View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
14 July 1920

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SEA CARRIAGE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
CENSURE MOTION
PAPERS

. Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson.) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2683

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SEA CARRIAGE

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) (by leave) agreed to -

That the time for bringing up the report of the Select Committee on Sea Carriage be extended to the15th October next.

page 2683

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) (by leave) agreed to - .

That leave of absence for two months be given to the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt), on the ground of public business; and to the honorable member tor Bourke (Mr. Anatey) and the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Page), on the ground of ill-health.

page 2684

CENSURE MOTION

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I move-

That the Government is deserving of censure for its general incapacity, and more particularly -

for its failure to prevent an inordinate rise in the cost of living;
for its failure to keep its pledges with returned soldiers and their dependants J
for its failure to take steps to deal with the causes of industrial unrest;
for its failure to secure an adequate return to the Australian people for their wool and other primary products sold overseas;
for its failure to make definite bind ing contracts for the sale of such products which would have prevented any possibility of profiteering overseas in Australian products at the expense of Australian producers, and would have made it possible to secure a prompt adjustment of accounts in connexion with such sales.

– I am quite prepared to go to the country to-morrow on a double dissolution; make no mistake: about that. The indications we have received since notice was given of this motion are very hopeful for honorable members on this side of the House.

On Thursday we were accused by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) of giving notice of motion simply becausethe Ballarat election was pending. That honorable member did us a very good turn by postponing or preventing the discussion of the motion, for if ever you get the people outside imagining that Parliament, or a section of Parliament, desires to prevent free discussion, the people will give an effective answer, as they did in 1910. In that year they felt that the Labour party, to which the Prime Minister and myself then beslonged, were not being given a fair deal in the House. They believed that we were being closured and prevented from putting our case before them, and they resented the fact accordingly. Thepeople resented the Government tactics on Saturday last, when they thought the Government intended to burke the discussion on this motion by postponing it.

I referred last Friday, on a point of order, to a statement attributed by the Melbourne Herald to the Prime Minister. The following paragraph, which appeared in that paper on the 8th July, was my authority: -

NATIONALIST AIMS.

Mr. Hughes Sounds Warning.

Ballarat, Thursday. - To meet Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister, and Senator Plain, the President of the National Federation, a number of city men gathered at Craig’s Hotel to-day, at’ the invitation of Senator W. K. Bolton, President of the Ballarat Branch of the National Federation. Mr. Hughes, replying to greetings, sounded a note of warning as to the dangers that beset the Nationalist Government from a few extremists and disloyalists. He saidsupport was now more than ever needed for the Nationalist Government, which had but the most slender majority, in order to keep the principles of Nationalism on a sound foundation.

My free interpretation of that statement was that the Prime Minister said that the Government were “ hanging on by the skin of their teeth.” He admitted in that statement that the Government at that time had but a slender majority. That majority, slight as it was, has gone.

During the last election the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) at one of his meetings referred to the National Federation, to which the supporters of the Government and some members of the Country party belong. He said -

The National Federation is an organization of vested city interests drawing a colossal fighting fund from the manufacturers; and Flinders-lane, and perhaps other sources. . . . The Federation employs a secretary at £1,250, and organizers at £500 a year. It published n pamphlet telling the people that if they wanted the cost of living kept down they should elect the Nationalist candidates.

I have not seen a copy of the pamphlet; but, no doubt, the honorable member quoted it correctly. He went on to say -

It claimed ‘that the National Government had reduced the cost of bread to 6Jd. In England bread was ls. It had arranged cheap and regular supplies of butter by forming a Butter Pool. It had given sugar at 3£d. per lb. In Europe it cost 7d.; and wheat was cheaper in Australia than in any other country. Not a word was said about cheap clothing or the thousands of articles sold by the people it stood for. That was the party which said it was going to “shoot the profiteer.” Those profiteers could be shot with a shortrange gun from an upstairs room in Parliament House looking east, but they were nut likely to shoot the goose that laid such golden eggs.

That is an opinion of the Ministerial party expressed, not by a representative of Labour, but by a representative of the Country party. The suggestion is that the Ministerial party were drawing a big fund for political purposes from Flinders-lane and the manufacturers, and they would not deal with profiteering because it was the profiteer who furnished the .money to pay their election expenses.

With regard to the item of meat, the increase has been greater than upon all the other domestic lines which I have mentioned put together. No honorable member will dare to say that the prices which I have quoted are an undervalue for 1914, or an overvalue with respect to today’s prices.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Do you do any fattening?

Mr Blakeley:

– Your crowd doesn’t seem to get very good grazing at Ballarat.

Mr TUDOR:

– I know all about you men, who would take off your hats to a cow before you would to an individual. You have never known what it is to worry about the cost of living; you have never had to struggle for a living.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– I have struggled harder than the honorable member has ever done.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is certainly not a fact; but I am aware that the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook) and those around him are more concerned about fattening stock than they are to permit me to state a consecutive case today.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Nothing of the sort! How many head of stock have died-

Mr TUDOR:

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– In many country towns employers are offering more than the minimum wage.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that is the position generally throughout the Commonwealth, because if it is so many of our workers will go back to the country. Mr. Lister. - One large firm in this city has voluntarily reduced the hours of working by closing at 6 o’clock on Friday nights instead of 9.30.

Mr Jackson:

– And what about Pelaco?

Mr TUDOR:

– I am friendly with the proprietors of Pelaco Limited, and I believe that they treat their employees well. But I want to refer particularly to -the profiteering methods of Flinders-lane houses, as disclosed in the evidence of the Fair Profits Commission. Mr. J. H. Martin, manager of the dress and silk department of Richard Allen and Sons Proprietary Limited, warehousemen, of Flinders-lane, when giving evidence, was asked by the chairman, “What percentage of your stock have you ‘ marked up ‘ during the present season ? “ The Age report of 20th March states that witness wrote down his answer and handed it to the chairman, who said -

In the opinion of this Commission this particular fact should not be treated as confidential. You bought Marrackville tweed at 6s. 6d.. and you sold at 13s. 6d.- a profit of more than 100 per cent. We think that quite unreasonable. The Commission proposes to bring the principal of your firm before it. Under section 8 of the Necessary Commodities Aci we shall declare your prices to be unreasonable, and will consider what action shall be taken.

Another fact was brought before the Commission, and was thus dealt with in the Age of ten days or a fortnight ago : -

A most .glaring instance of profiteering during the demand caused by the strike for emergency illuminants was exposed before the Fair Profits Commission yesterday. The instance is the more remarkable in that it embraced several transactions in the one line of goods on the one day - some within ten minutes of each other; that three middlemen as well as the importer and the retailer handled the goods before the consumer was offered them; and that between importer and consumer a difference between the landed cost (4s. 4d. each) and retail price (15s.) of 10s. 8d. had occurred. The transactions centred round a line of Windsor hurricane lamps imported from New York at invoice cost f.o.b. of 31s. 6d. per doz. (2s. 7id. each) and lauded cost of 52s. 8d. (4s. 4d. each) by the Vacuum Oil Company. Evidence regarding the subsequent transactions was given before the Commission yesterday by representatives of the various firms named, who had been summoned as witnesses, lt was deposed that S. R. O. Allen, importer, Williamstreet, bought from the Vacuum Oil Company on 14th June seventy-two dozen of the lamps at 58s. 6d. per doz. The same morning Mr. Allen sold ten cases to George Russell Proprietary Limited, Flinders-street, at 77s. 6d. per dozen ; also twenty cases to James McEwan and Company at 80s. per dozen ten minutes later; thirty-one cases to Brandt Brothers at 80s. ten minutes later again; and ten cases to James Walker, Little Collins-street at 80s. George Russell Proprietary Limited the same day sold four dozen to C. J. Langford, Elizabethstreet at lOSs. per dozen. C. J. Langford sold two dozen to J. and A. Boyes, Elizabeth-street, the same afternoon at 150s. per dozen. J. and A. Boyes sold to a member of the public at the rate of 180s. per dozen (15s. each). C. J. Langford and J. A. Boyes were in the same building, and no delivery charges were involved in the transaction. Most of the purchasers took the risk of breakages.

That is the position, not only in regard to lamps and tweeds, but also in respect to many other commodities.

Mr Hill:

– What is wanted is a Cooperative Distributing Society.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Such a society would be of no use if there were no more lamps.

Mr TUDOR:

– There was at one time a Co-operative Distributing Society in Melbourne, and many attempts have been made in this city to form such societies. The result was, however, that cooperative societies in the country declined to sell goods to the co-operative society here unless the goods went through a middleman.

Mr Hill:

– The goods should be bought direct from the primary producer on the land.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am referring to the Civil Service Co-operative Society, which was unable to purchase goods from cooperative societies in the country unless those goods went through middlemen.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Could you give us the names of those societies?

Mr TUDOR:

– I cannot, at the moment. I do know, however, that the wholesalers killed the Co-operative Bakery which was in existence here for a number of years. I will try to get the particulars of those country societies from the ex-secretary of the Civil Service Cooperative Society, Mr. Burke. About a fortnight ago, a letter appeared in the Age, referring to dealings in other commodities, and containing the following: -

We hear it remarked everywhere that the cost of living has advanced 50 per cent., but the fact is that the cost of living has advanced somewhere approaching 200 per cent. In support of that assertion/ let us examine a few items qf necessaries, omitting luxuries and fancy items, many of which have advanced 500 per cent, or 600 per cent.: -

Mr TUDOR:

– I believe that many are using it, believing it to be fresh, and are paying fresh meat prices for it. To continue the comparison of the prices paid in 1913 and to-day. Men’s cashmere, all-wool half-hose could be purchased in 1913 for ls. 6d. per pair, whereas to-day their price is 7s. 6d. per pair. Children’s three-quarter cashmere, all-wool half-hose, which cost ls. per pair in 1913, cannot now be purchased for less than 2s. lid. Ladies’ three-quarter allwool half-hose, which could be bought in 1913 for ls. lid. per pair, to-day cost 5s. 6d. Men’s suits to measure, which in 1913 cost 35s., to-day cost £4 10s. Men’s Harvard shirts, which could be purchased for 2s. 9d. each, to-day cost 7s. 6d. Men’s cotton tweed trousers in 1913 cost 3s. lid. per pair; to-day their purchase price is 9s. 6d. Linoleum, which in 1913 could be bought for 4s. lid. per yard, to-day cost 18s. 6d. There are hundreds of lines showing similar percentages of increase. Those given by Mr. Arthur Williams work out at 170 per cent.; so, to put it mildly, it must cost each man, woman, and child at least an. additional £10 per annum to live.

In regard to the question of sugar supplies, the Government have exhibited their utter incapacity. As far back as September of last year, Ministers knew, within 10,000 tons, what would be the yield of the Queensland crop. As a matter of fact, while I was discussing this very question, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) interjected that the Government knew to within 5,000 tons what that crop would be. If they knew that the Australian production would amount only to 186,000 tons, they must have known that we should require to import about an additional 100,000 tons. But instead of importing that quantity, they imported only 70,100 tons. Some time ago I asked a series of questions in this chamber, with a view to Eliciting exactly how much that sugar cost, because I say deliberately that the retail price of sugar should not be what it is to-day. The people are paying an unduly high price for that commodity owing to the incompetency of the Government. According to the Minister for Trade and Customs, the Government landed 60,000 tons of sugar from Java for £22 per ton f.o.b., they imported an additional 6,000 tons from there at a cost of £23 per ton, and a further 4,100 tons from Fiji at £25 per ton. In reply to inquiries regarding the freight which was paid upon these importations, I was informed that it was 35s. per ton from Java, and 27s. 6d. per ton from Fiji. Insurance upon the 66,000 tons of Java sugar varied from 9s. 9d. per cent, to 10s. lid. per’ cent. ; say, from 2s. to 2s. 4d. per ton extra under that head. The insurance upon the Fiji shipment was at the rate of 8s. per cent. The exchange in connexion with the Java purchases was 15s. per cent, and 17s. 6d. per cent., and from Fiji, nil. The whole of the 70,100 tons of sugar imported, was landed at less than 3d. per lb. I repeat that in September last the Government knew that they would require to import at least 100,000 tons of sugar, and that they should have made their arrangements accordingly. I blame them for putting into the sugar agreement a condition which prevented the Queensland Government from increasing the capacity of the mills there.

Mr Corser:

– That had no effect at all.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am informed by representatives from Queensland that it did have an ‘effect.

Mr Corser:

– It had not the slightest effect.

