House of Representatives
20 September 1922

8^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPER
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYED RELIEF
QUESTION
- ASSISTANCE TO FRUIT-GROWERS
QUESTION
- SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST
QUESTION
- LOCALREPATRIATION COMMITTEES
QUESTION
- TRADE COMMISSIONER IN THE EAST
QUESTION
- NAVIGATION ACT
QUESTION
- GENERAL ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES COMMISSION
ELECTORAL BILL
MEAT EXPORT BOUNTIES BILL
ORDER OP BUSINESS.

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2441

PAPER

The following paper was presented: - Commonwealth Bank Act - Commonwealth Bank of Australia. - Aggregate Balancesheet at 30th June, 1922; together with the Auditor-General’s Report thereon.

page 2441

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In this morning’s Age big headlines appear over the report of the discussion which took place yesterday about the situation in the Near

East, and it is therein stated that the Government’s pledge was indorsed by the House. I wish to say that the only question before the House at the time was that an extract from a certain morning newspaper beprinted, and I made the position of my party perfectly clear. The Prime Minister told us that -

There is no need to talk now about sending a contingent of troops from Australia. The situation as it now stands is well in hand.

It is a well-known rule of debate here that to provide an opportunity for dis- cussion a motion must be submitted, and the Prime Minister stated that, in order to facilitate the discussion of the matter that he was bringing before the House, he would move “That thepaper be printed,” holding up a copy of the Argus, from which he had read a statement he had made. Had. not some such motion been moved no honorable member could have followed the Prime Minister without the , express leave of the House.

Mr Wise:

– The Prime Minister said “this paper,” pointing to a particular part of the newspaper that he held in his. hand.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– He proposed that his statement should be printed.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I have looked up the records of the House, and am sure of my position. I said that I would have moved an amendment had it notbeen for the statement of the Prime Minister. I anticipate that before a contingent is sent from this country Parliament will be consulted, and if that happens I shall put the position of the Labour party before the House and the people.

page 2441

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED RELIEF

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to the fact that the inland cities are prevented from’ participating in the Commonwealth grant for the relief of the unemployed? I ask the honorable gentleman to see if the restriction that exists cannot’ be removed, so that these cities may take advantage of the grant and provide work for the large armies of unemployed in our midst?

Mr BRUCE:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– The only condition placed onthe expenditure of the grant by the CommonwealthGovernment was that the money should be used fordevelopmental purposes. The grant was not a charity dole; it was intended that the money should be spent on developmental work which, by affording employment, would assist those in distress. The Government will have to adhere to that condition.

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Government make it known to the municipalities that the money has been granted for expenditure upon mainroads ? There is some misunderstanding about the purpose of the grant.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Minister for Works and Railways · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The money must either be spent on main roads or on developmental work, such as the making of district roads, in either case, outside municipalities, and preference of employment must be given to returned soldiers.

page 2442

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO FRUIT-GROWERS

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– There is great anxiety in Tasmania about the marketing of this season’s fruit, because of the uncertainty as to what the Government intend to do. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs if it is intended to form a Pool this year, or to leave the marketing of fruit to private enterprise?

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

– The Government having received representations fromthe United Fruit-growers National Conference, and having heard the views of others interested, have formed the opinion that it is necessary to assist the producers in the marketing of their crop this year, though it has not been decided what form the assistance shall take. The honorable member, I think, refers to fruit suitable for canning. Beyond that I do not think the Governmentcould go. We have consulted the States, and have suggested the holding of a conference on the 28th instant.

page 2442

QUESTION

SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST

CORRESPONDENCE WITH BRITISH

Government

Mr CHARLTON:

– Has the Prime Minister (received a cablegram to-day from Mr. Lloyd George giving full informa tion about the position in the Near East, and, if so, will it be made available to the House ?

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– I have received no cable conveying any information of any sort or kind’ other than that which I received on Sunday. Yesterday, I gave to the House the whole” of the information contained in that message, although I did not read it word for word, and I now again invite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) to came to my office and see the cable for himself. Another cablegram certainly came to hand yesterday, but its contents were published in the newspapers in extenso by, Mr. Lloyd George. It referred to the satisfaction which had been expressed in Great Britain at the receipt of the information that the Commonwealth was prepared to associate itself with the Mother Country. That exhausts all the communications I. have received from Mr. Lloyd George or the British Government in regard to the matter. Any other information which has come to hand has been contained in despatches which are at least six to eight weeks old, and have no reference whatever to thepresent situation. I may add that I said yesterday, in the course of my speech, that the British Government had been asked to supply us with full and precise information. I repeat that all that we have had so far was conveyed in the’ one cable the substance of which, without exception, I gave to the House yesterday.

Mr ANSTEY:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– I desire to supplement the question submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. Has the right honorable gentleman sent any communication to the British Government based upon proceedings in this Chamber yesterday?

Mr HUGHES:

– After the proceedings had terminated here yesterday, I sent a communication to Mr. Lloyd George. It isthe only message which has gone from myself to the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Has the Prime Minister any objection to laying on the table of the House the message forwarded to Mr. Lloyd George?

Mr HUGHES:

– It is not usual to lay such cables on the table of Parliament. The honorable member talks very absurdly, more absurdly than usual.

Mr McGRATH:

-Will the right honorable gentleman give to the House the purport of the communication he sent yesterday after the proceedings in this House?

Question not answered.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Mr. Speaker, is it an absurd and improper question to ask to what extent the country may have been compromised by any communication sent from our Prime Minister to the Imperial Government?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the honorable member desire a withdrawal of the remark?

Mr Anstey:

– -Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As the honorable member takes exception to a remark made by the Prime Minister in reply to a question, I must ask the right honorable gentleman to withdraw the expression.

Mr Hughes:

-I withdraw it.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I wish to make a personal explanation. In a section of this morning’s press, it was made to appear that the carrying, on the voices, of the motion moved by the Prime Minister yesterday here, involved the indorsement of what the right honorable gentleman has communicated to the British Prime Minister in connexion with the situation in the Near East. That entirely misrepresents my attitude.

Opposition Members. - And ours also.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I have not the slightest doubt about that, but I am speaking for myself.

Mr Charlton:

– I have already spoken on behalf of the party.

Mr.BRENNAN. - I am pleased to hear that.While the right honorable gentleman was speaking, I kept silent. It required a prodigious effort on my part, almost unexampled in the history of my association with this Parliament. I have only to say that my feeling, in regard to the right honorable gentleman’s message was one of intense amusement, faintly tinged with contempt.

page 2443

QUESTION

LOCALREPATRIATION COMMITTEES

Mr.McGRATH. - On Thursday last, I asked a question in reference to the closing of the Repatriation Offices in Ballarat and Bendigo. Can the Honorary Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation give the House any information as to the intentions of the Minister in regard to the closing of those offices?

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Assistant Minister for Repatriation · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I answered the honorable member’s question on Friday, and, as far as I can remember, I said that the Department ofRepatriation had provided certain paid officers to assist Local Repatriation Committees, and that, in view of the work having diminished, it had been decided to withdraw the officers, but not to interfere with the operations of the Local Committees.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Shearing Dispute: Arbitration Award.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I have received an intimation from the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) that he desires to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “The judgment and award of Mr. Justice Powers in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, in the case of the Australian Workers Union versus The Pastoralists Federal Council and others, and matters connected therewith.”

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Whether a subject of this nature is one that with propriety can be discussed on a special motion for the adjournment of the House is a matter of some doubt, and I think must depend largely on the tone and scope of the discussion. But, having regard to the fact that the honorable member for Darling has been debarred from ventilating the subject on a substantive motion, by the decision of the House to give precedence on all sitting days to Government business, I do not feel justified in ruling the motion out of order, provided it is clearly understood that, under cover of this motion, no attack or personal reflection can be made upon the Judge or the Court, nor can the conduct of the Judge be debated.

Mr Brennan:

– Am I to understand that, under no circumstances, may a motion be moved in this House, the arguments in connexion with which must necessarily involve reflections on the actions of a Judge in his judicial capacity? I understood that it was quite proper to attack judicial conduct, or to utter criticism of a judicial decision in a way which possibly involved reflections on a Judge, provided it was done by a motion. This motion, of course, is for the adjournment of the House; but would it not be fitting, and within the Standing Orders, to give the House the fullest and freest opportunity to discuss the Judge’s conduct, as well as the award he made, and all the circumstances relevant thereto which we think should be ventilated ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, that is not permissible. All parliamentary authorities are agreed that such a discussion cannot be raised on a motion for the .adjournment of the House. If the conduct of a Judge is to be made the subjec’t of criticism by Parliament, it can only be upon a substantive motion.’ For the information of the House I may, perhaps, read what May has to say on the matter -

Certain matters cannot lie debated, save upon a substantive motion which can be dealt with by amendment, or by the distinct vote of the House, such as the conduct of the Sovereign, the Heir to the Throne, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the LordLieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, members of either Houses of Parliament, and Judges of the superior Courts of the United Kingdom, including .persons holding the position of a Judge, such as a Judge in a Court of Bankruptcy, and of a County Court. These matters cannot, therefore, be questioned by way of amendment, nor upon a motion for adjournment under standing order No. 17.

The conduct of a Judge cannot be discussed on a motion of this kind, and, therefore, the .present discussion must be” confined to the award and such matters as do not involve criticism and rejection on the Judge.

Mr Hughes:

– Would that apply if he were President of the Court and not a Judge, or does it apply only because he is a Judge? I point out that the Deputy Presidents and the Chairman of the Coal Board are not Judges. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not taking aides in the matter at all, but only desire to know whether the distinction is to be drawn between the President, because he is a Judge, and Deputy-Presidents and the Chairman of the Coal Tribunal, who are not Judges. If these latter may be criticised while the President of the Court may not be criticised, not because he is President of the Court, but because he is also a Judge,, then, to a certain extent, we are hampered in dealing with the matter. I, of course, take a different view of the matter from that of my friend opposite, but there is the position, and I desire your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Anstey:

– Has the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) yet committed any offence against the Standing Orders ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The Prime. Minister (Mr. Hughes) deals with a hypothetical case, on which I do not feel called upon to give a ruling. If a case of that kind arises I shall be prepared to deal with it; but in the present case the motion deals with an award of a Judge of the Court. I have mentioned the matter at this stage to avoid, if I can, any occasion to intervene while debate is in progress.

Question proposed.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) for giving me warning as to what may befall me if I transgress the rules of the House. This, 1 think, is the sixth attempt I have made here to ventilate the very extraordinary judgment given by Mr. Justice Powers, the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. There is a mass of material connected with the matter, and the time at my disposal will not allow me to’ use it all. I do not desire to do the Judge any injustice, and I shall carefully give extracts from his own judgment, and use his own words as they appear in the transcript and minutes.

– That was one of the reasons given when Mr. Justice Powers gave an award for 35s. In the first judgment, delivered on 5th May, 1922, His Honour fixed the shearing rate at 30s. per 100, and shed hands’ wages at £3 per week. Four pages of his judgment were occupied in proving to the respondents and applicants before him that 30s. per 100 was a fair rate; and, after hehad proved this to his own satisfaction, he suddenly discovered that he had made a mistake. Later on, based on such reasons as I have indicated, he fixed the rate at 35s. On page 16 of his judgment, Mr. Justice Powers says -

As it is proposed to fix the basic wage at the same rate as in the 1917 award, because the rate is fair now, the shearers and other piece-work rates and wages will remain the same as in the old award. I am satisfied that the 30s. rate will secure to the shearers in 1922-23-24 much better returns than it did, or, at any rate, what the Court intimated it would return to the average shearer in the days when the 30s. was first fixed.

As. amatter of fact the basic wage for 1916 was 63s. (vide page 71 March Bulletin, No. 87, index No. 1324, equals 10s. 6d. per day, 63s. per week; whereas same Bulletin, page 73, shows index No. for March, 1922, as 1630, equals 13s. 4d. per day,” or 80s. per week). The old claim was based upon the 1915 index figures as to cost of living (vide same Bulletin, page 71 index figure 1278, equal tot 10s.. 2d. per day, or 61s. per week). That claim was for 30s. per 100, and though the case was not heard until about June, 1917, when 30s. was not a fair rate; yet, because it was the limit asked for, and the claim could not be amended, that rate was” awarded by consent of the parties, the Court having no power to do anything else. The rate of 30s. was based upon the knownprocedure of the Court; but, before we could obtain our award, the cost of living had increased so rapidly that we were really entitled to the 32s. 6d. per 100. However, as I have just mentioned, we were legally prevented from securing anything better.

Before making his award final, His Honour discovered that somethinghad gone wrong with his figures, andhe altered the rate from 30s. per 100 and £3 per week, to 35s. per 100 and £3 10s. per week. And he said he had never intended to do anything else. That was after he had occupied four pages in order to justify his judgment for 30s. per 100. This, though an improvement on the first intimation, is not a fair award. His Honour; on ‘page 24 of his statement, says, “ On the whole I am satisfied that 25 per cent, lost time is reasonable for the whole expedition.” On page 25 he says -

In the judgment, when making the award in 1911, it was apparently accepted as a fair estimate that whatever average number of sheep were shorn at a shed, the average number for the time of the expedition was about 338 per week. Those figures appear to have been accepted in 1917.

His Honour further says, on the same page-

On the evidence before, although it was shown in 1912 that shearers averaged whilst at the sheds 439 sheep per week, I do not think, even allowing for the better organization in some districts to secure a run of sheds, that shearers generally had increased the average for the expedition from 338 to more than 350.

His ‘Honour has evidently made a very grave error here. I quote now from Mr. Justice Higgins’ printed judgment of 1911, page 16-

Another aspect of the figures of Mr. Benjamin has been supplied to me by Mr. Jordan, an accountant of the claimant. The more precise average of sheep shorn per week (start to finish of the shed) are, according to Mr. Benjamin -

This shows that instead of the average being, as His Honour states, 338 for the whole of the expedition, it shows only 254. Yet he bases his award on an average of 350 sheep per week - roughly, 100 more than1 91 1-17. The respondents put in evidence to show that shearers averaged 439 per week while at the shed, and though we had no returns to show anything different, it is ridiculous to assume that the average shearer does 100 per week more now than formerly. There may be a slight difference owing to better organization of runs, but nothing to account for any such increase.

