Commonwealth, about . the expenditure on the Capital Site. While I fciave every confidence that the Minister is prepared1 to do the right thing, I must impress upon him the necessity of having stricter supervision in the future than he lhas had in the past. If he does not insist upon it, a large amount of money will be wasted, and I think it is essential that the Minister should be on his guard against that. I have every confidence in the officers of the Department. The Minister has under him a number of officers who are very able and most conscientious, but they are not always on the spot. The head man in connexion with the matter is in Melbourne most of his time.
– We have several clerks of works there, and they are all good men.
– Still, it is evident that waste is going on, and I hope the Minister will keep a very close eye on the expenditure, so that we may not have any scandal about the waste of public money in connexion with the establishment of the Federal Capital of Australia. A week or two ago I asked the Minister of External Affairs a number of questions regarding the Commonwealth offices in London. I saw by the press, after asking the questions, that arrangements are being made to excavate the foundations in order to make a start with the building. Having had an opportunity of seeing the site last year, I am strongly of opinion that we have been lucky in securing, perhaps, the best site in the whole of London on which to erect our Commonwealth offices, and it will be a great pity if anything is done which will interfere with the erection of an absolutely up-to-date building for the accommodation of our High Commissioner and the Agents-General, or commercial agents, as I suppose they will be then, of the States.
– Should not the House have an opportunity of reviewing the kind of building that is to be put up ?
– I asked the Minister on that occasion -
Will the Minister of External Affairs, before finally accepting the plans, give the House an opportunity to review and consider them ? and the Minister of External Affairs replied -
I cannot promise the honorable member that.
– That is being done in the caac of the Capital site designs.
– I cannot give that promise to the honorable member. Ministers are prepared to take full responsibility for anything they may do in connexion with the matter.
– There is not another Parliament in the world that would get such a reply to a question.
– It is a very common - reply from members’ of the present Government. They say that they will take all the responsibility, but they must take it, whether they like it or not. I asked the Minister, first of all -
Have the plans for the Commonwealth offices in London been received?
– Yes.
– Will the Minister, before accepting them, have them carefully examined by competent persons, so that the buildings may be up-to-date, constructed in accordance with modern requirements, and suited to the London climate ?
I had a specific purpose in asking that question, and the Minister replied -
The plans were drawn by a competent English architect. What more does the honorable member desire?
– I am informed that the idea’s of English architects are not always abreast of modern requirements.
– London architects out of date !
– Evidently the Minister of Home Affairs thought so in connexion with the Capital site designs. Before the Minister of External Affairs accepts the plans for this important and expensive building in London, will he see that all modern requirements are met? It is well known that a large number of the buildings recently erected in London have been designed by architects living in other places, who have been able to provide for the requirements of the city better than London architects.
– We left it absolutely to the High Commissioner to choose the ablest and most gifted architect in the United Kingdom. We have confidence in his choice, and do not think it necessary to go beyond him.
Probably the High Commissioner has chosen the best and ablest architect in London at the present time, but I have had letters indicating that, in almost every instance, recent buildings to meet modern requirements in the city of London have been designed by foreign architects. I am not one to decry the architecture of the Old Country; but I am informed by a most competent architect in the Commonwealth that, so far as the plan of our building is concerned, the construction of a well inside it will mean merely a receptacle for foul air; that the building is not even placed in the best position for receiving the little light that there is in the city of London, and that from-, at least 8,000 to 10,000 square feet more space could be put into the building. That is rather an important consideration in a congested city like London. I should like the Minister of Home Affairs, or the Minister of External Affairs in the first instance, to refer this matter to the officers of his Department. In my opinion, they are competent enough to show whether or not so much additional space could be obtained. That English architects are behind the times in connexion with modern buildings is proved by a letter signed by Messrs. Hubbard and Cross,, two of the best known architects in London at the present time. What do they write, not specially on the Commonwealth buildings, but on the condition of English architecture at present? That the style of the proposed building, with a well in the centre, and the* general construction of the building, is according to old ideas, and not on the lines of the uptodate buildings which are being erected.
– What did the High Commissioner do?
– According to the Minister of External Affairs the High Commissioner chose the best English architect. The letter from Messrs. Hubbard & Cross is headed “ The Decadence of English Architecture,” and reads as follows -
When the work of designing such important buildings as the Ritz Hotel, the Morning Post offices, and the Automobile Club -
I am sure that the honorable member for Dalley, and other honorable members who had an opportunity of seeing these three buildings will agree that they are some of the most up-to-date buildings in London - is entrusted to foreign architects it is evident that there is something radically wrong with thearchitectural profession in England. In the cases we have quoted it can scarcely be urged that the buildings are of such a special nature as to require the services of foreign architects in preference to those which one might reasonably expect could be equally well rendered by our fellow-countrymen.
Why, then, have the owners of these buildings thought it advisable to go so far afield for the professional assistance they required? We are afraid the answer must be that the owners have had sufficient discrimination to see that the)- are likely to obtain a better result by the employment of the foreigner. In other” words, it is impossible to obtain the services of English architects who have been equally well trained in the technique of their art. The dearth of highly-qualified men in this country is due to our present unsystematic and inefficient mode of architectural training. And so long as we remain without properly-organised and properlyadministered schools of architecture we may anticipate that the work of the better-trained* foreign architect will be more and more in evidence in the United Kingdom.
Recognising this fact, it is imperative that the architectural .profession should seriously consider what steps can be taken to cope with the difficulty.
It seems to us that following the formulationof a sound and comprehensive scheme of architectural education the Government should be approached and give its financial support to enable the scheme thus put forward to be realised in its entirety.
We are aware that the British Government rarely, if ever, does anything in the cause of «rt; but in this particular case it might be induced to see what foreign countries have long ago realised, viz., the undoubted fact that good architecture is a national asset, and as such State assistance to art education has proved a sound financial investment.
I do not intend to read the propositions which these two gentlemen put forward, but if any honorable member would like to Tead them after I have finished I should be very glad to afford him an opportunity. The last three paragraphs of the letter iread -
To compare the results obtained under this methodical training with those that follow the haphazard system (or want of system) in vogue -in this country is not only humiliating and depressing, but shows that our much-vaunted commercial instinct in this instance is disastrously astray.
This is only one aspect of the many problems relative to the welfare of the architectural profession which show the urgent necessity of obtaining statutory powers to enforce a satisfactory system of architectural education.
So long as we are content to see untrained men allowed to practise in this country, just as long will the decadent period of architecture jnow existent be apparent. : I have not quoted these extracts for the purpose of finding fault with the Minister of External Affairs. We are all equally interested in the success of the Commonwealth -offices in London, and I feel sure that every honorable member is just as anxious as I am to see that absolutely the best use is made of the Strand site which has cost -so much, and also of the building which is “to cost a very large sum. All that I want the Minister and his colleagues to do is, not to be satisfied with the plan which has been received from London, but to make the fullest inquiries through their own officers/ and, if necessary, outside architects, in order to have the matter thoroughly probed, and to take every precaution that no building is -erected which will not provide the fullest -possible space for the purposes of the High -Commissioner, and other representatives of Australia, and which will not be in conformity with up-to-date ideas and methods. I hope that the Ministers who are present -this morning will convey to the Minister of External Affairs what I have said, and I shall hand this paper to him so that he may have an opportunity of seeing it. As the honorable member for Hunter has just entered the Chamber I wish to draw attention to a matter to which he referred in his speech. After speaking at considerable length regarding the position of the men and - the manager of the tramway company in ‘Brisbane, and the decisions arrived at in the Arbitration Court, he took exception to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that, in connexion with this matter, the Prime Minister had the opportunity of a lifetime. The honorable member also took exception to the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did nothing to bring the parties to the dispute together, and he replied that during the Newcastle strike the late Government made no attempt in that direction. Might I point out, with all respect to him, that the two cases were absolutely distinct. The Newcastle strike was absolutely a State strike, over which the Federal authorities had no jurisdiction, and in which the Prime Minister, or the Commonwealth Government, had no right to interfere. It came absolutely under State law and State jurisdiction, and the Federal Government was not invited to intervene.
– The Brisbane strike was in exactly the same position.
– It was referred to the Federal Arbitration Court.
– No, it was the tramway lock-out, and not the Brisbane strike, which was referred to the Arbitration Court. These are two distinct things.
– Yes, the tramway strike was before the Federal Arbitration Court for decision at the time the strike took place.
– The lock-out is quite a distinct thing from the strike.
– The Newcastle strike was essentially a State matter, but the Brisbane tramway strike was before the Federal Arbitration Court.
– Oh, no.
– It could not have come before that Court unless it was an InterState matter.
– It did not come before that Court, but the tramway badge case did.
– It was the same thing which brought about the strike. The reason why the Deakin Government- did not attempt to interfere with the Newcastle strike was that it was essentially a matter of State concern, and they were not invited, norwas it a matter over which the Government had any jurisdiction. The next matter to which I wish to draw attention is one of the appointments made by the present Government. I do not desire to criticise these appointments, as they have been criticised by honorable members on this side, and the justification for them was attempted by the Minister of External Affairs in language which may be approved of by the members of his party, but with which I believe the public of Australia will not agree. I wish to refer to the appointment of Mr. Donald Campbell as the representative of Australia on the Empire Trade Commission. I dare say it has been noticed by honorable members generally that he arrived in London, attended the Empire Trade Commission, and, according to certain statements which have been telegraphed here, endeavoured to do certain things. According to the telegrams, Mr Campbell said -
I endeavoured to induce the Commission to take evidence and make recommendations concerning inter-Dominion reciprocal Customs treaties, but the chairman ruled against me. This practically excludes inquiry into all forms of preference, including Tariffs, subsidies, and shipping, and will reduce the scope of the Commission’s usefulness.
Mr. Campbell finished up by questioning the justification of expenditure on the Commission. In any case, he thought that the proceedings ought to be open to the press. I would like to know from the Ministers who are present what instructions were given to Mr. Campbell when he was sent Home to sit on this important Commission. Did the instructions entitle him to endeavour to have inquiries made into different forms of preferences, including Tariffs and other matters which he brought before the Commission, and which the Chairman ruled out of order? Were the Prime Minister and his colleagues absolutely ignorant of the proposition to which they assented when they met in the Imperial Conference over which Mr. Asquith presided? The Prime Minister must have known that what he assented to then absolutely precluded Mr. Donald Campbell, or any other representative, from appearing before the Empire Trade Commission, and having these matters dealt with in any shape. The right honorable gentleman, if he remembered what occurred with his own consent at the Imperial Conference, knew absolutely that not one of the matters which Mr. Campbell tried to get considered could be dealt with by him when he was sent Home. If the Government do the proper thing they will immediately recall Mr. Campbell from this Commission. The motion which was submitted by the Prime Minister of Australia at the Imperial Conference, with Mr. Asquith in the chair, on the 1 6th June, 19 11, was couched in these words -
That this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring; about co-operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest.
That it is advisable, in the interests both of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions beyond the seas, that efforts in favour of Britishmanufactured goods and British shipping should! be supported as far as practicable.
Had that motion been carried, the matters which Mr. Donald Campbell attempted to raise before the Empire Trade Commission could have been dealt with, but the Prime Minister of Australia was a party to an amendment which was moved by Mr. Asquith, and which eliminated the possibility of questions of preferences or Tariff being dealt with. This slight amendment, which Mr. Asquith and Mr. Harcourt asked the Imperial Conference to accept, was referred to by the latter in the House of Commons’ on the 3rd April, when he said -
The exclusion of the fiscal question from the terms of reference was agreed- to by the whole Conference. It was quite clear from the discussion that it would be just as inconvenient and disagreeable to the Dominions to have a report of the Commission pressing Free Trade on them as it would be unpleasant to His Majesty’s Government to have a report presenting a policy in which they as a Government did not believe.
In the few words which. Mr. Asquith addressed to the House of Commons, he pointed out clearly that any consideration of the fiscal question was absolutely excluded from the scope of the Commission by the amendment. Honorable members, if they follow me while I read the resolution which was adopted, with the consent of the Prime Minister of Australia, will see that what Mr. Harcourt stated is perfectly correct. This is the slight amendment to which Mr. Harcourt referred, and which’ knocked the bottom out of the whole business, so far as dealing with fiscal and preferential matters was concerned.
That His Majesty should be approached with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, with a view of investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this Conference, the_ development attained and attainable, and the facilities for production, manufacture, and distribution; the trade of each part with the others, and with the outside world; the food and raw material requirements of each, and the resources thereof available; to what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise; and by what methods consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part the trade of each part with the others may be improved and extended.
Honorable members will see by this that the Commission is absolutely restricted to inquiring into matters full information in regard to which can be found in the Cana dian Year-Book, the Commonwealth YearBooh, or any publication of a like character ; and this view is supported by the result of the application of Mr. Donald Campbell. On Wednesday, 10th April, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith stated that the reference to the Commission followed as closely as possible the resolution of the Conference. I have read that resolution, and now I shall read the reference under which the Commission was constituted -
To inquire into and report upon the natural resources of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Colony of Newfoundland ; and, further, to report upon the development of such resources, whether attained or attainable; upon the facilities which exist or may be created for the production, manufacture, and distribution of all articles of commerce in those parts of the Empire ; upon the requirements of each such part of the United Kingdom in the matter of food and raw materials, and the available sources of :such; upon the trade of each such part of the Empire with the other parts, with the United Kingdom and with the rest of the world; upon the extent, if any, to which the mutual trade of the several parts of the Empire has been or is being affected beneficially or otherwise by the laws now in force, other than fiscal laws; and, generally, to suggest any methods, consistent :always with the existing fiscal policy of each part of the Empire, by which the trade of each part with the others and with the United Kingdom might be improved and extended.
The Prime Minister of Australia, who concurred in the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference, must have known, if he knew anything, that Mr. Campbell was asking the Commission to do that which was impossible under the terms of the reference. In the circumstances, the sending Home of Mr. Campbell seems to me to be a misuse of public money ; and, as “it may be presumed that he had instructions, or he would not have made the attempt he did, he ought to be recalled at the earliest possible moment in order to save further -expenditure.
– Has New Zealand sent a representative?
- Sir Joseph Ward was appointed a member of the Commission, and I do not know the reason for his resig nation. It appears to me that a man of Sir Joseph Ward’s standing would not waste his time on a Commission limited in the way this Commission is. To turn to another subject, I was very sorry to hear the Minister of External Affairs, in justifying the appointments made by the Government, use a sort of tu quo que argument. He. apparently took the ground that, because a gentleman connected with the Reid Ministry in New South Wales had been appointed a member of the Water and Sewerage Board in that State, the Government of the Commonwealth were entitled to appoint their supporters to public positions. I am sorry this reference was made to Mr. Jacob Garrard, because he is a man who has sprung from the ranks of the people.
– It was a political appointment, all the same !
– We shall see about that. Mr. Garrard was one of the first Labour’ representatives elected to the New SouthWales Parliament. He had had an honorable career, and was regarded as a man of great ability and high integrity, and well qualified to fill the position to which he was appointed. The Minister of External Affairs said that Mr. Garrard was. appointed to the Water and Sewerage Board simply because he was an ex-member of Parliament; but it would appear that, in the case of the Commonwealth, those appointed were men who had been anxious to get into Parliament, but in whom the people had not sufficient confidence to elect them. Mr. Garrard’s life history is one of which any man might be proud; it is a record of hard struggle with unfortunate circumstances . created by no fault of his own. He suffered from the failure of a building society and other institutions ; and, instead of taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Court - which would, of course, have been a perfectly honorable proceeding - and thus ridding himself of liabilities to the extent of thousands of pounds, which hung around his neck like a mill-stone for years and years, he manfully struggled on and paid every creditor to the last farthing.
Sitting suspended from 8.30 to 10 a.m. (Friday).
– I have described the heroic struggles of Mr. Jacob Garrard, and the excellence of the service that he has rendered to the public in New South Wales. I shall, in conclusion, refer to some remarks which were made on the occasion of his retirement from the Chairmanship of the Water and Sewerage Board as to his fitness for that office. Alderman Griffin expressed keen disapproval at the loss of Mr. Garrard. He said-
Mr. Garrard was a man with untiring energy. There was no doubt but that his loss was a matter of public concern. He had nothing to say about Mr. Garrard’s successor, but Mr. Garrard’s absence would be a great actual loss.
Mr. Henley said ;
Mr. Garrard was probably the most energetic man the Board ever had. Though a Government nominee, he had taken no sides. His vote was always in the interests of the public. Even at this late hour he hoped the Government would see the wisdom of reappointing him. No man should be displaced without good, valid reasons.
The Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that-
At a meeting of the Water and Sewerage Board yesterday it was decided to write, under seal of the Board, to Mr. Jacob Garrard conveying to him thanks and appreciation of services rendered during his thirteen years on the Board. Mr. Henley, M.L.A., said that the late member had done great work, particularly during the last five years, the stormiest in the history of the Board.
It is only right that I should say this about Mr. Garrard, in view of the sneering references to him made by the Minister of External Affairs, which was, I think, a most unjustifiable attack. I hope that the Government’ will pay attention to the three matters to which I have referred in the course of my remarks, namely, the plans for the Commonwealth offices in London, the question of the statements reported as to what is occurring at the Federal Capital, and, thirdly, and particularly, the matter relating to the Empire Trade Commission. I again point out, in regard to the third question, that Mr. Campbell evidently endeavoured to carry out what was desired, but was absolutely precluded under the terms of reference from doing so; and that the terms of reference were, as a matter of fact, drawn up under a resolution agreed to by the Imperial Conference with the concurrence of the Prime Minister himself. Mr. Campbell was sent to London apparently with the status of a Cabinet Minister and with instructions to act in a certain way; whereas the course which he desired to pursue was ruled out of order because the terms of reference precluded the Commission from . dealing with the subjects which Mr. Campbell desired to handle. I hope that we shall put an end to this farce, and that the Government will recall Mr. Campbell.
– I had not intended to say anything in thisdebate until I heard the remarks made by the honorable member for Illawarra and. the honorable member for Lang in connexion with the coal strike. There has been a considerable amount of misrepresentationin relation to the question of industrial1 unrest, especially by the honorable member for Lang in his remarks concerning trusts last night. The circumstances could not have been twisted in a worse manner than they were by the honorable member.
– How care the honorable member say that, when he: knows that I quoted from Hansard?
– The honorable member wasmost unfortunate in his references to certain individuals. He cited Mr. Peter ‘Bowling as one of our party ; whereas, in fact, in him we have one of the bitterest enemies of our party in New South Wales. He is so now, and always has been.
– The State Government came into Parliament on MrPeter Bowling’s back.
– The other person alluded toby the honorable member, Mr. James Curley, was a member of his own party, not of” ours. The honorable member was quiteright, however, when he said that the menmentioned, and also some of the Labourmembers to whom he referred, were at that particular time in favour of a combine. But he ought to have given the House full’ information as to the circumstances that led/, up to the formation of that combine.
– I endeavoured to do so, and the honorable member - for Gwydir tried to get me ruled out of:’ order.