Mr TUDOR:

– If it had not, why did the Government insert that condition in the agreement; and, if the course they adopted was the right one, why did they afterwards take that condition out of the agreement? The Government have admitted that they made a mistake in regard to the matter.

I come now to the question of industrial unrest. Upon the 10th April, 1918, the present Minister for the Navy ‘ (Sir Joseph Cook), whilst acting for the Prime Minister, read a statement of Ministerial policy which had been read in another place by Senator Millen the previous day. I recollect the occasion so well because the censor prohibited the publication of the statement in the press until after it had been read in this Chamber. In that statement, as will be seen by reference to Hansard of 1918, page 3726, Sir Joseph Cook stated -

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.

Two years later, we were assured, in the Governor-General’s Speech, which is set out upon page 7 of Hansard of the 26th February last -

My Ministers will introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the prevention and for the settlement, of those industrial disputes which come within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and to give effect to the principle of a basic wage.

Nothing was done for two years, and nothing has yet been done in that direction. Only last Friday we were told that the Government intend to bring forward a Bill dealing with certain questions which are not being dealt with by the Arbitration Court at the present time. We had submitted to us a list showing the number of cases before that Court on the 23rd April last. In speaking upon that question, I pointed out that there are nine cases which for months have been awaiting a hearing before that tribunal, cases involving industries the cessation of which would paralyze the Commonwealth. The Judges have stated that certain amendments are necessary in the Arbitration Act to facilitate its better working. It is well known that when a plaint is filed before the Court, even though the cost of living has increased in the case of an average family, to the extent of £1 2s. 6d. per week upon only four articles, it is difficult to get it heard with reasonable expedition. Who knew three years ago what would be’ the increase in the cost of living to-day? Who knows what it will be three years hence?

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– If we have a drought, we cannot tell what it wilT be.

Mr TUDOR:

– We have had droughts before in Australia, but there has never previously been such increases in prices as those with which we are confronted to-day. I gather from the June number of the Victorian Agricultural Journal that the number of sheep in Australia to-day is 84,000,000 odd. From another Government publication - I think it was the New South Wales Agricultural Journal - I learn that before the war, in 1912, when there were 92,000,000 sheep in Australia, the wool clip- was worth £22,000,000. Since then, in 1916 or 1917, the number of sheep has diminished by about 18,000,000, and yet the wool clip is worth double what it was previously. I believe that I am right in saying that the value of the clip in 1912, when we had more sheep than we have to-day, was only about half that of the present clip.

On Friday last the Prime Minister told us that he had had to advise the organization with which he was connected to strike because they could not get to the Arbitration Court in any other way, and we know that the seamen and the marine engineers have recently taken the same course. When they find that employers refuse to meet them in conference the organizations cannot be blamed for taking the matter into their own hands. In May last, when I was dealing with this subject of the projected conference of employers and employees, I pointed out that on the 10th April of this year Mr. Justice Powers had made the following statement: -

There are three complaints, at least, against the Court for which the Court is not responsible. The first is that the Judges appointed to do the work cannot keep pace with the many claims brought before them, and serious delays are sometimes caused in settling industrial disputes. Parliament can, if it thinks fit, rectify that. The second is that the Court cannot, because of section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, settle industrial disputes arising during the term of an award, however serious the dispute may be, or however much the cost of living has increased since the award was made. Parliament can, if it thinks fit, rectify that also. The third is that proceedings in the Court are expensive. The unions can rectify that by avoiding the expense of plaints, as is frequently done, limiting their claims to what they really intend to insist upon (if section 28 is amended), and by not calling witnesses to prove what the employers admit.

As Mr. Justice Powers points out in regard to two of the complaints, Parliament itself can rectify them, and, im my opinion, should do so at the earliest possible moment. I believe that the Justices of the High Court are unanimously of opinion that this Parliament has power to clothe the Arbitration Court with authority to settle an industrial dispute arising during the term of an award. Speaking on this subject in May last, I quoted the case of the gas employees, who could not have their plaint amended because they had asked for 13s. a day. They are now submitting a plaint for £1 a day, thus making sure that they will have ample margin to come and go upon during the three years currency of their award. However, ‘Parliament has the opportunity to rectify this matter. On the 13th April, a few days after Mr. Justice Powers “had made these remarks, Senator Fairbairn, the President of the Employers’ Federation of Australia, wrote to the1 Argus as follows : -

Mr. Justice Powers’ statement “ in reply to criticisms “ is most interesting and instructive. He suggests three ways in which the

Arbitration Court could be improved, as follows : -

Greater expedition in dealing with cases brought before the Court.

That power be given to the Court to deal with an industrial dispute arising during the currency of an award.

The reduction of the expense of the Court proceedings.

Mr. Justice Powers suggests remedies to No. 3, but feels, I suppose, that it is outside his province as a Judge to indicate legislative alterations. I therefore make the following suggestions, which I think have the support of all employers, and I hope most of the employees : -

Greater expedition in dealing with cases could be obtained (a) by appointing at least three Judges; (6) by giving the Court the power to delegate to a Board appointed by it the authority to decide a dispute when requested to do so by one’ of the parties to the dispute ; (c) by a clear definition of what are Federal and what are State disputes. Much of the Courts’ time at present is taken up in deciding whether the dispute is Federal or State, and no sooner is a case settled in the Federal Court than it is brought before the State Court, or vice versa, and the state of unrest so hurtful to industry is prolonged.

The chief, cause of industrial disputes at present is the ever-changing cost of living, and power should be granted to the Court to make awards contingent upon the rise or fall of the cost of living.

The Prime Minister has promised early amendments of the Arbitration Court Act, and it must be apparent to all that they are urgently required. Mr. Hughes has had for some time before him the carefully considered views of the employers on what changes are required, and he has also consulted the employees on this matter. Before the Government brings forward its amendments I think it might help matters if he would call a conference of representatives of employers and employees to see if harmony cannot be achieved, as there are many other amendments besides those dealt with by Mr. Justice Powers that would benefit the Act. - Yours, &c,

George Fairbairn,

President Central Council of Employers. 12th April

On the next day the following paragraph appeared in the Argus : -

Consideration was given by the Federal Cabinet yesterday to arbitration matters. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) said that the Cabinet had discussed the position that arose through the Deputy President of the Arbitration Court (Mr. justice Powers) going on leave. It was also hoped to introduce at an early date legislation to amend the Arbitration Act.

When the proposal by the president of the Employers Federation (Senator Fairbairn) for a round-table conference on industrial matters was mentioned, Mr. Hughes said : - “ Two years ago we proposed to bring in a measure for a Grand Council of Labour, on which both sides would be represented. That idea we hope to embody in our coming legislation.

But such a proposal will be useless without the hearty co-operation of both sides. We propose to call a conference. We will not put a cutanddried proposition in regard to the constitution of a Council of Labour, or to industrial legislation before them, but will seek to have a free discussion of matters and find out the ideas of both sides. Then we will try to formulate proposals, to secure industrial peace and harmony.”

The sooner we know what the Government proposals are in this direction the better it will be for all concerned, but they made the promise more than two years ago, and, so far, have done absolutely nothing. It was also promised that the Prime Minister would act as Minister for Labour, but nothing has been done in that matter either.

The employers have also failed in, their duty. Representatives of the tannery employees of Australia have informed me that they had the greatest difficulty in getting the employers to meet them, and I am told that in ‘the hat trade the employers are offering excuse after excuse to avoid meeting their workmen in conference, although the award has expired. A strike in the hat-making industry would not affect the community as would a strike amongst transport workers or engineers: but the fact that there are two sides to a question ought to be made known. The workers in all industries have very little chance of putting their case before the people through the press. The opinion seems to be held in some quarters that if a ballot of employees is taken a proposal to strike will be turned down; but the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that, taken as a whole, the rank and file in an organization are far more militant than are the officials. The newspapers claim time after time that strikes are fomented by the latter, whereas, as a matter of fact, they are chiefly concerned in trying to do their best for their members, and will exert all their influence to avoid trouble. What has been the result of some of the ballots recently taken? In the case of the seamen the decision was to strike, and in the later cases of the marine, engineers and the engine-drivers and firemen of Victoria the result was the same.

I do not consider that the promises which were made to our soldiers when they went away from Australia have been kept. A few days ago I received from a gentleman whom I knew some years back, a letter in which he says -

I wish to place in your hands a letter which I received from the Repatriation Department, conveying the decision of the Repatriation Committee, the first paragraph of which should be of very considerable benefit to you in reference to your censure motion.

The paragraph to which my attention was thus directed reads as follows: -

The Department at no time has undertaken, or has contemplated undertaking, an obligation to reinstate a man in his pre-war position.

I am under the impression that the promise was made to those who went to the war that they would not suffer for doing so, and that when they returned they would be given positions at least as good as those they left -

The Department, however, will, as far as it reasonably can do so, endeavour to assist a man to obtain a position equal to his pre-war occupation.

I have had letters from men who were in business before they went to the war, who, on their return, could not obtain assistance from the Department. Only last month I wrote to a correspondent saying-

I received your letter, and will at once make strong representations to the Repatriation Department on your behalf. Immediately I -hear anything I will advise you.

In writing to the Deputy Comptroller of the Repatriation Department at Melbourne, I said, referring to this case -

Prior to enlisting in 1914, this man owned and conducted a printing business at Brunswick and Abbotsford for nearly seven years. He then enlisted and handed over his business to the care of a master printer, who, after two years, closed down, and sold part of the - plant to pay certain debts. Whilst Mr. Kidson may not have sold his business, he certainly disposed of it, as it is not in his possession to-day.

I am told that his application has been refused; but he is appealing against the Board’s decision.

In reply, the Deputy Comptroller informed me that -

Mr. Kidson’s application was declined in view of the fact that he did not dispose of his business to enlist, and he is, therefore, ineligible for assistance to commence again. He has been informed that, on receipt of an appeal in writing, his case will foe resubmitted to the deciding authority.

In regard to the suggestion that I should inform my correspondent that he must appeal again in writing, I wrote the following letter to the Minister: -

On 26th instant I wrote to the Deputy Comptroller here regarding a man named Wm. A. Kidson, of 173 Vere-street, Abbotsford, and have received the enclosed reply, which, you will see, is signed by an officer of the Department.

In my letter of the 26th instant I gave the whole of the facts, and asked that the matter be reconsidered. I frequently get similar replies to the one enclosed, insisting on the applicant making an appeal, but, in my opinion, it should not bc necessary for the man to make an appeal when I do so on* his behalf. Naturally, this causes the applicant further trouble and delay, which seems to mt entirely unnecessary.

Whenever I write to the Pensions Office and ask that a case be reconsidered with a view to increasing or granting a pension, it is done without asking the applicant to also write in.

I shall be glad if you will look into this matter, with a view to expediting business and eliminating a good deal of red-tape.

Although I wrote that letter on the 30th of last month I have not yet received an acknowledgment of it.

I wish now to give honorable members an illustration of the way in which war pension applications have been treated. A f friend of mine received towards the end of 1918 a letter in which the writer complained of “ the very unjust way the Defence Department treated mothers who had raised large families and who applied for pensions in regard to sons who had been killed at the war.” According to the statements contained in that letter, the man and his wife had four sons who enlisted, of whom two were killed in action, one died at sea on a transport, and one was still in the fighting line. After the first son was killed the usual papers for a pension were sent to them and the wife was called to Melbourne, and gave her replies to the questions asked of her. After some time she was informed to her surprise that she would be paid a pension of 5s. per week, which she regarded as an insult, because she knew that other mothers were getting pensions of 10s., 15s., and, in some cases, £1 per week, because of the death of their sons. She regarded the offer of the Department as “ making little of her brave boy who died fighting for his country.” The second son was killed in action on the 9th August, 1918, when the usual pension papers were again sent, and the wife again went to Melbourne and replied to the questions asked of her. She then received what she considered a bigger insult from the Department, because the pension was nil. It was the intention of the writer to tell his wife, when the pension papers came in respect of the lad who died at sea on a transport, to reply that as she had been so badly treated in the past, she could live without their insults. The ground for the rejection of these pensions in respect of the second lad killed was that the parents were not dependent on his earnings for the twelve months immediately prior to his enlistment. The writer points out that, although they were not dependent on their son for their living, he being then nineteen years of age, and learning a trade, a family of ten had been raised on a wage of 6s. 6d.- a day, and the lads who had been killed would have been earning £3 per week at the date on which he wrote had they not gone to the war, and would, of course, have helped their parents in their old age, a matter which the Pensions Department ought to have taken into consideration. I put the matter before the Department, and eventually got a pension of 7s. for each of the two sous, though that was not enough. The complaint has been made that widows who were getting £2 per week war pension have had their allowance reduced to £1 ls. These reductions have been made recently, and are not fair.

Many complaints are being made about the restrictions on the war gratuity. The insurance offices have now been prohibited from cashing war gratuity bonds, but men have told me that if they go to certain furniture selling firms, they can get their war gratuity bonds* cashed, so long as they spend 33 per cent, of the proceeds upon furniture.

Mr TUDOR:

– When the Bill was going through the House, I said that I did not think it would be possible to provide for bonds that could not be cashed. Men have come to me offering me half the value of the bonds if I would cash them, but I have declined to do so, because the law says that they cannot be cashed, and I have not the money to buy these bonds, even if I desired to do so. The Government have failed to treat the men properly in regard to the war gratuity.

It is for the Government to see that those who wish to use the gratuity for insurance purposes are fairly treated. It is said that some insurance offices are allowed to cash the bonds, and that others are prohibited from doing so.

My desire is that our returned men shall get a fair deal. It should not be said to them that they were not promised that, on their return, they would be reinstated in their pre-war positions; that promise was made to them. The Go vern - men have failed to deal fairly with the soldiers. They have failed to treat our returned men and their dependants as the community would wish. The public do not ask for the saving of a few shillings by the reduction of the pensions of war widows. The Government have also failed to prevent profiteering. Then two years ago they promised to establish a Council of Labour to deal with industrial unrest, a promise which they have not fulfilled. I hold, therefore, that I have justification for moving the motion. Honorable members on this side, and members of the Corner party will, no doubt, deal with those questions arising under it which I have not had time to mention. Those who vote against the motion will have to show cause for supporting a Government which has failed in its duty in the manner I have indicated.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– In giving notice of his motion last Thursday, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) led the country to believe that lie had disclosures of such a character to make as would prove the Government unworthy of the confidence of the House. For that reason, and because by no other means can I reply to what he has said,- I think it proper to treat the motion as one of censure. The honorable member, in speaking to his motion, occupied an hour and thirty-five minutes. He 6poke, yet said nothing. I ask honorable members generally whether, if they were a jury, and the Government collectively were on its trial, and the counsel for the prosecution had presented the case as the honorable member has done, they would hesitate a moment before giving a verdict of acquittal? The honorable member has been in Ministerial office with me for many years; he has been my friend for many more. I credit him always with the best intentions, but this afternoon, although I listened attentively to his speech, and, so far as one in my position could, with an absolutely open mind, I heard no reason why the Government should be censured, or the time of the Legislature wasted in repeating at such length what he has already said on’ so many occasions, and what we shall probably hear on many more if we are spared to live long enough.

This motion of censure is divided into five parts, and differs in this respect only from its predecessor, which, like all Gaul, w.as divided into three parts. Although the honorable gentleman consumed the full time allotted to him with his speech, he occupied nearly the whole period with irrelevant observations. I propose, as briefly and clearly as I can, to show why the House should not agree to the motion, First of all the honorable member says that the Government is deserving of censure for its failure to prevent the inordinate rise in the cost of living. “What are the facts? The honorable member knows what they are perfectly well. He was in office with me for about two years and four months during the war, and the Government then had great powers under the War Precautions Act. When the honorable member moved his previous censure motion, I pointed out that, although he was the Minister charged with the administration of this Act, he took no action whatever so far as I knew to deal in any way with the high cost of living. He may have done so, but if he did I was not aware of it. The reason he gave was the only reason he could give. It was the reason he gave previously when he was my colleague, and really he gave it through my mouth. I explained that we had not done anything in that direction, because we were of the opinion that we could not effectively deal with the high cost of living until we had power to deal with combines, trusts, and corporations. The party to which the honorable member and myself belonged had pressed this view very strongly before the electors for many years, and regarded the amendment of the Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over these vitally important matters as of such urgency as to justify them in putting it on their fighting platform. In 1915 I was present at the Adelaide Labour Conference, where the question of the high cost of living was brought up. It was regarded as a matter of vital importance, and the Government of the day, at the head of which was my friend Mr.’ Fisher, and of which I was a member, was urged to press on with the referendum in order to clothe the Commonwealth Parliament with such powers as would enable it to take action. It was never for one moment suggested then that there was any other way of doing it. Until the honorable member for West Sydney (Mv. Ryan) made a statement to the contrary, no one had ever suggested that this Parliament had any power to deal with combines, trusts and companies, or to fix prices except under the War Precautions Act, unless and until such amendments of the Constitution were made as would clothe the Commonwealth Legislature with the necessary power. The late Mr. Cohen, who was one of the representatives of Victoria, said at the 1915 conference, “ Surely they were not going to allow a handful of Tories in the Federal Parliament to stand in the way of the people’s interests; everything should be done to put through the work quickly; the Government would be justified in taking such action as would insure the passage of these measures in a reasonable time, seeing that the carrying of the referendum meant so much to the people, who were being fleeced right and left by the combines and trusts in everything concerned.” He moved an a’mendment, a long debate took place, and the conference affirmed the necessity for pressing on with the amendments to give the Commonwealth power to deal with these matters at the very earliest possible moment. The Leader of the Opposition was then a member of the Government, of which I wasAttorneyGeneral, and he was still a member of the Government when in the tail end of 1915 a proposal was made by the States to grant us certain powers temporarily upon condition that we postponed the referendum. The honorable member was strongly in favor of that course, and voted for it, and, at a meeting of the party upstairs, there were I think” only six or seven dissentients out of a total of 72 members. These two facts stand out: one, that it had been clearly recognised by the Labour party for years that there was no way by which the Commonwealth could deal with trusts. combines, and prices except by the amendment of the Constitution, and, two, that in 1915 the high cost of living was a matter of such grave and pressing concern as to make it imperative in the interests of the community that the Constitution should be amended forthwith. Yet, as I have said, the honorable member agreed to . the postponement of the referendum, and when the States did nothing he followed their example, nor was it until he left the Government and a new Government was constituted, that anything waa done to reduce the cost of living to the people of Australia under the War Precautions Act. I shall come later, as I deal with these matters, to the reasons which led the honorable member and his colleagues to act as they did in regard to the last referendum, but I would point out that the High Court has laid it down again and again that the Commonwealth has no power to deal with trusts, combines, or companies. And as nine-tenths of all commercial transactions are carried on by these means it is abundantly clear that unless we have plenary power over them we can take no effective action to deal with high prices. The honorable member has spoken this afternoon of rings. He spoke of a flour ring, and of a man being at once frozen out and burnt up as the result of the operations of one of ‘ those rings. He knows that the only way in which we can deal with any ring or combine is by amendment of the Constitution. He cannot deny that he agreed to the postponement of the referendum when he was a member of the Government, in which I had the honour to hold a portfolio, nor can he deny that at the last election, when a referendum was taken, an overwhelming majority of the members of the Labour party were led by the misrepresentations of their leaders to vote against that which for the last nine years the Labour party had declared to be the very corner-stone of their temple. I have here the referenda figures for 1913 -and 1919. They show that in 1919 the majority at the referendum against the Legislative Powers Bill was under 20,000, proving conclusively that had the Labour party voted as they were bound to do by the planks of the platform to which they solemnly pledged themselves, this Parliament would to-day not have the excuse that it has no power to deal with these things. That a great National Legislature like this should not have the power to deal with industrial matters, combines, trusts, corporations, er companies is, I say now as I said in 1911, when I was the mouthpiece of the Labour party, a disgrace to the intelligence of the people of this country, and a menace, to their security and welfare. I ask, and I shall continue to ask while I am on my feet, why the Labour party at the recent election did this thing? Why did they deliberately reject that which they had declared for the last ten years to be the one thing essential to the well-being of the people?

The honorable member said we had done nothing to deal with the high cost of living during the war, when we had the power. I deny altogether that under ‘the War Precautions Act as it stands to-day we have the power now. It may be that I am wrong; no one can tell that until a case is decided in the High Court. But I venture to say that” ho one reading the judgments of the High Court on those cases in which it was held that we had the power during the war would say that we had the power to-day to fix prices in regard to those commodities which, unlike sugar, are outside our own control. During the war we regulated the price of eighty-eight commodities, and the effect of our action, as has been admitted even from the Opposition side of the House, was to reduce the cost of living most materially to the people of this country, saving them’ very many millions. But now we can do nothing. I do not hesitate to say that had Labour voted in 1919 as it did in 1913 this Parliament would this day have authority to deal with these vitally important matters. To-day I say most emphatically, despite what the honorable member for West Sydney may claim, that it has no power to deal effectively with them. Why have honorable members opposite abandoned those principles which they declared again and again to be vital? At every election since 1910 they have been in the forefront of their platform, yet when opportunity offers they denounce that which they have for years declared to be necessary for the salvation of Australia.

Why? I shall indicate later some reasons why they did this thing.

– I say that what is complained of in this connexion is against the law. A reference has been made to the cashing of bonds by insurance com panies, and in that matter the Treasurer is safeguarding the interests of the men: In the action he is taking he is protecting the interests and’ welfare of the soldier. He is right in taking’ up that attitude, because he is the guardian of the soldiers’ interests.

I promised the soldiers, on behalf of the Government, that they should have one representative on the Repatriation Board and the War Gratuity Board. On the Repatriation Board, the returned soldiers have not one representative, but three; and of the eighteen members of the Central and State Boards, ten are returned soldiers. The War Gratuity Board consists of three members, and all are returned soldiers or sailors. Instead, then, of giving the returned soldier merely representation on these Boards, we have given him control of the whole of the machinery of the war gratuity; while on repatriation, of three members of the Central Board and eighteen on the State Boards, ten are returned soldiers. The Government, then, has not only fulfilled its pledges to the soldiers, but has gone much farther than it promised to do. As for what the returned soldiers themselves think of what has been done, the following is a quotation from the issue for the 2nd July, 1920, of The Soldier, one of the organs of the returned men in New South Wales: -

Of all the promises made to returned men by politicians, those made by Hughes stand out alone as having been honorably fulfilled.

So much, then, for the second charge. I say that it has failed completely.

I come now to the third charge: that we have failed to take steps to deal with the causes of industrial unrest. I think I have already shown, in dealing with the first charge, that the Legislature has no power to deal with industrial unrest except by way of arbitration, «and then only in regard to certain disputes, and in a certain way. Many honorable members opposite have stood upon platforms up and down this country, bewailing the unhappy condition of the people because the National Legislature was denied the opportunity to deal with these great industrial matters, and demanding the amendment of the Constitution. But what did these honorable members do when the opportunity was given them to secure for the Legislature the power to deal with this greatest of all modern problems? When that plank was putbefore them fairly, they went out and asked the people to turn it down. Why ?

The honorable gentleman has in a sort of a way approved the suggestion I have made to call, a conference of the parties interested. He asks why this has not been done before, and why has not the Arbitration Act been amended. I would remind the honorable gentleman of something. He and the members of his party have been the most prolific wasters of time in this Parliament. This is the second motion of censure he has brought forward, and he brings it forward at a time when he knows that it is more likely that Julius Caesar “ dead and turned to clay “ should stand at the end of this table than that his motion should’ be carried. Knowing this, and knowing how precious our time is, he again invites this Parliament to turn from those matters of great moment that affect the interests and welfare of the people, in order to consider a motion of censure, the sole reason for which he knows has ceased to exist. For this motion sprang mushroomlike out of the dungheap of the Ballarat by-election; and now, when instead of the mushrooms we have got the toadstool, the honorable gentleman still goes on with it.

Mr Tudor:

– Julius Caesar will not stand at the end of the table, but very shortly Mr. McGrath will walk into this Chamber.

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes, and I would rather see Julius Caesar. When the honorable gentleman asks why we have not brought in legislation to amend the Arbitration Act, he may be met with two answers. One he has himself supplied. By submitting this motion he has deliberately wasted the time of this House, as he has done on many occasions. The other is inherent in the limitations of the Arbitration Court itself. I state here, as I have stated a hundred times before, that the Arbitration Court is not a convenient and effective machine for dealing with all industrial disputes. I should be the last to say that it has not done excellent work. It has done good work, but its present state of congestion shows clearly that it lumbers too cumbrously after the greyhound of industrial difference. We require machinery that will be more nimble and effective. I propose, at a very early date, to introduce that machinery, and to give this House the opportunity to supplement the activities of the Arbitration Court.

The honorable gentleman said, in reference to my proposal to call a round table conference to discuss industrial matters, that he hoped it would be called. I have only to say that I regret very much to have to announce that one important Labour body has deliberately declined to be represented at that round table conference. I refer to the Melbourne Trades Hall. That body will not appoint a representative to the conference. , This is the reception which every effort to bring about industrial harmony meets with in certain quarters. One of the most valuable results of the Paris Peace Conference was the International Labour Charter, which provided machinery through which Labour all over the world could make itself articulate, could -meet in conference1, and seek means to ameliorate the conditions and improve the status of workers in all countries. I brought this prominently under the notice of the Parliament. I stated then that an International Labour Conference was to be held at Washington, to which Labour the world over was invited to send representatives. This- conference was to deal with matters of the greatest importance vital to the welfare of Labour the world over. Australia was invited to send delegates, the Government bearing all the expense. How was this invitation to the greatest Labour Convention the World has ever seen received by my honorable friend’s supporters? It was rejected with scorn. Yes, sir, this country, this Australia of ours, the most democratic country in the world, whose proud boast has been that it has ever been in the very vanguard of Labour, and upon the lips of whose delegates the need of international brotherhood has been the sign-manual of their profession, was the only country unrepresented at that, conference! During the war, honorable members opposite were never tired of talking about inviting the workers of all countries to join hands in order to put an end to the frightful conflict, and yet when they were asked to meet their fellow workers in Washington in order that they might do something, if not for the workers of their own country, at least something for the down-trodden workers of other countries, they churlishly declined to do so. So much, therefore, for the honorable gentleman’s charge that the Government have done nothing in regard to industrial unrest. I venture to point out that ifh e and his followers took their courage in. both hands and would preach to the workers outside the only gospel that can bring about industrial peace, to produce more, and to seek peaceful and harmonious means of effecting an adjustment of their mutual interests with their employers, they would do something to bring about a state of affairs which would be lastingly beneficial, not only to those whom they claim to represent, but to the whole community. But what do they do when there is a strike? What honorable member opposite has ever had the courage, when there has been a strike on, to go out and tell the men that they were wrong ?

Mr Mathews:

– They are never wrong.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have done so hundreds of times. I was the bell-wether who was always sent out for years. In the coal strike I never got one man to stand up with me, although men. who represented the coal districts knew that I was in the right. I was left to go out and fight the battle for the cause of the Labour party, whilst the red-raggers, who along with another section have destroyed the Labour movement, strove with all their might to bring about a general strike and paralyze the community. I ask why honorable members opposite do not go to their industrial unions and political leagues and preach the only gospel that is of any good to Labour?

In his next charge the honorable gentleman asserts that the Government have failed to secure an adequate return to the Australian people for their wool and other primary products sold overseas. In some respects this charge is the most extraordinary/ and the least supported by facts. I listened to the honorable gentleman while he strove to make out his case.So far as I could follow him, what he said was in effect that the farmer is deserving of censure because he is selling his goods at a higher price in Australia than he obtains for them overseas. This way of helping the farmer would be to compel him to sell his pro duce at a price below the cost of production. Yet he poses as a friend of the farmer, and says that we have not protected the latter ‘s interest. Let me point out what we have done. Paragraphs d and e of the honorable member’s motion read

For its failure to secure an adequate re turn to the Australian people for their wool and other primary products sold overseas.
For its failure to make definite binding contracts for the sale of such products which would have prevented any possibility of profiteering overseas in Australian products at the expense of Australian producers, and would have made it possible to secure a prompt adjustment of accounts in connexion with such sales.

I take those two things together. First of all, it is utterly untrue that the present Government or the preceding Governments of which I had the honour to be a member did not do everything in their power to secure for the producer the highest possible return for his product. The Wheat Pool has handled 468,807,000 bushels of wheat, and the prices received ranged from 4s. 9d. to 6s. 3d. per bushel f.o.b. The average price of wheat for years previous to the war was 3s. 9d. a bushel. The total amounts received from local and overseas sales by the Pool up to the 5th July was £120,969,000. It was shown in evidence before the Royal Commission which sat in this State that the farmer had received £10,000,000 above London parity by the operation of the Pool during the period of the war. So much for that. In regard to wool, sales have been made at prices 55 per cent. above those ruling before the war, and the four clips have realized to date £170,000,000, whilst under arrangements made by the Government it is estimated that the growers will receive approximately £40,000,000 as their share of the profits on re-sales. The Wool Committee has handled 7,000,000 bales of wool. Those figures speak for themselves. They show that, including the half-share of profits, the growers will receive nearly double the prewar value of their wool. It has been said that those arrangements were not definite and precise. Nothing is farther from the truth. The arrangements weremost definite; the contracts made in regardto wheat were all in the form ofordinary contracts, and set out most minutelythe duty of each party. The interest ofthe

Australian producer has been most carefully safeguarded. , I, myself, have sold for the producer 5,200,000 tons of wheat. In those contracts, as with the contracts made direct through the Board, the interest of the farmer was protected in, every particular. It is entirely wrong to suppose that the contracts were made in a loose manner. I have not time to set out the details, but I have telegrams here which show with what meticulous care the details of the contracts ‘ were covered by the telegrams which passed between the British Government and the Government of the Commonwealth. I need only remind honorable members that during the war there was but one buyer of wheat, and unless that buyer could have been induced to buy it was impossible for us to sell our wheat anywhere else. That created a situation without precedent, and one which could not be endured without relief; relief was to be obtained in only one direction, and we obtained it. As with wheat, so with wool. Money was made available to the producer before the wheat and wool were shifted from our shores. As examples of the procedure followed in all overseas sales of our products I may quote one or two instances. In connexion with the first wheat deals in 1915 there was, firstly, an inquiry from the British Government by telegram. That was followed by a definite offer from this end, and subsequently an acceptance in precise terms by the British Government. So it was with each deal. In 1916 there was an offer and acceptance, and a confirmation of such acceptance. In regard to wool, the same procedure was followed. A cable dated 14th November, 1916, contained a definite offer from the British Government to ‘purchase the whole of Australia’s clip of cross-bred and merino wool. I think it proper to state here that it is clearly shown in this cable that this is the result of representations made by me when in London during that year. It sets out quite clearly what the British authorities ‘ were prepared to do. That offer was laid before the representatives of the wool -growers ; they agreed to sell on the basis of ls. 3d. per pound for greasy wool. I cabled on their behalf an offer to sell at ls. 3$d. per lb., and this was accepted by the British Government.

I obtained for them $ha.t extra halfpenny per pound, which, apart from anything else, has yielded to the woolgrowers £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 above what they would otherwise have received. A cablegram sent on the 4th December set out the duties of the parties, the machinery by which the transaction was to be carried out, and, in short, followed the method invariably adopted by business men in connexion with such contracts. In a cablegram received on the 13th December, the British Government accepted the offer. There was then a definite contract made. The price, conditions of sale and duties of each party were clearly set out. And this applied to every renewal of the contract. So much for the charges made by the honorable member in regard to the sale of primary products. The interests of the primary producers have been carefully safeguarded: they have sold their products under unique circumstances - when there was only one effective buyer, and no means of shifting their goods - at prices which speak for ‘themselves. The contracts for the sale of these products have been carefully drawn, and have protected the interests of the producers. The honorable member’s charges fail utterly, as he expected them to do. He indeed indicated so much in his final statement that those who voted against the motion would have to account to their constituents for their vote. ‘ Of course that is quite true; they will have to account for every one of their votes. > The honorable member’s motion fails, as it was fully expected by him to do. But there remains behind all this smoke some fire, or behind this fire some smoke. “Why is it that the Labour party, which once held undisputed sway over the Common- wealth in this Legislature, and in the Parliaments of five of the six States, is today in this abject position ? The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the people, as if he represented them.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– lt is not in order for honorable members to repeatedly interrupt. I ask them not to interject.

Mr Mahony:

– Especially regarding the Ballarat election.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Dalley is out of order.

Mr HUGHES:

– This once great party, which at one time held an almost unchallengeable position in this country, stands to-day where? It is rendered almost hysterical because it has won a byelection, thus increasing its strength in this House from twenty-five to twenty-six members. Let me remind honorable members opposite that on the day when, in the room upstairs, we were faced with a great crisis in the history of the country, I was the Leader of a party of seventy-two men. That same party to-day has a strength in both Houses of twenty-seven, whilst I lead a party of seventy-two.

Mr Stewart:

– If I were you, Iwould not say too much about that.

Mr HUGHES:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Maribymong is distinctly out of order. I call attention to a rule which is one of the most stringent that we have for the guidance of business. I may say that an ordinary interjection here and there is not usually taken notice of by the Chair, but a constant stream of interjections is decidedly disorderly. Standing Order No. 280 states-

No member shall interrupt another member whilst speaking, unless - (1) to request that his words be taken down; (2) to call attention toa point of order or privilege suddenly arising; or (3”) to call attention to the want of a quorum.

This is not merely a rule for the guidance of this Parliament, but is under constant reference for the governing of the procedure of the House of Commons; and there is no order which is more strictly enforced and adhered to, for without it the proceedings of Parliament would become impossible. I point out to honorable members who are so constantly interjecting that their words almost assume the length of speeches in themselves ; and that every honorable member has the right to speak actually at great length upon the motion before the Chair; and I again emphasize that any interjection, coming from no matter which side of the House, is disorderly. It is painful to have to call upon honorable members to maintain order, hut I ask that the Chair be assisted, and neither ignored nor defied.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have said that they appealed to Caesar, and I have shown how Caesar has answered them.

Mr Mahony:

– Go on; give us something fresh.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Dalley is again out of order, and if he offends once more, I shall be compelled to take the unpleasant course of naming him.

Mr HUGHES:

– In 1910, the figures in connexion with the Senate election showed that the votes cast for Labour totalled 2,021,090; for Liberals; 1,830,353, and for Independents, 166,676; majority for Labour, 190,737. I may say that, in none of the comparisons which I “am now about to make between the two parties are the votes of Independents included. In 1913, the Labour vote was 2,802,529; Liberal, 2,840,420; Independent, 109,248; majority for Liberals, 37,891. In 1914- the year of the double dissolution - the Labour figures were 6,223,900; Liberal, 5,500,223; Independent, 9,799; majority for Labour, 723,677. In 1917, official Labour votes totalled 2,776,648; Nationalist, 3,516,354; Independent, 57,368; majority for the Nationalists, 739,706. In 1919- and here I shall quote first preferences only - the figures for official Labour were 795,858; Nartionalists, 868,016; farmers, 172,626; Independent, 21,323; majority for Nationalists over Labour, 72,158; combined vote against Labour, 1,040,642; combined majority of Nationalists and Farmers over Labour, 244,784. As I have said, independent votes are not taken into account.

The figures speak for themselves. They demonstrate that at every election from 1901, every year, an increasing number of Labour supporters entered this Legislature until that black day in 1916, when i.he action of the majority of the party, taken at the bidding of those who had captured the machinery of the Labour movement, rent the united Labour party asunder. From that day to this, Labour - owing to the actions of those who have led it - has been wandering in the wilderness discredited and powerless. It has betrayed all those great principles of which it was so proud, and which it had held up to the topmost heights in the years that have gone. It has turned its back on those things which it had declared as being beyond price. It stood here stalwartly advocating an amendment of the Constitution; yet at the bidding of some of its leaders urged the people to vote against it. Compulsory training emanating from the Labour party, and declared by it to be the one thing necessary for the salvation of the country has been trampled -under foot. But a few short years since the Labour party was never tired of boasting that it had placed compulsory training on the Statute Book. But the gentleman who is to be returned here from

Ballarat in a few days openly proclaimed himself opposed to it. We were inordinately proud of what we had done for the Australian Navy, and we declared that any man who would do anything to weaken it would be thrusting a dagger at the heart of our national safety. Yet the man who isabout to return here says he is not in favour of an effective Australian Navy! Why have they turned their backs on these great principles which they advocated so long and with such earnestness?’ Is there one thing they stand for to-day for which they formerly stood?

Let me remind honorable members of some things they would fain forget. Let me recall an incident of 1915, which, perhaps, tells its own story better than anything else. In that early year of the war, at the Inter-State Labour Conference, in Adelaide, a certain resolution was passed; and I ask honorable gentlemen opposite whether, in any Conference at which they may gather to-day, such a resolution would be met by anything 1 .t scorn and derision. At the Adelaide Conference, on 3rd June, 1915, the following motion was proposed: -

That the following message be sent to HisMajesty: - “ The Commonwealth Political Labour Council, in conference assembled at Adelaide, loyally presents birthday greetings to His Majesty King George V., congratulates him on the attainment of his fiftieth anniversary, and confidently hopes that during the coming year his reign will be crowned by victory for the British and Allied arms in the great war of freedom and the realization of an enduring peace.”

This motion was carried to the accompaniment of cheers. When we turn from this striking evidence of the loyalty of the Labour party when led by men who had made and led the Labour movement from the beginning to the record of this same party since 1916 ; when we examine the chronicle of its doings during the years which followed the split, we perceive a complete explanation of its present position. We realize also the reason why it is where it is, and why it did what it has done.

The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Tudor) said something about the Nationalist party, and concerning our getting funds from Flinders-lane.

Mr Tudor:

– I was quoting the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson).

Mr HUGHES:

– I know nothing of the matter. I will say this:No one today is able to call me his servant, to bid me come at his will. There is no outside organization, of any sort that can say to me, “ Do this,” and I will do it. There was an organization - the Labour party as it once was - which could do so; but it asked me to do the one thing which was impossible, and I refused it. It asked me to do that which was dishonorable to myself and treacherous to my country, and I would not do it. But there does not exist to-day any organization of any kind which can bid me do anything. Honorable members opposite cannot say that and still maintain their places here:

I have just recalled one incident in the Adelaide Conference of 1915. I have set forth the figures of Labour’s sweeping majority in 1914, when we polled 6,223,000, as against 5,500,000 by our opponents, giving us a majority of 723,000 in the electorates, and an overwhelming majority in both Houses of the Federal Legislature - there being thirtyone of our members in the Senate, and forty-two in the House of Representatives, making a grand total of seventy-three. Let me recall one or two things in order to make it clear as day to all who are not wilfully blind why the Labour party was triumphantly victorious in 1914, and why it has been overwhelmingly defeated ever since. I will read, for the benefit of honorable members, an extract from the Labour manifesto of 1914, the manifesto which fits the loyal resolution just quoted as a glove does the hand. It states -

Our interests and our very existence are bound up with those of the Empire. In time of war half-measures are worse than none. If returned with a majority, we shall pursue with the utmost vigour and determination every course necessary for the defence of the Commonwealth and the Empire in any and every contingency.

That was the spirit of the Labour party as it existed in 1914. This attitude typified the very soul of the Australian people. It was in the genuine belief that we were animated by this spirit that the people decided to intrust us with the difficult task of governing the country during the supreme crisis of its history. But what is the position to-day? I turn from the manifesto of 1914 - in consequence of which we re-entered this Parliament with seventy-three supporters - to the sayings of those who to-day are admittedly in the inner council, in the holy of holies, of the Labour party. Here are some of their utterances : -

They did not intend to sing the National Anthem. - Dr. Mannix (vide Argus, 18th June, 1919).

What does the Union Jack stand for so far as the Irish people are concerned? It stands for 700 years of oppression and alien rule; it stands for the depopulation of Ireland; it stands for the ruin of Ireland’s trade and prosperity; it stands for coercion and martial law; it stands for famine and exile; it reminds Irishmen of the blood shed by those who loved their country above their lives. This is what the Empire flag stands for in the minds of the Irish people. We cannot be expected to think as English people think, and we do not pretend to do so.- Dr. Mannix, May, 1919.

We are here for a declared definite purpose - to support Ireland’s claim as expressed at the last general election in Ireland, and to support her chosen leader, Eammon Do Valera. This is no time for halting words, or balanced phrases. We are with the Irish people, or we are against them. We help them openly, or we leave them to their fate. - Dr. Mannix, at IrishRace Convention.

And here is something of what De Valera has said: -

That so long as Germany was England’s enemy, and England Ireland’s enemy, so long would Ireland be Germany’s friend.

That he would never advocate another rebellion without hopeful chances of success. Proper organization would result in 500,000 fighting volunteers being raised. There is no hope of success except through a German invasion of England, and the landing of troops in Ireland. They should be prepared to leave nothing undone towards that end.

And now something to link these statements of Dr. Mannix and De’ Valera together -

I shook hands with him. I have nothing to apologize for. I have nothing to explain. I have done nothing I am ashamed of. - T. J. Ryan.

And but yesterday Mr. Martin Hannah went down. Why? What did he do? Nothing*

This Labour party was swept into power by the people at a great crisis - chosen because it was believed to .be loyal to the Empire and the living embodiment of every great principle for which Australia stands. It carried out the wishes of the people until 1916, when it became the mere tool of that disloyal section amongst us to which I have referred. Then what a change came over its actions and its attitude! It had been for the war, for the Empire. But at the bidding of those who had captured its councils, it turned against the war, against the Empire. Amongst the proposals on the business-paper for the annual Conference of the Victorian Political Labour Council was the following: -

That the policy of the Labour party be to push on for peace as soon as possible, and that they take no further part in recruiting.

That, however, was suppressed as soon as the result of the 1917 election was announced. At the Labour Interestate Conference at Perth, on the 21st June, 1918, it was resolved -

Further participation in recruiting shall be subject to the following conditions: -

That a clear and authoritative statement be made on behalf of the Allies asserting their readiness to enter into peace negotations on the basis of no annexation and no penal indemnities.

Then the Sydney Labour Council, on the 30th May, 1918, decided-

We refuse to take part in any recruiting campaign, and call on the workers of this and all other belligerent countries to urge their respective Governments to immediately secure an armistice on all Fronts and initiate negotiations for peace.

The manifesto issued by the Victorian Labour party in April, 1918, contained the following: -

Peace with a British victory is impossible; the Allies cannot beat the Central Powers. The Labour party believes that the humiliation of a nation creates in its people a spirit of revenge. The Labour party stands for immediate cessation of lighting. No annexations or indemnities.

All these things fit like the marbles into a solitaire board - the pattern is filled up, nothing is missing. These gentlemen still mouth some of their ancient shibboleths, but they are bound to the wheel. Their movement is in chains. They talk and talk about the high cost of living, but say nothing as to why they voted against the only effective way of dealing with it. Nothing as to -why they abandoned compulsory training. They talk about the soldier, and proclaim themselves his champions, but they say nothing of why they abandoned him during the dark days of the war, or why they passed those resolutions at Perth in favour of a dishonorable and craven peace. We know, however, why they did all these things; we know the reasons for their abandonment of the principles which they formerly held so dear. It is because their machinery has been captured by those who would hurl them out of Parliament and office in the twinkling of an eye if they had dared to act in any other way.

I have said that Labour has fallen under the domination of disloyalists - those who seek to dismember the Empire - and wild extremists. Let me now say a few brief words of this latter class. Mr. J. S. Garden, secretary of the Sydney Labour Council, and of the One Big Union, reported in the Sydney Sun, of the 21st January, 1919, said -

I say the Soviet system of Russia should be adopted here, the same as we have adopted it on our committee in Sydney.

The Victorian Labour Conference, on the 20th April, 1919, expressed earnest hope for Bolshevist success in Russia, recognising “ that common ownership and workers’ management of the means of production” were sought. The honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine), according to the Labour Call, Melbourne, of the 8th August, 1918, “hoped to see the policy of the Bolsheviks accepted all over the world “ ; and ex-Senator Barnes, in the Argus of the 21st January, 1919,. is reported as saying, “I am looking with hope to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.” Disloyalty and Bolshevism, between them explain everything that has happened to the Labour movement. They explain why it was that in 1914 the party was returned with seventy-two men, and to-day has twentyseven in both Houses; they explain why at every election from 1901 to 1914, the party which went on without a reverse, gathering strength with every step, in 1917 met with such an appalling defeat. For twenty years in States and Commonwealth the party grew, favoured by the people, who believed it to be a party which would place principle before everything. Then came the hour of fiery trial.

– At a fair price. If the honorable member will go back to the early part of 1915, he will find that the dearth of shipping had not then become acute. There was not, at that time, the clamant demand by our producers for the world’s parity, because meat and butter were then being sold for export cheaper than they were being sold for local consumption. To-day contracts are in existence for the supply of these commodities overseas for 50 per cent. less than they are being sold locally.

Mr JOWETT:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · NAT; VFU from 1919; CP from 1920

– Not meat.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am informed on very reliable authority that there are now in our freezing chambers large quantities of meat which has been sold overseas for 6d. per lb., notwithstanding that the wholesale price locally is 9d. per lb. We know that today the people of Victoria are paying1s. per lb. for tough bull’s hide. I can speak upon this matter from personal knowledge, because I have very good teeth. I have mentioned these particular commodities because the Prime Minister, who has more effrontery than have ten ordinary men, has stated that the Leader of the Opposition, when filling the office of Minister for Trade and Customs, did nothing to keep down the price of foodstuffs. The right honorable gentleman knows perfectly well that at the time of which he was speaking there was grave doubt, owing to the decisions of the High Court, whether anything could be accomplished in that direction. I might enumerate much more that was done by the honorable member for Yarra to reduce the cost of living, and I was indeed surprised that he remained silent while the Prime Minister was making his statement. Had I been in his place, I would have interjected, in a tone sufficiently loud for even the Prime Minister to hear, that his statement was far from the truth. But the Leader of the Opposition refrained from interjecting, being evidently possessed of very much more patience than I have. It is no news to honorable members to be told what was done, because of the middlemen who engineered the mass deputation to which I have already referred. The members of that deputation, instead of wearing red ties, wore bits of wool in their buttonholes, and were evidently very proud of these emblems. They did considerable damage to the Queen’s Hall in their zeal to howl down the name of Tudor. There was never a greater compliment paid to any man than that paid to him by the deputation in question when they hooted the mere mention of his name. By their action they admitted thatthe regulations which he had framed whilst filling the position of Minister for Trade and Customs had prevented them from cornering meat and butter. Until all these primary products were pooled, the farmers of Australia did not get the price for them that they should have received. They were obliged to sell in order to meet their liabilities. They had to sell their wheat at1s. 81/2d. per bushel in 1893, just after the great financial crisis in Victoria, when Melbourne was almost deserted, yet the middlemen who bought it sold it afterwards at 3s. 6d. and 3s.71/2d. per bushel. If the representatives of the farmers are determined that this should not happen again, they ought to support us in our endea vour to see that the people who produce get a fair return, while at the same time a fair price is charged to the consumer. Some representatives of the farmers seem to object to the desire of the workers to get commodities as cheaply as possible; but while the workers claim that the wages they are paid shall be- in proportion to the cost of living - I think, they ought to claim more’ - they are all, with the exception, perhaps, of a few cranks, ready to admit that the farmer should receive a price which will give him a fair chance of living in comfort.

When the Leader of the Opposition presented his case in regard to the bad handling of our commodities on the other side of the world, that charge being laid against the Government,, it was peculiar that, when the Prime Minister, was replying there was not a word of rebuttal from any honorable member in the Corner. Neither did the Prime Minister answer the charge. He was not aware that other nations had received our goods, and were charging higher prices for them ; but it was something he should have known. The Government ought to be able to follow all our commodities where they go, and demand that the Australian producer shall get the full return for what he sends away. I do not think that the producers ought to be so hard on the workers as, according to some of their statements, they appear to be. But perhaps it is thoughtlessness on their part. On the other hand I want the producers to get a fair deal. It is not under estimating the amount when I say that they have lost £100,000,000 on the sale of their products overseas. We are told that the armies of the United States of America were clothed with our wool at about ls. 3£d. per lb.

Mr Jowett:

– The United States of America did not get a bale of our wool at ls. 3½d. per lb. They paid 80 per cent, above that rate for the cheapest wool they received.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I know well that the growers of Australia did not get the enormous prices paid by many countries for our wool, and I am sorry that the honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett), and those engaged in the handtomouth calling he follows, did not get higher prices - not because I am concerned for their interests, but because I want to see them taxed on their returns. We should have been able to reduce very considerably the financial strain on the country through the sale of our commodities. This was a matter which the ex-Treasurer (Mr. Watt) went to Great Britain to negotiate. Now we are told that there, is difficulty in the way, and we are led to believe that the honorable member for Balaclava resigned .his portfolio because be was not permitted to handle this very complex question in his own way. However, I regret that Australia did not get more of the money, because I know that the capitalists of other countries got it, and are now endeavouring to squeeze us here as well as the people of Great Britain.

Having failed in his endeavour to prove that the Leader of the Opposition had done nothing towards reducing the cost of living, the Prime Minister in that peculiar style of his own, which is very effective with a lot of people, although not with honorable members in the House, launched forth upon an oratorical attack on the Labour party of Australia for having refused to accept his proposal for increasing the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. But he knows very well that the Bill he brought forward was not a copy of the Labour party’s proposals. So much had been cut away from our proposals that it could not be recognised as being anything like the Bills put before the people by this party in 1910 and 1913, and which we again desired to submit to the people in 1916, but were prevented because the Prime Minister had accepted something from the State Premiers which afterwards they did not concede. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister’s Bill was brought forward last year, the majority of our party accepted it, feeling that it was better to catch half a loaf than to have no bread, but the measure was so distorted in the Senate as to be rendered absolutely useless. In the circumstances, the honorable gentleman’s statement that we were going back on the great desire of the Labour party to increase the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament cannot be sustained, and he knows it. When the Bill returned from the Senate, I objected to it, and, although the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) ‘ maintained that it was the same measure, it took the

Prime Minister three-quarters of an hour to elaborate the necessity for the alteration made in another place. Our proposals had been so cut down that they were hardly recognisable, and I for one could see there was no chance of the Bill being brought into operation. For one thing, the time would certainly expire before the proposed Convention could meet to draw up by some mutual arrangement the powers to be given to this Parliament. No one could imagine States which claimed sovereign rights conceding one jot of power to this Parliament, and I am sure that it will never be done by concession from the State Parliaments until the people of the States become alive to the situation, and make the demand that it shall be done. The Labour party turned down the Prime Minister’s Bill because he would not ask for the full powers we thought this Parliament should possess, and there was consternation among many in the ranks when the question was left free to the individual, because a large number of our supporters outside advocated that the party should reject the Prime Minister’s proposal outright. The Prime Minister is perfectly well aware of our reason for turning it down. We realized that, even if the people agreed to the Bill, the powers given to this Parliament would be useless.

– Not to the public, but they were used as instruments of finance. Now that the war is over, we hear it said that there is £20,000,000 too much in notes floating about - that the notes ought to he called in. We know why some want to call them in. It is because that would bring about a financial crisis, and then they would be able to get at the throat of the wage-earners.

Mr.Riley. - And of the small men.

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr MATHEWS:

– The man who squeals in a fight is the man who knows be has had enough.

– Some of the gifts that we received from the British Government were of no use to them, although they might have been too good to break up. Still they are not up to date as fighting machines. When the Prime Minister taunts Mr. McGrath. with advocating the reduction of the Navy, heis simply giving vent to cheap talk that ought not to have, and I do notbelieve will have, any effect on the community.

Sirjosephcook- Areyousepaking for the Labour party when you say the present Navy should be scrapped? You are making some serious, statements.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am giving the honorable member my own opinion. I am not speaking for the party, but I believe the general opinion of the party is that the present Navy establishment is too large for Australia to keep up ; that the expenditure ought to be reduced ; and that much of the Fleet that we saw here recently could safely be stored away in Sydney harbor, or in portion of Hobson-‘s Bay, or someother port, with watchmen on board. Then the people could look with awe upon it as upon a relic of the great war. The Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Poynton) on one occasion, when I said that most of our Navy ought to be scrapped, asked if I was serious, seeing that I was the representative of a naval port. If I tried to bolster up unnecessary expenditure simply from a desire to hold my seat, I would be unworthy torepresent any section of the community. In spite of the fact that I may lose votes by my attitude, I still say that our Navy establishment is too large. We cannot afford it, and that is where economy ought to be applied.

I am glad the Acting Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) is present, because I wish to speak about old-age and invalid pensions, and war pensions. I told the Treasurer that his path was a thorny one. I have often heard Ministers say that a request for money was reasonable and necessary, but that they could not get the money from the Treasurer. If money is wanted, the-

Treasurer must extract it from somewhere, and if the war had continued, he could still have produced millions. We paid a good deal of war expenditure out of revenue, but we are not doing so now. If the Treasurer liked to tax those who have made the most money, according to the extent of their wealth, he would find that they could spare a few millions without being hurt. We are often told about the great wealth of the country, but most of.it is held by a few persons, who have not made it by their own exertions, but by exploiting the rest of th* community, although they have done it legally. They could not have made their wealth if it had not been for the rest of the community, because only human beings can produce wealth. Many of those who have produced it for the wealthy people of Australia have fallen by the wayside. They have become invalids, or have been worn out. In our present economic system, old men and women cannot be poleaxed, or thrown to the lions and tigers at Royal Park. Such practices would not be tolerated even by our present partial civilization.’ In past days, before we had .become even a quarter civilized, people who were old and worn out were never considered at all. In much of our present day legislation we recognise that it is the duty of the State to look after the interests of its people, but in calculating the wages that a man should receive the tendency is to reckon only what it costs him to live, taking no account of his need to put by savings for lus old age. The Acting Treasurer has stated recently that he cannot find money to increase the old-age and invalid pen- sions. During the last six or seven months I have received quite a hundred letters from all parts of the Commonwealth from people who have told me the actual facts about their position. Through no fault of their own they find that the 15s. a week pension is all they have to live on. One old lady tells me that her savings of £800 were lost in the failure of one of the building societies twenty years ago. She is now 80 years of age, and all she has to look to is the 15s. per week pension. There must be hundreds and thousands of these cases. V.Te know that those who ‘ can get no assistance from relatives or friends cannot possibly live on 15s. a week. Mr.

Lemmon, a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, has forwarded me a letter from an old couple, over 70 years of age, who wrote from a benevolent asylum to ask him if they could not possibly get some of the increased pension money. Somebody has the money in the community. The Treasurer will not make friends by taking it from those who have it, but civilization demands that something more should be done towards the support of these unfortunate people. War widows originally received a pension of £1 per week; but, finding that they could not live on that allowance, the Government granted them an, increase. Recently the amount has been reduced in the case of young widows to £1 per “week.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is not so.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Well, assuming that they received £1 10s. per week, I have only to say that if the Government consider it necessary to grant the widow of a soldier 30s. per week, it should be even more necessary to grant the same amount by way of pension to a poor old man or woman who, in the industrial strife, has fallen by the way.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In all ^probability, if the honorable member’s party had remained in office, old-age pensioners would have continued to receive only 12s. 6d. per week. It was only after we had decided to increase the old-age pension to 15s. a week that Opposition members began to urge that it should be raised to £1.

Mr MATHEWS:

– That is not correct. If we were in .power, we should hot be afraid to tax those who have the money in order to raise the funds necessary to provide an invalid and old-age pension of £1 per week. The increase from 12s. 6d. to 15s. per week was made only last January, but the cost of living is still going up. In passing, I may say that no trade union will ever again be induced to sign an agreement for three years, or even twelve months, because the workers now realize that a wage that they might to-day consider adequate would probably be wholly inadequate three months hence, because of the increase in prices. We are told that as wages increase so the cost of living must go up. If that is so, a change must be made in our social system. We shall have to change our industrial conditions unless we are to say that the workers must be content, as in the old days, to accept without cavil whatever is offered to them. The day has long since passed when the workers would be prepared to do anything of the kind. The Prime Minister said this evening that we were wasting time by discussing this motion instead of giving the Government an opportunity to deal with the cost of living. They have, however, given us no evidence of any intention on their part to move in the right direction. If the cost of living is to go on increasing we shall have more trouble. We have had a strike in Melbourne for some weeks; but it is only the forerunner of an infinitely larger trouble that will arise unless some action is taken to put down profiteering. I hope that the Government will find some way of providing the money necessary to enable them to keep their compact with the men who have fought for us, and with their dependants. I hope, also, that they will increase the invalid and old-age pensions in proportion to the increase in the cost of living.

– I am aware of that ; but we were informed that it would not permit transactions such as those to which.

I have just referred. In one case a returned soldier holding a £90 bond purchased furniture valued at £63, although Ii do- not think there -was more than. £50 worth in the parcel, and was given cash in respect of the balance of his bond. He now has the furniture for sale.

Mr Atkinson:

– Did he obtain the consent of the Treasury to the transfer of his bond?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He could get the consent of the Treasury to buy furniture The Treasury could know nothing of any private arrangement made between the soldier -and the furniture vendor.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Then the whole Act is a farce. ‘

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A soldier ought not to be allowed to negotiate his bond in that way. .

Mr MATHEWS:

– That is not the point. The Prime Minister said that harpies- would not be able to make money out of the. necessities of the soldiers who. received these, bonds. The. present system is unfair to honest traders.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Might I suggest that instead of fulminating in this way, the honorable- member would do better by sitting down and trying to frame a regulation to put a stop to the sort of thing of which he complains.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman, and what is more, I am. not a member of the Government. It is not for me to frame such a regulation. The responsibility, rests with the Government. I call upon the. Prime Minister or the Acting. Treasurer to make a public statement, so that traders may know exactly what is the position in regard to the negotiation of the war. gratuity bonds. Men constantly ask me how they can convert their bonds into cash. I know that I cannot send them to a fair dealer, and as I am not prepared to hand them over to a rogue of a dealer, I am unable to help them. The sooner we have from the Government a plain statement on this subject, the better for the soldiers and the community as a whole.

The Prime Minister in the course of his speech stated that the Labour party since it lost him had fallen upon evil days, and amongst evil men. Having made that statement, he quoted from a newspaper paragraph in regard to Dr. Mannix. The right honorable gentleman made the charge that the leaders of the

Labour party were outside the movement. He said that Dr. Mannix was our leader. He knows that is not correct. Dr. Mannix has as much right to interfere in the political world as has any other minister of religion, and no more. He has’ as much right to interfere in political affairs as has the Rev. Mr. Woodfull, the Rev. Mr. Worrall, or any of their class. If he has been more effective in his- interference, it is, perhaps, because he is a strong man and the others are weaklings. If Dr. Mannix has taken advantage of every opportunity to attack the Ministerial party, he was justified in doing so. He occupies rather a peculiar position, because, as an Irishman, and one of a race who have always been clamouring for liberty they have never been allowed to enjoy, his sympathies are naturally with the downtrodden. I am not a member of his Faith, ‘but rather the opposite, as I have frequently said; but, unlike the clergymen of other denominations, he has taken the side of the lowly in the community; and because he has done so, we are told that he is our leader: That he is admired by a great section of the workers is quite correct, and if they choose to admire him who shall say them nay? When the Prime Minister drags this question into political life, as he did successfully at the last general election, and as with less success he endeavoured to do at the Ballarat by-election, he treads upon, very dangerous ground. He hurls these taunts at us to-day in the hope that they will prove injurious to our party ; but let me gay that we welcome assistance from every section, of the community. In my opinion, it is to the everlasting disgrace of the representatives of other churches that they have not been found with Dr. Mannix on the side of the lowly, but on the other side. It is because of this difference that the Prime Minister selects the representative of a particular church and hurls at him, and us, the taunt that he is our leader. It is true that Dr. Mannix has assisted us- in many directions, and that his assistance has been used to injure the Labour party. But honorable members opposite will not always be able to adopt that course. It will not wash for ever. They have talked of our disloyalty, that of Dr: Mannix, and about dismembering the- Empire. Suppose that we did dismember the

– While I have every respect for the Chair, I do not feel that I can follow the suggestion which has been made. You, sir, have said that any. reference to the subject is a matter of good taste, but I see no good taste in deporting a man who is innocent, and I feel that I should be remiss in my duty if I did not protest against the deportation of any man under these circumstances, no matter who he may be, and whether he happens to be a Catholic clergyman of German origin or not. There is no more reason for putting into force the provisions of a Safety of the Realm Act or the War Precautions Act now than existed ‘before the war. It would appear that, boiled down, the reason for this deportation is that Father Jerger belongs to a certain religious persuasion, or that he is a man of German birth. I want to know if that is so. Again I say that it will be a crying disgrace to us if we deport this man without giving him resort to the Courts of the country, not in camera, but under such conditions that the press and every one will know what he is being sent away for. I say that the Government and those behind them will regret having assisted to deport a man who, according to the principles of British justice, must be regarded as innocent until he is proved to be guilty.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- The indictment which Labour launches against the Government is couched in the following terms : -

That the Government is deserving of censure for its -general incapacity, and more particularly -

for its failure to prevent an in ordinate rise in the cost of living;
for its failure to keep its pledges with returned soldiers and their dependants ;
for its failure to take steps to deal with the causes of industrial unrest; (d) for its failure to secure an adequate return to the Australian people for their wool and other primary products sold overseas;
for its failure to make definite binding contracts for the sale of such products which would have prevented any possibility of, profiteering overseas in Australian products at the expense of Australian producers, and would have made it possible to secure a prompt adjustment of accounts in connexion with such sales-

– I am referring to detailed information regarding the sales of Australian products, including the contracts which were the instruments of such sales. Those contracts have been asked for from this side of the House, but we are impotent to force the Government to produce them, because we number only twenty-five in a House of seventy-five ; but the members of the Country party know that, if they joined us in this demand, the Government would be compelled to produce the information.

Although this motion of censure challenges the Government on this issue of vital concern to the primary producers, it will be seen when the division bells ring and the numbers go up that, with probably one or two exceptions, the so-called representative of the primary producers votes to shield the Government in this robbery of the primary producers.

In 1914, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) described the party opposite, in a signed . statement issued to the general public, and I propose to read some extracts from it: -

Mr. Joseph Cook and his party pose as the friends of the “poor farmers.” They bid “the man on the land” beware of the Labour party, and to trust the so-called Liberal party, to defend him against all his enemies. In view of the record of the Fusion and the great interests who support it, it is the most impudent attempt to fool the people ever attempted.

Who are the enemies of the farmers ? The land monopolists, the middleman, commission agent, and the trusts.

Land monopoly has been, and is still, the greatest curse of Australia. The holders of great estates have compelled farmers to pay exorbitant prices for land, or have forced him on to the poorer lands away from rail and market. Middlemen and commission agents fleece the producer. He is at their mercy. They control the channels through which alone the farmer can sell his produce. And the great combinations of capitalists who form trusts, rings, and monopolies fleece the farmer, both when he buys his machinery and goods’ he needs and when he sells his produce. These are the enemies of the farmer. And they are all behind Mr. Cook and his party; yet Mr. Cook has the audacity to declare that his party is the friend of the farmer. . . .

How can a party supported by trusts, middlemen, and monopolists, and financed by these very people, be expected to protect the farmer from the people who fleece him?

The trusts and the great landlords are all behind Mr. Cook. (Signed) W. M. Hughes,

Commonwealth Offices, Sydney

The trusts and the great landlords are to-day behind the combination of Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook. There they sit together now, cheek by jowl !

The Prime Minister has raised the sectarian issue. I have heard him, when a Labour man, denouncing that same issue when the party opposed to Labour did what it has always done when it has sought to disrupt the Labour party by introducing the sectarian serpent. The Prime Minister was then vitriolic in his rebuke. Yet this same dirtyweapon he now actually goes into the gutter to employ against the old party which put him on his feet in the public life of Australia.

What has Mr. Corser to say to his Leader, the Prime Minister, for raising the sectarian issue? What has Mr. Austin Chapman to say-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon 3 M Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member must not employ the names of honorable members.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am entitled to mention their names if I refer also to their electorates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member knows that he may do that, of course.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Then I will do so, at the expense of a little more of my time. What has the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) to say to the Prime Minister, in regard to his attempt to raise the sectarian issue?

What has the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Rodgers) to say to the Prime Minister for raising the sectarian issue? What has Edward Russell to say to the Prime Minister for raising the sectarian issue ? What has Thomas Jerome Bakha): to say to the Prime Minister for raising the sectarian issue? What has John Keating to say to the Prime Minister for raising the sectarian issue? What has Hugh de Largie to say to the Prime Minister, for raising the sectarian issue ? What has Patrick Lynch to say to the Prime Minister for raising the sectarian, issue?

These honorable gentlemen all belong to the persuasion and profess the Faith which the Prime Minister has attacked. What kind of men are they that they should support the Prime Minister, their Leader, in his attack upon their own Faith, upon their priests, their nuns, and the religion of their fathers? They know, as well as the Prime Minister knows, that this wicked invention has nothing behind it except an appeal to the blind prejudices of the people? If the Protestants of this country numbered one-fourth of its total population, and the Catholics represented threefourths, Mr. Hughes’ attack would be the other way round, without the shadow of question.

The Prime Minister has had something to say about Labour and loyalty. This same kind of stuff was hurled at the Labour party when Mr. Hughes and Mr. Fisher were its leaders - hurled just exactly as the Prime Minister to-day has thrown it at us. I have another pamphlet here, signed by Mr. Hughes. It is entitled, “The Degradation of Patriotism: an Exposure.” And it states -

At a time when to dub a man a “ traitor “ is to at once charge him with the most serious of crimes and expose him to the hitter odium and contempt of his fellows, a leaflet has been widely circulated levelling charges of “ disloyalty” and “treachery” to the Empire against certain members of the Labour party.

These statements are contemptible and wicked untruths, and the man who made them knew them to be so when he wrote them.

What can we say of a man who in the face of these statements (Mr. Fisher’s denial) would charge Mr. Fisher with favouring “Hauling down the flag” and “Raising that of revolt”?

What are we to think of Mr. Joseph Cook, . under whose notice I have brought this leaflet, who heard Mr. Fisher’s speech in Parliament, who knows that every statement made in the leaflet about Mr. Fisher is absolutely untrue?

Yesterday, I sent Mr. Cook a copy of this infamous leaflet, and asked him to repudiate it; but, although he admitted having heard Mr. Fisher deny the truth of any one of them, he would not do so.

What are we to say of men who, posing as patriots and deprecating everything calculated to create the impression amongst the enemy that the Empire is not presenting a united front, brands the leader of one of the great political parties in Australia as a “traitor,” knowing the same to be an infamous falsehood? -

What are we to say of a party that not only does not repudiate such tactics by its paid agent, but openly approves him and them, and bends its every effort to give the widest publicity to this cowardly, contemptible, and malicious slander? (Sgd.) W. M. Hughes. 321 Pitt-street, Sydney.

The Prime Minister then directed a copy of this pamphlet to the present Acting Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook), who now sits facing me at the table. Mr. Hughes said, “I have brought this infamous leaflet under the notice of Mr. Cook, and although he knows it to be untrue, he will not say it is untrue, because there is an election on.”

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Neither the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr.. Hughes) nor the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Catts) could ever say that I have raised that question in all my life.

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr Wienholt:

– Does that apply to sugar ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– It does, in relation to our domestic needs, because, approximately, half of our Australian sugar is made into jam and other foodstuffs, for export. Manufacturers obtain cheap Australian sugar, and thus are able to export foodstuffs to the markets of the Old World, and make huge profits. At the same tame, the people of Australia cannot get enough locally-grown sugar for local requirements, and the prices of household necessities ‘ go higher and higher. The addition to our sugar bill of £7,000,000 per annum, as represented by the latest increase in the price of sugar, has been enforced mainly to enable Australian manufacturers to export all classes of foodstuffs and some interested persons reap huge profits. According to the Budget statement of 8th October last, in 1918’ 72,000,000 lbs., of jam were sold for export at from 5£d. to 6d. per pound. A huge amount of cheap sugar was included in that, and the jam sold, f.o.b. here, at much less than that for which the Australian public may obtain it.

The Prime Minister speaks of the restricted -.power of this Parliament to deal with the cost of living problem. He said it is only recently that we have heard of this. When I was ‘ sitting behind the Labour Government in 1915, I moved a series of resolutions, in the course of which I pointed out that the Government had ample power then to deal with these matters. The Prime Minister asks honorable members to believe that a few years ago the Labour party did not think that power resided with the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with the cost of living. But a lot of water has run under the bridge since then. We have been carefully studying the position:, and have discovered, some sooner than others, that the Government have powers which previously were not thought to reside in the Commonwealth Constitution. The resolutions to which I refer called upon the Government to take action to reduce the cost of living. Incidentally, they caused the Government some embarrassment. The Acting Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) was sitting in the House at the time, and I intend to show honorable members that his interjections were an admission that my view was the correct one. They also show that the right honorable member has known for year3 that this Parliament has power to deal with the high cost of living. I drew attention to the fact that the Government had power to take a census and to call upon every producer and manufacturer to make weekly, fortnightly, monthly, or quarterly returns to a properly constituted Commonwealth authority, of the output and distribution of goods, and the movement of prices. We have always had that power, and if we desire to control the cost of living, this is one of the first and most essential pieces of machinery to that end.

Mr Jowett:

– What would the producers of Australia be doing if they had to provide statistics every week ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– What has that to do with the position of the people of Australia, who are being exploited ?

Mr Jowett:

– Who are these exploiters? Speak for yourself.

Mr J H, CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am speaking for the people. The honorable member talks about the inconvenience that might be caused to vested interests if they were obliged to supply these statistics. My answer is that their inconvenience is as nothing to the trials and tribulations caused to the masses of the people who at (present cannot get enough to eat. My honorable friend and his party show concern for the convenience of the vested interests. My concern is for the welfare of the masses. There in a nutshell is crystallized the vital difference between the policy of Labour and anti-Labour.

The Commonwealth Government have unlimited power over exports. They may demand a return of all contracts and prices in regard to every pound of exportable produce.

Mr. Robert Cook. ; They may put an embargo on exports.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Government have the power to prevent the export of any commodity out of this country.

Mr. Robert Cook. ; Yes, and that is what you would do.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I shall not allow the honorable member to put words into my mouth.

Mr. Robert Cook. ; You are putting them into your own mouth.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am not. But if I find that the production, of this country is being sold to, foreigners below the price charged to the people of Australia, I shall do my best to prevent- the export of any such goods, until our own people are provided for at a reasonable price. At the same time, I have always insisted upon the price for home consumption being based on fair living.- conditionsto the primary producers.

Mr. Robert Cook. ; When have goods been exported at half the price charged, to Australian consumers?

Mr J H CATTS:

– If I had the time I could give the honorable member all the information he is asking for. But I invite him to look up his own statistics. The present Leader of the Labour party supplied many returns, when Minister for Customs, giving instances of that of which I” complain.

The Commonwealth Government have unlimited power over imports from foreign countries. If it is believed that an importer is robbing the people of Australia, the Government, under their present powers, may demand the production- of his invoices, and’ they could publish in the Commonwealth Gazette the- prices charged. If this were done it would be one of the most effective steps that could be taken to prevent profiteering, because, when the people realize how they are being robbed, they will insist upon definite action being taken to stop it.

Again, the Government have unlimited power over taxation. They could tax all profits above a certain margin, and by the publication of the names’ of those who are making excessive profits, could discourage the practice.

The Government, further, have complete power over the Post Office. Here, indeed, is a huge machine- that could be used to protect the great masses, of the people from the rapacious trader. ‘ If a commercial firm were found to be acting unfairly towards the people, the Postal authorities could prevent the firm’s letters from being, delivered through the post; and’ they could disconnect -the firm’s telephone. And why should not these public conveniences be refused to any firm found guilty of using, them for the purpose of exploiting the people? No trader could stand up against Government action properly directed to prevent profiteering,.

intend now to quote some admissions by the Acting Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) during, the course of my remarks on the- occasion I have referred to. They will be found’ on page 3632 of Hansard, 2nd June, 1915. I was contending that the Government were not taking adequate steps to meet, the situation, and had pointed out that the War Precautions Act and the powers relating to exports, imports, census and statistics, and the general law of necessity could be effectively used, when- the Acting Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) interjected -

The honorable member, after making these strong statements, ought to go a> little further. All these Governments have’ the power’ to do what they like so far as foodstuffs, are concerned.

I had been , pointing out that both the State and Federal Parliaments had the power, and the right honorable gentleman, by his interjection, confirmed my statement. The 1915 reference continues. -

Mr J” H Catts:

– Does the right, honorable member- include the Federal Government -.. in that statement?

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

– Yes. .

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No doubt, the power of prohibition of’ exports is complete.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Minister cannot get into that little. hole now. He cannot restrict his- statement in 1915 to mean exports only.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not want to get into any hole.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The right honorable gentleman did not then place any limitation upon his reference to the power of Parliament. When I was dealing with! the export power on 2nd June, 1915, I said: -

Then we have the export power. The power to prohibit export is almost unlimited in its scope. It has, already been exercised, I am glad to say, in regard to wheat/ flour, and sugar, and. the export of meat, except for the Imperial Government, is also prohibited. The Imperial Government, however, has asked only for meat from the surplus stock of Australia.

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

– Incidentally to the exercise of this power, the Government would have to ascertain the food stocks of the Commonwealth,

– I am afraid it would be impossible to do that. I am confident, however, that this matter will be noted, and that those who read the debates of this Parliament will realize that the Minister is merely endeavouring to create the impression outside that the Parliament has not the power, though he will not say so in 80 many direct words.

In regard to the old-age pensioners, I have sent several letters, requisitions, and petitions to the Prime Minister, asking that the pensions be increased commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. In every instance I have met with a refusal, but I shall continue to urge the Government to increase the pensions, at any rate, to an amount equivalent to the purchasing power of the pension in the past. I take no notice of the argument that there is not sufficient money to pay the increased sum. There is plenty available if only the right means are taken to obtain it. What the Government really mean is that they are not prepared to tackle the vested interests in order to find the money.

I enter my emphatic protest against the wages paid in the Commonwealth Service. Although the New South Wales Board of Trade has fixed ?3 17s. per week as the lowest living wage, the Commonwealth Government are paying in New South Wales a living wage of ?3 10s., or 7s. below what is declared to be the living v/age in New South Wales. I protest against this. A Government which cannot provide a living wage for its employeesis, to use the terms of .this resolution, demanding of censure for its general incapacity.

This motion charges the Government with (&) its failure to keep its pledges to the returned soldiers and their dependants. When the War Gratuity Bill was before us on the 25th March, I produced the pledges given, and gave detailed evidence and references that could not be contradicted, showing that the Government refused to honour it. I moved an amendment, but every Nationalist voted against it. Here is a statement by the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook), reported in the Daily Telegraph of 4th November, 1919, just before the elections -

This year the Government expected to spend on his behalf from £40,000.000 to £45,000,000 - for repatriation, land purchase, war service homes, and other things, £15,000,000; for war pensions, £5,450,000; and for gratuities a sum of from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000. ‘ Our total war obligations for the year 1919-20, including gratuities would amount to close on £100,000,000.

Mark you, “ this year “ the Government expect to spend from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000 on gratuities.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is up to 30th June next.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I accept that definition. But again the Prime Minister tells a different tale. On the motion, speaking of the total repatriation appropriations, he said -

For 1920-21 the total amount provided is £37,475,000.

The Government are issuing a piece of paper, very little of which can be negotiated. Is that “spending money”? Were these terms used to mislead the soldier electors into the belief that they were going to get cash for their bonds? What is going on to-day with regard to those bonds is an absolute scandal. Traders in Sydney, who have the authority of the Government, are selling goods, say, furniture, and demanding that the soldier shall spend with them £60 out of every £100. In needy cases the furniture so supplied is taken to the auction rooms and sold for a song.

If interest-bearing bonds are issued they cannot be made inalienable or non-negotiable - they will be negotiated in some shape or form; and the proper thing is for the Government to carry out their election pledges. The Labour party said that if they were returned to power cash would be paid, and under the influence of public opinion, and the driving force of the Labour movement, the Government also promised to pay cash. The bonds should be paid in a negotiable instrument that can be openly traded at ite face value, instead of being secretly and covertly negotiated at an enormous discount. This policy really means that, with the connivance of the Government, the soldiers are thus robbed by the profiteers of the country of 10s. in the £1 of their gratuity. The Government is issuing depreciated currency in its worst form.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is an infamous thing to say - *’ the connivance of the Government.” The honorable member knows that is not true.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It is true, in the sense in which I use the words.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I must ask the Minister to withdraw that statement.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes, I withdraw it, and I ask you, sir, to require the honorable member to withdraw his most offensive statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What was that statement ?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The statement that the Government was conniving at the roguery going on in connexion with the cashing of the bonds.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not catch that reference, my “ attention being momentarily otherwise engaged, but if it were used I must ask the honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts) to withdraw it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I did not put the point im that way at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member said something that the Minister regards as offensive it must be withdrawn.

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr J H CATTS:

– We are now told that this repatriation is costing this or that sum; but why did the Government not find out, before they made their promises, that they could not fulfil them? Our charge is that the Government promised, and is not honouring their promise. The Government do not say they are carrying out their undertaking, but are giving reasons for not doing so, and that is no answer to the charge.

The next charge against the Government is that of (c) failure to take steps to deal with the causes of industrial unrest. This unrest is caused by two phenomena - the high cost of living and unemployment. It has already been shown, and it is admitted, that the Government have done nothing to deal with the high cost of living; as to unemployment, the Government themselves are the greatest offenders. They are putting Government employees off work, and thus creating unemployment, as at Cockatoo Dock, Sydney, where large numbers of .men are out of work.

The Government refuse to go on with the building of - the .Federal Capital, which would . riot “only provide work, but create an asset that would return handsomely . on the expenditure. There are any number of private companies which would be very glad to take over the Federal Capital as a commercial proposition. At the present time, although the lands within the Federal area are let on short leases, which does not allow them to be put to their best use, they, are returning a profit. The development of the Federal Capital is a_ paying concern, and could be made so from the jump; yet the Government refuse to go on with the work, although the compact is nearly twenty years overdue. There are some honorable members on the Government side who have been vowing vengeance against the Government on this score. Amongst these are the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Austin Chapman) and a number of others, and they now have an opportunity of expressing their dissatisfaction with the Government for its “general incapacity” in this matter. However, as I have said over and over again in New South Wales, those members only express their dissatisfaction by their votes when there is no risk to the Government - never if there is any “ business” in it. The Government know that the attitude of these gentlemen is only a bit of by-play; and it is certain that the very moment they assert themselves in regard to the Federal Capital, and show that they intend to take decisive steps by voting against the Government, the latter will render a hostile vote unnecessary and get to work very quickly. They will not risk being torn from the Treasury bench for the mere sake of declining to proceed with the erection of the Federal Capital.

The Prime Minister has already appointed a Royal Commission to deal with the question of industrial unrest, but only a few weeks ago he was compelled to admit that this body represents only so much blank cartridge, and that the Government can do nothing with its reT port.

The next count in the indictment of the Labour Opposition charges the Government with (d) failure to secure an adequate return to the Australian people for their wool and other primary products which have been sold overseas. In this connexion I do not propose to repeat the case against the Government ‘which I put upon record in Hansard earlier in the session. My case dealing with the wool sales effected overseas will be found on page 305 of Hansard, and that dealing with the sales of wheat on page 341 of Hansard of the current session. In speaking upon those subjects I quoted statements made by Ministers in the British . House of Commons, and from other authoritative sources, with a view to proving that this country has been grossly robbed in the prices which it. has obtained for its primary products under sales effected by the Government. All the admissions which have since been made have served only to confirm my charge, including the statement of the Prime Minister on the 13th May last that, during the war, we had sold our wool to Great Britain and the Allied Powers at one-third of its value.

No doubt, when the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) returns to this country we shall get the full details of the dispute between himself and the Prime Minister, and shall thus secure further confirmation of the rotten state of affairs which has existed in regard to the sales of Australian produce.

On the 13th May last- as will be seen by reference to Hansard, page 2085-86 - the Prime Minister took up the role of a prophet. He said, in effect, “Just watch how the prices of Australian wool will tumble after 30th June next.” He then went on to show that prices were coming down with a run as the result of an express arrangement to exploit the Australian producer. A few weeks later his prediction was verified. The prices of our wool came down with an awful crash to the serious loss of our primary producers. The Prime Minister himself told us that those prices were being manipulated. Where are the representatives of the Country party that they allow this kind of thing to go on? They do not even register a protest against it.

The next count in the indictment against Ministers charges them with (e) failure to make definite binding contracts for the sale of Australia’s primary products. So far, these contracts have not been tabled. They have been asked for again and again, and their production has been refused. We can only conclude, therefore, that their production would not be to the advantage of the Government. Any attempt to do so would seriously embarrass the Government. What did the ex-Treasurer say prior to his departure for the Old Country? He said. “ I am going to London to try and straighten out the threads of this wool bungle.”

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He did not say “ bungle,” did he?

– I believe it until I see a proper denial of it.

Mr Watkins:

– The statement was made here, and the Government did not deny it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I did not see the statement, and I have not seen the cables. Moreover, I do not wish to see them if I am to close my mouth in regard to their contents. Seeing that 60,000 Australian soldiers gave their lives to help Great Britain during the recent war; that, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, our wool has been sold overseas at one-third of its value;that there is now a credit to Australia in London of £40,000,000, an amount which will be increased by the 30th June next to £175,000,000. I say that if the statement was made that, unless the Commonwealth paid a sum of £8,000,000 by a certain date, she would be branded as a defaulter, our people should know it. Perhaps it was this statement which had something to do with. the attitude taken up by the ex- Treasurer.

It is further alleged that, because of some pressure having been exerted on behalf of Australia in regard to the Japanese Treaty, Mr. Watt was compelled to report point for point to the Australian Government, and that he was not to be trusted on vital matters affecting the national well-being of this country. The very insinuation that is being industriously circulated against the honorable member for Balaclava demands that the whole of the cables shall be placed upon the table of this House. It is practically charged against him that, though an Australian bom, he regarded his obligations so lightly that he had practically to he put in chains and legirons, because of the fear that he would do something to prejudicially affect the vital interests of Australia.

What has transpired with regard to the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty should be made public property in this country. If I am in public life at any time any difficulty arises between Japan and our kinsmen in America, I shall be no party to any treaty or agreement that is likely to embroil Australia on the side of the coloured races of the East aKa nsf our kinsmen in America.

Mr Jowett:

– Of course, the honorable member knows that iB impossible.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I believe it is impossible, because an agreement that would do anything of that kind would not be worth the paper it is written on; hut if such an event should take place, I should be found going from one end of this country to the other, putting before the people what I believe to be the proper view, in order to prevent them from being entrapped into* any dispute, or from taking Bides against the people of America.

The statements in current circulation amongst parliamentarians, Commonwealth and State, as to the serious allegations in the cablegrams which passed between the Prime Minister and the ex-Treasurer demand, not merely a denial across the chamber, but the production of the messages in an unabridged condition, so that the people may know the truth. I have known the honorable member for Balaclava for a good many years. I cannot conceive of him doing an utterly foolish thing; and I cannot but believe that something we have not seen has had something to do. with his resignation.

The statement of the case put forward by the Prime Minister against his absent colleague was too strong, it went too far, it proved too much; it made the honorable member for Balaclava out as a babbling infant in swaddling clothes, or even a raving idiot. In the circumstances , I shall have very much doubt as to the facts until I hear the other side. In any case, I presume that the honorable member for Balaclava, as an Australian, is just as good a judge as is the Prime Minister, who is not an Australian, as to what ought to he published; and he asks for the publication of the whole of the cablegrams.

I am not concern ect whether honorable members of the Corner party vote against the Government or not. On this indictment, let them support the Government; let their constituents see what their attitude is. Let the so-called representatives of the primary producers explain to the real primary producers why they did not demand further knowledge about the sales of their products, and something more about the supposed contracts in regard to those sales. Then their constituents, and not those who sit in the Chamber, will be the persons to judge them.

The charges against the Government have been proved up to the hilt. Anything said in defence has been mere Billingsgate, or excuses or references to issues that are mere side-steppings. No real answer has been put up; nothing hae been said to indicate to the people of the country that the Government are not guilty of the whole of the charges. It only strengthens our case to say that our allegations are mere reiterations of what has been said previously. It shows that the charge of neglect, incapacity, and incompetence of the Government has been sheeted home against them time after time.

I am satisfied that when the people of

Australia read these charges, as they will appear in the official record of Hansard, and the case stated in support, they must come to the conclusion that the Labour party was entirely justified in the step it has taken.

It is due to the people of the country that the House should be divided upon this indictment of the Government, so that they may learn where honorable members stand in regard to the issues at stake.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Mahony) adjourned.

Motion (by Sir Joseph Cook) agreed to-

That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for to-morrow, and take precedence of all other business.

page 2738

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Public Works Committee Act - Fifth General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works,

Ordered to be printed.

Income Tax Assessment Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1920, No. 107.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at (Seymour, Victoria - For Defence purposes.

House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 July 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1920/19200714_reps_8_92/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives14 July 1920

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SEA CARRIAGE

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

CENSURE MOTION

Mr TUDOR:Yarra

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Brennan:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr ROBERT COOK:INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Stewart:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Mathews:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Stewart:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Gregory:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Corser:

Sir Granville Ryrie:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Lister:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr ROBERT COOK:INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr TUDOR:

Mr MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

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

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Jowett:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Mahony:

Mr Jowett:

Mr Mahony:

Mr Jowett:

Mr Mahony:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Jowett:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr West:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr PROWSE:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr Gregory:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr ROBERT COOK:INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Jowett:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Hill:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr ROBERT COOK:INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr TUDOR:

Mr ROBERT COOK:INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

House of Representatives
14 July 1920

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr PROWSE:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for the Navy · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917