House of Representatives
29 August 1913

5^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- LIBERAL PROGRAMME
AMENDING REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- SECRECY OF LIBERAL CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN -REPLY
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)
ADJOURNMENT
- Secrecy of Liberal Conference - Press Reports : Visitors to Strangers’ Gallery - Trades Hall, Perth - Treasury Building : Conduct of Work

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 698

QUESTION

LIBERAL PROGRAMME

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I understand that the Prime Minister, speaking at a meeting of the Liberal party in the Independent Hall, said, yesterday, that the party’s motto is the Communistic motto “ Each for each and all for each.” I wish to know, therefore, whether the party proposes to adopt the Communistic programme as well as the motto of the Communists ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for Home Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honorable member, like myself, jokes “ wi’ deeficulty.”

page 698

-How does the motion of censure affect the printing of these regulations ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– We decline to answer any questions relating to matters of this kind until it has been disposed of.

page 698

QUESTION

SECRECY OF LIBERAL CONFERENCE

Mr HIGGS:

– As the charge has been made by at least two honorable members opposite that the meetings of the Labour party are held in secret, I ask the Prime Minister whether the meetings of the Conference of Liberal candidates now assembling at the Independent Hall are open to the press and to the public?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

-I know nothing about the Conference, beyond what took place when I was there yesterday, when a motion was carried to admit the press.

Mr Higgs:

– To all the proceedings of the Conference ? Surely not !

page 699

QUESTION

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

Debate resumed from 28th August, (vide page 696), on motion by Mr. Ahern) -

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to by this House : -

May it Please Your Excellency -

We, the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, beg to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament -

Upon which Mr. Fisher had moved -

That the following words be added to the proposed Address : -

But regret your advisers -

propose to destroy the beneficial character ofour social and industrial laws;
indicate no intention of taking such steps as will reduce the high cost of living ; and
fail to realize the urgent necessity of an immediate revision of the Tariff.

Mr ARTHUR:
Bendigo

.- It is with some diffidence, and a considerable sense of responsibility, that I make my first appearance in this High Court of Parliament. I hoped to have more time for the process of orientation, that I might accustom myself to the atmosphere of the House, physical, mental, and moral. In this debate, we have become used to hearing from new members a castigation of the methods of the old members and of the House itself. In that castigation I shall take no part. The tendency of the new broom to notify immediately its intention to sweep clean is due to the fact that these new members have not become sufficiently accustomed to the atmosphereof the House. Their complaints are really against Parliament as an institution. We have copied the procedure and methods of the Mother of Parliaments, and when these new members have undergone a further process of incubation we shall, I think, find them falling in readily with those methods, which the experience of centuries has proved to be best adapted to the business of a deliberative assembly. I offer to them a poetical paraphrase of a very old maxim -

Seek not thy aged grand-dam to instruct,

With impious lips, transgressing Nature’s law,

Forth from the snowy shell by secret duct,

The golden juices of the egg to draw.

In this Parliament I take the place of an old and respected member of this House, from the beginning until the recent elections, one who took a great share in the question of Federation, and set himself to the spade work when Federation was “in the air.” Sir John Quick set himself to work, and brought forth, for the consideration of those who were conducting the preliminary matters of Federation, a practicable and workable scheme; and for that one cannot but regret his disappearance from these councils. To that extent, I feel it incumbent upon me to mark, at any rate, my appreciation of his former work in this country.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I thought that you were going to say that you regretted his departure.

Mr ARTHUR:

– But I have also to say that my late opponent has suffered the penalty for what his former constituents rightly considered a betrayal of Liberalism in joining the Fusion party. When the Prime Minister, who I am convinced had then no premonition of so soon becoming the head of the Government, and the Attorney-General entered that electorate and spoke of the immense constitutional services of Sir John Quick, one could hardly have expected that, when they had the opportunity of recognising those constitutional and Federal services, they would not appropriately have recognised them .

Mr King O’Malley:

– W - We were going to put him on the Inter-State Commission.

Mr ARTHUR:

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

– No fear!

Mr ARTHUR:

– I want, in dealing with this question, to refer to the method of attack upon persons who take upon themselves, by conviction, the attempt to find a seat in the Labour interest. The old attack, when advocates of the Labour interest took the platform, was, “ What hope have these men, this hob-nail, bowyang crowd to represent satisfactorily the interests of the community?” When men from other ranks - men who are workers themselves but in another sphere - join the party and seek the suffrages of the community, what do we hear? We hear statements such as, “ They are not real Labour men; they can have no interest in Labour; they have never bent their backs to honest toil.” The Age newspaper took up that attitude against me. It was continually inquiring, “ Is Mr. Arthur a Labour man?” and this inquiry it answered to its own satisfaction by giving it a complete negative. Innocently I drew upon myself the turgid eloquence of one of its writers - an eloquence that I should like to have enshrined like a fly in amber in the pages of Hansard. This writer asked -

What does he know of the freemasonry of the shovel, the camaraderie of the butty gang, or the esprit de corps of the casual job?

– I hope to repress the irrepressible member for Werriwa by taking no notice of his interjections. The Liberal party practically represents the forces of monopoly - the forces of privilege - but by granting some small concessions to Democracy it is endeavouring to induce the people to believe that its members are true Liberals. The Employers Federation, in 1910, put forward a programme, which I believe is the real programme of the Liberal party to-day. Any programme which is supported by the Employers Federation, by the Constitutional Union, by the Women’s National League - great names, but names which are misused - cannot be the programme of a truly Liberal party. What was that programme? First, the upholding of the Constitution. Now, a great many honorable members opposite, by their utterances at various times, have demonstrated that the Constitution cannot be upheld in the strict form in which it is now framed. They have shown that legislation is necessary with regard to the control of trusts, the regulation of industrial matters, and many other subjects of the kind; yet we do not find in the policy stated, which has been submitted by the Prime Minister, any reference to the proposed change of the

Constitution to carry out that consummation which they themselves, in many instances, already have devoutly wished. Why is it that, if they believe these things, they do not honestly put forward what they regard to be the proper measure of amendment in respect of these constitutional requirements? Does not their failure to do so show that they are not sincere in the presentation of their programme? We all remember how the AttorneyGeneral described a somewhat similar programme. Before he became a member of this Ministry he stigmatized the Liberal programme in no uncompromising manner. The quotation I am about to make may be somewhat hackneyed, but I must give it in order to point the moral to my tale. He said -

He was not averse to fighting in any just cause, but he found nothing in this programme

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– Last Tuesday, in discussing the Supply Bill, I was dealing with the sugar industry when the time limit imposed on our utterances in this House prevented me from completing my argument. I desire, therefore, to take advantage of this opportunity, and of the presence of the Minister of Trade and Customs, to say a few words upon that important matter. The honorable member for Werriwa has expressed several opinions rather uncom plimentary to the sugar industry, and the honorable member for Parkes has also declared that that industry constitutes an unfair and unreasonable tax on the community. I wish to quote from an. official handbook just published by the Queensland Government, in which the importance of this industry to the Commonwealth is stressed. Upon page 7, I find the following : -

Last season there were 3,901 recognised sugargrowers in the State, and it is computed that these gave employment to, at least, 10,000 fieldworkers, the wages paid thereto aggregating fully £500,000. In connexion with the taking of evidence by the Federal Royal Commission on the sugar industry, Mr. W. G. Gibson, of Bingera plantation and mill, presented a statement showing the financial operations of the plantation and mill annually.