– What occurred then was-, similar to what has occurred in every coal district in New South Wales since the trade.fixed a hewing rate on the ascertained selling price of coal. The miners had no objection to such a hewing rate being fixed’provided a proper system of putting the coal.on the market was adopted. But we found . that the collieries at Newcastle, Illawarra,., and Lithgow adopted such an unsatisfactorysystem that every little coal mine was competing and undercutting in the market, until sometimes the selling price of the best coal that could be produced in New SouthWales was very much less than the priceof slack in the Old Country. The miners - therefore said to the coal-owners, “ We will” not allow you to dictate to us the price forgetting coal in this fashion; we will not.r submit our standard of living to the exigencies of market rates. Our needs are just the same whether you sell your coal at 2s. per ton, or at £2. We will not allow you to fix a sliding scale if your prices are to be regulated by insane competition against each other.”
– “And therefore we advise the formation of a combine.” The honorable member cannot get away from that.
– I do not object to the honorable member saying that the miners said, “Therefore we advise a combine,” as long as the reason is understood. The miners objected to their livelihood being jeopardized in consequence of the competition of various collieries to capture the market.
– They joined the combine after they had managed its formation.
– They took the shipping companies into it also. Not many years afterwards occurred the incident to which the honorable member has referred. The coal-owners said, “ We want a reduction of wages.” We decided to fight them, as we would fight them on such an issue every time.
– Then the complaint was not against the combine, but that the workers were not getting their share out of the combine?
– Honorable members opposite have shown a woeful lack of knowledge about this matter. What has been the cause of five or six strikes which have occurred in this industry? The honorable member would deny the right of the miners and other workmen to combine at all.
– I have never done so in my life.
– What was the history of the big coal strike in 1909? The Opposition party were then in office. The Brisbane strike was a mere circumstance to that. What was the cause of it?
– It was engineered for electioneering purposes.
– That was not the cause at all. The miners asked, through Peter Bowling, their leader, for an open conference to discuss their grievances. The coal-owners refused to grant them an open conference.
– Because they had a Wages Board to appeal to.
– They had not. The miners had been repeatedly blocked by High Court decisions from getting their case heard by a _ Court, either State or Federal. The Newcastle miners are against Wages Boards now because of their experience of decisions of this sort. How did the big sugar strike in Queensland originate, one of the biggest strikes that ever happened in this country? The sugar-workers asked for a conference with the employers. With what result? The employers simply laughed at them, and would not meet them under any circumstances. Take another strike that has occurred in my own district, around Lithgow. That strike has not only ruined the employers, but has practically ruined the employment, and brought down many deserving business men. What was the cause of that? A man who attended a union meeting as a delegate of his lodge was attacked by the employers, although that is a right that has never been denied to workmen for fifty years. In almost every instance, during the last five or six years in which industrial unrest has manifested itself, the cause has been that the employers of labour have absolutely declined to meet the men’s representatives. We are told that there is a grave fear of syndicalism in this country. I want to tell honorable members opposite that the attitude they are taking up is doing more to bring about syndicalism than anything this party is doing. . What alternative have the men got ? The Newcastle miners in their union have absolutely disallowed politics, and do not subscribe a penny-piece to the funds of this party. My own union, the Lithgow Miners, have done the same thing. They have passed a resolution that they will have nothing more to do with the Arbitration Court or with Wages Boards. Why? Simply because of the legal barriers which have been set up at the instance of the employers, backed up by honorable members opposite. They deny the statement when it is put in that way, but during the whole of this debate I have been struck by the fact that not one of the honorable members opposite who have dealt with industrial unrest, has said a word against the oppressive employers. Do they wish us to understand that there are no oppressive employers ?
– What about the Broken Hill Proprietary Company?
– In the case of the Broken Hill mines an award was given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court which the men deemed to be very fair, but during the currency of that award the Broken Hil] Proprietary Company - the biggest on the Barrier - closed down and never worked a day. Honorable members of the Opposition tell us that we are building up syndicalism; but if there is anything calculated to build up syndicalism it is the attitude which they themselves take up. They talk about the advantages of copartnership, but nearly every honorable member on this side of the House has been a pioneer in co-operative movements. I have been connected with a co-operative society almost since the time I became a member of the Miners Union. We recognise that co-operation is a good thing, and so far as it will help the workers we are prepared to support it. In the case of a successful mine or any other paying proposition, do the workers ever get a chance of investing a shilling? Not much. There are mines in the Lithgow Valley the shares in which are held privately, and the public are not allowed to know anything concerning them. Thank God, however, in Newcastle, Illawarra, and Hunter districts, as in other parts of Australia, we have men well enough educated to know the market price of coal, and we have there a combination strong enough to be able to say to the employers, “ We know what price you are getting for your coal, and we think that we have a right to secure a certain proportion of our produce.” It is useless for the Opposition to say that we are responsible for syndicalism. The Labour party is pledged up to the hilt to support arbitration in preference to strikes. The workers never strike for the love of the thing. I myself have been in strikes, and Heaven knows that I have been kicked from pillar to post for fighting for what I believe to be my just rights. The Opposition talk of the value of Wages Boards, but I can tell them of cases in my own electorate where men workers have not only been sacked for fighting for what they believed to be a fair thing, but have become “ marked “ men. Every other man in the district, or any foreigner who comes . along, can obtain work in preference to those who are prepared to fight for justice in the occupations in which they are engaged.
– Then they are treated just as the unionists treat nonunionists, or “ scabs,” as they call them.
– In my trade we have no time for non-unionists or “ scabs.” The coal-miners, more particularly, learnt many years ago what is -the true position in this regard, and nowadays, when a non-unionist comes on a job, he is frequently told by the manager that the best thing for him to do is to join a union. If the Opposition desire that collective bargaining shall be respected by both’ sides, they must support preference to unionists. They talk lightly of these matters and give us no alternative, but in the absence of preference to unionists the whole system of collective bargaining would go by the board. Referring, to another charge that has been made by honorable members opposite against the Labour party, I desire to say that I have never received a shilling from my union to assist me in fighting for my return to Parliament. No one Shows better than does the honorable member for Parramatta the actual position in regard to the unions in the electorates of Hunter, Newcastle, and Nepean. He knows that there are in the unions there Socialists’1, Liberals, Labour men, and, in short, men of all shades of political thought. The Labour party have been striving to improve their condition by means of arbitration, but they have frequently been held up by legal technicalities, raised after the men have been put to the expense of bringing their case before the Court. We have often found the employers going to the High Court, taking some mean, petty, technical objection, and so depriving us of our rights. Can honorable members blame men, if in such circumstances they say “ Away with Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards?”
– Who raises these technical points?
– The employers. There is not one case in fifty where a workers union has sought to win on a technicality.
– Where they have been unsuccessful they have raised technicalities.
– I should be glad if the right honorable member, instead of indulging in generalities, would name a specific case.
– What about the timber cases in Western Australia in connexion with which the workers refused to obey an award of the Court?
– The Western Australian timber case was not a Federal matter.
– I think it was.
– No. No one has been able to point to a single case dealt with by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court where the workers have raised technicalities.
– Because they have got what they wanted.
– If honorable members opposite are in favour of the abolition of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, why do not they say so? The honorable member for Flinders is the most courageous man in their party. He has said straight-out, “Why have preference to unionists?” He does not believe in the system, and he is bold enough to say so. I regard him as a straightforward and honorable opponent - as a man possessing the courage to say what he thinks - but other members of his party tour the country and carefully fence with this question of industrial unrest. So far as it is concerned they are like a lot of jellyfish. They dare not say what they really think in regard to it. I earnestly hope that the Opposition will make the matter of industrial unrest, and the sending of the military to Brisbane, a test question at the next general election. If they do I shall welcome them in my electorate, and will give them all the fight they want. We have been told that so far as we are concerned the “ writing is on the wall,” and that we should be cheerful and make the best of a bad job. Let me say at once that, whether I am in this House, or out of it, I shall always be a Labour man. When I am rejected I shall visit the electorates of some honorable members opposite should they continue to represent them, and will give them the liveliest time they have ever experienced. I am not a man to take a licking lying down.
– Please do not come over our way.
– I can find plenty of work nearer Nepean than in the electorate which the right honorable member represents. If honorable members opposite are genuine in their protestation that they favour peaceful methods of settling industrial disputes, then they should be as scathing in their criticism of the employer who victimizes an employ^, as they are in their criticism of the employes unions. There was a frightful bungle in the case that occurred in my electorate, and I told the employer concerned that he was making a serious mistake. Fancy a big strike like that which took place in Brisbane occurring over the question of a twopenny ha’penny badge.
Such a thing should have been beyond the range of possibility in a country like this. What happened under the Wages Board system of New South Wales in connexion with the coal strike? The Government imprisoned some of the leaders, and thought that in that way they would put an end to the strike. Their action, however, made no difference to us. Had they put fifty leaders in gaol, we should have had men to take their place, and the strike would still have gone on. Let employers who victimize their men be subject to the same penalty as that to which an employ^ is liable for instigating a strike. The law at the time, of the Newcastle coal strike was that a man who instigated a strike was liable to be imprisoned for two years ; whereas an employer who did so was only liable to a fine not exceeding ,£500. In one case a fine of £50 was inflicted, and in another a fine of £20. These employers felt the imposition of such a fine less than a man in my position would feel the imposition of a fine of 6d. Where the law provides that an employe shall be liable to be imprisoned for two years for instigating a strike, it should impose a similar penalty in the case of an employer who victimizes a worker. Our demand is that the scales of justice shall be held evenly. If that were done, we should not complain. 1 desire now to refer to the question of the Federal Capital, to which reference is made in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. Although the awards for the three best designs have been made, I trust that the Minister of Home Affairs will give fair consideration to other plans that ought really to have received a prize. I read recently in Life a description of the plans in respect of which the prizes have been awarded. It makes very amusing reading, particularly in regard to the intimation as to where the railway station and various public buildings should be situated. The peculiar feature of the judging of the designs is that absolutely no notice has been taken of engineering and contour studies. I have it from competent critics - the article in Life expresses the situation fairly well - that, no matter which of the three successful designs is accepted for the building of the city, the drainage plan and the provision for storm-water channels enumerated on plan No. 10 will have eventually to be adopted. I hope that the Minister will give that matter fair consideration; and that if he finds that the Australian plan must be adopted he will see that justice is done to the designer.
– Does the honorable member say that the drainage scheme of one plan must be applied to another ?
– Yes. The provision for storm-water channels and drainage that is made in another plan will be required to render complete any one of the three plans that have been awarded a prize. There is another matter which I desire to mention, and I do not know why it should not be mentioned here, although almost every reference I make to it is greeted with laughter.
– The Liverpool manoeuvre area.
– Yes, I am going to speak about the Liverpool manoeuvre area. I say that the way in which that matter is left at the present time is an absolute disgrace.
– We started it, and were faced with the same difficulty.
– It is all very well to laugh and treat this matter lightly, but ifany rriember of this House held land within the Liverpool manoeuvre area, and was treated as the owners of land there haves been and are being treated, he would make a pretty noise about it. If two Labour Governments - the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government - cannot manage to treat aggrieved people better than the people settled on this area are being treated, it is a disgrace to them. I understand that at present the delay in the settlement of the matter is due to the fact that it is bound up with the settlement of an entirely different matter, and that is the payment which should be made to the State Governments in respect of the transferred properties.
– And the GovernorGeneral’s residence.
– The difficulty about the Governor-General’s residence is only a side line. In my opinion, the States have not been fairly treated in connexion with the transferred properties. On looking through the figures the other day, I found that the average Tate of interest which the States have had to pay on the moneys borrowed for the construction of the transferred properties is a little over 3½ per cent. Yet the Federal Government come forward with a proposal to pay the States interest at 3 per cent., with½ per cent, sinking fund.
– And they charge the State Governments 3¾ per cent, for the money they lend them.
– Good business.
– It may be good business if one can carry it off, but I regard it as a “take down.” If the States have paid nearly 3¾ per cent, interest on the moneys expended in the construction of the transferred properties, they have a right to look for just treatment from the Commonwealth in the matter.
– What about the £6,000,000 handed over’ to the States over and above what they should1 have received ?
– I understand that the £6,000,000 referred to has been taken into account in the latest valuation of the transferred properties. It may be quite right that the Federal and State Governments should fight out the points in dispute between them; but I ask honorable members to say by what right twenty or thirty people holding lands in the Liverpool manoeuvre area should be made the victims in the contest? That is the injustice of which I complain. I have been asking questions and making speeches on the matter, but I do not find that we are getting any nearer a settlement of the question. I am told now that it will probably be settled within six weeks, but I heard the same statement last session.
– The honorable member is so much nearer a settlement than he was last session.
– That reminds me of a story of a lawyer who was also a member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. A. member went to see him about an old standing grievance such as I have in connexion with the Liverpool manoeuvre area. He said, “ This question has been dragging on now for years,” and the Minister, who was also a lawyer, said, “ Well, if it has been going on now for three years, it will take no hurt if it is allowed to go on for another year.” I tell the Minister of External Affairs that it is all very well to make such an interjection, but what about the men who are suffering injustice all this time. The Commonwealth Government are using the land of these people for defence purposes. Men are drilled and manoeuvred over it, and every now and again the owners of land within the area receive a notification that it will be shot over on a particular day. The wire fences surrounding the property are often cut in five or six places, with the result that the stock roam away. The landholders are informed that their claims for damage so caused will receive attention if they are sent in within twenty -four hours from the time when the damage was committed. I know, that in some cases it has taken the land-holders fourteen or sixteen days to find some of the stock that have roamed, as the result of the soldiers manoeuvring over the land. It is very poor consolation to the people who are suffering from the delay in the settlement of this important question to be told that it is due to a dispute between the Commonwealth and State Governments. This is not a proper way in which to treat people, and I decline to remain silent on the matter. I have about come to the conclusion that I can scarcely believe anything that Ministers say on this subject.
– The honorable member should not say that.
– I am not referring in this connexion to Commonwealth Ministers only, but to the New South Wales Ministers of State as well, for I have interviewed the members of both Governments apparently without getting any nearer a settlement of the matter. I hope that Federal Ministers, at least, will not treat the matter lightly any longer, but will give me some satisfaction, because, under existing conditions, I am almost ashamed to meet some of my constituents who reside within the Liverpool manoeuvre area. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will have the courage to tackle the question alone if the Government of New South Wales continues to delay a settlement. This Government has under the Constitution a method available for dealing with the matter, and I trust they will deal with it definitely at a very earlydate.
– This debate has extended over a considerable time, and ranged over a fairly wide field. I have been pleased during the last few days to notice that speakers from the other side have ceased the attempt to raise the cry that honorable members on this side were prepared to “shoot them down.” I have heard some of our friends opposite charged on public platforms with a desire to shoot down non-unionists, but I do not believe that any honorable member on the other side wishes to shoot anybody. A cry has been attempted’ to be raised, with an object that is palpable, in view of the approaching elections, that honorable members on this side desired that the militaryshould have been sent up with rifles and bullets to shoot down men, women, and children in the streets of Brisbane. I am satisfied that no honorable member on the other side believes any such thing.
– Then what does the censure motion mean ?
– Soldiers do not use rosewater in watering cans.
– Very well, if we really are to have this charge levelled against us let me inform honorable members opposite that if there is one speech which more than another is strongly in favour of the sending of Federal troops to put down domestic violence, it is that delivered by Senator Pearce in the Senate Chamber about seven months ago.
– What does the censure motion mean?
– I am going to tell the honorable member what Senator Pearce meant, and to explain why the honorable senator was compelled to come down from the position he took up and adopt that now assumed by honorable members opposite. On the 2nd November last year, during the discussion in the Senate on the Compulsory Military Training Bill, Senator Rae moved the following motion in that Chamber : -
That, in the opinion of the Senate -
The Defence Act should be so. amended as to clearly set forth that the object of creating a Citizen Defence Force based upon universal compulsory military training and service is for the purpose of defending the Commonwealth against possible foreign aggression, and, therefore, under no circumstances should any person so enrolled be compelled to bear arms against any fellow Australian citizen notwithstanding anything contained in the oath of allegiance or in any other conditions of compulsory service.
This is what Senator Pearce, the Minister of Defence in the present Government, said in successfully opposing that motion -
The people of Australia have declared that they will have a military system for the defence of Australia as a nation, and I say that that does not merely mean that we will defend Australia from foreign aggression, but th_at we will defend the laws of Australia, no matter from where the attack may come, if that attack takes the form of force.
– Is there anything wrong about that?
– The honorable gentleman has not heard it all yet. Senator Pearce went on to say -
At present, as far as I know, the only way by which the Commonwealth Parliament is able to protect itself, or a State, from domestic violence, is by its Defence Force. . . . Either we must organize a volunteer force in a time when there is no domestic violence for the express purpose of suppressing domestic violence, should it occur, or wait until that disturbance occurs, and then appeal for volunteers to suppress it. . . . To say . that the Commonwealth, which has to defend the law, is to be placed in the position of having to wait until violence is organized, and has expressed itself by acts of violence before it proceeds to organize -a volunteer force to suppress that violence, is ridiculous. . . . The Defence Force is raised for the express purpose of protecting the Commonwealth, and enforcing the laws which have received the approval of the majority of the people, who expressed their views through the ballot-box. This Government, or any Government, if there is to be government, has the obligation of defending the laws which are upon the statute-books of the Commonwealth, whether the attack on the law comes from without or from within, and I say that anything short of that is anarchy, and not government at all ; anything short of that is licence, and not law. No Government can be true to its trust unless it is prepared to take up that position. . . . If the laws of our country are opposed by force, are we to allow the lawless minority to tyrannize over the peaceful majority? We say that the people have expressed their will. If they do not approve of the laws, they can alter them. We say that the Defence Force of the Commonwealth has been raised for the express purpose of defending those laws, and it is a legitimate thing to use the Defence Force for that purpose.
– What did Senator Pearce say in reply to Senator Gardiner?
– I have given the principal extracts from the speech, and I am sure honorable members do not desire that I should read the whole of them.
– The Minister of Defence took up the same position as that which he takes up this year, namely, that the Commonwealth Government are not bound to obey the demands of a State Government.
– He has changed his position.
– I shall tell honorable members’ why Senator Pearce changed his position. Senator Rae’s motion was defeated, only four senators voting for it; but he submitted the same motion at the Labour Conference at Hobart two months later and it was there carried. Immediately it was carried there was a change of front on the part of Federal Ministers. The Honorary Minister at the Hobart Conference opposed the motion as unwise, because it might be necessary to call out the troops to protect the strikers, and he instanced an Adelaide suggestion that men should arm to overawe the strikers. I sincerely regret these strikes, and no one loathes them more. Recently I travelled post haste, at some personal inconvenience, to the southern part of my . electorate, where a strike was threatening, and I believe that I was successful in preventing what would have been the most disastrous affair of the kind that had ever happened in Tasmania. I got the men to accept a Wages Board, on the promise of the Government that one of its first acts when Parliament met would be to establish a Wages Board for the timber mill workers. The Board was established, and gave an award with which I understand the men are perfectly satisfied, though I am afraid that some of the mill-owners are not. The Minister of Defence pointed out the danger attached to the use of special constables, untrained and undisciplined men, who were suddenly sworn in and called on to act at a time- of excitement. The honorable member for. Gippsland quoted the opinions of police officers of eminence in Great Britain on this subject. They said that they considered the police more effective than the military for the suppression of disorder. It is well known that the police in Great Britain and other countries are jealous when the military are used in connexion with strikes. We all hope that the military will never be called out in Australia.