On page 25a of his fourth judgment His Honour says -

Assuming that 439 sheep a week is the average while at the sheds, it is clear that in four weeks the number of sheep shorn by a shearer would be 1,756; but if 25 per cent, is fair for lost time, it would take five weeks to shear them, and that would mean only 351 sheep per week. I cannot, therefore, base rates on 439 sheep, even if it is an average.

But His Honour does base his rates on the 350 sheep perweek, which is also wrong. If 439 sheep per week at the shed is right, and 25 per cent. for lost time is fair, then the average number of sheep over the whole expedition is 329 ; and even that total is 75 sheep per week more than shearers were shown to average when both parties were collecting statistics. The reason why they can now show a 439 average per week is, most likely, because they knew we we’re not collecting statistics; and they probably selected the sheds to show what they wanted. This view is borne out when one remembers that, in the hours case, a few months before the general case, the respondents tried to prove to the Court that the shearer averaged from 5 to 27 per cent, fewer sheep in forty-four hours than he did in fortyeight.

I interpose at this stage to give a brief history of the case of the Australian “Workers Union versus the Pastoralists’ Federal Council and others. I shall tabulate the particulars according to dates, as follows : -

Sydney.- 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, and 12th April - Hearing.

Melbourne. - 5th May - Reasons given and proposed award. 12th May - Speaking to minutes. 18th May - Proposed final award and schedules announced. 26th May - Discussion after parties had perused forms of agreements, &c. 31st May - Final award delivered and signed. 26th June - Intimation by Deputy President that he will hear respective representatives as to alleged miscalculations and errors.

Sydney. - 14th July - Parties apply in chambers in accordance with above intimation.

Melbourne. - 21st July - Judgment on above chamber application delivered.

On page 26 of the judgment His Honour is reported to have said -

I would not be safe in fixing rates on more than 400 a week as an average in sheds during the term of the award for all seasons, or more than 350 sheep a week for the time of the expedition.

It will be noted that if 400 at the start is right, and 25 per cent, is taken off for lost time, the average for the expedition is only 300 per week. His Honour only allowed 121/2 per cent, off by starting at 350. Nevertheless he does it, as the following further quotation from his judgment shows: -

Having determined with some hesitation the matters referred to, I propose to see what should be the rates fixed on Mr. Allen’s basis.

That basis is as follows : -

That would be the amount a shearer would get if he were a wages man and shore only 50 sheep a day, but in all awards made by this Court for piece-workers the rates fixed are from 10 per cent, to 33 per cent, more than on wages. If 20 (19s. 2d.) per cent, is added for piece-work, it would amount to about £6 l1s. 2d. It would be necessary on these figures to give to the average shearer about 35s. per 100, if the average number he shore per week for the time of the expedition “were 350 in order to secure to him £6 12s. 6d. Out of that amount he would have to pay his mess account of 25s. per week and 6s. per week for fares. It will be noted that 350 sheep at 35s. per 100 will only give £6 2s. 6d., not, as stated, £6 12s. 6d. His Honour says that the discrepancy is due to a typist’s error, but most likely it was not, as he was testing a sum of £6 l1s. 2d., and by making a mistake of 10s. in the sum misled himself. To produce £6 12s. 6d. it would require 38s. per 100, not 35s. as stated, but if the actual average in the shed on the respondents’ own figures are taken, 325, over 40s. per 100 will be required to produce £6 12s. 6d. On page 9 of the Judge’s final remarks he is reported to have said -

There are good reasons, in my opinion, why Queensland rates could reasonably be higher than a Federal rate for all other States.

The Judge had no evidence at all with regard to conditions in Queensland. There was evidence for that State before the Court in 1911, when the pastoralists pleaded for a lower rate in the southern States than in Queensland. The then President (Mr. Justice Higgins), who had the evidence of all the States before him, said (Commonwealth Arbitration Report No. 5, page 84) -

If any discrimination in rates ought to be made as between States the rate ought to be lower for Queensland, for the sheep generally are in Queensland easier to shear and the tallies are greater for a day’s work; and owing to the prevalence of dry weather in the shearing months the average earnings from start to finish’ are higher.

Let me now give an illustration of the chaos which this award has caused in the pastoral industry. I quote from the report published in the Australian Worker of 30th August of the case of the Graziers Association versus H. E. Boote, who w as charged with continuing a strike. This was after Mr. Barnes and I had been fined £100, and had been told by the magistrate that if we camebefore him again he would be compelled to sentence us to imprisonment without the option of a fine. When an award is responsible for such chaos as exists in the pastoral industry, and is based upon such extraordinary miscalculations, no citizen who resists it - should be charged with a criminal offence, and possibly gaoled. That is probably what will happen to some of us before this case is finished.

Mr Considine:

– Never mind; I shall come to see you.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I went to see the honorable member when he was in. gaol, and it would be only fair if he were to return the compliment. I only hope that my durance is as pleasant as was that of the honorable member, who had fruit, cigarettes, and plenty of reading matter, the warder coming at 5 o’clock in the evening and saying, “ Mr. Considine, your room is ready.” If I can serve my time in a Victorian gaol, I shall not object so much. In the Graziers versus Boote case, the following evidence was reported: -

Clarence Spier, manager of the Graziers Cooperative Shearing Company, said that under normal conditions there was no difficulty about getting men for shearing, but this year it was very difficult ‘to get men. When it was known that 35s. was the rate, the men generally stated that they would not accept, and would stand out for Queensland rates. There had been great difficulty in getting labour right up to the present time.

William Henry Eyres, a shearing contractor, said that he was a. member of the Merriwa Contract Company. There was no difficulty in getting labour during normal years. There was difficulty this year, the difficulty first manifesting itself about mid-June. . . . The witness said he was at Coonong on 12th July. The shearers were there, but they did not start.

Foster Francis Cooper, organizer of the Graziers Co-operative Shearing Company, said there was plenty of labour offering an normal years, but this year there was practically no labour offering at all. Since the Federal award came out there had been no labour offering.

Herbert Lionel Davies, manager of the Federal Pastoral Shearing Company, said under normal conditions there was no difficulty in obtaining shearers…… There was no difficulty about labour last year, but this year, as soon as the new award was announced, there was a very decided slackening off in both verbal and written applications. They had not been able to get all the labour necessary. Many men. refused work when he said he was paying award rates. The difficulty in getting labour continued right upto the present.

Arthur Stanley Long, a shearing contractor, said that in normal times there was sufficient labour offering…… TMs year it had been very difficult to get men since the award was announced. A lot of men appliedfor work and then refused it.

Charles McDonnell, a member of a shearing contracting firm, and Thomas Bell Eyre, manager of Bringagee station, gave similar evidence. There have been strikes all over New South Wales. In South Australia practically the whole of the sheds, so far as we know, are shearing at £2 per 100. The contractors and pastoralists are paying the £2 without any demur, recognising, I believe, as quite a number of the squatters do, that the award is based upon wrong grounds, and that miscalculations and mistakes occurred, as a result of which the men are not getting a fair deal. On page 13 of his judgment, the President, after mentioning that different methods of calculating the rates for shearing had been suggested, said -

For instance, although the purchasing power of money increased as a matter of fact it decreased - by at least 2s. between 1907 and 1911, Mr. Justice Higgins in 1911 found that 24s. a 100, the rate fixed in 1907, would giveto the shearer under the then existing conditions, for the reasons mentioned by him, all hewas fairly entitled to during the expedition, and fixed the same rate in 1911 as was fixed in 1907, 24s. per 100.

The Judge has made many errors. Did time permit, I could give, I think, twelve illustrations of the extraordinary attitude of his mind in dealing with this case. I do not know whether he personally arrived at the figures that he used or relied upon the calculations of some one else. If the calculations were his own, his education in arithmetic was sadly neglected, but in any case he was responsible for the correctness of the figures’ used. One instanceof the absurdity of. his calculations is the working out of 200 sheep at 30s. per 100 as £3 10s. There is not the slightest chance of the shearers working under the award, and no hope of peace in the pastoral industry under it. Next’ year the men will be even more solid than they are this year. The pastoralists may believe themselves strong, but we feel that we are much stronger. . We will not work under the award, and refuse to abide by its conditions. From 1907 to 1922 the Australian Workers Union worked under Arbitration Court awards and agreements.

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The awards were in their favour all the time.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– It is the honorable member’s attitude that is incomprehensible. The union had its opportunity to put before the Court what it considered mistakes, and it did so, and Mr. Justice Powers, in a carefully reasoned judgment, dealt with every aspect of the case.Ref erring” to the miscalculations that have been spoken of, he said -

The miscalculation or error on which the union principally relies was an error in copying the judgment by typing £6 12s. 6d. instead of £6 2s. 6d. as the result of multiplying 35s. by 3* (300 at 35s. a 100) , equal to £6 2s.6d.

He shows thatthe error did not affect his judgment.

It has been referred to as if I could hot do that simple sum correctly; and because the typist put in £6 12s.6d. instead of £6. 2s.6d. it has been contended that I intended to give over 37s. 6d. a 100 at least instead of 35s. a 100.

He says further -

It is true that since the award was made the Statistician’s figures show that the cost of living has risen during the present quarter,but I cannot take that into consideration on this application.The union protested against the rate being subject to quarterly adjustments, preferring to leave increases ofthe rates during the term because of the increased cost of living to be granted by the Court on application to vary the award.

It ought not to be forgotten in considering the request - (1) That the award rates in 1911 and 1917 were based on forty-eight hours a week, and the present award rates are based on forty-four hours a week; (2) the present award grants better conditions to shearers than in former awards, including lower prices for meat and stores than in previous awards; (3) although the thirty-towns’ rates are based on the prices supplied to the Statistician by shopkeepers for meat and other food, shearers have to be supplied with meat at from 3d. to 4d. a lb., and other stores at only 7£ per cent, on their actual cost to the station; (4) the basic rate of £3 18s. a week on which the shearers’ rates were fixed is 12s. per week higher than the rural basic rate in New South Wales fixed by the Board of Trade in force in June last and at the present time- The majority of sheep to be shorn under the award are in New South Wales; (5) the pastoralists of New Zealand offer to the shearers in June, 1922, , was 20s. a 100 for flock sheep, but rates have not been definitely settled.’

Then he adds this reminder-

Prom 1886 to 1907, for twenty-one years before the Arbitration Court was constituted (although strikes had taken place to secure higher rates), the shearing rate was 20s. a 100. Since then the Court raised the rate, first, by is. a 100; then because of the increased cost of living by 10s.; then by agreement by 20s. a 100 (because the Court could have been applied to if no agreement had been made and retrospective rates allowed).

Surely when the cost of living has decreased by- 16s. since the 1920 shearing season - equal to 7s. 2d. a 100 - the union is not justified, because the Court acts consistently and reduces the rate in part- because of the decreased cost of living, in refusing to advise its members to observe the award of 35s. a 100, and thus deprive all its members of the benefit of arbitration, which has done so much for the shearers and its other members since 1906 - and the country generally - by avoiding the necessity of direct action to secure what the Court (not the union or pastoralists) considers fair rates for shearing and other work done by members of the union.

– On ordinary principles of honesty, is it right for any person to invite a union to apply to a Tribunal for a decision and then, having got an award, given according to the law, to go out and create discontent, in order to nullify it? The judgment of Mr. Justice Powers was given after a most careful inquiry, and it is deeply to be regretted that the honorable member has taken this action. It is certainly not in the interests of the workers. Before I conclude, let me quote the following, which shows what big money is earned by shearers under the award in question: -

In a statement issued by the Graziers’ Association to-day, it was said that 2,000 shearers were earning from £9 to £17 a week in the sheds of New South Wales. These men are said to be working only forty-four hours, weekly, at the Federal award rates of 35s. a hundred. Weekly earnings of from £10 to £12, it was also stated, were common, and ringers were drawing from £13 to £17.

At Boorooma, Walgett, twenty-three shearers shore 14,725 sheep in one week, averaging about 640 a man. This, on the Federal award Tate, would work out at just over £11 a man for a week’s work. During a previous week at the same shed, the same shearers shore 12,302 sheep for the week, or an average of about 534 a man. On award rates this would work out at about £9 6s. a man for the week. The ringer’s tally for the week was 752, which would return him just over £13.

At Dummbral, Collarendabri, 20 shearers shore 13,008 sheep in one week, averaging 650 a man, which would work out at £11 12s. 6d. a man. At Midkin, Moree, 40 shearers shore 21,800 in one week, working out approximately at £9 10s. a man, while at Tallawanta, Garah, 10 shearers shore 7,258 sheep for the week, averaging £12 10s. a man. A ringer here shore 968 sheep, equal to about £17. Ten shearers at Wootawa, Morah, shore 7,617 sheep for the week, averaging a little over £13 each, while the ringer’s tally for the week was 929, for which he would be paid just over £16.

At Charlton, Brewarrina, 13 shearers shore 1,946 sheep in one day, averaging £2 10s. a man, and one of the, shearers was only a learner. One day the ringer shore 216, for which he would be paid about £3 15s.

In the face of these figures the Association comments, “ Surely no reasonable man will contend that genuine shearers are. not at work, or that the Federal award rate does not offer a good return to shearers.”

Many of the bigger sheds, it is stated, are shearing or will shear a neighboring small man’s sheep. This will increase the shearers’ earnings for the season by cutting down their travelling bill and lost time in getting from shed to shed. Shearers will have a highly remunerative run this year.

That report is an indication of the money that is being earned by the shearers under the award they have obtained. It is unfortunate that the honorable member for Darling should seek to discredit a judgment that has produced such excellent results for the workers of Australia.

Mr.SCULLIN (Yarra) [3.43].- The Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) waxed rather warm because the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) had raised this question in the House. He charged the honorable member with having aided and abetted men to break awards given by the Arbitration Court.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member for Darling admitted having done so.

Mr.SCULLIN. - The Government are charged with a very big responsibility on this question of Arbitration, and before the Attorney-General lectures the honorable member for Darling for having incited men to break an award, he should investigate the very grave charges that honorable member has made against a Judge, and see if they are true.