Then follow a number of statistics regarding the expenses and employment conditions on that particular plantation. The report proceeds -

According to the Government Statistician, the sum of £406,936 was paid away last year in salaries, wages, &c., by the various Queensland sugar mills and refineries. These factories (48 mills and 2 refineries) employed 4,282 hands last year. The amount invested in the industry is estimated at between£ 7,000,000 and £8,000,000, and is made up as under : - Machinery, premises, and land, £2,462,266; land, farms, premises, &c., £4,500,000 to £5,000,000.

That there is sufficient opportunity for an extension of the industry is shown upon page 64 of the same handbook. There I find-

There are still large areas of land admirably adapted for the cultivation of cane along the coast-line of the State. In many instances, however, these fertile regions of dense scrub are some distance from sugar mills, and in other cases there are no mills at all in the locality. There is, nevertheless, a possibility of mills being erected, either with Government assistance or by private enterprise, as soon as circumstances warrant such a step being taken. The areas of Crown lands are fairly extensive, and the terms and conditions under which they can be taken up are the most reasonable in the Commonwealth of Australia.

When the Dominions Royal Commission visited Cairns, they were also impressed with the opportunities for development of this industry, and Mr. G. R. Mayers, who presided at the banquet at which the Commissioners were welcomed to that town, said -

The sugar-growers in North Queensland had done what no one else on the face of the earth had done. They had proved that it was possible to grow sugar at a profit with while labour. He was glad of this, and could assure the Commissioners that it was no more difficult to grow cane in the North Queensland tropics with white labour than it was to keep steam on ships with white firemen in the stokehold.

There is only one more extract that I wish to make from this publication, and it relates to the industries which are closely allied to the sugar industry. Upon page 169 it is stated -

All the sugar-growing areas of Queensland are admirably adapted for the successful cultivation of quite a number of crops. For instance, maize, potatoes, root crops, and fruits of many kinds do exceptionally well, and give very profitable returns. Then, again, the tropical portions of the State are also suitable for the growing of rubber, coffee, rice, tea, cotton, vanilla, &c, as has been demonstrated for a number of years past. There are also big possibilities in dairying, and many cane-growers to-day are supplementing their receipts from the cultivation of cane by the regular monthly cheques received for the cream sent to the local butter factories.

These quotations will suffice to show that the sugar industry, so far from being deserving of the ridicule of the honorable member for Werriwa and the honorable member for Parkes, is a most important feature in our present economic position, and has distinct possibilities in the matter of future development. Will the Minister of Trade and Customs give me his attention for a few minutes while I refer to the question of the payment of Excise upon the sugar which was in bond at the time the Sugar Excise Repeal Act was proclaimed ? Upon page 474 of the Queensland Hansard of the current year, Mr. Gillies, member for Eacham in the Legislative Assembly, called attention to the danger of the sugar which was then in bond being freed from Excise. He said -

He took it for granted that the whole of the 1913 crop that had been crushed and manufactured so far was still in bond. Not one ounce of that sugar had paid Excise, nor would one ounce of that sugar pay Excise once the proclamation was issued ; and he wished to know whether the Government would insure to the grower the full benefit of that fact. All that sugar had been piled up in the sugar-rooms or in bond, and he presumed the refiners were patiently waiting for the issue of the proclamation.

Mr Bamford:

– What date was that?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– On the 15th July of the present year.

The Secretary for Railways. - The sugar is being shipped all the time.

Mr. GILLIES. He did not believe that one ounce of this year’s manufacture had gone into consumption, and no Excise was paid until the sugar went into consumption, and he wished to know whether the Government, which pretended to have so much sympathy with the grower, would be prepared to go so far as to secure to the grower that benefit? The present Bill did not do it, nor did the two previous Bills that had been passed do it. He was disap pointed that the Premier had not carried out his compact with” the late Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

The debate in the Queensland Parliament upon the 15th and 16th, July last is full of interest to those who have concerned themselves in the matter of the nonpayment of Excise upon the sugar which was in bond when the proclamation was issued repealing the Sugar Excise Act. I repeat the statement which I made on Tuesday last that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and the other persons who held stocks of sugar in bond knew perfectly well that they stood to gain considerably if that proclamation were issued before they paid the Excise, or were asked to give an undertaking to pay it. The more one looks into the matter the more one is convinced that these persons knew thoroughly well what was coming. 1 find, further, that some of their friends were advised of the possible issue of the proclamation and what its effect would be. I, like the honorable member for Capricornia, have already called attention to an article which appeared in the Australian Sugar Growers’ Journal, in which it was stated that -

Concerning the attitude of the Liberal party in Federal politics towards the question of the abolition of Excise and bounty, we may mention for the information of all our growers that the leader of the party, the Hon. J. Cook, has sent a message to the Australian Sugar Planters’ Association, through the three Liberal senators, the Hons. T. D. Chataway, R. J. Sayers, and A. J. J. St. Ledger, to the effect that in the event of the Liberal party being returned to power at the approaching general election, proclamations abolishing Excise and bounty unconditionally will at once be issued.

The Prime Minister has, in a fashion, denied that he gave them any authority to make such a statement, but it is rather remarkable that Mr. Chataway, in the same journal, should write-

It may sound strange, but I hope that only a few more contributions will go f-rom my pen to the Sugar Journal. If the Liberals are returned to power, the Excise and bounty will disappear without conditions.

