Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 12830
NEW MEMBER
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a return to the writ issued for the election of a member to serve in the House of Representatives for the Electoral Division of Echuca, in the placeof Albert Clayton Palmer, deceased indorsed with a certificate of the election of William Caldwell- Hill.
page 12830
QUESTION
REPATRIATION: GRANT TO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr WATKINS: NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931
-I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, whether the Department will consider the advisableness of renewing the allowances they have been making themunicipalities to provide for the employment of returned soldiers. I have here a letter showing that, in one case, twenty-three returned soldiers have been dismissedby a municipality owing to the fact that it has exhausted its grant.
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– The Government made a free grant of £500,000 to the local governing bodies of Australia to overcome the immediate difficulty experienced in placing returned soldiers in employment. They also advised the State Governments that they would be prepared to lend local governing bodies a further indefinite amount, provided the State Governments would pass the necessary legislation,or make whatever arrangements were requisite to enable the municipal authorities throughout the Commonwealth to expend further moneys in the employment of returned soldiers.
page 12830
QUESTION
ENTERTAINMENTS TAX
Mr LECKIE: INDI, VICTORIA
– I find that entertain ments held to provide funds for the erection of Soldiers’ Memorial Halls, and for other purposes associated with the welfare of our returnedmen, are being subjected to the Entertainments Tax. Will the Acting Treasurer take into con sideration the desirableness of placing such entertainments on the same footing as ordinary patriotic efforts, which are, to a certain extent, exempt?
Mr POYNTON: Honorary Minister · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT
– The matter will receivemy consideration.
page 12830
QUESTION
FROZEN MEAT CONTRACTS
Mr RODGERS: WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917
– In to-day’s press there appears an announcement by the Minister for Trade and Customs that the Imperial meat contracts are to terminate three months after the date of the exchange of ratifications of peace. Will the Minister inform the House if that announcement is final so far as Australia, one of the contracting parties, is concerned, and, if it means that, although huge quantities of meat for the Imperial Government are now accumulated in Australian cool stores, and, notwithstanding the enormously increased cost of producing meat owing to the drought conditions, the prices, terms, and conditions of the existing contracts are to apply to the new season’s meat?
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– The announcement referred to was made as the result of a cablegram, stating that the Imperial Government had announced through the Board of Trade that the contracts will terminate three months after the ratification of Peace. I proposeto consult with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) as to whether, in view of the fact that the Imperial Government are unable to lift from Australia accumulated supplies, further representations should be made to them to the effect that the old contract should not apply to the new season’s meat, but that the latter should be subject to the new contract’ when it is entered into. As soon as these negotiations have proceeded further the information will be given to the honorable member.
page 12830
QUESTION
ALLOWANCE POST-OFFICES
Mr FLEMING: ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether the information lately given by him, in the form of a letter, in regard to allowance post-offices in country districts, is to be taken to mean that in all but exceptional cases the hours that previously obtained will be restored ?
Mr WEBSTER: Postmaster-General · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– An error occurred in the interpretation of my instructions on the subject. I am correcting that error, and those concerned will be advised that the course just outlined by the honorable member is to be adopted.
page 12831
QUESTION
REFRIGERATED SPACE ON OVERSEA STEAMERS
Mr McWILLIAMS: FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928
– Can the Minister for the Navy say whether a definite decision has yet been arrived atbetween the Commonwealth and the Imperial Government regarding the control of refrigerated space on steam-ships trading between Australia and the Old Country during the coming season ?
Sir JOSEPH COOK: Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No. So far as I am aware nothing whatever is known of the matter.
page 12831
QUESTION
ADMIRAL VISCOUNT JELLICOE’S REPORT
Shaw Wireless Works
Mr JENSEN: BASS, TASMANIA
– Will the. Minister for the Navy state whether it is intended to place on the table of the House that portion of the report furnished by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe which cannot be regarded as secret, and particularly that part of it which relates to His Lordship’s inspection of the wireless workshops at Randwick, Sydney?
Sir JOSEPH COOK: NAT
– My recollection is that my honorable friend was informed last week that; the matter would be considered in connexion with the full report presented by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe. I hope that before long we shall be able to lay the report on the table of the House. The honorable member’s request will receive consideration.
page 12831
QUESTION
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS
Mr RILEY: SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Early in the present session the then Acting Treasurer (Mr. Watt) promised that, in view of the increased cost of living, consideration would be given to the question of increasing the amount of the invalid and old-age pensions. I should like to know whether anything has yet. been done in the matter ? When is the Government going to announce their intention?
Mr HUGHES: Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT
– The Government will announce its policy in due course.
page 12831
GENERAL ELECTION
Government Caucus Meeting
Mr WEST: EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Owing to the detrimental effect of a general election on business generally, and on honorable members’ pockets-
Mr Hughes:
– This is evidently a nonparty question!
Mr WEST:
– However that may be, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether, if there had been a full attendance of honorable members at the recent Government caucus meeting, the decision as to the date of the election might not have been different?
page 12831
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE LEAVE GRATUITY
Mr JOHN THOMSON: for Mr. Gregory
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
Is it a fact that officers and soldiers who were returned to Australia for convalescence, and again sent forward to the Front, have had the period spent within the Commonwealth deducted from their war service gratuity, whereas those who convalesced across the seas had no such deductions made?
If so, will the Minister agree that no deduction shall be made from the war service gratuity for the period during which any soldier who has been on active service has been convalescing, whether such period was spent in Australia or overseas?
Mr WISE: Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -
Yes. Service outside Australia only was counted as service for the purpose of war service leave gratuity.
Yes. The whole period of service from date of embarkation to date of commencement of final gratuity leave (or to date of discharge in past cases where such leave was not granted at the time of discharge) will now be allowed as. qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the leave gratuity. Adjustment will be made where necessary.
page 12831
QUESTION
WAR DECORATIONS
Mr RILEY: for Mr.. Page
asked the
Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
How many decorations (giving particulars of each class of decoration) were won by nurses, also members of the Army and Navy during the present war?
What rank did the holders of these decorations hold?
Mr WISE: NAT
– I have the particulars as to the Army, but not as to the Navy. When I have the information as to both I shall lay it on the table.
page 12832
QUESTION
RIFLE CLUBS: IMPORTED AMMUNITION
Mr MATHEWS: for Mr. Fenton
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
Whether it is true that imported ammunition is being used at our rifle ranges by the members of the Citizen Forces and Rifle Clubs instead of the locally made ammunition?
If so, will he see that Australian ammunition is used, so that employment may be given to returned soldiers and others, who are at present out of work, in the manufacture of such ammunition?
Mr WISE: NAT
– As far as can be ascertained, no imported ammunition, other than miniature, which is not made in Australia, is being used on rifle ranges by members of Citizen Forces and Rifle Clubs. All .303” ammunition required for use is made in Australia, and if an isolated case has occurred in which imported.303” ammunition has been used locally, then the quantity would be comparatively small, being the unexpended balance of ammunition placed on transports for protection of ships en route to Australia.
page 12832
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN TWEEDS : PRICES
Dr MALONEY: MELBOURNE, VICTORIA
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
If, as stated, all-wool suits can be supplied to the returned soldiers at varying prices of 25s.6½d. to 32s. per suit, will the Minister bring before the Cabinet the need for supplying the general public with such suits at a profit of, say, 25 per cent.?
With reference to the supply of the tweed sold by the Department to contractors at 4s. 4d. per yard, double width, will he consider the question of supplying such cloth in suit lengths to the public at an increase of price of, say, 25 per cent.?
Mr WISE: NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
The Government cannot undertake to supply made-up suits to the public.
It is anticipated that it will be possible at an early date to employ part of the plant of the Government Woollen Mills, not required for Government purposes, in manufacturing a limited quantity of cloth to be placed on the market for civilian use.
page 12832
QUESTION
SOLDIERS’ LEAVE IN ENGLAND
Sustenance Allowance
Mr WATKINS: NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
Is it a fact that the soldiers serving in Palestine, who were granted leave to visit
England, had their sustenance allowance reduced from6s. to 3s. per day, although 6s. was promised ?
Was the amount of their leave deducted when they arrived in Australia?
Mr WISE: NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
Soldiers granted leave to visit England were, in some cases, incorrectly informed abroad, owing to a misapprehension, that sustenance allowance of 6s. per diem would be payable. This statement was rectified on arrival of the soldiers in England. The approved rate of sustenance allowance applicable to all cases of long-service furlough in England is 3s. per diem, and payment of 6s. per diem could not be made in the cases quoted without extending the right to the increased payment to many hundreds of other cases already in England.
The amount of the long-service leave granted to the soldiers in England was deducted from the long-service furlough in Australia. It would be inequitable to allow soldiers to take furlough in England and again grant full furlough for the same period of service after their arrival in Australia, i.e., inequitable to those soldiers who did not elect to take furlough in England.
page 12832
QUESTION
GRIEVANCES OF BLUEJACKETS
Mr WEST: for Mr. Mahony
asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -
Is the report in the Sydney Sun of Tuesday, 23rd September, 1919, correct which stated that a bluejacket from H.M.A.S. Torrens had been dealt with because he had presented to the Prime Minister a list of the grievances of the Jack Tars in the Australian Navy? 2.If so, will the Minister take such steps as . will enable the men of the Australian Navy to place their grievances before the Prime Minister, seeing that the Prime Minister has asked that all grievances of soldiers and sailors should be placed before him?
Sir JOSEPH COOK: NAT
– Leading Signalman Mellor admits that he deliberately broke the regulations and committed an offence. I should add that the Prime Minister did not see Signalman Mellor, and knows nothing of his complaints.
page 12832
QUESTION
THE WAR
Rentals Charged by France and Belgium.
Mr WEST: for Mr. Finlayson
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
What is the amount debited against the Commonwealth Government by the Governments of (a) Belgium, (b) France, as rent for use by the Australian Imperial Force of trenches, dug-outs, billets, &c, during the war?
What is the amount proposed to be charged as rent for the cemeteries in which fallen Australiansoldiers are interred in (a) Belgium, (b) France?
Are these amounts being charged up as ordinary war expenditure?
Mr WISE: NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
Nil. The per capita charge of 5s. paid to the Imperial Government for the maintenance, equipment, &c, of Australian troops operating in France and Belgium includes accommodation.
Nothing is known here regarding a charge for rent of cemeteries and inquiries are being made by cablegram. The Imperial War Graves Commission has decided to apportion the total expenditure incurred in the cost of care and maintenance of graves in the ratio of the number of graves of the respective countries to the total number of British Empire graves. The estimated liability of the Commonwealth for the financial year 1919-20 is £120,000.
See replies to Nos. 1 and 2.
page 12833
QUESTION
SURPLUS MILITARY FLANNEL
Mr FENTON: MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
Whether it is a fact that the surplus flannel manufactured for soldiers was to be made available to soldiers and their dependants at cost price, viz.: -1s. and1s.6d. per yard ?
Whether large quantities of this flannel have been disposed of to Messrs. Foy and Gibson and Maclellan and Co., and is now being sold at 2s. per yard by those firms?
Will the Minister arrange to have this flannel retailed to soldiers at the cost price?
Mr WISE: NAT
– The answers to the honor able member’s questions are as follow : -
The surplus flannel has been forsome time, and is still, available at practically cost price, viz.,1s. 8d.,1s. 10d., and 2s. per yard.
The flannel sold to Maclellan and Co. has been retailed, and is still being retailed, by that firm and by Foy and Gibson at the prices at which it was purchased by them from the Department.
See No. 1.
page 12833
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
Mining Homestead Leases, Etc
Mr HIGGS: CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -
Having reference to the question asked, “ Whether the Government will advance money to returned soldiers under the War Service Homes Act to enable them to make their homes on land held under tenure peculiar to mining fields, viz., miners’ homestead and residence areas,” and the Minister’s reply, “ The War Service Homes Act permits advances to be made in respect to land held in fee-simple only,” is this reply to be taken to mean that the Government does not propose to amend the Act to permit of advances in respect to land held under mining homestead leases, &c?
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– Inquiries are being made as to the validity of the titles mentioned, and on receipt of the desired particulars the question of making advances in respect to them will be considered.
page 12833
QUESTION
PRICE OF BREAD
Mr BLAKELEY: DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Whether it is a fact that at Cobar, New South Wales, certain storekeepers are charging 5d. per loaf for bread?
If so, will the. Minister take action against such storekeepers?
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– The price of bread is not now subject to the control of the Commonwealth Government. It is understood, however, action has been taken by the Government of New South Wales to fix the price of bread in that State, and the honorable member’s question is being referred to that Government.
page 12833
QUESTION
INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT
Australian Films Company
Mr SPENCE: DARWIN, TASMANIA
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Having regard to the preservation of the rights of Australian authors, artists, producers, workers and the public, and the alleged operations of the Australian Films Company with ancillary agreements with certain picture exhibitors in Sydney to destroy or injure, by means of unfair competition the Australian picture-producing industry, will the Government take steps to consider the enforcement of the law under the Australian Industries Preservation Act for the repression of destructive monopolies, or, alternatively, whether action can be taken underthe common law for conspiracy?
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– Action is being taken to ascertain if the alleged operations of the Australian Films Company constitute an infringement of the Australian Industries Preservation Act.
page 12833
QUESTION
MUNITION AND WAR WORKERS: EMPLOYMENT
Mr STORY: for Mr. Fowler
asked the Assistant Minister for Defence, upon notice -
Is it a fact that a considerable number of returned munition and war workers throughout Australia are unable to obtain employment, and are suffering severe hardship in consequence?
Is it a fact that SenatorPearce and Sir Joseph Cook both promised that these men would beassisted into positions on their return from England?
Will the Minister take steps to provide work for such of these men as are unemployed, and, in the meantime, make a monetary allowance where it is shown to be absolutely necessary?
Mr WISE: NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
Nofigures are available showing number of returned munition and war workers who are unable to obtain employment.
It is not known what promises the honorable member refers to.
The Department is not responsible under the agreement for any further payments to munition and war workers after their return to Australia, as their agreement terminates on date of landing athome port. Approval has, however, been given for the payment of one week’s allowance to all workers who left England since the signing of the armistice, on the following scale: -
Munition Worker. - Worker, £11s. per week; dependant, £15s. per week; each child under 16 years, 2s. 6d. per week.
War Worker. - Worker, £11s. per week; dependant, £1 4s. 6d. per week; each child under 16 years, 3s. 6d. per week.
All workers with a satisfactory record now returning to Australia also receive £5 (British Government re-settlement allowance), £5 (Commonwealth gratuity), which, together with the £3 balance of voyage allowance, makes a total of £13, which amount, it is considered, should suffice to tide the worker over the period of unemployment. Furthermore, although no responsibility was accepted in the matter of finding employment, the State Munitions Committees have been instructed to use their best endeavours to place returned men in suitable employment, and, from reports received, it would appear that they have been very successful in this regard.
page 12834
QUESTION
WOOL APPRAISEMENT CENTRES
Mr BAMFORD: HERBERT, QUEENSLAND
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Whether, in regard to the appraisement of wool at Hobart, Launceston,and Geraldton, were any suitable premises, such as stores, sheds, or other buildings in existence and available for the purpose of appraisement at the time when appraisements were first made at all or any of the places named?
If any such buildings were not available, were any building or buildings specially erected for the purpose stated?
If any buildings were so specially erected, at whose cost were they provided - at the cost of the Wool Pool, the Commonwealth or any other Government, any public body, corporation, company, or any private company?
Mr HUGHES: NAT
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
Yes.
None were erected specially for the appraisement of wool. In some cases extensions have been made to existing warehouses, and branch establishments have been built.
The expense of additional accommodation for the appraisement of wool has been borne in every instance by the wool selling company or firm. Neither the Central Wool Committee nor any public body has erected warehouses for the appraisement of wool.
page 12834
QUESTION
WOOL DUMPING DISPUTE
Dr MALONEY:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
With reference to the papers laid on the table of the House in re wool tops, will he cause the report of Sir John Higgins to be printed if he cannot see his way toprint the whole of the documents?
Mr HUGHES: NAT
– The honorable member’s question is taken to relate to the report and correspondence in regard to the wool dumping dispute in Sydney. The report itself would be incomplete without the correspondence, and the honorable member has already been informed that it is not considered desirable to incur the expenditure which the printing of these documents would entail.
page 12834
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
Mr STORY: for Mr. Gregory
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -
How many soldiers’ homes have been erected and handed over to returned soldiers in each State, viz-.: - (a) erected by theDepartment; (b) erected or purchased by the applicant?
Will the Minister make it quite clear to applicants that they may erect their homes by contract or otherwise, subject to departmental approval of site, plans, and specifications?
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– The Commissioner has supplied the following : -
The necessary particulars are being obtained, and will be furnished in due course.
This is being done.
Mr POYNTON: NAT
– On Wednesday, 25th September, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) raised the question of land held under miners’ leases or miners’ rights being accepted in connexion with the War Service Homes Act. The Minister for Repatriation now advises that he has referred to the Crown Law officers the question as to how far these titles are valid. On receipt of this advice the Minister proposes to confer with the Housing Commissioner, after which I hope to be able tofurther advise the honorable member.
On the 18th September the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) asked me a question as to whether the policy of the Repatriation Department was to discourage returned soldiers from erecting their own homes. I promised the honorable member that I would bring the matter under the notice of the Minister and reply to him later. I desire to furnish the honorable member with the following reply: -
It is not the policy of the Department to discourage returned soldiers in erecting their own homes. On the contrary, in a number of. instances this has already been sanctioned, and homes are being erected by returned soldiers, subject, of course, to the approval of plans, &c, by the War Service Homes Commissioner.
The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor), on the same date, asked me to have specific inquiries made as to whether returned soldiers, some of whom have been gassed, have been prevented from attaching shop premises to such dwellings.
I have made the necessary,inquiries, and I am now able to furnish the followingreply:
Consideration has been givento the cases in which applicantsfor homes under the War Service Homes Act, whilst requiring a house primarily as a dwelling, also desire to carry on their usual avocation therein. It has been decided that application for premises designed for both home and business should be accepted, and the Minister for Repatriation has communicated accordingly with the War Service Homes Commissioner.
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– The honorable member for Hentyrecently asked that a statement be made to the House as to applications submitted by eligible applicants for an advance under the War Service Homes Act to purchase existing properties, and suggestedthat applicants had paid a deposit on them after valuation and had not been able to secure an advance.
Although the valuation of a property may be a correct one, it does not follow that the proposition is sound. Other points have to be considered, such as locality, suitability from a health’ point of view, type of dwelling, and its state of repair. These matters would have to be taken into account in an ordinary business proposition, but we must go further than that and protect the applicants, who axe returned soldiers and their dependants, fromexploitation.
As the valuation cannot be taken as a definite guide that the particular application will be approved, applicants have been advised, and notified through the press, not to make a deposit either before or after valuation unless a clause is inserted in the contract to purchase properties providing for a return of the deposit should the application for an advance be declined. If honorable members would advise returned soldiers who consult them regarding their applications in such terms, a distinct service would be rendered the applicants.
page 12835
QUESTION
PASSPORT TO A. CARROLL
Mr GLYNN: Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT
– On the 17th September the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) asked the following questions : -
Whether Augustine Carroll, a witness before the Royal Commission on Naval and Defence Administration, was granted a passport to leave Australia, and on what date?
What was the name of the Minister who approved of the granting of the passport?
To what country was Carroll granted a passport ?
I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -
Inquiries that have been made have elicited that Augustine Carroll, a member of the Australian Imperial Force, is a citizen of the United States. He is, therefore, not eligible to receive a passport from my Department. The Collector of Customs, New South Wales, advises that Carroll, about a fortnight ago, applied to the staff of the Intelligence Section of the Defence Department, Sydney, for a military permit to enable him to proceed to the United States of America.
He was referred to the American Consular authorities in regard to his obtaining the Consular visa if the permit were granted, but has not since presented himself at the Defence Department.
page 12835
QUESTION
PRICE OF SUGAR
Mr MASSY-GREENE: Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917
– On 17th September the honorable member for South Sydney asked the following question: -
Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that the firm of Anthony Hordern and Sons, of Sydney, is reported to be Selling sugar at 4½d. per lb., and will he state whether he has given permission to that firm to chargethis increased price?
I replied -
I am not aware that the statement is correct, but I will have inquiries made. The firm has no right to charge 4½d. per lb.
I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -
Messrs. Anthony Hordern and Sons did sell sugar at 4½d. per lb., the circumstances under which such sale took place being as follows:-
In consequence of the recent seamen’s strike there was a shortage of sugar, and several city and country firms, including Anthony Hordern and Sons, Sydney, applied for permission to add the actual railway freight charges on sugar obtained from Queensland per rail to the proclaimed selling price of 3½d. per lb.
One application was submitted to the New SouthWales Attorney-General, who minuted the papers to the effect that, provided the actual extra railway freight only were added to the proclaimed price, no action would be taken under the Necessary Commodities Control Act 1914.
Subsequent applications, including that of Anthony Hordern and Sons, were dealt with interms of the State Attorney-General’s minute referred to above.
The extra railway freight for Messrs. Anthony Hordern and Sons’ shipment, which consisted of 6 tons, was approximately1d. per lb.
As the price of sugar in Australia is at present controlled by the Commonwealth Government, action is being taken to make further inquiries into this matter.
page 12836
PAPERS
The following papers were presented : -
Peace Treaty - Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the observations of the German Delegation on the conditions of Peace. (Paper presented to the British Parliament).
Public Service Act - Promotion of G. J. P. Tily, Postmaster-General’s Department.
Seat of Government - Ordinance of 1919 - No. 5 - Interpretation.
page 12836
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LEGISLATIVE POWERS) BILL
Declaration of Urgency.
Order of the Day called on -
Mr. Hughes, to move, “That he have leave to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter section 51 of the Constitution.”
Mr HUGHES: Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT
– I declare this to be an urgent Bill, and move -
That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.
Mr Tudor:
– What Bill?
Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson: LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I direct the attention of the honorable member to the wording of the Order of the Day. There can be no debate on the motion.
Mr Higgs:
– I rise to order. Where is the Bill? What is the measure? Is not the motion too previous?
Mr SPEAKER:
– No. I direct the attention of the honorable member to standing order 262a, which provides that the Government may declare that the Bill be considered urgent,
On the reading of a message from the GovernorGeneral recommending an appropriation in connexion with any Bill, on the calling on of a motion for leave to introduce a Bill . . .
And so on. The motion for leave to introduce the Bill has been called on, and the Prime Minister now moves that the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The motion at this stage is, therefore, quite in order, although it precedes the actual motion for leave to introduce the Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Limitation of Debate.
Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -
That the time allotted (a) for the initial stages of the Bill up to but not inclusive of the second reading shall be until 5 p.m. this day; (b) for the second reading of the Bill shall be from the conclusion of the initial stages until 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919; (c) for the Committee stage of the Bill shall be from the second reading of the Bill until 9 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919; (d) for the remaining stages of the Bill shall be from the conclusion of the Committee stage until 10.30 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd October, 1919.
Mr TUDOR: Yarra
.- Of course, honorable members opposite may have discussed this Bill at length at their party meeting yesterday, but honorable members on this side, who are just as much interested in this class of legislation, and, as a matter of fact, are more desirous of passing it, as these questions have been twice submitted to the vote of the people by the Labour party, have not. We have not had the opportunity of seeing the measure, or measures - because the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has given notice of two. If these Bills are similar to those which were introduced in 1915 by the right honorable gentleman himself when he was AttorneyGeneral in the Fisher Government, there will be practically no opposition to them from this side of the House; but, first of all, we want to know what is in them. So far as we are concerned, the trouble will not be that they may be too wide in their application, but that they may be too narrow, and may be limited in other directions. Both Bills could pass to-night, so far as wc are concerned, if they are the same as the measures which were passed in 1915, on which occasion most of the honorable members belonging to the Liberal party who are at present members of this House walked out of the chamber rather than lake part in the enactment of such legislation.
The Premier of Tasmania, who was at the secret Conference of Premiers, has “blown the gaff.” He always does so. Six days before ex-Senator Ready became ill, he was able to tell us that he had received word from the Prime Minister that something was going to take place. Otherwise, honorable members on this aide have- to depend upon what appears in the newspapers, and that is all the information we possess as to the legislation which the Prime Minister now asks us lo treat as urgent.
Since 1911, I have contended that it is a matter of urgency for the people of Australia to have the opportunity of amending the Commonwealth Constitution, and giving greater powers to the Commonwealth Parliament. It is a matter that should be referred to the whole of the people of Australia, and not to a section of them which may be controlled by State Upper Houses, and this will be the case if the State Parliaments deal with this question. I am anxious to compare these Bills with the legislation passed in 1915. Of course, honorable members know that similar Bills were submitted to a referendum in 1911. Amended slightly, they were resubmitted to the people in 1913. Then, in 1915, with very slight alterations, they were passed by this Parliament, but were not submitted to the people. I shall not vote against any motion which proposes to make this class of legislation urgent, but when the Bills themselves come before us, if they are not in the form in which this Parliament passed them in 1915, I shall move amendments in the direction of making the powers sought for as far-reaching as- possible, or, at least, as far-reaching as they were in the legislation of 1915.
Mr Boyd:
– The country has already turned them down twice.
Mr TUDOR:
– We do not know that the country would have turned them down in 1915.
Mr Leckie:
– Why did the Labour Government withdraw them in 1915 ?
Mr TUDOR:
– The Bills were withdrawn in 1915 in order that the State Parliaments should deal with them, as promised by their Premiers. That promise was not carried out. Some of those Premiers were called to Melbourne on Saturday last. I would not accept their word. They did not even submit- the necessary legislation to their Parliaments on the last occasion. I understand that the Victorian Ministry submitted certain legislation to the State Parliament, but the Upper . House rejected it. There was only one State Parliament that carried the promised legislation.
This is the first time honorable members have been asked to make an urgent measure of a Bill that one party has not s-een. It is not treating Parliament fairly, and is quite ari innovation. Probably honorable members on the Ministerial side are under the impression that they can bludgeon anything through Parliament. They regard the present as a fitting time for an election, and in order to have an excuse for holding one, and for the purpose of making the people believe that they are anxious to get at the profiteers, they propose to put these Bills through, to treat them as urgent measures, despite the fact that honorable members of the Opposition have not had the opportunity of seeing them, and to submit them to a referendum on the day on which the election is held.
Mr HIGGS: Capricornia
-36].- With a great many other people I have been wondering why there is need for all this haste. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues received as many mandates as they required to deal with profiteering, the Tariff, and industrial matters. Why are they now in such a hurry to amend the Constitution? It is only a few months since the Prime Minister was boasting about the powers he possessed as an autocrat. He said, “ I can do anything I like.”
Mr Mathews:
– He did what he liked.
Mr HIGGS:
– He had complete and ample powers, as an autocrat, under the War Precautions Act.’ That Act has not yet expired. Why, therefore, is there necessity for proposing to amend the Constitution and have a general election on the 13th December? I have a very strong impression that the Prime Minister is afraid that the longer he and his party remain in the House the greater difficulty will he and his friends have in explaining why they have not carried out their promises regarding profiteering, price-fixing, the Tariff, and industrial matters, and difficulty in explaining their broken pledges to the soldiers. Instead of desiring to pass a. measure of this kind, the right honorable gentleman ought to wake up his Repatriation Department.
Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:
– Order! The honorable member is wandering from the motion before the Chair.
Mr HIGGS:
– I would like to point out areason why we should not be dealing now with powers which the Prime Minister already possesses-
Mr SPEAKER:
-The honorable member will not be in order in doing that. He will only be in order in speaking to the motion before the Chair.
Mr HIGGS:
– I suggest that it is not necessary to take up the time of the House in introducing this Bill, because the Prime Minister has already ample powers. He has full power to compel the War Service Homes Department to get on with the building of homes.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The honorable member will not be in order, on the motion now before the Chair, in discussing such matters. He will only be in order in discussing the various times proposed to be allotted for the consideration of this Bill.
Mr HIGGS:
– It is proposed that we shall have until 5 o’clock to-day to dispose of the first reading of the measure, that the second reading must be through by 4. 30 o’clock to-morrow, and that the final stages must be disposed of by 10.30 to-morrow night. This is a sample of the methods of the Prime Minister. He is always in a hurry; he never looks twentyfour hours ahead. He invited the various State Governments to send representatives to meet him in Melbourne. They came and met in secret, and, apparently, nobody could get any information as to what they were doing. Now the right honorable gentleman is taking steps to alter in twenty-four hours a Constitution the framing of which occupied some of the brainiest men in the Commonwealth- for years. I see nothing to. be gained by this haste.From what I know of the Prime Minister, this Bill, although I have not had an opportunity of reading it, represents more than is disclosed on the face of it, and probably those honorable members who have already consented to the terms of the measures will find on investigation that it means a great deal more than it says. I warn those honorable gentlemen who so strenuously opposed the constitutional alterations proposed by the Labour party in 1915, to be very careful when the Bill comes before them.
Mr Leckie:
– The honorable member does not desire this Parliament to get increased powers ?
Mr HIGGS:
– I do not know what increased powers the Prime Minister is seeking. As this Parliament has yet nine months of life before it will expire by effluxion of time, there is no necessity for rushing through this amending measure as the Prime Minister proposes. The preliminary stages are to be completed in one hour and seventeen minutes from now. We are not to be given time enough to consider the measure. What is the reason for this extraordinary haste ? Shall I be out of order in suggesting that it is due to the fact that the Prime Minister hopes to exploit what he believes to be the public sentiment of the moment, and that he believes that if he can appeal to the. country soon, he will fare better than if he postponesthe election for another six months ?
Mr SPEAKER:
– The honorable member will be out of order in discussing that matter.
Mr MATHEWS: Melbourne Ports
– I welcome this proposal to alter the Constitution if the Government are seeking power to do something rational, but I shall oppose the Bill if I find that the increased powers that are being sought have been so whittled down as to offer no likelihood of being effective. Often in the past, Acts passed by this Parliament have been found in practice not to confer the powers that they were supposed to give. My experience on two occasions makes me approach this matter cautiously. Once the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) rankly deceived me by telling the House that the powers conferred by the War Precautions Act were not sufficient to enable the Government to deal with the fixation of prices.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order !
Mr MATHEWS:
– I have no wish todiscuss the matter. I merely state that the Prime Minister gave ‘the House that assurance, and I, ‘believing him, went about my -constituency repeating .his “statement. Later I found that those who said that the Prime Minister’s statement waswrong’ had taken the correct view of Cbe’ War Precautions Act. The last Bills for the alteration of the Constitution were introduced by a Labour Government, and the drafting of the ‘measures was left entirely to the then Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) . He was -allowed also to put ‘before the ‘people the case for the alteration of the ‘Constitution:. I would resume my seat at once -if I thought that ‘he was stall determined ‘to get for the Commonwealth the complete1 -powers that were sought on that occasion-, but I know -that since that time he has been associated politically with .men who do not desire the Commonwealth to have such powers.
Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:
– The honorable member is out of order. The only question before the Chair is the allotment of time for the various stages of the Bill.
Mr MATHEWS:
– I have already said that I would not oppose the Bill if I knew what it contains.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The honorable member may ‘not go into that matter on this motion.
Mr MATHEWS:
– If you, sir, intend to restrict my discussion of the motion-
Mr SPEAKER:
– There seems to be some misapprehension on the part of some honorable members as to the actual motion ^before the House. All that the motion proposes is to fix the times in which the various stages of the Bill shall be completed. Honorable members must confine their discussion to the question of time, and they will not be in order in debating the pros and cons of the Bill, the actions of the Prime Minister, of any other matter that is outside and not germane to the terms of the motion.
Mr Riley:
– I rise to a point of order. Can you, sir, explain to the House what the Bill proposes, and why the time- for its discussion should be limited ? We on this side do not know the terms of the Bill.
Mr SPEAKER:
– It is no part of the duty of the Presiding Officer to explain to the House the nature and purpose of a Bill. This should be done by the re sponsible Minister. But I point out that there is no Bill before the House-, hut a motion to regulate the period of time for discussion on. a Bill about to be introduced. All I am concerned with is the carrying ‘out of the Standing Orders by regulating the discussion so that it conforms to them, and at this stage honorable members can discuss nothing else but the time ‘limit.
Mr MATHEWS:
– I am under -no misapprehension as to the purpose of the motion, but I am endeavouring to show that the desire for a limitation of time arises out of what is actually contained in the Bril. I caught a glimpse of the measure, and I noticed that a salient point was the exclusion of all reference to the -railways.
Mr SPEAKER:
-The honorable member may not discuss that matter. I cannot allow him to proceed on those lines.
Mr MATHEWS:
– So far as our knowledge of what is contained in the Bill enables us to -judge, the time allotted by the Government for its discussion is not sufficient. Again,’ speaking with a very slight knowledge of what the measure contains, I say that it is likely to be highly contentious, and I am certain that if the Prime- Minister were on this side, and ,fighting the Government upon this matter, he would offer the same objection. It would be ana using to hear the honorable gentleman, if he were sitting in Opposition, and -were -met with a proposal by the: Government to limit the discussion ion a measure of so much importance to the people.. After all the time wa have- wasted during the past few weeks, I cannot see the necessity for passing, this measure in such a hurry. I may not get a further opportunity of discussing the measure itself, but if it is likely to be .effective, by giving to the Commonwealth -the -full powers that are required, I shall be content to allow it to pass without further ‘.opposition. The time allotted is altogether insufficient to enable us to discuss the all-important matters involved in the measure.
Mr HECTOR LAMOND: Illawarra
– If there is a subject upon which we ought to be able to come to a speedy decision, it seems to me that it is a proposal for the amendment of the Constitution. ‘ There was a time when practically the whole ‘of the -members of the Opposi-tion shared my view that an extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament could not be too speedily granted.
Mr Mathews:
– Not the honorable member’s view.
Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
– Yes, my view. I am a little astonished to find that to-day, when we have an opportunity to go on with this all-important work, opposition to it should come from honorable members who shared, and, I believe, still share, my view, that the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in this regard should be speedily extended. I would point out that the matter of the amendment of the Australian Constitution has been before this House on two previous occasions, and has been the subject of two referendums; so that the pros and cons of the question are as familiar to those who take an interest in the working of the Constitution as are those of any subject that could come before us.
Mr Mathews:
– Nothing of the sort. We do not know what are the provisions of the Bill. The honorable member, perhaps, does.
Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
– The hon,orable member for Melbourne Ports, whose desire to know what is in the Bill leads him to interrupt me so frequently, could have that desire gratified immediately by allowing the Bill to be presented. The discussion of this motion can lead to no other result than that desired by ‘ the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), and the more time that honorable members take up in debating this purely formal motion, the less time there will be to discuss the Bill itself when it comes before us. I wish the electors to know that the whole of the time occupied in the discussion of this motion is time taken from the discussion of the various stages of the Bill. If the Opposition desire more time to debate the Bill itself, they will allow this motion to pass without further delay. I hope that it will he agreed to, and that we shall as speedily as possible secure for the Commonwealth Parliament those powers which it ought to have had long ago, and which cannot be obtained for it one hour too soon.
Mr BRENNAN: Batman
.- I hope that I am under no misapprehension as to the terms of this motion, which, if I understand it correctly, means that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) proposes to introduce a Bill - the provisions of which are unknown to honorable members - for the amendment of the Australian Constitution. He proposes, in advance, to obtain the sanction of the House to the limitation of the debate upon that measure to a few hours, which will expire some time Co-morrow. A more monstrous proposition was never submitted to this or any other responsible deliberative Chamber. We do not know what is proposed, but we know, at least, that it is designed to materially alter the foundations and basis ‘ upon which this Parliament rests. We know, from the terms of the motion, that the Bill is at least one of pre-eminent importance to the country. We know, further - and the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Lamond) must know, when he talks of taking away from the time that has been allotted for the discussion of this Bill - that subject to the terms of this motion such a measure could not be properly discussed in the time available. The honorable member should be ashamed, if he has any sense of shame, to stand in his price, the acquiescent servant of a new party, prepared to give away his privileges and the rights of this country by agreeing to stifle the discussion df a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution. I did not expect anything better from the Prime Minister. Neither the country nor the House has any right to expect anything better from him.
Mr Webster:
– Do not get excited.
Mr BRENNAN:
– I will not. If any one ought to get excited it should be this docile follower of his new master. There is no danger of the honorable gentleman becoming excited; he is not permitted to become excited in connexion, with the motion.
Several honorable membersinterjecting,
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. W. Elliot
Johnson). - I would remind the House that each honorable member is allowed only ten minutes in which to speak to this motion, and that the whole debate is not to exceed one hour. I therefore ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting, so that each honorable member may avail himself of the full time to which he is entitled.
Mr BRENNAN:
– The allotted ten minutes would be more than sufficient for me if honorable members opposite would not interrupt. We have no means of knowing what is in the Bill,. and I have no right to discuss or suggest what is in it in detail; but we are bound to assume that there is something in it which is acceptable to the majority of the Prime Minister’s present party, who turned down his Constitution Alteration proposals in this Ho.use only a little time ago.
Mr Fenton:
– Led by the present Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), they walked out of the House.
Mr BRENNAN:
– Yes ; on that occasion they walked out and left the Prime Minister and the Labour party to deal with that Bill. The right honorable gentleman having given notice of a motion for the amendment of the Constitution, we at least are entitled to assume that the Bill will meet with the approval of the majority that now controls him against his better judgment. The Bill will be introduced in due time, but it cannot be discussed within the time fixed for its consideration. The right honorable gentleman knows that. I rose simply to place on record the fact that I regard it as a monstrous invasion of the rights of the Parliament and the people to deal with a Bill of this character in the way in which it is proposed to deal with it.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The House divided.
AYES: 37
NOES: 11
Majority . . . . 26
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
First Reading
Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter section 51 of the Constitution.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUGHES: Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT
– I move -
That this Bill he now read a second time.
Mr Charlton:
– Will the Prime Minister explain why this Bill is marked “ confidential”?
Mr HUGHES:
– The honorable member had better ask the printer; I cannot tell him. The honorable member has the Bill before him, and I am going to lay its contents before the world. It is the first time that I, myself, have seen the Bill in print.
As the time at the disposal of honorable members for the discussion of the Bill is limited under the Standing Orders, I shall not attempt to traverse the ground which was so thoroughly covered by me on occasions when I before had the honour to introduce amendments to the Constitution. I shall best conserve the time and interests of honorable members by confining myself to a very brief review of the position as we now find it.
The war, and the situation which has arisen out of the war, have given a new importance and a new urgency to the question of the amendment of the Constitution. During the war, the matter was able to be postponed, because it was found that the defence power was wide enough and elastic enough to give the Commonwealth power to deal temporarily with a wide range of matters which, though outside the ordinary scope of the Commonwealth powers, had to be dealt with as part of the great task of organizing all the social, industrial, and financial resources and efforts of the country for the supreme struggle for national existence.
By common consent of the State Governments, it was necessary that the Commonwealth should have, during the war, powers practically identical with those for which we are asking to-day. In pursuance of’ the decision of a Conference with the State Premiers, held in 19.15, .a Bill was initao.du.ced into each State Parliament to give those powers for the war period. Only ;one State Parliament, .that of New South Wales,, passed the Bill; the rest - not yet realizing, perhaps, the greatness of the emergency - hesitated or drew back. Subsequent decisions of the High Court disclosed that the extent of the war-time powers of the Commonwealth dispensed with the necessity for the time being.
Here I may deal with the points raised by my honorable friends opposite on the preliminary motion.
We are now faced with a different situation. The war is over, and with it the war-time powers of .the Commonwealth are disappearing. We are brought back to our pre-war limits of authority, and we have to deal with the aftermath of the war - a condition - as difficult and as full of dangers as the war itself.
Every honorable member opposite who has spoken asked why the Government are seeking these powers, and declared that we possess them now. They were also greatly perturbed at the motion which .limited the time of discussion, and asked why the haste to pass this Bill. I propose to deal with each of those points in: turn, and, very shortly, with the present constitutional- powers of this Parliament under the defence sub-section of section 51. Honorable members have asked: Why seek these powers when we already have them under the War Precautions Act? Let me set out the facts, and show exactly what power this Parliament now has. I turn- to the judgment of the High Court in what is known as the bread case - an appeal from the Court of petty sessions in the State of Victoria - in which the nature, the extent, and limitations of the powers of the Commonwealth, under the defence paragraph of section 51 of the ‘Constitution, were made perfectly clear.
I shall quote from the Commonwealth Law Reports, 1915-16, Vol. 21. His Honour the Chief Justice, in the course of delivering judgment (Commonwealth Law Reports 1915-16, Vol. 21, p. 441), said -
One test, however, must always be applied, namely: - Can the measure in question conduce to the efficiency of the Forces of the Empire, or is the connexion of. cause and effect between the measure and the desired efficiency so remote that the one cannot reasonably be regarded as affecting the other?
His Honour- further ‘said, as reported) on> page 442 -
A law passed ‘by the Commonwealth Parliament in time of profound peace -prohibiting theaccumulating of foodstuffs could not be .regarded as. substantially an, -exercise of the defence power. In time of war the same act might well be made a capital offence.
Applying this well-established doctrine, the question is whether the Act and regulation, the validity of which is now called in question, can be regarded as substantially laws relating to defence, in other words, whether the provisions of the regulation -oan conduce to tliemore effectual prosecution of the war. It is not -necessary for the Court to point out the particular way in which, they can have .that effect. . But the Court may, I think, take judicial -notice of the fact that the past season’s harvest was most abundant, and that vast quantities of wheat, far exceeding the possible consumption of the Commonwealth, are awaiting export, while, owing to the operations of war, the supply of freight is deficient. It is obvious that for economical, as well as other reasons, the export of the- surplus to the’ United Kingdom, or. the Allied Nations, may be highly desirable for ‘the more efficient, prosecution of the war. It seems to follow that any law -which may tend, with or without the aid of other -measures, to encourage such, export, may be conducive to the more efficient conduct of the war.
In the same case His Honour Mr. Justice Isaacs is thus reported on page 453 of the same volume -
The defence power .may be exerted .in times of peace; but so far only by way of preparation. Actual defence, and all that “it connotes, comes only when we are at war. War creates its own necessities, proportioned to the circumstances, and not measurable in advance of the occasion; and defence is only complete when it meets those necessities, whatever they may prove to be. While peace prevails the normal facts of national life take their respective places in the general alignment, and. are subject -to the normal action of constitutional powers.
Here then we see set out in plain words) the nature, -extent, and limitations of the powers of this Parliament under the defence sub-section of the Constitution. Shortly put, we see that in time of war the
Commonwealth may do any and all things necessary, or -which .may conduce to the. more effectual prosecution of the war and the defence of the Commonwealth. In time of peace our powers shrink within their normal limits, and we must look to the Constitution, and not to the extraordinary powers arising out of the necessities of war,’ to ascertain what we can and what we cannot do. The judgments of the High Court,_ from which I have quoted, make this perfectly, clear. It is obvious that the extent of the power, whatever it is, which we derive from the sub-section of section 51 of the Constitution springs wholly from a condition of actual war or preparation for war, and I ask honorable members to notice that neither of these conditions now exists. We are in a state of peace - the Peace Treaty has been ratified, and it cannot be said that we are at war nor that we are preparing for war. Our powers under the defence sub-section, therefore, are no longer what they were during the war, but are strictly limited to the narrow sphere over which they operate in normal times. Let me quote further. Mr. Justice Isaacs, in support of this contention (page 455), said -
I do not hold that the Legislature is at liberty wantonly, and with manifest caprice, to enter upon the domain ordinarily reserved to- the States. In a certain sense, and. to a certain extent,, the position is examinable by a Court. If there were no war, and no sign of war, the position would be entirely different.
Nothing could be clearer. These words are not ambiguous, there is no room for uncertainty. They set out our position quite clearly. In war we had great powers not normally possessed by us, and we no longer possess those powers. That is the position.
I now turn from the judgments of the majority, who held that iri a time of war the defence powers of the Commonwealth were such’ that the Commonwealth might do anything and everything, provided that the relations -between the thing done and the successful prosecution of the war was evident, to the judgments of the minority, who held that even in time of war we had no such power. I quote from the judgements of Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Rich, as given by Mr. Justice Duffy and reported on page 465 -
We venture to think that they extend to the raising, training, and equipment of Naval and Military Forces, to the maintenance, control, and use of such Forces, to the supply of arms, ammunitions, and other things necessary for naval mid military operations, to all matters strictly ancillary to these purposes, and to nothing more. This, in our opinion, is their natural meaning, and to extend it would be to paralyze the States during war time as completely as if there had been no reserve powers, and to subject them at all times to an irritating _ and embarrassing usurpation of their ordinary functions. The defence of the States would be the defence which King Stork extended to the frogs who invoked his assistance.
On page 467 His Honour is reported as saying-
Finally, we were pressed not to withhold from the Commonwealth a power so conducive to the effective conduct of the war in which we arc engaged, as we firmly believe, on the side of honour and righteousness. Such an appeal is ill-made to Judges who are sworn to administer the law without fear, favour, or affection, and whose fundamental duty is to interpret the law as they understand it, not to strain it tins way or that at the bidding of expediency. But, in our opinion, the respondent has wholly failed to show that the power to fix the price of bread in Melbourne and its suburbs at the- present time is in any sense conducive to the defence of the Commonwealth, or has any relation whatever to the progress of the war. If we are wrong, and such a power be necessary now, or if it becomes necessary in the future, it can be exercised by the State, or delegated by the State to the Commonwealth. It is a gross and pernicious error to suppose that in the conduct of the present war the interests of the States and the Commonwealth are diverse, they are identical, and the people of Australia will, no doubt, be as willing to protect and forward those interests through their State Legislatures as through the Commonwealth Parliament.
Whatever powers we have at the present time under the War Precautions Act have their roots in the defence sub-section. From the judgments of even the majority in the bread: case, it is perfectly clear that, whatever powers we have, which are not strictly those belonging to the Commonwealth under the Constitution, spring wholly from the existence of a state of war or of preparation for war. Neither of these conditions is now present. War is over ; Peace has come to us with complete victory over our enemies. Neither war nor the- need: for preparations for defence* against a declared enemy exists. In three months the War Precautions Act itself expires; our powers under the War Precautions Act have now shrunk, if, indeed, they have not altogether disappeared. I do not think that any lawyer will say, upon a fair interpretation of the judgments from which I have quoted, that our war powers are sufficient to enable us to do any one of the things that we must do. But whether that be so or not, no one will deny that in three months, or a little more, we shall be stripped of every vestige of that power, and stand absolutely help-: less to deal with the situation that now exists. The Peace has come, and our powers, if they have not disappeared, have shrunk, to what extent it is perhaps difficult to say. In my opinion they have shrunk to such a point that the validity of any of our regulations may be at any moment challenged. In a few months they will disappear altogether. The people alone can give us the power we want. If we do not pass these Bills now - and here I come to the second point raised by those honorable gentlemen who ask, “Why this haste ‘”–Parliament will not have any power at all to deal with the situation as ‘it exists - with the aftermath of war. I ask honorable members, and I invite the country, to note the attitude of certain honorable members - it is true they have not seen this Bill - upon a measure whose only object could be to give to the Commonwealth Parliament greater power to deal with those vital issues which concern the welfare of the great masses of the people. Ono honorable member asks, “Why this haste?” Another bids honorable members on this side beware lest they go too far; to beware of what is .”n these Bills. That is nice advice to come from the mouths of honorable gentlemen who supported these very measures. I have not had time to look up Hansard and note what the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Higgs) said when Bills for the amendment of the Constitution were before this Parliament previously, but I have no doubt whatever he spoke in support of them ; yet he now bids the House and the country beware of them. Is it not abundantly clear that at the back of all that my honorable friends have said, and of their protestations against this “ haste,” and their solemn and pathetic warnings to the people and to honorable members on this side, to beware of what these measures will do - is it not clear, I ask, that they see opening wide the portals that lead them into the arena where their masters await them ?
No doubt there will be some criticism of these measures, but I shall confine myself now to setting out the reason why they are introduced at this time, and in this shape, and why the Commonwealth Parliament needs these powers. The war has gone, and Peace has come, but the consequences of the war remain behind. They are not less dangerous to the community, nor are the difficulties presented to us less complex, than the war itself.
We have to rebuild a world which has b’een shattered and devastated by five years of dreadful struggle, convulsion, and destruction. Our task is not merely to restore the world as it was before, but to build something infinitely better, something more in harmony with the ideals and hopes which alone could have sustained mankind to endure the terrible ordeal ‘ of the war period . The world after the war is a new world. At present it is only a new world in the making. It is disordered, and disorganized, and fraught with- infinite potentialities and possibilities for good and for evil.
The problems of reconstruction are great and pressing; they need the assistance of strong and effective government. In Australia it is, and must be, to the Commonwealth that the people look during the period of reconstruction for the establishment of the social and industrial conditions which alone can enable us to reap a harvest of blessing from the horrid tillage of war.
What is the situation with which we have to cope, and what are the Commonwealth’s powers for that purpose?
We find everywhere industrial unrest, widespread and deep-seated, the gravity of which it is impossible to overestimate. In Russia it has produced absolute chaos. In the enemy countries, where it may have been diligently fostered for propaganda purposes, it burst out a few months ago in open revolution, and, although that has been suppressed, the smouldering fires are still there, ready to burst into flame again at any moment, and threatening the very existence of the country. In America it is spreading like an epidemic throughout the land. In Great Britain at this very moment we see a nation paralyzed in all its economic activities by probably the greatest strike in the history of our times, and the whole industrial world has been shaken to its very foundations. The industrial ‘war, long threatened, has now broken out in full fury, and no one is able to say what the outcome will be. The industrial activities of the nation are paralyzed, constitutional government defied, and the very existence of Britain, .as a great manufacturing country, is trembling in the balance.
This spirit of general unrest is the most vital factor of the whole situation, not only in this, but in every country. It has its roots in justifiable discontentwith existing conditions, but it is intensified by the nervous tension of five years of war strain, .and is being fanned by men who are the avowed enemies of the whole system off modern civilization, and whose watchword is destruction, pure and simple. According as it is handled, it may prove to be the “.divine discontent,” which is the necessary condition of progress and reform, or it may blaze out into a devastating passion, which may wreck the whole fabric of society.
This industrial .unrest is intimately related to two other factors of the situation –the high cost of living, and the shortage of raw materials and the necessaries of life, which is the inevitable consequence of five years diverted from production to an orgy of .destruction.
One cause of the excessive cost of living is unquestionably the prevalence of profiteering. Great fortunes have been made during the war, and are being made still, out of unreasonably high profits. Competition no longer plays the part it did before the war in bringing prices down to a reasonable level, and organized capital and organized trade combi nations are able to -exploit the consumer.
Another cause is the shortage of necessaries throughout the world. This is a direct factor in the increase of prices, and the only remedy for it is increased production to make up for the wastage of war. “We must not only get back to prewar standards of production, we must better them. We must work harder, and produce more, and this requires «that the wheels of industry should revolve swiftly and smoothly - which needs industrial peace. This brings us back ,to industrial unrest, which is the condition that must be removed before civilization can be cured.
So we see that these three things - industrial unrest, the high cost of living, and the scarcity of raw materials and other necessaries, that is to say, of wealth - are intimately related one to the other. Each reacts on the others. Each is the cause of both the others, and an effect of both the others. The high cost of living helps to cause industrial unrest ; industrial unrest is fatal to production, and helps to cause the high cost of living. The scarcity of necessaries contributes to the high cost of living, and to industrial unrest, and so on in” a vicious circle, and in and out through the warp -and woof runs the trail of the profiteer, who takes unfair advantage, for his personal greed, of the. abnormal and unsettled condition of the world.
The cure must be drastic, and the programme of reform must be comprehensive. It must deal with the whole intricate web of causes. Profiteering must be put down with ‘a strong hand, but that alone is not enough. If we are to stimulate production, it is necessary to have full control of production, which involves control of both labour and capital, the elements of production. It is necessary to have full control of trade and commerce, by which the results of production are distributed and brought to the consumer. Trade is controlled by corporations and combinations of corporations ; it is captured by monopolies ; it, too, is affected by organizations of capital and of labour. All these must be controlled, and the Government which controls them must be able to do so fully and effectively, to deal with the problem as a whole, not only with a bit here and a bit there. Unless it can so deal with it, government is futile.
It ,is, essential, too, fox the welfare of Australia, not only that we should produce abundantly, but that we should be able to get good prices abroad for our products - to obtain the real parity of the world’s markets. The buying pf the world is going to be highly organized, :and unless -the selling is similarly organized, the producer of the primary products, which .are the backbone of Australian prosperity, and the source of Australian wages, will be squeezed and beaten down. We need for the producer and the wage-earner, for capital and for labour, a fair deal. Unless we secure fair inducements for both, both will invariably suffer. As I have said, the interests of the consumer and those of the Commonwealth generally must be safeguarded. So we come back again, by whatever road we travel, to the central problem of all - the problem of industrial peace.
What, then, are the powers the Commonwealth must have to enable it :to deal with the situation? First of all, it .must be able to deal .fully and effectively with the whole field of industrial matters. It3 present powers in this , regard are hopelessly inadequate. It can deal only with disputes between particular employers and employees, and then only by way of con- ciliation and arbitration. It has no jurisdiction at all unless the dispute extends beyond one State. Even then it cannot regulate the conditions of the industry; it cannot make a common rule; and it cannot provide for collective bargaining.
The Commonwealth, then, must have full control over industrial matters. That does not mean that it will supersede all State action in the industrial field, or the work of State industrial tribunals. It will assist and supplement and harmonize them ; but, in order to do this effectively, it is necessary that there should be no fixed limits set to the sphere of its control. Next, it is necessary to have full control of trade and commerce. The Constitution at present draws an arbitrary line where there is no line in nature. Commerce is one indivisible subject-matter ; it is the same thing, whether it crosses a State boundary or not. It is impossible to control commerce effectively when half of it is in the Federal sphere and half of it is not. And here, again, it is not in contemplation that every detail of commercial transactions shall be regulated by Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth will undertake its general regulation for national purposes - as the Dominion of Canada does. But it is impossible to deviseany formal limitation which will not seriously hamper the effectiveness of the power.
Trusts and Combines. Control of these is essential to control of the cost of living, and that control cannot be effectively exercised by the States. Their powers are tremendous. Their shapes are innumerable. They are the dominating factor in therise of prices. And they cannot be dealt with and followed through their manifold shapes and disguises without full power. They laugh at our present Commonwealth Trust legislation, which is based on limited power. The war, and war conditions, have increased their power. The States are powerless to deal with them; only strong Commonwealth powers can meet the case.
Nationalization. To deal with monopolies effectively, there must be in reserve a power to nationalize them - to acquire the business, where that is necessary to protect the rights of the people. The power asked for is not a power to nationalize all businesses; only those which are monopolies. It is only to be exercised on a resolution of both Houses, passed by an absolute majority, after full investigation and report by the High Court, initiated by a special resolution of Parliament. This is an ample safeguard against the abuse of the power.
Let me now turn to the limits of time and conditions upon the exercise by this Commonwealth of the powers asked for in these Bills. The measures grant to the Commonwealth Parliament the. powers set out therein for a limited period only. Clause 6 of the Bill we are now considering provides -
The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force -
until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor-General thereto; or
until a convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect:
Provided that if no such convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the 31st day of December, 1920, the alterations made by this Act shall cease to have effect on the said 31st day of December, 1920.
For all practical purposes, these powers are to be granted to the Commonwealth Parliament for a period of twelve months only. Meanwhile, a Convention must be summoned, which shall decide what powers ought to be allotted permanently to the Commonwealth. As soon as the Convention has arrived at its decision, the matter will be submitted to the people for approval, and if the people approve of the decision of the Convention, the readjustment of the powers as between the Commonwealth and the States will be, for the time being, finally settled. If a Convention is not summoned before the end ofnext year the powers lapse automatically. In any case, they will be subject to the matured judgment of a Convention and of the electors of the Commonwealth in the light of actual experience and of the situation as it then exists.
I have set out the reasons why these amendments are necessary now. These amendments must be regarded as war-time measures. Although the war has ceased, we have to deal with the aftermath of the war - industrial unrest, the high cost of living, scarcity of material, and profiteering.
I believe that we have not the power to deal with these matters now. Certainly, we shall not have it three months hence. Therefore, if this Parliament does not pass these Bills, and allow the- people to express their opinion, and give us if they deem fit the powers we seek to obtain, we shall be sitting here, drawing our salaries and doing nothing. It is a matter of urgency to pass these Bills, and as such I put them before the House, asking all honorable ‘ members to give assent to them. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) said that they are not a party matter; but if he did not, I will say it for him. If it has become a party matter with him, it is only since he has sat on the benches opposite; because when he was on this side of the chamber he used to support me with great enthusiasm when I said that it was not a party matter, if he is going b;i<-k on his former view it only shows what can happen to a man when he loses the stimulating and elevating effects of my company. I say that this is not a party matter; but whether honorable members regard it as a party matter or not, I ask them to agree to this legislation.
As the Leader of the Opposition knew, because he was a member of the Government which I had the honour to lead, we did not press these matters before the people during the war, because of the war. Any blame that rests on a Government for not pressing on with such legislation during the war rests on the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a Minister. The proposals of 1915 were withdrawn because the States asked and agreed to present .the necessary legislation to their Parliaments to hand over to the Commonwealth the necessary powers to deal with the matters the Bills now put forward purpose to cover. I have already explained ‘that they did not do so.
When the present Government decided that the position of the Commonwealth was unsatisfactory, owing to the fact that Ministers found themselves stripped of nearly all the powers they exercised during the war, they came to the conclusion that some amendment of the Constitution was necessary. Thereupon I approached the States, just as I had done in 1915, when I was leading the Labour Government. I summoned the State Premiers to Melbourne and put the matter before them, because the present Government considered, just as the Labour Government did in 1915, that the State Premiers were as much representative of the people as we are, and the only reason why we had asked for these powers in 1915 was because we believed that, of the instrumentalities of government in Australia, the Commonwealth Government was the better fitted to exercise them.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Premier of Tasmania (Mr. Lee) has given a report of what took place at the Conference of Premiers, but, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, let me -set out the position. The Conference of Premiers and myself met oh Friday last. I told the Premiers that the Commonwealth Government required the additional powers set out in these Bills in order to deal with industrial unrest, profiteering and matters incidental to or arising out of the war. The Premiers, while readily admitting that an increase of power was necessary for the Commonwealth, were of opinion that some of the amendments proposed went further than was necessary. Thereupon I asked them to submit alternative proposals which would do all that was necessary to be done, although the powers handed over to the Commonwealth should not be so wide as those I had asked. The Premiers agreed to do so. They accordingly met on Saturday and discussed the matter. Of course, the time at their disposal was very short, and they were at great disadvantage because they had received no notification of what they were to be called upon to consider when they met on Friday. On Monday I met them again. The Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Holman)’ was unable to be present, but all the other Premiers were, with Mr. Coyne, acting for Mr. Ryan, the Premier of Queensland, and Mr. Lawson, the Premier of Victoria, submitted to me a memorandum containing the result of their deliberations. Shortly put, they were quite willing to give to the Commonwealth powers to deal with industrial unrest and profiteering, as well as other matters incidental thereto, .but they considered that what we sought was in excess of the powers asked for. Discussion took place. Several suggestions were put forward. It was suggested that the powers asked for should be handed over to the Commonwealth for a limited time. I agreed to that. It was also suggested that a Convention should be called in Older to finally determine - subject, of course, to the people’s decision - what should be the permanent distribution of powers. I agreed to that proposal also. However, as the Premiers still held that the powers we asked for were too wide, I suggested that a Committee of constitutional lawyers, consisting of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General - Sir Robert Garran - Professor Harrison Moore, of Victoria, and Professor Jethro Brown, of South Australia, should act as an advisory legal committee, and consider whether the Commonwealth could deal with the position as it exists to-day with powers falling short of those which are covered by the Bills before honorable members. That Committee is still sitting ; and I have said that if it unanimously agrees that lesser powers will suffice I shall be willing, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, to consider the matter favorably.
I wish to make perfectly clear the position of the Premiers in order to prevent misunderstanding. Mr. Holman was not present at the meeting on Monday. The other representatives said, as was quite proper, that they could not commit their Governments to any course of action . They promised, however, to lay the proposals before their Governments straight away, and suggest that they be adopted. Beyond that I shall not venture to say to what extent they agreed to the proposals. But I point out that we have done everything possible to work in harmony with the States in this matter. Wehave made the measures merely temporary. They are, in effect, a continuation of some of the present war powers. They do not go as far in many directions as did. the special powers which the Commonwealth exercised during the war, but they are practically an AfterWar Precautions Act, as it were, which will enable us to deal with matters that are necessary and vital to the welfare of the Commonwealth.
The two Bills differ from the measures passed in 1915. We have inserted words in the Trade and Commerce clause which make clear that we do not intend to deal with the fares and freights of State railways. There has also been omitted from this. Bill the proposal to amend the Constitution in order to enable us to deal with disputes on State railways, and, in the second Bill, with which I shall deal indue course, an amendment of phraseology has been introduced that makes the measure clearer than was the Act of 1915, and meets the main objections raised against it. I have already delayed the House unduly, and I shall now content myself by leaving to the consideration of honorable members the motion that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr TUDOR: Yarra
.- Any honorable member who was privileged to be in the House on the previous two occasions on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), as Attorney-General in the Labour Government, introduced the earlier Referendum Bill, will admit that he has been heard to great disadvantage to-day. The speeches he delivered on those occasions, when he had behind him the solid support of the Labour party, rang true, and differed vastly from the speech which he has made this afternoon.. It is my intention to move amendments which, if carried, will restore these Bills to the phraseology employed in the last Referendum Bills.
Mr.Corser. - The honorable member wanted Unification.
Mr TUDOR:
– I intend to move amendments that will bring this Bill and the other Bill that is to follow into conformity with those which were passed by this Parliament in 1915.
Mr Hughes:
– Quite right.
Mr TUDOR:
– I am glad to hear that remark from the honorable member. The Prime Minister told us that this increase in powers is rendered necessary by the decision of the High Court in the bread case. It was necessary long before that decision was given, and many of us tried on several occasions to have the alterations made. Twice referendums were submitted to the people, and twice they were rejected.I believe that, had the Bills passed in 1915 been taken to the people, they would have been indorsed, but they were withdrawn because the State Premiers promised that they would do their best to induce the State Parliaments to confer upon the Commonwealth the necessary powers. Some of them did not even attempt to put the matter before their respective Parliaments.
Mr McDonald:
– From what quarter did the promise emanate?
Mr TUDOR:
– At that time Mr. Lee was not Premier of Tasmania. The pro ceedings of the Conference of Premiers held in Melbourne on. Friday and Saturday last were kept secret, and apparently the press on the mainland could learn nothing about them. But the Age was able to get from Tasmania, through Mr. Lee, an account of what happened at the Conference. This is the second occasion on which he has given us interesting information. He told us on a previous occasion how Senator Ready was engineered out of the Senate - how, six days before Senator Ready became ill-
Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson:
– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in debating matters which have nothing to do with the motion before the Chair.
Mr TUDOR:
– Of course, it is very objectionable to Government supporters.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order !
Mr TUDOR:
– I am not saying that you, sir, are biased ; I bow to your ruling. I was merely about to say that six days before Senator Ready became ill Mr. Lee knew that that wouldhappen. Very shortly we shall have an opportunity to say on the election platform in Tasmania what we think about those happenings.
Mr LAIRD SMITH: DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– You will have to be careful of what you say in Tasmania about Mr. Ready. His little wife came to your meeting, and silenced you.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order ! This discussion is quite irrelevant, and must cease.
Mr TUDOR:
– The honorable member says that ex-Senator Ready’s wife silenced me.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order !
Mr TUDOR:
– She never came to my meeting.
Mr SPE AKER:
-Order ! I cannot permit this irregular discussion to be continued for a moment longer. I have called for order several times. The question before the Chair is the second reading of the Bill, and the actions of exSenator Ready are in no way relevant to the measure.
Mr TUDOR:
– The honorable member for Denison took good care to get in all of his interjections, and I took care to get in my reply.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Both the interjection and the reply were equally disorderly.
Mr TUDOR:
– I shall take care to get my reply into Hansard.
Mr Burchell:
– Does the honorable member intend to amend Hansard?
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order !
Mr TUDOR:
– I never do that; but the Prime Minister did.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Honorable members must see that these continuous interjections lead to disorder, and oblige me to interrupt the debate. I have no desire to do that, and I ask honorable members to allow the debate to continue in an orderly manner. I do not wish, if I cam avoid it, to use compulsory methods of enforcing order.
Mr TUDOR:
– Before the interruption I was saying that these additional powers were required by the Commonwealth long before the High Court gave its decision in the bread case. All honorable members on this side of the House desired the powers conferred by the Commercial Activities Bill in respect of certain commodities to be extended to cover others, and I moved an amendment for that purpose.
Mr Atkinson:
– The honorable member only did that in order to waste time.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Wilmot to withdraw that remark.
Mr Atkinson:
– I withdraw and apologize.
Mr TUDOR:
– When the Commercial Activities Bill was before the House we on this side pointed out. that if it was possible for the Government to continue to exercise control over certain commodities, they could similarly continue their control over other things.
I am very glad to notice that the Bill will, apparently, give the Commonwealth power to control its own ships. If this power is conferred we shall be able to run our own fleet, and be independent of any Combine, either inside or outside Australia. A proviso has been inserted to deliberately withhold from the Commonwealth any power to deal with the fares and freights on State railways. Apparently there is a fear that the Commonwealth may possess power to do that, even if such power is not specifically included. I have given notice of my intention to move in Committee that that proviso be struck out. It is possible that the measure will be passed through the Chamber so hurriedly that we on this side will not have an opportunity of moving our amendments, but, at any rate, they will be on record on the notice-paper of our desires in this direction. After a certain stage only Government amendments can be dealt with, and if discussion is confined to one clause up to that stage, the moving of other amendments canbe prevented. If the opportunity is afforded, I shall move to strike out that proviso, and to restore the paragraph that appeared in the 1915 Bill -
Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State.
I propose also to move to strike out clause 6. The Bill proposes to give the Commonwealth increased powers for only one year. It is really a gamble on the next election. The Prime Minister dare not appeal to the people without asking them to grant to the Commonwealth additional powers to deal with profiteering. He knows that the people are being fleeced by persons who, according to his own description, give £50 to a patriotic fund, and by high prices rob the people of £50,000. This measure is intended to pave the way for the Prime Minister’s reelection. He knows that honorable members on this side are in favour of the constitutional alterations to which we subscribed previously. But I am opposed to the limitation to one year, and to the reference of the matter to a convention. The Bill refers to a “convention constituted by the Commonwealth.” Who is to call the Convention ? Does the word “ Commonwealth “ mean the GovernorGeneral, or the Government, or this Parliament? And how is the Convention to be constituted? Are the Government to decide who shall be members of it, or are the people to be given an opportunity to settle that point? Is its constitution to be like that of the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry, upon which there is no representative of the workers or of the Labour party?
Mr Jowett:
– The workers were invited to send delegates to the International Labour Conference, and they refused to do so.
Mr TUDOR:
– Of course, the honorable member is on the temporary general council; but if the present Government remain in office the honorable member will be removed, because he has joined the Country party. The Government will have upon all the bodies they control
Nationalists only. I am afraid that if the proposed Convention is nominated by the Government, it, like the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry, will include no representative of Labour.
Mr Pigott:
– The constitution of the Convention will be decided by the electors.
Mr TUDOR:
– There is nothing in the Bill about the electors constituting the Convention. The Prime Minister did not say a word about that.
Mr Pigott:
– Ask the Prime Minister. He will tell you that is so.
Mr TUDOR:
– He is not in the chamber.
Mr Pigott:
– I will answer for him.
Mr TUDOR:
– To what have we descended when the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Pigott) can announce the policy of the Government in regard to an important matter of this kind ? Not one word was said by the Prime Minister as to who should convene the Convention, and how it wouldbe constituted. He may have told honorable members opposite at the party meeting that the issue would be submitted to the people-
Mr Atkinson:
– He mentioned nothing about the constitution of the Convention.
Mr TUDOR:
– The Prime Minister did not tell us whether the members of the Convention would be selected by the Government or the Governor-General, or whether he, if in power, would merely call together the State Premiers. If he does that, we shall look to Mr. Lee again for a little information. If the personnel of the Convention is chosen on the same lines as the Council of the Institute of Science and Industry was, probably all the alterations that are proposed by the Bill will be wiped out. The result of the Convention, if it is appointed by the present Government, will be that we shall have a more conservative instrument of government than is our present Constitution. The people will be asked to vote on the question of whether they will allow the Constitution to remain as it stands or will agree to its amendment in the form proposed by this conservative body. If the Convention is not created by 31st December, 1920, the amendments for which this Bill provides will cease to operate. As an honorable member of our party has said, the people in this case are being offered a “ gold brick,” which is the
American phrase for the confidence trick, and if the clause remains as introduced they will be fooled.
I presume that the supporters of the Government have agreed that these proposed alterations of the Constitution shall be submitted to the people ; but even if they are submitted and unanimously approved of, they will cease to have effect after 31st December, 1920, unless the Government of the Day appoint a Convention to make recommendations for alterations of the Constitution and the people indorse those recommendations. If the Government of the day do not desire these enlarged powers to remain in the Parliament, they will neglect to convene the Convention, and the Parliament will revert to its former limited powers.
In a Ministerial statement delivered in this House eighteen months ago, by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), in the absence of the Prime Minister, the announcement was made that -
To establish and maintain better interests between capital and labour, it is proposed that the Attorney-General shall also be Minister for Labour, and an Advisory Council representing employers and employees will be appointed to keep touch between the Department and the industrial interests affected.
Although eighteen months have elapsed since that promise was made, not one step has been taken to give effect to it. The Prime Minister, who holds office also as Attorney-General, has not been appointed Minister for Labour, nor has the Advisory Council been constituted. Are we to have the same procedure in connexion with this measure? Are we justifiedin believing that the promises made in connexion with this proposal are more likely to be carried out than were those made in the Ministerial statement eighteen- months ago? There is no justification for any such belief.
I hold that the Commonwealth Parliament should have thesepowers, not for twelve months, but for all time. I shall vote, for such an extension of powers as was proposed on the last occasion by the Labour Government then in office. I shall vote to strike out from this Bill the proviso exempting from the powers of this Parliament the right to make laws with respect to the control or management ofState railways. When the last referendum proposals were under con sideration in this House, the present Minister for the Navy led his party out, of the chamber while we were discussing a proposition to bring Staterailway employees within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The right honorable gentleman and his party then said that they would take no further part in the proceedings, and they trooped out of the House. I shall give those who voted for such a provision on the last occasion an opportunity to vote for it once more. Is there any reason why we should exempt the railway services of the State from the provisions of this Bill? Is there one public utility throughout the civilized world in connexion with which there is to-day as much industrial trouble as there is in connexion with railway services? There was never such an industrial upheaval in Great Britain as is now taking place in connexion with its railway services. Yet the Government say that there is absolutely no justification for bringing the State railway servants under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Is there any guarantee that no further trouble is likely to occur in connexion with railway services ? We all remember the turmoil which took place in connexion with the Victorian railway strike in 1903.
Mr Riley:
– The last big strike in New South Wales related to the railway service.
Mr TUDOR:
– Yes, and as the result of it, representatives of that State were unable to reach this Parliament for some time.
Mr Groom:
– Was there not a railway strike also in Queensland?
Mr TUDOR:
– I believe so. Notwithstanding these facts the railway services are deliberately exempted from the provisions of this Bill.
Cite as:Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1919/19191001_reps_7_89/>.