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr SCULLIN:

– Without going fur- titer, I simply say that there, is turmoil in the land to-day, and that the turmoil will not end this year. The Pastoralists

Union has in this dispute “ bitten off more than it can chew.” The spirit of the old days of shearing is still in the hearts of the shearers, and they will stand to the position they have taken up. They will not, as the Minister says in his airy way, accept the award. Those who, afterall, will lose the most will be the members of the Pastoralists Union, who are sheltering themselves behind the Arbitration Court, and endeavouring to lower living conditions in this country. Only to-day Mr. Justice Powers has lowered the daily wage of’ the miners of this country by ls. below the basic wage. That is the kind of thing that is killing arbitration - it is that kind of thing which, supported by the Government, stands for industrial turmoil!. I stand for arbitration, and voted for it when I sat on the Government side; I am in favour of the principle of tribunals to settle industrial questions. Although that is my policy and belief, I say deliberately here, that for the Government to stand by awards like this, awards that are manifestly unjust, based as they are on bad arithmetic, is to sign the death-warrant of arbitration, and means going back to the old days of strikes.

Even at this stage I ask the Government to accept the challenge of the honorable member for Darling, and to obtain the services of statisticians to investigate the merits of the question by an examination of the facts and figures. I am satisfied that such an examination would show that the Government made a great mistake when they appointed Mr. Justice Powers to the position of President of the Arbitration Court.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- I have no plaudits for the arbitration system or for the Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has taken credit to the Australian Workers Union for abiding by the awards of the ^Arbitration Court for a considerable period. He has told us that the objection to this particular award is the defective arithmetic displayed by the President, Me. Justice Powers; the men- re.gard it as patently obvious that the rules of arithmetic have been absolutely ignored by the presiding genius of the. Arbitration Court.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson). Order! The honorable member is now reflecting on the Judge.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– By calling him a “genius”? I shall certainly withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr.CONSIDINE.- In his concluding remarks the honorable member for Yarra intimated that this same Judge had reduced the daily wages of the miners by 1s. per day below the basic wage; and that is not due to any fault of arithmetic. My view is that the mistake of the shearers was in going, in the first place, to the Arbitration Court. The Australian Workers Union desired, by means of a conference with the Pastoralists Union, to obviate an upheaval, but the Pastoralists Union refused to meet them and’ discuss any alteration of the conditions. Of course, the Australian Workers Union has its own method of doing its business, and I am not attempting to dictate to the members of another organization.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– Or to the pastoralists either?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Or to the pastoralists either ; I am not much concerned with what the pastoralists do.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– They, are not much concerned about what the honorable member does.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I do not know that that is so. If I can assist the men of the pastoral industry to win the fight’ they are now waging I shall certainly do so, and we shall see whether or not the pastoralists are concerned about what I do. The honorable member who is so unconcerned at the present time, is not so unconcerned in his capacity of a pastoralist when the officials of the Australian Workers Union stand by their members as they are doing at the present time. The pastoralists go to the Courts for an injunction, hale members of the union before Judges, have them fined, and threaten them with imprisonment; and that, I suppose, is all to show how unconcerned they are. The position,, as it strikes me, is that there is a calculated effort on the part of the employers of this country, through their various organizations, to wipe out the previous effects of the Arbitration Court with regard to wages and conditions. That effort is not confined to Australia; there has been a world-wide attack on organized labour since the Armistice. We see this in the United States of America, in Great Britain, and in every country where there is organized labour. There is a concerted effort on the part of organized capital to lower the standard of living of the workers, and to force them back to conditions which, if not worse than pre-war conditions, are certainly no better. It is no use our shutting our eyes to the fact; there is a struggle taking place between organized labour and organized employers. This is not a matter that will be settled in the Arbitration Court; it will be settled, as in the past, by the strength of the organized forces. It will be the determination of the workers as against the bank balance of the pastoralists, and the desire of the latter to have their sheep shorn. It will be a question of whether the circumstances are -favorable to the pastoralists or the men. The latter are certainly handicapped by lack of resources, and by the fact that all the paraphernalia for repression is in the hands of their political and industrial enemy. I am glad that the honorable member for Yarra has intimated that the old fighting spirit of the Australian Workers Union is not dead.

Motion (by Mr. Greene) put -

That the question he now put.

The House divided -

Ayes . . . . . . 30

Noes . . . . . . 15

Majority…… 15

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the House do now adjourn - put. The House divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 32

Majority…… 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2455

QUESTION

TRADE COMMISSIONER IN THE EAST

Mr BOWDEN:
for Mr. Pratten

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whenwas Mr. Little appointed Trade Commissioner in the East?
For what period, on what terms and conditions, and at what salary was the appointment made?
Wthat is the total cost of the office?

Mr. GROOM (for Mr. Rodgers).The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

7th March, 1921.
For a period of five years. To he approvedby Parliament after the expiration of twelve months from date of appointment. The salary was fixed at. £2,000 per annum, the rate of exchange to be 9 Shanghai taels to the £1 sterling. He is to be entitled to six months’ leave, on full pay, at the expiration of four and a-half years’ service.
£10,280, to 30th June, 1922.

page 2455

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Oversea Mailboats and Position of Tasmania

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Do certain oversea mailboats call at a port in every State of the Commonwealth with the exception of Tasmania, and are the producers of that State consequently placed at a great disadvantage with respect to getting their produce to oversea markets?
Will the Government take immediate steps to grant to oversea mailboats the necessary exemption from the provisions of the Navigation Act from the 10th of February till 10th May in each year, so that such boats may be enabled to carry passengers to Tasmania from other States of the Commonwealth during the said period, and the companies concerned may be induced to send their boats to Tasmania, and thus provide an invaluable means to Tasmanian producers of getting their produce overseas?

Mr. GROOM (for Mr. Rodgers).The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

Certain oversea mailboats do call at a port in each State except Tasmania. The only oversea mailboats running under contract with the Commonwealth Government to deliver mails in the United Kingdom are those of the Orient Company. Under the terms of the contract, three vessels of the line call at Hobart each year during the months of February to May inclusive. The vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Line carrying mails under contract with the British Government do not, it is understood, make Hobart a port of call. As regards the latter part of the question, investigation has shown that Tasmanian producers are not adversely affected to any appreciable extent by the failure of the Peninsular and Oriental vessels to call at Hobart, the refrigerated space in any one of the “ Bay “ steamers of the Commonwealth Line (three of which were diverted to Hobart for the special benefit of the apple exporters) being more than equivalent to the whole of the refrigerated space available on all the Peninsular and Oriental vessels that could ‘have called at Hobart during the period mentioned.
Under the provisions of the Navigation Act, permits to unlicensed ships to engage in the carriage of passengers between Australian ports can be granted only when there are no licensed ships available, and where the service by licensed ships is inadequate. In the case of the Sydney-Hobart trade, to which reference is made,a regular service is provided by licensed ships. On no occasion since the Navigation. Act came into operation has this service been unable to’ carry all the ‘passengers offering, so that it cannot, either in law or in fact, be regarded as inadequate. Under the circumstances, there is no power to grant the permits asked for.

page 2456

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Divisional Returning Officers’ Overtime

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

In view of the coming election, will Divisional Returning Officers be required to work some hundreds of hours of overtime, and, it so, will the Minister take the necessary steps to enable these officers to be paid for the overtime worked?
Will the Minister have the Public Service Regulations altered which prevent Divisional Returning Officers not working under super-‘ vision being paid overtime?
Will consideration be given to the removal of the limitation on the increase of salary to these officers?
Bailing a satisfactory answer to paragraphs Nos. 1 and 2, will the Minister consider the granting of an adequatebonus to these officers in lieu of overtime?
Is it not an anomaly that clerks, &c, working under the supervision of a Divisional Returning Officer are paid overtime, while the Divisional Returning Officer, through having no superior officer supervising him, is not paid any overtime; if so, should it not be rectified?

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

Divisional Returning Officers will probably be required to work overtime in connexion with the elections, but the period of overtime will depend upon the circumstances of each individual office, and cannot be forecast. It is not considered desirable that officers who do not work under supervision should be eligible for overtime payment.
See answer to 1.
The salaries of Divisional Returning Officers have been determined in accordance with the value of their work, and with the knowledge that, at elections or referenda, they are required to work overtime. They have approached the Arbitrator on the question of increased salary, without result.
It is not considered a bonus is warranted for the performance of the usual duties attaching to any position.
No. The clerks work overtime under direction, and under supervision.

page 2456

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Kidman-Mayoh Contract

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

What steps have been taken to give effect to the finding of Sir Mark Sheldon in connexion with the Kidman-Mayoh shipbuilding contract?
Have the Government ordered a time limit within which the contractors must comply with Sir MarkSheldon’s award?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– A demand has been made for payment. No time limit was mentioned, the demand being for payment forthwith. A further instruction for the renewal of the demand has since been issued.

page 2456

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES COMMISSION

Contracts with Driver and Company.

Mr PROWSE:
for Mr. Gibson

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What is the duration of the contracts entered into by R. Driver and Company with the War Service Homes Commission for the supply of timber?
Will the Minister lay the contracts on the table of the House?
What payment has been made to R. Driver and Company for timber stacked at the various country stations or on private property near the country mills?
The Commission having called for tenders for the sale of timber stacked at private sidings and on private property near the country mills, will this timber be loaded into railway trucks for the successful tenderer at the cost of the Commission?
At what price have the various classes of hardwood been sold by the Disposals Board to the general public?
What price is being paid to R. Driver and Company by the War Service Homes Commission for timber on rail - (a) Beech Forest, (b) Orbost, (c) Melbourne?
What is the cost of carting this timber from the railway to the depôt at Melbourne?
What is the cost of stacking at the depôt in Melbourne?
What class of timber is specified in the contract to be supplied from Orbost, and has the timber been supplied to specification, both as regards species and sizes?
Has thereport made on the Orbost timber by an officer of the Forests Commission been considered by the War Service Homes Commission; and, if so, what are the views of the latter regarding this report?
Will the Minister lay this report on the table of the House?
Did the War Service Homes Commission notify R. Driver and Company that it would not receive any more of the Orbost timber?
If so, did the Commission - (a) receive further supplies; (b) pay R. Driverand Company for same?

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
NAT

– The contract between the War Service Homes Commissioner and Messrs. R. Driver and Company, and matters arising out of it, are now the subject of arbitration. In the circumstances, it is regretted that the information asked for cannot be supplied at present.

page 2457

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 19th September, vide page 2395):

Clause 13-

Section one hundred and thirteen of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word “ shall “ (second occurring) and inserting in its stead the word “ may “.

Section proposed to be amended -

On polling day, an elector shall be entitled to vote at any prescribed polling place for the subdivision for whichhe is enrolled, or he shall be permitted to vote at any other polling place within the State for which he is enrolled at which a polling booth is open, under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting.

– The defect which this clause is designed to remedy has been revealed by experience in administration, but I will not press the clause on the Committee, beyond warning them of the danger under the present law of an election being invalidated through a technical refusal to supply absentee ballotpapers.

– Ifthere are three candidates, would the honorable member, permit the voter to indicate his first preference by a cross?

Mr.SCULLIN. - I would not allow theuseofa cross where there are more than two candidates. In the South Australian State elections thecross is still in use. If the people of South Australia are accustomed to indicate their first preference by the use of the cross in State elections, they are likely to use it in Federal elections, and it would be hard to disfranchise them for doing so, particularly when nothing would be gained by insisting on the use of the figure 1. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Wise) says that it would be a disadvantage to have two systems of voting - one for the House of Representatives and one for the Senate ; but we already distinguish betweenballot-papers with two names and ballot-papers with more than two names. We should follow the broad principle that wherever there is no ambiguity as to the clear intention of. the voter the vote should be allowed. Nothing should prevent the clear intention of the elector being carried out.

Mr BELL:
Darwin

. -I would be very loath indeed to deprive any elector of his right to have his vote recorded where his intention is perfectly clear ; but the number of informal votes at every election is astonishing, and; we shall never obviate the trouble in. this regard until we have uniformity in the electoral laws of Australia-.. Unfortunately, some States adopt one. method of expressing voters’ preferences, while: local bodies in those States adoptanother- system, and the Federal method differs from either. We shall never educate theelectors to that standard which will allow them to record their votes clearly until we have greater uniformity. The amendment now sought to be inserted inthe Bill is justified for thatreason. We cannot control the electoral laws of the States or the voting systems adoptedby local bodies’ in the States, but we can have uniformity in our own voting system. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has shown that where there are threes candidates, and the third preference is not expreessd on the ballotpaper, the vote is informal. The Attorney General (Mr. Groom) has pointed out that where there are two candidates the ballot-paper is formal if the second preference is not shown: The only way out of the difficulty is to make it compulsory that the voter should indicate his orderof preference right through, whether there are only two candidates or more . The only means by which we can obviate informal votes is by educating the electors to observe one system only. While we are so jealous of the secrecy of the ballot we must continue to. have informal votes, but those are recorded mostly by electors who are voting, at a Federal election for the first time.

Mr.Fleming. - Howcan we get uniformity ?

Mr BELL:

– Wecannot control State laws, but we can make our own voting system, uniform in the hope that ultimately, the States, will alsoadoptit. Tasmania, has already done so. We should start at once by prescribing the compulsory use of our own system of expressing voters’ preferences, and abide by it.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) will not persist with this proposal. We should be striving to afford facilities for voting instead of curtailing them.

Mr Groom:

– We are not curtailing them ; we areenveavouring to have less informal votes recorded than we have at present.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the case of the Ballarat byelection the Judge ruled that if a voter placed a cross alongside one candidate’s name and nothing opposite the other candidate’s name, the votewasa valid one. But now theMinister. proposes to alter that. I under- stood, also, that the Judge said that arrangements should be made to remove all doubt in the event of a ballot-paper being marked in this way.

Mr Groom:

– The Judge did not allow votes where the voters had exercisedboth options, that is to say, wherethey had put the cross opposite one candidate’s name and the figure 1 opposite the other candidate’s name.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If a Judge has decided that a voter may express his first preference by a cross where there are two candidates land if the Act already provides that. this may be done, why is there any necessity for altering the system ?

Mr Scullin:

– The electors will need to be educated afresh.

Mr.PARKER MOLONEY. - Yes. It has gone all over Australia that this method of voting is permissible, and people will go to the next election believing that it still exists, only to ‘find themselves disfranchised. In past years, the method of voting was to put a cross opposite the candidate’s name, but now the voters are tobe asked to insert figures instead of a cross. At every election there is a. new system of voting.It is time we settled down tosome recognised method.

Mr Groom:

-That is the intentionof the present proposal.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the Minister proposesto altera system which hasbeen recognisedas aproper ‘method and has been allowed in thecase of the Ballarat by-election ‘as af air ‘means of indicating theintention of the voter.

Mr Lister:

– Many people believe that by putting a cross opposite a candidate’s name they are voting him out.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think those are exceptions to the rule. The’ marking of a cross has been the method in the past, and the many, informalvotes are due to the fact that ; the system has been so frequently (altered. There are old people, perhaps notnowable read, -who are so much accustomedto the old method that they will find muchtrouble in gettingaway from it; and I do not think they oughtto be disfranchisedif they plainly indicate , theirchoice.

Mr Bell:

-ThePresidingOfficers could see, their papers, andputthemrightwhere they are wrong.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are manyrestrictions in regard to advising an elector how to vote, and, as I am reminded, the honorablemember’s suggestion would, to an extent, do away with the ‘secrecy of the ballot. We ought to extend, and not curtail electoral privileges.

Mr FLEMING:
Robertson

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- All parties will join in scouring any proper means for the prevention of informal voting.

Mr Groom:

– Then all parties desire to bring about a system of voting which cannot possibly lead to confusion.

Mr RILEY:

Mr JACKSON:
Bass

.Anything I can do to enforce- uniformity in the method of voting throughout the Commonwealth I shall do. At the present time Tasmania has the preferential and proportional systems, and- the voter indicates his preference by writing the numerals 1, 2, 3, &c. Victoria and Western Australia also have the preferential system. New South Wales operates the preferential and proportional representation systems, whilst Queensland has an optional system. South Australia is the only State in. which, the voter may indicate his preference only by marking, a cross opposite the name of the candidate. The sooner that State is brought into line with the other States the better. I look forward. ‘to. the time when all elections, Federal, State, and municipal, will be conducted on the preferential and proportional systems. Some honorable members have stressed the risk, of depriving people of their votes. Any person who cannot understand a ballotpaper, or the explanatory cards that are issued by the candidates, is not enticed, to have a vote.

Mr Scullin:

– Because some people are not as literate as the honorable member they are to be disfranchised. It is much easier for them to make a cross than to write numerals.

Mr JACKSON:

-,-! doubt’ very much that it is .more difficult to . make the figure 1 than it is to make .a -cross, as the matter ‘concerns the case ‘when only two candidates .are (standing. .’Any person who is in doubt as to how to vote can .consult the’ Returning Officer, and have his vote marked for him in confidence. The argument ‘that some persons will be deprived of their votes entirely fails. Seeing that only one State uses the cross exclusively, and in one other State its use is optional, I think this clause, which aims at uniformity, should -be agreed to.

Question - That the clause be agreed to put The Committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Hoes….. . . 20

Majority . . . . 1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 23. agreed to.

Clause 24 negatived.

Clauses 25 and 26 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 27 .(Immaterial errors not to vitiate election).

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– The honorable member will recollect that Mr. Justice Isaacs, in the case of Keon versus Kerby, pointed out the distinction between the English and the Commonwealth law in this matter. He said -

The Australian Act ‘differs very considerably from tile English legislation in several respects ‘ relevant to this case. Particularly, I refer -to the duty of the Court in the case of official errors. In ‘England, it is enacted that no election shall be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with the election rules or mistake in the use of the forms,’ if it ‘appears to the Tribunal : (1) that the election was. conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of the Act; and (2) that such non-compliance or ‘mistake did not affect the result of the election. In other words, if the matter is left so that the mistake may have affected the result, the election may be declared invalid. Under our Act it is different. By section 194 it is -provided that “no election shall be, avoided . . . .on account of the> . . error of .any . officer which shall not be proved to have, affected the result of the election.”

This clause brings our law into conformity with the English law.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2.8 agreed to.

Clause 29 negatived.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Groom) agreed to-

That the following new clause be inserted: - [jj; “1a. The several sections of this Act shall commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation.”

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

Mr FLEMING:
Robertson

.- The honorable member for Batman (Mr: Brennan) has made- much of the principle of one- vote-one-value ; but really what is at the bottom of the idea is to furnish an equal value of the franchise to each individual. No- one can reasonably claim that at present the person living in a distant country electorate has the same facilities for recording his- vote as has; a person in town. The aim is, as far1 as possible, to get an equality of value in the franchise. The proposal this afternoon is not a danger from that: point of view, for it. goes no further than does the present Act.

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

– It does not go so far.

Mr FLEMING:

– It does not go so far;, but it does lay down definitely what is not, perhaps, correct in theory, according to the honorable member for Batman, but is certainly found correct in practice. Any one who has lived, in the country and in. the city knows, whether ho admits it or. not, that the man in the country, or the woman, particularly, has not. anything like the same opportunities for recording the vote as has the man or woman in town. All that we are asking is that the value of the franchise in each case shall be made as nearly equal as possible. If a man is given a -thing he cannot use it is of little value, and we wish to make the franchise of equal value to every individual. The votes will still remain at equal value - we do not propose to interfere in any way with the value- of the vote, for that is a question which is settled for good and all. We have- agreed that one-vote-one-value is the correct idea, and in common honesty we wish to make the franchise of equal value to every man and woman in Australia. That is all the amendment proposes. If honorable members will look at the amendment from a practical stand-point, instead of harping on the- theoretical side, they will see that, the proposal is abundantly justified.

Sitting suspended from. 6.30 to- 8 p.m.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I am opposed to the proposed- new clause of the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory). It is wrong in principle. The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Fleming) rather- cleverly endeavoured to prove that there was some great principle involved in it; but such is not the case. The basic principles of the Act are, one adult one vote. and one-vote-one-value. The Act is elastic in the matter of its provision respecting the numbers of electors in a division. The suggested new section would withdraw that elasticity, and make the Act rigid. The honorable member for Robertson, in endeavouring to counter the argument respecting the principle of one-vote-one-value, held that the principle underlying the proposal of the honorable member for Dampier was that it sought to make votes of equal value.

Mr Fleming:

– I said, “ to make .the franchise of equal value.”

Mr SCULLIN:

– No one will dispute that greater facilities are provided for voting in metropolitan areas than in country divisions. But if the matter of difficulty in getting to the poll is to be taken into consideration, it would be logically necessary to instruct the Commissioners, further, to provide a smaller number of electors in Gippsland, for example, than in Corio; for the latter division has far greater facilities for travel. If areas are to be consulted it would be necessary to give to divisions in Queensland and Western Australia ten times fewer electors than to those in Victoria. The honorable member for Robertson said that, under existing facilities for voting, electors in some parts of the country are actually unable to attend a polling booth in order to record their votes. If the proposal under review is embraced in the Act the votes of those people will be given no greater value than they possess to-day. That is to say, they are of no value whatever, since they are not recorded.

Mr Fleming:

– The honorable member is misquoting me.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The honorable member said that there were many people who were unable on polling day to record their votes. How can their case be met by instructing the Commissioners to decrease the numbers of electors in country divisions? And in what manner should the Commissioners be instructed in respect of such electorates as Corio, Ballarat, and Bendigo? Are they to be regarded as country, or as city electorates? There are some country divisions in which the facilities for voting over the greater part of their area, at any rate, are similar to those provided in metropolitan divisions. Honorable members on this side have said that where any degree of elasticity may be observed it should be in favour of country divisions; and that, of course, has been recently availed of. However, to make it mandatory that country electorates shall be smaller numerically than metropolitan is vicious in principle, and cannot be logically applied.

Proposed new clause negatived.

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

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 31a. Section 135 of the principal Act is amended by -

1 ) omitting the words “ Divisional Re turning Officer” in paragraph (h) of sub-section (1), and inserting in their stead the words “ Commonwealth Electoral Officer.”

omitting sub-sections (2) to (14) in clusive, and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: -

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall, in the manner prescribed by this Act or the Regulations, examine, count, and deal with all ballot-papers used for voting in pursuance of-

Part XII. of this Act;

the regulations relating to absent voting on polling day; or (c) section 121 of this Act.

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall -

open the sealed parcels of ballotpapers received from the Assistant Returning Officer in the State for which he is Commonwealth Electoral Officer, and shall make a fresh scrutiny of the ballot-papers con- tained in the parcels, and for this purpose he shall have the same powers as if the fresh scrutiny were the original scrutiny, and may reverse any decisions given by an Assistant Returning Officer in relation to the original scrutiny. (6) Count the number of first choices recorded for each candidate and reject all informal ballot-papers.

The aggregate number of such first choices shall bo divided by one more than the number of candidates required to be elected and the quotient increased by one, disregarding any remainder, shall be the quota, and (except as hereinafter provided by sub-section ( 12 ) ) no candidate shall be elected until he obtains a number of votes equal to or greater than the quota.

Any candidate who has, upon the first choices being counted, a number of such votes equal to or greater than the quota shall be declared elected.

Where the number of such votes obtained by any candidate is equal to the quota, the whole of the voting papers on which a first choice is recorded for such elected candidate shall be set aside as finally dealt with.

Where the number of such votes ob tained by any candidate is in excess of the quota, the proportion of votes in excess of the quota shall be transferred to the other candi- dates not yet declared elected, next in the order of tha voters’ respective preferences, in the following manner: -

All the voting papers on which a first choice is recorded for the elected candidate shall be re-examined and the number of the second choices or (in the case provided for in subsection (14.)) third or next consecutive choices recorded for each unelected candidate thereon shall be counted;

The surplus of the elected candidate shall be divided by the total number of votes obtained by him on the counting of the first choice and the resulting fraction shall be the transfer value;

The number of second or other choices ascertained in paragraph 1 to be recorded for each unelected candidate shall bo multiplied by the transfer value ;

The resulting number, disregarding any fractional remainder, shall be credited to each unelected candidate and added to the number of votes obtained by him on- the counting of the first choices. (8) (a) Where, on the counting of the first choices or on any transfer more than one candidate has a surplus, the largest surplus shall be first dealt with. If then, more than one candidate has a surplus, the then largest surplus shall be dealt with, and so on: Provided that if one candidate has obtained a surplus at a count or transfer previous to that at - which another candidate obtains a surplus, the surplus of the former shall be first dealt with.

Where two or more surpluses are equal, the surplus of the candidate who was the highest on the poll at the count or transfer at which they last had an unequal number of votes shall be first dealt with; and if they have had an equal number of votes at all preceding counts or transfers, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall decide which candidate’s surplus shall be first dealt with.

(a) Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised up to or above the quota by a transfer as aforesaid, he shall thereupon be declared elected. And in such case, notwithstanding the fact that he may have reached the quota, such transfer shall be completed, and all the votes to which he is entitled therefrom shall be transferred to him, but no votes of any other candidate shall be transferred to him.

Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised up to, but not above, the quota by a trans fer as aforesaid, the whole of the voting papers on which such votes are recorded shall be set aside as finally dealt with, (c) Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised above the quota by a transfer as aforesaid his surplus shall be transferred to the candidates next in the order of the voters’ respective preferences in the following manner: -

The voting papers on which are recorded the votes obtained by the elected candidate in the last transfer shall be re-examined and the number of third or (in the case provided for in subsection ( 14 ) ) next consecutive choices recorded for each unelected candidate thereon counted ;

The surplus of the elected candidate shall be divided by the total number of voting papers mentioned in paragraph (i) and the resulting fraction shall be the transfer value;

Tho number of second (or other) choices ascertained in paragraph (i) to be recorded for each unelected candidate shall be multiplied by the last - mentioned transfer value;

The resulting number, disregarding any fractional remainder shall be credited to each unelected candidate and added to the number of votes previously obtained by him. 10. (o) Where, after the first choices have been counted, and all surpluses (if any) Iia ve been transferred as hereinbefore directed, no candidate, or less than the number of candidates required to be elected, has or have obtained the quota, the candidate who is lowest on the poll shall be excluded and all the votes obtained by him shall be transferred to the candidates next in the order of the voters’ respective preferences :in the same manner as is directed in sub-section (7).

The votes obtained by such excluded candidate as first choices shall first be transferred, the transfer value of each vote in this case being one.

The other votes of such excluded candidate shall then be dealt with in the order of .the transfers in which, and at the transfer value at which, he obtained them. (d) Each of the transfers which takes place under the two previous paragraphs of this sub-section shall be deemed for all purposes to be a separate transfer. 11. (a) Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised up to or above th« quota by any such transfer as aforesaid, he shall -thereupon be declared elected. And in such case, notwithstanding the fact that he may have reached the quota, such transfer shall be completed, and mil the votes to which he is entitled therefrom shall be transferred to him, but no other vote shall be- transferred’ to him.

Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised up to, but not above, the quota by any such transfer- as aforesaid, the whole of the. voting papers on which such votes are recorded shall be set aside as finally dealt with. (c)- Where the number of votes obtained by a candidate is raised above the quota by any such transfer as aforesaid his surplus shall be transferred to the’ candidates next in order’ of the voters’ respective preferences in the- same manner as is directed in sub-.section (0), para graph (c) : Provided that such surplus »shall not bc dealt with until all the votes of the excluded candidate have been transferred. (d.) Where any surplus exists it shall be dealt with before any other candidate .is excluded.

The same process of excluding the candidate lowest on .the poll and transferring .to other candidates his votes shall be repeated until all the candidates, except the number required to be elected, have been excluded, and the unexcluded candidates, who have not already been so declared, shall then be declared elected.

Where at any time it becomes necessary to exclude a candidate and two or more candidates have the same number of votes and are lowest on tlie poll at .the last count or transfer at which they had an unequal number of votes, then whichever of such candidates are lowest on the poll shall be first excluded, and if such candidates have had an equal number of votes at all preceding counts or transfers, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall decide which candidate shall be first excluded.

In determining what candidate is next in the order- of the voters’ preference, any candidates who have- been declared elected, or -who have been excluded, shall not be considered, and- the order of the voters? preference- shall be determined as if the names of such candidates had. not been, on .the voting pape*.

Where on any transfer it is found .that on any voting paper there is no candidate opposite whose mime a number is,. placed, other than those who have boon already either declared elected or excluded, such voting paper shall bc set aside as exhausted.”

My desire is that a vote of the Committee shall be taken on the ‘definite principle of proportional representation for the Senate. The vote which has already been recorded in that direction may be regarded as a test, perhaps; but it was in respect of a clause which really dealt with the matter of deposits. To enable the principle of proportional representation in the Senate to be specifically voted upon by honorable members, and so that it shall be duly recorded in its proper light, I am seeking the omission from the Act of the present provisions for voting for Senate- candidates, and -the inclusion of the new sub-sections which I have just read.

Question put. The Committee divided. Ayes . . . . . . 20

AYES: 0

NOES: 29

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause negatived. Title agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments. Motion (by Mr. Groom) .-agreed. to -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause’ 2;

In Committee (Recommittal) : Clause 2 (Persons entitled to enrolment and to vote).

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move - > That the words “absent from his place of Jiving therein with a fixed intention of returning thereto “ in the second proviso be left .out, and the following words inserted in lieu .thereof: - “living elsewhere than -‘within -the division in respect of which he claims to vote with a fixed intention of returning to his place of living in /that division.”

The second proviso in clause 2 reads -

Provided -further ‘that- ‘nettling in this subsection shall disentitle an elector from voting’ in respect of the division for which he is enrolled if he is temporarily absent from his place of living titerre in with a fixed intention of returning thereto for the purpose of continuing to live therein.

Under clause 14 this question has to he put to the voter- - “Are you temporarily living elsewhere than within the division? “ The proposed amendment will harmonize the wording of clause 2 with the wording of that question.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

Standing Orders suspended. Motion (‘by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the Bill be again recommitted for the reconsideration of clause IS.

Mr GROOM:
Darling DownsAttorneyGeneral · NAT

– ‘I think the mover of the motion will admit that a fair time was allowed for the discussion of this clause this afternoon, and it is not as if it had been passed by the Committee under a misapprehension. The Committee has had a fair opportunity of dealing with this clause, and T . ask the House to reject the motion; otherwise we- shall never .get the Bill through.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I hope the. Bill will.be recommitted. .In a comparatively small Committee, a vital matter of principle .was decided after a very close .division, and all that the Leader of the Country party asks is that the matter may be reconsidered. The re-, quest is fair.

Mr BOWDEN:
Nepean

.-r-I voted against clause 18 this afternoon, but a decision having been reached, after a fair discussion, I cannot support the recommital of the clause. A vote, has been taken on the question, and in such circumstances I> believe in abiding by the

Committee’s decision.

Motion (Dr. Earle Page’s) - That the Bill be again recommitted - put. The

House divided.

Ayes . . . . . . 19

Noes .. .. ..28

Majority . . . . -9

Question so resolved in the negative. Reports adopted. Motion (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I move - i That the word “ now “ he struck out with a view to adding the words “ this day six months.”

The reason for my amendment is that the measure does not provide ‘for a most important matter, namely, the control of selection ballots by party organizations. I shall submit a case for searching public inquiry, and a recasting of the law.

Tammany’s pollution of representative government. The influx of new Labour (members is controlled in New South Wales by the junta at Macdonell House. Sitting members live in perpetual terror of the tyranny of this Tammany junta The procedure is that nominations are invited, and they are subject to indorsement by the Tammany junta at its unfettered discretion. Then comes the party selection. The whole machinery for the selection of these candidates in “New South Wales is also at the unfettered discretion of this corrupt junta at Macdonell House. The powerful machinery of the .Australian Workers Union Central Branch, its funds, and its organizers are utilized, together with the corrupt practices of hired mercenaries, hangers-on, and professional personators. The whole of this machinery is operated for the purpose of continuously intimidating the public men of the Labour movement. It is almost an impossibility for any Labour member in. New South Wales to obtain a selection in defiance of the corrupt crowd in control at Macdonell House. The enforced silence of Labour’s public men in New South Wales in the presence of extensive and thinly veiled criminality is their unspoken acknowledgment of their fear of the power of this junta.

The Industrial Section. One of the first acts of the Bailey-Lambert coterie, which controls the central branch of the Australian Workers Union, was to organize a star chamber in Sydney, misnamed the industrial section, an unconstitutional body, which had no standing or authority under the constitution and rules of the Australian Labour party, and which held the undated resignations of the members of the Central Executive. Before it the Central Executive was carpeted weekly, and had to present their reports and take their instructions. This corrupt assembly set about undermining sitting Labour members of Parliament, and engineering its own members into their places. In 1917 the President of this so-called industrial section was a man named Samuel Rosa, and the secretary, John Mauritius Power, now a member of the Legislative Council, and president of the Macdonell House Australian Labour party in New South Wales. Those two men endeavoured to cap- ture the Federal seats of East Sydney and West Sydney in circumstances of unparalleled corruption and rottenness, at that time unprecedented in the Labour movement of New South Wales. The Labour movement had not then become accustomed to these corrupt practices. The selection of Rosa was upset, and Con Wallace, whose name was third on the ballot, was given the selection for West Sydney.

East Sydney, 1917. Power was the man who defeated John West, the sitting member for East’ Sydney, for the selection by the corrupt use of the Australian Workers Union votes in the control of Maltese, who were unable to speak English, and were living in boarding-houses in East Sydney. As I pointed out on a previous occasion in this House, in answer to an interjection by the honorable member, I was instrumental in having this East Sydney selection upset, and saving John West’s political life. We brought the Maltese priest to the Australian Labour party executive. He acted as interpreter for the other Maltese, who could not speak English, and it was found that one of Power’s agents, the present presiding genius of this Tammany junta, a Mrs. Andrews, had gone to Hie Worker office and bought a number of copies of The Worker, in which the official ballot-paper was printed. She had cut out these ballot-papers, and by some means had induced the Maltese, who had Australian Workers Union tickets, to detach the voting slips. She also got them to sign their names on the flaps of envelopes, and marking the ballot-papers herself in favour of Power, they were sent in and counted as postal votes. In that way John Power defeated John West at the Labour selection for East Sydney in 1917. It is fitting that this gentleman, who started his career officially in the Labour movement with a corrupt selection ballot, should be, at this time, when Tammany is at its height, and when no effort is being made to cloak the corruption which stalks abroad unashamed, the chairman and presiding genius of this rotten corporation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What bearing have the honorable member’s remarks on the Bill?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am moving that the third reading of the Bill be postponed so that the Government may have an opportunity to institute a public inquiry and to frame a new Bill providing for Government control of the selection ballots for the nomination of candidates for seats in Parliament.

The 1919 Namoi Selection. In this case the selection was a fraud. It was proved at the 1920 Australian Workers Union Convention that 250 faked Australian Workers Union voting slips were used. A number of these were locked away in the head-office safe of the Australian Workers Union. Convention ordered a criminal investigation/ Although this matter was dealt with in open conference, The Worker newspaper and the official report of the Australian Workers Union were censored so that the rank and file of the movement throughout Australia should not know the rottenness that was going on per medium of the machinery of their organization. The forged slips disappeared from the safe of the head office of the Australian Workers Union. These facts prove the complicity of high officials in the Australian Workers Union, as well as editor Boote, with corruption in the selection ballots.

The 1919 Oxley Selection. In this case tho local branches selected a young schoolmaster named R. H. Lamb, but Mr. Fitzgerald, now member of the Legislative Assembly, who was then secretary of the Timber Workers Union in Sydney, by a manipulation of faked union votes, overrode the selection of the genuine Australian Labour party branches throughout the electorate. The Oxley electorate covers 14,000 square miles of territory, and it was alleged that 750 members of the Timber Workers Union were scattered over that huge area, yet no fewer than 743 votes were recorded in favour of Fitzgerald, and the young schoolmaster, who had spent years in organizing the Labour movement in the electorate, was turned down. Fitzgerald was returned to Parliament ; but it transspired afterwards that there were only 150 members of the Timber Workers Union in the electorate.

The 1919 Goulburn Selection. This Labour selection by the branches in the country selection was manipulated to provide a seat in Parliament for Tam-, many boss Bailey. . At the time I was not acquainted with Bailey and his methods, having only recently met him. Tom Arthur, one of Bailey’s henchmen, who was in Bailey’s office, was appointed returning- officer in Sydney to control the selection for this country seat. He used Bailey’s office for the purpose. P. C. Evans, then general secretary of the movement, won the selection; but sufficient corrupt Australian Workers Union votes were used after the returns were in to give the selection to Bailey. In this case I have a signed statement from Dick McDonald, an old - Australian Workers Union organizer, to the effect that Bailey put in 300 crook votes. Another statement from W. Minter, a prominent member of the Clerks Union, is as follows : - .

Mr. Buckland, an officer of the Central Branch, Australian Workers Union, had been in the Goulburn electorate during the progress of this selection ballot, and had just returned to the Australian Workers Union office. In the presence of myself and a number of other persons, Mr. Buckland pointed to packages of Australian Workers Union postal votes which had been got ready to be admitted to the -ballot, but which had not been required, and had not been used. He said, “We have been challenged with the admission of crook Australian Workers Union votes. As others did that kind of thing, why should we not do the same?” Mr. Bailey, who was present, said to Buckland, “You are a damn fool. You are practically telling these men that .we did it.” Buckland said, “ You know we did. You know perfectly well. Look at all these voting papers left over that we had no occasion to use.” Bailey swore at Buckland, and wheeled on his heel and walked out of the office.

By the way, Buckland is now seeking selection against the sitting member, H. P. Lazzarini, in the same district.

This matter came before the Australian Workers Union convention in 1920. A committee was appointed, and went to the Australian Labour party’s office to obtain these ballot-papers -so that the Australian Workers Union convention might make a scrutiny. The selection ballot had only just been taken, but it was found that the ballot-papers had again disappeared. The general secretary, Mr. Carey, professed surprise, but admitted to several persons, myself included, that he had spirited the ballot-papers away, and intended to hold them as a weapen over Bailey’s head should Bailey try to put “ the boot in “ at any time.

The 1919. Eden-Monaro Labour Selection. In this case J. J.

Webster won the selection on a vote of ‘the local branches, but Bailey manipulated the Australian Workers Union vote in favour of his nominee, a city ‘solicitor, H. L. Brown, ‘ who ‘was totally Unknown in the electorate. The returning officer at -Cooma, ‘ George Thompson, ‘who was ‘authorized to receive the Australian Workers Union postal votes, ‘but not’ to count them, in a written statement ‘ said that all the ‘signatures on the envelopes containing these votes were in the same handwriting, and bore’ the names of fictitious persons, neither resident in the electorate nor members of the Australian Workers Union.

The .1919. Sydney .State Labour Selection. ‘ Here are extracts from a statement made by P. J. Minahan, M.L.A. - . . Had I. not appointed. good scrutineers, who stopped the. vilest scum of .Sydney from voting by fraudulent means,- including those who tried to -vote with faked .union tickets secured outside King polling booth, my chance, of winning a selection was .nil. The most dastardly .attempt of all- was. to put me out of the selection .by having 250 postal votes waiting at Macdonnell House to be counted with the -league votes. Fortunately, I succeeded, in stopping the ‘faked .postal vote from going in. ‘My .scrutineer, Mr. J. Burke, .of Petersham, blocked these -votes at the Surry Hills booth, -and the Returning Officer ordered the fellows presenting them away from the voting -table. . . I blame the “exclusive -gentlemen “ for all the turmoil, faking, and degrading actions that are lately .bringing our glorious movement to the gutter. . . . Every fibre of my being is now in revolt against the immoral practices of the “ exclusive gentlemen.”

I .have been ‘approached- by the representatives of many Labour Leagues throughout the State desirous of cleaning out the filthy stable and adjusting’ Rule 6 (the union votes), so that there will -be no monopoly of selections within the organization,, and no scope for adventurers and incompetents to enter .Parliament. . . .

Mr.. Minahan’s labour indorsement was cancelled, at the instance of Mr. Lambert, but he . was. later reinstated at the instigation of Bailey, .and he has been conspicuous by his absence through .all the efforts made to correct these abuses. He is now chairman of directors of a daily newspaper, whose chief function is to ridicule the efforts of those who are attempting to do what he declared was urgently required.

West Sydney Federal Labour Selection 1921. It will be remembered that Con. Wallace stood down to enable T. J. Ryan to contest this seat. Upon the unfortunate death of Mr. Ryan, and in view of the straitened circumstances of Con. Wallace, due to his sacrifice, had there been any humanitarian spirit of Labour in evidence, he would have been given the Labour selection unopposed. But Mr. Lambert, who was then the paid secretary of ‘the .central branch of the Australian Workers Union, a member of the Board of Health at £2 per week, and Lord Mayor of Sydney, with .£1,500 a year as an allowance, wanted the seat. Con. Wallace was .defeated in ,a corrupt selection, and died almost immediately afterwards. The following statement is made by :a member of the Municipal Employees Union : - “ There were ten motor cars engaged for the ‘return of W. H. Lambert .as candidate- for West .Sydney selection. One car was engaged running from Bart. Stokes’ hotel in Chalmersstreet. The organizer for this end was Alderman Stokes. They’ were running on wharf labourers’ tickets and water and sewerage pence cards. “Another car was plying in charge of J. Brennan, employed .in the ashpit at the City Council power-house, bringing men who did not live in the electorate and impersonating people whose names were on the West Sydneyroll. “ At Harris-street,, Pyrmont, Alderman Holdsworth was directing persons who were not enrolled how to obtain a vote. “ In Harris-street, “ Pyrmont-Denison “ at MacArthur-street, Alderman Ryan had a team of impersonators, mostly employees of the City Council. “A’ car was running from Wooloomooloo in charge of Mr. Cody, with impersonators. Mr. M. Ma-lone,,, a Labour League secretary, ‘ had one of .the tally clerks from the ‘Wheat. .Board writing union tickets - timber workers, wharf labourers and ‘Water and Sewerage Board union cards - and also supplying names of persons in, the league who ‘would not be in the district ‘to- vote. “ At the ‘Coronation Hotel, opposite the Sydney Town. Hall, Mr. Tyrell was present with a number of wharf labourers’ pence cards, written out in ‘the names of various people living in this -part of the electorate, also water and sewerage tickets written out with .a ‘piece of tape attached;, giving the. name -and ‘address of .the person to : be personated. “ Plying all .round was Alderman Davoren with a pair of ponies, and a sociable with, other persons personating voters at various booths. “There were ‘also large numbers of Belmore voters who had no idea they had a vote. Persons were- voting for’ them under -Rule 6 on faked’ pence cards. ‘These votes were polled at MacArthur-street and Allan-street polling booths. “ At the Phillip League booth. Clevelandstreet, Mr. McAuley was engaged on the same business. “ The returning officer was Gavin Sutherland.”

It may be noted that Wooloomooloo and Chalmers-street, which were supplying a number’ of these “crook” voters are” both outside West Sydney Federal electorate..

The whole1 corrupt paraphernalia of municipal Tammany was working overtime for its “chief.”