– Then why was the amendment moved ?
– It would not have been necessary to send a single soldier or militiaman to Brisbane. I do not say that the Prime Minister ought to have at once sent the military to Brisbane; but he should have replied to the Premier of the State, saying that, although he did not think it necessary to send the troops at present, the Commonwealth was prepared to stand behind the State Government if necessary.
– He said that.
– Had a telegramof that sort been sent, all that was required would have been done. It has been stated by the “Prime Minister, the honorable mem- . ber for Melbourne Ports, and others, that directly the military are used for the suppression of a strike our defence system wilt go by the board.
– At this juncture.
– The system is only in the making, and it is easy to spoil anything at that stage.
– Considering what it costs, the quicker we get our Defence Force into better discipline, the better it will be for the country. A great danger will threaten the Federation if it becomes known that the Commonwealth intends to leave the States to protect themselves from domestic violence.
– Who is to decide whether troops are required?
– The Prime Minister.
– Then why was the amendment moved?
– Does- any one think that the Governments of the States will leave their citizens defenceless? The Constitution takes from the States the right to raise or maintain any military force. Its framers had in mind the events leading up to the American civil war. The framers of the Constitution, in depriving the States of the power to protect themselves, gave a distinct pledge that the Commonwealth shall, using the word in its imperative degree, protect the States from foreign invasion and from domestic violence. If we tell the States that they must not look to the Commonwealth for protection from domestic violence, what Queensland is doing will become general. That State is creating a separate department of police, and you will find growing up in each of the States an armed force, military in everything but name.
– Would not that be contrary to the Constitution?
– It would be opposed to the letter of the Constitution, but if. we say that under no circumstances shall the States receive from’ the Commonwealth, protection from domestic violence, they must, for the carrying out of their own functions, take means for their own protection. The honorable member for Gippsland said the other night that, although the States were always fighting the Commonwealth, they came to it when there was any dirty work -to be done. But this was not the work of a State. The United States Government “has never hesitated to protect Inter-State commerce and. the carriage of mails when trouble has arisen, and it has not waited for the intervention of the States. It takes the view that trade must be unrestricted be tween State and State, and that it is bound to. see that the mails are carried without hindrance on trains, steamers, and coaches. In no case has the United States Government allowed Inter-State commerce to be hampered. Similarly it is the duty of this Government, when freedom of Inter-State commerce is threatened, to see that there is no violation of the Constitution. It should not wait for the intervention of another authority. Had the Brisbane strike become general, it would have brought thousands of persons in Tasmania to the verge of bankruptcy.
– Why did it not become general ?
– Because good sense ultimately prevailed. Had the strike become general, between 600,000 and 750,000 bushels of apples would have rotted in the orchards and on the Hobart wharfs. Had that occurred thousands of our people would be almost ruined. In cases of this kind the Commonwealth Government should say, “ The protection of Inter-State and oversea commerce is our function, and we shall not allow it to suffer by domestic violence.” To the extent that the Commonwealth Government have allowed Inter-State or oversea commerce to be harassed, they have been recreant to their trust, and have shirked the duties imposed on the Federal Executive under our Constitution.
– If the troops had been sent to Brisbane, the sympathetic strike would have extended to Hobart.
– I believe that before the troops could have been actually called out the strike would have been over. Seeing that a few mounted bushmen who were sworn in as special constables ‘effectively broke down that strike within a few hours, it is obvious that no great military force would have been necessary to accomplish the same object.
– The honorable member is making it hard for men to assist in repressing strikes.
– The honorable member for Brisbane, the honorable member for Batman, and the honorable member for Corio assisted the strikers as far as thev possibly could. But the point which I specially desire to stress is that this was not. a State matter at all. We have heard a good deal during this debate about State interference with Federal functions. Indeed, there is scarcely a discussion in this
House in which the allegation is not made that the States desire to interfere with Commonwealth functions.
– I would like to clip their wings.
– The honorable member will not do that by compelling the States to undertake work which has been specially delegated to us under the Constitution.
– The honorable member thinks it is better that we should be dragged at the wheels of the chariot of the States.
– That is exactly the position which obtained during the recent strike. If we throw upon the States work which has been specially delegated to us under the Constitution, we deliberately surrender our Federal functions to them. To the extent that the Queensland Government were compelled to swear in special constables to preserve free Inter-State and oversea commerce, we surrendered those functions to them. The clearing of the streets of Brisbane was essentially the work of the State Government, but the preservation of Inter-State and oversea commerce was distinctly a Federal obligation. One point which was raised by the honorable member for Nepean is, I think, worthy of consideration. I have previously stated on the public platform, and repeatedly in this chamber, that the Coal Vend is a combination of coal owners and coal miners, which was formed for the purpose of keeping up’ the price of coal. That statement has never been denied by the representatives of the coal-mining districts. I recollect a very interesting speech which was delivered in this House by the honorable member for Newcastle, who ably represents the coalminers of his electorate, when the question first engaged our consideration. He gave some figures which I intend to quote. He stated that an arrangement had been entered into between the coal owners and the coal miners, under which, out of every shilling increase per ton in the price of coal in the Newcastle district, the former were to receive 7d. and the latter 5d. ; whilst in the Maitland district the owners were to receive 8d., andthe miners4d. The honorable member contended that that was a perfectly legitimate combination. But I have no hesitation in saying that it was a trust formed for the purpose of bleeding the public of Australia. I blame the coalowners for having done this wrong to the community, and I equally blame the Coalminers Union for joining the Trust and? sharing the plunder.
– The honorable memberwould starve the miner of his wages”?
– The arrangement: which was entered into is exactly on a par with the arrangement which obtains in connexion with the Standard Oil Trust of America. That trust pays high wages, but it says in effect to the workers, “ Unlessyou permit us to put up the price of oil we must reduce your wages.” In short, it is an unholy combination to rob the consumer..
– What is the remedy?
– The remedy is to< put the law into operation. The Government have already obtained a conviction, against the Coal Vend. But how ‘was it secured? When the honorable member for Angas was Attorney-General in the Deakin. Government he initiated proceedings against, the Vend and the Shipping Combine. That was two and a-half years ago. The present Attorney-General, at one time, practically apologized to Mr. Edden for thisby saying, “ We did not initiate the prosecution. It was started by the late Government.”
– The honorable memberknows that his statement is absolutely untrue.
– My statement is; perfectly accurate.
– Order ! It is the parliamentary custom for an honorable member to accept another honorable member’sdenial.
– Of course, sir, at your request, I accept the denial of the Attorney-General. But I would point out that in “The Case for Labour,” under his signature in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the statement was made that the Coal Vend’ was the nearest possible approach to thenationalization of the industry, as by preventing unfair competition it enabled the output, the selling price, and the rates of” wages to be controlled. The honorablemember for Nepean has just stated that theCoal Vend progressed splendidly so long as it was a Trust formed between the coal” owners and the coal miners, but that theShipping Combine came in and spoiled it. There is a Shipping Combine in Australia
– And an infamous one,, too.
– I agree with the honorable member, but what does his–
Attorney-General say about his combine? On the 3rd July, 1906 - as will be seen by reference to Hansard, page 920 - the Attorney-General, in speaking of that combine, said -
As for monopolies, we should repress them the more when they are destructive, but we want the power to repress them anyhow…..
Why, it is a cardinal principle of his creed - referring to the honorable member for Wentworth - that a monopoly is a very bad thing. It is competition that he wishes to insure. . . .
It appears to me that we require the power - not necessarily to exercise it - to repress all monopolies. Let me give an instance of a monopoly which is certainly not a destructive one, but which, nevertheless, it might be very desirable to repress. I refer to the shipping qombine on the Australian coast. The evidence tended to the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be chairman, was to the effect that, in many instances, that combine produced beneficent results. It regulated rates.
Again, on page 928 of Hansard, the AttorneyGeneral said -
We should not object to the repetition of terms, but should put what we mean in plain, explicit language. We wish to preserve Australian industries, and, therefore, we should not hesitate to declare what an industry is.
The honorable member for Melbourne agrees with me that the Shipping Combine is an infamous one, and yet the Attorney-General says that it is a very good thing. But if we go to America, the home of the trusts, what is the only argument that we shall hear in their favour? That by preventing undue competition they regulate the rates of labour and the prices of commodities. Nevertheless, the whole object of trusts is to rob the people. The combination which was effected between the coal owners and the coal miners of this country meant that we were granting a premium of from 60 to 66 per cent, to the owners to increase their prices, and of from 33 to 40 per cent, to the miners.
– To lift them from starvation wages.
– That is the same old cry. I believe that the Coal Vend did raise the price of wages, and I know that it increased the profits of the coal owners. Just to the extent that it did these things it bled the consumer. There are three parties to the agreement who have to be considered. In the first place there were the coal owners, the real originators of the Trust ; then there were the coal miners who came close up with them, because they shared in the plunder; and, lastly, there was the great mass of the people who have to use this particular commodity.
– In regard to the quotation which the honorable member made from my speech I wish to say that if he had read a little further he would have seen that I was quoting Mr. Grayson’sevidence.
– Honorable members are at liberty To peruse Hansard for themselves. The Attorney-General cannot get away from the facts as I have stated’ them. In “The Case for Labour” in the Sydney Daily Telegraph he affirmed that the Coal Vend was the next best thing to the nationalization of the industry. He alsostated in this House - and it is upon record” in Hansard - that the Shipping Combine,, which is very nearly the worst trust in Australia to-day, was a beneficent thing.
– What the honorable member now says is quite untrue.
– Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that remark.
– I withdraw it. But the honorable member-
– Order ! The AttorneyGeneral must not discuss the matter.
– The honorable member for Franklin ought not to make such statements.
– I have quoted the honorable member’s words from Hansard.
– It is perfectly well known, on whose behalf the honorable member is here.
-I think i can: produoe the paper containing the article on “ The Case for Labour,” of which I think, the honorable member admits that he is the author.
– I will throw a bombshell, into your camp in a minute.
– The question I am asking is : Are these combines good or bad? I shall take no notice of the semithreats uttered by the Attorney-General, but. shall say exactly what I think about these trusts.
– Give us something about the apple trust.
– If there is a trust in the apple trade it is the duty of the. Attorney-General to prosecute it.
– The Government cannot do it. Only three trusts come within our power to deal with. Your own AttorneyGeneral said so.
– If there is a monopoly and we are unable to deal with it, I am sorry for it.
– No doubt you are !
– Honorable members may try to laugh this off, but here is the fact. The Government secured a verdict from the Court, which fined the coalowners £500 each, and yet honorable members opposite have said that the coal-owners are putting their tongues in their cheeks and violating the law. There is a section in the Act which provides that they can be brought up day after day, and fined £500 for each case in which they are proceeded against. If it is true that the trust, after a verdict has been given against it, is defying the Government and Parliament of. the Commonwealth, it is the duty of the Government to prosecute it again.
– But’ the trust is dissolved. Mr. Justice Isaacs dissolved it on the 20th December last.
– Honorable members on the other side have said that, while it was dissolved in name, its members are still carrying it on with their tongues in their cheeks.
– Of course they are, because it is a futile law. We have put your law into force, and it has no more effect than-
– I am exceedingly sorry to hear the Attorney-General, representing the Crown, state, while the case is before the Court under appeal, that the Act is futile.
– This case is not before the Court. It has been settled. The Coal Vend paid up the day before yesterday. They have given it up as a bad job, and paid the costs and the fine.
– Then, has the Shipping Combine paid up? The AttorneyGeneral says that the law is futile, and yet those men are so satisfied that the law is good that they have paid the very heavy penalties imposed upon them.
– Certainly, and they are carrying on business at the old stand. “What do they care about the law?
– If they are carrying on the trust again, it is the duty of the Government to prosecute them, again.
– We wanted an alteration in the law, and you would not give it to us.
– The Government have the law, which has been proved in the case of the Coal Trust and the Shipping Combine to be potent and effective.
– It is impotent.
– The defendants have been heavily fined, and have appealed.
– They have not appealed.
– Then they gave notice of appeal. I am not dealing with legal quibbles or technicalities. They asked for an adjournment, and the lawyer acting for the Government agreed to their appeal for a further postponement, against the wishes of the Court. They have now paid up, and yet honorable members opposite say the law is no good, and that they must be given more power. I think we have said enough about the Trusts. There is one matter in which I am going to tread on very dangerous ground, because I believe an overwhelming majority on both sides of the House do not hold the views that I do; but the extent to which the defence vote of Australia is mounting up is a most serious thing for the people. It will come as a surprise to Australians to learn that, per head, the military and naval vote of Australia is the third highest in the world. In Great Britain, the defence vote is 30s. 3d. per head ; in France, 26s. 7d. ; Australia, 21s. 5d. ; Germany, 19s. 3d.; Holland, 15s. ; United States of America, 13s. 5d. ; and Japan only 3s. 6d. For that small sum per head, Japan can on an emergency put into the field nearly 3,000,000 trained men, perhaps as well armed and equipped as the troops of any nation in the world. They can put a really first class fighting navy into action for 3s. 6d. per head. We are paying 2ts. 5d. per head, and honorable members can ask themselves what we are getting for it. This is a very serious thing for the people of Australia; and the expenditure will increase. Honorable members on both sides of the House, irrespective of party, will have to watch and deal with this matter in the near future. The history of militarism in Australia is interesting. Sir Thomas Ewing introduced a very extensive defence system, and went out of office. The honorable member for Parramatta came in, and went one better, and he went out of office. Senator Pearce took the position of Minister, and has gone two or three better. Whilst we are spending this enormous amount on defence, it is admitted, I think, by every one - one does not like to criticise the Defence Force of one’s country, and I shall content myself by saying that it is not to-day in such a position as we should like to see it in if an enemy were approaching our shores. When a body of men have been in the Military Forces for years under different Ministers and under different conditions, and have given their time and services gratuitously - I am speaking of the Scottish regiments - and when we have so few men in our ranks, it is next door to madness to do anything that will drive those men out of the ranks. Another important subject with which this Parliament will have to deal is the Northern Territory. It is going to be a source of enormous expenditure to the people of Australia, and the Government are proceeding on entirely wrong lines in their attempts to settle the country. They are following the example set them by South Australia, who failed. They will not settle the Territory by employing experts at high salaries in positions for which some of them may be fitted and some not. The place will not be settled by running a little cockspur railway here and there, and the Minister did one of the worst things for the settlement of the Northern Territory that he could possibly have done when he put a positive brand on it by stating that the men who went there were to get 25 per cent, more than those who went to any other part of Australia. The Government have no more right to pay a man who goes to the Northern Territory 25 per cent, more than they have to make a similar allowance to those who go to the Gulf country of Queensland, or the northern parts of Westem Australia, if they are engaged in similar work.
– We want to attract population there.
– The Government will not attract population by those fictitious means. I gave considerable attention to the settlement of the Territory long before the Federation took it over.
– Put a railway through the centre of it, and then you will have it settled.
– The House is absolutely bound in honour to build that railway north and south. I fought my best to prevent the Commonwealth taking over the Territory under the terms of the bargain made at that time with the South Australian Government, because I then believed and still believe that the terms were disastrous to the Commonwealth. There was a clear and distinct bond of honour pledging the Commonwealth to build that railway north and south. Whatever other railways are built, under the terms of the contract we are bound to construct the line from Pine Creek to Oodnadatta. It is not fitting for the National Parliament of Australia to be guilty of what I consider would be direct repudiation. Many years ago, I travelled with General Booth, one of the cleverest men it has been my pleasure to converse with, from Hobart to Launceston. We talked this subject over, and it struck me then that the best means of settling the Northern Territory was the community system of settlement. It is not reasonable to expect people to leave fairly comfortable homes, the advantages of civilization, and all the environments of a big city, to plant themselves down in isolated spots all over the Territory ; but if the Government could, as has been done in Canada, plant a community settlement in the Territory, where the people would bring their own friends, their own conversation, their own comforts, and their own environments, they would have a chance to succeed. When Sir Rider Haggard, who is considered one of the ablest experts on agriculture in England, was sent out to report on the Salvation Army settlement in Canada, his report was of the most pleasing character. Many of us had the idea that the Londoner dealt with, by the Salvation Army was the waif, the stray, or the unfortunate, but he was not. In almost every case he was the unsuccessful small farmer, or the farm labourer, who, by distress or othtr means, had lost his little farm or employment in the agricultural centres of England and had drifted up to London, and was magnificent material in the wrong place. When the Salvation Army planted that community settlement in Canada the men succeeded, and have ‘become exceedingly prosperous. I do not wish it to be understood that I am wedded to the Salvation Army. I mention this as a case in which community settlement has been entirely successful. I believe that the only way in which we can settle the Northern Territory is by instituting a system of community settlement. I say quite frankly that I, for one. do not want to see Northern Australia flooded with the Levantine and Mediterranean races until our own people have had an absolute chance to settle there. 1 believe that if the Minister of External Affairs would establish some system of community settlement it would be the best means of solving this problem, and I think the only means. It is idle to say that there is not a problem there. We are never going to settle the Northern Territory question by sitting down and saying that there is no problem. The men- who will settle it will be those who say, “ We recognise that there is a problem there, and we are going to devote the best thought that is in us to see if we cannot overcome it.” There is one matter coming under the charge of maladministration on which I wish to say a few words, and that is the quarantine conditions of Australia, and the intense danger which the enormous population of Sydney runs every day from the presence of the quarantine station at Manly. In common with other members of the Pearling Commission, I had the misfortune to be on a boat which was quarantined there. I think that the House will hardly credit the fact that, although there was a quarantine station at Townsville, and the small-pox patient was discovered considerably north of that port, yet when the honorable member for Melbourne suggested to the health officer on our arrival at Townsville that the patient should be landed at the local quarantine station and the ship fumigated and allowed to proceed to her destination, we were met by the statement that it was not possible to quarantine the patient there.
– Let us bring this matter on a little later, and I will tell the House something.
– As the honorable member has indicated his intention of bringing the case under the notice of the House, I shall content myself with saying that under the existing regulations at the quarantine station the population of Sydney is standing every day on the very brink of an almost hell . I believe that if the people of that city realized the conditions under which smallpox patients are brought to the quarantine station, and communication is allowed to go on between the city and the station daily, there would be such an upheaval as would very quickly- compel the matter to be righted. As the honorable member for Melbourne, who, from his position as a medical man, is far better qualified than I am to speak about this matter, I shall leave it for him to deal with on another occasion. But I would ask the Minister of External Affairs to see that very much better precautions are taken, because, unless that be done, there will be in Sydney, I am afraid, an outbreak which will shock the people of Australia and cause the loss of very many lives. Several honorable members have stated that preference to unionists is the main plank in their platform, and that they are going to fight it out at the next elections. But it is interesting to know that in some of the States the State Labour party is already running away from this principle. I know that in Tasmania the State Labour party is doing so. We have had there a motion of want of confidence, and Mr. Ogden, one of the ablest members of the State Labour party - personally, I think he is the ablest member - spoke in the course of the debate. He said-
All the Labour party would ask for was that power should be given a judge under an Arbitration Act to grant preference to unionists.
The Minister of Lands. - What about Mr. OMalley’s circular?
Mr. Ogden. ; Members of the party were not responsible for the action of the Ministers.
Mr. Belton, another prominent member of the State Labour party, said -
He considered it beneath the dignity of a Minister of the Crown to associate his party with a party on the mainland. They had gone to the country and said they only wanted preference to unionists when it was given by a judge in the Arbitration Court. He had always repudiated anything in the nature of a boycott.
– It shows the wonderful freedom of our party.
– it shows that preference to unionists was instituted by Ministers without the sanction of law, and merely as a departmental matter, and that in some States it has not secured the approval of members of the State Labour party. I believe that the rock on which the party opposite will split at the next elections will be this very question. I believe that the people of Australia will never allow any Government, in its distribution of money subscribed by the whole of the people - for instance, the millions of money which must be spent on the construction of railways and the Federal Capital - to say, “ Unless you join a union you are under this ban, and you cannot earn is. of this public money.” This is, I contend, one of the most unfair and unjust things which have ever been done by a Government in Australia. I have said on the platform, and I repeat it here, that it is wrong, cruel, and inhuman for an employer to punish a man because he is a unionist. I have made that statement from every platform from which I have dealt with industrial matters.
Just as i regard it as wrong, cruel, and inhuman for an employer, in spending his own money, to penalize a man because he is a unionist, so i think it becomes tenfold more so <when the trustees of the people, in spending the public money, penalize a man unless he joins a union. I make no distinction between them. As the honorable member for Nepean said, let us try to hold the balance fairly. i am trying to do so.
– Then you do not believe in a living wage.
Mr.mcwilliams.-I do.
– How is it to be got without a union ?
– Does the honorable member think that the question of unionists or non-unionists affects the rates of wages that are fixed by the Minister of Home Affairs in regard to his public works ?
– Yes. It is governed by the unions; it must be.
– Then the honorable member has a far worse opinion of the Minister than I have. I do not believe it is. I do not believe that in the Government employ the fact of a man being a unionist or not can, and it certainly should not, affect his rate of pay. It certainly should not affect his chance of employment. The Minister of External Affairs, judging from the speech he made the other day, has introduced one of the most dangerous systems of government that the world has ever seen, and, that is the system which has existed in the United States of the “ spoils to the victors,” under which the civil servant appointed has to hold the political opinions of his temporary master, the Minister at the head of affairs. The Minister of External Affairs has said that in appointing men to the administration of the Northern Territory it was necessary to know that their political views were in accord with the Ministerial proposals.
– He did not say that, hardly.
– He did.
– Only on the land question.
– I refer to the land question. I have been trying all the morning to be as fair as I can, and I think that I have not been unfair.
– It was only on the leasing question he spoke.
– I accept what honorable members opposite say, but would point out that the question of settlement of the land is to be the be-all and end-all of the Northern Territory at the present moment, and the Minister of External Affairs has stated that it is essential or necessary or desirable - put it however you like - that the men appointed to administer the laws shall hold the same views as Ministers do on the question of leasehold or freehold.
– Sympathetic.
– To carry out the policy.
– If there is one line of argument in that, it means that if the Government be defeated at the next election every one of these men is to be replaced by men who are sympathetic to the incoming Government.
– Nonsense.
– When we came in, we did not . “ sack “ those civil servants who did not agree with us.
– No; I am criticising the policy which has been laid down by the Minister of External Affairs for the first time, and taking the minimum suggested by his friends ; that is, that on the land question the men appointed are to hold views favorable or sympathetic to the great principle of freehold or leasehold, the great question which is to decide the settlement of the Northern Territory.
– And of all Australia, too.
Mr.mcwilliams.- Yes.
– Would you not regard it as a test of capacity that in a matter of this kind he agreed with the Minister?
– If the honorable member agrees with that, he can see that if a Minister should come into office favouring freehold tenure it would be just as essential that the Administrator should favour his system and be sympathetic with him,, and then we should have here what has been the greatest curse that the United States have seen, civil servants being appointed and discharged with every change of Government. The Public Service from one end of the country to the other would be a great political machine, favouring one side or the other. In the United States, men come into office with a Republican, and go out with a Democrat.
-It makes a lot of good business men.
– Of course it does not. It secures a lot of votes, and makes a dishonest Civil Service. Political views should not be the test of men’s fitness for government employment. What would honorable members say if it were laid down that in the case of a man seeking to enter the Public Service in any other branch the views he holds in politics should determine his appointment or otherwise? I warn honorable members of the danger of this system which they are introducing. In the Department of Defence the honorable member for Parramatta went one better than Sir Thomas Ewing, and Senator Pearce went two better than the honorable member for Parramatta, and just as honorable members start this system of promotion or retaliation in the Public Service because a man holds particular views the evil will grow. One Ministry will follow the system, and another Ministry will go one better, until the whole Service becomes simply a corrupt political machine, whose aim will be to secure political patronage in return for support at elections. The public servants should give their services irrespective of their politics, or of the politics of the Government j but there is being introduced a system which will prove a veritable calamity if it is not speedily stamped out.
– I propose to give a brief summary of the main features of the censure debate. We have had a number of charges levelled against the Government, and one of the most remarkable debates I have ever heard or read. The Opposition have gone up and down the scale, from end to end of the keyboard, and have made much noise and many discords, but have not produced one distinct tune. Honorable members opposite have not been in agreement on the main features of the charges, and have dealt in generalities without any specific instances to support one of them. The debate is remarkable in that after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the speech of the Prime Minister, followed by a couple of speeches on this side, every member of the Opposition who rose subsequently has been on the defensive instead of on the attack ; they have been ‘.’ on the run “ right from the “ jump “ - excusing, explaining, and denying, instead of substantiating the charges made. If any one of those charges were proved the present Government are not fit to retain their seats on the Treasury bench. But not only have the charges not been proved, but aot a member of the Opposition has at tempted to prove them. The main feature of the indictment is extravagance in the administration of the affairs of Australia; but when the Leader of the Opposition was twitted by the Prime Minister for having spoken four hours without even mentioning extravagance, the honorable member gave the weak retort that it would have taken up a week to do so. It was the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to give some instances in support of the charges, and as to occupying a week, we have had a fortnight of debate without hearing anything of the accusation of extravagance. The first honorable member to deal with this charge was the honorable member for Mernda, who, after two weeks of debate, came forward with his great speech on finance. I do not propose to deal at length with the remarks of that honorable member. He has a reputation in the commercial world as a very successful man, and, perhaps, because of that he was able to build up a huge financial bogy, which, however, was speedily knocked down by those who succeeded him. His great point was that in the next five years the Government were committed to an expenditure of £51,000,000, and the burden of his remarks was that the Government are extravagant because they have not borrowed money - because they have not got into debt - and do not propose to do so. The honorable member had much to say about the financial crisis of 1893. Perhaps it might have been as well for him to have gone back a little further and have told us of the ten years from 1880 to 1890, when the State of Victoria borrowed no less than £25,000,000. It might also have been interesting had he told us that the present Leader of the Opposition was for six of those ten years in office in the State Parliament in one capacity or another, and that during the six years the public indebtedness was increased by £20,000,000. With all this borrowed money pouring into the State a boom was begun, and the banks advanced money at boom prices, with the result that, when prices fell, the crash came. That boom, with its consequential crisis, was created by a borrowing policy carried out by some of the gentlemen who now occupy seats on the Opposition benches in this Chamber. We are told that it is a sound policy to borrow. A plank in the Labour platform is the restriction, though not the actual prohibition, of borrowing ; and my opinion is that we cannot too rigidly interpret that plank. What are the
Government doing? They are not extravagant; on the contrary, they are actually saving money. They are putting the surplus from revenue into permanent works, which are giving a good re turn. Then we are told that we must beware of the lean years; but when those years come, what will happen? Had we been borrowing we should have to shoulder the responsibility of the debts incurred, but, seeing that we have not borrowed, all the Government will have to do will be to stop some of the public works and undertake no new works, and they will have to meet no interest charges on the works already completed. ‘They will thus be able to meet the altered circumstances, and guide the ship of State safely over the rocks on which it was formerly run by the Liberals in the eighties and the nineties. In order to show that the honorable member for Mernda cannot be taken too seriously with all his vaunted knowledge and vast experience, I shall lake two instances, small, no doubt, in his opinion, but, in my opinion, of importance. He told us that the Government were committed to the expenditure of £35,000,000 on fleet and naval works in the next five years, or ,£7,000,000 a year. As a matter of fact, according to Admiral Henderson’s report, the expenditure on the fleet is only ,£23,000,000, and it is to be spread over twenty-one years. In regard to the naval works, the honorable member said that they were to cost £15,000,000, while the Minister pointed out that it was only about half that amount, and that it had to be spread over five, six, or seven years. It will be seen that, at most, in connexion with fleet and naval works, the Government are committed to something under £2,000,000 a year instead of £7,000,000 as mentioned by the honorable member. There is a difference of ,£5,000,000 a year, and I think that a great error for the honorable member for Mernda to make. Then he told us that the revenue has doubled in three years, rising from £11,000,000 to ,£22.000,000. Almost any one who had given any attention to the subject, or any ordinary member who reads the Year Book, would know that the revenue three years ago was £15,000,000, and it was from that figure that it rose to £^22,000,000. We thus have a difference of ,£4,000,000 on one item, and £5,000,000 on another item; and these are only two instances of a dozen which might be mentioned. However, I desire to be brief, and, therefore, content myself by drawing attention to these instances. The honorable member further commented on the failure of the Government to deal with the question of the State debts. As to the State debts, I am an enthusiastic believer in the Commonwealth taking them over. I say, however, that it would be a great blunder to take over the State debts without our having some power to control and regulate the future borrowing of the State Governments. We should be simply taking the responsibility off the shoulders of the States, and giving them a free hand to accumulate more debts and compete in the money market. There are only two ways in which we can do what we desire; we must either have an amendment of the Constitution, or get the consent of the States. This Government has done what it could to get the consent of the States, and no overtures have been made by any of the Premiers’ Conferences. Yet, one charge in the indictment is that the Government have not taken over the State debts; and I trust that they never will be taken over until we have the power I have indicated. The honorable member for Flinders has been going round Victoria backing up the charge of extravagance at Liberal meetings. He has quoted figures and dealt in percentages ; but we know that there is nothing more misleading than the latter. Percentages can be made to prove anything ; it all depends on the way in which they are used. The honorable member brought some figures here with him, but he qualified his former statements very considerably by suggesting that perhaps the money had been wisely spent, and that there was some explanation of the alleged extravagance. He said that the increase of revenue from the Post Office was 12
– In what way is the method more liberal?
– Let us take the mail services ; under the old system any community was credited as revenue with only half the outgoing and half the ingoing ; but on the 10th December, 1910, a new regulation was framed giving credit for the whole. That is what I mean by a more liberal method of calculation. Even after that, if there is a loss,” the Government bear 50 per cent., leaving the residents to make up the other half.
– Telephone lines applied for two years ago are not supplied yet.
– That is true; and there is an answer. It is very evident to anybody who has interested himself in the question that the Department was starved by the previous Administration, and when the present Government came into office, and I applied for telephone instruments for Warrnambool, it was found that there were only twenty-five in stock. That, I regard as an absolute disgrace to the previous Administration, which handed over surplus revenue to the State Governments, whilst starving their Postal Department, and depriving the people in the back country of the services that were necessary. Yet the Opposition expect the present Government, in two years, to undo all the wrongs of the previous ten years maladministration. The more the Government extend facilities in the back country, and the more they take on non-paying lines, the more will the Department show an increasing expenditure as compared with the revenue. The question that 1 ask the honorable member for Flinders is this. Does he approve of that policy ? Does he say that the Government ought not to extend these facilities to the country districts? Does he say that the people who are pioneering in the bush should pay the whole 100 per cent, deficiency on mail services? If he does, he certainly will not find me in agreement with him, nor I am sure will he find many supporters on his own side of the House. That is about the only specific charge we have had to face in the matter of extravagance. The statements of the honorable member for Mernda were not charges at all. The whole of his speech contained no allegation of extravagance in connexion with anything this Government has done. He merely mentioned matters to which we are committed. Even then, he did not say that there was an item in his list with which He disagreed. Indeed, the items related to matters in which the Opposition is in accord with us. The whole burden of his complaint was that we are not borrowing the money to pay for these works, but are paying for them out of revenue. The honorable member did make a statement about sovereigns having been taken out of the Trust Funds in excess of the statutory warrant, but it was afterwards shown that that was based upon an error which had crept into the Auditor-General’s report. It is, however, said that this Government has failed to secure industrial peace and to preserve order. I shall not traverse the facts relating to the Brisbane strike. I shall not say whether the strike was justified or not. But I am going to inquire into the indictment against this Government. Do honorable members opposite charge the Government with being responsible for the Brisbane strike? Not one honorable member has said that. Their charge was that the Government did not assist the Queensland Government in maintaining order. But what has that charge at length been narrowed down to? The Premier of Queensland asked for troops to be sent to that State. The Federal Government refused to send them. But when we turned the question back on the Opposition, and asked them whether they would have sent troops under similar circumstances, only one honorable member opposite had the frankness to acknowledge that he would have sent them ; and even he qualified his statement afterwards. The honorable member for Franklin has said this morning that in his opinion the troops should not have been sent. What then did he want the Government to do? He thinks that the Prime Minister should have sent a message to the Premier of Queensland stating that, in the event of necessity arising, assistance would be given. Now, as a matter of fact, that is precisely what the Prime Minister did. Here is the official copy of his telegram to the Premier of Queensland, -
Whilst the Commonwealth Government is quite prepared to fulfil its obligations to the States if ever occasion should arise, they do not admit, the right of any State to call for assistance under circumstances which are proper to be dealt, with by the police force of the States. The condition of affairs existing in Queensland does not, in the opinion of my Ministers, warrant the request of the Executive Government of Queensland contained in Your Excellency’s message feeing complied with.
That is what the majority of honorable members opposite say the Government should have done. They have actually run away from their charge because we turn their own guns back upon them and ask them plainly whether they meant that under the circumstances then existing they would have sent troops to Brisbane. Events showed that the Prime Minister was quite justified in refusing. There are two events in the recent history of Australia as to which the people of this country have deep reason to thank God, because the Fisher Government maintained a firm stand. On each of these occasions the present Prime Minister has resisted scares raised for partypurposes. When the Labour Government was formerly in office a great scare was raised about the Empire being in danger of attack from Germany. It was loudly proclaimed that unless we presented a Dreadnought to Great Britain the Empire would go to pieces.
– The Government are building a Dreadnought now.
– Yes, but we are build- * ing it for the defence of Australia, and for use in Australian waters. That scare, worked up by the press for party reasons, was brushed aside by this Government, and the country has reason to be grateful to them for the stand they took. The second and lesser scare was in connexion with the Brisbane strike. There again, the cool judgment of the present Prime Minister came to the assistance of his country, and my right honorable friend refused to commit a very grave blunder. What would these two blunders have cost this country had they been committed ? The presenting of a Dreadnought to Great Britain would have cost Australia ,£2,000,000, and would have delayed the foundation of our own Australian Navy perhaps indefinitely. In the second case, although it may seem to have been a smaller event, the cost to Aus tralia would have been infinitely more, for the sending of troops to Brisbane would have sounded the deathknell of our compulsory military system. If there is one thing more than another which all honorable members would have reason to regret if the troops had been sent to Brisbane - and according to the admission of honorable members opposite, it was not necessary to send them - it is that that action would have been responsible for turning the people of this country utterly against the system of military training by which we are struggling to lay firmly the foundations of a sound scheme of defence for this country. Even the suggestion of honorable members opposite that the troops might be called out under similar circumstances has had the effect of shaking the belief of many people in the wisdom of compulsory training ; but had such a grave blunder been actually committed by the Commonwealth Government, the mischief would have been beyond repair. This Government is prepared to maintain law and order, and to do its duty by the people, and by the Governments of the States, but it is not prepared to obey the behests of any State Premier who, for party political reasons, makes a request which, if assented to, would mean the sacrifice of our citizen defence scheme at its very inception. Another charge of maladministration that has been made is to the effect that this Government has been guilty of making partisan appointments. Reference was made to the Northern Territory, but no sooner did the Minister of External Affairs reply to the charge than it collapsed utterly. What are the facts about the Northern Territory? We have made seven important appointments there. Of those, two of the men appointed are believed to have Labour leanings, whilst the other five have not. If we had appointed five with Labour leanings, and two without them, there would have been no foundation for the charge, but in view of the actual facts it is ridiculous. This Government in its appointments has not been affected by the political beliefs of the persons chosen, but solely by the consideration of whether they possessed the necessary qualifications. In every case it has been shown that the Government selected the best men who could be found for the work which had to be done. But I venture to say that if the principle were carried out that persons appointed to public offices should not be of the same political faith as the Government in power, very few of the appointments .made by our predecessors would have been made. When the previous Fisher Government was in office it appointed Senator Pearce to attend a military conference in Great Britain. Senator Pearce is a man whom everybody admits to be the best Minister of Defence this country has ever had, and one who has thoroughly mastered the problem as it affects Australia. But when “that Government was supplanted by the Deakin Government, Senator Pearce was brushed aside, and a man with less ability was sent to London in- his place, because he happened to be a supporter of the then Government. It is notorious that all the appointments which this Government has had to make in connexion with the census, in connexion with the Electoral Department, and in every other case, have been made purely on the ground of. merit; and it is known to me, as a matter of fact, that in the majority of instances in my electorate men holding different opinions from ours have been appointed. I make no complaint about that, but I do say that it is a complete refutation of the charge that this Government has made partisan appointments. Take the plums of the service. We find that the governorship of the Commonwealth Bank, the administratorship of the Northern Territory, and most of the highly-paid positions have been given to men holding different political views from ours. Consequently, that charge falls to the ground. The next charge had to do with strikes - that this Government has failed to maintain the peace. I have dealt with the charge that we failed to maintain good order in connexion with the Brisbane strike. This is a general charge. It is also a vague one. It is utterly unjustified, because this Government has done more to maintain industrial peace than any Government that ever sat on these benches. I will prove that statement by facts. I will not content myself with the remark that the charge is wrong. I will not imitate honorable members opposite who make general statements that have no facts to back them up. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court came into existence in 1904. It was ineffective in many ways at the beginning. The Labour Government in 19 10 amended the Act ; and they amended it again, strengthening it materially, in 191 1. The honorable member for Laanecoorie asked what has been the effect of the Act; what has it accomplished? I will give the honorable member the statement of the President of the Court, Mr. Justice Higgins. His Honour has pointed out that in 1906 there was only one award, in 1907 there was only one, in 1908 there were four, in 1909 only three, in 191 o, when we came into office and strengthened the Act, the number of awards was twenty-four, and in 191 1 the number was ninety-three. In all of those cases the Judge says that the awards have been honorably respected by both sides, and peace has been maintained.
– That statement is not correct.
– It is correct, and the honorable member has not been able to prove its inaccuracy. Why did not the honorable member do so when he was addressing the House? It is easy for the honorable member to interject statements which have no facts to back them up. These particulars are supplied by Mr. Justice Higgins, who is in an impartial position, and is better able to judge than the honorable member is.
– The statement is not correct.
– It is true that there have been many strikes in Australia. They have all been counted up. Every newspaper makes a note of every industrial trouble that occurs. If half-a-dozen men somewhere in Australia drop their shovels, it is recorded that they have struck. If some local preachers do not attend to their duties, they are said to have struck. A strike of State school children is gravely chronicled. It is true that there is industrial unrest. But it is not confined to this country. There is far more industrial unrest in England than in Australia.
– They have no arbitration system there.
– Quite so; and that is one of the reasons why there is more unrest. But no one has charged this Government with being responsible for the strikes. Suppose there have been a hundred of them. Can honorable members opposite mention one for which this Government has been responsible? Is there a single honorable member opposite who can make such a charge ?
– What we say is that with a Labour Government in power we ought to have had industrial peace, because Ministers are the custodians of the Labour movement in Australia.
– The honorable member for Wimmera says that there ought to have been fewer strikes with a Labour Government in power. He recognises that this Government stands for industrial peace. He knows ver/ well that we have had that principle on our banner for years. He knows that this Government and this party have fought for arbitration laws which afford the only method of which we have any knowledge for bringing about industrial peace. Whatever failures there may have been, these laws have done something to mitigate the trouble. There has never been a law yet that has been an absolute success. The laws against burglary and murder are not free from failures. But this arbitration legislation has been a marked success in promoting peace. As I have shown, ninety-three cases - were settled in 1911, and twenty-four in the previous year. Suppose that the Government failed to deal with all the other cases. Was that their fault? Every one knows that the reason is that in not one of those other cases has this Government had power to move. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration’ Court has not been able to deal with any one of those cases. When on 26th April of last year we asked the people to give us the constitutional power to frame an Act which would enable that Court to deal with industrial disputes wherever they arose within the Commonwealth, regardless of whether they extended beyond the limits of any one State or did not do so - when we asked that we should be given this power, so that reason, instead of force, might be brought to bear - what was the attitude taken up by the honorable member and others of his party who talk about industrial peace and move censure motions relating to strikes generally ?
– What about South Australia ?
– Where was the honorable member when we were asking for power to strengthen the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court? He and his party were ranged against us. He and his party talk in this chamber about trusts and combines, and charge the AttorneyGeneral with not wanting to prosecute the Coal Vend, although the present Administration have done more in two years than the Liberal party did in six or seven in that direction. The AttorneyGeneral of the present Administration prosecuted the Vend and the Shipping Combine, and obtained judgment against them. Fines were imposed against them, but he tells us that they are going on to-day as successfully as ever, although perhaps they are not technically breaking the law. When we asked last year for an extension of our constitutional power to deal with trusts and combines, where were honorable members of the Opposition? Were they not fighting for the trusts and combines, and with the money provided by the trusts were they not spreading literature containing all the lies and tarradiddles that could be manufactured against our proposal? Now they come into this chamber, hurl a motion of censure at the Government, and blame us for the very thing of which they themselves are guilty. Even if every charge in this indictment against the Government were true, it would ill become the Opposition to make them. It would simply be a case of Satan reproving sin. I come now to the question of old-age pensions. The honorable member for Flinders, in his cold, calculating way, has told the House and the country that the principle of old-age pensions is wrong.
– Did he not say that it was “ rotten “ ?
– I believe that he is reported as having so described the principle outside, and in this House he certainly stated that he disapproved of it, although he qualified that statement by saying that he would not abolish the present system. Old-age pensions are not merely an expedient; they are absolutely sound in principle. They are based on the principle that those who have rendered service to this country for a given number of years shall, when they have reached an age at which they are unable to provide for themselves, be rewarded for their past services. The Opposition talk largely of compulsory insurance. I should like to ask them what is our system of old-age pensions but a form of compulsory insurance? Have not those who receive the old-age pension contributed for many years to the fund out of which it is paid, so that when they reach the pension age they are entitled to draw upon it ? The advantage which the old-age pension system enjoys over compulsory insurance is that it can be far more cheaply administered. The cost of collecting premiums and keeping accounts in connexion with a system of compulsory insurance would be ten times as great as is the cost of administering the oldage pension system.
– Has the honorable member any evidence of that?
– We have evidence that it is the most cheaply administered system of pensions or insurance that any one could organize. Invalid pensions, however, are on a different footing. They are based, not on the standard of payment for services rendered, but on something higher and nobler. The claim for an invalid pension is based upon the humanitarian teachings of Christianity. This party is not going to apologize for its invalid or old-age pension system. We are not going to apologize for our expenditure of £2,000,000 a year upon those systems. After all, the money so expended is not thrown into the sea. The old people and invalids to whom it is paid circulate it. It is distributed amongst the business people and the workers, and is finally returned to the Treasury, only to go out once more. The same may be said df the proposed maternity allowance. The Opposition sneer at the proposal, and try to ridicule it, but underlying it “are two great principles. One is the recognition of the great service that motherhood renders to the State; the other is the recognition of the trying time through which many women have in such circumstances to go. This brings me to a remark made in the House yesterday which certainly hurt me. While the honorable member for Echuca was speaking, I said that he was quoting from
Woman, the official organ of the Australian Women’s National League. He replied by reminding me that my mother was a woman, thereby implying that my reference to that newspaper was insulting to womankind. I must do the honorable member the justice of stating that he told me later that he had not understood my interjection, and that he offered to make an explanation in the House. For that offer I thank him. I have always placed womankind in my thoughts and in my heart on the very highest pedestal, and I would not say a word of condemnation against a paper or remark merely because it had been written or uttered by a woman. The Opposition have failed to substantiate the charges which they have made against the Government. When asked to give specific answers to questions put to them concerning those charges, they have absolutely failed to do so. They have been asked whether they would have sent troops to Brisbane in connexion with the tramway strike, had they been in power, but only one has had the courage to say that he would have done so. They have carefully refrained from answering such a question, knowing that their answer, boomeranglike, would recoil upon them. On the occasion of the great strike which took place in Melbourne in 1890, the honorable member for Ballarat occupied a responsible position in this State, by virtue of which he had to give an order for the calling out of the military.
– The honorable member iswrong in a trifling detail.
– But I am right in my statement of the main facts. Had there been some foolish people in Melbourne at the time - had there been the slightest indiscretion - blood would have been shed. In a time of general excitement - when there is a strike in progress, and there is some turmoil - a good deal of noise is bound to be made. Let me remind honorable members of the scenes that took place in the streets of Melbourne on Mafeking night, when women were insulted, and a tramcar was actually taken off the tram rails and hurled through a shop window. Would the Opposition say that the Boer war was responsible for those acts, or that the spirit displayed on that occasion, and described by some as patriotism, although I would describe it as jingoism, was responsible for them ? At a time of great public excitement there is sure to be a certain amount of lawlessness, but if we take the statement made by the Premier of Queensland on the day that he received from the Commonwealth Government a reply to his request for military assistance - the statement that -
I can assure the citizens that ample protection is afforded by the enrolment of special constables - we find that it was not necessary to send out our troops, and thus to injure our youngcitizen defence force. Not one of the charges which the honorable member for Ballarat took four hours in opening up has been substantiated. All have fallen to the ground. Even on the question of finance honorable members have failed to support their allegations against the Ministry. The honorable member for Ballarat said it would take him about a week to deal fully with the alleged maladministration of the finances by this Government ; but although he and his party have had three weeks in which to discuss the charges embodied in their motion of censure, they have not succeeded in substantiating any one of them. When this Government took office, it was faced with a deficit of £500,000. To-day it is able to show a surplus of £2,000.000. When this Government took possession of the Treasury benches, there was on the statute-book an Act to provide for a loan of £3,500,000 to pay for the first two warships of the Australian naval unit. The Fusion Government found themselves unable to finance the cost of even those two boats, except by borrowing, although two months previously they had offered to present the Mother Country with a Dreadnought that would cost £2,00.0,000. The Labour Government, on the other hand, when it took office, repealed the Loan Act passed by. its predecessors, and, instead of borrowing money for the Navy, has paid for it out of revenue, and it has been able, by the issue of Commonwealth notes, to lend to the State Governments £5,000,000; so that, during the two years of alleged extravagance and maladministration, we have turned a deficit into a surplus, and a borrowing policy into a lending one.
– I do not propose to refer to the remarks of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, but I would commend to him the speech delivered early this morning by the honorable member for Boothby, which was a sweeping reply to nine out of ten speeches made by the Government and their supporters. I have no desire to hinder the closing of this debate, but I wish to make a few observations on one or two points that call for special comment. 1 wish particularly to deal with the reckless public expenditure that has characterized the administration of the present Government. I should like, first of all, however, to make a reference to the Northern Territory, and to the appointments made in connexion with it. I shall take only one appointment as an example of what is done, and I shall do so because, in my opinion, it is of the very first importance. I dismiss from my mind at once the question of whether or not a man is a member of the Labour party. The point that I wish to consider is the question of his fitness and capacity to fill the position to which he is appointed. The example of the appointments made by the Government to which I intend to allude is the appointment of Mr. Ryland to the position of Director of Lands in the Northern Territory. The position is one of very great importance. Mr. Ryland, in that great undeveloped tract of country, is practically in the position of a Surveyor-General representing the Commonwealth Government. It is possibly one of the most important offices that could be filled in the Northern Territory ; it is certainly next in importance to that of the Administrator.
– He has a surveyor acting with him.
– Quite so. Let me point out how necessary it is that the occupant of this office should be not only a man of great ability and experience, but an expert. As my honorable friend observes, Mr. Ryland, as Director of Lands, has a surveyor working under him, and I hope that he will have many more. He ought to be a man with the training, capacity, and experience to enable him to deal not only with surveyors, but with many other expert officers employed by the Department of Lands for the development of the Territory. In this Territory we are dealing with a country which, roughly speaking, is seven or eight times bigger than the whole of the United Kingdom. In that enormous undeveloped area we have to-day less than 1,000 white people.
– And who has had control of it for the last forty vears?
– I am going to point out to the Minister that there is evidence of his incapacity-
– I could not be more incompetent than those who have had control of the Territory for the last forty years.
– I propose to show the ridiculous nature of the appointment to which I refer, in view of the very fact that so little nas been done for the Territory in all those years.
– Seeing that South Australia had control of the Territory for forty years, and there are only 1,000 white people there now, the honorable member should be one of the last to complain of the present Administration.
– I have a good deal to say about the matter to the Minister.
– It will come with a very ill grace from the honorable member.
– This is a matter of the very first importance to the people of Australia. The Minister of External Affairs tells us that South Australia had this country in hand for forty years, and did very little for its development in that period. I was just going to say that myself, when the Minister forestalled me.
– Then we agree on something.
– I agree with the Minister on that point, in order that I may rub into him more strongly the evidence of the recklessness of his administration. Honorable members generally will agree with me when I say that, so far as land legislation and the administration and development of country is concerned, South Australia is second to no other State in the Commonwealth.
– The honorable member refers to South Australia proper.
– I mean to say that the administration by the South Australian Government of South Australia propei has been accompanied by marked success, so far as land legislation and development are concerned. No one knows better than do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the work of the South Australian Government in dealing with problems of land settlement has been such in the past that the land legislation of Queensland to-day is based almost absolutely upon that of South- Australia.. A gieat deal of the land legislation in New South Wales is based on the same principle. But let me tell honorable members that it was fifty or sixty years before the South Australians really got on to right lines in dealing with land settlement and development.
– And the simplicity of title.
– I shall not deal with the question of the simplicity ot title, because, after all, the important matter is to recognise the character and possibilities of the country. Its proper subdivision, rentals, conditions of settlement, and a thousahd-and-one other things had to be considered, in order to bring the administration up to its present perfection in South Australia proper after an experience of fifty or sixty years. Honorable members from Queensland, in which State there is a great deal of similar country; will agree that it took the people of their State fifty or sixty years to understand the real character of their country and the conditions suitable to its successful development. If this has been the experience of all the States, how much more important it is that the very best possible men should have been obtained to face the problem in the Northern Territory, which will be infinitely more difficult than have been the problems of settlement in South Australia, Queensland, or any of the other States. It will be difficult from every point of view. There are difficulties existing in that big country which have existed in other countries ; but there are problems there also which are not common to any of the States of the Commonwealth, and the successful solution of which will require the best training, ability, and experience to be found in Australia or anywhere else. What is the position? Mr. Ryland, from Queensland, has been appointed Director of Lands. I take the statement made by the Minister of External Affairs himself- as to the qualifications he has for the position. The Minister told us that Mr. Ryland was born on a farm ; that he studied the land question in Parliament for many years; and that the Prime Minister of Australia had said that he was eminently fitted for the position to which he was appointed. “ And,” said the Minister of External Affairs, “ that is quite good enough for me.” If the Northern Territory belonged to a joint-stock company, and the Minister were DirectorGeneral of that company, and made such an appointment on such references, the company’s stock would be down to zero in the market next morning. There is not a commercial man, or a man of any responsibility in this country, who would not be ashamed to make such a. statement as that made by the Minister responsible in the Commonwealth Government for one of the most important Departments of the Public Service.
– The Prime Minister was quite right, no doubt, in passing such a eulogium upon a constituent.
– I do not know that he was ; but that does not trouble me. The fact that he is, as has been said, the life-long friend of the Prime Minister, does not weigh with me at all. I want to know whether this man has had such experience as would justify his appointment to this most important position.
– We shall not tell the honorable member.
– Then I shall have to say what I know about Mi. Ryland. If these are partisan appointments of unqualified men, the Government will have to answer for them at the bar of public opinion, if, as a result, great mischief is done to the interests of the Commonwealth. A false step at the initiation of the administration of the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth Government may be fraught with mischief in the future that may involve tens of thousands, and, possibly, millions of money. I remind the Government that in this matter they are not handling a cabbage garden, but a very big proposition. I wish honorable members opposite to give me credit for having no feeling on the appointment of Mr. Ryland because of his politics. If they can secure a man of. their own’ politics who is as competent as any other man, they will never hear a word of protest from me upon his appointment to a position for which he is qualified. But the question in this instance is : Axe we getting a qualified man ? I picked up in the Library a copy of Pugh’s Almanac, a Queensland publication on the lines of Who’s Who? and including biographical sketches of prominent men in that State.
– Who is the author?
– I dare say that Mr. Ryland supplied the published information himself.
– As the honorable member for Darling Downs suggests, it is very probable that Mr. Ryland supplied the information published concerning himself. However, honorable members coming from Queensland will know whether my quotation is an accurate statement of the gentleman’s history -
Ryland, Geo., M.L.A. - One of the members for Gympie. Was born at West Meath, Ireland, in 1855, and was brought up in the occupation of a farmer.
– That is not so.
– What was he, if he was not a farmer? I am prepared that honorable members opposite should give Mr. Ryland the most generous consideration, and then they will have nothing to make a noise about. The quotation continues -
Arrived at Maryborough, Queensland, October, 1878. Thereafter worked on sugar plantations and on railway works -
– Is that any disgrace?
– Certainly not, and the Minister of External Affairs knows much better than to talk such small stuff. Such small talk is consistent with the incapacity of a Minister who makes such an appointment as this - when he settled in Gympie as a miner. In 1892 he was elected as an Alderman of Gympie, which position he held for eight years, being Mayor in 1889. At the Parliamentary elections in 1893 he was selected as a Labour candidate, but was defeated. On a second attempt in 1890 he was successful, and has since been re-elected in 1902, 1904, 1907, 1908, and 1909.
– What better than that does the honorable member require?
– It would be all right for the superintendent of a cabbage garden.
– This is all very petty, anyhow.
– I am sure that the honorable member for Macquarie knows better. He knows perfectly well that a highly qualified man is necessary to fill a position the occupant of which is to have control of surveyors and experts of all kinds in the development of a country which is seven or eight times bigger than the United Kingdom. Before I commenced to speak I was quite prepared to find that honorable members opposite would absolutely indorse this appointment. But I am quite sure that no impartial man, inside or outside of this House, of any intelligence or having any commercial capacity, will say that this appointment is not simply absurd. Worse than that, it is akin to a calamity that the administration of this big country, with its difficult problems, should be begun by the appointment of a man to so ‘ important a position who can, by no stretch, of the imagination, be said to possess qualifications fitting him for it. If there is one question of which more than another I have made almost a hobby during the twenty years of my political life, it is land settlement.
– Did the honorable member want the job?
– No. My only desire was for the appointment to the position of the most highly-qualified man to be found in Australia. The Minister has stated that Mr. Day, who has been made chief surveyor, impressed him with his qualifications, but on one point he was not sound. Perhaps he was not sound in the faith ; the Minister did not tell us what the deficiency was. I know Mr. Day only by repute; as an old officer of the South Australian Lands Department, whose training, ability, experience and long service make him an expert, so that he should do excellent work in the Northern Territory. But we are to have an efficient officer as chief surveyor controlled by a superior who has no more qualification for the position than the man in the street. When I asked the Minister if there were not capable men in the services of the State Governments, he said that he would not give a man in the Public Service of the States more consideration than any other.
– Every man should be judged on his merits, whether in the Public Service or out of it.
– I agree that the man possessing the greatest efficiency and the highest qualifications should be appointed. I regret that there is little prospect of this Parliament having much to say about the initial work of de veloping the Northern Territory. Australia makes us responsible, but we can do nothing while there is in power a Government responsible only to the Caucus that created it. Many mistakes will be made, and mischief may be done which it- will take many years to undo.
– What about the Government of the Territory for the last forty years ?
– According to the Minister, the Territory is to be governed from Port Darwin, and not from Melbourne, which will increase the responsibility of the Director. Apparently, the honorable gentleman thinks that the people of South Australia could not find out in forty years how to manage the Territory, but that he has found it out in a few months. I do not hold a brief for the Public Service; but had the Minister showed a proper appreciation of the position, he would have asked the Ministers at the heads of the Lands Departments of the States to recommend suitable men for the work of developing the Territory.
– That would not fit in with the Labour game.
– No, and therefore the country will suffer. I regret to have had to make these statements about a gentleman whom I do not know personally, but whom I believe to bear a reputable character, and to be a decent and excellent man. My complaint is that he does not possess the qualifications requisite for the position to which he has been appointed.
– He has this qualification, that he is a strong Labour supporter.
– Nemesis will be on the track of Ministers who appoint supporters to important positions merely because they are supporters. As a rule, the public estimate of an action is a fair one, and the people may be safely left to say what they think of the Government’s action in this matter. The Minister of External Affairs told us that it was important that those occupying responsible positions in the service, or at least some of them, should be in accord with the views of the Govern ment, whereupon the interjection was made, “ What will happen when another Government comes into power?” Is the American principle to be adopted, and are appointments to be reviewed, and positions refilled, on the displacement of one Government by another? As trustee for the people, the Minister should have selected the man best fitted for the work, without regard to his political views. The character of the Publice Services of Australia will suffer if any other principle of appointment is adopted.
– Were all the Government Residents of the Territory appointed because they were the best men available, or were the appointments political?
– The Government Residents during the time South Australia controlled the Northern Territory were practically automata, with little or no personal responsibility ; but in 80 per cent, of the cases they were chosen because of their special fitness. I would condemn a political appointment by any other Government just as I condemn the appointments of this Government.
– And so would the Minister of External Affairs if he were in the pulpit.
– Yes, at a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon service; and, no doubt, if the transgressor was one of the congregation, the Minister would “ give him fits.” If, in the determination of tenures, classification, and many other important questions, mistakes are made at the beginning, the mischief may not be repaired for two or three generations. As to the adoption of leasehold tenure only, the honorable member for Grey will agree with me that the greater part of the country will have to be let on long leases under proper conditions, and that rent must be a secondary consideration. The first thing to be aimed at is the occupation and use of the land. Only men who understand the stocking of large areas will take up the country ; and they will ask, not for the fee simple, but for leaseholds, with proper safeguards for the enormous expenditure which they have had to undertake for improvements. The poorer a country is the more it will cost, relatively, to improve it ; and pastoral areas are practically made by improvements. If leases were granted for a fifty-years’ term without’ rent, and the country were improved properly, the Government would strike as good a bargain as the lessees. A great many difficulties will have to be faced. Diseases of stock must be coped with, and a thousand and one more troubles surmounted. This makes it the more important that an expert should be at the head of affairs.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. (Friday).
– When the sitting, was suspended I was dealing with the principle of leasehold versus freehold, and I was endeavouring to point out that while the larger areas of inferior country would be accepted freely on the leasehold system, the smaller areas in the Northern Territory would offer very little attraction to farmers unless we gave them the right of purchase. The leasehold system was tried in South Australia in 1893-94, and as evidencing the peculiar charm of the fee-simple, I may mention that the small homestead blockers were the keenest in the successful agitation which they promoted to reverse the policy of non-alienation, and to secure for themselves a title to their limited holdings.
– They always act in that way.
– And I believe that they always will. There was a time, I admit, when the leasehold” system possessed some charm for me, but it was an everlasting lease without revaluation, which to all intents and purposes was a freehold. Such a tenure offers many distinct advantages to the settler with limited means, because it allows him to devote all his capital to developmental purposes instead of calling upon him to pay a heavier toll in order to make the land his freehold. If the Government are going to adopt the policy of themselves determining the principles of land settlement which shall obtain in the Northern Territory, instead of submitting a Bill to this House, they will be simply usurping the functions of Parliament and flouting the will of the people. If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that that policy will be submitted to the Parliamentary Labour Caucus alone. But when the public realize the position there will be an irresistible demand that these big questions shall be threshed out on the floor of this Chamber, because the responsibility for their settlement belongs to Parliament only. I hope that the good judgment of the other side will prevail, and that these large questions will be submitted to, and determined by, the Legislature. The Government and Parliament have a difficult problem to face in the Northern Territory, because it is a big, poor country, although it possesses a considerable area of rich land. It will not only be the most difficult, but the most costly country to develop that has ever confronted ‘ any people. The Minister of External Affairs recently struck the keynote of munificence when he landed in the Territory with a party of honorable members, and I am afraid thus made a very bad start. He reminded me almost of a monarch taking possession of this newly-acquired country, so anxious did he seem to be to scatter gifts in all directions. He was most profuse in his promises, even before his aid was solicited. It is not to be wondered at that in these circumstances there was unparalleled excitement in Port Darwin. When this new king came into bis own, and was so lavish in his promises of a paradise for everybody, I would have liked to have been there. I can imagine the excitement when the procession passed, to the beating of drums, the waving of flags, and the screeching of the Irish bagpipes. But when all the excitement had subsided, I think the coolheaded old Territorians would say to themselves, “ I wonder what will come out of all this business?” If the Government make a success of the Northern Territory, nobody will be more delighted than I will. It will be a grand thing for Australia, but I feel very doubtful upon the point, because the country is too poor to stand any Socialistic experiment, and I am honestly afraid that it will prove a big sink for public money, and that in the initial stages there will be costly experimental failures. In that case, we shall have to start again.
– Why, the honorable member was one of those who persuaded us to take over the Territory.
– And now that the Commonwealth has it, I say, “ Good luck to .it.” I wish now to deal with one other question. My honorable’ friends opposite have complained that we have hot dealt with the reckless extravagance of the Government as foreshadowed in the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to give chapter and verse, but when_ my honorable friends ask, “ Can you make specific charges? “ I say that I cannot. . The reason why I cannot do so is that there never was a Parliament in this country, which, upon financial and other questions, was vouchsafed so little information as is this Parliament. We have not Ministerial responsibility to Parliament, and it is this irresponsibility in regard to administration that is subjecting the big public undertakings of the country to the dictates of the camp followers of the political Caucus. There is not the shadow of a doubt about it.
– Nasty language.
– My statement is absolutely true, but I did not make it offensively. I dare say that the PostmasterGeneral, who is always a happy fellow, would be infinitely happier if he could shake himself free from a lot of the troubles consequent upon that irresponsibility.
– No.
– The Caucus of the Labour party controls the Government. If it does not do so here, it certainly does so in similarly-regulated families. In the absence of specific charges, consequent upon the meagre information which is vouchsafed to us in respect of public undertakings and expenditure, I wish to say that this side of the Chamber ought to demand, in the name of fair play, a Commission of inquiry so that the public officers of the Commonwealth may be able to give sworn evidence as to what the day-labour system as against the contract system is costing the people of Australia.
– The honorable member can have a reply in regard to that matter now.
– When I do get a reply I have a pretty shrewd idea of what it will be.
– The reply is that this Government will adhere to the day-labour system.
– Because they have to do so. Otherwise they would go out of office mighty quickly.
– Does the honorable member know that the Victorian Government, which is not a Labour Government, is constructing all its railways by means of day labour?
– The decisions arrived at by the conference of the Australian Labour party have circumscribed the operations of the Government
– Why does not the honorable member say that those decisions have “leg-roped” them? That is the word.
– They have shackles all over them. The Postmaster-
General has assured me that the system of day labour will continue to obtain throughout the Commonwealth. I thank him for nothing, because I know that it will, so long as the present Government remain iri power. But I wish to give a shocking illustration of the evils of that system - an illustration which is drawn from my. own State. In South Australia, for some years, the Legislative Council has always insisted upon the insertion of a clause in all Railway Bills, stipulating that they shall be constructed by private tender. The Labour Government of South Australia would have very much liked to build its railways by day labour, but they were bound by this provision, and consequently the Public Works Department of that State had to compete with private enterprise. Quite recently a Railway Bill was submitted to the South’ Australian Parliament for the construction of a railway to Brown’s Well - a distance of about 90 miles. The Public Works Department tendered for the undertaking by means of day labour- at a cost . of . £155,000. The wicked private-enterprise man then came along, and his tender was for £105,000. A second contractor, one of the most up to date in Australia, tendered for the work at £89,000.
– He could not do it honestly.
– He not only could, but he is, doing it honestly.
– Somebody subsidized him, otherwise he cannot pay fair wages.
– It is all’ very well for my honorable friends to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people. But they can only delude a section upon that point, and even a great many of that section are getting their eyes opened. The successful tenderer, who knew his business, the very day after he had signed the contract, inserted an ad* vertisement in all the metropolitan daily newspapers in Australia calling for navvies,, and quoted the price which he intended to pay. He offered is. per day more than the highest price paid by the State Government.
– And he got the best men.
– That is the secret. He advertised for navvies, and would be content with nothing else. The Government, on the other hand, have totake all the “ weary willies “ who happert along. That is just the difference.
– That is a’ gratuitous insult to every man in the employ of the Department.
– It is a gratuitous insult to the lazy man, and it is time that they were insulted. The Socialistic Labour Governments, wherever they obtain to-day, have to take those men, and do take them.
– Are they all employed in the Public Departments?
– I can give my experience in South Australia. I could give many specific cases where these weary ones have been dismissed for insubordination or loafing, and a Minister has sent them back again with instructions that they are to be put on.
– The honorable member makes a statement which he is absolutely unentitled to make. I have never made -such a request since I have been in office.
– I never said the Minister had, but he did a great deal worse when he gave that preference in Brisbane over our reputable law-abiding citizens. As I said, we cannot get specific cases here, and we cannot get information here. The honorable member for Hindmarsh knows that in the South Australian Parliament, where we were together for many years, business would be interrupted until information was forthcoming from the Minister of the day on any particular question.
– You can get information here.
– The honorable member can, but we cannot.
– I can get all I want.
– Let me give my honorable friend an illustration right on the spot. The honorable member for Illawarra, in his speech this morning, stated that he had requested the Minister of External Affairs to submit the proposals for the construction of the Commonwealth offices in London to this Parliament for consideration, and that the Minister positively and absolutely refused.
– This Parliament is becoming a cipher.
– This Parliament is being flouted, and the Ministry of the day are usurping its proper functions.
– I suppose the honorable member would be a competent judge to de cide which particular design ought to be accepted!
– I dare say I would know just as much about it as the P ostm aster- General .
– And I admit that I know nothing.
– There are a lot of people who know nothing nowadays, but who take an enormous amount of responsibility upon themselves, and the people suffer every time. I am not going to be drawn away from my point, because it is a point that the workers are thinking over. In South Australia, when the officer in charge dismisses some of these wasters, these loafers, on the spot for insubordination or loafing, it is not an uncommon thing for a responsible Minister to send them back with written instructions to be reinstated.
– That is not done by the present Government in that State.
– No.
– No one worth his salt would put a man on under those circum- stances.
– The honorable member knows that it has been done repeatedly, not only in South. Australia, but elsewhere.
– That must be your experience as a Minister.
– Only an ex-Minister would make such a statement.
– There is no getting on the track of them until you get behind the scenes and obtain access to the books. That is the position in South Australia to-day, and honorable members will find that the statements I am making will be verified right up to the hilt.
– I never got a loafer a job when he was put off.
– I know the honorable member never did, but he is an exception. He would be the first man in this House to condemn such a practice.
– The honorable member is a slanderer when he makes those statements.
– Then I repeat them, and challenge the Minister to disprove them. I have never spoken to a public servant of the Commonwealth on this question, but I challenge the Government, and it is about time they were challenged on this point, to have a Public Works Committee appointed in this House, such as some of the States have, so that we may from time to time obtain the evidence of the responsible public servants, and be able to arrive at the truth of the business.
Debate interrupted.
page 776
Motion (by Mr. Fisher), by leave, agreed to -
That His Excellency the Governor of Victoria (Sir John Fuller, K.C.M.G.), and the Right Honorable James Bryce, British Ambassador at Washington, be provided with seats upon the floor of the House.
page 776
Debate resumed.
– I am stating what I know to be absolute facts. If we have in our Public Service the most efficient officers by education, experience, and training, all their experience and efficiency go for nothing unless discipline is maintained in the Service. It is impossible to maintain discipline if officers are allowed to be humiliated by men who have been corrected for insubordination or for evading their duties. The illustration I have submitted shows a difference of about 62 per cent, in favour of the system of public contracts as against day labour. I hope the Minister of Home Affairs will take this matter into serious consideration. Under existing conditions, it is the only protection that this House has against inefficiency. If inefficient supervision of public expenditure and efficient work mean a difference of 62 per cent., the taxpayers suffer by having to make up the deficiency.
– How can the Minister take the matter into consideration? How can he get the handcuffs off?
– There is no possibility of reform in this direction until a Ministry come into power who will restore responsible constitutional government, and then this House will no longer have its functions usurped by honorable members on the other side, who are responsible to the Caucus, and not to this Parliament and the people outside. I wish to deal with a phase of the question of industrial unrest that has not, so far, been touched upon. It is illustrated by the reference I have made to day labour against contract work. Honorable members on the other side want to make out that strikes have not been more frequent since they came into power than previously. That statement is altogether beside the mark, and if there is one thing that the people of Australia are sick of, it is strikes, as many honorable members opposite, particularly those who represent producing constituencies, know to their sorrow. In Adelaide, very soon after the Liberal Government came into power last February, many of the Labour members turned round and vigorously denounced strikes and strikers. They said, “ These men are killing the Labour party. They go for another shilling a day, and when they get it they come again, without rhyme or reason, for another shilling. That kind of thing cannot last.” As one Labour Minister in New South Wales said, “ If the unions are everlastingly kicking, at the people, the people will kick back at the unions.” There is no legitimate reason for all this industrial unrest to-day. During the last three or four years, wages have been increased again and again, and properly so, too. During these seasons of plenty, the workers of the country have been participating in that plenty, and properly so. In the last few years, the Parliaments of Australia, and, indeed, of other parts of the world, have devoted more time and energy to the consideration of industrial questions, and to provision for bettering the conditions of the workers, than to any other subject that I could mention. The Christian conscience of Australia, and, indeed, in most parts of the world, to-day is on the side of the worker every time. While so much has been done to better his condition, has he on his part been giving a fair deal in return?
– Yes.
– Has he? Honorable members on the other side are always talking about the increased cost of living, and blame everybody but themselves for it. Honorable members on the . other side, and those whom they represent outside, are as much to blame as, if not more than, all the other contributing forces put together.
– They dare not discourage them.
– They do not. There is another cry about excessive rents. They are excessive, and no one regrets more than I do the excessive rents obtaining, particularly in the cities of Australia.
– The landlord has raised my rent from to-day.
– Let us see what is . chiefly responsible for the increased rents now being charged. I do not know so well the conditions obtaining in Melbourne; but five years ago, in Adelaide, a decent cottage of four rooms for a workman, with a verandah at the back and the front, could be built for £270, whereas to-day £500 is wanted for building the same sort of cottage. I want to get at the particular point again, and to emphasize it, and it is that, while wages have gone up, and while conditions have improved all round, the worker in his turn is not giving as much for the higher wages of to-day as he gave for the lower wages of four or five years ago.
– This is insulting him.
– I intend to give an illustration which every trade unionist on the other side must admit to be absolutely correct. Take bricklayers. A few years ago, when a bricklayer’s wage was 9s. a day he used to lay about 800 bricks, but to-day, when his wages run from 13s. to 15s., or 16s., he lays about 400 bricks.
– He lays 1,000.
– I have not time to pursue the matter. Honorable members on the other side know the position distinctly, and the trade unions of Australia do not disapprove of it.
Mr.riley. - Did the honorable member ever employ a bricklayer ? Did he ever lay a brick?
Mr.RICHARD FOSTER.- Many a time. Let us get back to the building of a cottage which to-day costs’£500, and which a few years ago cost £270. Where does the difference in cost come in ? Honorable members on the other side are everlastingly talking about the middleman, and saying that it is he who runs away with the profits. The value of the timber, on which there is not a considerable amount of labour bestowed for that four-roomed cottage, has not increased by more than, at the very outside, £30. But the cost of building that cottage has nearly doubled. My honorable friends can work out the problem for themselves. The point is that Socialism is aiming at equality, and so are honorable members on the other side. They are aiming at an impossible thing. No such thing as equality is possible unless they destroy liberty. If you have equality, there^is no liberty, and if you have liberty there can be no equality. The Socialistic Labour principle of to-day is to pull every one down to the level of the average man, and then honorable members call themselves Democrats. True Democracy means calling every man up to the height of his capacity for service. I wish to refer to one other phase of this question, and that is the effect of this kind of business upon the industries of Australia. I tell honorable members opposite that nothing has done more to paralyze Australian industries than has this very spirit of which I complain, this demand for equality; nothing has done more to cripple our industries than have this principle, the strikes, and the unrest which obtains everywhere. Honorable members on the other side are not only notsatisfied with the immensely improved conditions of the worker to-day, but they justify and sympathize with the demand for snorter hours, and for five days’ work a week. With all these’ crippling influences operating to the destruc- . tion of the fibre and the character of the community, they wonder that industries are languishing, and that other countries which seek to increase, rather than to curtail, production, send their wares in here in increasing volume week by week and month by month. I do not intend to further delay honorable members. There are some of these points which want driving home again and again, as I intend to do whenever opportunity offers. I am quite satisfied, in spite of the frown of the PostmasterGeneral, that I can maintain my position in every respect; but, on the other hand, I am not satisfied that we are likely to get any alteration, so long as our honorable friends remain on the Treasury bench ; and, in the interests of good government, Australian industries, and Australian progress, the sooner they are consigned to- political oblivion the better if will be for the country.
.- As I have booked a passage for Tasmania, I only intend to speak for about a quarter of an hour. I would not like to cross the strait without having offered a few words on this important occasion. We must recognise that the indictment which has been brought against the Government has been ably defended by Ministers. Regarding the Brisbane strike, I may tell honorable members that it practically occupied the whole attention of the public in Tasmania at the State elections in April last - the Brisbane strike, the Right Hon. Andrew Fisher’s motor car, his travelling allowance of two guineas a day, and the most damnable lies which could be circulated- ‘
-Order! The honorable member should not use language of that kind.
– Well, , sir, the most terrible lies that could be circulated by, I am sorry to say, ex-members of this House, and an ex-Minister of the Crown. In the face of it all, the general election in Tasmania was practically decided on a Federal issue, and the Brisbane strike, together with certain statements which were published two days previously in theHobart Mercury and the Launceston Examiner. Both these newspapers are thegrandchildren of the Argus of Melbourne:’ Here are a few of the statements which appeared -
Who encourage, strikes, although sworn to administer the law against strikes?
Answer : The Labour Government of the Right Honorable Andrew Fisher.
Who has attempted to place on the Federal Statute-book the embargo against steamers carrying passengers or freights the round trip, Sydney via Hobart to Melbourne?
Answer : The Fisher Labour Government in the arrested navigation law, which aims to prevent the P. and O. passenger boats calling at Hobart for our fruit.
Who has borrowed money for public works, war vessels, and other purposes after having declared against all borrowing?
Answer : The Fisher Labour Government.
Who is attempting to absorb your Savings Bank deposits so as to obviate the necessity for borrowing ?
Answer : The Fisher Government.
Who has adopted as a first plank the dethronement of monarchy?
Answer : The Socialist allies of the- Labour party.
Who has adopted as a second plank the repudiation of the national debt?
Answer : The same party.
Who has declared that” all children shall be children of the State?
Answer : The same party.
Savings Bank depositors, watch well your deposits, safeguard them by pledging your members against such a nefarious repudiation.
Mothers of families, before you record your votes for a candidate, ask the meaning of a certain ‘Huonville speech by a Labour candidate, which goes dangerously near to advocacy of children as children of the State.
Who advocates free love and the unhallowing of the marriage state?
Answer : The Socialists.
Who would nationalize lands, ousting all small freeholders?
Answer : The Labour Government.
– What newspaper is the honorable member quoting from?
– This appeared in the Hobart Mercury two days prior to the general election in Tasmania, and wassigned by Sir Philip Fysh -
Neither any individual nor any party in theState Parliament can interfere wilh the paymentof pensions to old. people.
The only risk of such a loss is in the continued extravagance of the Federal Labour Ministry, which is using up the money wanted for this purpose in picnics, tripsto England, special grants to Ministers, and the making of billets for pledged Labour supporters.
Old-age pensioners are safe Only so long as the Liberal party is in power.
Then we had, in Tasmania, an ex-member of the Senate run in the interests of theFusion party. What hail he to say itv Hobart two days prior to the election? Commenting on his speech in the To wn Hall of Hobart, a writer in the Mercury says -
And how he scourged Mr. Andrew Fisher r Mr. Andrew Fisher, a Ring’s Minister, to refuse the military assistanceto Queensland, which the Constitution he had swornto serve provided for?
The writer continues -
Then, how he lashed the Federal extravagance. The Labour Governmenthas borrowed , £10,000,000 in two years. And the Caucus, lt did one good to hearhim. We had. 1 man talking.
A man who would’ goto Hobart and specifically and maliciously hold up to ridicule this Labour Government as having borrowed! £10,000,000 and spent it lavishly would: do almost anything.
– If you give I O U’s? you borrow money.
– Again, I understand5 that the. Liberal party take the credit for passing the Old-age Pensions Act. I haveheard the statement made across thechamber that they brought in the measure,, and want, all the kudos, for its enactment.. Some of them say that it is a splendid Act,, and so it is ; but let me remind honorable members’ that on the first day this Parliament assembled the honorable member forDarwin was the first member of the House lo get up and give notice of his intention to move, on the 21st May, 1901, that oldage pensions be provided for the deserving; poor of the Commonwealth of Australia. His motion reads as follows -
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the deserving aged, poor, that the Government should, without unnecessary delay, formulate a national schemefor the payment of old-age pensions, and thatthis motion, when carried, be an instruction to. the Attorney-General to draft the necessary measure.
– It was provided for in the Constitution.
– Undoubtedly the power to legislate on old-age pensions was provided for in the Constitution; but a measure authorizing the payment of them had to be passed in this Parliament. The honorable member for Darwin, together with his colleagues in the Labour party, advocated this principle for years from the floor of this House. Then the honorable member for Eden-Monaro took up the matter, and at his instance there was appointed a Select Committee, which recommended that pensions should be granted to the deserving poor of Australia. After that recommendation was made to the House in 1908, the honorable member for Ballarat, at the point of the bayonet from the honorable member for Wide Bay, brought forward a motion in order to continue his existence as Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. He could not have retained the position unless he had taken that course at the command of the right honorable gentleman who is now Prime. Minister. That is the man whom the people of Australia have to thank for oldage pensions. So far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I doubt whether such pensions would have been law yet if it had not been for the Labour party.
– It took the brains of the Liberal party to crystallize the policy.
– Did it? Let us see what is said in a leading article on the subject by a Liberal organ.
– I think* we passed the measure in one night.
– That might be, because the Government would have gone out of office the following day if the Bill had not been passed.
– I was not in the Government.
– Then the party would have gone out of power. I wish to quote from an article published in the Launceston Examiner on 18th June last.
– The “point of the bayonet “ could have been used three years earlier - the same party was behind the same Government.
– The cry was that there was no money available ; and it was the brains of the present Prime Minister that devised the means of making provision for old-age pensions, namely, by setting aside a certain amount from the surplus revenue. That is how old-age pensions became law - by the brains of Labour members again. The Launceston Examiner, which is always supporting the Liberal party, and running down the Labour party, said a month ago, when dealing with old-age pensions -
There is to be an allowance for every baby, utterly irrespective of the circumstances of its parents. Yet, before an old-age pension can be obtained the applicant must expose and prove his poverty. If a man has a little something put by he must get rid of it before he can expect that much will be done for him. He must sue practically in forma pauperis. The system does not stop at meeting the wants of the “ deserving poor.” It actually favours the profligate and the waster.
That is what the Liberals’ own newspaper has to say about an Act of which the Liberals are so proud. The article goes on to say -
Thus, the old-age pension law encourages the ‘ wastrel. There is no real incentive to honesty and thrift. It prefers to help the man who has never done anything to help himself. The better a man’s record is, the’ worse is the treatment he is accorded when he enters into the autumn of his life.
These are nice words to be read by honorable gentlemen who claim the credit for instituting old-age pensions ! What has the Bulletin, of 30th May of this year, to say -
The extreme Tories, or, as they humorously term themselves, the Liberals of Australia, have adhered doggedly to one routine practice for as long as the memory of man reaches back. It has been their invariable custom, in regard to all progressive legislation, lo begin by damning the innovation, lock, stock and barrel ; to pass from furious assault to a sort of sulky acquiescence; and so, by gentle gradations, to a stage where they blandly claim the reform as their own. For example, Federal Old-age Pensions. When Austin Chapman, M.P., started to push this measure, about 10 years ago, he was politically anathema to Liberalism as represented by G. H. Reid, J. Cook, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Melbourne Argus-. This combination reprobated Chapman’s .proposal as unalloyed Socialism; which, of course, it was. Yet, last week, we had the bizarre spectacle of Kelly, M.P., announcing, at Goulburn (N.S.W.), that Liberalism was responsible for old-age pensions. Ten years ago there were not enough reproaches in all the lexicon of Liberalism to express the folly of Arbitration Courts. To-day, the credit for Arbitration and Conciliation legislation is widely claimed, both in the Commonwealth and in the States, by Liberalism. And now, seemingly, the essentially Labourite policy of Australian Defence is to be adopted. At a political meeting in Melbourne last week, a Mrs. Morton, in the course of an address in which she called upon her hearers to “ get up with her on to the mountain top, and take a broa’d outlook from a national stand, point,” said - “ The present Government, in regard to immigration and defence, stood utterly condemned. It was true it had done something for defence “ “ Mr. Robert BEST - In carrying out the policy of the previous Government. (Applause.)” “I do not know which I admire most about that, its innocence or audacity - (applause) - Senator Pearce’s innocence in supposing that the electors could so soon have forgotten, or his audacity in thinking it could remain uncontradicted for any time.”
Coming from a politician who, till a couple of months ago, held blatantly (1) that the only sound way to defend Australia was to strengthen Britain’s North Sea Fleet, and (2) that a local navy could never be an adequate substitute for a subsidized squadron of British ships, the above may be described as a fairly good sample of nerve, not to say hide. Liberalism’s position on the Defence question is painfully clear. Two years ago the leader of the Federal Opposition or Liberal party, in the Australian Parliament, was Joseph Cook. Here is the party’s policy, as stated by Cook in Sydney Town Hall (26/3/’10)-
That was one month prior to the last Federal election; and what did the honorable member for Parramatta then say, although I understand that he was at that time Minister of Defence. He said - “ Their duty was to offer a Dreadnought - (cheers) - and to give a greater naval subsidy to the old country year by year. They were hearing much about ‘ nailing their colours to the mast ‘ ; well, he nailed his flag there and now, to an increased subsidy. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)”
That is the defence scheme of the honorable member for Parramatta, when, as Minister of Defence, he was fighting the Labour party. He proclaimed for an Imperial subsidized Navy for Australia.
– The defence scheme was settled twelve months before then.
– Then what sort of Minister of Defence was the honorable member for Parramatta to damn, or throw cold water on, his own scheme?
– Where was this taid ?
– In the Sydney Town Hall.
– The honorable member has not copied the extract properly.
– The honorable member for Parkes may have a look at the extract if he chooses -
The citizen who scouted this view, the year before last, was regarded by Liberalism either as a traitor or a fool. Thus Sydney Telegraph remarked (29/3/’10) - “ Apparently there are still some people in this country who have failed to grasp the real issue involved in the present conflict of opinion with regard to the naval situation in this country. That issue is, briefly, whether the Commonwealth shall render substantial assistance to the cause of British sea supremacy, or whether it
As a matter of fact, papers like the Telegraph, and most Liberals, still proudly stand, as regards naval defence, where they did two years ago. They aren’t due to take a favorable view of compulsory military training or of the local navy idea for half a dozen years at least; and they will probably be surprised and extremely exasperated to hear from Best, Kelly, and the rest of their untimely conversion.
John Bede Dalley, Bulletin Office, 214 George-street, Sydney.
I took part in the elections throughout Tasmania, and I found that the real issue before the people was not concerned with State politics, but with the extravagance of the Federal Government.
– Does the honorable member not think that the interference of Federal members had a great deal to do with the raising of that issue?
– If there was any interference, it was brought about by the Fusion party.
– By both sides.
– I do not think that the interference of Federal members was altogether responsible for the raising of that issue. State Ministers, from Watt downwards, can never hold up . good actions of their own in their Parliaments ; all they can do is to condemn the Prime Minister for every movement he makes. It seems to me that State Ministers are concentrating their efforts in order to belittle the National Parliament.
– The honorable member is trying to injure the State Ministers all he can.
– The State Ministers do not stop at anything in what they have to say about this Labour Government. What did Mr. Denham, the Premier of Queensland, endeavour to do? Two days before the Tasmanian election, he published a manifesto in every paper of theisland giving an account of what had happened that day in Queensland in regard tohis election, and asserting that there had” been a glorious victory. My own opinion is that, under the circumstances, it was a noble election for the Labour party, in viewof the fact that they had been so wrongfully accused and maligned. The Brisbane strike, together with all the sins, or- so-called sins of the Labour party, .was before the State ; but what happened ? Prior to the election, there were eleven Labour members in a House of thirty, and, when the election was over, in spite of all the damning statements that could be made, the Labour members increased to fourteen. I contend that in my State the Federal Government has been tried, and proved to be of service to Australia. The charges made by the Opposition against the Government and the Labour party have not been substantiated, and, in view of the able defence raised by honorable members on this side, there is, in my opinion, no case to go to the jury.
– This debate shows as clearly as any within my political recollection the absurdity of a motion like this without a time limit to speeches. 1 hope, therefore, that this House, in its wisdom, will insist on haltanhour being sufficient for any speaker. Personally, I might occupy five hours today, just in order to show the absurdity of the present system, but in kindness to honorable members, I shall spare them that infliction. For the first time in my life, I was tempted to cheer when the GovernorGeneral’s Speech was read in another place. As a matter of fact, I did cheer when the maternity grant was mentioned. As the honorable member for Ballarat will know, I, in this very building, twenty years ago, advocated three reforms^ - women’s suffrage, old-age pensions, and child pensions ; and .1 regard the maternity grant as a step towards the latter. Yet we are told by human beings who call themselves Christians, that this is a bribe. The honorable member for Flinders spoke of the proposal in the harshest terms. Let me tell him that during my hospital experience in London, I have known women come to beg for a paltry bag of linen that, if new, could be bought for 5s., and, if sold at auction, would not fetch a shilling. These poor women were glad and eager to get even so much relief. Yet we are told that £5 would not be of much use to them. Should we not all be glad to do our utmost to help a woman in her hour of danger, when she is proving the immortality of life in perpetuating our race by giving life to a child ? Do honorable members opposite know what the record of the honorable member for Flinders is? When, in the State Parliament of Victoria, he had a majority of thirty-five in a House of ninety-five, what did he do ? Two actions of his stand out - the measure he introduced and passed providing for the separate representation of the public servants, and the measure for the suppression of the railway strike. I venture to say that no Coercion Act passed by the Gladstone Government in England was worse in its terms than the Coercion Bill brought in to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria by the honorable member. Some honorable members may know that on the very day when Cavendish and Burke, who had been murdered in Phoenix Park, were put under the ground, a severe Coercion Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. Yet even that measure was mild in comparison with that which the honorable member for Flinders wanted to place upon the statutebook of this State. Under the Irish Coercion Act provision was made for imprisonment for not more than six months. Under the Bill introduced by the honorable member for Flinders the term of imprisonment might be twelve months. Under the Irish Act bail was allowed. No bail was permitted under the honorable member’s Bill. If, under the Irish Act a fine was imposed by a Judge, it was limited to £50. Under the honorable member’s Bill a fine of £100 might be inflicted. When he introduced this measure, making it a criminal offence for any one to assist the strikers, I said, “ Law or no law, I will break every law forbidding me to help women and children.” I am sorry the honorable member for Ballarat is not present, because, although I do not agree with him in many things, I remember some that do him honour. I remember an occasion when he opened a bazaar to raise funds for those who were suffering in consequence of the great maritime strike. All honour and credit to him that he did so. The opportunity of performing the ceremony was in the first instance offered to me, but I said, “ Oh no, you have me heart and soul with you in any case. Ask somebody else.” The honorable member was asked and consented. It has been alleged against him that he was willing to call out the military in Melbourne during the maritime strike ; but in that case they were to be kept within enclosures, and not turned loose upon the people. I speak as one who is familiar with the circumstances of that case, having addressed perhaps the mightiest meeting ever held in Victoria in connexion with it, when 30,000 men turned out to support the strikers. It has been stated by the late Mr. John Hancock and Mr. W. E. Murphy, and
I believe it is true, that’ when at the Cabinet meeting it was decided to hold the military in readiness, the honorable member for Ballarat went to the door, and with his arms extended across it, said: “For God’s sake do not call out the troops to shoot down your brothers.” It was because we knew that that we asked him to open this bazaar.
– Since then he has been spoilt by the Fusion.
– I wish the honorable member had more determination. On one occasion, after a great meeting which had been held for the purpose of assisting a movement to put down sweating, I said to him, “ Well, Mr. Deakin, when are you going to stop this horrible sweating.” Looking at me from his greater height, he said, “How can we do it?” I said: “ By bringing in a Bill.” He said : “ I do not think we could do it in that way.” I said : “ If you only worked half as well as you talk you could move the world.” Honorable members can understand that 1 feel delighted when one of my ideals is about to be realized. The honorable member for Flinders said in ridicule of this proposal that “ We shall next have children’s pensions proposed.” Fancy this equity lawyer, who does not even represent a majority in his own constituency, ridiculing a proposal of this kind. Because, Mr. Speaker, he is one of those members of this House who represent a minority ; and they are all on the Opposition side. Every member on the Ministerial side, I am glad to say, represents a majority of his constituents, but there are six in the Opposition who do not, and this equity barrister is one of them. I remember that when first a Bill was brought in to expunge the Separate Representation Act from the Statutes. I said to the late Sir Thomas Bent, “ I am afraid you are giving Mr. Irvine some rather rough times.” He said: “Not half as rough as those he is going to have.” His measure affecting the votes of the public servants attached to a body of decent men as vile a stigma as was ever embodied in the. statute-book. I can prove also that no more severe Coercion Act was ever passed by the British Parliament than that which the honorable member wanted the Parliament of this State to adopt. Under his Public Service Franchise Bill, the policeman who arrested a criminal had not the same voting rights as the crimi nal himself when he had served his sentence j whilst the highest public servants had no right to vote except for the purpose of separate representation. I am satisfied that if the honorable member had the power today he would deprive the public servants of the Commonwealth of the right to vote, but he will never have that chance. I doubt very much whether, if a good Liberal had fought him alone in Flinders at the last election, he would have been returned. In that event, a mere minority of the constituency would not have been represented in this House. I do not wish to occupy time by making a number of quotations, but I have before me volume 113 of the Victorian Hansard, from which it will be seen that his Separate Representation Act was removed by both Houses by unanimous votes, and I recommend honorable members to look up in this book the political history of the honorable member for Flinders. They will see that his fellowmembers had nothing but contempt for him. Why? Because they knew him. Formerly, I was a loyal soldier of his, but I found him out. I would have followed him anywhere at one time. I remember an occasion when I came into the Legislative Assembly after a certain vote had been given in the Legislative Council. At that time he was supported by the mightiest political power in the State of Victoria, namely, the Age newspaper. After the vote in the Council I came in and told him what had happened. He said: “Is it really so? Surely not.” I said: “Yes it is.”’ He then .said in those tones with which we are all so familiar, “ Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” But he never meant it. He never tried to deal with the Legislative Council. There are only two things to which he can point as having been achieved by him during the time when he was Premier of Victoria, and I have already mentioned what Chey are. The Leader of the Opposition at that time expressed himself concerning the honorable member in scathing terms. I should like to read a portion of the speech now, but as a woman’s name is mentioned in it, I will not do so. With that I leave the honorable member ; but I warn the Opposition that they will have to beware of him. If ever they put him in the position of leader they will regret it. As one who glories in the ideals of Labour, I should welcome such an event. There could be no better cry for us throughout Australia, than that the honorable member, who formerly distinguished himself as the author of the two measures I have spoken of, had been appointed leader of the party opposite: I regret that this Government could not see its way clear to bring in an amending Tariff Bill. 1 am as ardent a believer in the value of Protection, to-day as 1 was when I spoke in favour of Protection from the benches now occupied by the Opposition many years ago. In my travels through the world I have seen a great deal of the life of the poor, and I can assure honorable members that there is more poverty and wretchedness in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales than I could ever see in any Continental country. Tit Germany they are building up their manhood and womanhood. There, women are- not allowed to do the work that they are permitted’ to do in England. Our Pi’ctory Acts are good as far as they go, but we want to make them- better. Even in the last days of the session I hope that the Government will see fit to bring in a Bill to amend the Tariff, especially in regard to those industries where employers and employes agree that the conditions could be improved by Tariff amendment. Where employers are shown to be fair and just to their employes, I think this Government ought to say, “ We will introduce an amending. Bill affecting certain items, and no more,” so as to cover such cases. I am afraid that the present Tariff falls far short of what is wanted. Indeed, it is not Protective. In effect it is purely a revenue Tariff. I say that as a Protectionist. I wish it to be clearly understood, however, that if I were asked, “ Shall there be old-age pensions; shall there be invalid pensions” - the credit of which is due entirely to the present Government - “ shall there be a maternity allowance and later on, child pensions, with a revenue Tariff?” I would say, if they could be secured only by means of a revenue Tariff, “ Yes, a hundred times so,” because no fair argument can be levelled at any one of those schemes. Is it not well to know that men and women, when their hair has been whitened by the hand of time, are able to secure a pension of 1 os. per week? When the honorable member for Flinders was in the State Parliament, however, he helped to reduce the Victorian old-age pension from 8s. to 7s. per week. Fancy a human being, fashioned in God’s likeness, having to live on 7s. per week. What would the honor able member have said if his mother had been an- inmate of one of our homes for aged women? Yet these poor old women who: received that pension were made by God just as his own mother was. When an honorable member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria was foolish enough to be induced by the Government of the day to vote- for the- reduction of the State pension, I wired to the miners of Leongatlia that if they believed1 that a human being could live better on 7 s. a week than 8s. a week, they ought to vote for- the man who supported that reduction. They did not vote for him, and he has not since been in. political’ life. In 1 89 1 I advocated the principle of the referendum, and I wish the part)’ had adopted it then as a plank of its platform. . This is the only. Parliament that dominates a- Commonwealth - the only Parliament that dominates a continent whose wide expanse is limited only by the boundless sea; and surely we should all be prepared to do our. best to advance the country in which we live. I am sure that honorable members, no matter where, owing to the whimsicalities of party, they may sit, are all anxious to promote the welfare of Australia; and how could its welfare be better advanced than by means of the referendum? We may do wrong in the House, but the people outside are not so likely to err unless the- sentiment inscribed on the floor of the entrance-hall to this building, “ In the multitude of counsellors there is safety “ is wrong. By means of the referenda and kiitiative, the people outside could control this Parliament. Taking the idea from the late David Syme’s. book on Representative Government in England, in which he declared that the electors should have the same power to dismiss their representatives that the King has to dismiss his Ministers, I did what I believe no other member of Parliament in Australia had done. . For many years I sat as a member of the State Pailiament under conditions which made it possible for me to be called upon to resign in twenty-four hours. Whether I had acted rightly or wrongly, if only one elector in excess of half the number who had voted for me demanded my resignation, I undertook to resign ; and had such a demand been made I should have resigned at once. I fear, however, that it is not the intention of our party to put the principle of the. referenda and initiative in the forefront of our programme. Before I leave the question of the Tariff, I should like to refer to a statement published in a book written by me in regard to matches made in Japan. Most boxes of safety matches hold only fifty-five or sixtyfive matches; but I have here a box of safety matches made in Japan which holds roo. I secured a translation of a Government document relating to these manufactures which is published in both Japanese and French. I translated the French myself, and I found that, whereas in England a woman who makes a gross of these boxes and supplies the paste for 2½d. is cruelly sweated, Japan can make these boxes, fill them with matches and export them for id. per gross. What is the use of talking of duties of hundreds per cent, in respect of such imports? Nothing short of an absolute prohibition would meet the case. These matches were introduced into New South Wales under the name of “Trade Union matches” until I drew the attention of the Department to the fact, with the result that the label was removed. Leaving the question of Protection, I desire to say that our party, so far as I can read its ideals and hopes, is most anxious to prevent strikes. I hate war as I hate hell, and my hatred of strikes is second only to my dislike of war, because behind the striker as behind the soldier, I see always the woman and the child, who invariably suffer the most. Let us take a lesson from Germany, which is building up a stronger and, perhaps, more vigorous race than the British. She is certainly rearing a more educated race; and as one who has been in both countries, I can only say that I wish that London were under a form of government similar to that of Berlin. In the late eighties or early nineties there was an’ industrial trouble amongst the coalminers of Silesia and Westphalia. The men desired that their hours of labour should be reduced to ten per day, and also that they should be granted a slight increase of pay. The employers, however, refused to meet their representatives in conference. William of Germany then took *a hand. He declared in no uncertain tone, “ If you men only keep quiet, I will see justice done to you; but if you create a riot, I shall cause you to be shot down like dogs.” He did not stop there, but turning to the masters he said - “ If you do not within twenty-four hours appoint men to represent you at a conference of the miners’ delegates I shall do so, and you will have to abide by the result.” Within three days, as the outcome of his intervention, the matter was settled - a lock-out was avoided and the men got their rates of pay increased and their hours of employment reduced. William of Germany did not stop there. Those mines are now nationalized, and the masters of old have no longer any power to lock-out the men. I have alluded to the Opposition as consisting of men whom the Leader of the Opposition himself has described as “a wreckage of parties.” The Free Traders of the House will be found among the Opposition, but Free Trade in the sense of absolute freedom of trade, which of all the countries I have visited I have found only in Hong Kong, is dead and gone. On this side of the House every honorable member is pledged to the new Protection. In my opinion, however, the Free Traders have run rings round the rest of the Opposition. The Opposition, which is supposed to have Protectionists amongst its members, has never yet been able to bring against this Government the charge that they are not prepared to grant a proper measure of Protection. The “Dreadnoughters,” too, are on the other side, and so are the men who are opposed to women’s suffrage.
– As a member of the State Parliament, I introduced the Bill providing for adult suffrage.
– I am glad to see the honorable member here instead of in the Senate. I would remind him that he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria when I introduced the first Bill to extend the franchise to women, and that he did not offer me any assistance. I could not even get a seconder until the late Lieut.Colonel Smith came to my aid. The Leader of the Opposition was also a member of the State Parliament at the time ; but the honorable member for Bendigo - another member of the Opposition - was not, so that I cannot attach any blame to him in this regard.
– I was president of the Women’s League in Bendigo.
– I dare say that even the strongest opponents of woman’s suffrage are prepared to take advantage of it now that it has become law. I believe, however, that the honorable member for Bendigo was always in favour of the extension of the franchise to women. Coming again to the composition of the Opposition, I may say that it comprises all the lawyers of the House. I do not call the members of the legal profession. on this side of the House either lawyers or barristers. I would describe them by a higher name; they are jurists in the sense that they desire to carry out the great ideals of the Labour party. If I were to throw an apple across the chamber, I should hit at least one of the ten lawyers on the Opposition benches ; and if I aimed it at the front Opposition bench I should hit two out of the three now sitting there. The six honorable members of this House who represent minorities are all on the Opposition side. Not one member of our party represents a minority. That fact clearly shows what opinion the people entertained of the Fusion party at the last general election; and if the newspapers are conducted on the same lines as they were on that occasion, I am confident that we shall have in the next Parliament a replica of the present one. Then, again, as Hansard will show, the only man in this House who believes in black labour is to be found among the Opposition. I allude to the honorable member for Oxley. The only man in this House who ever voted for the application of the lash to the aborigines of Australia - and such a proposal was made by a Government of Western Australia - sits on the Opposition side; and the only man in this House who voted for a worse and viler Act than, that also sits in Opposition, and, possibly, one day may be leader of that party. In conclusion, I wish to make a brief reference to the selection of candidates to run for the Senate in the interests of the Liberal party. Mr. Mauger worked with me on the inquiry that brought forth our factory legislation in this State. I found him a true and loyal worker; and while I do not say that he is a better man than the honorable member for Laanecoorie, I think he is a much better Protectionist than either of the two selected candidates. He has been treated rather badly by his party. I regret that he did not remain with us. He was a member of our party, and knowing him as I do, I am sorry that he severed his connexion with it. I am sure that he. regrets some of his votes just as much as some of his best friends do. Senator McColl, one of the candidates already selected to seek election to the Senate in the Liberal interest, forgot himself when he spoke as he did recently regarding the proposed maternity allowance. Despite our friendship, extending over years, I shall say that, having regard to his references to the maternity allowance, he is only worthy of the name that a onetime Attorney-General of the Commonwealth who is now . a member of the High Court Bench - I refer to Mr. Justice Isaacs - called him.
– I cannot, in the time at my disposal, do justice either to my constituents or myself, and it is almost pathetic that one should have so many pearls of great price to place before honorable members and should have to put them away for some other, and, perhaps, less auspicious, occasion. I shall have to confine my remarks to the Tariff question, and to honorable members who have formed themselves into an organization called the Fusion. With regard to the Tariff, I think the Government ought to introduce an amendment of the Customs Act. Our imports have grown enormously during the last ten years, the increase amounting to no less than ,£24,533,477. The principal increases are included under the headings of textiles, felts and furs, and manufactures thereof, and attire, metals and machinery, oils, paints, varnish, earthenware, cement, china, glass, stone, wood, wicker, cane, leather and rubber, paper, and stationery. Our principal importations are from the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Japan, and the United States of America. Our total imports in 191 1 were valued at no less than £66,000,000. Nearly the whole of these commodities can be made by Australian operatives in the Commonwealth. Although, as we grow in prosperity, and have our proportion of millionaires and very rich people who will demand the very best that can be got, we shall, no doubt, have millions of pounds’ worth of expensive goods such as are made in France imported into the Commonwealth, there are fifty millions of pounds’ worth of goods at present imported that might be made bv our own operatives; and I think my friends in the Cabinet will make a mistake if they do not introduce a Bill to amend the Customs Tariff Act this session. I understand their position. I understand the position of the Minister of Trade and Customs, as outlined by himself, though not so directly, perhaps, as by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, who says that he will not give any more Protection until the Commonwealth has the power to protect the worker and consumer, as well as the em’ployer.
But I take the ground that our Tariff wall is our first line of defence, and that, having erected our Tariff wall, we should, either in the Commonwealth Parliament or in the Parliaments of the States, do what is necessary to protect the worker. If it be found that State legislation devised to that end will not be allowed to pass the State Legislative Councils, 1 believe that the people of this country will, by consenting to an amendment of the Constitution, give this Parliament the power to see that the workers shall get a full rate of wages. There is a danger, if the Government do not amend the Tariff, that they will induce the whole Free Trade vote to range itself under the banner of those who will refuse an amendment of our powers under the Constitution. If we do give Protection, all those Free Traders will, I believe, follow the example of Sir George Reid and other Free Traders and say, “ If you are going to give the manufacturers Protection, we shall demand that the workers shall get some of it.” But while the Protectionists in Australia may find fault with the Minister of Trade and Customs and those members of the Cabinet who do not believe in amending the Customs Tariff Act this session,, there is positively no hope whatever from our honorable friends on the Opposition side who call themselves the Fusion.
– Let the honorable member give us a chance.
– Why should honorable members opposite be given a chance? Have they said anything publicly that entitles them to be placed on the Treasury bench, in order that they may re-open the Tariff? On the contrary, including the honorable member for Ballarat, who, as Prime Minister, at one time had, as the principal plank in his platform, “ adequate protective duties,” not a single one on the other side has said anything to give the Protectionists of Australia any hope that the Customs Tariff Act will be reviewed during this or any Parliament. They propose, instead of that method of procedure, the establishment of an Inter-State Commission, the members of which would have to go into all kinds of questions concerning wages, hours,, inventions, and. if the terms of the Inter-State Commission, as defined in a Bill which made its appearance in the Senate, were complied with, would have to- travel to other lands for information. . As the honorable member for Melbourne Ports said here the other night, if such a Commission got to work, it might be nineteen years before it finished its labours. The terms on which the fusion of honorable members opposite was arranged precludes them from dealing with the Tariff. How is it possible for them to deal with it in the face of this interpreta tion by Sir George Reid of the terms of the Fusion? -
If a new Government seeks to reopen the Tariff it cannot be for the mere purpose of running duties up. It can only be done to rectify anomalies. Every Free Trader in the Fusion is left at liberty to fight for his own convictions if any proposal is made which, in. his opinion, raises the old fight between Freetrade and Protection. This is a great comedown for those who talked of admitting us into the ranks of the Liberal party only on the basis of a surrender of our principles. To prevent future danger, the moment the united’ party met I made our position perfectly clear.
The honorable member for Parramatta., the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on- arriving in Sydney at the time of the consummation of the Fusion, made -a statement to the same effect. I have not time to read it here; but if honorable members ‘wilt consult the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 31st May, 1909, they will see the statement made by the honorable gentleman.
– That referred only to the last Parliament.
– No, the Fusion still* exists. Honorable members will find » similar statement reported in the Daily Telegraph, of 8th June, 1909. Time will1 not permit me to deal with this importantquestion at proper length. I should like, as a kind of peroration, to read the following little prose poem about the Fusion creed : -
THE FUSION CREED.
To be said or sung during all By-elections, General Elections, on Feast Days, and at Fusion Caucus Meetings.
Whosoever will be saved, before all’ things it isnecessary that he hold the Fusion Faith.
Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undenied, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Fusion faith is this : That we get into office forthwith, henceforth, or hereafter.
Not confounding the Party, but dividing the substance.
For there is one leader of the Free-traders, another of the Protectionists, and yet another of the Forrest “push.”
But the leadership of the one, the other, and yet another is all one, the glory equal’, the majesty co-existent.
Such is the Deakin, such is the Cook, and such is John Forrest,
The Deakin undecided, the Cook undecided, the John Forrest undecided,
The Deakin incomprehensible, the Cook incomprehensible, and the John Forrest incomprehensible,
The Deakin eternal, the Cook eternal, the John Forrest eternal,
And yet there are not three Fusions, but one Fusion .
So we are forbidden by the Fusion Creed to say that there are three Fusions or three Parties.
The leader is not, the followers are not, and the policy is not.
The policy is of the leader alone, not made, nor created, but proceeding.
So there is one leader, not three leaders; one Fusion, not three Fusions; one policy, but not three policies.
And in the Fusion none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another,
But the whole three leaders are co-eternal and co-equal.
So that in all things as aforesaid, Deakin is Cook, and Cook is Deakin, and Deakin and Cook are John Forrest.
He therefore that will be politically saved must thus think of the Fusion.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting harmony in the Fusion that we also believe in Bruce Smith, for he is beauteous and sublime ;
Perfect mind, perfect body, and of aesthetic inclinations,
Equal to Deakin as touching his leadership, equal to Cook as regards Free-trade, yet superior to both in his decision of character,
Who suffered for the salvation of the Fusion, descended into the hell of newspaper criticism, yet rose again from the political dead, and still flourisheth in the land.
So likewise we must believe in W. H. Irvine, another God-like man, though recalcitrant.
He it was who described our Creed as “ Gelatine.”
Yet, having made his peace in secret caucus assembled, remains still a member of the party.
Glory be to Deakin, Glory be to Cook, and Glory be to John Forrest,
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, Confusion without End.
Amen.
– I understand that honorable members desire to come to a vote, and I shall not delay them by a long speech. As one who has sat this debate out from first to last, and who sat up all last night for the purpose of watching and listening to honorable members during the whole course of the debate, I may be allowed to say that I hope the time will come when members will have more decency than’ they now display, and will discontinue the making of long speeches.
– Order !
– Some members apparently made very long speeches in order to prevent other honorable members from speaking
– Order ! The honorable member is now imputing improper motives, and he must not do so.
– I do not desire to impute wrong motives to honorable members, but I do think that some might display a little more generosity to their fellow members, and so give an opportunity to every honorable member to address the House and place his views before the people. Under existing conditions some honorable members are given no such opportunity. We cannot interfere with free speech, and I should be one of the first to jealously guard that liberty. I have no desire, sir, that you should be charged with greater powers than you have at the present time in this direction, but I may be allowed to say that 1 think the remedy lies in the hands of honorable members themselves. If some will display a little more manliness, there is no reason- why all should not be given a fair opportunity to deal with the business before the Chamber. I hope that these few remarks will have some effect upon honorable members who, in my opinion, make unduly long speeches. Unfortunately, the debate on the AddressinReply goes nowhere, ends nowhere, and does no good. It is an absolute waste of time. Instead of attending here to conduct the business of the people, we are, by taking part in such a debate, delaying the progress of Parliament and preventing the good work that is waiting to be carried out by the Government being proceeded with.
Question - That the words proposed to be added to the Address be so added - put. The House divided.
AYES: 25
NOES: 35
Majority … … 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment ‘negatived
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 788
– His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address in the Library at 10.30 a.m. on Monday. I know that it will be inconvenient for many honorable members to at- tend at that hour, but I ask as many as can come to do so. I understand that the seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address has had to leave to fill an important engagement, and will not be present when the Address is presented.
page 788
.- The honorable member for Denison, speaking to the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply, complained of the language addressed by members of the Opposition to the supporters of the Ministry, and went on to say -
They have spoken of us as parasites, and of our organizers as thieves and so forth. What is an organizer? According to the honorable member for Wilmot, he is a man who will not work for his living.
Those statements are inaccurate. In the first place, I did not apply the word “ parasite “ to any of my honorable friends opposite. I did not say anything about organizers being thieves, and did not use the word “ organizer.” As I followed the honorable member’s speech very closely, I am satisfied that an error has occurred in
Hansard, and that the honorable member mentioned another constituency, and not Wilmot:
.- May I be permitted to say that I am of opinion that the report is correct. I am supported in that belief by the following remarks of the honorable member for Wilmot -
I have nothing to say against unionism in itself. The men are right in forming unions for their protection.
– The honorable member is a member of the Barristers’ Union.
– There is no such union. This is a critical period in our history. No one can look upon the industrial unrest which seethes around us without being impressed with the gravity of. the situation. I believe that every industry should pay the best wages that it can afford ; but the trouble is that, although high wages are exacted, there are persons “ living on the game,” if I may use a vulgarism, who incite the workers not to do a fair day’s work. … In many cases, the unions have got into the hands of persons who, having made for themselves easier billets than they had when working at their trades, sometimes even go so far as to declare a strike without allowing the members of the union, who will have to bear the” brunt of the strike, to express their opinions by ballot.
– The honorable member knows that it was another constituency he mentioned.
page 788
– I move -
That the House do now adjourn.
After formal business on Tuesday next, the first measure of importance will be the second reading of the Navigation Bill. Following it will come the consideration of the Designs Bill, the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill, and the Naval and Military Decorations Bill, which we desire to get out of the way. No doubt, honorable members will wish the adjournment of the debate on the Navigation Bill for a considerable time, but it must not be understood that the passing of the Bill is to be deferred, it being our intention that it shall become law this session. As to the proposal of the honorable member for Franklin for the amendment of the Standing Orders, I think that honorable members on all sides are agreed that better results will be obtained by such a limitation of speeches as would still afford all proper facilities for the expression of views concisely, instead of permitting full liberty to speak at any length. The matter is a serious one, and is receiving careful consideration. I hope that an early opportunity will offer for the drafting and proposing to the House of an amendment of the Standing Orders which will facilitate business, and will meet the wishes of the large majority of honorable members. Facilities will also be given for the discussion of the motion of the honorable member forIllawarra regarding the Northern Territory Ordinance. Ministers feel that, this being an important piece of legislation, honorable members should have an opportunity to express an opinion upon it, but, of course, the time given to the discussion must be limited.
– Will the regulation remain in abeyance meanwhile?
– The law provides that the regulation shall have force until it has been disagreed to ‘by the House.
– It ought to remain in abeyance until the motion has been disposed of.
– I think not. The law must be obeyed. I join with Mr. Speaker in hoping that as many members as can make it convenient will attend when he presents the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General on Monday, and that my colleagues will be able to co-operate.
.- Some days ago, the Prime Minister was questioned regarding a statement attributed to him in a Melbourne newspaper, and he replied that it was a wilful perversion of what he said. A little while ago, certain men who had the privilege of reporting the proceedings of this House overstepped the limits of decency in what they wrote concerning honorable members, and were removed from their positions. In the newspaper which now employs them - because they can be traced wherever they go by their contributions - they are continuing what I term their blackening of the reputa-. tion of honorable members. If the remark attributed to the Prime Minister were a perversion of what he said, a still harder term must be applied to what was published in the Sydney Sun a week ago to-morrow regarding another speech made in this House. It was the most cruel misrepresentation, and a most offensive reflection on an honorable member, the evident intention being to use the opportunities for publicity given by their calling to tear a man’s reputation to pieces. There is another matter of reform which will have to be tackled this session. Parliament must protect honorable members from attacks by so-called press men, who are prepared to degrade their profession for £5, to damn or praise. Men of that type should not be permitted to report the proceedings of this House. I hope that the session will not be allowed to close without this Parliament enacting a law making it imperative that _ all newspapers criticising the representatives of the people shall attach their names to the articles which they write, so that the public may have an opportunity of appraising the value of their criticism. I bring this matter forward for the purpose of enabling the gentleman who has again offended to at least consider his position. If he repeats his offence, I trust that his licence to report in this chamber will be withdrawn, and that we shall thus get rid of an element which has done much to degrade honorable members in days gone by.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
PAPERS.
MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -
Lighting of -the Coast Line of the Commonwealth - Report (June, 1912), on the Lighting of the Coast Line of the Commonwealth -
North-east Coast (Torres Strait to Cape Moreton) (in substitution ofpaper pre sented on 20th June last).
Public Service Act- Regulations Amended -
Statutory Rules 1912, No. 139.
House adjourned at. 4.17 p.m. (Friday).
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 July 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19120711_reps_4_64/>.