It seems to me that that was tantamount at all events to a standing and very definite invitation to the companies, if not to pile up, at least to retain the sugar they then had in bond, with the direct hope that when the proclamation was issued and the Excise duty therefore not legally collectable, they could contrive to “ make the scoop “ that they have. The revenue, despite the protestations of the present

Opposition, has suffered to the extent of at least £128,000; yet, so far, not the slightest indication has been given to the House as to the steps which the Government propose to take in order to collect the duty so lost. Since the matter is going to come before the House again, the Government having stated that they intend to introduce legislation of some kind to deal with the industry, I propose to leave it for the present, reserving what I have to say until the Bill is submitted. It seems to be generally conceded that the elections of 1913 were perhaps the most keenly-contested and the most important that have taken place in the history of the Federation. Each succeeding election appears to be of increasing importance, and it is well that it is so. The people of Australia are being gradually educated in true national sentiment, and for that reason each succeeding election for the National Parliament is increasing in significance. The educative advantages of each election are a guarantee that these contests will be more and more momentous, and play a still greater part in the future development of Australia. It is unfortunate, if that be so, that . each succeeding election is marred, if not spoiled, by an increase of vituperation, scurrility, misrepresentation, and many equally unfortunate and quite unnecessary features. There was one phase of the Prime Minister’s first official speech during the election campaign with which I heartily concurred. The honorable gentleman said that the two parties were diametrically opposed to each other, and that their policies were entirely different. Undoubtedly that is so. There was a tendency on the part of the Liberal candidates in Queensland, however, to try to make the electors believe that there was not very much difference between the parties, and that, after all, the policy of the one was largely the policy of the other. There can be no doubt that the degree of economic education to which we have attained demands of all political parties the promulgation of reform schemes and progressive ideas in order to secure public support. Whether we like it or not we are moving. The world is in a state of transition. Economically the whole world is seething with a discontent which demands some palliatives. No political party, therefore, can appeal to the electors without putting forward some progressive ideas or suggestions for reform. The Melbourne Age in a very timely article in the early stages of the campaign - when there seemed some hope of its permanent conversion to true Liberal ideas-

Mr Riley:

– Impossible.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It slid subsequently into its old conservative, narrow parochial groove, but in the early stages of the campaign it wrote -

We are no friends to many of the devices of the Labour Government, but anything is better than the blank and vacuous sterility of the Tory programme - mere anti-Labour, without the gleam of an idea of progressive Government. We were used, five years ago, to the bogy flams of the growing tiger’s cub, to the scare of shooting Niagara, to the rushing of the country over the precipice. They affect no one but silly women and sillier men. We make our mistakes, no doubt, but those mistakes do not touch the basic soundness of industrial Australia. We were never richer, safer, and sounder than we are to-day.

This was published just after the honorable member for Flinders had given expression at Aspendale to the strong opinion he held regarding the gelatinous compound that had been put forward as the policy of the Liberal party. I have here a report of the first speech made by the present Prime Minister as the official Leader of the then Opposition. He said -

Congratulations had poured in upon him from every part of Australia, but in one particular quarter a note of discord had been struck,

Honorable members will recognise the allusion - and criticism of so severe and pernicious a nature had been levelled against him that he could not ignore it. He challenged any man to justify that criticism,’ or even find a reason for it. He had even had some advice from the Premier of Victoria (Mr. Waft). He would frankly say that he could not accept Mr. Watt’s advice, because to do so would split the party into fragments, and he for one had not the slightest intention of doing that. At all costs, the Liberal party would stand together; it must show a solid phalanx fo the forces of the Socialists, which were steadily gathering in strength, and which threatened all that was best in their private relations in life. When the people saw that danger, they should make up their minds that no wedge was to be driven into the party, whatever differences of opinion there might be on some questions. The Liberals were going to do good work without impairing the solidarity of the party. Just now he had only one or two planks in his platform, but others would come later on when Mr. Fisher had disclosed his intentions. One of these planks was to get the present Government out of office in the interests of the country. The other was to maintain the solidarity and unity of the great Liberal party.

A more weak or damaging statement could not have been made by the leader of any party than that the party was so barren of policy, so absolutely sterile of progressive ideas or suggestions, that they had to wait until the leader of the opposite party spoke before they knew what to do or say. But perhaps the then Leader of the Opposition, and the newly-elected Leader of the Liberal party, may have had some excuse for the attitude he took up, because he was certainly amongst some very candid friends and rather hostile supporters. His election as leader was, in itself, not very popular, even in his own party. Whether the newspapers can be trusted or not to give facts, we have it, at any rate, on the authority of the organ supporting the Liberal party, that he was elected only on his own vote as leader, the voting being twenty-one to twenty.

Mr Fenton:

– How does the honorable member know the secrets of the Liberal Caucus ?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I take the figures from the Age. The Adelaide Register, another Tory paper, said the following regarding the present Prime Minister : -

The selection of the new leader must necessarily strain the loyalty of the Protectionist wing of the Liberal army almost to breaking point. They will find it difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to follow with any show of enthusiasm a Free Trader of such confirmed habits as Mr. Cook.

Opponents of Mr. Deakin were wont to speak lightly of his “ versatility,” but. his achievements in that direction are as nothing compared with the record of Mr. Cook, who, except in regard to Free Trade, has completely boxed the political compass since he entered the New South Wales Parliament a little over twenty years ago.

There is no magnetism about the man. The name Cook will never be a name to conjure with. Nature never intended him for a great leader. He is lacking both in a sense of humour and gift of vision. He could never impress his personality on the Commonwealth, nor could he rally the fortunes of a failing cause.

The present temporary Prime Minister of Australia is, or was, in the unfortunate position of neither having the confidence of his own party nor a policy to place before the people of the country. This was made apparent in the early stages of the electoral campaign, because, at every meeting throughout the country, whenever a Liberal candidate attempted to address the electors, the one cry was “ Give us your policy.” So much in evidence was the cry in Queensland, that one of the Senate Liberal candidates declared that even the kookaburras, that not only human but other animals, had learnt the cry. It was only in the very last days of the campaign that the people for the first time discovered what this precious party proposed to do if they got control. The Labour party, on the other hand, had a clear and well-defined policy, which was no secret, but had been for years before the public. It was. adopted at the Hobart Conference in 1911, and thereafter was the property of the people. We have no excuses to make for our platform, and we have no complaints to make as to the criticism of it by press orpublic. We invited the public to consider theproposals we placed before them, and we are prepared to stand by them. In the last election, there were two circumstances of particular importance so far as the Labour party are concerned. I am prepared to admit that, in 1910, the Labour party gained office by means of the advantage given by the wave of disgust with the Fusion that passed over Australia. It was not the policy of the Labour party that secured their election in 1910. There were people who said that the policy of the Labour party, at any rate, was clear and plain, and it was much better to have a party in power which had a definite aim, and which could be depended on to be consistent towards their ideals, than to have a party of easygoing virtue which could very easily and quickly, as they had previously done in their history, re-arrange their political ideas to suit the political wind at the particular time. In 1913, however, the Labour party had no such advantage. All interests were then subverted to the one particular aim and object of getting the Labour party out of office. Political feuds of past years were forgotten. Every principle that members of the then Opposition had held was cheerfully and willingly abandoned ; and, in the presence of a common danger, they decided to forget all differences. The then disunited Opposition - this collection of all sorts of political ideas, methods, habits, and customs - coalesced, and decided to be strictly, absolutely, and always anti-Labour. There was one tremendous advantage in their favour. In 1913, the Labour party openly allied themselves with a non-popular proposal. In 1911 the electors of Australia, by a majority of over 250,000, decided against the referenda proposals; and it was, to my mind, a courageous act on the part of the Labour party to identify themselves in 1913 with practically the same proposals. If the Labour party had been the seekers after place and power that honorable members opposite suggest, it would have been an easy matter for us, and not at all inconsistent with our professions and ideals, to have for the time being dropped the referenda proposals. Those proposals had been heavily defeated, and had created and roused animosity and opposition from the capital and property classes throughout the Commonwealth. Yet the Labour party loaded themselves with this handicap; we deliberately took our courage in both hands, and said to the electors, “ Now, here are certain proposals that we believe are absolutely necessary in the interests of the best development of the country, and if we are returned to power, we shall proceed to carry on reform along those lines.” It says a great deal, not only for the courage of the members of the Labour party, but for the recognition of that courage by the people of Australia, as well as for the education that had been proceeding between 1911 and 1913, that in the latter year the referenda proposals were defeated by a vote, on the average, of something like 25,000, aud in one case of less than 8,000. When it is remembered that, by not submitting the referenda proposals, we could have protected ourselves from much opposition, and saved ourselves from much of the severe criticism raised against us, it must be admitted that the Labour party gained a tremendous victory in the last election, because of the fact that submitting these proposals brought “against us, financially and otherwise, all the organized forces of capital and property throughout Australia. I think it is clear that this financial support and subsidy would not have been given to our opponents had not these referendum proposals been submitted. I do not complain or suggest that we should not have adopted these proposals; on the contrary, I believe that, as there must always come in the history of any country a time when some political party identifies itself with and stakes its existence upon certain reform, so the Labour party definitely declared itself, and staked its political existence on the reform of the industrial conditions of Australia, and on the demaud that the future legislation of Australia shall be in the interests of the people, and not in the interests of . a small section. In the’ Liberal appeal, issued on the 24th May last, a ‘ week before the elections, the leader of the Liberal party, referring to the referenda, said -

The referenda proposals are explicitly designed to place the Constitution under the control of an autocratic caucus, with the ultimate destruction of self-government in purely local affairs, and that logical and healthy division of powers, which is the only method of conserving our self-government. If carried, they will despoil the nation for a class propaganda.

It is quite true that we intended to effect very, radical and specific alterations; but is it not better that the nation should be despoiled, as it is put here, for a class propaganda, rather than be despoiled in the interests of the trusts, monopolies, and combines now threatening the very existence of the country ? That is the point of the whole thing - that the nation is being despoiled of its vitality, and its life blood, and interest in the development of the nation is being interfered with and arrested on behalf of and by a very distinct class. It is our demand that the interests of the nation shall be conserved, and that the nation shall not be despoiled by those whose interests are solely selfish and material. The leader of the Liberal party also said in this pamphlet that everything was to be at the dictation of an autocratic Caucus. No . more effective words have ever appeared in this connexion than those used by G. H. Wise, the ex-member for Gippsland, as reported in the Gippsland Times of 7th April last, as follows -

THE CAUCUS.

” I am sick of the cant and hypocrisy which is spoken on the platform by the Fusion members. Both Fusion and Labour parties have caucus meetings. When Mr. Deakin and the Liberals were in power, they did not hold a meeting in eighteen months, but the Fusion party now hold a caucus meeting weekly, and when such meetings are being held a notice “ Strictly private “ is posted on the door. The Fusion members say they are free. If so, how did Dr. Carty Salmon come to be elected to the Speakership when he only got twenty votes in the caucus meeting? It was because Mr. Wynne was bound by the Fusion caucus not to contest the Speakership in the open House.”

Take the Financial Agreement, as an instance. Mr. Harper said that there were enough votes on his side of the House to throw it but if the members were allowed to vote according to their consciences, and he made an appeal to Mr. Deakin to allow two of their members who had promised to vote for the third reading to vote according to their consciences, but °Mr. Deakin sat dumb, and these two men were compelled to vote against their conscience.

– Order ! That is a direct reflection on members of the House. The honorable member must not repeat his statement to which exception has been taken.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– May I be allowed to say that in the election campaign just concluded statements were made by members of the Government, and by Liberal candidates, that were nothing less than “ honeyfugling “ ? In support of my statement, I will read an extract from a pamphlet circulated throughout Australia, and I will leave it to the people and to honorable members to judge whether it does not supply evidence and a complete illustration of what I have charged honorable members on the Government side with. This is headed -

Extract from Liberal Pamphlet. The Liberal Record, printed by Vardon and Sons, printers, Adelaide, March, 1913. Issued By the Liberal Association, Adelaide, to the members of the Executive and Presidents and Secretaries of Branches for information.

This is the extract given -

Socialism from a Woman’s Point of View.

Mrs. Olive C. Malvery in A Year and a Day.

My greatest objection to Socialism is its brutal attitude towards women. It has nothing to offer women except to propose that they should be made breeding cows, and that their young should be fathered by the State instead of by the animals who bred them.

Mr Poynton:

– I have here the original pamphlet issued.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Perhaps the honorable member will permit me to quote from the original document) I quote now from the original pamphlet -

This, simply put, means that you and I who work, and have given hostages to fortune, and pledges to the State, should be taxed to pay for the indulgence of every loafer.

If you meet Socialists, and listen to their talk, you will be amazed at the low value they place on women. I do not know any people who dishonour women more, or who are more disloyal to their mothers. Why this should be, I do not know or understand. It seems so strange that people who are always talking of humanity, the wrongs of the poor and weak, should be, of all people, the ones who are fighting to destroy women, and enslave them. This is what “ free love” is doing to some of our poor.

Mr Poynton:

– That was issued with the photographs and names of the members on the Liberal ticket.

Mr Riley:

– How would the honorable gentleman like to have his wife called a “ breeding cow “ any more than the wife of an honorable member on this side ?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am not prepared to retaliate in the same fashion, but I ask honorable members opposite, and especially the honorable member for Riverina, who, in beautiful sentiments, expressed his regret the other night that honorable members on this side should have said the things they did, to say how any honest and honorable man, who has any love for his wife, his mother, or his children, could refrain from objecting to such a thing as the pamphlet from which I have quoted? It is enough to arouse the righteous indignation of every honest man in the community. I say that any honorable member on the other side who would identify himself in the slightest degree with such statements, or permit them to be printed in support of his candidature, is unworthy of the vote of an honest citizen. I thought that we had got beyond all this kind of thing. Honorable members on this side have often been charged with being in favour of free love, and against the marriage tie, and the sanctity of the home, but one would have thought that the record of the Labour Government for the three years during which they were in power, when they might have done many things if they Had so desired, would have made the continuance of such references as these impossible. With this I shall close my references to this very unsavoury matter. I hope that this is the last we shall hear of such statements or suggestions coming even from members of the political party represented by honorable members on the Government side. Let it end here, if honorable members please. If they have any respect or esteem for their own reputations, they will, at any rate, let this kind of argument and political . warfare cease.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Amongst the diatribes directed against this party during the election campaign the Liberal appeal issued over the name of the Prime Minister a week before polling day contained the following sentences -

The Waiting and tentative methods pursued by the Labour Socialist Government during the past three years have been productive of the most sinister results. Industrial turmoil has been fostered. The community has been set by the ears, until, in many places, absolute industrial anarchy has reigned supreme. Extravagance has been rife ; and the chief aim of the Government’ has been to raise money to spend it lavishly, with special regard to party purposes and propaganda. The burden of government has enormously increased, until to-day every average family is paying in taxation, directly and indirectly, some £io per annum more than three years .ago. The cost of living has towered up beyond the increase in the normal wages of the worker. The result, according to the Commonwealth Statistician, is that the effective wage is substantially decreasing. Money is increasingly dear, and difficult to obtain. Thus, national development is retarded, and all classes suffer in consequence.

Their aims, in a word, are sectional and narrow, and will, as time goes on, prove more and more disastrous to the nation. They declare their object to be the ultimate abolition of the present social fabric.

– As loyal Democrats we believe that the will of the people should prevail. The people said that the so-called Liberal party - I must call them Liberals, though they are not deserving of the name; there are some honest Liberals amongst them, and I include the honorable member for Wimmera as one, but he is associated with a number of men whose Conservative instincts are so ingrained in their constitution that it is impossible to expect them to be shed right off - the people, I say, said that the Liberal party should assume office, and that the Labour party should not continue to wield power. I am confident that the party opposite never expected this verdict to be given. They were not ready for it, but it was the bounden duty of the late Government loyally, though regretfully, to accept the decision of the country and to submit their resignation. That honorable members opposite never anticipated such a result to eventuate was quickly disclosed. They could not refuse to accept the invitation of His Excellency to form a Ministry. But from that day till now they have shown, not only that they did not want to form a Government, but that to accept the responsibilities of office was very far from their desire. The new Government met Parliament on the 9th April, and had to admit that they were not ready to go on with business Here was a party which had been asking the people to return them to power, but immediately they met Parliament they had to acknowledge that they were not ready. A section of the. Speech which the Governor-General addressed to Parliament on the 9th July, said -

Owing to my present advisers having so recently assumed office, they have not yet been able to mature the proposals placed by them before the electors, and it is therefore intended to ask for a short adjournment to enable them, to do so.

– In that, as in other matters, they tried to take the wind out of our sails. If you look through the pages of Hansard, you will find the names Cook, Johnson, Kelly, Kelly, Johnson, Cook, Johnson, Kelly, Cook, constantly recurring. No three members took up more of the time of the House. They were always to be depended on to waste time, and delay business, if any party advantage was to be gained thereby. The memorandum of the Prime Minister is a direct challenge to us. I came to this Parliament hoping that there might be an agreement for the putting through of measures of a non-contentious character which are absolutely necessary for the welfare of the community. We all know that in the present state of parties, neither side could carry through much contentious business, but I have great faith in the patriotism and loyalty of honorable members, and there are certain measures which all would agree to pass. For instance, the Bankruptcy Bill, which has already been introduced, is a measure which is urgently needed by the commercial interests of Australia. Why could not the Government take up measures of that kind ? Again there is the question of marriage and divorce. No question affecting the social life of this community more urgently calls for sympathetic treatment than does this question. The State laws on the subject are a reflection upon our moral conduct. I invite the Government to take up the matter, and give an opportunity to both sides to unite, as I believe they are willing to do, in putting through an honest, straight, and true marriage and divorce law for Australia. Then the subject of life and fire insurance, it is suggested by the Government, calls for legislation. I notice that all the measures of a non-contentious character were very carefully relegated to the last paragraph of the Ministerial statement. It is suggested in paragraph 20 that we might deal with the transfer of Norfolk Island, life and fire insurance regulation, bankruptcy, and offences against the Commonwealth. If the Government want the business of the country carried on properly, the introduction of those measures is urgent. Why do they not find a place amongst the early measures which we hope to see carried ? I come now to the question of the Tariff. To my mind there are two questions of specially urgent importance at present to Australia. The first is that of the Tariff, and the second is that of industrial legislation. So far as other matters are concerned, I do not think that the people of this country would regret if the legislative machine had a rest for a little while, if we had clean, honest administration. The complaint that we on this side had three years in which to deal with the Tariff, and did not take advantage of the opportunity, and that, therefore, we are insincere in our professions, and that the third paragraph of our censure motion is an unworthy one, and a reflection upon ourselves is, to my mind, altogether beside the question. . We were decided in our views about the Tariff, as the public knew, but our dealing with the Tariff was always contingent, as it is now, upon certain necessary conditions having been complied with. The first condition is that the industries protected shall be effectively protected, while the second is that the workers in protected industries shall be guaranteed protection as well as the employers. We have twice asked the people to give us power to deal with the Tariff in that way, and have twice been refused. It is not our fault, therefore, that the Tariff has not been dealt with. It is not our fault that industries are hindered and obstructed. It is not our fault if the wages and conditions in certain industries are not what they ought to be. We are ready now, as we always have been, to deal with the Tariff in a scientific, reasonable, and economic way, and it is the people of the country who have prevented us from carrying out our desire. To show the falseness of the professions of honorable members opposite in regard to the Tariff, all that they suggest is that a few anomalies should be remedied. The Prime Minister and the honorable member for Werriwa, who is his understudy, have declared their Free Trade principles from every platform. But the Prime Minister coolly comes down, and shows not how he leads the Government, but how his party leads him, by stating that he has abandoned his Free Trade principles, and is going to maintain what he calls “ the accepted Protective policy “ of the country. Their next statement is even a worse admission of failure in that respect, because they propose to hand over to the Inter-State

Commission power to make inquiries and submit certain recommendations. In the meantime we are told that any anomalies discovered in the existing Tariff will be dealt with. We are certain that anomalies exist, and are prepared to deal with them. We did remedy certain anomalies in the last Parliament. But the Government, apparently, are not sure that there are any anomalies in the Tariff. In fact, they do not suggest that there are, but they say that if any anomalies are discovered they will attend to them; and, in the meantime, they are going to do nothing but wait until the Inter-State Commission travels round Australia and makes certain recommendations, with, as I am reminded, a Free Trader in the chair, and - I do not. use the word offensively - a renegade Free Trader in the position of Prime Minister. I can conceive of no more helpless outlook for Tariff revision and the encouragement of Australian industries than is suggested by the position which the Government have taken up. It seems to me to be a hopeless and unfortunate admission of incompetence to deal with the Tariff. Yet this precious Government coolly blame us for not having interfered with the Tariff. All that I can anticipate in this matter is that the manufacturers, and those who are trying to build up the industries of Australia, will very soon recognise that the present Government are not prepared to accept any responsibility, but intend as far as possible to dodge their responsibility and put it on to somebody else, and so prevent us from doing courageously and honestly what we said we would do if we got the necessary power, and that was to undertake a revision of the Tariff straight away. The Ministerial statement has been deliberately worded to provoke a quarrel. I do not suppose that the members of the Liberal party were consulted by the Prime Minister in regard to the items, but they are responsible for the statement now. It has been fathered upon them by the Prime Minister, and they have to “ carry the baby.” It has been, I repeat, carefully worded to provoke a quarrel. It is a direct challenge to the Opposition. Of course, there are a few items in the statement with which we on this side agree; but nearly every paragraph is a distinct invitation to the Labour party to have a fight. It begins by abusing our party and blaming us for wrong electoral conduct. It announces the intention of the Government to abolish preference to unionists. It talks of excluding rural workers from the Arbitration Court. It talks, too, of abandoning the day-labour system and reverting to the contract system. In regard to those and other questions; every man in the country with any intelligence knows that the Labour party will stand or fall by its principles. No member on the Government side, I feel certain, ever imagined for a moment that we would agree to the proposals I have just referred to. Then they wonder why we fight! What are we here for ? Who sent us here, and why were we sent here? We were sent here expressly to fight these very matters. Our opposition to them is too deeply rooted to warrant any hope on the part of honorable members opposite that we will abandon our principles and join with them in enacting certain legislation. There need be no misunderstanding in the minds of the Government and their supporters.

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

– Then there is a bone in the policy that honorable members opposite do not like to swallow?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I admit that there is a bony part in the policy, and I say that the Attorney-General ought to be in his proper place at the head of the Government instead of merely being a member of it. To him, I think, may be attributed the solid, meaty parts to be found in what has been put before us as the Government policy. At any rate, those parts of it which are a direct challenge to the Labour party were inspired by him. I give him credit for that. I like a man who will courageously stand by the things in which he believes. There are other members of the Government to whom I could not pay that compliment. They have at one time indignantly repudiated what they have most enthusiastically accepted at another time. Supporters of the Government need be under no misapprehension as to our intentions. As a party we have not decided upon our joint line of conduct, but I am sure that individual members of it are not going to allow the legislation foreshadowed in the Ministerial policy to go through this Cha’mber if they can obstruct and avoid it. As far as I am concerned, I will strain every privilege that I possess under the Standing Orders to prevent the passing of those measures. I would be ashamed to hold the confidence of the people of my electorate and to permit some of those pro- posals to pass this House without a fight. Honorable members opposite, therefore, may look forward to a very vigorous session if they hope to carry any of those proposals.

Mr Fenton:

– They do not want any of them to go through.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I believe that that statement is very true. Of course, they will not admit it. But anybody who has witnessed the conduct of the Prime Minister, and of other Ministers, will recognise that they do not care whether their proposals go through or not so long as they can get into recess, and thus have the administration of the various Departments of government in their hands a little longer. Only on Thursday of last week, in conjunction with the honorable member for Oxley, I brought forward a matter relating to the men who are employed upon casual work in Brisbane. And this is the kind of “ stuff “ that I had to listen to from the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs after the matter had been settled -

Unlike my predecessor, I desire to see the men in Brisbane get the same chances as their colleagues throughout Australia-

A most unworthy, libellous, and untrue statement - a gratuitous piece of information.

The present Administration stands for the payment of the best wages, and the granting of the best conditions, that we can give; and, in common fairness, we shall pay similar wages for similar work throughout the Commonwealth. . . . Honorable members have only to lay the matter before the present Administration, who will give absolute justice and fair play all round.

If the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs felt like that, all he had to do when the matter was brought before him privately - as it was before the House met - was to say, “ Well, gentlemen, I will attend to this. It will be all right.” When he forwarded the telegram authorizing the payment of the wages, if he had told us its purport, there would not have been a word said in this House. But no. He could not do that. He had to let us get up in this Chamber in order that he might have the joy of knocking us down with such unworthy, unnecessary information. That was not the worst feature of the matter. The Prime Minister could not resist the temptation to make a speech on the motion for the adjournment of the

House - just as he does almost every night. This is what he said -

I want to suggest to my friends that they should go just a little easy on these matters. They are exposing their own administration to the public of Australia iu a way that is anything but lovely. One after another of these points crops up, and we are being abused, all because we paid some deference to the acts of our predecessors….. I wish to say once and for all it is time this kind of political game ceased. The present Government will treat the men employed on Commonwealth work at least as well as they have ever been Created by the previous Administration. All we shall do is to expect the men to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, and when they have done that the Government will see that they get a fair day’s pay in full and generous measure I hope sincerely this kind of political warfare will cease. 1 am tired of it. We have heard nothing but it since coming into office, when all the facts show that no reflection lies at our doors. On the other hand, they show that for three years honorable members now opposite were dumb, and tolerated these abuses and all this mismanagement, and dared not say a word to uncover it. It is about time they ceased. Honorable members get nothing out of it. Let them take my advice and drop it.

I think that the Prime Minister might recollect that honorable members on this side of the Chamber do not require to be lectured by him. It is not his function to lecture us as to our method of doing things. In regard to electoral matters, I desire to say a few words. . The exMinister of Home Affairs has come in for very severe castigation for his administration of his Department, and every charge made against him has been utterly disproved. In regard to the scrutiny of the votes cast at the Brisbane election the gentleman who represented me, in his report, says -

Attached you will find list of apparent duplications. The most of these are, without doubt, the result of careless marking on behalf of Presiding Officers. In many cases, even where doubt could be shown as to intention of the Presiding Officer, the Acting D.R.O’. has pui them in the list of duplications.

It was not a matter of giving the voter the benefit of the doubt. He was immediately set down’ as a criminal. The report proceeds -

Some nf them are also caused by the numbers in some cases being out of alignment, as different Presiding Officers would tick the number from the number up to the name above, and others from the number down to the name below. Any further information I will gladly give if required.

Then he gave a list of those who are supposed to have been guilty of duplications. There are names in that list - most of them well known Liberal supporters - of men who, I am sure, would never be guilty of double voting. For instance, there is the name of an ex-senator of this Parliament - the Hon. Thomas Glassey - a man who is well-known in Brisbane. I am certain that he would be the last to be guilty of such misconduct. For the sake of getting an extra vote he would not deliberately perjure himself by replying “ No “ when the question was put to him, “ Have you voted before at this election?” Nor do I think that anybody would attempt to impersonate him; he is so well known that no presiding officer would accept an ordinary voter as being identical with him. What I believe caused the most trouble at the last general election was the hopeless incompetency of the presiding officers at most of the polling booths. On polling day I had to complain to the Returning Officer of some of these men, and I noticed that most of the alleged duplications took place at the polling booths presided over by officers of whose incompetency I complained. The Returning Officer himself is a most estimable gentleman. I do not know what his politics are, but I believe that he has always endeavoured to give all parties a fair and honest deal. But there were at one polling booth - New Farm - two gentlemen who may be very respectable, but who were absolutely incapable of performing even the most perfunctory duties. What we need to do to remedy this state of affairs - and I shall endeavour when the amending Electoral Bill is before us to give effect to my proposition - is to declare the election day a Commonwealth holiday and employ Commonwealth public servants to conduct the election. The fact that such officers would know that they were not employed solely to conduct the election, but that their whole position in the service must, depend upon the upright discharge of their duties, would be a strong guarantee that the election would be conducted on proper lines. I have had brought under my notice a letter published in the Casterton Times of the 14th ultimo, which was signed by Hugh McEachern, who was a presiding officer at a polling booth at the last general election. I propose to quote from it in order to show first of all that the Labour Government did not avail themselves of the opportunity to appoint as presiding officers partisans of their own political colour, and secondly, to show how violently partisan some of the presiding officers were. Mr. McEachern in this article gives thirteen reasons why the Labour party were defeated. As my time has almost expired I cannot do more than give the following extracts from them -

Firstly, because they failed as legislators to prove to the electors of our great Commonwealth that the promises made previous to their return were fufilled.

Secondly - Because they failed to give to the people as a whole, in return for the confidence reposed, sound government.

Thirdly - Because a large number of their most loyal and intelligent supporters discovered the facts represented, and in addition realized they were merely industrial agents and class legislators, and therefore not representatives to serve loyally - as a whole - the community whom they were returned to represent.

Fourthly - Because they proved tyrannical to the best interests of their supporters, intolerant to the employer, extortionate to the farmer and capitalist, and extremists in Nationalization, repulsive in effrontery to all and sundry who opposed their policy, pestilent in their persistence to suppress liberty and retard progress, Nihilists to non-unionists, and because they made a regulation extending preference to unionists, and immediately at birth strangled the law in its administration by refusing the right the law intended, in giving alike to non-unionists a share of employment, where warranted by merit and ability.

Fifthly - Because they supported strikes in all their tyrannical atrocities, supplied pickets, assisted in besieging cities, and failed to give the people industrial peace and protection from the tyranny of the mob.

Sixthly - Because they had the audacity to assist themselves to the_ coffers of the Treasury for the purpose of raising salaries without first having had the courtesy to ask the people whether justified in doing so or not.

Seventhly - Because they endeavoured to enforce a doctrine of Socialism, equivalent in its atrociousness to anarchy, upon a free born people, who, threatened by the danger of its far-reaching severity, revolted against the evil at its source, as they feared, if instituted, they would become overwhelmed and thereby crushed beneath the cruel yoke of tyranny and oppression.

Eighthly - Because they instituted an electoral law which proved inefficient in its benefits, and lent assistance to gross corruption at the ballotbox……

Ninthly - Because they abolished postal voting……

Tenthly - Because it was alleged they appointed Judges to the High Court who had a Labour leaning.

Eleventhly - Because they endeavoured to create combines out of myths ; a fact as proved by the Coal Vend case tried before the High Court of Australia, and later in the Privy Council, when in both Courts it was pronounced by high legal authority to be no combine and therefore not detrimental to the welfare of the people.

Twelfthly - Because, still in the face of the facts represented, they endeavoured to hoodwink the people……

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– In some of the States it is possible to select on any leased lands.

Mr CARR:

– There are no general facilities provided in this respect. Our system of immigration should go hand in hand with a comprehensive land settlement scheme. It is of no use to bring people to this country, and have them walk the streets when they get here. We should have an immigration scheme worked upon a business footing. An immigrant upon arrival in this country should be met, and taken in hand by the authorities until he is placed in whatever occupation he chooses to follow. To bring people here, and not take care to place them properly, is simply to contribute to that old vicious competition among human beings which leads to the degradation of humanity, and which our legislation has sought to avoid. We want to prevent our humane policy being nullified by increasing the multitude who will be struggling for bread, with the result of bringing down the price of labour to such an extent that it must also bring down the stamina of the race. This is, at root, a racial question. We cannot afford to sacrifice our people to Moloch in this way. With regard to the attack that has been made on the legislation of the late Government, I hold in my hand a return concerning the area under crop in the several States of the Commonwealth during the seasons 1911-12 and 1912-13. The information is absolutely reliable, as it comes from the Statistician’s office. It is valuable as showing the great increase in the land under crop in the several States of the Commonwealth. The figures are as follow : -

It looks, therefore, as if there had been a beneficent result from the land tax that was imposed at the instance of the late Government.

Mr Falkiner:

– What allowance does the honorable member make for the Crown land thrown open in each State?

Mr CARR:

– Does the honorable member mean how much is due to the effect of the land tax in opening up Crown land?

Mr Falkiner:

– No.

Mr CARR:

– I cannot say what proportion of the increase of land under crop is due to the automatic opening of Crown lands, but I will say that it is a significant fact that, after the imposition of the land tax, there was a greater movement in land in Australia than had occurred for many years previously. That may not have been due to that fact, but it is a remarkable coincidence. In fact, it is so remarkable that I am quite prepared to stiffen the tax, so as to make more land available. I think that this is one of those things to which we have been too slow in attending. I strongly object to the proposal of the Government to grant freehold tenure in the Northern Territory. There is a chance in this new country of applying a prin- ciple which can hardly be called Socialistic, since it is recognised to-day as almost an economic truth that land should not be alienated from the people. I am prepared to grant a fifty years’ tenure, or even to give to the pioneers a tenure for the duration of their lives, in recognition of their enterprise in going to the Northern Territory. But I do not for a moment approve of a system which permits of hereditary estates. The alienation of land is one of the most pernicious features of modern civilization. The accumulation of large estates has led to population crowding into cities. It has conduced to a huge accumulation of wealth on the one hand, and to great poverty on the other in all the older countries of the world. Of course, I recognise that it is impossible in older countries to alter the present system at a stroke, and to do such a thing is far from my mind. It is an undoubted fact that many large land-owners did not inherit their estates, which are constantly increasing in value, but purchased them. But we should be glad of the opportunity to prevent the occurrence of such a state of things in a young country such as the Northern Territory is. In dealing with the Territory, we should hesitate to talk about freehold tenures, which mean the accumulation of more publiclycreated values in the hands of private individuals. I quite agree that those values which have accumulated in the hands of individuals in older settled communities cannot be destroyed. I am no dreamer. I recognise that vested interests have grown up, and that a large number of considerable estates, even in this young country, have not been inherited, but bought and paid for at modern values. In those cases we must, of course, treat the owner of the land as the owner of the value. I admit the difficulties in the way of dealing with such cases. I recognise that our great financial institutions have been largely founded upon these very land values, and that many of what may be called small people are vitally interested in those institutions. I should not be prepared to support any proposal that would undermine the social fabric in such a way that it would come down with a crash. To do so is outside the question. But where we have a fresh field for the application of accepted economic principles with regard to land occupation, and we decline to use it, I say that we are remiss in our duty. If there were no other question upon which we could condemn the Government, their proposal in regard to the Northern Territory would, from my point of view, be a sufficient justification. So far as concerns the multiplying of farmers, which it is said will ultimately destroy the Labour party, all I can say is that I am fully prepared to multiply farms as much, as possible; and if the result should be to destroy the Labour party, then the Labour party will not have lived in vain.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Mathews) adjourned.

page 732

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)

Assent reported.

page 732

ADJOURNMENT

Secrecy of Liberal Conference - Press Reports : Visitors to Strangers’ Gallery - Trades Hall, Perth - Treasury Building : Conduct of Work

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- This morning I asked the Prime Minister whether the Liberal Conference now sitting is holding its meetings in secret or in public,’ and the reply I received suggested that those meetings are open to the public. The honorable gentleman is an agile politician. There are very few things that he does not know about throwing dust in the eyes of the people, and misleading them. He said that all he knew about the conference was that he was present yesterday when a motion was moved for the admission of the press. He did not add that the press was admitted only in order that his speech might be recorded. He did not tell us, what he undoubtedly knew, that this conference of delegates from all parts of Australia is being held in secret caucus. I have ascertained the fact from an inter-State press representative, who was refused admission, and informed that he might attend about 5 o’clock this afternoon, when he would be given some tit-bits of information. If the new members who lectured the Labour party about conducting its meetings in secret doubt the truth of what I say, they can make inquiries for themselves, and will find that the Liberal Conference is being held in secret like the Labour Conference.

Mr Thomas:

– The Labour Conference is open to the public. Any one can attend.

Mr HIGGS:

– 1 have not attended a Labour Conference for some years, but I understood that the meetings at which our programme is drawn up are held in secret.

Mr Thomas:

– No; the public are allowed £o go in.

Mr HIGGS:

– Then I have been misinformed. Certainly the public cannot attend the Liberal Conference that is now being held. Another subject upon which I wish to speak is the interview with the Prime Minister published in the Morning Post. I accept the honorable gentleman’s statement, as he was not responsible for that part of the published telegram which scandalized the people of Australia. Why I asked him to lay on the table the letter which he read last night was to ascertain the name of the pressman who interviewed him . I now know the name of that pressman, but in making it public I do not wish to create the impression that I have an antipathy to journalists. I respect their profession, and at one time had a great deal to do with it. But there should be some way of dealing with men like Mr. Myers, of the Sydney Morning Herald, who has cabled to London that -

Charges are made in all the States against the Labour parly “stuffing” the rolls.

The message continues -

In Queensland, 55,000 more persons have been enrolled than there are adults in the State, and 72,000 in South Australia. It is estimated that at Oxley (Queensland), formerly a Liberal stronghold, the number of votes recorded was in excess of the total electorate.

I am sure that is not true -

In hundreds of cases, impersonation and duplicate voting was discovered, and there were numerous other irregularities….. One elector at Ballarat boasted of having voted nineteen times. The Liberals are preparing a comprehensive list of proved cases of this kind. . . . Australians are proud of possessing the widest and freest suffrage in the world, but the manner in which it has been used at this election indicates that it is by no means a pure Democratic instrument.

We cannot deal by law with a gentleman like Mr. Myers, who cabled these slanders throughout the world ; but we can ask the Prime Minister not to consent to be interviewed by one who is prepared to write such things about the country in which he gets his living.

I come now to the statements of another pressman. I am sorry that I do not know his name, because it deserves a little publicity. He has described a portion of the audience that assembles to hear our debates as “ dead-beats “ who sleep on the Yarra bank and come here to enjoy comfortable seats, but object to the attendance of the ordinary public. Perhaps I had better give his own words -

These constant attendants come in, year in, year out, from the cold grey dusk of the Melbourne winter evenings, to sit in the pleasantly warm gallery and drowse through many hours of debate. Sometimes they drowse too noisily, and then the constable in charge of the gallery wakes them up, that their snores shall not interfere with the flow of eloquence in the chamber beneath. Their greatest happiness, their dream of joy unutterable, is an all-night sitting, when they may sleep in the gallery rather than on the Yarra Reserves, or in the Exhibition Gardens. But a rush to the gallery occurs, and these listeners, who, by constant attendance, consider that they should have the right to book their seats, have to struggle with the respectable, well washed crowd of people who take an intelligent interest in Federal politics. Sometimes, horrible to relate, they are amongst the drowsy worshippers who, like Omar’s friends, remain outside, while people with clean collars and shiny boots sit in their seats. The gallery only holds about 100, and, with the exception of the old gallant principle of “ place awc dames,” the race is to the swift, and the seat is to the strong. One indignant frequenter of the Strangers’ Gallery yesterday remonstrated with the official at the door. “ It is disgraceful management,” he shouted, and took his departure angrily in the direction of the Trades Hall.

– What about the Morning Post interview? Do you not think that you ought to refuse any more information to Mr. Myers, who cabled those statements about the Labour party ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I will consider it.

Mr.Higgs. - That is fair.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 August 1913, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1913/19130829_reps_5_70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives29 August 1913

QUESTION

LIBERAL PROGRAMME

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr JOSEPH COOK:Minister for Home Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

AMENDING REGULATIONS

Mr J H CATTS:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:LP

Mr Fisher:

Mr Fenton:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr Fenton:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Watkins:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

QUESTION

SECRECY OF LIBERAL CONFERENCE

Mr HIGGS:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:LP

Mr Higgs:

QUESTION

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

Mr ARTHUR:Bendigo

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr King O’Malley:

Mr ARTHUR:

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

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Sampson:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr King O’Malley:

Mr ARTHUR:

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

Mr ARTHUR:

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

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr West:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Conroy:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr McWilliams:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

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

Mr Burns:

Mr King O’Malley:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Anstey:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Anstey:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

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

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr ARTHUR:

House of Representatives
29 August 1913

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for Home Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

Mr ARTHUR:
Bendigo

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

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

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

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP