View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
6 May 1914

5^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
HOUR OF MEETING
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS
DAYS OF MEETING
GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Compulsory Training - Private Members’ Business - Days of Meeting

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 610

QUESTION

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

Debate resumed from 5th May(vide page 599), on motion by Mr.

Kendell -

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 tothe proposed address: - “but regret to have to inform you that your Advisers deserve censure for having failed to safeguard the interests of the people of the Commonwealth.”

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Darling Downs · LP

.- The Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment upon the motion for the adoption of an Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, and by it he accuses this Administration of having “ failed to safeguard the interests of the people of the Commonwealth;” but he and his supporters in their attempts to justify the charge have proved, not that we have failed to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth, but that we have been alive to our responsibilities, and have done all we can to advance those interests. Especially has the charge which was levelled against the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs failed. Yesterday afternoon, the honorable member for Yarra, in supporting the amendment, declared that the Department of Trade and Customs, over which I preside, had unduly delayed certain matters of administration. If there is any honorable member who should not bring that charge, it is he. Ever since he entered this House he has posed as the archpriest of Protection, and has hardly made a speech without touching on the important fiscal question. I admit the importance of the question, but what did he do when in office to improve the Tariff? The Fisher Government, of which he was a Minister, was in office for three years. During that time it had a majority in both Houses, and could have given effect to any policy that it had the backbone to put forward. In their first session, the Labour Ministers dealt with certain so-called Tariff anomalies, and they dealt with a few more in the next session, but they did not introduce a large policy of Protection, their plea being that they could not do so until they could make sure that the worker would get his fair share of the benefits accruing from higher duties. Yesterday, the honorable member for Yarra boasted that, in dealing with Tariff anomalies, he made dredges dutiable, and increased the duties on pianos, and on several other things. As he could give the Protection necessary in connexion with two or three items, why did he not carry out the full policy of Protection that he has always advocated? He neglected entirely to propose any complete revision of the Tariff, and failed to propose whole-heartedly the policy that he has always strongly advocated. When he left office, there remained undealt with in the Department 117 confidential Tariff schedules; there were from 470 to 500 ap plications from persons who desired relief in connexion with Tariff matters, and, speaking from memory, there were the reports of some sixty or seventy deputations. I do not say that all the applicants were entitled to higher duties, but their representations merited consideration. The honorable gentleman did not even go so far as to appoint the InterState Commission. Had it been appointed seven or eight months earlier, it could have commenced its investigations sooner, and Tariff matters would then have been more advanced than they are to-day. What is the position of this Government in regard to the Tariff ? Immediately we assumed office, we took steps to fulfil one of our platform pledges by appointing the Inter-State Commission. It had been announced that the Liberal party would stand by the fiscal policy which had been affirmed by the people of Australia and embodied in our Tariff laws. We lost no time in appointing the Inter-State Commission. On the 8th September, 1913, I sent the following letter to the Chief Commissioner -

Dear Sir,

In the discharge of its duties to investigate and report generally upon the effect and operation of the Tariff Acts at present in force, I would invite the Inter-State Commission more particularly to investigate and report as soon as practicable upon the following matters : _

Any industries now in urgent needof Tariff assistance.

Anomalies in the existing Tariff which are either technical in character or are due to or arise from the incidence of the taxation.

The lessening, where consistent with the general policy of the Tariff Acts, of the cost of the ordinary necessities of life without injury to the workers engaged in any useful industry.

– This distinguished gentleman, whose record is to be found in What’s What, suggested that we made a blunder. What was that blunder? It was the blunder of honoring an agreement which had been made by two Parliaments - of honoring an obligation to which every honorable member of this

– Then I shall read what the honorable member did say -

When lie returned to Melbourne and was interviewed by a pressman, lie learned that there might have been other causes for the resignation of the Governor-General…..

One of those causes he learnt might have been the differences over the New Year’s honour list.

The loss of that ship was entirely due to the absence of a light on Smith’s rock or of a sufficiently powerful light at Cape Moreton.

As a matter of fact, before the honorable member mentioned the subject I had drawn the attention of the Lighthouse Branch to the matter, and Captain Hood, who has been in the district and knows it well, reported, after giving reasons: -

For these reasons there is, in my opinion, no need for any additional lights at Cape Moreton or its vicinity.

– The honorable member said we had not proclaimed the Act.

An Honorable Member. - Is the Act law to-day?

Mr Tudor:

– It is law all right.

Mr GROOM:

– The position is that the Act is law, but it is not in force. It was known to everybody, when the Act was passed, that months of careful investigation would be necessary before the measure could come into operation. It is easy in this House to pass clauses in a Bill declaring that something should be done, but it is more difficult, when dealing with the ramifications of the trade of Australia and the Departments of the States, to frame regulations that will bring the whole scheme into harmony and make proper and just working conditions for our shipping. So far asthe Government are concerned, that end is being striven for as fast as possible. Many regulations have been framed already, a mass of material has been collected as the basis for framing the regulations in their entirety, and we are in communication with the Imperial authorities in order to obtain information which will enable us to give effect to the recommendations of the recent conference for the regulation of the safety of ships at sea.

Then he says -

There are wide variances of belief as to the treatment of this problem. Some maintain that the Sherman law, in its present condition, with a few amendments, is sufficient. Others there are who maintain that the Sherman law, even though amended, is negative in its effect, and not constructive in attacking the problem; that what is needed is not only a declaration of what cannot be done, but a definition of what can legally be done. Some offer in solution an Inter-State trade commission, to proceed upon the theory that monopoly should be frankly recognised and regulated, even to the extent of regulation and control of prices. Others advocate a similar commission, whose object and purpose, however, shall not be to regulate monopoly, but to regulate and control Inter-State business in supplementing the Sherman law by aiding the Courts in the restoration of competitive conditions, and in giving force to the decrees of the Court; charged with the additional power of defining what shall constitute fair and unfair competition, what shall constitute reasonable restraints of trade, and what agreements, now apparently in violation of the Sherman law are not, in fact, in restraint of trade, and should be permitted, together with other similar powers. Still another plan has been suggested which looks to keeping the control of this question more within the province of the individual States, by making it illegal for any corporation to do an inter-state business unless the requirements of its charter, granted by the States respectively, should contain certain inhibitions upon the activity of such corporation, looking to the prevention of the issue of watered stock, to the prevention of interlocking ownership and common directorates, and other similar conditions which are alleged to be the operating causes for the evils of the present condition.

In the United States the magnitude of the problem is realized, and various remedies have been suggested; but the most important thing is to determine the question of fact that lies in the background. Speaking on that subject, he says -

In the last analysis society is concerned with the question of which of the two types of industrial system is the more advantageous to the general welfare. The question resolves itself into whether the monopolistic system of large units or the competitive system confers the greatest advantage upon society. The advantages and disadvantages of each are questions of fact, and one of the paramount considerations therein is the question of cost of production. The efficiency of an industrial system will bo finally gauged by the people, in a large measure, by the difference in the cost of what they buy; and that system which produces most cheaply, and does not induce other and greater evils than those sought to be remedied, would be regarded as the final economic fact, in a large degree, by the consumer. One of the fundamental facts, then, to bo determined is the question of the efficiency of the trust - the question of whether increase of the size of capital and organization necessarily means a lowering in the cost of production and distribution, to the ultimate advantage of the people who buy.

He sets out clearly the questions of fact which have to be investigated before a remedy can be devised. The remedy of our friends opposite is the nationalization of monopolies. They consider that the State should nationalize these huge business institutions, running them as Government concerns. The honorable member for West Sydney, who was AttorneyGeneral in the late Government, has said -

Experience has proved that nothing short of nationalization will serve as a check to these great combines.

That is the view of honorable members opposite. They have also expressed the opinion that it is better to allow the trusts to grow as a necessary stage in the nationalization of industries, which is their ultimate policy. Let me quote the honorable member for West Sydney again -

Who to-day is able to sell the cheapest - the small man in a humble way, or the great combine or trust that controls, not only the inlets and outlets of industry, but the products and the markets in which they are to be distributed, the sources from which are drawn the raw material, and the most up-to-date machinery for dealing with all these that the civilized world can supply? Obviously not the isolated trader. The individual who has nothing but his brains and a few pounds of capital cannot hope to compete in such circumstances.

He adds -

It is sufficient here to point out that the Labour party views with equanimity the development of the trust, regarding it as a necessary stage in industrial and social evolution, and preparing the way for a more complete systematization of production and distribution by society for the benefit of the whole people.

Now we know why, during the three years that the Labour Administration had a majority in both Houses, the Labour party did not raise a finger against any of these trusts, which, they allege, are increasing the price of every commodity used by the people of Australia.

Mr Jensen:

– What about the Coal Vend?

Mr GROOM:

– Labour members encouraged the Coal Combine. They have stated in this chamber that it ought to continue.

Mr Jensen:

– The Labour Government initiated proceedings against it.

Mr GROOM:

– No. As AttorneyGeneral, I was present at, and held, the consultations to settle the initial proceedings in the Coal Vend case. Honorable members opposite hold that the great organizations of wealth are leading up to u state of things which will make it easy to nationalize industries, and they advocate an amendment of the Constitution to enable them to give effect to their policy of nationalization. In the address of Mr. Davis, to which I have referred, the arguments brought against the value of huge industrial concerns are set out very fully; but the time will not permit me to quote them. It is contended that many of these great organizations are successful only so long as the original organizing brains remain at the head of them, or so long as the trust carries on its operations -within a restricted area, because otherwise there is, as with Government control, too much centralization, with consequent weakness in administration ; so that a system which at first created cheapness by its economy in organization, in the end increases the cost of production. It is argued that, for various reasons stated, it is inadvisable to allow huge aggregations of wealth to be controlled by a monopoly. Summing up, however, the Commissioner says -

At the centre of this great system of trusts there is the question of fact to be determined, if possible. There is now no governmental or other agency engaged in attempting to get scientific information with reference to this fact. It is characteristic of the quality of mind of the President of the United States that he should desire facts upon which to base a judgment. It is the intent and purpose of the Bureau of Corporations, acting under tlie direction of the President of the United States, to make a survey of the industrial field, and an extensive investigation of this subject. We shall enter into this investigation with the sole intent of working out, in a scientific and fair-minded spirit, the facts absolutely as they are. So vital and so fundamental is this problem that to attack it in any other spirit would be criminal. What is needed is light - not heat. The problem bristles with difficulties; it seems a tremendous undertaking. It will demand an increased appropriation from Congress to enable us to have the men and means at our command. The results of this investigation may not coincide with all that we hope to procure. We can, however, obtain some facts that will at least contribute to a correct interpretation of industrial conditions as they exist.

The President of the United States lays it down as a fundamental basis that, before there can be legislation on this subject, there must be an economic inquiry to ascertain the facts. Honorable members opposite have continually attacked the Sherman law, and have stated repeatedly that it is inoperative; that it is useless as a means of restraining trusts, affording no remedy against them. But in 1911 Congress appointed a Committee to report upon the operation of the existing laws affecting trusts, and the Committee reported, concerning the Sherman law, that it should stand as the fundamental law on the subject, and -

That any supplemental legislation for more effectual control and regulation of Inter-State and foreign commerce should be in harmony with the purpose of the existing statute.

It reported further -

The Committee will not at this time enter upon an extended argument respecting the policy of maintaining competition or competitive conditions in the business of the country. lt is well understood that there are many distinguished students and highly-trained thinkers who believe that the age of competition is past, and that for the struggle which competition involves there should be substituted combination and co-operation, under such regulation and supervision as will protect the people from the oppression of monopolistic power. And added to the students and thinkers who have reached this conclusion through mere observation and investigation, there are many engaged in commerce, and who, therefore, speak from a practical stand-point, who have also concluded that some form of regulated monopoly or concentration should be adopted. All these men, whether theorists or otherwise, admit that if we abandon the effort to maintain competition the Government must undertake, directly or indirectly, to fix prices for the combinations or monopolies.

Then it adds this very important finding

The Committee feels that the time has not yet come for so radical a departure from the long established policy of the country, and it hopes that the time may never come when it will be necessary for the Government to assume the task of establishing prices for general commodities. It believes that the progress of the world depends in a large measure upon that fair, reasonable rivalry among men which has hitherto characterized the advances of civilization. It is frequently declared that the law cannot compel men employed in like business to compete with each other. There is a sense in which this is true, but it is only technically true. What is meant when we use the phrase “ maintaining competition” is maintaining competitive conditions. We can both create and maintain competitive conditions, and, until human nature is revolutionized, when competitive conditions exist, there will be actual competition; but if for some extraordinary reason that should fail there will be, at least, a potential competition tending to prevent undue prices and unfair practices. Without going further into the issue between regulated competition and regulated monopoly, the Committee reiterates its finding that the anti-trust Statute should stand, and that every possible effort to create and preserve competitive conditions should be made.

– The Commission inquired into the suggested remedy of nationalization, and reported as follows -

Advocates of the public ownership of industry rightly dwell upon the avoidance of the wastes of competition. But, in the case of the refining industry in Australia, such wastes are negligible. Further, taking into consideration the various difficulties with which public ownership has to contend, and the high efficiency of the present refining business in Australia, we do not think that the public ownership of the refineries woud prove as financially successful as the present private ownership.

It proceeded to give its reasons for holding this view. First amongst these was the cost of nationalization. “Dealing with the items which go to make up the cost, it reported -

The cost of nationalizing the refining industry would involve an initial capital outlay of some millions by the time allowance had been made for the costs of refineries, goodwill, floating capital, &c. To secure a fair interest on this capital outlay without penalizing consumers would, we believe, be difficult, if not impossible.

The point is that nationalization, instead of cheapening the cost, of the articles to the consumer, would have penalized the consumer. The proposed remedy, therefore, would be worse than the disease. Finally the Commission reported in regard to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company -

Such profits’ as it does make on its refining are made under existing conditions - conditions which give to its plant a value in excess of earning capacity under the altered conditions which would be involved in nationalization. In the general result we cannot avoid the conclusion that the Commonwealth Treasury would be involved in a heavy financial loss, unless it were prepared to make higher demands on the consumers than is necessary under a system of ‘ private owned industry subject to appropriate regulation.

Mr Tudor:

– Yes, he called at the office.

Mr GROOM:

– The workmen and others have been engaged in erecting these works for some considerable time. As to the rise in the price of meat, many of us remember the time when the primary products of Australia were practically valueless, and when there was no real encouragement for farmers, pastoralists, or any other producers. Great wealth has come to Australia through the extension of our operations, by means of better steam-ship accommodation and other agencies, in the markets of the world, and through the increased price of wheat, wool, and meat. Our factories do not export, but merely supply local wants, and the millions of money which come into Australia, in return for our great primary products, have helped to increase the wages of the artisans in the cities. The hope of all Australians is that our products may continue to go abroad, and that the added wealth may result in higher standards of living for the whole nation. Incidentally, of course, we have to face certain consequences. If we export our wheat, and reap the advantage of higher prices in the markets of the world, the farmers must get the advantage; but the wealth that comes to Australia affords employment for the whole of the people. The cost of wheat and flour may rise here, and our clothing and meat may cost a little more. The higher the prices abroad, the more money will come here, and be made available for distribution amongst the working men, with a rise in the standard of living, and the removal of any anxiety for the future development of the nation. As to associations, we must penalize only those which act injuriously - which use the powers they possess to make the people pay more than they otherwise would pay in open market. However, these are matters of farreaching importance, which we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to discuss later on. I have had prepared for me by the Customs officials in Western Australia and Queeusland a return showing last week’s prices for beef and mutton in Perth and Brisbane. This return shows that, while the price of the sirloin was 5 1/2 d. in Brisbane, it was 7d. at the Government butchery in Perth, and 6d. at private butcheries. For ribs the prices were:

– I claim that I have been misrepresented. I was compelled by Mr. Speaker to withdraw a simple, harmless expression, namely, that the honorable member for Yarra had given his blessing to this trust. I say now that the honorable member did approve of all this trust did, which is all I meant to convey when I used the word “ blessing.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! That is not a personal explanation.

Mr JENSEN:
Bass

– I may intimate at once that I intend to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and I have reasons for so doing. I have asked myself why Parliament has been called together so early in the year. I object to this great National Parliament being used by any party in the House with the object of trying to destroy something which the electors created to exist for three years. In the Speech of the Governor-General we have an admission of incompetency on the part of the Government. They declare that they have been unable to carry on the government as they would like. They have put it in type that the last session was barren, and that they have called Parliament together because of that barrenness. Further, they have distinctly stated their intention to bring about chaos, and that they will not attempt to do those things which in 1913 they promised the electors they would do. Paragraph 2 of the Speech of the Governor-General says -

My Advisers consider that under existing circumstances a prolonged recess is not advisable, and that Parliament should be given an early opportunity of considering the best means of expediting the despatch of urgent public business.

Are we to believe, from the statements of Ministers and their supporters, that the two. Bills which the Government propose to bring before this House, with a view to causing practically a deadlock, are urgent public business? I would like to know whether the majority of the electors of Australia consider these measures urgent public business. I see nothing urgent in them; in fact, they both reek with the odour of “bluff.” This plea of urgent business is nothing but a put-up job to delude and fool those who supported Ministers in 1913. Paragraph 3 of the Speech of the Governor-General says -

During the first session of this Parliament, my Ministers, for reasons which they advise me were beyond their control, were unable to pass legislation on many subjects outlined in their policy statement presented to you on 12th August last. Those subjects comprised Bills dealing with the prohibition of preference or favoritism in Government employment, and the restoration of the electoral provisions for voting by post.

Burnie, Wednesday.

This afternoon a meeting was held to form a sawmillers’ association on the north-west coast. Mr. A. G. Blackwell presided, and representatives of the following firms were present : - Grey Bros, and Lee & Co., Smithton; the Burnie Brick and Timber Co., Wynyard Co., Austral Co., and Pilbeam and Coy., Burnie; and the Tasmania Co., Rocky Cape. After forming the association, it was decided to protest to the Inter-State Commission against the removal of the duty on Oregon timber. Another object the association has in view is to try to raise the price of hardwood.

That is all in regard to that aspect of the matter. But the report also states -

The Chief Secretary will be written to, asking for equal representation on the Timber Industry Wages Board, as the employés at present have an extra representative thereon. It was agreed to co-operate with other associations already in the State, in order to secure mutual interests.

– He is one of the organizers.

Mr PAGE:

– Yes. Before I read that letter, I want to read a very significant letter which has reached me from Adelaide -

I have heard to-day of a man who has been employed in the Accounts Branch of the Postal Department temporarily, who has got a job with Smith as timekeeper and in charge of rations, &c., for three years at Port Augusta, and for the present he will have to go out ninety miles from that place. If Smith has only got a small contract of 14 miles, why is this man being engaged for the three years?

– So much the better, because I can assure the honorable gentleman that more money is made m the ballasting of a railway than in carrying out the earthworks. The Prime Minister said last week that the present Government treat their workmen much better than did the Labour Government. I wish now just to show how the present Government are treating the men on the transcontinental railway. The following letter appeared in the Age of the 27th April, 1914: -

Sir, - In reference to the transcontinental railway, it is about time that the public knew some of the facts. It is said that day labour is proving itself a failure, but the position is that the day labour system is being deliberately strangled by the Government. At the Port Augusta end of the line as far as conditions are concerned, absolute chaos exists. Private enterprise in the matter of stores has “ fallen down “ completely, and the workmen are living under the most deplorable conditions. One gang of over 40 men were left without bread or groceries for nearly ten days, and this out in a waterless wilderness, 83 miles from the nearest town. All along the line, in a greater or in a lesser degree, the same complaints are made. The men are suffering from hunger and privation, and large numbers are continually leaving for this cause. Repeated promises’ have been made that departmental stores would he improved, but conditions are, if anything, worse now than at any time since the line started. One storekeeper has a monopoly of the trade, and it is a matter of public gossip in Port Augusta that certain officials have a financial interest in the present arrangements.

A man on formation work was without funds, and worked for three days without food, or with such scraps or sufferance meals ashe could get. He then drew a “ sub.” to pay for his meals. As the “ sub.” was only cashable in Port Augusta, and by himself, he lost three days’ work to get to the office and return, and was charged 5s.10 by the Department for the return journey by the construction train.

That is really “ hot stuff “ - to give a man an order, knowing that he cannot cash it where he gets it, but must go to Port Augusta; and when he comes back to start work again, to charge him 5s.10d. for his train fare, in addition to his loss of time.

The late Government gave the employés in Port Augusta free firewood, but now the order has gone forth that only “the staff” are to receive it. This represents a reduction in wages, but it applies only to the underpaid men at the bottom; the high-priced officials are still to get their wood free. These items, selected almost at random from a multitude of similar nature, are given as illustrations. A deliberate attempt is being made to goad the employés into reprisals and to strangle the day-labour system. This, at any rate, is my conviction. -

Yours, &c.,

L. Gray.

Cairns (Q.), Sunday. - Replying to a deputation yesterday, Mr. White, Minister for Agriculture, said that he had been speaking at Atherton about the great future of the cattle industry. Many people had the idea that because a large company was erecting works on the Brisbane River, it was the cause of the rise in the price of meat. He hoped that the price would go still higher - (sensation) -

I should think that there would be a sensation, seeing that, the people up there are now paying 8d. a lb. for beef - because every penny would help Queensland.

That is the old Protectionist argument. During the first Tariff debate in this House, the honorable member for

Werriwa used to say that the stock argument of the Protectionist party was, “ Put a wall round Australia; do not let anything come in or go out, and so keep the money in Australia.” As long as money continues to pour into the Treasury, Mr. White, the Queensland Minister of Agriculture, does not mind the price of beef being increased. The consumer is never considered.

Sir John Forrest:

– Eightpence per lb. for beef is very cheap. That is the experience of Western Australia.

Mr PAGE:

– It is not so in Queensland. According to this report, Mr. Barnes went on to say -

Queensland was going to be the abattoirs of the world. If large companies dealing in meat were prepared to spend their thousands in Queensland he would welcome them, and be glad to see them. The more that came the better. He was not afraid of the Labour party, or what it thought it could do with these great syndicates. It was only an election cry.

When election day comes round, they will learn whether or not it is a mere election cry. Anything that touches a constituent’s pocket carries conviction to his mind far quicker than does mere oratorical persuasion or argument. When election day comes round, the people will say, “It is all very well to try to evade the issue, but the position is that the price of meat is going up. How do you account for it? We are told that the increase is due to the operations of the Beef Trust.” Mr. White went on to say -

– You say you get them at a “ bob “ a head.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Wannon to cease interjecting.

Mr PAGE:

– At the last redistribution Queensland gained another member in this House, but, according to the Statistician and the Chief Electoral Officer of Queensland, Victoria has been defrauded of a member. The following paragraph recently appeared in the Melbourne press : -

Evidence having an important bearing on the loss by Victoria of its twenty-second member in the House of Representatives has been given before the Federal Electoral Commission.

On the 1011 census it was shown that the population in Queensland had grown so much faster than that in Victoria, that the Northern State became entitled to a tenth member, the Victorian representation being, at the same time, reduced from twenty-two to twenty-one.

Based on the enrolment on the State rolls for Queensland, it was contended that the Commonwealth rolls for the State named were inflated to the extent of 53,632. Statisticians agree that the adult electoral population forms about half of the total population. Therefore, if this contention that the Commonwealth rolls for Queensland were overloaded to the extent of 53,632 names were correct, it would mean that the population of Queensland was now over-stated to the extent of 107,264 persons.

Mr. E. H. Allars, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Queensland, pointed out to the Commission that either the State rolls were abnormally below their proper strength, or the State had lost population to such an extent that it was not now entitled to the tenth member it had got at the expense of -Victoria.

Another serious aspect of the question is that the Commonwealth returns to each State 25s. a head of the population on account of Customs and Excise duties. If the Queensland population lias decreased, as is apparently shown by the State electoral officials, the Commonwealth is now paying Queensland £134,000 a year more than she is entitled to.

Victorian members of the Federal Parliament are anxiously waiting to see what the recommendation of the Federal Electoral Coinmission will bc on this aspect of the investigation.

Here we have the opinion of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in regard to inflated rolls. Let me give the Ministry a tip as to how to get clean rolls. Let them pay the 25s. per head for every adult enrolled. The States would then see that every adult was put- on the roll, and the Commonwealth would see that not more than the proper number were enrolled, so that there would be a double check. The idea is not mine. I heard Senator McGregor give it on the platform.

Sir John Forrest:

– What about the children ?

Mr PAGE:

– We could make the payment £2 10s. for every adult enrolled.

Several honorable members interjecting

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! As the honorable member has but a few minutes in which to conclude his speech, it is not fair for other honorable members to take up his time by interruptions.

Mr PAGE:

– I wish to read some remarks of the Prime Minister in reference to the Senate and a double dissolution. He said -

If a crisis were to occur, and I went to the people of New South Wales and said that I. objected to what the Senate had done in regard to the Tariff, they would turn around and say, “ We want the Senate to do precisely as it is doing.” Then .1 might retort, “ But look at the danger that is involved to the Constitution.” They would then say, “ We had all those dangers pointed out to us before the referendum was taken. We knew all about them then, and now that the Senate is in favour of our view with regard to the Tariff, we ask you and others to work the Constitution as you find it, until it is altered in a constitutional way.”

Let it be marked that all these dangers were pointed out before the referendum was taken. What are the test Bills, and particularly what is the Government Preference Prohibition Bill ? Ministers have already done, by act of administration, what they are asking the Parliament to do by Act of Parliament. Even if there is a double dissolution over this Bill, whoever secures the Treasury bench will not have a big majority - parties are too evenly divided in the States; neither party will get a big majority - and the> Senate will continue to hold the key to the situation. When we come back after a double dissolution, what shall we meet, for? To do, by means of a Bill, what had been done two years previously by means of an act of administration. And’ then, if things do not pan out as they should, there will probably be another double dissolution. If the GovernorGeneral gives a double dissolution on this Bill, it means the downfall of the Senate for all time. There will be no Senate; there will be no need for one; and there will be no more Upper Houses in Australia, because the people will rise in their wrath against them and wipe them off the face of the earth, just as the kangaroo does the grass when he is on a good plain. If the Attorney-General had the power to-morrow, he would stop the representation of the small States; but he has no more hope of carrying that intoeffect as regards Queensland than he has of flying to Heaven without wings.

Sir John Forrest:

Mr WATKINS:

– It appears to me that they have official organs in every capital of the States, that do nothing but “boom” or “boost,” as the Americans say, the Government cause, right or wrong. The party and the press seem to act in concert. When the Government refuse to do a thing that the papers require of them, the papers treat Ministers as the Chinese treat their gods - they whip them out of office, and adopt various other means of punishing them. Passing on, I desire to touch on a question that was dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Customs this afternoon. So far as concerns the securing to the producers reasonable “ prices for their goods, I agree with the Minister, but . when we get in Australia anything in the form of a combination, whether it is dealing with wheat, meat, or any other foodstuffs of the people, I am one who is prepared to take steps to protect those foodstuffs more readily than I would attack a combination dealing with any other commodity. While it is a good thing to see the exports increasing, and the trade of the country expanding, there may be a time - and so far as beef is concerned, that time has arrived in Australia - when, owing to the increase in exports, as directed and controlled by certain people, there is an undue inflation of the cost of the commodity to the local consumers.

The Minister for Trade and Customs produced figures in which he tried to prove that, although the Beef Trust is supposed to be operating in the State of Queensland, meat is cheaper in Brisbane than in Victoria and Western Australia. That comparison was very unfortunate and very unfair, and did not add any new information to the debate. Does not every member of the House know that Queensland produces more than half of the beef of Australia? And do not honorable members know that the southern portion of Western Australia produces, perhaps, a less number of cattle than any other part of Australia. The cost to the people of Perth of getting meat from the north-west is so enormous, that whether a trust is operating in Australia or not, prices must necessarily be higher in Perth than in Brisbane at all times. The honorable member would be doing better if he directed his attention to the fact that beef, whether in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane, has increased in price during the last few months out of all proportion to what it ought to be, considering the number of cattle raised in the Commonwealth.

– Where is the Minister? The right honorable gentleman is the only Minister at the table at the present moment. With regard to the contract work proposed by the Government, and day-labour work as carried out by the late Government, and by various State Governments, it is of no use to take the price of one little contract that may be let on this particular line, as has been done during this debate, and contrast it with a small section done by day labour at any particular place. Let honorable members opposite take the evidence of the Railway Commissioners of any State they like to name. These are independent gentlemen, whose policy in regard to the building of railways in the future is to have no contracting, because they find that day labour right through the piece has meant the saving of thousands of pounds in their Departments. It stands to reason that if a day-labour job is not completed for the estimated cost, or less, the cause must be bad supervision. Given the same supervision and the same conditions, it stands to reason and common-sense that jobs carried out directly by the Departments themselves by day labour are not only cheaper, but infinitely better done than under any other possible system. I now wish to deal with the effort of the Government to secure a double dissolution on the empty cry of abolition of preference to unionists in Government employment. This matter affects only 2,000 men throughout the Commonwealth, but honorable members opposite would put on the statute-book a law that would not only prevent, a Minister from granting them preference, but would also prevent any Judge or other independent tribunal, Federal or State, from giving them a meed of justice. To show what an empty shibboleth this measure is, Ministers know that they have abolished preference to unionists in Government employment by an administrative act, and therefore do not require a Bill to do it. Any succeeding Government can reverse that decision. The fact is that the Ministry are trying to gull the people. They intend, if they are able, to induce the GovernorGeneral when he arrives to grant them a double dissolution on a flimsy pretext, such as this measure is. Why should trade unionists not have preference in this regard ? You ask them on the one hand to give up their right to strike, and to go to the Arbitration Courts in order to secure the settlement of their difficulties. While they give up the only weapon they have ever possessed with which to fight for their rights, surely the Government will not deny them the right to employment after the dispute has been legally settled? The Government, and those who stand behind them, would, if they dared, and if they thought it was popular, do as their predecessors did before them in days gone by. They would go so far as to deny the men the right to form trade unions at all. They stand up to-day and say, “ We do not object to trade unionism so long as it keeps its place.” Those words, interpreted in the sense in which they are really used, mean that so long as trade unionists are helpless, so long as they are content with their conditions, and not aggressive in asking for their rights, the Ministerial party believe in unionism, but directly the unionists attempt to do something for themselves, they say, “ We are against you; you are too aggressive; you are usurping the rights of the employers.” They make all manner of charges, and then try to justify their attitude by some flimsy pretext such as I have described. I am positive that every benefit that has been secured by non-unionists everywhere in the industrial world by way of increased wages, or increased accommodation, or better conditions generally, they have to thank trade unionists for, although they never did anything by cash contributions or by their own. exertions to help to bring these improvements about. Why, then, should they receive at the hands of this, or any other Government, the same consideration as themen who have borne the brunt of the battle, and paid their share to gain these benefits ? It has always been the unionists who have made the sacrifices in the past, and they have a right to preference, especially if they are asked to give up their right to strike by going to a Court to have their differences adjusted. Just imagine the first act of the honorablemember for Parramatta, as Prime Minister of Australia, being to strike a blow at the very men who put him into Parliament on the first occasion ! His present attitude is a very striking commentary upon his political career. Sent into Parliament, as he was in the first instance, by the miners’ pennies and the miners’ work, his very first act as Prime Minister is to say, “I am against preference to unionists.” When he was the miners’ paid secretary, he dared not settle any strikes without every man having absolute preference and going back again into the mine. When he sat as delegate to the Australian Miners Federation under my presidency, and I went abroad adjusting and settling disputes, P* can imagine what he would have said to me if I had come back to the council and reported that I had adjusted even one dispute without getting absolute preference for every man who was out on strike at the time. That is the man who is now at the head and forefront of the antipreference movement. He wants to make us believe that he thinks differently today on the question from what he did fifteen or twenty years ago. He does not really think differently, but his position is different, and he has altered his views to suit his position. Whatever the outcome of the present situation in this House is, nobody will be more ready to welcome an appeal to the country than myself. I think that the appeal should have been made before this session began at all. I have always thought the House unworkable since the last election, and everybody knows that that is so. The Government are trying to hold on to office and to twist the situation in order to serve their own party ends. That is a degrading spectacle for any Government or party to offer. They are helpless so far as doing anything in this Parliament is concerned, and they know it.

Knowing it, they should agree to a dissolution of the House, ,so that the people, who are the final arbiters, may have another chance to adjust the position in Federal politics.

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

– Then there is nothing in the contention of the honorable member for Barrier that there is plenty of work to do?

Mr WATKINS:

– If the Government had shown at the beginning an earnest intention to do any work at all, the position might have been altogether different, but they did last session just what their programme shows that they are going to do this session. They say, “ We are going to tear the Constitution to pieces. We are going to interpret it in such a way that the Governor-General will give us a double dissolution on questions affecting only 2,000 men on the one hand, and a mere detail of the electoral system on the other.” I venture to say that the framers of the Constitution when they agreed upon the sections governing deadlocks between the two Houses never dreamt that any Government would be so insane as to ask for a double dissolution on a flimsy pretext of that kind They had in their minds a possible struggle between the two Houses on some measure embodying a vital principle. If the Government had introduced a measure governing the whole electoral machinery of the Commonwealth, it might have been called a test question in reality, but the postal vote is simply a detail of our electoral system, and it will be an extraordinary stretching of the Constitution for any GovernorGeneral to say that upon either of the measures which are to be pub before us by the Government, there is such a disagreement between the two Houses as to warrant a recourse to the deadlock provisions of the Constitution in the sense in which their framers intended them to be used. When these two measures come before us, I shall offer no unnecessary obstruction to them, but they will get from me the criticism which they so richly deserve, and the people of this country will be made aware of the true position which the Government occupy.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added’ (Mr. Fisher’s amendment) - put. The House divided.

AYES: 35

NOES: 35

AYES

NOES

Amendment negatived.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear,

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– I will inform the House when I have ascertained His Excellency’s wish as to the date when the AddressinReply shall be* presented.

page 651

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) agreed to-

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at half-past 2 o’clock p.m.

page 651

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Motion (by Sir John Forrest) agreed to-

That the House will on Wednesday next resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

page 651

COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS

Motion (by Sir John Forrest) agreed to-

That the House will on Wednesday next resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

page 651

DAYS OF MEETING

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– It will be recollected that a little time ago the matter of the sitting days was raised in the House, and a debate ensued. I took it from the debate that there was a general desire on the part of honorable members on both sides that we should, if possible, compress into three sittings the ordinary parliamentary business for the week, and, believing that to be the desire of the House, I move -

That, until otherwise ordered, this House shall meet for the despatch of business at halfpast Two o’clock on each Wednesday afternoon, and at half-past Ten o’clock on each Thursday and Friday morning, and that, at each sitting, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business.

Mr McWilliams:

– When on this side the honorable member was opposed to the giving of time to private members’ business.

Mr McDONALD:

– I have never occupied time with private business; but to show the importance of private members’ motions, I might mention that last session, at the instance of a private member, an inquiry was agreed to which will cost some thousands of pounds, and another which will cost more than any one can estimate. At the instance of the honorable member for Bass, Parliament agreed to grant £900,000 to the State of Tasmania. Is it the wish of the Prime Minister to prevent certain motions from being moved? If not, will he promise to give an opportunity for their discussion?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– To which motions does the honorable member refer? “

Mr McDONALD:

– I consider that three days a week is long enough for members to sit, and have always held that view here and in the State Parliament; but if to reduce the sitting days to three the privileges of members are to be curtailed, I must vote against the motion. I move as an amendment -

That the following words be added : - “ except on Fridays from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m., which time shall be devoted to private members’ business.”

That, owing to the increased cost of living, an increase should be made in the payments to old-age and invalid pensioners.

I am in favour of that proposal, and I was looking forward to an opportunity of supporting the honorable member. But he, apparently wishes to wipe out private members’ business in order to deprive himself of the opportunity of moving this motion.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– That is too thin.

Mr J H CATTS:

– When the honorable member votes, we shall see whether he wishes to deprive himself of that opportunity.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Why are you trying to bully me?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Something more than a laugh-provoking interjection will be required to explain away the attitude of the honorable member. The Government may be interested in depriving another honorable member of the opportunity of moving the following motion on the notice-paper : -

That a Select Committee of this House, consisting of three members of the Ministerial side, one from the Opposition, and the mover, be appointed to examine the officers and the records of this House to ascertain if the third reading of the Loan Bill was carried on the 31st October, 1913.

That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that a system of pensions for the permanent Military Forces of the Commonwealth should be inaugurated.

Colonel Ryrie. - How do you know how I am going to vote?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do not know. But if the honorable member votes for the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister, he will indicate to those employed in the Military Forces that he was not in earnest when he put that notice of motion on the business-paper. There is another notice of motion by the honorable member for Perth -

That, in the opinion of this House, the military training of cadets should commence at the age of sixteen years instead of fourteen, as at present, and until the age of sixteen is reached the training should consist of physical development exercises and the simpler evolutions, without military equipment.

A number of honorable members were looking forward to an opportunity of assisting the honorable member for Perth to have that principle established; but if the proposal of the Government is carried, honorable members will be deprived of that opportunity. There is another motion which is causing some concern to the Ministry, and that, too, can be wiped out by depriving honorable members of any opportunity of discussing private members’ business. I refer to the following notice of motion by the honorable member for Barrier: -

That the resolution of this House of the 11th November, 1913 - “That the honorable member for Ballarat be suspended from the service of this House for the remainder of the session, unless lie sooner unreservedly retracts the words uttered by him at Ballarat on Sunday, the ,)tb November, and reflecting on Mr. Speaker, and apologizes to the House “ - bc expunged from the journals of this House, as being subversive of thu right of an honorable member to freely address his constituents.

I have no doubt that the Government would be very glad to have an opportunity of preventing discussion upon the proposal that is on the notice-paper after the name of the honorable member for Melbourne; but I do not propose to refer to it, because I see that the honorable member is anxious to speak, and I am sure that he will give a good account of himself. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is also interested in private members’ day, and he, no doubt, will rise and let honorable members know the faith that is in him. I object to the proposed alteration, not so much because I am against any lessening of the days of sitting - that being, as I have said before, a matter for the Government to decide; and if they say that the necessary work of Parliament can be done in less time, that is their concern - but because in the way in which it is submitted it will not give members the relief it was said would be given. The only members to benefit will be the gentlemen who occupy the front seat on the Government bench. They will be relieved of one day’s sitting in the House, when their actions and policy could be subjected to criticism. Then, of course, there is the encroachment upon private members’ time. In view of all those circumstances, I propose to vote for the amendment moved by the honorable member for Kennedy, and if that is defeated I shall vote against the motion.

Mr BENNETT:
Gippsland

.- Several references have been made during this discussion to various matters, and I, for one, am very anxious to see very drastic reforms made in the procedure of this Parliament. We should curtail, not only the days of sittings, but also the length of speeches. I am of opinion that the standing order referring to the length of speeches requires some considerable amendment in the direction of shortening the time for which members are allowed to speak.

Mr McDonald:

– Your own Prime Minister prevented that from being done when it was proposed.

Mr BENNETT:

– What my own party did is one thing, and what I think on the subject is another. For my part,

I am anxious to see the Standing Orders further amended, so that speeches will be even shorter than they are at present. I enter my protest against the system of party government which is at present in force, and I have no hesitation in saying that it will not be long before that system will be completely abolished, and another substituted. The present system has outlived its usefulness, and some other form of government - what form I am not prepared to say - will be brought into existence. I am convinced that the people of Australia will not tolerate the present method of procedure, and the shameful waste of time that is taking place in this Chamber. In the course of a few years they will take control of this Parliament, if Parliament is not prepared to do the work which the people created it to do. I am prepared to support the Government in this matter, if their motion is accepted; but if there is to be any curtailment of Government business, I shall favour a continuance of the practice of sitting four days a week. I am convinced that the people of this country are dissatisfied with the actions of Parliament to-day, as they have reason to be dissatisfied, and in future they will amend the governmental system, if Parliament itself does not amend it for them.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I think it only right that I should place my point of view before the House. No one has ever accused ‘me of neglecting to look after my constituents. When I was approached and asked if I would waive my motion, I strongly objected. Then it was represented to me that I might be acting the part of the doginthemanger, and I said that if every other member was willing to waive his business I would not be a dog-in-the-manger, but would make a strong appeal to the Government to consider the question of an amendment of the divorce law. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has made a suggestion that, instead of private members being allowed four hours for their business, as at present, they should have two and a half hours on, say, Thursday morning. I think the honorable member for Kennedy made a mistake in proposing Friday morning, and would readily alter it to Thursday. If the time for private members’ business is on Friday morning, that will make a ridiculous alteration of the status of members who have given notice of motions; and who should have the right to move them if the Government can see their way to grant time for private members’ business. Speaking from experience, I must say that private members’ business is always sacrificed by every Government who have the power, and the desire to do so. There is no member in the House but will say that when the Government are strong enough and desire to take private members’ business away, that business is sacrificed, no matter which party is in power. Some years ago I submitted a proposal in the State Parliament to the effect that one night in a session should be set apart as a divisionnight. Upon that night any honorable member would be at liberty to secure, without any debate, a division upon any motion which he might have upon the business-paper. Under such a system, I venture to say that, within two hours, at least from twelve to twenty divisions could be taken. If the House rejected any motion with contempt, the author of it would not be foolish enough to waste the time of honorable members by submitting it on a future occasion. The setting apart of a division night such as I have suggested would practically enable the business-paper to be cleared. Personally, I should be very loth to see private members’ business abandoned. I may mention three important Bills which were carried in the Victorian Parliament, and which were private measures, namely, the Prematernity Act, the Legitimization Act - these two introduced by myself - and the Divorce Act. The last-named was passed at the instance of Mr. William Shiels. I am sure that every representative of Tasmania in this Chamber will recognise that the motion which led to the financial grant to Tasmania was carried at the instance of a private member. I am satisfied that the honorable member for Henty did not intend to injure either honorable members upon the Ministerial side of the House or upon the Opposition side when he said that there would be fewer Commissions appointed if their members were not paid. He must know that the members of Royal

Commissions do not receive any payment while those bodies are sitting in the State in which members happen to reside. As a matter of fact, they are paid only their travelling expenses when abroad. It is the duty of honorable members to do eight hours’ work upon each sitting day, but that work should be done in the daytime. That is the practice which is observed in the only country in the world in which the people have control of their Parliament. The Legislature there meets at 8 a.m. in the summer, and adjourns at 1 p.m. It resumes at 2 o’clock, and sits till 5 o’clock. Every member who is absent from a sitting is punished, and it is necessary that a majority of members must be present while any business is being transacted. If that rule were observed here, there would be no complaints from the honorable member for Henty that when private members’ business is being considered there are only about eight members in the Chamber. The Parliament of which I speak does its business every yearin two short sessions of three weeks each.

Mr Boyd:

– What Parliament is that?

Dr MALONEY:

– The Parliament of Switzerland. The one great question which this Government have to face is that of the referendum and initiative. If they would only bring forward a Bill to give effect to these reforms, I venture to say that it would be rapidly passed by this House. Of course, if the Ministry have decided to dispense with private members’ business, the question of divorce must go by the board. But there is no Court in the Commonwealth or in New Zealand which has not honoured me by sending me an expression of its opinion upon that motion. I have the testimony of 150 professional men in regard to it. That testimony I will be pleased to place at the disposal of the Prime Minister, or of any member of the Government, because I feel sure it will show them the widespread need which exists for making our women citizens the equal of our men citizens. I hope that the Government will see their way to grant one and a-half or two hours weekly to private members’ business.

Mr FALKINER:
Riverina

I would not have risen but for the fact that motives have been attributed to the Government for having brought forward this motion. As a matter of fact, I urged on our party the necessity of submitting such a motion last session, and 1 renewed my efforts on the first day of the present session. The idea, therefore, that the Government have been actuated by any ulterior motive goes by the board. I was in a hopeless minority in my own party until I learned from some members of it, who are supposed to be on specially friendly terms with members of the Opposition, that a great number of the latter were also in favour of it. It was only then that my own party decided to indorse it. Personally, I do not think that the Prime Minister has gone far enough. My own idea is that we should sit three days a week, and that the Government should curtail questions without notice, and devote that time to the business of private members. If we cannot sit on three days a week only, we ought to sit the whole of the week. At the last elections, large number of honorable members were’ elected to this Parliament who have private interests to attend to, and the electors have never expressed the opinion that they should sit here day after day and absolutely neglect those interests. As the majority which either party will probably have in the future is likely to be a very narrow one, we shall be required to attend here upon every sitting day. That being so, if we meet four days a week honorable members will have no time in which to attend to their own business, and the result will be that we shall get a class of professional politicians whom the country does not want. Those of us who have interests outside of this Parliament require a certain amount of time to look after them, and the electors who sent us here are willing that we shall have it. If the proposal to sit three days a week is not acceptable to the House, I am prepared to meet upon four days a week.

Mr DANKEL:
Boothby

.- I happen to have upon the business-paper two notices of motion which I regard as important. I should like to hear that the Prime Minister intends to set aside a few hours on Thursday morning, or on some other day, for private members’ business; but if the Government decide that this shall not be done, I shall vote against the amendment even though I have two notices of motion on the business-paper. I promised that I would support the motion, and shall keep my word.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– It is a strange thing that time should be occupied in a great Parliament like this in discussing a question of this character. Many years ago we could have had our salaries fixed at £1,000 a year, but honorable members were scared of their shadows in those days. I remember when the thing was all right, and the very men who voted against the increase of salary all went out of public life. The great people of this country do not want men to work themselves to death. I believe in taking everything that comes, and if it comes too swiftly then I dodge it. When I look round it seems to me that it would be easier to sweep back the waves of the ocean than to silence the political martyrs who are too much afraid of their own shadows to do anything. What are they frightened of? No other Parliament in the world works more than three days a week. Most of us are now travelling toward our immortal home, and are we going to work ourselves to death for a few years? What, after all, is private members’ business? I never got a motion through this House yet, and it will be thirteen years on the 9th of this month since I gave notice here of a motion dealing with old-age pensions. It was thirteen years since I gave notice of a motion to allot, an area of 1,000 square miles for the Federal Territory, but I never got the motion through. There are honorable members here who always do their best to throw out motions of that kind, and it is a farce to talk about this matter. We can adjourn the House and have a battle over the thing if it is not working right. In fact, it seems to me that patient listeners stimulate eloquence. No matter how this matter goes, I intend to vote for three days sittings a week.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I am rather surprised at the proposal coming from the Prime Minister, for I have a vivid recollection of him assailing the late Prime Minister for having the temerity to move that private members’ business be done away with towards the middle of the session. We have practically not more than started the session, but the Prime Minister now wants to wipe all private members’ business out. I also recollect the honorable member for Lang objecting to private members’ business being done away with. On all occasions when an attempt has been made to reduce the privileges of private members there has been a concerted howl from a number of honorable members who tonight have spoken in support of the proposal. I cannot understand why they should have turned such a complete somersault. I do not like to charge honorable members directly with trying to evade a vote on certain questions, because that perhaps would not be fair, but I have a strong desire to put before the House the only notice of motion which I have standing in my name. Private members’ business should not be wiped out so early in the session. If the Government meant business the position would be different, but we know they do not. I wish to give notice of an amendment on the amendment to delete the word Friday, with a view to insert Thursday, because I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne that if Friday was fixed for private business instead of Thursday, there would be a rush all over again to get the best positions, and I do not want to lose for my motion the favorable position which it now occupies on the notice-paper. Honorable members will think seriously before curtailing the privileges that we have had in the past. I objected to the proposal to reduce the sitting days from four to three, and thought that the suggestion to sit on Thursday morning was rather a good one if the other day could be done away with, but I never dreamt that the Prime Minister would propose to do away with all the time previously given to private members. I understood from those honorable members who were “ whipping “ the matter that Thursday morning was to be allowed for private members’ business. It is a pity that that has not been arranged. The Government are establishing a precedent that no other Parliament has adopted so early in the session. The State Parliaments sit for three days weekly, but they allow time for private members’ business. If the numbers are up it is useless to protest, but I think there are honorable members who will vote for the motion who will regret later on that they have curtailed their own privileges.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added (Mr. McDonald’s amendment as amended) - put. The House divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 49

Majority … … 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 18

Majority … … 33

AYES

NOES

page 664

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Motion (by Mr. W. H. Irvine) proposed -

That he have leave to bring in a Bill for an Act to prohibit in relation to Commonwealth employment preferences and discriminations on account of membership or nonmembership of an Association.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Joseph Cook) adjourned.

page 664

ADJOURNMENT

Compulsory Training - Private Members’ Business - Days of Meeting

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to an advertisement appearing under the heading “ Situations Vacant” in to-day’s Argus. It reads -

Youth wanted, assistant salesman estate agent’s office, knowledge Melbourne district, military service exempt preferred, ride bicycle. Malvern News Office.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the insertion of such an advertisement is not illegal. If it is not, it is, in my opinion, the business of this House to make it illegal. In my opinion, all men in business, or otherwise engaged, who endeavour to discourage compulsory military training under the present system should be punished in some way or another. During a debate in this House when the question of compulsory training was under consideration, I pointed out on more than one occasion that something of this kind would occur, and that employers of labour who would shout from the house-tops about their patriotism and assert that they are in favour of compulsory training would, the moment it touched them, endeavour to evade their duty as members of the community. If that sort of thing continues, no youth who has compulsory service to do will be able to obtain employment when those who are exempt can be got. I know two men, one in the hairdressing business, and the other in the bakery business, who will not take youths who have military training to do. If preference is given to those who have not to perform drill, young men will resort to unfair methods to secure exemption. It behoves the Min- istry, the House, and all well-thinking people to see if something cannot be done to prevent this kind of thing.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

. -I wish to know whether the sessional order which has been passed to fix the days of meeting will take effect to-morrow morning or next week ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The House has determined to meet at half-past 2 p.m. to-morrow.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Then are we to understand that private members’ business will have preference then ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– If that be so, one part of the motion will operate to-morrow and another part will not.

Mr Tudor:

– Has it been decided that next week we shall meet onWednesday, instead of on Tuesday ? Honorable members should know that, so that they may make their arrangements accordingly.

Mr McDonald:

– Is it generally understood that we meet to-morrow at half-past 2 p.m.?

Mr Webster:

– Yes. A motion to that effect has been carried

Mr Fisher:

– I think that it was superseded by the sessional order.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– The sessional order says “ until otherwise ordered,” and for to-morrow the House has otherwise ordered.

Mr Finlayson:

-What about private members’ business to-morrow?

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

– There is no private members’ business arranged for to-morrow.

Mr J H Catts:

– I understood that the sessionalorder was to take effect from Wednesday next.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes; but there is no private members’ business arranged for.

Mr Finlayson:

– I shall raise a point of order to-morrow.

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

– Regarding the matter brought under notice by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, I know of no law that has been violated by the advertisement; but the person advertising has put himself into a position which I should not like to occupy were I a business man asking for the services of a youth.

Mr Webster:

– If this sort of thing becomes general, what will happen?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In that case something will have to be done.I hope that the number of those who are thus encouraging youths to evade their service to the country is not large, and that public opinion will discountenance this sort of thing. Advertisements like that which has been read cannot be too strongly reprobated. The action of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports in bringing the matter forward has the sympathy of the Government. It is reprehensible for citizens to encourage our lads to evade their public duties by putting a premium on exemption.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 May 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1914/19140506_reps_5_73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 6 May 1914

QUESTION

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

Mr GROOM:Minister of Trade and Customs · Darling Downs · LP

Mr McGrath:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Page:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Page:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Higgs:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Tudor:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Jensen:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Jensen:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Jensen:

Mr GROOM:

House of Representatives
6 May 1914

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Darling Downs · LP