Another statement is to the effect that two men, Moran and Donnelly, had a “ crook “ ballot box which it had been arranged should be exchanged for an original ballot-box. All the ballot-boxes had to be brought from the local districts to the Sydney Town Hall after S p.m. In this case the parties in charge of the “ crook “ box, baring become “ merry,” delivered their charge at the Town Hall twenty minutes before the local polling booth was timed to close.

These .corrupt and criminal’ practices explain how the Tammany Lord Mayor of Sydney, Alderman Lambert, defeated Con. Wallace for the Labour selection, and became a member of the Federal Parliament.

There has just been another selection in. West Sydney with the same returning officer. Any different result was impossible.

It may be noted that this same Gavin Sutherland has now been appointed returning officer for the central branch of the Australian Workers Union.

Sydney State Labour Selection, 1922. The further we go the more brazenly corrupt do these Labour selections become. This is the famous selection, in which Gregory McGirr was a. candidate. He. had as a colleague W. Teen, one of the I.W.W. prisoners recently released from gaol. In the following, statement Joe Warner referred to is the professional leader of the unemployed. Messrs. Eldridge and Taylor were two Government officials from Mr. McGirr’s Ministerial office: - “My name is Harry Pritchard. T am a member of the United Labourers Union, and well known to all the officers of the union. On Saturday* 4th February.. 1922, I was at the Trades Hall looking for work, when I met Joe Warner. He said, ‘Go into room 23, there is something doing. Get in with them.’ I went into room 23, and found myself one- of about forty men. I do not know the name3 of the men, but I know ten or twelve by sight, and could pick them out. A man named: Taylor, who, 1 think, works in the office of Mr. Eldridge, . Minister of Health’s Building, Macquariestreet said, ‘ We- want you men to go and. vote in the Sydney selection .ballot to-day. It will be worth a good day’s pay. I will go up to the Labour Council rooms and fix up the union tickets and your instructions, and then you will go out in the cars and vote.’ “There was a fleet of seven motor cars in attendance. Later, Mr. Taylor came back with a number of union tickets and “’ how to vote ‘ cards, and gave them to those present. The cards to me were - (1) Waterside Workers Federation, No: 4240, in the name of E. C. Huxham, 40 Rutland-street, City, attached hereto and marked with the letter ‘ a.’ (2) Federated Brick, Tile,, and. Pottery Employees Union ticket in. the name of ‘ J. T. Adams, no address attached- hereto* and marked with the letter ‘ b.’ (3) ‘How to. vote’ cards with names of Labour candidates for selection thereon, and with pencilled crosses opposite the names of Bridges’. Buckley. Holdsworth, McGirr, and Teen, ‘attached’ hereto, and marked with the letter ‘c’ “On the back of .the- ‘ how to vote-‘ card was the name of Adams, John Thomas; Surry Hills, 004 Crown-street* and the location of the following polling, booths:. -

Belmore, Go Albion-street Darlinghurst, S3 Brougham-street. King, 94 Crown-street. Paddington, 45 Oatley-ro.id. Darling Harbor, 147 Princess-street. “ I was instructed by Taylor to vote at each booth on each union ticket during the day, and in the ease of Adams to give different addresses each time, and to call back at room 23 at the end of the day for payment. We were supposed to hand back our various tickets when we came back to bc paid. “ I did not vote during the Sydney selection ballot, nor did I hand1 back the tickets. There was wrangling for’ hours at room 23 at night over the money. Taylor wanted to pay only 10s. The men said Taylor promised £3 each. The men then, mobbed’ the office, rushed it, and said they were not scabs : that- the least Taylor could do was to pay the basic wage. “ He finally agreed to give the men fi- each, and I received fi. “ Taylor asked me for my ticket back, but 1 said, ‘No, you don’t get them, laddie.’ “ I went round the booths during- the day and watched what was going on. There were challenges at the various booths, but most of the ‘ crook ‘ voters got through and recorded their votes. “When polling was over I reported the above facts to Mr. George Waite, assistant secretary United Labourers Union. I was desperately iii need of the f i I received, otherwise I would not have taken it. But I wish to see these corrupt practices stopped in the interest of the Labour movement. “One of the men who was operating lust Saturday saw me’ this morning, and said that twelve men were wanted for to-day. In order to get what information T. could T. said, ‘ I want a ‘ quid ‘ as badly as any one. I will be buck later on.’ t intend to look round to-day to try to sec what is doing. “ (Signed) Harry Pritchard. “ 11th February, 1922.”

Having made his arrangements, Mr. McGirr, like a. seasoned general, retreated beyond the danger zone to Parkes and put this forward as proof of his innocence. The following is thestatement of a man who went into the matter at the instance of Labour Ministers to obtain evidence of corruption against Mr. McGirr, one of their colleagues, with the determination that they would put an end to it. But they subsided in the face of Tammany’s power.

Mr. Thomas Wells states “ This is an absolutely true version of what occurred in the Trades and Labour Council rooms and elsewhere in connexion with the first selection ballot for Sydney, which took place on 4th February, 1022. I went into the matter at the instance of certain public men in the Labour movement to obtain evidence for Mr. McGirr’s expulsion, and my instructions were to do everything I was told in Mr. McGirr’s interest. “ I was engaged on the Friday night to run one of what were known as McGirr’s motor cars, the next day, 4th February, in Sydney selection. A motor called for me on the Saturday morning, and after picking up several others we proceeded to the Trades Hall, and six of us were seated round a table in the Labour Council rooms. The roll book for each division was placed before us. Gentlemen in charge of the proceedings were Mr. Eldrige and Mr. Taylor, the former wearing a returned soldiers’ badge. They said, ‘ Now,, you men need not do this unless you like, and can leave the table if you wish.’ “After certain instructions were given wo wrote names from each division, choosing only labourers and domestics. Certain names on the rolls had crosses marked opposite them. We were instructed to Iea,ve these severely alone. “The work went on all day. Names were chosen from the rolls and placed on union cards, namely, Storemen and Packers Union, Municipal Employees Union, and Water and Sewerage Employees Union. “ We, the impersonators, were taken from the Trades Hall together for our meals, and were watched very closely. At 7.45 p.m., after running all day, we rushed to the Addison polling place, Surry Hills, where we voted for the names given to us on ‘ how to vote ‘ cards, namely, Bridges, Buckley, Holdsworth, McGirr, and Teen. “I voted in the names of R. Wardman, 37 Denman-street, Surry Hils, as a member of the Water and Sewerage Union. This pence card, No. 404, produced, shows 2s. paid on 19th January, and is initialed by the officer in charge of the polling booth. Two others with mc refused to vote, but I carried out my mission to the end. “ There were fully COO impersonations which came under my notice. We were all paid ?1 for the day and supplied with three meals. “ I can give the names of other men, two of whom were running cars. There were special code arrangements for telephone communication with the Trades and Labour Council rooms during the day. “ After trying in other directions to have this matter exposed, I decided to place the facts in the hands of Mr. J. H. Catts, M.H.R., this 12th day of April, 1922. I am prepared to supply any further particulars required. “ (Signed) T. Wells. “ 2 Endeavour-road, Daceyville.”

This ballot was eventually upset, and another ballot was ordered through the parties falling out among themselves.

Mr. McGirr came to Sydney from his retirement at Parkes, and then retreated to Wollongong.

Pritchard in his statement says he was asked to act again on this second occasion. I did not bother about McGirr’s activities on the second occasion, but investigated from another angle.

Second Sydney State Labour Selection, 1922. Here is a statement from W. Minter, Clerks Union, in connexion with the second Sydney selection ballot :- “ At Alderman Stokes’ committee rooms, Elizabeth-street, Redfern, near the Central Railway Station, operations were conducted in connexion with the second Sydney selection ballot. Alderman Stokes had four gangs of impersonators operating in connexion with this ballot, each gang under the charge of a superintendent or ganger. “ Alderman Stokes’ brother was in charge of Oke gang. Teen was in charge of a gang. A lady was part time in charge of a gang, and another man whose name I do not know. Hie lady in question after lunch obtained a list of those of the League who had not voted at the Belmore booth, and who it was understood did not intend to vote, or were away, and these were impersonated by the gangs. “ One of the candidates attended the funeral of a member of the Belmore League on Thursday prior to the ballot, and then impersonated this dead man ,in the ballot on the Saturday, and ‘boasted in the committee rooms of having done so. “ The gangs in question were operating on forged union tickets with the exception of the time they were ‘impersonating the residue of the Belmore League members previously referred to. “’ There were 600 Federated Liquor Trade Union tickets, 1,000 municipal employees’ tickets, and 1,000 Water and Sewerage Board tickets, and there appeared to be an unlimited quantity of other trade union tickets. “None of these tickets’ had a union label imprint on them. They were obviously forgeries* and had no printer’s imprint. In the case of the Federated Liquor Trades the colour of the faked union ticket is different to the bon& fide union ticket. Mr. Bains, organizer for the Liquor Trades Union, signed all the Liquor Trade faked union tickets himself, signing them C. Bains. In some cases Ted. Mooney, managing director, Catholic Insurance Company, signed some of the faked tickets, and other signatures were made by other persons promiscuously in the committee rooms. In the cases of these forgeries there were originals of the various signatures and other particulars that were copied.

The clerks in the committee rooms supplied each member of the -impersonating gang with the name and address of some person from the electoral roll in the district on a slip of paper, and the union ticket or pence-card was made out in the name of the voter to be impersonated.

The gangs were sent to operate first on one polling booth, then return to the committee rooms for fresh supplies of tickets and instructions, and then operated on another polling booth, and having gone round the whole of the booths they came back to the committee rooms and commenced the same procedure again.

Scouts were sent out from the committee rooms to bring back reports as to the best booths for the operations of duplication and personation. These scouts reported that at the Pyrmont booth :it was an open go, that an unlimited number of votes could be polled there provided a union ticket of any sort could be produced.

At the Belmore booth, where Mr. Magrath, the secretary, Printing Employees Union, was deputy returning officer in charge, more than 2fi per cent, of the votes were challenged by the scrutineers, and these votes were placed in separate envelopes for investigation after the close of the booth. At the count Mr. Magrath said he proposed to treat them all as valid votes, and asked had anybody an)’ objection? Nobody objected, with the exception of myself, and I urged that the unchallenged votes be first counted and the challenged votes forwarded to the returning officer, Mr. Bates, for his investigation and decision. This demand was disregarded, and the whole, of these votes were admitted without scrutiny. Had these challenged votes been investigated, there is no doubt the fraud would have been exposed.

In the ordinary course of events rule 6 voters (the union voters) should have signed their name and address in a book for that purpose when they produced their union ticket to vote. But this procedure was not followed at all in the Belmore booth, so’ that once a voter left the polling booth there waa no record of who he was supposed to be. In the case of the challenges, the name and address of the person supposed to be voting was written, down by the deputy returning officer, Mr. Magrath, on the envelope.

There were eight dozen dead marines (empty beer bottles) in an adjoining room. The place was clearly a beer saloon all day. The booth was full of drunks at the close of the polling. It took over half-an-hour to get them out of the polling-booth. The scrutineers left in for counting were in a number of cases in such a state of intoxication that we were engaged on account of this at one booth till a quarter past 2 a.m. next morning.

At the Belmore booth I ascertained that for every league member who voted there were twenty rule 6 votes.

This evidence of criminality, graft, and corruption is capable of almost indefinite expansion. The Political Labour movement in New South Wales has gone, and its place has been usurped by an unscrupulous Tammany gang ready to sell the interests of the workers and the community generally to the highest bidder, and which seeks to obtain control of Parliaments only that it may extend its bribery and corruption to the Departments of State, including the administration of the Police and Judicial Departments. Boss Bailey actually tried to organize a number of Sydney police into his central branch, Australian Workers Union, but the Inspector-General of Police and Mr. Dooley, then Chief Secretary, frustrated this bold enterprise of Tammany.

It is the duty of the Government to searchingly inquire into all the matters set forth and facts and allegations relevant thereto, in order that our Parliaments and public administrations may not be manipulated by and for a corrupt Tammany organization that would soon reduce our public affairs to the level of the worst days and phases of its notorious prototype in New York.

Production of samples of forged union tickets. I now produce and hand to the Clerk of the House, for the inspection of honorable members, samples of some of the forged union tickets used in these criminal selection ballots, of which I have a considerable number: - (1) Tramway Union ticket, (2) Water and Sewerage Board Union ticket, (3) Storemen and Packers Union ticket, and (4) Municipal Employees Union ticket. None have a printer’s imprint. Some are forged ready for use. The Municipal ticket has a false short butt to be tom off to represent it as having come out of a duplicate book.

Mr Higgs:

– Read the wording of one ‘ of them?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The front of the Water and Sewerage Board Employees ticket is as follows: -

Qit . the inside of .the card there is marked -a contribution of .4s., purporting to be; initialed by an officer of the union. All the wording is an exact reproduction of the genuine ticket, with the exception, of course, that there is no printer’s imprint. Then there is a .forgery of the Municipal Employees Union ticket, .and it is a palpable forgery on the very face of it.

Mr Brennan:

– I often wondered how the honorable member got here !

Mr J H CATTS:

– I have no doubt the honorable member is prepared to ‘go out and support all this.-rottenness. Honorable members who interrupt me tonightknow perfectly well that every word I :say is true, but they have not >the courage ‘to stand .up against the: machine and put these things right. In :some cases, there are sinister .’objects to be served, and “ the end is held ‘to ‘justify the means.” In ‘the’ .case of the Municipal Employees , ticket. there is a .dummy butt about one-eighth of an inch thick, perforated so’ that it may -have the appearance .of a ticket torn out of a book with butts. All these tickets are palpable fakes, but are an exact reproduction of the Union tickets.

The Macdonell House Australian Labour party attempts to disfranchise city of Sydney ratepayers and at the personation of electors. In September last the Macdonell House Australian Labour party made a desperate attempt to maintain its Tammany control of the City Council by a wholesale scheme to disfranchise electors. At the Revision Court the Macdonnell House Australian Labour party was represented by its municipal expert, Mr. Niland, solicitor. Here are .some of the objections, all of which were either withdrawn or disallowed at the -Revision Court, giving the name of “the objector and the number of disallowed objections lodged by them: -

Then follow a number of others well known in Macdonell House circles, including Miss A. Clancy, typist, Macdonell House Australian Labour party office.

In my previous speech, 6 th July, I referred to Alderman Lambert being returned for the Denison Ward, City Council, by the -narrow -margin of ‘five ‘votes, and said that personation only. saved him. I now propose to .quote one .df the .cases of prosecution for impersonation from the Sydney Morning Herald’ of 2<6th July last -

“PERSONATION.

Accused Sent to Gaol. “The .Tool .of Others.” At the. Quarter Sessions yesterday, before Acting-Judge Brissenden, Ernest Arthur

Cochrane, aged . nineteen’, by- direction of. his Honour, was.- found guilty of attempting to personate William James Toomey, ibr the purpose of voting- at an election - of : aldermen,, for Pearson’- Ward > of the city of Sydney! There was. a. further.- charge -of. making, a false declaration.. Mr. Sherwood,, instructed, by Mr. Niland, appeared for the accused.

The accused, at the: opening, of the. case, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Sherwood raised the point that,’ under certain sections of the Corporation’ Act, action could1 only be taken- in1 a case, efi this, kind, by the inspector of: nuisances or an i officer appointed .by. the - council. The police, . however,’ had taken action., Counsel therefore submitted . that the Court had’ no jurisdiction: His Honour,, in overruling’ five objection, remarked’ that if the objection were upheld, an inspector of nuisances,; appointed’ by alder.men who had been elected- by means of impersonation, would hardly .be likely ever, to take action against offenders of Cochrane’s type. Counsel then instructed the accused to withdraw his plea of not’ guilty and to plead guilty.

His, Honour: What! He was, a dummy when he. impersonated, and now he is a dummy hero to have . this point raised..

Mr. Sherwood: We shall not urge the point any further, your Honour.

The police constable in charge of the case was .called, to give: evidence1 as > to- the character of- the. accused.. In. answer to . a question from. Mr. Sherwood, the constable said that he was satisfied’ accused .was the. tool of others. Accused, he added, was in the employ of the City Council.’

His Honour, when passing sentence, ; said1 to the- acused: “ This, is- the second case of this kind I have. had to. try.. I regard.it. as a very serious, offence. You made a false, declara-tion, and from .the Returning Officer you got something’ which’ money is supposed1 not to be able to buy.’. You are’ young;, and doubtless you are the tool of others, but you are old enough to know what you are doing, I cannot treat you . as a first offender. I sentence you to three months’ hard labour, concurrent, on each charge. The sentence is ridiculously light, but I have taken into account your previous good character; I hope you do not lose your position with, the City Council. When you come out the people who got voir into this trouble will perhaps do something for’ von.”

This young lad was the sole support of his widowed mother, and an appeal i3 being made to the Labour aldermen of the Sydney City Council for subscriptions to help to keep the house going while he is in gaol. If the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Lambert), who sits, in front of me, had a spark of manhood in him, he would see that the family is kept until the boy is released, and, further, that he obtained a good position again.

Macdonell Housie, in extremis. There was an exposure of part of the corruption of. Macdonell House by me here on. .6th July. Om the -11th July the honorable member , for West. Sydney, who,was iw one of his usual “ merry moods;” was.’ boasting om the1 train* coming from’ Sydney, that. he) would: have* an inquiry into’ all these1 -matters’. A! dozen Nationalists, as well as Labour members; sitting here -now know this - to be true. Some of his ‘Colleagues took, him1 at has; word, and, on -arrival: in- Melbourne, the1 Leader of the Opposition’ (Mr.’ Charlton) called - the party together. Thinking- that the honorable member for* West Sydney really wished’ for an- inquiry; . the’ honorable member” for- Dalley (Mr. Mahony) moved, and:’ the honorable member’ for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) seconded, ‘that the Leader of the Opposition, when the House met, should stand, up and ask for a public investigation ; but Lambert who had sobered “by that time-:-

Mr Lambert:

– !I ask the withdrawal of those words.

Mr SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson).- If the honorable member,- for Cook referred to the honorable- member for West Sydney he is not in order in -‘making -a statement of that’ kind, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member asks that . I shall withdraw the expression that he had sobered up .again. Very well, sir, I do so.

Mr Lambert:

– I ask. that the honorable member shall be required to withdraw the inference1 or imputation contained in the words that “ Lambert had sobered up by nhat time.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Cook will be seised of the impropriety of’ casting a reflection upon another honorable member, and, I am sure, will be prepared’ to- withdraw it.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes, sir. The imputation plainly was, that, the honorable member was drunk; but since it is against the rules of the House for me to suggest such a thing, I withdraw it. To continue, the honorable member for West Sydney sneeringly told the fellow members of his . party that they could have a public inquiry if they wanted it,, and calling.- on the honorable member, for Yarra (Mr. Scullin)., he bounced out of the room in a temper up to the bar. Whereupon, the cue was taken by those remaining and the motion was withdrawn.

July 15th, the Macdonell House Australian Labour party junta issued a reply of its own committee of Tammany tools to my speech in this House. 2nd August, according to a Sun report, it was shown that the reply of the Macdonell House Tammany committee waa not acceptable in Labour circles. Mr. C. C. Lazzarini, M.L.A., then gave notice in the New South Wales Labour Caucus of a motion for a public inquiry into the charges of corruption. 7th August the Macdonell House junta threatened the expulsion of members who demanded a public inquiry into Labour corruption. That is borne out by the Evening News report. The Australian Workers Union organ, Hie Worker, also made a brutal attack on these men -16.8.22. 9th August the New South Wales Labour Caucus, by twenty votes to five, demanded a searching public inquiry into the corruption charges contained in my speech. The minority were Messrs. Dunn, Wright, Stuart-Robertson, Ratcliffe, and McLelland, with Messrs. Bailey and McGirr not voting. - Sun report. 9th August a counter-charge was made upon ex-State Labour Ministers by the Macdonell House junta that they had received large sums of money for the elections, and demanding that Mr. McKell, the treasurer, should toe the carpet and answer -

From what source was this money received T
How was the money disposed of? Who received it?
How much did Labour candidates receive ?
Why did some Labour candidates receive no money at all?

I take that matter from, a report of the Sydney Daily Telegraph. 12th August the Macdonell House junta refused the State Caucus demand for a public inquiry into the corruption charges which I had levelled. That fact is based upon a report of the Sydney Morning Herald. 15th August there was a further counter-charge by the Macdonell House junta that Mr. Dooley, the New South Wales Labour leader, had the Australian Labour party’s books faked to provide branch membership qualification for Mr. J. B. Suttor, M.L.C., who was appointed to the Legislative Council. 17th August the State Labour Caucus, driven into a cul-de-sac by the

Macdonell House Tammany by countercharges of corruption and the threats of expulsion referred to, met to consider the position, and it resolved by fifteen votes to thirteen to seek a conference with the Macdonell House junta. (Vide Daily Telegraph report.) 17th August the Federal Labour Caucus received a latter from the Parramatta State Labour Council demanding action for a public inquiry into corrupt practices. Messrs. Lavelle and Nicholls, M.’sH.R., moved that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) should ask for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. They were ruled out of order by Mr. Charlton, however, on the ground that the matter was one for the Macdonell House executive. 2nd September a conference between the Macdonell House junta and the State Caucus was held. Mr. Lambert accused Messrs. Lazzarini, Mutch, and Loughlin of sowing seeds of discord in branch leagues, and demanded their expulsion. Mr. Charlton, who was present, opposed a public inquiry, although the northern miners demanded it. A resultless meeting adjourned for a week. This is from a report in the Daily Mail, Paddy Minahan’s paper. 9th September a second conference of the Macdonell House junta and State Caucus was held regarding a public inquiry. It was adjourned at 11 p.m. for another week. It proved resultless. 16th September the conference of Macdonell House and the State Caucus was resumed, and Messrs. Dooley and Dunn, with two members of the Macdonell House Tammany, were appointed to issue a statement to the leagues and unions of New South Wales explaining the position. - Sydney Morning Herald report.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton), from his place in this House, read an affidavit. The gentlemen concerned want to say that the whole of my charges have been replied to. That affidavit is a perfectly harmless document. If every word of it .were an abominable falsehood no action could be taken against the person making it. It has not been lodged in a court of law. It is not in the hands of anybody who could take action. Some of its points side-step the charges made against the person concerned. At any rate, this charge was based on the signed statement of a Red Cross matron; the charge was not mine.

In other instances, the charges were obviously so true that the Australian Labour party and Macdonell House got into a fury of impatience to fill up some of the gaps which had been exposed by die statements given to the public.

Mr. Bailey, M.L.A., and Alderman Lambert issued denials. Of course! What else could they do?

– I do so, sir, at your request. But. the honorable member uttered some diatribe under his- breath to the effect’,, apparently, that I wanted “ my cut “ out of this corrupt money. If these thieves and burglars at Macdonell House, and their special henchmen in this Chamber, thought- that one word could be said against me they would gc» “ hot- foot “ for a public inquiry. They know, however, that I can go clean-handed into .any inquiry which may be opened. I shall do my duty to the workers, despite all the vil]any of the lie factory at Macdonell House. I challenge them to enter into a public inquiry. They can make all the charges that their criminal minds may suggest. The exposures which have been made in this House would not be a circumstance, to what would’ come, to light if a proper, inquiry were set. on foot–an inquiry which witnesses could be compelled to attend and at which they, could be forced to undergo cross-examination.

– I rise to make a personal explanation. I understand that the honorable member, for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts) alleged that I moved a certain resolution at. one of the meetings of the Australian Labour party. I absolutely deny that. There was not one word of truth in the statement, and I challenge the honorable member to produce the person who gave him the alleged information.

Mr J ‘EE Catts:

– I challenge the honorable .member to ‘produce the party minute-book.

Mr LAMBERT:
West .Sydney

– I second the amendment pro forma. I understand that the honorable member for Cook has been engaged, ever since he made his previous statement in regard to Labour politics in New South ‘Wales some four or ‘five “weeks ago, in compiling and faking-up information on which to base the ‘allegations he -has ‘made to-night. ‘He has taken’ the ‘statements of self-confessed criminals, -and “has gone to’ unreliable and unscrupulous persons for assistance in compiling a mass of evidence that, in some circumstances, ‘would ‘appear ‘to contain a ‘certain amount df truth. It is difficult ‘to ‘follow ‘the honorable member in’ detail ‘ through the ‘Whole of his” statement. He referred to me in anything but flattering terms. He not only impugned my ‘honesty, but ‘spoke against’ my moral character also. He referred in disparaging terms to persons whom I shall name directly, but in particular to Mr. Bailey, reiterating practically all the statements he made on a previous occasion, pins some further allegations. In answering those statements I am ‘fortified with a Tittle more information “than I had before, which should enable me to show ‘the House what class of man the. honorable member “for Cook is. The late’ John ‘Storey, an ex-Premier of New South Wales, said, in the presence of several members of the State Parliamentary Labour party, that the Federal Labour party -was not worth its salt to allow a man like Catts inside its. ranks after the disgraceful Divorce Court proceedings and . another law case in which ‘the honorable member -was a party. A learned Judge, who heard the latter case, remarked that the word of Mr. ; Catts no man could rely upon. The late Mr. Teesdale Smith has often been referred to by the honorable member for Cook. The deceased gentleman said on one occasion, “Who is this bounder, Mr. Catts”?-

The win referred to was the election of Mr. Bailey as member for Goulburn in the Parliament of New South Wales. The remaining part of the letter has no present interest. What I have quoted is the opening sentence. The whole letter is available for inspection by any honorable member who cares to read it. It is signed “J. H. Catts.” When the honorable member for Cook made an unwarranted and slanderous attack upon Mr. Bailey, abusing the privilege extended to him as a member of this House, Mr. Bailey forwarded me one or- two little items about Mr. Catts, and said in a covering letter -

Herewith I enclose some particulars bearing upon Mr. J. H. Catts. In addition to those particulars - when he, Mr. Catts, was prosecuted under the. War Precautions Act, I kept him out of gaol, as no one else would go bondsman for him, and I was responsible for his utterances till the war ended. I think you will get sufficient out of the particulars here enclosed to suit you.

I will now -deal with what the honorable member said about faked union ballots and forged tickets. He said that I defeated Con Wallace corruptly in the West Sydney selection ballot of August, 1921. He cannot prove one act of corruption by me or any of my supporters during the taking of that ballot. He made the statement that a dozen or so motor cars were running from one end of the city to the other carrying corrupt voters and personators. I know nothing of that; but I do not believe the statement. I was not near the electorate on the day that the ballot was held, nor had I been there for several previous days. There were five or six other candidates in the field. The voting waa preferential, but I received an absolute majority of votes on the first count. The honorable member made another statement which was absolutely incorrect. He said that the ballot-box was brought to the Town Hall. That is not so. The ballot-box was taken. I understand, to the head-office of the Australian Labour party by a respectable and honest citizen who was acting as returning officer; I refer to Mr. Gavin Sutherland, who has a much cleaner reputation than that of the honorable member for Cook. Mr. Sutherland has never been before the Law Courts, and has never been publicly stigmatized by a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, as the honorable member has been, as an untruthful and unreliable man. Mr. Sutherland was in charge of the counting of the ballot, and every candidate except myself, who had no scrutineer, was present with his scrutineer, watching his own interests. Yet, as I say, I received a majority of the- votes on the first count. That is all I know of that ballot.” As ‘ to the faking of tickets to. which the honorable member alluded, I would, remind honorable members that. Mr. Catts himself has an interest in. a pretty decent printing, works in Sydney,, and has a very good knowledge of printing. At one time he was regarded as practically an expert. He mentioned a selection ballot for the old Namoi seat, taken in 1916, or thereabouts. It is a fact that some forged voting slips were found to be attached to some of the ballots; but the Returning Officer, who was the agent for the Australian Workers Union at Wee Waa, detected those- slips, and brought them under the notice of the union, which impounded them with the intention of having them inspected. I have been told that the honorable member for Cook at one time knew a great deal about locks, and was very efficient in ferreting out things. However, that is no business- of mine. The ballot in question could not be described as corrupt, because the agent of the Australian Workers Union, who was Returning Officer, promptly brought the forged papers under the notice of the union, which took action in regard to them. I have a good idea ais to who it was who forged those slips, which could be detected at a glance as forgeries. They were certainly never received as good votes nor counted.

The honorable member made many references to Mr.. John Bailey, member of the Legislative Assembly, and used words regarding him that,. to my mind, had no application. He spoke of a “ Tammany gang “ and of “ this corrupt gang of burglars.” I would ask if that is .parliamentary language ?

Mr SPEAKER’ (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– They would be unparliamentary if applied to any member of this House, but the references, I understood’,, were to persons outside.

Mr LAMBERT:

– The honorable member suggested that Mr. John Bailey is a member of such a gang, and that I was also a member of it, and still am. He spoke of me as, though I were practically a burglar, or something of that kind. The honorable member knows a great deal about selection ballots. He has had more experience of them than I have had. I have been concerned in two only, and was chosen on both occasions. The honorable member has been-, concerned in very many. He has been accused outside of the most corrupt practices, imaginable in the conduct of those ballots. Mr. J. H. Catts. - That is not true. Mr. LAMBERT.- In all the selection ballots in. which he was directly concerned, the honorable member was out supervising, instructing his workers, and attending every polling-booth in his electorate. A few years back, there was a controversy between him and Mr. Stuart Robertson, member of the Legislative Assembly; and I would not like to repeat what the latter said’ of the- honorable member’s character.

Mr J H Catts:

– Anything he might have said about me would carry as much weight as what the honorable member might say.

Mr LAMBERT:

– The honorable member for Cook stated that, on the first occasion when Mr. John Bailey, member of the Legislative Assembly, was selected for the Goulburn seat, the balloting was corrupt. That being 50, it is a strange thing that the honorable member himself should have travelled all over the Goulburn electorate electioneering for Mr. John Bailey, and that he should have written him a congratulatory letter on his election.

The honorable member spoke of the corruptness of the Australian Workers Union machinery.. That machinery is not under my control.. It was under my control some time back; but I voluntarily handed over the position that I held in it. He said, too, that the Australian Labour party is controlled by the corrupt machinery of the Australian Workers Union.. He spoke of the tentacles of the Australian Workers Union enfolding it, or something to that effect, and said that it intimidated Labour members, and tried to engineer sitting members out of their seats. I did not take the seat of any sitting member, nor did Mr. Bailey. Mr. Arthur Blakeley was elected in opposition to a former member; but he was quite justified, from the point of view of the party, in opposing that former member.

With that exception, not one of probably a dozen members of the Australian Workers Union who have been members of this, or other Australian Parliaments, during the past two or three years, ‘has taken a parliamentary seat away from a Labour member, and that man had “ratted “ on the Labour party at that time. There is absolute disproof of the honorable member’s statement that the Australian Workers Union machinery was operating through the Australian Labour party to engineer sitting men out of their seats, so that they might be occupied by men controlling the Australian Workers Union.

The honorable member seemed rather annoyed because I was Lord Mayor of Sydney, and spoke scathingly of me as the “ Great Lord Mayor.” Indeed, the honorable member was so ruffled that the venom almost oozed out of his mouth when he was uttering his vindictive words. He said that, when Mayor of Sydney, I had promised a certain person a good job, or something like that, if he would personate voters for me at the Sydney municipal election. It is what I would like to describe as a, lie, but I cannot, as it would not be parliamentary to do so. However, it is an absolutely incorrect statement. It is an unscrupulous and slanderous statement, which only a desperate man could make. I regret that there were certain cases of impersonation in the Sydney municipal elections just as there are cases of impersonation in all parliamentary elections, and yet, because one young fellow was proved guilty of impersonating and was unfortunate enough to receive three months’ imprisonment, the honorable member has the audacity to come to this House and make the unscrupulously mendacious statement that I actually arranged with men to personate voters for me.

Mr J H Catts:

– I did not say that.

– You were going to attempt to do so.

Mr LAMBERT:

– The honorable member has also made a very serious statement about Mr. Carey, the general secretary of the Australian Labour party m New South Wales. He has said, in effect, that Mr. Carey informed him that he stole the ballot-papers in the Goulburn selection ballot, where Mr. Jack Bailey was selected and proposed to. hold them over Mr. Bailey’s head as a weapon if ever that gentleman endeavoured to put the boot into him,. That is also an absolutely incorrect statement, and a cowardly fabrication aimed at the character of a man whom I thoroughly believe to be an honest and decent citizen.

The honorable member has made the further statement that Mr. Bailey manipulated the Australian Workers’ Union ballot in order to get Mr. Brown, a Sydney solicitor, selected for the EdenMonaro seat in the Federal Parliament. That also is a statement that is absolutely incorrect and cannot be borne out by facts.

Mr J H Catts:

– I quoted the statement of the Returning Officer.

Mr LAMBERT:

– S’o far. as the integrity and character of Mr. Brown are concerned, the honorable member for Cook is not fit to wipe his boots.

The honorable member also referred to certain criticisms made by Mr. Minahan, M.L.A., in 1918, in connexion with the selection ballot for the New South Wales State election. I admit that Mr. inahan did make an unsupported statement which could not be proved; but whatever statement he did make was made after he had had a misunderstanding with the controlling body of that organization. That organization did not expel him, but simply withdrew his indorsement, because he was not following out the policy of that party on a certain question. However, his selection was re-indorsed at a later date, and he was re-elected.

– Does the honorable member think that any honest man would take the word of such people? The honorable member also referred to a gentleman named Taylor, who, he said, was employed in Mr. Eldridge’s office. I do not think .that Mr. Taylor was so employed ; indeed, I do not think he was ever for one hour employed in any Government building in New South Wales or in Australia.

According to the honorable member for Cook, the Australian Labour party attempted to disfranchise the ratepayers in the city of Sydney prior to the last municipal elections. That is an absolutely untrue and contemptible statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw the words “ absolutely untrue.”

Mr LAMBERT:

Motion (by Mr. Greene) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question - That the word “ now,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the question (Mr. J. H. Catts’ amendment) - put. The House divided.

32 9

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Considine:

– Am I not to be allowed to speak on a point of order ? Am I to be the perpetual victim of the axe?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member please resume his seat? He may not speak at the present stage. The House having resolved, on the voices, “That the question be now put,” I must now proceed, in accordance with the Standing Orders, to bring the matter to a conclusion. The question before the House is, “ That the Bill be now read a third time.”

Question - That the Bill be now read a third time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 20

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived.

In division:

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2495

MEAT EXPORT BOUNTIES BILL

Bill returned from the Senate with the message that the Senate had agreed to the Bill as amended by the House of Representatives.

page 2495

ORDER OP BUSINESS.

Motion (by Mr. Greene) put -

That Orders of the Day 2 and 3 be postponed until after consideration of Order of the Day No. 4, Land Tax Bill (No. 2), second reading.

The House ‘divided

Ayes Noes

Majority

30 10

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

LAND TAX BILL (No. 2). Second Reading.

Mr BRUCE:
Treasurer · Flinders · NAT

.- I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the measure is to give effect to the proposal indicated in the Budget statement for the removal of the war surcharge upon the land tax. The circumstances in regard to land taxation in Australia in general, and in the Commonwealth in particular, are well known to honorable members. The Commonwealth land tax was first introduced in 1910 for a definite purpose and as a definite act of policy. It was designed to endeavour to break up large estates, and it was not at any time regarded as a revenue measure. Mr. Riley. - Who said so? / Mr. BRUCE.- That has been often stated, and was clearly expressed by the party to which the honorable member belongs. It was introduced by that party, and had the definite purpose I have mentioned. The tax was increased in 1918, but that increase was a purely revenueproducing impost. The circumstances of the war had placed the Commonwealth finances in such a position that revenue had to be drawn in for national purposes, but when the surcharge was increased in 1920 it was made perfectly clear that it was not added with any intention of giving effect to a policy of land taxation for the breaking up of large estates, and the promotion of closer settlement, but was intended purely and simply to raise revenue for war- purposes. This charge was placed upon land because it was one of the easiest sources from which revenue could be obtained1.

Mr Fleming:

– That is the trouble.

Mr BRUCE:

– For once, I have a lot of sympathy with the honorable member. Land is an object that cannot be removed, and is certainly an easy victim of taxation. Whilst the circumstances of. the moment demanded that a revenue tax should be placed upon land, it is clear, and I think that every party in the House will agree, that it should be removed at the earliest moment. There might, at first sight, be some suggestion of opposition from honorable members of- the Labour party, but I have sufficient confidence in their sense of justice to> believe that they do not wish the continuation of a special tax on one class of the community. The surcharge of land tax is an additional income tax, or a capital tax, levied on a particular class of property,, and it is neither just nor proper to impose taxation in this way. Those who say that property should be taxed to a .greater extent than it is are on sound and logical ground if they move for the increasing of taxation on all classes of property; but they are on unsound ground when they say that one particular class of property should bear a burden not imposed on other classes of property. It was stated in the Budget that the repeal of the surcharge would be proposed. Our financial circumstances are not all that we would wish, but they have improved sufficiently to allow us to carry out this promise. We are doing nothing at this stage to interfere with the land tax,, which-, has been in operation in the Commonwealth for many years as part of a policy designed to achieve a certain result ; all we are proposing is the removal of ai surcharge imposed in pursuance of no- other policy than- the raising, of additional revenue.. It has- been, suggested that this is- another sop to a particular class,, but that is not so.. The proposal, is. based on. definite principles o£ equity,, and it. is- a measure of relief that is rightly introduced as soon, as our financial circumstances permit of it being put into- effect.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) is not present, and as fie: would like to say something on the Bill’ I ask for an adjournment of the debate:.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– No.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition is sick,

Mr ANSTEY:

– My request for an adjournment was only a formal one,, because I was confident that it would- be refused. Do the Government propose to apply the “ gag “ to the discussion of this measure?. The super tax which it is proposed, to. repeal was not imposed by the party with, which I am connected, but was brought forward by the present Government in 1918. We are-, now asked to discuss a; Bill- to amend the Land Tax Act 1910-1918-, and to. repeal- the. Land Tax Acts of 1918-1919. and 1920.. This- will bring the law back to where it stood when the- Act of 1’910> became law: That Act was a Labour measure,, designed to bring the lands of the country into fuller use by taking them out of the hands of the few, and putting them into those of the many. It was a wise and beneficial measure, and has brought about great industrial changes. Millions of acres which were in pastoral occupation have since been tilled, and the immense production of wheat, oats and barley that has resulted has increased the revenue obtained by the various Australian Governments through income taxation,, has increased our exportation, thus enabling the State Governments to meet their obligations in foreign markets,, and this has in turn increased our importations, and swelled our Customs: revenue-. Since the present Government have been in office there has been a falling off in agricultural production in this country. The present Government in 1918, for reasons which they considered to be just, imposed a super tax.. The Treasurer is now trying, to repeal that measure,, and would give the impression that the super tax. was imposed by a Labour Government.. Asa matter of fact: there, was not a Labour- Government in power’ in- 1918. and the super tax was- really imposed by the present Government. There are still a number of large estates, which have been untouched by the- operation! of the Federal land tax. It seems to- me that instead- of the tax being diminished it should be enormously increased, in view of the desire for the land settlement of soldiers with the intention of bringing properties previously occupied as “pastoral Properties into use for ^agriculture. A statement which, -recently appeared in the Argus gives some interesting information relating- to the ownership of these estates, which “was contained in a return and cm. the table of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria in response to a inquest by Mr. Bailey, the honorable member for Port Fairy. The -return : Showed that at the 31st December, 1921, these -ment (fifteen estates of 20,000 acres- and over held, in this State of Victoria alone. Honorable members know that Victoria is the smallest of the States of the mainland -of Australia. New South Wales is about three times the size of Victoria, Queensland about three times the .size of ‘New South, Wales, and Western .Australia contains an area of about one-third of the total area of .tha Commonwealth. In addition to the estates of 20,000 acres and over, there are many -estates in Victoria of 15000, 1.6,000, and 17,00.0 .acres. According to tha return presented, I fmd that the first estate mentioned is Terricks Estate, of 20,505 acres, in the county of Bendigo, .and the owner ia Evelyn L. Atkinson. The next estate mentioned is the Kongbool Estate, of Ul,786 acres, in Dundas county, and the owner is J. G-. Robertson. There is the Fulham Estate, of 28,1613 acres, also in Dundas county, whian is, according to the return, the owners’ settlement of -G. M. Armytage. The Armytages are a very famous family in Victoria, and amongst the earliest of our settlers. 1 believe that the first of the family -to settle in Australia - George Armytage - arrived in Hew South Wales at a .place called Botany Bay, inabout the year 1832, having a free passage, at the expense of his country. The next estate mentioned is the Glendenning and Melville Forest Estate, -of 52,879 acres, in Dundas .county, the .owner of which is R. S. falkiner, who, I believe, waa at one time a member of this House, hut thought he could do .better -outside. There is ne?t the Koolomert and Kadnook Estate, of 38,504 acres, in Dundas and Lowan counties, and the owner is Benjamin Chaffey. Tha Chaffeys came originally from America and started schemes in connexion with irrigation. Honorable members are aware that as the result off the development .of irrigation we have country now .along the Murray that is a blooming paradise which was previously practically a desert. There are thousands of ‘Orange, apple, and .other (fruit trees on these lands. I ask leave to continue any address later.

Leave gram-ted; “debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 September 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1922/19220920_reps_8_100/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 September 1922

PAPER

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Wise:

Sir Granville Ryrie:

Mr CHARLTON:

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED RELIEF

Mr McGRATH:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr BRUCE:Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:Minister for Works and Railways · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO FRUIT-GROWERS

Mr LAIRD SMITH:DENISON, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST

Mr CHARLTON:

Mr HUGHES:Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr ANSTEY:BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:

Mr ANSTEY:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr McGRATH:

Mr ANSTEY:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Anstey:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hughes:

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Charlton:

QUESTION

LOCALREPATRIATION COMMITTEES

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:Assistant Minister for Repatriation · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Brennan:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hughes:

Mr Anstey:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BLAKELEY:Darling

Mr Groom:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Groom:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Groom:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Groom:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Considine:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Scullin:

Mr Groom:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr GROOM:Darling DownsAttorneyGeneral · NAT

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Blakeley:

House of Representatives
20 September 1922

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr BRUCE:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Minister for Works and Railways · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA

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

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr ANSTEY:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
Assistant Minister for Repatriation · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr GROOM:
Darling DownsAttorneyGeneral · NAT

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

Mr BOWDEN:
for Mr. Pratten

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr GROOM:
NAT

Mr PROWSE:
for Mr. Gibson

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
NAT

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · NAT

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat