7th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read - prayers.
page 10257
Prices in Western Australia.
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs if he is yet in possession of the information which I asked for on Friday in connexion with the price of butter in “Western Australia?
– The reply I have received is as follows : -
With reference to your letter of 28th inst., enclosing extract fromHansard of 27th idem, relative to the price of butter in Western Australia, I have to state that the butter, which is being sold in Melbourne for local consumption at 177s. 4d. per cwt., is fresh butter, upon which no costs for storage, &c, have been incurred, but as there is not sufficient of this butter to supply Western Australia, that State is being supplied with stocks from the Winter Pool, which was provided for that purpose. The extra cost represents charges for storage and other expenses incidental for the pooling scheme.
page 10257
SenatorFOLL. - I ask the leader of the Senate whether he has seen a letter published in the Argus, ‘ and signed “ Loyalist Workers,” with regard to the relief that has been given by the Government to people suffering as a result of the seamen’s strike, from which it appears that the men known as “Loyalist workers” are . not receiving assistance under the Government scheme. Will steps be taken by the Government to see that loyalist workers receive their fair share of assistance from the Government grant? Is it the intention of the Government to give the sum of £500 for the assistance of persons suffering from unemployment in Brisbane as they have done to meet distress due to unemployment in Melbourne ?
– I have not seen the letter referred to, but I shall take steps to secure it, and if there is any evidence therein of a grievanceI shall bring the matter under the notice of the Acting Prime Minister at once.
page 10257
Sale of Blankets and Flannel
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether, in view of the statement made by him last week, that 5,000 blankets and 5,000 yards of flannel were to be placed at the disposal of people in Melbourne, the same treatment is to be accorded to people in the other capital cities of the Commonwealth; and, if not, why not?
– If the honorable senator can give an assurance that such action is necessary, I shall take it into consideration with a view to dealing with the people sympathetically.
page 10257
Sentences for Breach of Discipline
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if it is a fact that on board the Australia British officers have inflicted most severe and! savage sentences upon Australians who have done creditable service for many years ?
– Before an answer is given to the honorable senator’s question,. I should like, sir, to have your ruling, as to whether it is not in effect the same as a question which you have already disallowed.
– It is practically to the same effect.
– Bef ore you, sir, give your ruling on the point of order let me say that you ruled that I could not ask a question in which I made a statement. I have made no statement in the question I have now asked; I have merely asked the Minister if it is a fact that certain British officers have inflicted savage and vindictive sentences upon Australian sailors who have done good service during the war. I do not make a statement. I ask whether a statement is correct, and I believe I am in order in doing so.
– The Standing Orders are clear and emphatic that a question must be asked only for the purpose of eliciting information, and must contain no statement, no argument, and no comment. The practice of the House of Commons as laid down in May confirms the practice followed under our own Standing Orders. The word “savage” used in the honorable senator’s question to qualify the word “sentences” is undoubtedly comment, and his question is therefore contrary to our own Standing Orders and to the practice of the House of Commons.
Questions are continually coming under my notice which are asked, not so much for the purpose of obtaining information as for ventilating the opinions of the questioners. Senator Gardiner preferred not to have his question placed on the notice-paper if the word “ savage “ were to be left out of it. That proves to me clearly that the honorable senator is more interested in having his own commentpublished with the question than in obtaining information.
– Do you rule, sir, that my question is not in order?
– Yes.
– Then I give notice of dissent from your ruling.
– The dissent must be moved at once.
– I think I can give notice of the motion, but I wish now to take exception, sir, to your conduct in attacking me personally when giving a ruling.
– I did not attack any one; I merely stated the facts. I think I am right in my statement that when a ruling is challenged a motion of dissent must be moved at once. It is not competent for the honorable senator to give notice of his intention to dissent from my ruling.
– I thought it’ required a resolution of the Senate to take up the question at once.
– The Standing Orders provide that if objection is taken to a ruling or decision of the President it must be stated at once, and in writing, and motion made, and then the time of its discussion is determined by the Senate.
– I dissent from your ruling that the question asked by me, “Is it a fact that British officers in command of the Australian Navy have passed severe and savage sentences on men who have rendered distinguished service during the war ? “ is not in order, and I move -
That the said ruling be disagreed with.
– I second the motion.
– The debate on this motion must stand over until tomorrow unless the Senate decides that it be immediately proceeded with. .
– I do not want to go on with it to-day.
– There may be some misunderstanding about this matter, Mr. President, and-
– Order! The matter is not open for discussion now.
-i merely wish, Mr. President, to ask a question to clear away any misconception and misunderstanding as to the use of the word “ savage “ if-
– Order! Our Standing Orders provide that the matter is not open for discussion now.
– But, Mr. President, I only desire to ask a question of Senator Gardiner, in order to help clear away misunderstanding-
– Order! The honorable senator is not entitled to ask a question. He must resume his seat. We can have no debate now that will in any way anticipate the discussion on the motion to-morrow.
– Mr. President, is not an honorable senator in order in asking a question of another honorable senator with regard to questions on the- business paper ?
– As a matter of fact, no honorable senator is in order in asking questions at all, either of the Minister or anybody else, except upon notice given. Hitherto the practice has been allowed, but strictly speaking it is not in order. It is only a privilege: not a right. A private member is entitled to ask a question of another private member regarding pending business - Bills, or a substantive motion - but not regarding a point of order. If it were otherwise, points of order would lead to endless debate.
– But, Mr. President, I was referring to pending business. This matter will come before the Senate tomorrow.
– The pending business is a dissent from my ruling, and our Standing Orders provide that the discussion of such motions must stand over until the following day. There can be no discussion upon the matter now unless the Senate decides otherwise.
Later -
-I desire to ask Senator Gardiner, without notice, whether, in view of the necessity for clearing up a little misunderstanding that has arisen, the honorable senator-
– Order ! I have already ruled the honorable senator out of order. If he disagreed with my ruling he had an opportunity of challenging it at the time. He must not repeat the offence now.
page 10259
– I ask the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) whether Peace has been signed since the last meeting of the Senate, and, if so, has he any information to give to honorable senators, or are we to be content with the newspaper statements.
– I am not prepared’ to make any statement on the matter.
page 10259
The following papers were pre sented : -
War Debts of the British Empire: Scheme for their Administration, Conversion, and Extinction, prepared by the Honorable W. A. Watt, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government.
Papers presented to British Parliament - British Air Effort during the War - Synopsis.
Germany - Economic conditions prevailing, April, 1919. - Further Reports by British Officers.
Audit Act 1901-1917. - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules- 1919, Nos. 145, 159,
Entertainments Tax Assessment Act 1916. - Regulations amended. - Statutory . Rules 1919,No. 130.
Inter-State Commission Act 1912. -
Fifth Annual Report.
Prices InvestigationReports -
No. 10. - Fruit and Vegetables.
No. 11.- Clothing.
No. 12.- Rents.
Public Service Act 1902-1918.-
Appointments, Promotions, &c. -
Department of Trade and Customs -
P. W. Mitchell.
A. Stuart.
Postmaster-General’s Department - F. W. Arnold.
Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1919, No. 101.
Public Works Committee Act 1913-1914.- Fourth General Report.
page 10259
Will the case of Paul Freeman come under the consideration of the Board or Commission of Magistrates which has been appointed to deal with deportation cases?
– The magistrates’ jurisdiction is limited to the cases of enemy aliens. It is not proposed to submit the case of Paul Freeman to the Board.
page 10259
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Will the Government bring down an amendment of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act with a view to increasing the pensions, owing to the increased cost of living?
– The financial proposals of the Government are at present under consideration, and will be presented in the Budget.
page 10259
Blind Soldiers’ Pensions
asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Will the Government bring down legislation to increase pensions to blind soldiers to £4 a week, and also increase the pensions of totally and partially incapacitated soldiers?
– The following benefits are provided for a blind soldier by the Pensions and Repatriation Departments respectively 1.(a) Permanent pension at full rates for himself, wife, and children; in addition, where necessary, he is entitled to 10s. a week for an attendant. These pensions are unaffected by earnings.
A free home, or, in lieu thereof, £1 per week.
page 10260
Preferential Freight
asked the Minister representing , the Minister for Works andRailways, upon notice -
Will the Minister give preference oh the trans- Australian railway for the transport of those foodstuffs that Western Australia generally imports from the eastern States, and of which there is at the present time a great scarcity, so as to relieve the consequent distress?
– The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner reports that for some time past he has been doing his utmost to encourage the use of the trans-Australianrailway for the conveyance of foodstuffs. Special rates of freights, have been quoted, and all the loading offered is being conveyed as expeditiously as practicable, and as great a quantity as possible of the perishable goods is being conveyed by passenger train, the balance being sent across by special weekly goods train, which has now been running for about six weeks. If sufficient loading offers, additional trains will be run, as there is ample rolling-stock to handle a larger traffic. Representations have been made to the Governments of the States forwarding foods to Western Australia to expedite their conveyance over the State railways, as inquiry has shown that the greater portion of the time of transit is on those railways.
page 10260
asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– Plan s of the general lay-out and design of the stores proposed to be erected have been prepared, and the scheme is now under consideration by the Public Works Committee. All the houses on the site are, in the meantime, let at satisfactory rentals.
page 10260
Development of Oil-fields.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
Will the Minister make available any papers or documents relating to negotiations that have taken place between his Department and the British Government in relation to the development of the Papuan oil-fields?
– As some of the communications are secret and confidential, it is at present undesirable to make the documents public. To-morrow I shall be pleased to lay on the table a statement containing all material information. -
page 10260
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers are -
– Order ! The Minister is arguing the question. In his reply he may only give the information which has been asked for.
– I will proceed with the. answer to question No. 3, which is as follows: -
page 10261
asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 10261
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 10261
Wentworth Park Wool Sheds
asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
Will the Minister representing the Wool Board make available to senators the correspondence that passed between the Wool Board and the trustees of Wentworth Park, Sydney, before the present sheds were erected?
– The chairman of the Central Wool Committee advises that much of : the correspondence referred to by the honorable senator is of a highly confidential character, and that it is inadvisable to make it public at the present time. The Central Wool Committee will, however, gladly furnish any specific information desired.
page 10261
asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The particulars required will be made available as soon as practicable.
page 10262
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
– I desire to record my protest, in the only way possible, against the proposed suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, seeing that the Senate has had six months’ holiday. I do not believe in the suspension of the Standing Orders at any time. We should conduct our business in the proper way. For the Minister to have a contingent notice of motion upon the paper, by the aid of which he may at any time move as he has just done, is unjust. It does not give honorable senators, who are here to represent the electors, an opportunity of fully acquainting themselves with matters contained in measures placed before them. We are often totally unaware of what is in the Bills presented for our acceptance. We are told by the Minister concerned that “it is a simple and innocent little measure ‘ ‘ ; but we frequently find that it has a sting in its tail. I know that my protest will not avail much, but I shall always vote against the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders.
.- I join with Senator McDougall in protest. Here we have the suspension of the Standing Orders on the first actual business day of the session. There can be only one justification for such a course; that is, urgency. I do not personally take exception to a long recess, but if the Government desire to present business of an important nature it is their duty to call Parliament together at a date sufficiently early for its discussion without making undue strain upon our Standing Orders. The present procedure is a growing and pernicious one. It is a course which certainly does not tend to the good conduct of business.
– - On quite a number of occasions during the past three or four months I have advanced the view that something of this nature would happen upon the meeting of Parliament. I also voice a strong protest against the course proposed, which is an absolute farce. This is not the way in which the people of Australia expect, and have the right to see, business conducted. The Senate, having had its doors closed for about six months, meets once more to deal with the business of this country. We are immediately asked to agree to the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders so that consideration may be given to the Supply Bill at a moment’s notice. If the Government now deem it necessary to secure the passage of the measure within a stated number of hours, they should give some reason why the Senate was not called together at an earlier date. If Parliament had been called together earlier we should have had sufficient time to deal with important business such as this without suspending the Standing Orders.
– What has occurred to-day just verifies the statement I made last week. I then said that the Government were not sincere in stating that they had simply waited till the conclusion of the Peace Conference before calling Parliament together, but that they had called Parliament together because they wanted money, and that if they had not been in want of money to carry on the services of this country we would not have been called together at all. We are asked today to pass a Supply Bill involving the expenditure of over £4,000,000, and we are supposed to pass it in two or three hours. I think that the Government should have called the Senate together a week or two ago, so that we might have had a chance to discuss the items of expenditure involved. I believe that it is necessary that money should be available to-morrow in order to pay those persons who are in receipt of pensions. We are told that that is the reason why the Supply Bill must be passed to-day, but that does not excuse the Government for keeping us so long away from the House, and when they get us here, asking us to swallow the Supply Bill in a few minutes.
– I do not know that the Government intend to restrict the debate upon their proposals. They are only asking us to carry the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to permit of the passing, without delay, of a Bill involving an expenditure of £4,337,335. I do not know what time the Senate will take over the business, but personally, I have no objection to sitting up all night so that we may have a full discussion of the various items that are to be placed before us. I do not think it would be right or fair for the Government to rush the items through in a few hours, but it appears to be the impression of some honorable senators on this (the Opposition) side of the chamber that that is what the Government intend. I hope that that is not the intention of the Government, and that they will give us a full and ample opportunity, even if it does involve an all-night sitting, to discuss the various items which the Supply Bill contains.
.- If honorable senators did not possess some experience, gathered during many past years, they might be disposed to take the remarks of Senator Grant, and other senators who have spoken, seriously, but I think they understand as well as I do the attitude taken up by those honorable senators. Senator Gardiner referred to this as a “growing system.”It is not growing; it has grown, and it grew and flourished like a green bay tree during the time when Senator Gardiner was Leader of the Senate. For him to speak now as if this were some pernicious innovation, when it is a practice that the honorable senator’s kindly, fostering hands have nourished, is a distortion of words. I have never disguised to the Senate or to myself that I regard this as an undesirable practice, and my views on that point have never varied with those political circumstances which make one change from one side of the chamber to the other.
– Y - You are in a position now where you can alter this state of affairs. Why not do it?
– I am endeavouring to do it, and if honorable senators will look into the matter, they will find that since I have been in charge of the Senate, they have had more time granted to them to deal with Supply Bills than they had allowed them when the Government of which the honorable senator was a supporter was in office. We do not discuss the finances of the country on a Supply Bill. All we are asking the Senate to do now is practically to sign cheques for ordinary wages, and for those pensions and payments that go on continuously. To say that that is a discussion of the financial position is to give a wrong presentation of the case. The finances of the country come under review when the Budget is presented to Parliament.
– W - We had only five or six hours to discuss the finances at the end of last session.
– The honorable senator has suggested that I am now in a position to give effect to my views. It strikes me that there is one way in which I could do that. The Supply Bill reached this House on Friday last at 3.30 o’clock. Should such a case occur again, in view of the representations of honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber, I shall be bound to consider whether I should not ask the Senate to meet on Saturday, and Monday, and Tuesday, in order to give them the opportunity which they so eagerly seek, and of which they make such small use, to discuss the Supply Bill.
– W - Why did you not meet Parliament a month ago?
An Honorable Senator. - That is the point, and you are evading it.
– I am not evading it, because it has not been raised. There is a good deal of humbug about the remarks of honorable senators who have spoken. I have pointed out that the Supply Bill makes provision only for the payment of the ordinary public services of this country, and there is not an honorable senator opposite who will venture to oppose a single item. So far as
I am concerned, no effort will be made in connexion with the discussion on this or any other question to curtail any rights or privileges honorable senators may have. Under the circumstances I hope that the Senate, regretting, though it may, the practice that has grown up, will agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
FIRST Reading.
Repatriation : Housing Scheme : Major Evans’ Resignation : Dishonest Treatment of Returned Soldiers : Sustenance Allowance - Wheat Scrip - Interned Aliens - Paul Freeman’s Case - Cost of Living: Profiteering : Amendment of Constitution - National Federation - Federal Capital - Seamen’s Strike : Newspaper Criticism : Wages : Causes of Industrial Unrest - One Big Union Scheme - Amendment of Arbitration Law - Unification - Australian Labour Party’s Platform Sentences on Australian Seamen - Sentences on Kalgoorlie Cadets - Case of Mr. F. Harper - Definition of “ Totally and Permanently Incapacitated “ - Examination of Females by Women Doctors - Price of Bread - Prickly Pear - Income and Land Taxation - Army Instructors - Shipping Arrangements - Institute of Science and Industry.
Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -
That this Bill be now read a first time.
Senator GARDINER (New South Wales) [3.381. - I understand that this is a money Bill that we must discuss, if we discuss it at all, on the first reading. Last Thursday, when addressing myself to another subject, I made the statement that, so far as the housing portion of the repatriation scheme was concerned, not one brick had been laid. Senator Senior, who is always anxious to correct my utterances, and who continually says that I am wrong, denied that that was the case.
– I offered to prove that you were not speaking the truth if you would come with me.
– No better confirmation of my statement could have been given than what has since been made public in regard to the Repatriation Office in Sydney.
– Sydney is not South Australia.
– South Australia may be doing excellent work, but in referring to the work of the Repatriation Department, I wish to be understood as speaking for the State I represent. My remarks were never intended to be understood as if I knew what was happening over all Australia. I take it that each of us speaks for his own State, and it is unnecessary at ordinary times to make the explanation that we are not speaking for all the States. I represent a State that contributes half the revenues of this Commonwealth. When I said that not one brick had been laid under the housing scheme I said that which is borne out by a statement made by Major J. Evans when resigning the position of Housing Commissioner in New South Wales, which apart from the buttressing statement I have made, should awaken Senator Millen to the danger of sleeping in the matter of repatriation.
What has happened in that State ? Briefly stated, a gentleman made the handsome present of thirty-five acres of land - I believe I am correct as to the area, but I speak from memory, and will give Major Evans’ statement on the matter later on - to the Repatriation authorities, and placed one condition upon his gift, namely, ihat the lay-out of the houses built upon the land should be under the control of one of Sydney’s most prominent architects, who is also Chairman of the Town Planning Association’ of New South Wales. When a gentleman in New South Wales or in any other State, is so generous and well disposed towards our returned soldiers as to make an offer of that kind, one can only say that it is worse than stupidity on the part of the Repatriation Department to refuse it. The reason given for the refusal of this gift was the condition that a prominent architect and Chairman of the Town Planning Association of New South Wales should be intrusted with the laying out of the land. Major Evans, the Deputy Commissioner for Repatriation in New South Wales, accepted the gift, as, I venture to say, any other gentleman in . a similar position would have done.
– As no responsible officer would have done, who knew the circumstances.
– That is the matter I wish to discuss. I shall be glad to have the Minister for Repatriation put before the Senate any reason why a -well-intentioned and handsome gift of that kind should be refused when the only condition Mr. Brown, the giver, imposed was that the lay-out of the land should be intrusted to a man whom he knew to be competent to carry it out successfully. -I understand that the layout was being carried out when the refusal of the gift came from Melbourne. Honorable senators may shut their eyes to these things, but I venture to say that at the present time instead of a refusal there should be an acceptance of such gifts. The condition .was certainly not a hard one.
– What would the carrying out of the condition represent in money ?
– I certainly do not think that it would represent anything in money.
– Can the honorable member 3ay how much it would represent ?
– Of course not. What knowledge have I of the matter?
– Then why say we should accept the condition when the honorable senator is unable to say what it would cost to accept it?
– From the evidence which I shall be able to submit, I think the -Minister for Repatriation will be unable to make out that the Department would lose money ‘by accepting this gift. If the Minister has another side of the case to put, I am sure that he will put it to the Senate, and I am giving him an opportunity to do so. If he can, let him make his case good, but I hope to show before I resume my seat that the gift was made, and that the one condition was that one of Sydney’s competent archi tects should have the lay-out of the land. I say that that is not an extreme condition to impose. I say further that the man who offered this land should not have been snubbed in the way he has been. One may almost assert that the officer who accepted the gift has lost his position because he accepted it, but the Minister will have an opportunity of dealing with that phase of the question. I understand that in an interview with a representative of the Sydney Morning Herald, Major Jervois Evans, Commissioner in New South Wales under the Commonwealth War Service Homes Act, said he was severing his connexion with the Commission in disgust-
– The reason was because his resignation was called for.
– Exactly. It may have been called for over this very business. It may have been called for because Melbourne wants the stamp “Made in Victoria” placed upon everything that is done in this Commonwealth. Honorable senators may smile at my statement, but it is apparent that “ Made in Victoria “ is to be writ large upon everything done in the Commonwealth whilst the Federal Parliament continues to meet in Melbourne. The interview with Major Evans is reported “in this way : -
Not only had he been placed in an impossible position by reason of the atmosphere of somnolence in which the scheme launched at the end of last year was administered, but he had been overridden in a matter of particular importance in a manner that was intolerable. “ When I was summarily directed by telegram from Melbourne,” said Major Evans, “ to refuse a gift towards the provision of soldiers’ homes of 33 acres of building land, I felt that it was the last straw. This extraordinary instruction was given to me on the strength of something contained in a newspaper telegram, and without me being’ even asked to furnish a report upon the matter. When thus, after the lapse of two months, I found myself in the unhappy situation of being unable to get more than the skeleton of a staff about me, of realizing that the soldiers were being grossly deceived and compelled to reject a very liberal offer of assistance, I concluded that it would be better for me to make way for some one else. “ The War Service Homes Act of December, 1918, was passed to provide machinery for the erection of 100,000 ‘war homes,’ and for an expenditure placed at £50,000,000. By the end of April the Victorian branch of the Commission had been established at Melbourne, Captain Tait being Deputy Commissioner, and Colonel Courtenay, ex-Commandant in Western Australia, Chief Clerk. My appointment as Deputy Commissioner for New South Wales and Federal Territory dated from 1st May. I arrived in Sydney on 0th May to organize the work, and on the 13th despatched a report outlining the establishment required to enter upon the important undertakings I had been told were to be commenced. The objects of the scheme were again announced in the newspapers. Applications from soldiers desirous of taking advantage of the Act poured in. There were soon 2,000 in hand. The number to-day is about 3,000. Every application has been hung up. Every applicant has been utterly disappointed. We have clone nothing except tell these people to ‘ wait ‘ or ‘ call again.’ In most cases it was pathetic, in many it was tragic. The staff at present consists of a chief clerk, a second clerk, a correspondence clerk, a counter attendant, a couple of typists, a messenger, an accountant. Most of these have only been appointed since 10th June. Not a penny has been available except for the wages of these officials. There is not even a valuer or a building surveyor - not a single technical officer. We have been aimlessly marking time. “After coming to Sydney I inspected sites for housing at Newcastle, Wollongong, Lithgow, and Port Kembla. Aid of a practical nature was proffered by the Broken Hill Proprietary, the Commonwealth Kail and Iron Works, and Lysaght’s. At Wollongong, on 14th June, Mr. J. L. Brown, of Methven, offered to convey to us, as a free gift, 35 acres of land, valued at £2,000, for the erection of soldiers’ homes. Other people at Lithgow offered material at cost price, and in some cases free. Mr. Isley, an architect at Lithgow, offered his services either for designing or supervising the erection of the houses, or both, gratuitously. Could anything better be asked for? I most willingly accepted Mr. Brown’s offer, a condition made by him that the ‘ lay-out ‘ of the houses erected on the 35 acres should be according to the advice of Mr. John Sulman, president of the New South Wales Townplanning Association, appearing to me one against which it was impossible to offer any objection. Indeed, when I found that the gift of land also meant that we were to get the co-operation, without fee, of an architect of such distinction as Mr. Sulman, and of such a recognised expert in town-planning as he, I felt more than gratified. Yet, before I had time to write a report, I received a curt telegram from LieutenantColonel Walker, the Commissioner at Melbourne, directing mc to decline Mr. Brown’s gift. I have felt too humiliated even to approach Mr. Brown on the subject. “ Later I was told that the reason for rejecting Mr. Brown’s offer was that Mr. Morrell, an architect in the Victorian Public Works Department, loaned to the War Homes Commission, would bc the only person in the Com- monwealth permitted to ‘ lay out ‘ the design for a soldier-housing scheme in any State in Australia. I take the liberty of regarding this as idiotic. Apart altogether from the rebuff given to Mr. Brown and the affront to Mr. Sulman, such a regulation would, in addition to repelling professional men from helping us, tie the Act up in a mesh of red tape, causing incalculable delay and embarrassment’ in the different States. “ The position now is that, under the scheme launched at the beginning of the year, nothing has been done in New South Wales - except to receive applications. Not one home has been built, nor one purchased. Very regretfully I have been forced to the conclusion that no sincere attempt has been made on the part of the Federal authorities to deal with this business. I feel that I have been fooled, and that the soldiers are being fooled. I will have nothing: to do with it.”
That is the statement made by Major Evans after resigning his position.
– According to the newspapers, he got the “ sack.”
– The honorable senator must ‘ realize that the statement about his getting the ‘ ‘sack’ ‘ was not made until his resignation was made public.
– It is not, as a rule, the practice of a public Department to make such statements until they are challenged.
– The honorable senator need not think that I am standing here as the representative of Major Evans.
– The honorable senator should think of his own reputation.
– I am quite prepared to risk my reputation in the matter, when a gentleman makes such a statement as I have quoted on being asked the reason for his resignation.
– There is a good reason.
– The Minister can mention it when he makes his speech. He is aware that I have had no opportunity of knowing anything about it.
Here is a connected statement which bears upon its face the impress of truth. I warned the Minister for Repatriation last week of the danger of believing that everything connected with repatriation was all right when it was not all right. The putting of men off and telling them to call again is becoming a scandal. Honorable senators cannot remain deaf to the complaints of returned soldiers if in any particular district they become numerous. They must listen to them, and reason with those complaining of undue delay. They urge them to’ have patience, suggesting that everything will be right, since the whole Parliament is with them. ‘ But this is not much consolation to men who are anxious to get busy, and cannot get a start. When the Government introduced the War Service Homes Bill, there was no opposition to it. It was welcomed by all sides. The scheme was given a send-off in the most friendly manner possible, but after six months have elapsed, we find that in the chief city of the chief State of the Commonwealth it is evidently the intention of the Government to put the housing of returned soldiers in the hands of an official living in Melbourne. I am assuming that that is correct, and that the Minister will not deny that it is the intention of the Department that one man shall control the whole of the building. There is very good reason why a man living under the climatic conditions of Melbourne should not be intrusted with this work, because of the strong probability that foi”, say, Brisbane, he would design a house that would be quite unsuitable.
– Would you say that Mr. Sulman, is the only architect competent to devise a lay-out for Sydney?
– I do not say anything of the kind, and the Minister must not, by the simple process of extending a statement of fact to an absurdity, try to draw that inference from my remarks.
– He would not be much of an architect who did not take climatic conditions into consideration.
– It is an unfortunate fact - I can only speak of my own State - that public schools in the western districts of New South Wales, where the temperature is much higher than on the high land, are altogether unsuitable. I am not reflecting upon a Melbourne architect in my remarks, but I do say that a gentleman who conducts his business in such a wretchedly cold place as this might easily make a mistake in hi3 designs for buildings in warmer climates.
– But a Labour Government chose a man from Chicago, which is a much colder place than Melbourne, to design the Federal Capital.
– Who was that?
– Mr. Griffin.
– All I can say about that is that if there is any virtue in allowing a man ample opportunity to get an idea of the climate of the place for which he is to design a lay-out, then Mr. Griffin has had abundant opportunity to become acquainted with the climate of Canberra. But I do not want it to appear as if from my remarks I am setting New South Wales conditions against Victorian conditions. I have tried to keep clear of that. But I do say that if this work is to be centralized, if one man is to be intrusted with the whole decision with regard to homes for soldiers, the work will not be so well done as if it were decentralized.
-. - The architect for a building and the man intrusted with the lay-out of an area are performing different functions.
– I realize that there is a difference, and I can quite understand also the Minister’s impatience at this the first criticism of his Department.
– What!
– This is my first criticism of the Department, although I warned him against his optimism the other day, and told him that thing3 were not all right when he thought they were. I am going fully into this matter now, so that the Minister may reply fully. I say that, so far as New South Wales is concerned, the plans for the lay-out of the soldiers’ homes aTe to have the words “Made in Melbourne,” stamped upon them. I have given honorable’ senators Major Evans’ view of the matter, and I must say that, on its face, it looks like .the statement of a reasonable man. I have here another statement, by Mr. John Sulman, president of, and Mr. Reginald E. Reid, honorary secretary to, the Town Planning Association of New South Wales, under date 30th June, 1919. It is as follows: -
Tlie association offered any assistance it could render to the Minister for Repatriation quite a year ago, and this was courteously acknowledged and accepted. When the DeputyCommissioner for this State invited the association to assist by planning Mr. Brown’s Lithgow subdivision, we at once accepted, visited Lithgow, and were awaiting a contour survey to prepare a plan when we learned that the offer of the land had been refused, because of the condition attached requiring that the lay-out be prepared by our association.
We are strongly of opinion that the work of housing the soldiers all over Australia cannot be expeditiously or satisfactorily carried out from one centre ; also that it is important to overcome as soon as possible the departmental objection to accept gifts of land with reasonable conditions attached. We have, therefore, asked Senator Millen to receive a deputation from our association at the earliest opportunity, as the matter is of vital importance, not only to returned soldiers, but to the citizens at large.
As a sidelight on the matter, we’ may add that last year the Federal Public Works Committee invited us to give evidence in connexion with the Small Arms Factory subdivision, and eventually recommended the adoption of our plan, which was an improvement on that originally prepared. and submitted to the committee.
This bears out very closely what Major Evans has said, and I think we can very well approach this matter in a proper spirit, weigh carefully all the evidence, and say whether this kind of thing is going to continue. Senator Millen, by way of interjection a short time ago, inferred that the acceptance of this condition would involve very great expenditure - equivalent, I take it, to the value qf the land if accepted. But the statement of the President of the Town Planning Association does not confirm this view. Already, we learn, they have been to Lithgow, and were merely awaiting the contour survey of the land to prepare the lay-out.
– For a known and given number of houses.
– Yes. But it is to be done under the officer ‘loaned by the Government of Victoria.
– That *is not the point at all.
– But I want to talk upon this point, because I assure the
Minister that I think this is a grievance which should be ventilated. If the gentleman who is to control the lay-out resides in Melbourne, and has to go to Lithgow to supervise it personally, or by one of his officers, I cannot imagine how the acceptance of the condition would make the cost exceed the value of the gift. Let us see now where the danger lies. We know that while the war was in progress, a large number of wealthy men added to their wealth. I am not vindictive against the richer men in our community, and I do not think any honorable senator will accuse me of this attitude. It is quite possible, now the war is over, that a, number of these men will feel a certain amount of satisfaction in showing their generosity towards the men who fought for them and us. It is quite possible that in their ranks may be found some who, apart altogether from the responsibilities that fall upon them to pay their share of taxation, will find a personal pleasure in doing something to recognise the services of our soldiers to this country. So far as New South Wales is concerned, Mr. Brown’s housing scheme is the first handsome gift of land that has come under my notice. If others have been made, the Government are failing in their duty if they have not given publicity to them. The Repatriation Commissioners will be well advised to avoid anything of a disagreeable nature, such as is. now being ventilated in the press of this country, due, no doubt, to departmental red tape and petty jealousies. I have read the statements made. I do not voice the complaints, but the Minister knows that if an impatient man finds that his requests are not being attended to, he feels that if he can only get a member of Parliament, and. particularly a senator, to become interested, he will then have a chance of achieving his object. I have listened willingly to quite a number of complaints from men who were dissatisfied with their treatment by the Repatriation Department. I know that the Minister’s reply will be a request to give him details of the cases so that he may deal with them on their merits. Perhaps I had better conclude my reference to this matter by quoting from “Repatriation at a
Glance,” an official document issued by the Repatriation Department -
Personal Equipment. - Gifts up to £10, and loans up to £40, making a total of £50 to soldiers to whom personal equipment is necessary for their callings.
Any honorable senator reading that might think that we are doing pretty well for these men, but every honorable senator knows that tools of trade which could have been bought for £20 in 1914 cost to-day £40. I have in my mind the case of a shoemaker who, when this war started, was of an age which might have excused him from enlisting, but he threw up his little business and went to the war. He has returned now. He is a perfectly good type of citizen, and he applied for assistance to re-establish himself in the business to which he had been accustomed. He got an advance of £10 and a loan up to £40.
– If he was” previously in that business and desired to start again, he could secure up to £150.
– I am glad to hear that. I will put the case before the Minister.
– On the facts, that man is eligible to apply for assistance up to the sum stated.
– That being so, it wipes out a complaint which I was about to make publicly. The individual in question, after returning from Egypt, entered the Home Service. He is a good fellow, and is enthusiastic over all things Australian. I know that until about a fortnight ago he had been unable to secure the amount of assistance he desired in order to re-establish himself in the town where he had worked prior to the war.
– I will place before the honorable senator the specific regulation under which that man is entitled to the assistance I have indicated.
– There is not much in an advance of £10, and a loan of £40, when it comes to purchasing implements and machinery.
– One should not confuse such items as those with the purchase of tools of trade.
– So far as the latter are concerned, prices have fully doubled their pre-war standard. Before our men went away, had it been proposed that they should be lent £20, and given a further sum of £5 to set them on their feet in private life again, the sumwould have appeared to be miserably inadequate. It is doubtful whether it would not be better to deal effectively with a certain number of deserving cases only, instead of doling out assistance so thinly that it actually helps nobody.
While the war was in progress I consistently refrained from criticising the Government. I held the view that criticism, even of a just character, was inadvisable at such a time; and, so far as the administration of departments is concerned, the records of this Parliament with regard to the passage of various Supply Bills will show that I have not adversely criticised those in control. Indeed, on certain occasions, I have actually defended them. The war is now over. It has been my view that repatriation should not be unjustly criticised at its inception. The. fact remains that if at the beginning one saw the Department going altogether along the wrong track, it would have been doing the Minister concerned an injustice if one did not endeavour to point out where mistakes werai being made. At the introduction of Sena* tor Millen’s original Repatriation Bill the sentiment was expressed that it should not contain a scheme for the spreading cf gifts, that it was no kind of a proposition for the offering of rewards. I received the utterance of that sentiment with’ much satisfaction; but is Senator Millen now aware that his Department is drifting, not into the disbursement of huge gifts, but into doling out gifts of a dribbling nature, thus bringing about a very undesirable state of affairs? I amr informed on good authority that, in on* way or another, the sustenance fees paid- iii Sydney alone amount to between £5*000 and £8,000 each month. The Government are not niggardly in the amounts which they are allowing, but the method of assistance is not appreciated by healthy men, who would prefer to give their labour in return for such advances. Could not some arrangement be made with the New South Wales Government to continue the construction of their city railway ?
– Why not propose the building of some out-back railway?
– I am merely stating an illustrative proposition, and am suggesting that the able men among those at present receiving sustenance might be. found useful employment.
– A good idea.
– I think it is. During the past half century Australia’s methods of transportation have vastly altered. Fifty years ago we built roads for bullock drays. Why should we not make roads for motor cars to-day? It strikes me as the sanest way of handling a big and difficult problem. Our soldiers are now returning in very large numbers, and if the Government can only keep’ up the present rate of demobilization it will be distinctly to their credit. The sooner we get our boys back the sooner they will be off our national pay-roll. The sooner that item of expenditure is done away with the sooner will our men return to their status as wealth-producing citizens.
The imprisonment of Paul Freeman lias been agitating the minds of large numbers of New South Wales citizens. ‘ On the day that Peace was signed I read that the German war prisoners in the hands of the British were immediately released. Most of the interned men in Australia were placed in custody because they were a real or suspected menace to the safety of our community. They were not interned because of having committed breaches of our laws. In many cases that class of prisoner should now be released.
– Most of them have been released, have they not?
– If that is so I shall rejoice; but I am afraid that many are still in durance. Recently the Government have developed a system of secrecy in regard to the internment camps. I know how well those ca’mps have been conducted. Secrecy has not done the Government any good, and has not been justified. I applied to the Minister for Defence for permission to visit Holdsworthy Internment Camp, accompanied by a friend . I got permission to go by myself, but was told permission would not he given me to go accompanied by a friend. I claim that my request as a senator for New South Wales to visit, accompanied by a friend, a camp where the Germans were interned was one that there was no just or reasonable excuse for refusing. I have the refusal in writing. Does that seem a reasonable way of dealing with our internment camps? It is not only unreasonable, but it’ gives rise to the suspicion that there is the fear that two men- going to a camp together might see something undesirable, and that their joint evidence would condemn the Government. I did not go at all, because 1 could not get permission to go accompanied by a friend. I had no desire to condemn the Government, or anything of that kind; I simply had a desire to see the internment camp in action. Some months after, certain gentlemen made application to be allowed to see certain Germans who were in the camp. They were granted permission, and got orders to see them, not in company, but individually. One gentleman went to the camp to see the Germans, and was told that the men had been interviewed, and did not wish to see him. They had no knowledge, unless it was given by the authorities, as to what he desired to see them about. He communicated with the authorities in Melbourne, and eventually the way was made clear for him to visit the interned men, but in the interval the men he wished to see had been deported. Some people may say, “ They were enemy subjects; what is wrong with that?” ‘ I am. not going to be one, even for the purpose of discrediting the Government, to say that there was anything in the internment camps that could not be seen in the full light of day, and I say that Australia has nothing to be ashamed of for the way she has treated her war prisoners. If what I complain of were done under regulations, then I say that regulations of that kind should not be permitted. Many of the men who were interned had been residents of Australia, for many years, and very many of them were interned, not because there was proof of their ever having done anything to injure Australia, but because, being enemy subjects, there was the danger that they might do so, and it was considered advisable to put them where it was impossible for them to-do any injury. Peace having arrived, and that danger having passed away, the plain duty of the Go- v ernment is to conform to the conditions of Peace, and to release war prisoners. I am hopeful that when the Minister replies to me, he will be able to say that my complaints are altogether groundless, and that as soon as the Government received information that the Peace terms had been signed, the release of these men was ordered. I shall rejoice if he is able to say that, because now that the war is over, the sooner we return to normal conditions the better it will be for all concerned. We would be more than human if war, with all its brutalities, did not raise our passions to an enormous degree; but we know that the injury to the man who retains his anger is his personal injury, not an injury to his opponent. I make it my boast that during the war the Australian people conducted themselves as possibly the most broadminded people that have ever had the franchise given to them. After the war had been raging for a month, to this National Parliament two Germans were elected : Mr. George Dankel, of South Australia, and Mr. Stumm, of Queensland. After the war had been raging for some years, Mr. Heitmann, of Western Australia, was elected.
– A German was elected to the House of Commons, and proceedings were taken against him afterwards
– Was he ejected?
– No. The proceedings were under the criminal law.
– I am glad the electors did elect one German to the House of Commons. It shows how tolerant they were.
– They elected a traitor.
– The honorable gentleman does not accuse the people of knowing that he was a traitor when they elected him ? I have stated that when the war was on, the enemy birthplace of a man did not prevent him entering this Parliament, and I have given three instances of such men having been elected - Messrs. Dankel, Stumm, and Heitmann.
– Mr. Heitmann is a native of Australia.
– Do not make a statement of that kind.
– I am sure of the correctness of my statement.
– I am equally sure of the correctness of my statement. When referring to a man’s nationality, one has to be mighty careful. I am not here to use names for personal purposes. I got my information from a speech made by Mr. Heitmann in this Parliament, and the speech is reported in Hansard.
– Surely you do not say Mr. Heitmann was not born in Bendigo.
– I do.
– Then you are wrong.
– If I am wrong, I owe an apology to Mr. Heitmann,but I read his speech, and I read it as ifhe had said he was born in Hanover. Possibly I confused the birthplace of his parents with his birthplace.
– His father was born in Hanover.
– I was quite positive that Messrs. Dankel, Heitmann, andStumm were all born in Germany. I shall turn up Mr. Heitmann’s speech, and read exactly what he said. I shall see if I have put a wrong construction on his statement.
SenatorFoll. - I think you are wrong as to Mr. Stumm, too.
– When he was elected, I asked Mr. Stumm personally as to his birthplace, and I did it in a most friendly manner. I realize that in such matters, where there may be a personal reflection on individuals, one has tobe very careful. Here we speak under privilege, and I hope that I have never yet wilfully abused the privileges of this Parliament. I referred to the fact that these men had been elected, not in order to give publicity to their nationality - there is no publicity, because the statement will go into Hansard, and that is where it will end - but to show the broadmindedness of the Australian people when at war. Now we are at peace, but the Government are going on as if we were still at war, by continuing the internment of men for war purposes. The War Precautions Act was only meant for the protection of this Commonwealth in time of war, and the enormous powers which were conceded to the Government under that Act were only intended to be used in emergency cases, and when the ordinary law could not be availed of. There was the further fact that so far as the ordinary law was concerned, the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament were curtailed in an extraordinary manner. Much has been said about the War Precautions Act, but any one who has closely followed the decisions of the High Court in appeal cases will know that if the War Precautions Act had not been passed the Government could have exercised, while the war was going on, the powers that they exercise under that Act. It was not a question of whether a certain action of the Government was covered by the Constitution or the War Precautions Act; it was a question of whether the Ministers responsible for the conduct of the war considered the action to be necessary. The inherent power of the Government in war time gave them all the authority they needed, constitutional limitations to the contrary notwithstanding. The war is over, and I believe that men are still interned. I know that Paul Freeman is still interned, and I know that Mr. Watt has made the statement in another place that Freeman is a German. Of course, one does not pay much attention to statements of that kind coming from that source. It has also been stated that Freeman made very derogatory remarks about people going to the war. Here is the thing that astonishes me about this Government. If a man said that he hoped the war would continue until every King in Europe, including our own King, was dethroned, he had a very good chance - especially if he was a foreigner - of finding his way into an internment camp. But a man who took off his hat and publicly sang “ God Save the King,” whenever he got’ the chance, and yet so inflated the prices of the goods he sold as to starve the wives and children of the soldiers who were away fighting, was not interned. I never heard of such a man being interned. The people controlling the food and clothing supplies lifted the prices in a way altogether out of proportion to the cost of the goods to them.
An Honorable Senator. - They were patriots.
– Patriots who were fleecing the wives and the children of the men fighting for us ! I venture to say that not one member of that class ever found his way to an internment camp.
– Some rich German merchants are interned, and have been interned from the start.
– They have the satisfaction of knowing they are suffering with their nation, and their nation was the outspoken enemy of the British. My complaint is against men who had the protection of our laws and of our soldiers, who were laying down their lives for them. These men reciprocated that protection by an attempt to make provisions unobtainable by the wives and children of soldiers.
– If a man were profiteering he ought to have been interned.
– I believe that when the honorable senator makes that statement he is altogether in earnest.
– He is going one better than you.
– He is going further than I did. Of course, he is an autocratic tyrant; I am a Democrat. But, joking apart, his sentiment is the sentiment of nearly the whole of the people of this country. It is generally considered that the profiteers, who disregard everything except their own personal profits, absolutelycommitted offences against the people of this country. I use the words “committed offences” advisedly, because if it was not an offence to increase prices altogether out of proportion to the cost and scarcity of the goods, and to do so merely for profit, what is an offence? These men were, in a way, making war upon the nation. Many of them did that, and many are still doing it. Peace has been signed, ‘ but they are still at war. I am about to make a statement which I can vouch for on account of the source from which it came. The protected industries of New South Wales were called into existence by the Tariff, for which the people pay. I would ask any honorable senator to see if he can buy from the woollen mills of Australia one yard of serge in the next twelve months. The people of Australia are not to have the use of materials produced in Australia because the profiteers find that it will be more profitable to send them out of Australia.
– Have we reached the exporting stage in the manufacture of serge?
– The statement I make is that people cannot get serge in Australia because American, British and other purchasers have bought it. Of course I cannot prove where it is going. Senator Foll. - It can be bought over the counter from some people who are manufacturing it.
– Let the honorable senator try if he can purchase any.
– Foy and Gibson, of Collingwood, sell it over their own counter.
– The information I have, and I am generally pretty well informed, is that something has hap.pened in the way of a combination, and people in Australia can get no more of it. If - the Standing Orders permitted, I should like to’ commission Senator Foll to buy 2,000 or 3,000 yards of serge at 3s. more a yard than it cost a few weeks ago and let him see whether he could make the purchase. Business men in Australia have tried, not only in New South Wales, but throughout the Commonwealth, to obtain supplies, and the answer given them is that, until June of next year no serge can be bought in this country. That is a serious statement. Mr. Watt is going to ask us to increase the protection given to manufacturers in this country. It is not calculated to induce a happy frame of mind when one considers that, after four years of war, manufacturers called into existence by a Protectionist Tariff are not satisfied with decent profits but continue to increase the cost of their goods out of all proportion to the cost of manufacture and to the supplies in hand. They take the last farthing that can be squeezed out of the people. The squeezing process is to go on, and Australians are to be the last people to be given the opportunity to use, at a reasonable cost, goods produced in Australia.
I want to say with regard to our woollen manufacturers, when I make state ments which may appear to reflect upon them, that it is only fair to add that while the war was on Australia was under a great debt of gratitude to them for the way in which in the emergency they manufactured the goods required for our troops, under conditions which prevented them from joining in the profiteering which others were allowed to embark upon. The woollen mills were taken over by the Commonwealth, and the whole of their plant and staff were used for Commonwealth purposes, and if they desired to manufacture for their own profit the proprietors had to secure a permit from the Minister for Defence. Freely, and I will say patriotically, so far as I know, the whole of the woollen mill proprietors of Australia did excellent work for the Commonwealth during the war when they had no opportunity of profiteering.
But because others have indulged in profiteering to an enormous extent, that is no reason why, now that the war is over, the proprietors of woollen mills in Australia should look for a share in the profits of the profiteers. That is no reason why industries called into existence to supply the needs of the people who have sacrificed so much, and will still have to pay so much for their protection and defence, should so arrange that the Australian people are to be the last to be supplied with the goods they manufacture.
These are legitimate complaints of which the Government should take immediate notice.
– What can the Government do in a case of that kind ?
– So far as the principles of the present Government are concerned I may say that I believe that they will do nothing.
– Could any Government do anything?
– Yes.
– We have not the constitutional powers to enable the Government to do what is necessary.
– If that is to be the excuse for doing nothing, the Government should ask for the necessary constitutional powers. Senator de Largie suggests that the Government do not grapple with these things because they have not the constitutional power to interfere with trade within the boundaries of a State; but is not the position sufficiently serious to justify the Government, as their first act, in’ asking the people to give them the constitutional power to do what is necessary to enable the Australian Parliament to be supreme in these matters? I believe that if the people were asked, they would give us this power. I do not make the statement with any desire of being offensive to Senator de Largie, but I say that we should not helplessly hide behind an excuse of that kind. The answer to his statement that we have not the power is that it is the duty of the Government to secure the necessary constitutional power.
I have referred to serge, and let me now say what is happening with regard to beef. Possibly, Australians are the greatest beef-eating nation in the world. It may be that the fact that in their childhood, . youth, and early manhood our soldiers were reared on that strong diet accounts for their being such excellent fighters. That may have given them the spirit and stamina to do what they have done. I am not, as an Australian, boasting of what Australians have done; but am merely referring to their services during the war. The Australian Parliament sits idly by because we have not the necessary constitutional power, and we see beef exported from this country at 47/8d. per lb. when it is sold here from l0d. to1s. 3d. perlb. It is time that something was done. Wehave a continual soaring of- prices, not because of the non-existence of clothing and food supplies, but because men are making money out of them, and find it profitable to raise prices to the highest pitch. The profiteer is flourishing to-day, perhaps in a more marked degree than during the war. “We have had practical peace for nine months. The armistice was signed on 11th November of last year, and now Peace has been signed, and I can see no reason for the enormous increases in the cost of living. The Government sit idly by and say that they can do nothing, because the limitation of our constitutional powers will not permit them to do what is necessary. They ask what we advise, and I say that I advise prompt action. If the Government will not grapple with this question, they must take as the consequence of sitting idly by the penalty which the electors will inflict upon them for their ineptitude. I shall not weep if the Government are punished when the people are appealed to.
– What does the honorable senator suggest?
– I suggest that the Goverment should promptly grapple with the problem in a way which will convince the people of Australia that the profiteers are not going to be allowed to ride rough-shod over the community, now that the war is over. If the Constitution prevents the Federal Parliament from dealing with the matter as I suggest, then the first step that should be taken is to amend the Constitution.
SenatorFoll. - In the direction of Unification ?
– I do not care whether it would tend to Unification or not. Personally, I favour Unification; but I leave it to the Government to say what steps they will take. I say that the first step should be the immediate remodelling of the Constitution, to enable the Australian Parliament to be supreme from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, so ‘that no one may be in a position to strip the people of their hardwon earnings, and leave the children and wives of returned soldiers on the verge of famine owing to the merciless profiteering of men who were always in the forefront when there was singing of “ God Save the King “ and flag-flapping. . Senator Poll will pardon me for referring to him as one who entered the Senate for the first time during this Parliament. The honorable senator has served at the Front, and I am sure is quite as much . in earnest about doing what I have suggested as I am myself. Yet because of the circumstances in which he finds himself, he is compelled to come here day after day, and when the whip cracks, to get behind the Government, and after days, weeks, and it may be months have gone by, he must return to his enraged constituents and say why he was unable to <lo certain things.
SenatorFoll. - The people in Queensland do not become enraged.
– Perhaps the recent incident at Townsville may have led the honorable senator to think so. Possibly people in that State are better off than are the people of other States because there is a Government in Queensland that will not allow their people to suffer as much as people in the other States are suffering.
– Some in Queensland are suffering a great deal more just now ; they are being shot clown.
– Yes; I believe that the Nationalists are trying to raise a revolution against Mr. Ryan.
– We do not know where to look for the Government in Queensland. They are not to be found in the State Parliament House.
– IfI am not mistaken, some people will be looking for the Federal Government before very long.
– The honorable senator incited some people to hang us on lamp-posts.
– That was the mild proposition I made; but if Senator Millen had been, present to notice the pleasure with which a very large audience received that proposal he would desist from law breaking. I want to make it clear to the honorable senator that I did not suggest ruthlessly hanging members of the Government. I said that if the Government continued to break the law and keep men in prison by breaking the first principle of British justice, we should take one of the members of the Cabinet each week and hang him to the nearest lamp-post. I may say that I was astonished at the pleasure with which such a suggestion was received by a large public meeting.
– That was because it was thought that some day the honorable senator would be a Cabinet Minister.
– I have had the experience of twoyears of office. I reached the highest pinnacle of my ambition in becoming a member of the Cabinet, and I am not very anxious to again become a Cabinet Minister. The serious aspect of the question is that, the war having ended, the internment of people is continued, and the whole community are harassed by the profiteers. The public are being handled in the most severe manner by the profiteers, and that severity justifies the Government in adopting the most drastic remedy to relieve the situation. I read in the Ministerial statement submitted by Senator Millen that th ere are 2,000,000 tons of wheat still in hand. Yet the people are harassed by high prices.’ I believe I am right in saying that in all the capitals of Australia bread is dearer to-day than I ever remember it to have been.
– And cheaper than in any other capital city in the world.
– The honorable senator may make that comparison if he pleases, but it will not satisfy hungry people. If the Government could- only realize the gravity of the situation they would give the wheat to the millers at 3s. 6d. per bushel, and by a “bonus, if necessary, make up to the farmers the 4s. 9d. for which they produced the wheat. They would then be doing something beneficial. I think that would please Senator de Largie.
– It would. They would then be doing what every other Government in the world has done.
– If the Government will undertake to deliver flour to the miller at a price which would enable bread to be sold at 3d. for the 2-lb. loaf, I shall support them in that action. But, of course, some people will argue that the cost of bread is only a small item, and will ask, “ How many loaves do you eat each week?” In reply to that I would say that it is these halfpenny and penny increases that consume the whole of the average man’s income, and I venture to say that if the public only realized that Parliament, and the Government were determined to do something real and earnest to make the conditions of life more tolerable, by reducing the price of the2-lb. loaf of bread by1½d. or1d:, their . action would be very much appreciated by thousands to whom every penny is a consideration.
– But the most important matter is the rent question.
– I do not think it is, because the commodity to which I refer has been commandeered by the Government. They control it. There is ample wheat for all. I have listened to lecturers who have told us that the cost of commodities depends upon the cost of production, and so on. That cannot be said of the Australian wheat position. At the present time the Government have 2,000,000 tons of wheat in their possession, upon which advances have been made to the extent of £18,000,000. The people want cheap bread, and if the Government have not the power to take the necessary action, it would be wise to hurriedly pass a measure, giving them all the authority necessary to put w’heat into the flour mills at a price rendering it possible to sell the 2-lb. loaf of bread at 3d. When I talk to men who are profiteering, they point to the Government and the Parliament of which I am a member, and say that we are doing exactly the same thing, so they are not a bit concerned about people being hard pressed. I know that we ourselves do not feel the pinch of- an additional’ Id. on bread, or 4d. per lb. on meat; as compared with pre-war prices. I know also that some men will argue that there has been a drought, and so prices must rise. But there have been droughts hundreds of times in the history of this country. A drought will not explain away the fact that beef can be placed on board a ship at 4Jd. per lb. for export purposes, while the people of Australia have to pay 9d., 10d., and ls. per lb. for it. If it can be exported under contract at 4Jd., it can be placed in the retail shops at the same price.
– The trouble is between the primary producer and the consumer. If you can simplify that difficulty you will solve, the problem.
– I know that is one of the difficulties. A Sydney retail butcher, of whose ability I have the , highest estimation, and whose integrity I do not doubt, told me that the cost of handling meat from the Homebush yards to his shop was 3d. per lb. I realize that Senator Fairbairn is on the right track.
But we are in the position that with the cost of commodities, such as meat, soaring so high, earnest, honest working people - not agitators like myself, as my friends would say - are face to face with the difficulty of making ends meet. This problem presses heavily upon them, and I say that, if Senator de Largie is right, and we have not the constitutional power to protect these people, the time is ripe for the Government to ask for this authority instead of dilly-dallying even until the Prime Minister comes back, dr till we celebrate Peace, of the signing of which, by the way, we have had no official intimation in the Senate. If this Parliament has not the necessary authority, it is the imperative duty of all honorable senators not to rest until power has been given to the Commonwealth so that profiteering may be controlled from one end of the country to the other. If, however, the Government will follow the old party lines, and if every division taken shows the same members sitting behind the Leader of the Senate, and another lot of members always behind me, we shall be confronted with a very grave situation, and the day of reckoning will soon come. Perhaps I am a bit pessimistic as regards the future not only of Australia, but of all the nations, but’ I endeavour to give the most serious consideration to all the problems confronting us.’ I realize also that what looked like great problems during .the war were rapidly solved, and that prodigies in the way of social reforms were performed by all the nations during that great struggle. Perhaps we shall find that the collective genius of the people will overcome all the difficulties that are overshadowing us at the present time; but I cannot get away from the thought that an attempt may be made to solve these problems in the wrong way by an impatient multitude, dissatisfied with the Government and with Parliament. That being so, I seriously impress upon the Government the need for prompt action. If, as Senator de Largie has said, this Parliament has not the necessary constitutional powers, let action be taken a.i once to secure them. But I know that mine is the voice of one crying in the wilderness, so far as this Government are concerned. We read of their party meetings
– Held in secret.
– Following your bad example.
– 1 am not against that course, because I think every party has a right to conduct its business in private. But we have read that at the conference of the party the member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) urged that the name of the party should be the Australian National “Union, but the word “ Australian “ was struck out, so that the party organization should be known as the National Federation. What are we to understand by that?
– Broadening the outlook.
– It is just the same outlook as the honorable senator will find; the outlook of those people who will supply the needs of other nations before they supply the needs of Australians; the outlook of a party that deliberately strikes out the name of Australia, because, perhaps, its members are ashamed of the name.
– We did not want to restrict the party’s activities, that is all.
– It is the outlook of people whose sympathies all go with Britain, but who have very little consideration for Australia; so little, indeed, that they will not stand the word “ Australian “ in the name of their party. When we- see a great party like that grappling with questions in the way I have described, we can easily imagine that wrong remedies may be taken by men who come back and find that the Australian! Parliament has no constitutional powers to remedy existing grievances. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that, instead of deliberate and calm consideration of constitutional methods by Parliament, drastic action will be taken by a starved and ill-clothed people whose outlook has become so hopeless that the wrong remedy will be used. I know that that is not the remedy. We all know it is not.
– There is no excuse for any able-bodied man being cither starved or ragged.
– If the honorable senator who has interjected will tell me how the average man can pay ls. per lb. for meat I shall be interested to know.
– O - Or pay 100 per cent, more for boots than before the war.
– Or, in the case of clothing, pay three times the pre-war prices. Here is a statement I am going to make. The Acting Minister for Defence will have an opportunity of answering it when he replies: - The Defence Department, I am informed, are producing overcoats for our soldiers at shillings cheaper per coat than when the war commenced. If, however, a civilian enters any store in the Commonwealth and asks for the same article of clothing, will he get it at a cheaper price? Will he not, on. the contrary, have to pay double or treble the price ?
– He will pay much more, of course.
– My statement with regard to overcoats can be borne out by any honorable senator who cares to put a question to the Acting Minister for Defence. The overcoats are made -of excellent material - the same material that has always been used - and if under the War Precautions Act the Department can. produce this article of clothing at a cheaper rate than during the war, tb».n I s-ay that if the Commonwealth Government had the constitutional power, it would be possible to relieve the whole of the people of Australia in regard to the cost of clothing. The difference in the dressing of the people to-day compared with five years ago is marked.
– Folk are better dressed in most cases.
– They are much better dressed now than before the war.
– Where mav the miracle be seen 1 It is not happening in Melbourne. Senator Fairbairn is not really touched by the problem how to find money for either food or clothing.
– I have to look into such matters.
– I credit the honorable senator with looking into those subjects with as good a heart as any one else, but not with quite the same keen glance as men who are finding the cost of living a very pressing problem. If all members of Parliament were to look upon the matter from the same view-point, we would not sit* contentedly in Parliament and say , ‘ ‘ Here are difficulties which we would like to remedy, but we have not the constitutional power with which to do it.” One of the failings of the Australian temperament is that we are prone to put off the evil day. Tho evil day should be faced and its problems solved. The wisdom of the delegates who vested the National Parliament with its constitutional powers was, after all, the wisdom of twenty years ago and more. The problems of to-day are not those of a generation gone. Discontent is well grounded, because profiteers know that Parliament is powerless. With the war over they are making a trade war upon the citizens. If certain of Mr. Watt’s statements may be taken as a true indication of the intentions of the Government, it seems that, instead of redressing the evils of to-day, the Government are about to permit the profiteers to grow still richer. There are to be higher duties. The men who are fleecing the people are to te rewarded with a Tariff which will enable them the more easily to make trade war- upon the people. Their oversea opponents are to be shut out; and the excuse is that “we would remedy existing evils, if we had thb power.” While we are uttering such an excuse the evils are growing worse.
– Are you advocating Free Trade?
– Bother Free Trade and Protection ! They are of no importance when we are up against matters of life and death. If we are going to deal with the Tariff from the viewpoint as to whether Protection is better than Free Trade the Australian Parliament will leave the community utterly unprotected. There is not a company in Sydney, no matter how huge its profits during the war. that is not increasing its profits wherever it sees an opening to do so. The cry is, “ No mercy for the people.” Merciless men are out for merciless profits. They are not satisfied with 10 per cent, or 20 per cent., but must make enormous profits while they remain unhindered. Examine the state ments of rich companies made richer because of the war. By the side of those view the position of a tradesman’ in receipt of £3 15s. a week. Men earning such sums, and a little more and a little less, when the call came to fight, went to the war and took all the risks at 6s. a day. With all their allowances their soldier’s pay did not anything like equal their pre-war wages. They took the risks - all manner of risks.
– A lot of people did not take risks.
– Quite a number; arid, in the case of some, their return for having sense enough to get back and place themselves in the front of the movement was a seat in Parliament. But I am trying: to contrast the position of men who did take the risk’, and who, in many cases, were rewarded with mutilation. Compare their circumstances with those of the big business men who, in order to increase their mounting profits, sold their goods at still higher rates to the families of men who were away fighting for them.
– Cite some concrete cases of profiteering.
– The big (business men made profits and increased profits on the goods they sold to the children of our soldiers. It requires no concrete cases to prove that.
– I could give you some concrete cases, ‘but will you give the Senate some?
– I thought at first that the ‘honorable senator was doubting my remarks.
– No. They are too true in many cases.
– For once we are in agreement. The attitude of honorable senators generally upon this master really defines the cleavage between the two sides in this chamber. When election time comes round, certain extraordinary sayings of over-zealous men on this side - myself, for example, when I speak of hanging Ministers to lamp-posts - are taken as political capital by the observant opposition press. We are called Anarchists, who are a danger to the community. We have been called
Socialists, who are a danger to the community. To-day we are popularly called Bolsheviks, who are a danger to the community.
– .One thing seems to have remained unchanged with .the changing of those names, namely, that you are ia danger to the community!
– Where is this community to Whom we axe a danger? We are a danger and a menace to those who deal unscrupulously, to those who supply the people’s foodstuffs - the trusts, the combines, the .syndicates, the Beef Trust, the Wheat Trust, the Sugar Trust, and all the rest of them - all those big people who wave the flag and sing “ God Save the King,” and who stand, as patriots. I advise honorable senators to look closely into the wildest utterances of those who have been held up to ridicule by the press, and to compare their statements with the actual deeds ‘ of the profiteers. On the one side a man says something which really hurts nobody except himself, for the reason that he is, perhaps, interned, and possibly even deported, and, mayhap, fails to find a country that will accept him as a citizen. Compare ‘his case with that of the business man who puts a finger on his price list and says to his manager, “ Do not jump those prices up 5s. all at once; raise them 6d. ‘a week. Do it gradually until you reach that figure.”
– They do not talk that way in business.
– The honorable senator jus’t now enumerated sugar and wheat in the list of trusts and combines. Both commodities are controlled by the Government.
– And, so far as the consumer has been concerned, sugar soared; and it has soared higher since the present Government came into power. Wo fixed the price-
– Would you still take wheat out of the Pool at less than it is worth to-day?
– I would pay the farmer 4s. 9d. a bushel. Because of the awful conditions existing, I would set an example by paying the farmers a bonus. I would say, “ If 3s. 6d. will provide us bread at 3d. for a 2-lb. loaf, then, as we have to pay the farmer 4s. 9d., give him the difference as a bonus.” That would satisfy the community immediately, and would be & good and profitable investment for the Government.
– There is not the money in the country with which to do it. .
– It would be merely cutting off one end of the blanket to sew it on to the other.
– I would place the burden of giving cheaper bread to the people of this country upon the shoulders of those people whose incomes have been so high that they have not suffered anything during the war.
– I think I would keep off sugar if I were you. You will be getting into trouble.
– I should not like to embarrass my friends from Queensland, because they pretty well have a monopoly of the sugar.
– We know why sugar is dear.
– Yes, because there is a duty of £6 per ton upon it. In Queensland there are the richest lands for growing sugar in the world, and, may I say, the ablest and most capable sugarfarmers in the world.
– And the highestpriced labour in the world.
– These people still have to ask the people I represent to give them a duty of £6 per ton to pre- _ vent other sugar coming into competition with their sugar. The people of Australia have been paying that duty for years. The duty is only of advantage in keeping cheaper sugar from coming into Australia, and the Australian sugargrower is in ‘ possession of the richest country in the world, and the finest climate in the world, for sugar-growing. Senator de Largie interjected about high wages, but wages are only a small item iri the cost of the production of sugar. Contrast the position of the man who grows sugar on those rich lands with that of the man who grows wheat in New South Wales, and who has to plough, and harrow, and fallow his land. year after year. “Who receives the huge profits ? They are on the side of the man to whom the people are willingly paying a duty of £6 on every ton of sugar he produces. That duty is paid to enable the growers of sugar on the richest lands in the world to compete with the outside growers. There are 2,000,000 tons of wheat in hand, with an overdraft of £18,000,000 upon it, and I say that it would be a profitable undertaking to allow the wheat required for the flour to make bread for our people to be obtained at 3s. 6d. per bushel, and, just as we give the sugargrowers a protective duty of £6 per ton, let us at once give to the farmers ls. 3d. per bushel to bring the price of the wheat up to 4s. 9d. per bushel.
– Why not give the farmer the same price as is obtained in America, 9s. 2d. per bushel?
– I know Senator de Largie can outbid me in generosity towards the farmer. I am trying to put forward a practical scheme for dealing with ‘the serious situation that obtains today. There would be satisfaction from one end of Australia to the other if the Government, instead of announcing, as Mr. Watt has done, that they propose to put industry on a firmer footing by increasing Customs duties, were to say that the Standing Orders will be suspended to enable a Bill to be run through the House to make bread cheap for the people. Such a step should be taken, instead of keeping a huge amount of wheat locked up, because there is the grave menace from the financial point of view that the wheat, being at the mercy of the weevil, the mice and the rate, will deteriorate in value. Though if the Government were to liberate the wheat to feed the people - shall I say the hungry people? - at a cheap rate there might, on the face of it, be a financial loss, I do not know that it would not be a good sound investment from a hard-headed business man’s point of view. That is what I am urging the Government to do. I am not urging them to fix prices for the farmers. I ask that some restrictions be placed on the export of food and clothing until such time as Australia itself is supplied. We are up against an extraordinary set of circumstances. The world’s markets are depleted of many of the commodities that are required for the sustenance of mankind, and in that extraordinary set of circumstances Governments will be well advised that do not try to run on the old slow methodical lines of government. They must not think that sitting doing nothing constitutes their whole business in life. The Minister may possibly smile at my reference to “doing nothing,” and say that I would not be talking here at large if I had as much to do as he has. I know that individual Ministers are worked, and worked hard, but I know also that the Government has done practically nothing to face the real facts and deal with them in a way that will meet the situation.
I have spoken’ at greater length than ‘ I intended; but there were quite a number of subjects that I wished to discuss. I would say to the Minister in charge of Defence : the war is over, release the interned men who are residents of Australia. If you have any charges against them, put them upon their trial and allow them to face their accusers. If you do that you will only be goi~ - back to those sound principles of British justice to which we have been accustomed. Do the Government intend to persist, not only in deporting Germans, but in deporting the mothers and the fathers of our young Australians, and that without trial ? Internment was not intended to be a punishment. An internment camp was a place in which enemies outspoken, or men suspected ot being enemies, were placed for the safety of the nation’. They were not placed in the internment camp as a punishment, and I say that under the internment regulations neither this nor any other Government had any right to punish any man. Deportation from Australia is a punishment. Imprisonment without trial is abhorrent to any man in Australia, and now that the war is over the Government will be well advised to cease from all acts of violence against citizens of this country, no matter what their nationality may be. If there are men here who are guilty of offences, let an indictment be drawn up against them, and let them meet their accusers in open Court, so that they may answer the indictment. Take the case of
Paul Freeman. I notice that Mr. Watt informed another place that he did not regard the agitation in New South Wales in regard to the case of Paul Freeman seriously. I venture to say Mr. Watt takes nothing seriously that has not the stamp of Melbourne upon it. He will not take seriously the agitation of New South Wales for a Federal Capital to be established where the Constitution and this Parliament said it should be established - at Canberra. Mr. Watt will not take the agitation about Paul Freeman seriously. The continuance ‘of the imprisonment of Paul Freeman undermines our system -of justice. It is an outrage upon the freedom of the people for a man to be. kept in gaol without being faced with his accusers. The people do not understand it. Certain people say, “ The Government must know something serious about him or they would not keep him there.” If the Government know anything against him let them lay a charge.
– The Government let a criminal go free.
– What criminal?
– Hermann Heymann.
– He is interned.
– You let him out against my protest.
– Why will the Acting Prime Minister not take the agitation for Paul Freeman’s release seriously? Is it our custom to keep a man interned, and to hint darkly that he has said and done things which he claims that he has not said and .done ? Would it not be common justice to lay a charge against the man and confront him with ‘ his accusers? If he were found guilty we should not have men saying that the Government had done wrong in bringing him before the Court, but if the Government punish him and there is even a doubt as to his guilt, they not only wrong him but wrong the community. They cannot play fast and loose with the liberties of the people in that way. The Government may refuse to take any notice of the agitation for the release of Paul Freeman, and to the injustice done to Paul Freeman they may add the injustice done to little Australians born in this country, who ‘are given the liberal choice of being exiled from Australia or parted from their parents. The Government say that they will not take into serious account the agitation in the most peaceful way of people who desire to enter their protest against un-British systems - extraordinary systems that before this war would not have been tolerated for ten minutes.If the Government will not take notice of orderly, well-regulated meetings of people who ask for justice, they will take notice of something much more serious before very long. The Government that will not take notice of the demand for a fair trial for a man who is imprisoned are preparing for their own undoing, and fortunately they will meet it before very long.
– When are you going to protest against the action of the seamen who are punishing the people of . Australia at the present time?
– I am sorry the honorable gentleman drags me into that. The Government knowingly forced that strike. I say that, and I know it. We met the Government twelve months ago last April, when the very existence of the Empire was concerned. It was most questionable how we could organize the forces of Australia in order to bring about unity amongst the different sections of the community. At the conference that was called by His Excellency the Governor-General I pointed out that the ships could be handled with loyalist labour when there were very few ships in use, but trouble would be sure to arise when a great many ships came back.
– It is not a question of loyalists or disloyalists.
– That is at the bottom of the whole thing.
– It is not, and you know it.
– The honorable senator brought me on to this subject. I am not talking in the way he wants, but in the way I think. Mr. Hughes accepted the reasons we ;gave for the dissension in the community, and he and the Premiers of all the States promised to do certain things to bring about unity.
– With regard to the Navigation Act, or what?
– With regard to the disputes between the seamen and their employers, the disputes between the Government and the unions, and all those things that we pointed out at the time to the Government as being the cause of dissension. We pointed out to hostile Governments what the cause of the dissension was. With regard to the shipping trouble, I stated that the wharfs were being manned with what was called “loyalist” labour - I used a much stronger and more offensive term - and that while that could be done when there were few ships running, it could not be done when there were many ships. The Prime Minister and Sir Joseph Cook recognised that there was some value in what was said, >and they agreed to remedy the evil, but from that day until the present their promises have not been kept. Mi-. Holman and Mr. Beeby made promises as to what they would do with regard to the restoration of the unions in New South Wales to the privileges of the Arbitration Court from which they had been removed, and returned to their States to find themselves confronted by the Nationalist members of their party, who told them that they could not do the things that they had promised. I believe I showed Mr. Hughes and other members of the Conference that if you wanted to get community of interests you had to remove the grievances, and you cannot get community of interests by Governments thinking they are so strong that they can drive unionism to its knees. They cannot do so. We have this mad strife going on, and the power-holding class trying to remove the unions that demand and insist on better conditions. With all the blatant charges that are made against the unions for disrupting industry, no man can honestly look at the progress of industrial conditions and say that the position of the workers of Australia to-day is as good as it was before the war. The position of the workers had been improved through the suffering and the agitation of those unionists of whose antagonists Senator De Largie has become an admirer.
– I am condemning the action, the men have taken up at the present time. I speak as one who had something to do with the passing of the Navigation Act - the best Navigation Act ever passed by any Parliament.
– I am almost sorry that I dealt with this question, as it appears that Senator de Largie desires to make a speech while sitting down. Two men cannot make a speech in this chamber at the same time. As Senator de .Largie does not wish to hear my views on this question, I am sorry that I referred to it, because I realize the value of time. I’ say that the Government, with their eyes open, refused, fifteen months ago, to remove the grievance that brought about the trouble existing today, although through Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph. Cook they promised to do so.
– That has nothing whatever to do with the present trouble.
– They gave a most solemn promise when Australia’s future was hanging in the balance, but when Mr. Holman and Mr. Beeby returned to Sydney, the interests of the National party were allowed to overshadow the interests of Australia, and the promise of members of the Government was not kept, because a majority of the party at a deputation warned them not to keep it.
– That is too thin.
– I am stating facts. Senator de Largie is not new to industrial warfare. He grew grey in fighting the cause of the unionists, and he knows that no matter how just the demands of Labour for better conditions, the most infamous allegations have always been made against the leaders of Labour when submitting its claims. Until the method of setting one section of the community against the other, whether right or wrong, ceases, I venture to say that we shall not see the end of industrial troubles.
– They are ruining the country in the- meantime.
– I suppose that if I were to search the files of the newspapers I should be able to discover that on occasions Senator Lynch has been prominent as one of the men who have con- ducted Labour’s battles, and have been defamed for doing so.
– I should not mind if Walsh and company were doing the starving at the present moment; but it is the poor who are suffering.
– Order! Senator Gardiner is entitled to be heard without interruption.
– I am referring to the attacks upon men leading the Labour movement, whether industrially or politically. Those attacks have always, to my mind, been of the most stupid kind. They have continued from the first day that the Labour party came into existence in New South Wales till the present time. If honorable . senators will turn up yesterday’s newspapers they will find in them a personal attack made upon me by Sir George Fuller, which is quite typical of the method adopted by the other side of trying to discredit members of the Labour party.
– There were some attacks upon the honorable senator at the last Labour Conference held in Sydney.
– I have experienced so much that has given me satisfaction at the hands even of the extremists iu our movement, that the little attacks they make upon me never cause me irritation. But there is a section of the community from which I have received nothing but the most vile and false criticism. I have not to thank them even for a fair deal. They have twisted the most honest acts into acts of a degrading character. I know how well intentioned I am, no matter how incompetent I may be to make that clear, and I know that I have just cause to object to- the way in which I have been treated by this section. I know also’ that as this section has lost no opportunity of misrepresenting what I have said or done, it will treat other persons in the same way. Consequently, I assume Labour leaders to be innocent until they are proved guilty. The whole system of the press attacks by a particular section is a system of suggestion that men prominent in the Labour movement, whether political or industrial, are a set of individuals who are not to be trusted. Senators Lynch,. Reid, Russell, de Largie, and others were subjected to the same kind of attacks, and if they were fighting on our side would be subjected to them again to-day. Men who conscientiously struggle at the head of the Labour movement in connexion with industrial affairs, and who believe that they are doing the right thing, are held up to ridicule and contempt by men who have no other purpose to serve than to degrade them in the eyes of their fellows. That kind of thing has been going on for years. The way to deal with industrial troubles is not to defame and belittle the men at the head of the Labour movement, but to make an honest attempt to find a way out of them. There is very little honesty in the attempt to solve industrial troubles that we find in, the leading articles of the Age and other newspapers.
-. - Why exclude The’ Worker and its criticism of its political opponents ?
– I do not include The Worker because there is no analogy between The Worker and the other newspapers to which I refer.
– No, there is not.
– The Worker is a union-owned paper, financed by the unions to voice the opinion of the unions. That is known to every one, and the statement is published in that newspaper itself.
– Is it supposed to lie and misrepresent its political opponents?
– It does not do so.
– There is not a line in it which is not against the truth.
– What occasion is there for The Worker to utter a falsehood about the Minister for Repatriation when the publication of the truth about him would be more damaging? The truth about the honorable senator would be so damaging that The Worker has no need to publish falsehoods about him. A comparison between the Age, Argus, Sydney Morning Herald, and Daily Telegraph, and The Worker is not a fair comparison, because The Worker is a unionist paper, paid for by the unions to put the unionist case. The other newspapers I have mentioned pose as independent journals. If they made clear and open the fact that they are employing, exploiting, and profiteering class journals, paid by those classes to put their case, the analogy between them and The Worker would be a fair one. We openly say that we have a newspaper to put our case, and it puts it fairly and truthfully, but these other people claim that their newspapers are independent organs of public opinion, while they use them ‘all the time to voice the interests of their particular class.
– The Age and Argus attack the Government as frequently as does any other newspaper.
– The right to apply the whip gently to the Government is one which the Age and the Argus particularly should exercise. The fact that they attack the Government, who are such unreasoning fighters for the exploiting and profiteering class, is a proof of how far short the Government fall. I believe that even the distinguished President of the Senate is sometimes the object of vicious attacks by these newspapers. I am inclined to think that these vicious newspapers lose no opportunity to attack spitefully the gentleman holding the distinguished position of President of the Senate.
– Let us order the common hangman to burn them all.
– The honorable senator encourages me to keep going a little longer. It is evident that he is anxious that the debate shall continue. I repeat that it is not fair to compare The Worker, which is a unionist paper, paid for and published by the unions to put their case, with the other journals referred to. I might give my meed of praise to that great journal the West Australian, but I do not feel like doing so. I can. say that it is, perhaps, worse than any of the others, with the exception of the Brisbane Courier.
– What about the Sydney “rags”?
-^ The Daily Telegraph, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, and the Argus are bad ; for bias and spite, the West Australian is worse; but language fails me to describe the
Brisbane Courier. We know the bitterness and falseness of these newspapers claiming to be public journals. There is no analogy between them and the unionowned Worker, unless they openly set out their object to extend the profits of the profiteers, and to cover up the evil doings of the exploiters and bloodsuckers, who have been growing rich on the . poverty of the people. It is their business to boost them and the party opposite, who support them. .
– The Brisbane Daily Standard is so hot that a lady who wrapped up a joint of meat in it found that it turned the meat bad.
– Possibly the best thing ever seen in some of the newspapers I have mentioned has been a joint of beef. The trouble is that in the homes of the workers joints of meat are getting smaller.
– In Brisbane?
– In almost every other city but Brisbane, where beef has been kept down to a reasonable price.
– Is that, why they are seizing the cattle at ‘Townsville - because meat is so cheap?
– The Queensland Government, at any rate, has grappled earnestly with the problem of supplying the people.
– But not honestly.
– I think I shall have to ask Senator Lynch to use a lantern to look for an honest man. But I was endeavouring to make this point. I say that here are papers which pretend that the purpose of their circulation is to give news, to express their views in the interests of the community, and you can search the columns of the Age, the Argus, the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the Sydney Morning Herald, the West Australian, the Brisbane Courier, and the Adelaide Advertiser in vain for any leading article holding up individual exploiters to public contempt. On the other hand, you can read, day by day, of their attacks upon union leaders, who, according to them, are always doing wrong. Now, there must be something wrong with such journals. If they were the admitted mouthpieces of ‘ these profiteers, ‘ these blood-suckers who are living on the community, one would not complain; but, with their dignified “ we,” they try to pose as the public, and pretend to be voicing the opinions of the people of Australia. All I can say is that the public are pretty well seised of their position. As a consequence, the papers are becoming better known, and their influence in the community is becoming less and less each year.
– And the proprietors are getting wealthier and wealthier.
– I am not complaining of their wealth. That is due to their energy in putting before the community the views only of the side they represent. If they did not get wealthy by these means, they would be the reverse of business men.
– With assistance you will be able to keep going till the dinnerhour adjournment.
– The Minister has reminded me that, with the assistance of honorable senators opposite, I shall be able to continue until the dinner hour. But I have tried to finish three times, only to find some honorable senator deliberately inviting me to speak upon another subject that I did not intend to mention.
SenatorFoll. - The seamen’s strike, for instance.
– Yes, the seamen’s strike.
SenatorFoll. - I can quite understand that the honorable senator does not care to speak about that.
– Apparently the honorable senator wants me to go on. Do not misunderstand me. If he thinks I am not game to stand up for our men, no matter what position they are in, he never made a bigger mistake in his life. If I thought they were wrong - which I do not - I would still stand up for them, because I know that, while Labour may be wrong sometimes, the honorable senator’s side is always wrong.
SenatorFoll. - It puts a nasty taste in your mouth.
– Exactly. It does. Men working for a bare existence have every right to try and better their position.
– But you will not tell them what they ought to do.
– The honorable senator tells them what the other fellow wants them to do. He forgets that his own leader, fifteen months ago, gave an undertaking to have their grievances redressed.
– Nothing of the kind.
– The records prove what I say up to the hilt. State Ministers opposed to Labour in New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia all pledged themselves to a course of action which, if followed then, would have removed the possibility of industrial discord.
– That has nothing to do with the seamen’s strike.
– I know too much about that subject for the honorable senator. The fact is that in this country there is a political party that lives upon its capacity for misrepresenting unionists.
– There are more parasites in the unions than in all the rest of the country put together.
– That may be the honorable senator’s opinion.
– It is the opinion of the general public.
– With perhaps a closer connexion with the unionists of this country for very many years ‘than the honorable senator has, I say that there is not a more hard-working, and in proportion to the work they do, a more poorly paid class than the secretaries and organizers, who are striving so hard for the betterment of their country. And yet Senator Foll describes them as parasites living on the Labour movement ! These organizers and secretaries, whom the unionists are pleased to put in their positions by their votes, are now referred to by Senator Foll as parasites? Why are these men called vile names by their opponents? It is because, by their organizing ability and their application, they have been able to drag a little more from the wealthy section of the community in order to enable the working classes to live a little better.
– You do not know to whom I am referring.
– I say that no man can get into touch with any industrial organizer in the Commonwealth, and realize what he is doing, and still charge him with being a parasite.
– I take full responsi- . bility for my statement.
– You may say it here, but you would not dare to say it outside.
– I would say it anywhere.
– The man who utters a slander against the organizers or secretaries of our unions does not appreciate what he is saying. I have done some organizing myself for the Australian Workers Union, and I can say, so far as an organizer is concerned, that his position is a very difficult one.
– I am not referring to the craft union organizer. I am referring to Judd and’ company.
– Judd cuts himself altogether out of our industrial and political movement. When in the witnessbox Judd said that he had no connexion with the Labour party. I know the honorable senator is trying to> discredit unionism in Australia, but however vicious he may become we do not forget that the leaders of our organizations, the organizers and the secretaries, are the men who have borne the brunt of the attacks from the other side.
– And you “ chucked “ them out.
– I do not know what the honorable senator’s grievances are, but I do know that, if ever there was a strike on when he was associated with the movement, Senator Guthrie was prominent on behalf of the seamen.
– I was never out of one of them .
– I am glad to hear that the honorable senator is still proud of those fights.
– I am; but what was the result?
– The honorable senator, I know, narrowly escaped one or two results, and if in a speech on this motion I were allowed to disclose private conversations, I might mention in more detail how on one occasion Senator Guthrie went hot-footed from Sydney lest peradventure he might find himself behind prison bars, on a charge of having broken some real or imaginary laws of this country.
– There was a Providence watching over me then.
– I am glad to have the assurance of Senator- Guthrie that Providence sometimes does intervene on behalf of Labour organizers. The causes of a strike go deeper than the characters of the men connected with it. Some of the finest characters I have ever seen connected with the Labour movement have gone to their graves embittered by the fact that a capitalistic press has misrepresented them to men who never knew them. These are the ruthless disturbers of industrial peace, and Senators Guthrie and Lynch must know, as I know, that the same misrepresentations and the same charges are being levelled against the leaders of to-day as were levelled against them when they had to fight on behalf of their fellow unionists. They know that, at the most critical time in the negotiations for the settlement of a strike, when the situation could be saved, and a.n industry placed upon a fair basis again, this miserable method of condemning every one connected with the Labour movement has so exasperated unionists that strikes have been prolonged. The press would not and could not be fair.
– That is hardly correct. The press has been fair. In the great strike of 1890 the Sydney Morning Herald was on our side.
– I suppose that I was too young then to be much interested in strikes; but since then I have read a great many leading articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, and I know the attitude of that journal towards the Labour movement. Senator Lynch says that in the 1890 strike they took our part. Let that stand to them for righteousness.
– Their advice then was to use the ballot-box, and we took it.
– That, apparently, was one isolated instance, and one strike in which the workers had the support of the Sydney Morning Herald.
– It was the big, historic strike.
– It was historic. There is no doubt about that; and I think that Senators Lynch and Guthrie must to some extent revere the memories of those who followed the advice of the Sydney Morning Herald, and adopted the constitutional means of redressing their grievances. But the press to-day is against the industrialists, and holds them up to ridicule and contempt. Senator Poll has used an offensive term. I do not want to play upon it, but I feel sure that if the honorable senator speaks in. this debate, and has time to think, he will realize that he did not really mean what he said.
SenatorFoll. - I told you whom I was referring to, and what I meant. I stick to it.
– Well, I am glad that my play upon the word has brought this admission from the honorable senator,but I did not think any honorable senator would deliberately insult the unionists of this country. Industrial disturbances will continue until Labour’s objective is accomplished, until the workers are assured of the full results of their industry, until the exploitation of their earnings is prevented, until such time as they can get possession of the collectively-owned agencies of production and exchange.
– What does that mean ?
– I refer to. those agencies which the community uses. Our objective is to collectively own the collectively-used agencies of production and exchange. Our opponents will continue to accuse us of desiring to take away the industry which a man has built up by his own energy. At the recent session of Labour’s annual conference in Sydney, it was clearly stated that we are not out after farmers’ farms-
– I wish you were; I would sell you one to-morrow.
– That we are not out to take from the little business man that which he has built up by his own toil; but that we are out to own and control the collectively-used agencies of public production and exchange. We do not, for example, desire that the Sydney ferries should remain under the will of monopolists, who would not stop at doubling the fares if they thought fit.
SenatorFoll. - The ferry companies cannot raise their fares one half-penny without the consent of the State Government.
– The fact is that they have just raised their fares 25 per cent. And what was to stop them? There is a National Government in power. There was no difficulty, and there never will be while a National Government remains in office.
– Have not the nationally-owned and collectively-run railways also raised their fares and freights ?
– To nothing like the same extent.
– Has not the price of the newspaper, The Worker, gone up 100 per cent?
– I dare say it has, in order to enable us to carry on. A hard-hearted Government have enabled the profiteer to charge so much for his paper and supplies generally that no other course was possible.
SenatorFoll. - The Queensland Government are continually raising fares and freights upon the State railways.
– If the honorable senator persists with statements about what the Queensland Government have done, I shall read for the edification of the Senate a book entitled Socialism at Work. This is a publication issued by the Queensland Government.From its pages I will indicate at what loss those railways carry the pastoralist’s wool and the farmer’s produce. Why should honorable senators seek to cloud the issue? The campaign of misrepresentation is the same to-day as it was twenty and thirty years ago. To attack individuals is not the way to get over our difficulties to-day. I can remember Senator Millen attending our conference away back in 1893, as a representative of the teamsters out in the Bourke country. His voice was heard crying, “Mr. Chairman, am I going to get an. opportunity of dealing with the question which the carriers have put on the notice-paper?” That was a matter having to do with the Afghan camel drivers. The Leader of the Senate was then a representative, I think, of the Carriers’ Union. I wonder whether, if he had remained with o.ur movement, as have other honorable senators of the type of Senator McDougall, through all the intervening years, he would feel happy when heaTing himself and his fellows attacked as we are to-day. To abuse the unions and unionist methods is not the way out of our troubles. Industrial strife is growing worse and worse because of our failure to realize what is really happening. The sooner we seek a way out without setting up a competition of abuse the better. The sooner we try to find out why both sides are acting so stupidly - for I am willing to put it in that way - the sooner we shall overcome paralysis of business and these catastrophes to the wage-earner. The atmosphere of politics does not conduce to fair consideration of all these questions. The party man is always a party man ; he fights a party battle, and it seems to me that the party man who forsakes his own side, and enters the ranks of the other, fights with a vim which his old opponents never dreamed of displaying, whereupon, of course, it is only natural that we should fight back with equal viciousness. I entered the political fight as optimistic a Labour man as any who had preceded me. If I now see that the solution is apparently hopeless, it is not for me to complain that the leaders are bad and the unions are bad, when I know full well that they are good. It is for me to find a better system, to arrive at a true solution, one that will give happier and swifter results. It is the duty of us all to seek that end; but the way out for me is not to desert my friends just because the present situation looks like a mistake. If a general in the great waT had got his detachment into a tight corner, what would be thought of the head-quarters staff which said, “ Send him help ? Not much! He had no right to get into the fight, anyhow”? In this industrial battle we must be with and for Labour or against it. We must be with the capitalistic class or against it. There is no neutral ground. When the battle develops we are all bound to be sharply divided into two camps. I have never condemned whatever the industrialists may have been doing, for the very good reason that I hav& trusted them. I may not have known the full reasons for their actions, or their complete desires; but I have been quite sure that they have done their best for the men and the organizations for whom they were fighting, despite misrepresentations, falsehood, and slander. That has always been my attitude. But never yet- has the capitalistic press tried to improve matters by giving a fair deal all round. To-day it is trying to drive the unionists to their knees; but it cannot achieve that end. Labour in this country has been given an equal vote with the wealthiest in the land. Labour, if it were united, could overwhelm the other class. If organized labour would pull together, it could win every public office and seat in the community. And if the other side will persist in this present foolish warfare, we shall do the same. There are two sides to the conflict to-day, and not more than two. Either we are with Labour or we are fighting Labour. Until the ideals set forth at the Sydney Labour Conference become accomplished facts, we shall not be near the end of industrial trouble. On a certain occasion a Judge gave a decision to the effect that the workers in an industry were not getting sufficient return for their labour. He held that their wages must be increased to a standard described as “ a living wage.” The Judge made no effort to give the wage-earners anything beyond that, in the direction of elevating their standard of comfort. The wives of unionists were placed in the witness-box, and examined as to how much they paid for their vegetables and their bread. The unionists dad not retaliate by placing the wives of the wealthy employers in the box, and inquiring what they paid for their clothes and their luxuries. I would have done so. They humiliated our people, hut we endured it, and accepted the award. The wage-earners took what theCommonwealth regarded as a living wage. We waited upon constitutional methods. Then what happened when wages went up a little way? The profiteers in command of the necessaries of life promptly increased the price of those goods a long way. That sort of thing is still going on ; and yet we are asked to stand for arbitration. The only effective arbitration will come about when the Judges realize that in a civilized community the working people are entitled to something rather more than a bare living wage - that they are entitled to live as civilized and educated people should do. Why should they be debarred of all the comforts of life? Why must they continue to work to earn merely enough to live this week in order that they may work to earn enough next week? Thoughtful men among the workers tell us to-day that, with all our higher wages, we are worse off. Why is that so? It is because the unscrupulous profiteer has laid himself out, within the law, to take away the earnings of labour. You will not get men to strike merely for the love of it. Striking is the last resort.
– Is the cause of the seamen’s trouble that they cannot make ends meet on £14 a month?
– We know all about the £14 a month.
– It is infinitely more than certain other classes of labour are getting to-day.
– You cannot get men to go out on. strike who are working under good conditions. They never did so while the honorable senator was among them, anyhow; and, although his excellent influence has been removed, he will find that they are still the same kind of men.
– The trouble once was to get men to strike. Now the trouble is. to ?top them from striking.
– I do not agree with that. There is no difference between the men engaged in shipping to-day and those who were in the great strike of 1890. The man who sits coldly aloof may be able to detect in the present strike something with which to disagree. I would not disagree, however. When the men in an industry announce that they have a grievance, I know how real their grievance must be for them to take the stand which they have deemed best, and I am prepared to stand by them, and to echo their assurance that’ they have a grievance, and that they are justified in striking.If I liked to produce the records I could show that at the Upper Hunter election about this time last year, Mr. Holman, the Premier of New South Wales, foreshadowed the strike that was to come. These people knew what they were doing; they were engineering and combining for it. When the soldiers were coming back there was to be an attempt to reduce the amount to be paid to labour. How could it be reduced ? By weakening the power of unionism. They wanted to cut down the price of labour; but we are, unfortunately, quite unable to keep prices down. We will yet do that, and I believe the Queensland Government are going to lead the way in doing it. I have read a statement as to what they are doing. They have areas of grazing land, which, if aggregated would be equal to a tract 500 miles long; and 26 miles wide. Just imagine a grazing area running from Melbourne to Sydney, and extending for 13 miles on, either side of therailway ! The: object is to grow food for Queenslanders in the future. The opponents of that experiment in the early stages willseek to discredit it, will harass the Government, and will even resort to arms. We know that a little while ago the Nationalists in Queensland were almost in open revolt. I think that if the Nationalists were wise in their day and generation they would say, “ Hero is the fairest field a socialistic Government could ever wish to have to carry out their experiments, and if they are successful we will follow their example in other States.”
SenatorFoll. - Our trouble is that if the Queensland Government continue their experiments there will be no Queensland left.
– That is the dread the honorable senator has, but it is not justified by the facts.
– It is.
– That is the unwise and unjustifiable fear of men who are not dreading the extinction of Queensland, but are dreading the introduction of a system which, if successful in Queensland, will spread throughout the world. That is a system under which the men who work will get what they earn. Under it the day of the men who scheme and get what the worker earns will have gone by.
– Under a Labour Government the price of living has increased in Queensland.
– I believe the honorable senator can get his statement borne out by the Statistician’s figures, but if he will go with me to Sydney, and let me buy beef at a butcher’s shop there, and then go on to Queensland and buy beef at a butcher’s shop there, I will pay for the beef he buys if he will pay for the beef I buy. He will see whether the cost of living in Queensland is not half as cheap again as it is elsewhere.
– Beef is only one item..
– The Queensland Government have not accomplished that result in every other avenue, but they will. , I read of some one pointing out at a Nationalist party meeting that the Queensland Government were ^actually in competition with the Federal Government in repatriating soldiers, and it appeared that the competition was calculated to injure the fair fame of the National Government, because the Queensland Government are so far ahead of them. I have added on something that I did not read, but that was the inference. The complaint seems to me to be that the Labour Government in Queensland are doing so much more than the Federal Government are doing. We know that that is so, and we know that they are bringing more common sense to bear in dealing with soldier-settlement. We know they are securing money to build soldiers’ homes, and that because they are in active opposition to the Nationalist party an attempt is being made to discredit their efforts. The opponents of the Queensland Government should welcome these experiments. The frame of mind of the people of Queensland is shown by the fact that after the Ryan Government had been three years in office, an appeal was made to the people on an equal franchise, and the Government largely increased its following.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.
– I have in my hand a pamphlet entitled Socialism at Work - the Results of the Working of the Various State Enterprises Established, by the Queensland Ryan Government. The pamphlet bears the imprint of the Queensland Government Printer, and is apparently issued by the Government. It is my intention to read the whole of it, because, if I were to stop at any place, it would be said that I was picking out unfairly those things that told in favour of the Government. The chapter headings are - “ Growth of Private Power,” “ Economy,” “How the Workmen- Benefit,” “Combines.” “Prices.” “States Saw Mills,”’ “State Resources,” “The Present Position,’’ “The Financial Results.” I promised Senator Foll that I would read the whole of the pamphlet, but seeing that the Bill is so urgent, and that I cannot trespass on the time of the Chamber without taking up the time of honorable senators on my own side, who wish to speak, I shall refrain from reading it. But if any one questions my reference to the progressive work the Queensland Government are doing I shall read this pamphlet to show that everything that I have said can be substantiated.
An Honorable Senator. - Is that a threat ?
– No. I wanted to finish my address at 5 o’clock this evening, but an interjection by an honorable senator prevented me. I just wish to say to those honorable senators who dislike the manner in which I have put my views, that there are two sides to all great and serious questions, and the sooner the Government and the forces that are con- tending at the present time realize the seriousness of the present position, realize the difficulties that are confronting us all, and realize the necessity for the organization of Australia - for an organization that will b© strong enough to overcome the difficulties that are in front of us - the better it will be for the whole of the people of this Commonwealth.
– I wish to touch on the present situation, and the cause of the great industrial unrest, and to suggest, in my opinion, what would be a remedy for the evil. I was very sorry indeed to hear Senator Toll refer a short time ago to the parasites in the Labour movement. I would remind the honorable senator that sneers are cheap, and the best place to sneer is where the man sneered at has a chance to reply. I was, a trade union secretary for very many years. I am almost afraid to tell how long I have been connected with the trade unionism movement, but it is over forty years. I was a union secretary for many years, and all the time I acted in an honorary capacity. I should like to say that the men who are now trade union secretaries are in their positions because of the law of the land that, compels men to take such positions so that they can do their best for their fellow men. They are misunderstood. We hear the cry of ‘ ‘ agitators ‘ ‘ from our friends opposite. During mv long career, I have seen union leaders almost beseech their members to cease strife, and take their cases to the Court. They have done that for very many years with satisfactory results. But the time has come now when men are dissatisfied with the controlling Governments in the State and the nation, which seem to be afraid to grapple with the industrial questions that must be grappled with by every State and national Government in Australia and throughout the world. We should, as we have always done in legislation, have taken the lead, and I think the lead could be easily taken in this case. We have heard of Australia being the home of strikes. It is not the home of strikes. There are fewer strikes in Australia than in any other British community. During the war there were ten strikes in a few weeks in one of the munition yards in England. Men who had gone Home from this country to assist the Empire had to leave their employment through the want of unity that existed in the unions to which they belonged in the Old Country. I am sorry to say that some of them were very scurvily treated. But that is beside the question. In my opinion, the cause of the industrial unrest is the persecution of the working people, who have been persecuted by trusts and combines, and those who control the food and clothing supplies. As a result of the terrible epidemic that is ravaging the country, attention has been drawn to the horrible conditions under which members of the labouring community have to work and live. Many of them live in hovels, and in many cases the volunteer helpers have found several families huddled together in three-roomed dwellings. I say we have awakened, and I will be with any action that is taken by any constitutional or unconstitutional authority to remedy the existing state of affairs. The cost, of living has gone up by leaps and bounds, and wages have not gone up to a commensurate extent. Consequently the working people are underfed and housed in a manner which we would not have dreamt of a few years ago. Taking these things into consideration, can we wonder that there is unrest, that there is Bolshevism in Australia, and that there are strikes 1 Can we wonder at anything these men do to raise themselves and their families from the position they axe in ? I fully remember the conditions that obtained after the great upheaval of 1890. It is quite true, as has been said here today, that we took the advice of the newspapers of that day and sought to remedy our grievances at the ballot-box, instead of by the brutal strike. At that time the unions were lying crushed and bleeding at the foot of the ladder. They had been hurled from the top to the bottom before taking that advice, but unfortunately the rising generation, and particularly those who have come from other countries, have never thought to read of the dire distress at that time, and the results of that industrial upheaval. I know that the strike of to-day is a mere circumstance to that of 1890, in view of the misery which was caused by the latter strike. The remedy, in my opinion, is easy. It is to create- content amongst the working classes by enabling them to secure the food and clothing which they cannot procure to-day. I have no objection to the Government or to . any one else attempting to grapple with, this great question. If they do not grapple with it someone else must, and the unions are attempting to grapple with it. There is a great outcry to-day against the One Big Union, but there was no outcry against the One Big Union of employers and fanners and settlers that was formed when Mr. Justice Higgins gave his award to the rural workers. When that One Big “Union of Employers was formed, we heard no outcry raised against it. I am with any movement that makes for better conditions for the working classes, but I do not believe in a one big union that proposes to alter the whole structure of the industrial life of the country. I am one of those who contend that we must stand by the political machine. To get good results the working class must capture the Governments of States and Federation, but they cannot do so -while Unrest and discontent is brought about by those who should look better after that class of the community.
References have been made to the rise in the prices of clothing, groceries, &c. The Inter-State Commission was designed to report upon various matters to the Government of the day, but, like other political machines, it is absolutely useless, because when it makes its report there the matter ends. Any one who objects to the complaint made of the increased cost of living has only to read in the reports of the Inter-State Commission the scathing condemnation of profiteers who have been making huge sums of money out of the war. Some contend that it Was necessary that they should make all that money, as they had to return it again to the Revenue; but only a percentage of the profits they made was returned to the Revenue. Every time these people appealed t > the Prices Commissioner for permission to raise their prices their request was granted. They did not get all that they wanted in some cases, but in almost every case they secured what they desired. Every rise in price gave them a rise in profit, and their profits increased to such an extent that they had to water their stock to cover up the profits they were making.
It would take me too long to deal with the whole of the report which has been presented on lie subject of the price of groceries, but I shall refer to two articles of general use - kerosene and benzine. The Commissioners report that the Vacuum Oil Company is a company registered under the Victorian law. I want here to say that if this company had been registered in New South Wales any one might have looked at their books and found out what profits they were making; but the company laws differ in different States. I always refer to this as one of the reasons for greater unity of action amongst the Governments of Australia. ‘ If we cannot have one Government with sovereign rights to govern the whole of Australia, we should have some means of seeing that the laws in the different States are similar. The company law of Victoria permits these great combines to hide their profits from the public. Fortunately, the information has been drawn from them by the Inter-State Commission. The Inter-State Commissioners say -
The Vacuum Oil Company has a fair trade in merchandise contingent to their oil business, such as stoves, &c, but in the opinion of the Commission this would not materially affect the result.
The following figures show the position of the company during the years 1912 to 1917 :-
The accounts of kerosene and petroleum spirits have not been separated, and the results are taken in globo.
In 1911 the paid-up capital of the company was £600,000, and the profit made was £317,856.
In 1912 the paid-up capital was £600,000; accrued profits and reserves, £203,254; turnover, £1,701,356; profit made, £301,140; percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 51.19; percentage of profit to capital and reserves, 37.49 ; and percentage of profit to turnover, 17.70.
In 1913 the paid-up capital was £600,000; accrued profit and reserves, £357,470; turnover, £2,074,016; profit m!ade, £263,400; percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 43.90; percentage of profit to capital and reserves, 27.51; percentage of profit to turnover, 12.70.
In 1914, the first year of the war, their capital was £600,000 ; accrued profits and reserves, £471,646; turnover, £2,209,839; profit made, £274,020; percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 45.67; percentage of profit to capital and reserves, 25.57; percentage of profit to turnover, 12.40.
In 1915, they raised their capital to £800,000, and in that year the accrued profits and reserves amounted to £603,626. The turnover was £2,274,350; the profits made, £402,560; the percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 50.32; percentage of profit to capital and reserves, 28.68 ; and percentage of profit to turnover, 17.70.
In 1916, when the war was still raging, their paid-up capital was £800,000; accrued profits and reserves, £806,20S ; turnover, £2,883,184; profits made, £579,520; percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 72.44; percentage of profit to capital and reserves, 36. OS; percentage of profit to turnover, 20.10.
In 1917, the capital account was doubled, and went up to £1,600,000; the. accrued profits and reserves reached £1,270,588 ; the turnover in that year was £3,842,519; profits made, £488,000; percentage of profit to paid-up capital, 30.50; percentage of profit, to capital and ‘ reserves, 17.00 ; and percentage of profit to turnover, 12.70.
I want to say that during this time this wealthy company appealed on several occasions to the Prices Commissioner to be permitted to raise their prices, and every time they appealed their request was granted. These figures will give some idea of the rise in prices: - In 1914, the price of kerosene was 7s. 2d. per case ; the profit on turnover, 12.07; and the profit per case, 10.3Sd. The price of benzine in the same year was 13s. 4d. per case ; the profit per case ls. 7.31d. Kerosene, in 1915, WaS 7s. Sd. ; the profit on turnover, 17.43 ; and the profit per case, ls. 4.03d. Benzine in the same year was 14s., and the profit per case went up to 2s. 5.28d. In 1916, kerosene was 10s. lOd. ; the profit on turnover, 20.3 ; and the profit per case, 2s. 2.04d. The price of benzine in the same year was 19s., and the profit per case went up to 3s. 9.67d. Honorable senators will see that, whilst the company secured the ear of the Prices Commissioner, and induced him to raise their prices, they always put a lump on for themselves. The Commissioners, in their report, speak very feelingly on this matter ; but before I proceed to that, I should like to put on record the rises in the prices which the company were given during the time I have referred to.
In 1915, they applied, on the 15th February, for a rise from 6s. 2d. to 7s. 5d., and that application was granted. On the 28th April, 1915, they applied for another rise to 7s. 8d., and that was granted. On the 30th December, they asked for another rise to 8s. 4d., and that also was agreed to. On the 12th April, 1916, they applied again to the Commissioner, and were given permission to raise their price to 10s. lOd. On the 12th July, 1916, they made another application to raise their price to lis. 6d., and that was granted. In 1.917, on the 16th May, they applied again to be allowed to bring their price up to 12s. 6d. That was allowed. Again,’ on the 12th July, 1917, they applied to be allowed to raise the price of both kerosene and benzine, but I am glad to say that that application is still under the consideration of the Prices Commissioner. In regard to benzine, an application made on 15th February, 1915, brought the price up to 13s. 10d.; on the 28th April of the same year, there was another application, and the price was again raised. On the 20th December, a third application for that year ‘brought the price up to 15s. In 1916, an application on the 12th April resulted in an increase to 19s.; on the 12th July it was again raised to 19s. 8d. In 1917, an application dated 16th May brought the price to 20s. 8d. ; on the 12th July there was another application, and another rise to 21s. 8d.; and on 22nd October, the price was raised to 23s. Sd. with the approval of the Price Fixing Department. It will be seen, therefore, that, the price of kerosene has been raised from 6s. 2d. to 14s. 6d. per case, and of benzine from 13s. 4d. to 23s. Sd. per case, the reason given being an increase in the wharf labourers’ wages from ls. 9d. to 2s. But a wharf labourer can handle about 20 cases an hour, so the extra cost on that account would be very little indeed. What I object to is that during the whole of the time that traders were increasing their prices, they were doubling their profits, and thus fleecing the people. Is it any wonder that there is industrial unrest in Australia, when combinations of this description are allowed to exploit the people? The Prices Commission .says: -
The Commission notes that in its last application made for an increase of price the company set down 10 per cent, net profit on its turnover as a reasonable addition to cost. In the opinion of the Commission this . is unreasonably high. A net profit of 10 per cent, on turnover is a very large profit indeed, especially for simply merchanting an article. A net profit of 3 to 4 per cent, on turnover, according to the rise or fall of prices, should generally be ample to provide a good dividend.
It may have been that on the facts submitted to the Necessary Commodities Control Commission of New South Wales, and the Commonwealth Chief Prices Commissioner, prime costs in United States of America had increased, and no doubt freights had latterly increased to an abnormal extent, but the company was not justified in consistently applying for the extra prices submitted while it was at the same time rapidly increasing its profits and paying very large dividends.
It is suggested that unless the Vacuum Oil Company and the other companies who are now supplying the Commonwealth with kerosene and other oils can be brought under some arrangement by which only a reasonable profit be charged, the Commonwealth Government might consider the desirability of undertaking the purchase of oils from the refining companies in America, and the distribution in Australia, in order to save to the community the large profits now being made.
This is very good advice, but I point out that under the Constitution it is practically impossible to do anything. The Constitution wants to be remodelled in such a way as to give the National Government national power. I do not know whether the Government intend to try and alter the Constitution, but I am one of those who believe in the sovereign rights of the central Government, so that they may be able to deal with the trusts and combines which to-day are “ dealing” with them through the people of this country. The Commission adds: -
The Commission views very seriously the applications made for increases of price, especially those of 1015 and 1916.
During those years the company’s turnover was equal to £5,159,534. Out of the profit made it could have paid a dividend of 10 per cent., quite ample for any company during the war, and been able to reduce the sale price of its products by £S21,000, equal to 16 per cent, on its total turnover.
The company was supplying the public with necessary commodities; it was in a position almost of monopoly, and its disregard of the public interests in seeking increases of price while still making excessive profits amounts’, in our opinion, to profiteering.
The company has stated that it ran a great many risks, especially with regard to the heavy freights which it was from time to time compelled to pay in order to keep up its stocks and supplies. In the opinion of the Commission the company ran no risks against which it was not adequately insured by its large accumulated profits. At the end of 1914 these accumulated profits exceeded £400,000. The company not only passed every risk on to the consumer, but was able during 1915 and 1916, on a capital and reserves averaging £1,500,000, to make a net profit of £981,000.
This Commission, appointed by the Government to report on .these matters, has given certain, advice, and the -Government should take action. The profiteers have been .allowed to ride roughshod over the whole of the community. I have spent almost a lifetime in. the trade union movement, and I know that this profiteering led to the great industrial upheaval of 1890. We were compelled then to put up some sort of a fight, but we had to yield to brute force. However, we have studied the question since then, and the result has been beneficial to the workmen of Australia. But here we are again with only a small party in the National Parliament - a mere handful of excrescences on the Labour movement, as one honorable senator has said. I resent that imputation. Any one who has a right opinion on the industrial situation must agree that action should be taken to check the profiteers, who are the sole cause of this industrial unrest. The Government should fight with it3 right hand and its left hand for the fair treatment of all the people, including those who went across to Gallipoli and France and shed their blood there so that Australia should be a country of free men. I have no sympathy for any of the enemy aliens in our midst, for I have a friend who has returned from 2^ years’ imprisonment in Germany. He told me of the indignities he had to suffer, while working on the roads, from the ladies who passed in their carriages, to the boys who swept in the streets. Never, again will I utter one word in favour of that brutal nation that brought about this bloody war.
I shall now deal with other articles such as blankets and serges, quoting information obtained by the Inter-State Commission. I intend Ito quote <a list of a few articles to show what has ‘been going on. The first table of figures which I have before me shows the profits made by the woollen mills during the war. Although blankets, flannels, serges, and tweeds were almost unobtainable by the great bulk of the people during the war, these profiteers were making enormous incomes. In 1914 the capital employed in the manufacture of blankets and flannels was £586,639, and the net profits for the three years (1915, 1916, 1917) was £541,135. In serges and tweeds for the same period’ the capital employed was £607,746, and the net profit £655,960. The total capital employed in both industries was £1,144,385, and the profits in the three years £1,197,095. The profits during the three years exceeded the total capital invested in the industry in 1914. The net profit on capital employed in the manufacture of blankets and flannels in 1914 was 9.677 per cent, and on turnover 9.296 per cent. In 1915 net profit on capital was 23.549 per cent., and on turnover 14.456 per cent. In 1916 net profit on capital was 41.872 per cent., and on turnover 16.841 per cent In 1917 net profit on capital was 25.475 per cent., and on turnover 15.195 per cent. In the manufacture of serges and tweeds net profit on capital invested in 1914 was 16.770 per cent., and on turnover 16.147 per cent. In 1915 net profit on capital was 35.535 per cent., and on turnover 19.214 per cent. In 1916 net profit on capital was 37.302 per cent., and on turnover 18.937 per cent. In 1917 net profit on capital was 26.391 per cent., and on turnover 20.751 per cent. In 1914 the entire industry, consisting of twenty-two firms, made a net profit on capital of 13.444 per cent. ; in 1915, a net profit of 29.555 per cent.; and in 1916, of 39.452 per cent. In 1917 their net profit on capital amounted to 25.978 per cent. The net profit on the turnover in 1914 was 12.930 per cent., in -1915 it was 16.991 per cent., in 1916 it amounted to 17.829 per cent., and in 1917 it was 17.867 per cent. These figures show the enormous profits that have been made out of the people, out of our- soldiers, and. out of. the war. Of course, it will be urged that these firms will be taxed under the War-time Profits Tax Act. But they “have amply repaid themselves by the profits which they have extorted from the people of this country. While this sort of thing is going on, and children are shivering with the cold at night, without fires and without clothing, as is the case in Sydney, where three or four families are to be found in one home and eight or nine men live in a single room, is it any wonder that there is industrial unrest in this country ? A man would not be a man who stood aside and saw his own flesh and blood suffering in this fashion. In Sydney, corpses are being carted to the mortuary station in motor waggons as the result of the pestilence which is raging there, and the authorities are dragging off to the cemetery as many dead as can be got into’ the trains. Nearly all these victims of the influenza, scourge are people who have suffered during the war from the. operations of the profiteers who have been allowed by the Government to trample upon them through their, Prices Commissioner. I have nothing to say against the Prices Commissioner except that he made himself quite comfortable in his office, which was furnished with leather-covered couches and chairs. He had his own court room there in- which he heard the poor unfortunate merchants plead to be allowed to exact more blood money from the people, and whatever they asked he granted. I. come now to that section of this report which relates to hosiery and knitting. In 1914 the capital of these knitting firms was £105,404, and their net profits £12,725, representing 12.07 per cent, on capital. After one year of war, and- of constant struggle by every honest man in this country, their capital still remained at £105,404, but their net profits amounted to £26,449, and their profit upon capital was 24.970-per cent. In 1916 their capital had increased by profits and reserves to £158,940, and their net profits to £52,098. They thus made a net profit of one-third of their capital within a single year. Their profits on capital represented 32.778 per cent, in 1916, which was the worst year of the war. In 1917 their capital increased by leaps and bounds to £233,287, and their net profits were £49,642. It will be noted that during this year their net profits suffered a slight fall, and that .their profits on capital ako declined to 21.279 per cent.J but it must not be forgotten that their capital had been increased from £105,404 to £233,2S7. The Commission says-
As was the case with the woollen mills, the higher profits were realized in connexion with Defence Department contracts.
Every time they appealed to the Government representative for more money for their goods their demand was readily granted. I como now to the felt hat manufacturers. In regard to these the report states -
The transactions of seven companies have been investigated. In each instance the capital invested has been increased, and the felt-hat manufacturers throughout the period of the war have made higher profits than those derived in 1914, although in the latter year they were more than satisfactory. The percentage of bet profits on capital in 1914 was 11.092, and on turnover 8.970.
In 1915 their net ‘ profits on capital amounted to 13.575 per cent., and on turnover to 10.982 per cent. In 1916 their net profits on capital were 14.025 per cent., and on turnover 10.455. In itfl’7 their profits on capital amounted to 13.854 per cent., and on turnover to 10.157 per cent. The Commission states -
The above figures, relating to the year 1917, do not include those of the firm above referred to. It is, however, considered that they present an accurate indication of the average results of the trade.
The next line to which I come is that of softgoods. Here the figures disclose that whilst the retail drapers during the war have not derived very great profits from their undertakings, the wholesale softgoods warehousemen have made enormous profits. In 1914, the net profits of the wholesale softgoods warehousemen on capital amounted to 8.33 per cent., and en turnover to 5.788 per cent. During that year the retail emporiums made a net profit of 10.925 per cent, on capital, and of 8.637 per cent, on turnover, whilst the retail drapers made a net profit of 14.523 per cent, on capital and of S.6S9 per cent, on turnover. In 1915 the wholesale softgoods warehousemen made a net profit of 9.69 per cent, on capital and of 6. 821 per cent, on turnover. During that year the retail emporiums made a net profit of 9.259 per cent, on capital, while the retail draper made a net profit of 9.557 per cent, on capital and of 8.059 per cent, on turnover. These figures indicate that the retail drapers have not derived from the war the benefits which the wholesalers have derived. The reason for this was the absence overseas of so many of our soldiers, with the result that there was a less quantity of these commodities sold. But the woollen warehousemen have had their places full all the time. Although there were no importations at the time, in 1916 the net profits of the wholesale softgoods warehousemen represented 13.00 per cent, on capital and 9.153 per cent, on turnover. The retail emporiums’ net profit on capital during that period was 12.257 per cent., and on turnover 9.554 per cent. During the same year the retail drapers’ profits on capital were 10.182 per cent., and on turnover 7.765 per cent. It ‘is apparent,therefore, that it is not the retail men with small businesses who have made big profits Out of the war, but the wholesalers. In 1917 the wholesale softgoods warehousemen’s net profits on capital were 15.214 per cent., and on turnover of 8.448 per cent. During that year the retail emporium made a net profit on capital of 12.257 per cent., and on turnover of 9.544 per cent. The retail drapers during the same period made a net profit on capital of 12.854 per cent., and on turnover of 8.193 per cent. The Commission states -
These figures indicate that the war conditions gave the wholesale warehousemen an increasingly dominating control over prices, which is reflected in their higher percentages of net profit on capital, as well as in turnover; and the figures also suggest that, while there remained a fairly keen competition amongst the retailers, there was a marked absence of competition amongst the wholesalers. The retailers have been prosperous, and have made good profits, but to a much less extent than the importers.
That is clear proof that there is a syndicate in existence so far as the wholesale warehousemen are concerned. Obviously, the retailers are not in that organization, as the warehousemen are able to fix their prices just as they choose.
I come now to some of the conclusions of the Commission regarding the rates of gross profits. The Commission states -
Prices arc now fixed by wholesalers, not by adding the same uniform percentage to landed cost, but by directing the head of each department, e.g., Manchester goods, ready-made clothing, silks, &c., to produce at the end of each half year a denned gross profit on the sales. The departmental head knows what his goods have cost into warehouse, and so adjusts the additions to that cost of the various articles handled, as to bring out an aggregate amount in turnover which will yield the stipulated gross profit over aggregate landed cost.
The Commission is of opinion that a maximum gross profit of 224 per cent, on the cost landed in warehouse for the material for clothing, and for all articles for clothing, should not only afford a reasonable profit for wholesale traders, but that it would also tend to prevent profiteering.
They say that profiteering has gone on in this industry - profiteering by men who do not manufacture, but who merely handle and market the goods. In my judgment a profit of 22½ per cent, is too much to allow these men tomake, seeing that they merely handle the goods and distribute them to those who sell them. There must be some action taken if the children of the working classes are to be supplied with necessary and suitable clothing. Sometimes of an evening, when I go through the city streets and see little bare-foot boys who should be home in bed trying to earn a few shillings by selling papers, my heart bleeds. My heart goes out to them, for I was reared in the poorest quarter of Sydney, and have lived among such conditions for over fifty years. I know the sufferings of the poor. I am aware of their loyalty to each other. In time of sickness it is the poor who rally around the poor, and not the rich. Whenever one may wish to get anything for a distressed family it is of no use to approach the millionaires. I know of a millionaire coal-owner whose name has never yet appeared on a charitable list, who has never bought a war bond, and who has never figured in a patriotic list since the war began. Go to him for practical and sympathetic help when his miners are suffering. Go to him when they are down with miners’ disease. One will not even get sympathy, much less practical help. No matter what action may have to be taken , on behalf of the suffering poor, nothing can be too drastic if it will secure reform. I am proud that those who have come from the poorer sections of the community are those who faced the heights at Gallipoli, who went over the top in France, and on other fronts, and hurled themselves like demons into the fight. Before they left us we told them what we would do for them. To-day we are doing nothing but what we are compelled to do. Those men will wake up to the fact yet, and there will be such a revulsion of feeling through the land that those who have refused to assist the stricken families of our fighting men will meet with fitting punishment. It is for us to place the men and women of the country where they can earn, a decent living and rear their families in a proper manner. Under the damnable conditions existing to-day such ideals are impossible of fulfilment. The Commission has indicted the Government, and those behind them, from end to end. The profiteer is denounced. No wonder this document has never been printed ; it is too great an indictment of the Government’s actions - or lack of action. The report proceeds : -
If it is desired by the Government to take action for the regulation of the prices of clothing, then, in the opinion of the Commission, the conditions now existing in the various branches of the trade justify the following detailed suggestions: -
Locally manufactured goods. - Prices to be controlled by prescribing the following maximum percentages to be added to the “ prime cost,” representing actual cost of materials and wages -
Tweeds and serges, 30 per cent.
) Blankets and flannels, 25 per cent.
Hosiery and knitted goods, 20 per cent. (d)Felt hats, 22½ per cent.
If the Commissioner is going to give them 30 per cent, on suitings, what were these people getting before? It must have been 100 per cent. If it is a fair thing to make 30 per cent, on prime cost, God knows ‘what they have been making during the war. The document continues: -
Wholesale distributing warehouses. - Prices to be controlled by prescribing a maximum of 22 J per cent., to be added to cost landed in warehouse of all materials for clothing and all articles of clothing.
Retail distributors. - Prices to be controlled by prescribing a maximum of 33J per cent., to be added to cost landed in warehouse or shop, of all material for clothing and all articles of clothing.
The importers are to be given per cent. What were they getting before? We cannot tell, because profits have been placed to reserve and capital. Their increased capital gives them a lower percentage of profit. If they had worked on their capital during the war they would have been making 100 and 125 per cent, profit. The report proceeds : -
That in regard to wholesale and retail distributors, such limitations of gross profit shall not apply to businesses in connexion with which the total moneys actually employed in the business do not exceed £5,000.
I thoroughly believe in an exemption. A small man should be able to make a living in any trade he may care to enter ; but in the big cities to-day he cannot carry on. In my boyhood I remember two men starting a little soft-goods shop near where I lived. Now it is one immense building, and every year it is getting bigger and bigger, higher and higher. Its owners are even bridging streets from the lofty heights of that great pile. There is no hope of any young man establishing: himself as a retail draper in any Australian city to-day unless he becomes a chattel of the profiteer. The document concludes : -
The following suggestion, which is not directly related to control of prices, is also submitted : -
That, in the public interest, action be taken to bring about the compulsory keeping by all traders of prescribed trading accounts, profit and loss statements, and balance-sheets.
They do not even keep a balance-sheet. They are ashamed of the- way they have robbed women and children. They do not dare exhibit their books. They made profits up to 125 per cent, while the war raged. The Government allowed such a thing through their Prices Commissioner. They have permitted the profiteer to rob the unfortunate widows and children of our fallen fighting men. The Government say they cannot find a remedy There is one. Let them secure sovereign rights to govern, to compel those profiteers to standardize their clothing. But even if the Government could do so they would not. They are afraid. They fear that if they interfere they will meet with retaliation through the ballot-box. If clothing were standardized, the price of suits would be reduced to the figure paid to-day for an outfit for discharged soldiers, namely, 29s.- 6d. A man in Bourke-street has a contract to make those suits for that price. They cost the Government 30s. each. The Government could standardize clothing so that no worker need worry about the cost of his clothing to-day; but nothing will be done unless there is -an alteration in the Constitution in order to confer on the Government sovereign rights. Every time a State Government has clashed with Federal authority the latter has had to climb down. Let me recall the wire-netting scandal, when Sir Joseph Carruthers stole the wire from the National Government’s bonded store, and defied them. Not a word was said. Take the present situation arising out of the influenza epidemic. In the matter of quarantine, Tasmania and “Western Australia are defying the authority of the National Government. Witness a recent spectacle in Sydney. The New South Wales Government stole soldiers from the Federal army under the very noses of the Federal authority. The Commonwealth Government put those men in quarantine, and told them to stay there for seven days. The State Government sent a steamer down the Bay, stole them away, and put them inside the Sydney Cricket Ground. The Federal authority was powerless. If the Australian Government cannot command their own army, what will they do when real trouble arises ? They must secure rights to govern which are not possessed to-day under the Federal Constitution That Constitution is made of putty; and the Government are a cock-shy, to be knocked down every time a State Government throws anything at them. The despised Labour Leader in a northern State is able to go to the Privy Council and outwit the Federal authority at every point. With sovereign rights to govern Australia, such things would not occur.
I am pleased that the party to which I belong have decided to stand upon solid ground so far as constitutional reform is concerned. I came here as a Unificationist, and was told that I would ruin the prospects of myself and my comrades by preaching such a gospel. But it got me here, and will keep me here. The people are tired of the present system of governing Australia, which is costing so much. Imagine a sum of £33,000,000 for the payment of public servants! The cost of Parliament is huge, but the people are about ready to put a stop to the undue taxation caused by over-government. There are Boards everywhere - Boards to govern this, and Boards to govern that - and we get no result. There is only one way out of the difficulty, and that is by adopting the objective of the Australian Labour party so far as Unification is concerned. The objective provides for -
The Commonwealth Constitution to be amended to provide full sovereign powers for the good government of the people of the Commonwealth. The amended Constitution to include: - [a) Provision for initiative and referendum whereby the electors may initiate or recall legislation. No referendum to be put to the people within six months before or after a general election. (6) The High Court to be the final Court of appeal in any Australian cause, (c) The Senate to be abolished.
I have advocated the abolition of the Senate ever since I have been here. I advocate the abolition of all Upper Houses. I advocated the abolition of this Chamber in the first speech I made after having been a member for a week. The more I saw of it, the less use I saw for it. It is aim absolutely useless institution, costly to the’ Government, and of no advantage. Where is the great National party now? It is represented in this Chamber at (he present time by one member, who would not be here if he could help it. The benches are empty. Look at the small party of which I am a member. It consists of only a handful of members, but those members are here, steadily doing the work they were seat here to do. The Senate can suspend its Standing Orders, and can then do any business it likes. It can vote millions of money in a few minutes. This is not a deliberative body. It was intended, in the first place, that it should be representative of State interests, but it is nothing of the sort. It is to-day, and has been ever since I have been, here, representative of party, and party alone. A photograph should be taken of the Senate now, to- be distributed throughout the country, and that would certainly mean the end of this Chamber. It is no new thing for me to advocate the abolition of the Senate; but, so long as there is a Senate, and the electors send me into it, I will come into it and do my best for them; but nothing will please me better than to advocate its abolition on every opportunity. The objective of the Australian Labour party continues -
The House of Representatives to consist of 100 members.
I do not think that would be a large enough number if the Senate were abolished. I would have more members than that in the House of Representatives. There are hundreds of members in the House of Commons, and if we want to take a part in great national questions, and to be a controlling or a compelling force in the interests of Australia, our Parliament must be truly representative. We have had some little influence in the Peace settlement, but our troubles are only beginning, and the Government will have to be truly a National Government to fight for Australia, and Australian interests. Our interests have been submerged, and have not received the consideration which we should like.. Those fighting for Australia have done good and valuable work, but it will be useless unless this Parliament has sovereign rights to govern the people, and to speak for this Britishloving community. The objective of the Australian Labour party continues -
Each electorate to contain as nearly as possible an equal number of electors. (d) Adult suffrage to be made part of the Constitution. (e) The Commonwealth Parliament to be vested with authority to create any number of provinces as may be necessary for the good local government of the people. lt waa further provided in the scheme that in regard to provincial Legislatures the Commonwealth shall grant to each province a uniform written Constitution, setting out the powers and duties of the Legislatures. Such Constitution may be amended from time to time, as may be required.
Bach province shall be governed by a Legislature, to be composed of a reasonable number of members.
The term of office of members shall be three years; members to be paid such uniform salary as shall be determined.
The Commonwealth electoral rolls to be used at all elections.
The provincial Legislature shall have power under its Constitution to make laws for the government of the people within the province.
The Commonwealth shall take over all present State debts.
The Commonwealth shall as far as possible collect all revenue, thus obviating the expense of duplication in collecting taxes.
The Commonwealth Parliament shall grant a uniform Constitution to provide for municipal government, the supervision of administration to be the duty of the provinces.
That is what we have to fight for. It is not all I desire. There are some things there that do not please me, hut I advocate giving this National Parliament sovereign rights to govern the people, and power to make laws on the lines laid down in the extract I have read. There could be as many provinces as necessary, and they could he self-governing so far as local matters were concerned, but all taxation and duties would be raised by the Commonwealth Parliament, and’ no other body should have the power of borrowing. Any ope who makes inquiry in London about the Government of Australia finds ‘that it is a laughing-stock. In London we have Australia House, for which we paid about a million, and the cost of upkeep is about £250,000 a year. We understood when the proposal for the erection of that building was before us that the States would have offices in Australia House, and that they would be gathered together in one bunch to carry on one common work. As a matter of fact, in Australia House only one State is represented, and that is the State of Victoria. It would not be represented there but for the fact that Australia House is built over the top of the Victorian Agent-General’s office. New South Wales hae consented to take up a portion of Australia House, but the offices of the
Agents-General of the other States are spread over London. If an investor wishes to invest money in Australia, he wants to find out the conditions relating to the whole of Australia, and not the conditions of one State. He goes to Australia House, but the officials there can tell him nothing. They Say, “ We are the representatives of the Commonwealth; for information you must go to the State Agents-General.” Then the investor starts trudging with heavy steps around London to find, say, the AgentGeneral for New South Wales. That official receives him with open arms, and tells him that there is no place in Australia like New South Wales for him, and that is where he must 6pend his money. The investor then goes to the AgentGeneral for Victoria, and is told that New South Wales is no good at all. He then goes to the Agent-General for Western Australia,, and is told that Western Australia, is the garden of Australia, and has the best climate. He next goes to the Agent-General for Tasmania, and is told that Tasmania is the best place for him to invest his money. Every State is working for itself against the common good of the people of this country. The investor gets tired of going about to find out what he can about this glorious land, and decides to invest his capital elsewhere. That position of affaire would be abolished under Unification. There would be one controlling head in London, and the expenses would be reduced by £100,000. That amount spent in Australia would establish industries whereby we could employ a number of our returned men. In the early part of my speech I promised I would say something later on about arbitration. I do not think there is anybody in this country who has a wider experience of arbitration than I ‘have. I wish to say, in the first place, that so far as my union is concerned, it would not have anything to do with arbitration - the men always got what they wanted without it, and there was never a strike. I was referring to the great organizing that could be done under our industrial laws. During the first seven years of tEe Arbitration Court in New South Wales there was not a strike. That Court was established with a tenure of seven years, because of the pleadings of the unions for some tribunal to which they could go to have their grievances redressed without resorting to the brutal method of striking. They were sympathetic towards that Court, and the Court was sympathetic towards them. But it is quite a different thing now. The Arbitration Court of New South Wales has become a farce. A union may. lodge a plaint for an increase in wages, and the Court will hear all the evidence that it brings forward. The cost to the union is about £2,000, and the Court simply decides to split the increase asked for in two, and to give the workers half. The result of that is that the men ask for an increase twice as big as they want. A properly-constituted Court would give the men the increase asked for if it felt they were entitled to it, and if the Court, thought they were not entitled to an increase it would give them none. .Some of the Arbitration Court Judges in my State are absolutely unfit to fill their positions, and when men are appointed who are absolutely unsympathetic towards the cause of arbitration it makes the unions unsympathetic. Directly the seven years were up, the Act was altered, because the employers wanted it altered. The men were loyal to the Arbitration Court for years after that, but they had to wait sometimes for two or three years before their plaint would come before the Court. What we want is an Arbitration Court which is easily accessible, and it is necessary to have the sympathy of the unions and the sympathy of the Court itself with the arbitration cause. Unless you get that you will never get industrial peace. Even the present Government do not respect the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. They bring in legislation to thwart an award of the Court in favour of their own employees. How can any one have sympathy with a Court that can be flouted in that way? It is the duty of the Government to protect its own employees, and. to place them on at least as fair a footing as the employees of any private employer. I will indicate three or four directions in which I think the Arbitration Act should be amended so that it may gain the sympathy of the unions of Australia. In the first place it should be amended to prevent interference on the part of any Go vernment by legislation. A Government now can thwart the award of the Court by exercising its sovereign rights.
The second amendment should be one to allow of the hearing of disputes more expeditiously. It is well known that today persons appealing to the Court have to wait, sometimes for two years, for a decision. The only way in which the men can get into the Court expeditiously is by striking. Then the Judge of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court calls a compulsory conference, and so they reach a Court of Conciliation. The men are abused because they strike, although that is the only method left them to expedite arbitration proceedings.
I propose, also, that the law should be amended so as to deal with all disputes in industrial matters and increases during the period of the war to meet the increased cost of living. I can instance the case of a union in Sydney that received an award covering five years, but although during that time the cost of living has gone UP by 75 per cent., their wages have to stand at the rates fixed at the time the award was made. The Court says, “We cannot hear you. You have an award, you must abide by it.” Employers and employees are expected ten abide by the award, but they do not do so. We know what was done by the One Big Union of farmers and settlers. I have here a statement, telegraphed from. Glen Innes, which reads -
A meeting of graziers and land-holders- inthe Town Hall last night protested against, the award delivered recently by Mr. Justice Higgins, declaring it economically unsoundand restrictive of development and production.’ It was resolved to seek the support of. all graziers, stock-owners, and farmers and settlers associations iri the protest. The general opinion, embodied in a resolution, was that the excessive additions to the wages of employees will bring about an increase of unemployment in the country districts. It was decided’ to institute negotiations with pastoral and agricultural bodies with the idea of forming one “ United Employers Union.”
We never heard any criticism of that One Big Union. The members said, “ This award will hit us up. We shall have to pay these men respectable wages and give them decent accommodation. This is going to min us and to ruin the country, and we shall form One Big Union to defeat it.” -So it is not only the Labour unions that require something to be done to expedite *he working of the Arbitration Court. These employers deliberately said that they would not abide by its awards, and if the employers will not abide by them, how can we expect the unions to do so?
A recent decision of the High Court prevented the unions from seeking a new award during the currency of an existing award. Honorable senators will see from this that the Arbitration Court is absolutely useless. It has to appeal to a Court of Law to know whether it may do anything in connexion with one of its awards. It appealed to the High Court, and the High Court said in the case of ;the union in Sydney, to which I have referred, “ You must abide by the award of the Arbitration Court for five years, even though you have to face a rise of 75 per cent, in the cost of living. If the Government allow the exploiters to exploit the people of the country, you must not squirm, but must put up with it until the five years have expired.” When the five years- term does expire, because of the snail-like procedure of the Arbitration Court, it may be another two year3 before the union concerned can secure another award. It is ridiculous to expect the members of unions to put up with these decisions unless we do something to make the Arbitration Court more easy and ready of access, and give the Court power to enforce its decision, which it cannot do to-day.
I suggest, as a fourth amendment of the law, that it should allow the Court that makes an award to deal with breaches of that award. We have found lately that when there were breaches of an award, and an appeal was made to the High Court, that Court ruled- that the Arbitration Court could not deal with breaches of the award. These difficulties stare us in the face, and they irritate the members of unions. The profiteering that is going on irritates them, as they are unable to clothe, feed, and educate their children, or to do their duty by the country. In the circumstances, it is up to the
Government to do what they can to come to their assistance. But the Constitution does not allow them to do anything of the sort. They are tied and bound by it, and if they admit that #hy do they not say that .they will ask the people to amend the Constitution in such a way as to give them the right to govern the country as it should be governed.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and upon which I feel very deeply. I asked last week for the correspondence between the Wool Board and the trustees of Wentworth Park, Sydney, before the park was commandeered and buildings erected upon it. I cannot get the correspondence tabled, but I may tell honorable senators that I have seen it. The position is that on each side of Wentworth Park there is to be found the poorest class in the community, amongst whom I was born and reared. When that place was a mud-hole, it was filled in and given by the State Government to the control of trustees to make into a park. We had to get voluntary workers, who on Sundays and Saturdays picked up all the bottles, stones, and sticks from the heaps of rubbish that were there. By our voluntary exertions we turned that mud-hole into a beautiful park. We said, “ Now we have a park for the poor unfortunate children in these slums,” and, my God, they are slums! Honorable senators should go and look at them.. ‘This was the only place for the recreation of the children of those slums. They might be seen going into the park after school hours and on Saturday and Sundays. . It was the only breathing space they had. When the Wool Board was’ established, they said to the trustees, “ We want your park, and if you will not give it to us we will take it “ ; and they took it. The trustees gave them permission, and now the park is covered with horrible-looking wooden buildings from end to end. The children of the workers of the Glebe have to go a quarter of a mile round, instead of going through a beautiful park. If there had been any necessity for the utilization of the park in this way I would say nothing, but there was none at all. There is any amount of private land upon which wool might have been stored; yet it apparently had to be brought to Wentworth Park. Why could it not have been stored on the railway line at Liverpool, where there are thousands of acres available for the purpose, or along the railway line in any part of the country? But no ; the greedy Wool Board say, “We want the life-blood of the children. We want their park.” I opposed the proposal when it was first made, but I got no assistance. I opposed the proposal to commandeer land at Leichhardt also, but still the Government were determined to take the very breath of life from the children of the slums. I say that it is cruel injustice. They are now dying in hundreds during the present epidemic because they have not proper accommodation. The conditions there are something awful. No one living here has any idea of them. I want these woolsheds removed from Wentworth Park as early as possible. There are no little toddling feet crossing that park to-day. This is a specimen of the injustice done to the people. In no other country in the world would such a thing be done. Even the brutal Hun would not think of doing it. He treated his children better. Still we, in enlightened Australia, stand idly by while the Wool Board indulge in this robbery of the people without any justification. Some persons say that we will never shift the sheds in Wentworth Park, because the railway is coming round there. It is coming that way, and we are told that we shall never get the land back. But if the Government will tell me now that they will not remove these buildings I say that I will find some means to secure their removal. I plead with the Government on behalf of the unfortunate children and poor people living on each side of the Wentworth Park to have these buildings pulled down as quickly as possible. If they do that they will have- done something .to assist the unfortunate people of this country whom they have allowed to be exploited and robbed during the war by manufacturers and profiteers who have made enormous profits. That is not merely my word; it is the word of a duly constituted Commonwealth authority. They say that the Government have allowed this profiteering to go on, and I say, for God’s sake do something to put an end. to it.
– At this hour of the night, and knowing that it is essential that this Bill should go through, my contribution to the debate will be brief. I wish to refer, in the first place, to the sentences imposed on some seamen of H.M.A.S. Australia, which, to my mind, were out of all proportion to the offences they had committed. I realize that in our Navy as well as in our Army discipline is necessary; but I do think that so far as these boys are concerned the punishment meted out to them has certainly been too great. When the matter is looked at calmly, the greatest charge that could be brought against these boys is that they indulged in a boyish freak. They had been away from Australia on the flagship of the Australian Navy for something over four years, taking their part in the war from which we have just emerged. Because oneor two boys who were ill-advised did a. certain thing these extreme sentences have been imposed upon them, for neither morenor less than a boyish freak. A little’ while ago the Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton), was so solicitous to attract to our Navy eligible boys and men that he suggested to the. Cabinet, and the Cabinet approved, a slight increase in their wages. But the very best way to discourage the young men of Australia from joining the Australian Navyis to impose such sentences as have beenimposed on the boys to whom I refer. Now that we are informed that the Peace Treaty has been signed, it would be an act of clemency on the part of the Government to annul those sentences, particularly when it is remembered that one of these boys distinguished himself in the famous raid upon Zeebrugge. SenatorGardiner mentioned the word “ savage,” and I do not know whether I am allowed to use that word in such a debate as this, but I venture to say that the sentences imposed upon these boys were more than savage; they were outrageous. I ask the Government to consider the request I am making, that they should signalize the advent of peace by immediately annulling the sentences imposed upon these lads.
In connexion with, this matter, I have here a letter from the Honorable W. C. Angwin, an ex-Minister for Works in Western Australia, which, I think, is worth reading, and which should go a long way to prove that the boys in question were not altogether to blame for the action they took. The letter is addressed to me from the Legislative Assembly, Western Australia, and dated 21st June, 1919. It is as follows: -
I note in to-day’s West Australian that some of the boys of H.M.A.S. Australia have been committed by court martial to prison up to two years, and .afterwards dismissal from service, cm account of mutiny at Fremantle without violence. No doubt it is necessary for discipline to be maintained in the Navy; but was it mutiny at Fremantle, or merely disappointment?” On the arrival of the Australia at Fremantle, I ascertained from the harbor officials that a berth was ready, and there was no difficulty in berthing the Australia at the wharf. Having personally to meet a passenger on a transport that also arrived at Fremantle about the same time as the Australia, I interviewed the Town Clerk (Mr. Haynes), and later in the day tlie Mayor (Mr. Montgomery), and requested them to place before the officer in charge of the Australia, when he attended the municipal reception, the advisability of berthing the Australia at the wharf, believing it would be of advantage to the Navy if the boys of Fremantle had an opportunity of inspecting the ships, particularly the Naval Cadets, pointing out that I had previously arranged for boys to visit a British warship, in the ship’s boats - I think it was the Powerful - but- as a berth was ready, and being the first visit of the Australia to this port, it would be of groat advantage to visitors if the ship was berthed at the wharf, as a berth was available.
The ship was not berthed at the wharf, but was moored to a buoy in the centre of the river. Hundreds of people were anxious to go across and see the vessel, but no proper provision was made for this purpose. As a matter of fact, all the transport available was monopolized by officers of the vessel, sending messengers to the wharf, hailing certain people, friends of theirs, and bringing them on board, to the exclusion of hundreds of others. The boys became involved, I presume, in some trouble because they protested against certain actions, and, as a result, these savage and outrageous sentences were imposed on them. I hope such a tiling will never occur on any of our naval vessels again.
I have another matter in connexion with the Defence Department to which I desire to refer. On the 9th April I received a telegram from Mr. Clifford, secretary of the Australian Labour Party in Kalgoorlie, asking me to transmit direct to him all information regarding sentences on four cadets. It appears that four military cadets in Kalgoorlie, charged with disobedience, were sentenced to certain terms of detention, as well as being fined. It was thought at the time that the sentences were harsh, and I was asked to make representations with a view to a stay of proceedings, at least until the Defence authorities had a report from the officer in charge at Kalgoorlie. Strange to say, the report did not reach head-quarters until after the boys had completed their term of detention, and their fines had been paid. That is to say, from 9th April until 28th May we were waiting for a report from Kalgoorlie in connexion with the offences that the lads were supposed to have been guilty of. A remarkable feature about the matter was the .excuse given in a letter I received from Mr. Trumble, dated 6th May, as follows : -
Dear Senator Needham,
With further reference to your letter of 17th April, and my reply *of 29th April. 1 have to inform you that every effort has been made to obtain an expeditious report from the Commandant in Western Australia. It appears, however, that it was necessary for him to obtain certain information from the Goldfields Area, and you will realize that, in view of the distances in Western Australia, this information cannot be obtained at a moment’s notice.
I did not want the information at a moment’s notice. As a matter of fact, it took nearly two months to get even this acknowledgment, and it is too ridiculous altogether to say that owing to the distance of Perth from Kalgoorlie, the information could not be readily obtained. The distance between Perth and Melbourne is greater, and information is often received by telegram in a day. I have received a final statement of the 28th May, setting forth the charge and the fines imposed. The point I want to make is that the sentences had been served before head-quarters could get a report from the Commandant in Western Australia. I admit that it is toolate now to do anything, but I sincerely hope that if any of our cadets commit offences against discipline in. future, some more expeditious method of getting information will be adopted than in the case I refer to.
Another Defence matter which I desire the Minister to take note of is the case of Mr. P. Harper, of Woorooloo. Harper enlisted in Western Australia on the 14th August, 1914, ten days after the declaration of war, and left Australia on the 3rd November, 1914. His pay as a private was 6s.’ per day, of which amount he allotted 4s. to his wife, drew1s. himself, and1s. was deferred pay. On the 1st March, 1916, he was promoted to corporal, and on the 8th of the same month to the rank of sergeant. When he left Australia there was no such thing as a separation allowance. This regulation came into force some time afterwards. When he was promoted an additional 3s. 8d. separation allowance was paid to his wife, but he was not aware of the new regulation, as he was on active service,, until he arrived in England on furlough. In the meantime he had certain information concerning his wife, and be protested to the authorities against this payment of the separation allowance. Despite his protests the separation allowance was continued, so that when he came back to Australia he was debited with the amount. I made representations to the Department, and was informed that the regulation had to be obeyed; but recently I noticed in the press a statement that the Minister had appointed a Board or a Committee to inquire into matters of this nature. I ask the Minister, therefore, to place Harper’s case before that body. Quite recently Harper was divorced from his wife. It is very unfair that he should be deprived of his money in this way, especially as he was not aware of the regulation and of the fact that the Department had been paying the extra amount to his wife.
I have here a letter from the secretary of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Association, Western Australia, dated 23rd May, 1919, as follows: -
My executive has requested me to bring the following motion, passed at our conference, before your notice. It is in reference to the defi nition of the term “ totally and permanently incapacitated “ : - “ That for the purpose of assessing war pensions under any State or Federal Act relating to same, the term ‘ totally and permanently incapacitated ‘ be defined in the following terms: - ‘That where the wage-earning capacity of the soldier has been so decreased by reason of disabilities incurred on active service that he cannot earn his living at his previous occupation, and cannot earn more than a negligible wage at any other calling, he be deemed ‘ totally incapacitated for the purpose of those Acts.’ “
I trust you will take this matter in hand and see what can be done with regard to the definition of that term.
I do not know if the reply given by the Minister to-day to one of my questions covers the position referred to in this letter, but I do know that a great deal of hardship is being caused by the present interpretation of the words “ totally and permanently incapacitated,” as a result of which a returned soldier does not enjoy full pension rights if he is able to earn a few shillings. I hope this matter will be borne in mind by the Government if they are contemplating any amendment of the regulations.
I have received a request from the secretary of the Women’s Service Guild, Western Australia, that the Commonwealth Government should appoint a lady doctor as an examiner of all female applicants for positions in the Commonwealth Service. I may add that I have had correspondence with the Department on this subject, and have been informed that on account of the expense involved the request could not be acceded to. I point out, however, that no expense will be incurred by the Government, as the applicants pay the examination fee themselves. But in other countries, and even in Australia, some Governments accept the certificate of a female doctor in connexion with the applications of females for positions in the’ State and Commonwealth Public Services’. This is a matter which the Government might very well consider, especially as the reform would involve no additional expenditure whatever. I hope that they will give some attention to it.
-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South
Australia) [9.56]. - I was hoping that we should have some contribution to this debate from the other side of the chamber, and I must certainly compliment the Government upon the unanimity which seems to prevail amongst their followers. Evidently the latter think that “everything in the garden is lovely,” and that nothing remains to be said. During the recess we have all received a certain amount of literature from the Minister for Repatriation, and, judging by that literature, he and the Postmaster-General, who has also been busy advertising himself, are the only Ministers who have been doing anything. However, I recognise that a great deal of the literature supplied by the Minister for Repatriation is of , a very interesting character. We all admit that he has a difficult task to perform, and that he is struggling along with it to the best of his ability. But, ho matter how complete may be the organization of his Department, unfortunately the profiteers who have been so scathingly denounced by Senator McDougall are not the only exploiters in the community. There is another class which follows our soldiers on to the land, and supplies them with implements, farming stock, &c, at ridiculous prices. These patriots and speculators, to a very large extent, neutralize the efforts that we are making to help our returned soldiers. Onlytwo or three weeks ago a Congress was held at Adelaide, consisting of members of the various Local Committees connected with the repatriation scheme in South Australia. In the record of their proceedings the Minister will find some startling revelations. On the authority of some of the delegates there we learned that broken-down horses and superannuated cows have been palmed off upon soldiers at double their real value.
– The honorable senator knows that directly the Repatriation Department does not control those matters.
– S - Somebody ought to control them, because this system of “rooking” the soldiers is going on extensively. We have had some experiences in South Australia recently both in regard to Commissions dealing with the farmers and also with our soldiers. Only a couple of years ago a gang of speculators attempted to palm off on to the State Government some thousands of acres of useless land at a profit of about £130,000, compared with the price which they themselves would have had to pay under an option that they had acquired. In regard to the Wheat Pool, we find that the staff which the State Government employed has shown an amazing amount of ineptitude, not to use a stronger expression. However, I admit that these are State matters. But I havehere a circular issued by a large firm of sharebrokers, dealing with the question of farmers’ scrip. It shows how the farmers have been “ rooked “ by dealings in this scrip. Something ought certainly to be done by the Government to prevent exploitation in that direction. One extract from this circular reads -
Before very long one may expect a declaration of dividends on Victorian “ B “ Pool and on the “C” Pools of all the States, though probably no announcement will be made while the seamen’s strike continues. No doubt a dividend of, say, 3d. per bushel, payable in August, would cause a market rise in scrip, as the New South Wales “C” 1917- 18, is obtainable at only 8½d. ex freight, and the Victorian “ C” at 7¾d. Both are ridiculously low, and can only be got on such favorable terms because very few people understand them, though, as a matter, of fact, the scrip is easily as negotiable as that of shares, and can be bought withouthesitation as a perfectly safe investment that is sure to return a very good profit. The Victorian “ C “ appears to us the best buying of any at current prices, and we strongly recommend the purchase. The investment should run out in the course of the next eighteen months or so, during which time the buyer at about 7½d. can rest assured that he will receive back sufficient to show him a profit of anything from 30 to 100 per cent.
That profit must come out of the farmers who have wheat in the Pool, and I direct the attention ofthe Minister to this statement. It is certainly one which ought to be looked into, with a view to preventing the farmers being exploited in this manner by speculators.
– The official returns are published every week in all the newspapers of Australia.
.- I h I have quoted the statement because it emanates from a firm whose business it ig to advise people as to the stock procurable on the market. They say definitely that if people buy this farmers’ scrip they will be sure to make <& profit of from 30 to 100 per cent.; and that profit can only come out of the farmers’ pockets. In regard to the Pool ‘generally, there is another paragraph in tie circular which puts the position very clearly, and which shows that the farmers are not getting a square deal. The statement refers to New South Wales. It reads -
One cannot help contrasting the treatment of American wheat-growers with that meted out to the unfortunates of Australia. There the farmer is guaranteed a minimum of 9s. Sd. a bushel, and the consumer pays it without demur, knowing that it is an industry of vital national importance. Here the grain, being in possession of* the Government, sufficient for the public’s needs is appropriated, and the price returned to the growers is 5s. per bushel, less full expenses, which usually amount to 6d. to 9d. per bushel. According to the State Government’s own estimate, it costs 42s. 8d. per acre to grow wheat, plus the cost of bagging, railage, and other expenses. The total cost, therefore, of last year’s New South Wales crop will aggregate not less than 6s. 3d. per bushel, since the average yield for the State was only 7.4 bushels per acre. And we think it good business to pay the grower only 5s. per bushel! In reality, it is a dishonest, shortsighted, stupid policy, because it will infallibly kill the industry In every other wheat-producing country the industry is fostered and treated as of paramount importance. In the Commonwealth it is being ground down by political ineptitude and public indifference. During the last three years the area under wheat cultivation in this State has steadily fallen off. In 1915 the acreage was 5,122,245, compared with 3,231,580 in 1918. If the industry is to be saved, we must put up the price of the loaf by id., so as to permit of a better return to farmers. With the loaf at 5d. we would still be consuming by far the cheapest bread in the world, and would not bc running the risk of being left later on to import our flour requirements at ruinous rates.
– Does the honorable senator agree with that?
.- I d I do not approve of putting up the price of bread, but in that connexion I would direct attention to the policy enunciated by the Labour Conference which sat in Sydney only about a week ago. That body suggested that the price at which farmers can grow wheat should, be as sessed, that they ‘should be paid that price, that the price of wheat for local consumption should be fixed, and that the farmers should have the benefit of the markets of the world for the remainder of their produce.
– On the figures which the honorable senator has just read, it would be necessary to raise the price of wheat nearly 50 per cent. He has given figures showing the cost of cultivating an acre of wheat, he has said that the average yield is only 7.4 bushels per acre, and, on that basis, it would be necessary to substantially increase the price of wheat.
– N - Not if we gave the farmer the benefit of the world’s market. The price for local consumption need not be advanced. Whilst our farmers are receiving only 5s. per bushel for their wheat, the growers in America are obtaining 9s. per bushel. Only a few months ago the representatives of South Australia in this Parliament received a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures, and other organizations interested in the supply of coal. The deputation also brought under notice certain matters in regard to the overcarriage of goods which should have been landed in Adelaide, but which, had been, taken on to Sydney. That, perhaps, was unavoidable in the circumstances; but it was found .that these goods could not be got back from Sydney for months, and, consequently, a shortage of various commodities was created in South. Australia. A similar complaint has been made in Western Australia, and I have here a letter from the Australian Natives Association in Adelaide, in which is enclosed another communication that has been sent on to it from the Australian Natives Association in Western Australia, and in which attention is called to the disabilities under which these two States suffer owing to the overcarriage of goods and for the general bungling in regard to shipping arrangements. The Australian Natives Association is not a party organization; its representations, there ore, are entitled to their full weight.
It is an amazing fact that, seven months after the great war has ceased, and when so much shipping which, for years has been concerned in war-like duties, must now have completed such tasks, the maritime situation is more difficult to-day than while the war ‘was raging. Further, the price of commodities continues to rise. Quarantine regulations are now put forward as justification for the recurrence of the over-carriage of goods difficulty. Representations have been made to the Federal Government, and the excuse given is that the shipping which arrives in these waters is under requisition to the Imperial authorities, and is not available, therefore, for local purposes. It has been pointed out that we have two or three Ministers in London, and that representations surely might be made to the Imperial Government with sufficient force to bring about a better condition of affairs.
Injustice has been suffered by a meritorious section of our fighting forces. We have all been rightly proud that our citizen soldiers, with very slight training, have been able to take their place alongside veteran regulars, and to acquit themselves so creditably. That has been due largely to the army instructors, and it is with regard to that section that I have a grievance to state. Certain regulations have been issued which prevent them from receiving the consideration to which they are entitled. Many of these instructors volunteered for active service, but were informed that their duties were so important that they could not be spared for other spheres.
– Those men who were prevented from going to the war are placed in exactly the same position as returned soldiers.
– T - They say that is not so. They have had a paltry allowance of 9d. a day while the war was on; but now, apparently, that is to cease. Except for that war allowance, they have had no rise in pay .sufficient to meet the vastly increased cost of living. If their daily 9d. is taken from them, they will be in a considerably worse state than before the outbreak of war, notwithstanding their fine services in training Australia’s army. It has been pointed out also that consistent recognition has not been given them in regard to long service.
Certain men with only a few years to their credit have been given a status on a par with others who have served much longer.
– They are the only men who secured an increase in salary during the war.
Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I can give the Minister full particulars concerning the grievances of this section of our forces.
We all hope there is a gleam of light in regard to the calamitous strike. An attempt has been made to show that arbitration has proved a failure. It has not achieved all that was expected .of it, but the Federal Court has an extraordinarily good record Correspondence appeared in the press recently between the Acting Prime Minister and. Mr. Justice Higgins. Mr. Watt stated that, notwithstanding our arbitration laws, there had been, since 1914, more than 1,600 strikes. Mr. Justice Higgins was able to point out that of those strikes, there were only four which came under the cognisance of his Court; and that as to one of those four, namely, the big strike originating in Sydney in 1.917. the Federal Arbitration Court had no power to step in, the dispute having arisen between State employees and their Government. It is a remarkable record, that, since the creation of the Federal Court, there have been very few instances of awards having been flouted by the workers. On the other hand, there have been many hundreds of cases of punishment for breaches of Federal awards by the employers.
– So far, the Government have given no indication of their intention to reduce the somewhat heavy taxation burden under which many people are towed down to-day. Some years ago, when prices, of commodities were not nearly so high, the Government decided upon an income tax which provided an exemption up to £100 in the case of single persons, and up to £156 in other instances. Meanwhile - :it is universlly admitted - the cost of living has enormously increased, and prices are still soaring. The Government would be well advised to introduce a measure reviewing the existing income taxation. In the case of married people with families, the present exemption is far too low. Indeed, the ‘income tax principle is altogether unsound. It is only a slavish imitation of one of the available methods of raising national revenue in GreatBritain. The Government should bring down as soon as possible a measure to raise the exemptions.
I am informed, with regard to the Federal land tax, in which there is an exemption of £5,000 in each taxable estate that, in addition to that exemption, the beneficiaries in an estate may also- secure exemptions up to £5,000 each. Thus, there can be in one estate exemptions totalling £30,000, and even up to £50,000. In my opinion, that was never contemplated by Parliament when it passed that measure, and I think the Government should, as soon as possible, look into the matter, with a view to adjusting more equitably the taxes to be paid by beneficiaries of that description. There is another objectionable provision in the Income Tax Act to which I wish to refer - section 15, paragraph e. That is a provision which was unfortunately incorporated in the Act by a Labour Government, and it has, of course, been slavishly followed by this Government. Under it, any ohe who has a taxable income, and who erects any premises, is immediately pounced upon by the Income Tax Commissioner and taxed, not once only, but every year, in proportion to the value of the money he has invested in the property. That operates very unfortunately, and has a very deterrent effect on the erection of new houses. Anything that tends to prevent the erection of homes should be swep t away, and undoubtedly the provision I have referred to has that tendency. I wish to refer very briefly to a report which has been furnished by the InterState Commission on the question of rents. I have gone through the report most carefully, and I must say that, so far as I can see, the Commission has failed to make one single recommendation of any importance whatever. I am not very much surprised at that, and I am not very much surprised at the fact that the War Service Homes Act has been a dead letter, because it appears to me that the Government are afraid to interfere in the slightest way with what may be termed the vested rights of present landlords.
An Honorable Senator. - Who said the Act has been a failure?
– I say it is a failure. It was passed more than six months ago ; but though unlimited millions of money have been at the disposal of the Minister, not a single house has been erected. I say that up to the present it has been a complete and abject failure. If the money had been placed at the disposal of any competent firm of builders, it would have erected houses by the thousand; but, so far as I can ascertain, up to the present the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act has not been instrumental in having one house erected in the whole of the continent of Australia. That is nothing to his credit, but very much to his discredit.
– How long ago was the Commissioner appointed?
– We passed tlie measure on the 2Sth December last, and the Minister had ample opportunity and full authority to appoint a Commissioner at the earliest possible moment. The Commissioner was appointed a considerable time ago, and so, also, were the Deputy Commissioners. But, as I said before, nothing of a tangible character has been done by them. I understand that the Inter-State Commission took evidence in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, and possibly in some other centres. Their recommendations do not appear to me to be in accordance with the evidence submitted, and, in my opinion, are misleading, and quite valueless.
– I would not’ waste time in referring to them if they are valueless.
– I think it is a very serious matter that the Inter-State Commission, composed of men who are presumably well informed, should, after an exhaustive investigation, furnish a number of recommendations that are not worth the paper they are written on, and that should not be countenanced by this Senate. I intend to read the recommendations by these three learned gentlemen - Messrs. A. B. Piddington, N. Lockyer, and S. Mills.
Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 are as follow: -
That the Government, preferably in conjunction with State and local authorities, and with approved co-operatively managed institutions, undertake at once constructional work to meet the existing shortage of houses. It is estimated in regard to the three eastern States that this shortage amounts to 25,000 homes. The needs of the other States will probably be found to bc less, in proportion to population, than those of the eastern States. The estimate given for the latter is independent of new requirements due to future increase of population. The needs of the returning population, still absent in connexion with the war, and the extent to which those needs will bo met by construction under the War Service Homes Act, are factors both of which have been left out of consideration in the above estimate.
That an allowance in aid of the purchaser or lessee of homes so built be provided during thu period of abnormal prices, and that this allowance be made available through any of the authorities or institutions mentioned above. The Commission is of opinion that for thu twelve months next ensuing 15 per cent, upon the cost of construction (excluding cost of land) would be a reasonable rate of allowance for the purchaser. The rate for any subsequent period may be determined from time to time. A proportional allowance by way of reduced rental should be made in the case of a house beingleased instead of sold.
What does that mean? Mr. Arthur Rickards, a Sydney auctioneer, is reported in the daily press of that city to have stated that he had on his books some five or six thousand clients who had paid so much money for their blocks of land that they were unable to proceed with the erection of their homes. If I understand the recommendations of the Inter-State Commission aright, it means that the Commissioners disregard altogether the cost of land, but propose that a subsidy should be paid on account of the high cost of material. What will the effect be? Purchasers will say, “ We shall be able to get our materials a bit cheaper, and, therefore, we shall be able to pay more for the land than we otherwise would pay.” The carrying out of the recommendation of the Commission would be no solution of the difficulty; it would simply mean making a direct contribution to the gentlemen who are to provide the vacant blocks of land. It is nothing to the credit of the Inter-State Commission that they should make’ a recommendation of this kind, and I enter my protest against it. Recommendations Nos. 3 and 4 are as follow : -
That the War Service Homes Act be amended (1) so as to provide for allowances as dealt with in paragraph 2; (2) so as to permit of letting homes to eligible persons (within the meaning of the Act), with concessions corresponding to those recommended in paragraph 2.
That early investigation be made to ascertain the quantities of building materials likely to be available from time to time, as well as prices, sources of supply, and facilities of transport.
I suppose the Inter-State Commission want to go round the three States to make inquiries into these matters. There is no difficulty at all in ascertaining the quantity of material available. It would merely be necessary to advertise, and the material would be supplied right off the mark. Recommendation No. 5 reads -
That a similar inquiry be made as to the present supply of labour, both for the production of building materials and for the construction of houses, and as to the probable position in these respects when demobilization has been completed.
Another inquiry is suggested. It seems to me that, instead of doing some useful work, these gentlemen are looking about to see how many more people they can foist upon this country as commissioners and officials. It is about time they were told that they were expected to make some useful recommendations. Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7 are as follow: -
That in connexion with the housing programme the co-operation of the State Governments be sought to obtain the necessary powers for the protection of public constructing authorities or other approved bodies against combinations acting with a view to the undue increase of prices or cost of transport of materials.
That in view of the strong probability that, if the building of homes -be undertaken on a large scale, the quantity of materials immediate!)’ available will be insufficient to supply all public and private demands, authority be given to an official body to control the allocation of building materials.
That is another suggestion to create an additional non-producing body that would do no useful work. Recommendation No. S is as follows: -
That land acquired for the purposes of the general housing scheme, or under the War Service Homes Act, be taken at its value on a given date, say, 1st January, 1919.
That is not a very objectionable regulation; it is probably about the best of the -whole lot. Recommendation No. 9 reads -
That the desirability of making compulsory the provision of bath, copper, and washing tubs in every tenement be brought under the notice of the State authorities.
That is all right. The last recommendation is as follows: -
That action be taken, in co-operation with State Governments and local authorities, for the redesigning and reconstruction of city and suburban areas where the conditions are admittedly below reasonable standards of health and comfort. This, like other problems dealt with in this report, will no doubt involve consideration of many cognate questions, such as provisional housing accommodation, transport, &c. ; but much experience in other parts of the world shows that, if skilfully carried out, the final result may be not a financial loss, but a financial gain, to the responsible authorities, accompanied with great and permanent benefit to the citizens.
This report, compiled at very great expense to the people of this country, is, in my opinion, valueless, for the reason that the Commissioners are afraid to recommend action of a drastic character which would be of value to the great number of people in this country who want homes. In one of the suburbs of Sydney, the other day, I saw an effort being made to fill up extensive hollows with sand. The work involved a very great deal of labour. One would think there was no suitable building land anywhere about the city of Sydney, and that it was necessary to go to the trouble and expense of carrying out work of that kind. Only a very limited number of houses have, so far, been built by the State authorities in New South Wales. The work done by the voluntary workers is very good so far as it goes, but it has scarcely touched the fringe of the difficulty, and I say that the Inter-State Commission ought to be told that their report is completely valueless so far as any substantial addition to the homes of this country is concerned. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I am thoroughly convinced that the number of houses that will be built for the workers and the soldiers as a result of recommendations such as I have read will be practically nil. I again want to enter my emphatic protest against what ap pears to me to be the unreasonable delay that is taking place in connexion with the carrying out of the War Service Homes Act. I say, as one who has been employed, in. the building trade practically all his life, that if any competent contractor had been put in possession of the funds made available for this purpose, houses would have been erected by the thousand long before this.
If the Government erected 20,000 houses ‘around Sydney within the next twelve months that would immediately steady, and substantially reduce, the exorbitant rents now being extracted from their tenants by Sydney landlords. Does any one imagine that this Government, will do that? Not much. I do not expect them to do it, but that is no reason why I should not condemn them for not doing it. I say that it is to their eternal discredit that with all this money at their disposal for months nothing of a practical character has “been done. I remember that when Mr. King O’Malley came .across to Sydney on, one occasion, and it Was proposed to erect a parcels office at the Central Railway Station, various objections were raised, but. the job was put in hand, and in the course of a very few weeks operations were commenced. If Senator Millen has not the time to attend to this matter, he should get other people to attend to it. I feel sure that if he knew how pressing is the need for the erection of houses for returned men, he would not delay their erection, nor would he tolerate his officers delaying the erection of these houses one day longer. It is quite impossible to secure housing accommodation in Sydney.
– Is not the New South Wales Government doing something in that direction?
– What the State Government are doing does not amount to a drop in the ocean. They get credit sometimes for building homes and they put up long placards to say what they are going to do, but I do not think that the total number of houses they have erected in New South Wales during the past five years exceeds 300. Private enterprise, the year before the war, around suburban Sydney built about 9,000 houses. In the followng year, private enterprise erected S,000 houses. Later, the number was reduced to about 5,000 a year, and last year 5,200 houses were erected, but the contribution to that number by the State Government was negligible.
– Why does not the landlord class build more houses if their erection is so profitable?
– It is the members of the landlord class who are building houses, and individuals who build homes for themselves. It is certainly not the Government, nor is it Senator Millen. With all the millions placed at his disposal for the purpose, Senator Millen has not yet built any. I do not know whether he will build any. I do not know whether he is afraid of the vested interests of landlords, but, if so, I advise him not to be afraid, but to build as many houses as he can, because they are most urgently required. There never was such a dearth of house accommodation in Sydney, and, I believe, in other capital cities of the Commonwealth as well, as there is at the present time. The work so far done under the War Service Homes Act is practically of no value whatever.
I did intend to refer to the refusal of the Government to accept the offer of land at Lithgow, but there may be some difficulties connected with that offer which, when placed before the Senate, may throw a new light upon the matter. However, there are plenty of vacant allotments in this country, and everything should be done that can be done to increase house accommodation.
– There are towns in Australia full of empty houses.
– I believe there are no empty houses in Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane. There may be a few in such a State as Tasmania, where people are taxed 2s. per head for entering the State.
– They must keep an eye on undesirable characters.
– They are quite desirable if they pay the tax of 2s. per head.
– Apparently that is so. Senator Bakhap wonders why there should be empty houses in Tasmania. That State comes pleading to this Parliament for £90,000 a year, but why do not the authorities of Tasmania remove the tax of 2s. per head upon people entering the State?
– D - Did the honorable senator have to pay that tax?
– Who said that I had to pay it? Every time Senator O’Keefe returns to Tasmania the people of the mainland have to pay 2s. to enable him to enter that State.
I wish to put on record my entire disapproval of the treatment of at least one boy on H.M.A.S. Brisbane. I have referred on one or two occasions to the treatment of some of our naval men and some of the men of our Army. I do say that it is time that this kind of business stopped, and we should give those in authority to understand that whatever they might do in Great Britain, they cannot do this kind of thing in Australia with impunity. If they do they cannot hope to secure men for our Military or Naval Forces. I have here a copy of a letter from a boy on the H.M.A.S. Brisbane addressed to his father. He writes as follows: -
H.M.A.S. Brisbane.
Brisbane, 22.0.10.
Dear Dad,
I received your letter about five minutes ago, and am writing straight away.
Now, what I am going to state are plain facts, and I am willing to stand by them should the necessity arise.
The proper Navy Service manner is to shake the person and take his name.
I omitted to say that the Commander or Captain would not take the word of my witnesses. I was then sentenced to be punished by a warrant, and expect to gointo detention at Garden Island.
I repeat once again that I am willing to stand by you on these facts I have stated.
Your loving son,
Cliff Bogie.
This is another illustration of the unreasonable treatment, as I call it, which young boys have been subjected to on board the Brisbane, This boy is only seven teen years of age. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy to look carefully into this matter, and give directions that these boys shall not be treated in this manner. I do not know what the regulations are, but evidently this boy was not treated in accordance with the regulations. This i? the kind of thing that makes it almost impossible for the Navy to secure any men at all. If we are to have a Navy manned by Australians, it is necessary that treatment of an entirely different character should be dealt out to the men. I place this letter on record to enter my protest against the treatment meted out to this young man, who, I understand, is now doing a sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment.
I should like to make some remark on the necessity of steps being taken by this Chamber to request another place to substantially increase the amount of oldage pensions. As I shall have an opportunity at a later stage of the Bill to make some remarks on the matter, I shall not dwell upon it now.
I understand that the Science and Industry Bureau is hard at work.
– It is illegally at work, because the Bill establishing it has not yet been passed by Parliament.
– That, apparently, does not matter. They have the money,and I understand that they have magnificent offices in Melbourne. They have issued two publications showing the various things they have done or propose doing.
– They are doing good work.
– What that good work is I do not know. I have carefully’ looked through the two reports issued by the Bureau, and I cannot see from them that very much good work has been done so far. There is one matter to which I think the attention of the Bureau should be drawn, and which should interest representatives of Queensland and New South Wales. There is an immense area of 29,000,000 acres in Queensland and 3,000,000 acres in New South Wales that is infested with the prickly pear. In that enormous area there are many millions of acres that so far are only very lightly infested. It is quite an easy matter to deal with country lightly infested, but when it becomes heavily infested it is a problem that will require great expenditure to solve. I suggest that instead of spending their time in trying to develop insects that will devour the prickly pear, and troubling themselves about mechanical devices, the Bureau should deal with the lightly-infested districts. There may be no more than one plant, 6 inches high, to the acre in these lightly-infested districts, and the spread of the prickly pear could be easily prevented in those areas. I suggest that in the best interests of this country, and of Queensland in particular, as well as of the northern part of New South Wales, labour should be employed direct on Government land that is thinly infested with prickly pear, before the pest has time to spread. If this is done, one man could clear and keep clear hundreds of acres in a limited time, whereas one man would not be able to clear one acre of thickly infested country in many months. We have no right to spend public money in this way by allowing these men year after year to concoct schemes for the destruction of prickly pear in thickly infested districts when in the meantime the pear is spreading over millions of acres every year. The proper course is. to employ labour direct to deal with country that is only thinly infested.
– You had better have a conversation with prickly pear settlers.
– I am not suggesting that an attempt should be made to deal with thickly infested country in this way. I know it is a very tough proposition. I am referring to country which, as Senator Reid must know, at present has perhaps not more than one plant per acre. That land could easily be kept clean; but if the pest is allowed to spread year after year it will eventually take hundreds of millions of pounds to deal with it. I shall take a further opportunity of referring to other matters as the Bill is going through Committee. In conclusion I wish to express my gratification at the satisfactory termination of the war which has devastated the whole world.
– I am sure honorable senators will not expect me, at this time of the night, to deal with the very many matters” that have been referred to in the course of the debate. I should, however, like to make reference to two subjects, brought up by Senator Gardiner, and which very closely concern the Department over which I am Minister. He made reference to the resignation, as he ‘termed it, of the gentleman who was recently Deputy Controller of the Sydney branch of the Housing Commissioner’s staff. I interjected - and I now say in the most emphatic manner passible - that Major Evans only resigned because he was obliged to do so. His resignation was called for, and everybody knows that in a public Department, and indeed in every private office, when a resignation is asked for, that is simply a kind way of saying to the person concerned - “Get out.” I may add that the whole staff of the Housing Commissioner is under his control. The Minister has nothing whatever to do with it, either in regard to appointments or dismissals. The Commissioner was given authority under the Bill to create his own staff and handle it as he thought fit. Therefore all I know about the matter is the information which I obtained by wire from the Commissioner in Sydney. The Commissioner states, in the course of his communication to me, that as the result of the unsatisfactory manner in which the Sydney office was being conducted he went over himself three weeks ago with the intention of seeing the deputy and making a change in the office, but in consequence pf an assurance from the deputy that there would be an alteration in his method of carrying out the work there, he was allowed to continue. But other matters occurred following upon . that, which induced the Commissioner to go over again. All the Deputy Commissioners have authority, given them by the Commissioner, to purchase land, without reference to him, to a value not exceeding £1,000. The authority given to the Commissioner himself is limited to £5,000. Any negotiations for the purchase of land exceeding in valuethat amount have to be submitted for Ministerial approval. Major Evans entered into negotiations for the purchase of land to the value of £25,000, a transaction for which he had absolutely no authority, nor, indeed, had the Commissioner. The other matters I do not propose to touch upon now, but I venture to say I have given enough information to show that the Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was not desirable to continue Major Evans in his office. He therefore called for his resignation, which was, of course, tendered. There appears to be an undue tendency to accept statements reflecting on a Department, or on a Minister, but I say that nothing in the history of the public Departments of this country entitles any one to assume offhand, and without inquiry, that reports and allegations made by those who have severed their connexion- with the Service were necessarily right and the De- partment wrong. It is inevitable that complaints should be made by those whose services have been dispensed with, and it was so in the case of Major Evans. Before statements of this kind are accepted at their face value some inquiry should be made.
I pass on now to refer to the gift of land at Lithgow, with which Major Evans was connected. The suggestion that there is any rivalry between Sydney and - Melbourne is an absurdity. I understand that the Commissioner himself is not a Melbourne man. I do not know whether he comes from Sydney or Brisbane, but his home is in Sydney, and his sphere of operations of late years has been in Queensland. I think he hardly knows Melbourne; so if he has any sympathies at all they will be with Sydney. Apart from that, I may say that when the land was offered with the condition referred to, the Commissioner was bound to ask what would be the cost of giving effect to it, because, whether the cost be high or low, it is not the Government that will have to pay. but the soldier, as, under the terms of the Act, the Commissioner has to charge against the houses any extra expenditure incurred for the preparation of the land. If, consequently, any expenditure is involved in a town planning design by the inclusion of parks, ornamental thoroughfares, and fountains, it must be charged pro rata upon each house, and the soldiers will have to pay it. It might easily happen, if some ambitious town planning scheme were carried into effect, that an extra £100 would be added to each house, so that a soldier would be charged £700 for a house that should cost only £600. The Commissioner would ‘have been false to his duty if he had not, in these circumstances, made some inquiry as to the cost involved in the condition attached to a gift. I have not had an opportunity of conferring with the Commissioner, but I assume that these reasons were present in his mind when he declined to indorse Major Evans’ recommendations with regard to the land. A matter of which I have some knowledge is the establishment of the Small Arms Factory. Shortly after its establishment it was my good or ill fortune to become Minister for Defence, and I have a distinct recollection that while the municipality was keen to get the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, it refused to spend even the price of a load of metal to’ keep the road to it in order. If the Housing Commissioner is going to put a number of houses there it is quite right that he should have some understanding with the municipal council, otherwise it will be the soldiers again who will have to pay for roads, sewerage, and water connexion, which I say are a fair charge against the municipality. The whole business has been emphasized because of the excited way in which the Lithgow people have resented the action of the Commissioner; but I feel sure that it is a matter which is easily capable of adjustment. If the Town Planning Association is merely submitting a proposition which will not entail undue financial burdens on the soldiers, there need be no difficulty about the matter. If, however, they want the Commissioner to buy a pig in a poke, and without some intimation as to the probable expenditure which he will have to load on to the houses of the soldiers, then, as far as I am concerned, the Commissioner will have my support in declining to move from his position.
– Do you assert that that is his reason for refusing the gift?
– No.
– Then what is the reason for the refusal ?
– I do not know. I am merely showing that the Commissioner is an independent officer. I have not had an opportunity of conferring with him. I am merely giving the reasons which, in my opinion, would operate in his mind before he accepted an offer of that kind. They are reasons which induce me to support his attitude.
– They are imaginary only.
– They are substantial reasons. The Commissioner, in my judgment, would have been wrong in accepting the land under the conditions named. The position with regard to the cottages which the Government put up for the employees was different. There the Town Planning Association prepared the plans, which they submitted for’ the acceptance or rejection of the Government. In this’ case they did not do -that. We were told, in effect, “ You must accept the land with the condition that you shall carry out some scheme not yet prepared.” I am perfectly certain that there would be no objection to the town planning authorities preparing a scheme, provided the Commissioner had tlie right of veto. He must have that right. I feel certain that when the Commissioner returns 1 shall find that the matters I have mentioned were in his mind.
– I am most dissatisfied with the reasons given. The Minister is not making it clear that the rejection of the offer was due to an increased cost.
– A lay-out must cost some sum, and that must be charged against the soldiers. The Commissioner is bound to know what the cost is likely to be before he accepts a proposition of the kind under discussion. Let me elaborate this matter a little further. The 35 acres referred to will, under the conditions of this offer, come under some town planning scheme. Undoubtedly, there will be some cost attached to the lay-out of that area. Possibly the expense will be between £2,000 and £3,000. It is perfectly true that the land could accommodate 250 houses, but the Commissioner cannot put up 250 houses unless there are 250 soldier applicants. Suppose there were only thirty-five applicants. In that case the whole cost of the town planning scheme would be charged against those thirty-five “applicants, and I say that that is a matter that ought to be looked into. If it were not, and the Commissioner found that the soldier was being charged £100 or £150 more than his house was worth, because of outside improvements, no man would protest more vigorously than would Senator Gardiner. The Commissioner has adopted the wiser course in declining to .accept the black of land subject to that condition. No doubt he will point out why that condition is impossible of acceptance, and will leave it to the donor to suggest terms which will overcome the difficulty that I have outlined. There are many other matters that I would have liked to discuss, but to do so at this late hour would be to unduly trespass on the time and patience of honorable senators.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
– I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
As I previously informed honorable senators, this is a Bill for the ordinary services of the Commonwealth, concerning which I now venture to submit the following particulars. The Bill seeks to appropriate £4,337,335 towards the services of the Government for the year 1919-20. . Nominally, the Supply is for a period of two months ; but, in fact, it will cover a somewhat longer period, as a pay day occurs in the Public Service on the 5th September, and it is necessary to provide funds for other services for a little longer than that. Included in the Bill is a sum of £700,000 for Treasurer’s Advance, which is required for the continuation of public works in progress, and for unforeseen items generally. The Bill also provides for an amount of £1,452,000 for war expenditure payable out of revenue. Deducting these sums, and an amount of £80,000 for refunds of revenue^ the amount provided in the Bill for ordinary services is £2,105,335. The amount of £1.452,000 for war services is made up as follows: - War pensions. £1,040,000; repatriation of Australian soldiers, £356,000; other war services, £56,000; During the war an amount of £193,572,553 was raised in the Commonwealth through war loans and war savings certificates. In addition to this we borrowed £47,500,000 from the British Government, and we owe the British Government a further sum of £44,645,000 for maintenance of Australian troops and for munitions. The total sum borrowed, therefore, amounts to £285,717,533, and the war loan expenditure to the 31st May last totalled £261,541,104.
Although the Armistice was signed seven months ago, the expenditure ia connexion with the war has not substantially diminished, because payments for transports and deferred pay have taken the place of payments for munitions, &c. From now on, the expenditure should rapidly diminish, but it is expected that it will be necessary to raise further loans to meet expenses in connexion with repatriation. A loan of £30,000,000 has been promised to the States to enable them to settle 20,000. returned soldiers on the land, and a large sum will, no doubt, be required for war service homes.
Interest on war debt now amounts to ?13,1.70,000. Of this amount, ?8,560,000 is payable to Australian lenders, and ?4,610,000 to the British Government.
The state of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at present is good. Customs and Excise receipts have greatly exceeded the amount anticipated, and it is expected that there will be a satisfactory surplus for the financial year now closing. It is desired, if possible, to pass the Bill today, in order that war pensions, which are now due, may be paid.
– I propose to take advantage of this motion, not to deal with the principles of the Bill, but to amplify the statement which I made upon the motion for its first reading. Whether you, sir, will permit me to do this I cannot say; but if I am prevented, I shall take occasion to refer to. the matter as one of privilege. In my previous remarks I made reference to the action of the Australian people in electing to this Parliament three Germans, in the persons of Mr. Dankel, Mr. Stumm, and Mr. Heitmann. I had in my mind the impression that Mr. Heitmann was a German from the statements which he himself had made here. Senator de Largie corrected me, and I have since read more carefully what Mr. Heitmann did say, and, with your permission, I shall read it. Beading his speech more closely than I did previously, I confess that the impression which I had formed was a wrong one. It was his father who was a German,, and not Mr. Heitmann himself. Upon the 18th January, 1918. Mr. Heitmann is reported, on page 3222 of Hansard, to have said -
To make the matter clear, I desire to state what my nationality is. It is true that the Government of this country have proclaimed that my father was of enemy origin.
Mr. Wallace. Do you indorse that?
Mr. Heitmann. It is hardly necessary for me to say whether I indorse it or not. The Government, in their wisdom, by proclamation, said my father was of enemy origin. I disagreed with that, but did not complain, knowing full well that, in time of war, regulations had to bc passed which inflicted great hardship and heart-burning on many. But I wish to make it clear that my dad was born in a country under a king of the Royal House’ of England.
That country, I take it, is Hanover. I. intend skipping what immediately follows, because it has no bearing upon the matter I am discussing. Here is, perhaps, what influenced me, in my hurried reading, and induced me to form a wrong impression. In referring to the elections in Western Australia, Mr. Heitmann said -
While they, shouted from every platform in . the West that Heitmann was a Gorman, they complained bitterly that another alleged German, my own brother, had not a vote.
Reading that statement carelessly, I had formed the opinion that Mr. Heitmann was a German. In justice to him, I now wish to say that it was his father who was a German, and not himself. But I did not make my original statement from other than a desire to link up Messrs. Dankel, Stumm, and Heitmann. I hope that my explanation will be regarded as satisfactory, and I think it was due to me that I should make it. Now I wish to say a -word or two about the 35 acres to which reference has been made by the Minister, and to the cost of constructing roads. If this land is costly to bring into the occupation of settlers, we should be informed of the circumstance. But I say there has been a curt refusal of Mr. Brown’s gift - a refusal which conveyed, not only to me, but to many persons in New South Wales, the impression that gifts of that description are not desired. The sooner the Government and the Housing Commissioner remove that impression the better it will be for the scheme which they have in hand.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule.
Divisions 1 to 12 (The Parliament), ?7,967; divisions 13 to 19 (The Prime Minister), ?29,940; divisions 25 to 32 (Department of the Treasury), ?99,920; divisions 36 to 42 (Attorney-General’ s Department), ?13,729, agreed to.
Divisions 43 to 54 (Home and Territories Department), ?86,465.
– I would like to know from the Government whether it is their intention at a later stage to place more money ob. the Estimates for the purpose of carrying on the works at Canberra. In this Bill the total expenditure there is limited to an item in the miscellaneous section amounting to £7,397. To my mind, this is altogether inadequate even for a two months’ Supply Bill. It would be far better, if the Government are determined to keep the Capital in Melbourne for all time, that the whole of the expenditure on Canberra should be immediately stopped, and the land there either disposed of or handed back to New South Wales. The Ministry are neither respecting the provisions of our Constitution nor doing anything of a tangible character except postponing the matter indefinitely. There may have been some reason for inaction when the war was in progress, but now that Peace has been signed, and will probably be ratified in the near future, it is only fair that the provision in our Constitution, which has remained a dead letter for over nineteen years, should be honoured by this Parliament. A sum of £7,000 for a period of two months is nothing more than sufficient to maintain the services which already exist at Canberra. The Commonwealth has there nearly 1,000 square miles of territory, some of it being very good land. I would like to know whether the Government have considered the advisableness of proceeding with the erection of the parliamentary buildings there during the next twelve months. What are they doing in connexion with the acceptance of a design for those buildings 1 What are the authorities doing in connexion with the acceptance of a design? It would be quite easy to erect temporary premises in brief time, and at moderate cost; and to do so would be merely carrying out the provisions of the Constitution.
– The whole matter is now receiving consideration, and the policy of the Government concerning the Federal Capital .will be announced when the Budget is introduced.
.- Is it intended to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss the drastic changes proposed in connexion with the administration of the Northern Territory?.
Newspaper statements have announced great administrational changes. A nominee Council has been called into existence. I shall not now express my views as to the wisdom or otherwise of such a course. A Gazette has been issued making the appointments; yet there is no indication of the Government’s intention to permit Parliament to discuss the matter. Had it been a question of the appointment of an official even of the rank of .Administrator I would not be so greatly concerned; but Parliament should have the right to express its opinions upon the inauguration of an entirely new policy.
– I understand that it is the usual practice to lay Upon the table of Parliament ordinances dealing with our Territories, just as in the case of regulations. If that is not so, an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of the matter.
Proposed vote agreed to.
Divisions 55 to 81 (Department of DefenceMilitary), £222,374.
– Has the Acting Minister for Defence any information regarding the case of Harper, which I mentioned at an earlier stage? In the matter of separation allowance, is his request to be referred to the Board ? Also, is there any information concerning the delay in connexion with the cases of the trainees at Kalgoorlie, who were fined and detained for breaches of discipline?
– I have no personal knowledge of the case of Harper, but it has been under consideration for some time. The Department has made heroic efforts to do justice and bring about amity between men and their wives. It has been a big contract, but, judging by the few complaints, some wonderful work has been accomplished in domestic circles. It was desired that men, in joining the Forces, should not be gwen an opportunity to evade their domestic responsibilities. The Department has not fully succeeded in every case. In the circumstances under review, the Court has indorsed the view that Harper was not blessed in his domestic relations. Full investigation will be made by the recentlyappointed Committee. It was the practice of the Department that separation allowances and the lite should be granted upon application. It was found, however, that, while one type of individual was keen, another class, equally deserving, did not in all instances make use of the opportunities provided. In every case the Department has now .abolished the limitation in regard to the making of applications, and the money in each instance will be paid to individuals from the date when Parliament voted it. For some time an old-age pension, when drawn, was taken into consideration as part of a person’s income. Parliament then decided that it should not count. There were instances in which young men applied to have separation allowances made on behalf of their mothers. After they had gone to the war the mothers failed to make application for what was due to them. The Government have now declared that it would be unfair to rob those women because of their lack of knowledge of the regulations. They are being paid from the date on which Parliament voted the money, and the practice holds good in every case.
There has been much difficulty in respect to temporary promotions. Certain young fellows were promoted owing to exigencies in the field. Subsequently, however, they reverted to the ranks. Confusion arose from an order of General Birdwood to the effect that it would not be necessary in cases of temporary promotions to make allotments. The Government are honouring General Birdwood^ instruction in that regard. The next class of case is a particularly difficult one. There have been instances of a man leaving Australia and, for the reason that he was getting less than 10s. a day, making an allotment to his wife. Subsequently such a man would secure promotion, as a result of which he might get considerably more than 10s. a day, in which’ case his wife would not be entitled to a separation allowance. It was the duty of that man, upon receiving the increase in salary, to make an increased allotment to his wife - if he was aware of the regulation. The Department would assume that he had made the increased allotment, and. would not continue to pay her the original amount of her separation allowance. In all cases now, however, the Department has made up .the full amount, and in no instance has it profited by a soldier’s lack of knowledge or default. Men have often failed to make an increased allotment upon receiving an addition in pay ; but, notwithstanding that, the Department has continued to grant to the wife her separation allowance. The Government have appointed a fair and independent Committee. It comprises Mr. Gillespie, who is well known in connexion with recruiting matters; a direct representative of the soldiers, Mr. Palmer, President of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Association; and an accountant of the Defence Department, Major Badger, who has had special experience in connexion with cases of this character. We intend to be guided by what is described as “ good conscience,” and will see that no cases of hardship occur. All instances of that nature, no matter when they may have cropped up, will be reviewed, and I hope that full justice will be done.
With respect to warrant officers and staff sergeant-majors, it has been 6aid from time to time that certain men in the Defence Forces “were refused permission to go to the Front. . If the refusal was on the ground that their services were required at home they are treated on the same basis as returned soldiers.
– Does that also apply to the Navy ?
– I cannot say for the moment; but the principle is right. Another point which has been raised had to do with tlie war allowance of 9d. a day to instructors. That allowance will be continued up to the end of 1919. The warrant officers are generally recognised as the backbone of the Army. Duringthe period of the war their salaries have been increased from a minimum of £156 per annum to £180, with corresponding allowances. That places a very deserving and dependable section of the Forces on a much higher plane than was previously the case.
– -Will the Minister explain the unreasonable delay which occurred in regard to the four trainees at Kalgoorlie ? It took two months for the Department to furnish a reply.
– I am quite unaware of the circumstances, but will have inquiries made and endeavour to furnish the information to-morrow.
-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [11.35]. - I call attention’ to a reply given this afternoon with regard to Paul Freeman. The Minister stated that this man’s case would not come before the Board of Magistrates, because Freeman was not an enemy alien. A statement was made in the Senate some days ago to the effect that Freeman was a German. If that is so, he is an enemy alien, and his case should come within the scope of the Board of Magistrates .appointed to deal with interned enemy aliens.
– The statement in question was to the effect that the Government believed Freeman to be a German. I do not assert that he is. As a matter of fact, information has now been received from the United States Government that they deny all responsibility in regard to Freeman. They say he is not known at the address which he gave, namely, Mount Vernon, that he was not born there and has no relations there, and that they are not able to trace him in that neighbourhood; and, further, that evidently he is not an American. The questions for the Government now to determine are: - “What is he?” and “Who is he?”
-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [11.40]. - I understand that the Defence Department are arranging that permanent staff sergeants-major who saw service at the Front on return to Australia are given certain positions in the Defence Department, such as area officers, adjutants of units, and quartermasters. I should like to ask the Minister if these permanent officers are to have pre ference for these positions as against Militia or civilian citizen soldiers at present holding such positions?
– I am not sure that the honorable senator is not -referring to temporary’ positions. Ho asks whether permanent warrant officers will receive preference over Militia officers. I “take it that the services of the Militia officers are quite of a temporary character, and that they were employed during the period of the war. The warrant officers, being permanent officers, will be continued in their permanent positions during good behaviour, and, necessarily, will be given preference as - part and parcel of the permanent establishment.
– I wish to refer to the reply of the Minister to Senator O’Loghlin on the case of Paul Freeman, who is evidently nobody’s child. He has crossed the ocean now against his will four times. The Minister says that he is not sure that he is a German, but that America does not own him. In view of his statement that America does not own Paul Freeman, and that Australia does not own him,’ will he undertake to give him a public trial, specify the charges alleged against him, and find out where he comes from, to whom he belongs, and what is hi3 crime against the Commonwealth?
– As a result of the inquiry which I have made through the American Government, I shall report the whole of the facts to the jury which previously tried Freeman, that is, to the Commonwealth Cabinet, at the earliest possible opportunity.
N- (Victoria) [11.44]. - I am sorry that I must trouble the Minister with another question. I understand that certain officers are being appointed to positions such as area officer, adjutant, and quartermaster. They are being appointed to these three positions in one. One man is being asked to do three men’s work. Having had some experience as a militia officer, I say that it is not possible to secure efficiency if one man is called upon to fill these three positions. The work of an adjutant is very responsible work, and so is that of a quartermaster; and certainly one man cannot efficiently perform the duties of the three positions.
– I should like to ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether the members of the Permanent Artillery Forces, who volunteered for active service abroad, but whom it was deemed advisable to keep in. Australia, will be given some recognition, in the way of a badge, of the fact that they volunteered for service abroad, but were required to remain here?
– I shall look into that question. I do not quite know what the position is; but, as a matter of principle which I should like to see given effect to, I say that I do not think that any man who was prevented from going to the war should be placed in any worse position in the Defence Department than men who were at the war and have returned.
Proposed vote agreed to.
Divisions 82 to 99 (Department of the Navy), £457,925, agreed to.
Divisions 100 to 114 (Department of Trade and Customs), £127,645.
– I notice an item of salaries, £50, under the head of navigation. It would be interesting to know how many public servants are covered by that item. I believe that at an early date it is proposed to establish the Navigation Department on a footing that will enable it to administer the Navigation Act when it is proclaimed. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to put the Department. on such a footing as to enable it to prepare the necessary regulations and preliminary work so that the Navigation Act may be proclaimed at the earliest possible moment.
– I understand that there is no staff represented by the amount to which the honorable senator has referred, and that the money is paid to Customs officers for part time. On the question- of the proclamation of the Navigation Act, if the honorable senator will look at the policy speech read by Mr. Watt in another place, and in this Chamber by Senator Millen, he will find there set out the attitude which the Government take with regard to the proclamation of the Navigation Act.
– I understand that the Western Australian Government still insist upon, the precautionary measure of quarantining for seven days passengers travelling westward. I should like to know whether they have relaxed that condition, and, if not, whether the Commonwealth Government have made any special representation to the Western Australian Government, urging that the condition should be relaxed or entirely withdrawn, in view of the fact that it has not prevented the introduction of influenza into Western Australia. All the mainland States are now tarred with the one brush, and are infected with the disease. It is a very serious inconvenience to passengers travelling westward to be marooned for seven days outside Port Augusta. If any good purpose were served by the condition, I should be up to the hilt behind the Western Australian Government in imposing it. But in view of the fact that there is influenza in Western Australia, and also in South Australia, I ask whether the Commonwealth Government have made any special representations to the Government of Western Australia with the object of removing this obstacle to communication with that State.
– I wish to direct attention to an item under the heading of quarantine. I observe that items are sent down for contingencies- For Tasmania, £3,000 ; Western Australia, £4,000; South Australia, £3,000: Victoria, £3,000; and New South Wales, £4,000. I should like to- ask the Minister whether, under the quarantine restrictions applying to traffic between Tasmania and the mainland, expenditure out of the. ordinary is imposed upon the Commonwealth, or whether the expense involved for quarantine administration is not to a large extent born by the State. It seems to me that the sum of ?3,000 for contingencies for Tasmania for the period covered by this Bill is rather large. There is another item for salaries put down for Tasmania, and I should like to know whether Tasmanian officers administering quarantine are acting in an honorary capacity or are being paid by the State.
– Out of contingentcies allowances are made for the services of medical practitioners acting as quarantine officers. “ ‘
– I should like some information as to the amount that is being paid by the Commonwealth to theofficers in Tasmania who are very capably administering the quarantine laws. There does not seem to be any specific amount set against the item of “ Salaries,” and I wish to have an explanation as to whether the proposed vote of ?3,000 in respect of contingencies for Tasmania - which seems large in comparison with the amounts provided under that heading in respect of the other States - is more than usual) because of the fact that quarantine is now in force between Tasmania and the ‘ mainland States. T desire, also, to know the extent to which the Commonwealth is bearing the cost of administration.
– Unfortunately I am not in a position to give the honorable senator the proportion of the expenditure borne by Tasmania. The work probably is controlled by the local health authorities, the details of whose expenditure are not available.
– What proportion of the cost is being borne by the Commonwealth.?
– I am unable to inform the honorable senator, but the Commonwealth is undoubtedly bearing certain ‘expenses. The item, “ Clerical Division, clerks, ?150;” seems to be the only. one under the heading >of -“Sala ries,” but under the heading of “ Contingencies,” :for 191S-19, the following items appeared in respect of “ Quarantine, Tasmania “ : -
Allowances for services of State officers acting as officers under the Quarantine Act, ?280; allowances for services of medical practitioners acting as quarantine officers, ?150; exempt’ officers - caretakers, quarantine attendants and others, f 115; postage and telegrams, ?10; other stores, outfit of quarantine stations, fuel and light, ?50; miscellaneous and incidental expenditure, ?50; hire and maintenance of launches, ?60; active quarantine expenses (moneys paid for expenses of quarantine to be credited to this item), ?20.
These, with other items,’ made a total of ?795. The monthly proportion is not set down, but the increase in this Bill is owing probably to the outbreak of influenza. It is quite obvious that we are carrying out the overseas shipping quarantine.
– Does the honorable senator say that the contingencies under this heading were less than ?800 in respect of the twelve months just ended %
– Yes; ?795.
– Then what is the meaning of the item of ?3,000 for contingencies in the schedule to this Bill ?
– Apparently there . was no influenza in- Tasmania at the time the estimate for 1918-19 was prepared, but we know that at present the quarantine services are very active. Returned soldiers, and others crossing over, to Tasmania, are receiving attention from our quarantine officers, and the outlay in respect to contingencies has been increased by activities following the influenza epidemic.
– The Commonwealth is bearing the expense of those activities ?
– Apparently the Commonwealth is tearing the cost of overseas quarantine.
– I have a few observations to offer in regard to the matter of quarantine. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a peculiar position of affairs that obtained in Tasmania recently, and which will probably continue to afford illustration of the singularity to which I am about to allude: ‘ A vessel -put out from a South Australian port for the Tamar ‘River, Northern Tasmania, with a cargo -which she -was to discharge at Launceston. Notwithstanding the laudable attempts of the Tasmanian authorities to keep the influenza epidemic out of their State, this vessel was allowed to put out from South Australia without undergoing any period of quarantine detention. When she reached the Tamar, the period necessitated by the Tasmanian health activities had not expired, but she was not allowed to put in the period of detention in the local quarantine area. The Federal Government have reserved a quarantine area in the Tamar River, about Middle Island, near Bell Bay. This vessel, however, was ordered to go right round the island of Tasmania to the quarantine station at Barnes Bay. Seeing that a quarantine area has been proclaimed on the banks of the River Tamar, or on one of the islands, which is eminently suitable, I think the Federal Government had better take into consideration at once the desirableness of providing and equipping a, quarantine station there. What is the use of a quarantine area in which vessels are not allowed to put in the necessary period of quarantine detention ? One could well understand that on board a. vessel putting out from a mainland port for’ Launceston there might develop a disease which could properly- be treated at a quarantine station in the Tamar. If that vessel had to be ordered back to Portsea or to go down the east coast to Barnes Bay, a situation would be created that would give rise to a good deal of public comment, as did the case of the vessel to which I have just referred. I ask the Government to take into consideration the fact that a quarantine station must be equipped on the Tamar River, which is the great doorway to northern Tasmania. Some evidence of activity in this direction has already been given. I do not know whether it adumbrates the intention of the Government to equip a quarantine station on the Tamar, but quite recently I accompanied a health officer on a trip to Middle Island, and, while I do not wish to anticipate that officer’s report, I must say, as a layman, it seemed to me that the island was admirably suited, and its conformation excellent for a quarantine sta- tion. I ask the Federal Government, under whose authority quarantine tin its more ample and general sense must be exercised, to take into its earliest consideration all the arguments, and there are undoubtedly many, in favour of the proper equipment of a quarantine station, either on the banks of the Tamar or on Middle Island, which has been selected by quite a number of public authorities as suitable for the purpose.
– Senator Lynch is particularly anxious to know whether the Government have made representations to Western Australia in regard to the State quarantine restrictions. May I remind him that the complaint was not merely that we had made representations, but that we had made them too emphatically for the liking of some of the State Governments. As to Senator Bakhap’s inquiry, I can only conceive of the action of which he complains having been taken by the State Health authorities, since it was not in accord with the’ quarantine regulations of the Commonwealth Government. In regard to his request that the Commonwealth should establish a quarantine station on the Tamar, I think that, before we equip any more stations of the kind, we should have an understanding that our quarantine laws will be observed by the States. I am not in favour of our building any more quarantine stations until we know that our laws are to be observed. I shall, however, bring, the honorable member’s ^request under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs, who, I am sure, will give it careful consideration.
– I wish to draw attention to Item 101, “ Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry, including expenses of Advisory Council pending establishment of permanent Institute, £3,700.’’ Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs state what authority the Government have for this expenditure?
– They will have authority, for it under this Bill.
– But they have already expended money on the Institute of Science and Industry, although the Bill giving them authority to do so has not yet been passed. The Bill passed the Sen a ce, hut has yet to run the gauntlet of the House of Representatives, and I want to know where the. authority comes from for the expenditure of this money, assuming that Parliament does not authorize it.
– It is quite true that the Bill has not been passed by the other House, but it was no secret that a temporary institution had been established, and was in actual operation long before the present Government came into office. I believe the institution has done good work. As for the authority to spend money, that can only be given by a vote of ‘this Parliament. If Parliament does not vote- the money, then I presume it cannot be spent.
– But is it not a fact that certain officers have been appointed to permanent positions, and that you are anticipating parliamentary authority?
– I cannot say what permanent officers have been appointed, but I understand one or two have been, in anticipation of the Bill passing.
– Then you are legislating without parliamentary sanction.
Proposed, vote agreed to.
Divisions 115 to 126 (Department of Works and Railways), £120,620; Divisions 127 to 136 (Postmaster-General’s Department), £938,750, agreed to.
Divisions 138 to 144 (War Services), £1,452,000.
– I desire to know from the Minister for Repatriation if it is correct that it is intended to establish a furniture manufactory in Harris-street, Pyrmont, Sydney; and, if so, is the factory to be run on- ‘business lines for the manufacture of furniture for sale to returned soldiers at its full market value? I believe the work done there will be undertaken by men who are not quite competent, as they will be engaged in acquiring a knowledge of the trade. I would like to know, also, whether it is a fact that, instead of appointing a competent man in charge of the proposed factory, it Has’ been decided to appoint three furniture manufacturers to, in effect, control the factory. It. seems an extraordinary thing for the Government not to conduct the factory on up-to-date lines, and without restraint being placed upon the manager by outside furniture manufacturers. If the manager is to be under the control of these outsiders, the matter- will call for investigation at an early date. Returned men will expect to buy furniture of the very best quality, as they will be required to pay good prices for it, and I maintain that high-class furniture cannot be manufactured by men who are only acquiring a knowledge of the trade.
– A factory has been secured, but I do not know where it is, but it is not correct to say that it is intended to carry on there factory operations. The property was purchased for the purpose of the vocational training scheme launched by the Department in connexion with a number of trades, and it is quite obvious that, as the men become expert, they will be able to turn out certain articles which it may be desirable to sell, because otherwise it would mean their destruction-. So far, therefore, as they are capable of producing’ articles which have a sale value, those articles will be sold. Whether any of them will be suitable for soldiers requiring furniture, I cannot say; but the honorable senator may rest assured that no inferior furniture will be disposed of to soldiers, nor will they be expected to pay more than a fair price. A manager has been appointed, and will exercise the ordinary control of operations; but an advisory committee of three leading manufacturers will assist him, for the reason that in starting these classes it is desirable to look ahead and see what chance there is of soldiers obtaining employment when they have finished their training. The Department has, therefore, placed itself in communication with employers in the furniture trade, ‘with the object of ascertaining what guarantee there may he of employment for men trained at this establishment, and for the purpose also of obtaining advice as to the class of training to be imparted. Otherwise the Department might be imparting knowledge which would not fit men for the particular work desired by employers. The advisory committee is an advisory committee only, and responsibility will be on the Department to accept or reject advice tendered by that body. I feel confident that the Department will have much to gain from their expert experience.
– The information given by the Minister is quite unsatisfactory. No employer would for a moment entertain the idea . of having a supernumerary committee of this description. If a competent manager is employed to conduct a department it is his business to run it. There is no necessity whatever, so far as I can see, for these” three gentlemen, whose names I do not know, being foisted on . to the Department. If it is the intention of the Department to train a whole army of apprentices, and endeavour to give men the knowledge of a complicated trade like, the furniture trade, I venture to say it will result in no end of trouble in a short time. It would be far better to place the factory distinctly and definitely under the direction of a competent foreman responsible to the. Minister. So far as I know, it is an innovation to introduce three outside manufacturers, and I feel sure there is more at the back of the proposal than has been disclosed. Such a step appears unnecessary and unsatisfactory, and must lead to complications. In other industries it is usual to placesuch work in charge of foremen.
– The honorable senator overlooks the fact that this is a training establishment primarily.
– The point I do not like is the introduction of the manufacturers . It surely cannot be their intention to take over from the training establishment men who have been employed there.
– I have already told the Committee that these manufacturers have undertaken to employ the men after they are trained.
– I doubt whether they will do anything of the kind, and I strongly advise the Minister to get rid of the manufacturers in favour of a competent foreman.
Proposed vote agreed to.
Division 34 (Refunds of revenue), £80,000; division 35 (Advance to Treasurer), £700,000, agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported without request; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 10325
Motion (by Senator Millen), agreed to-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 9th inst.
page 10325
– I move -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
I have to intimate that certain cables have been received by theGovernment from the Imperial authorities, one of which I propose to read-
June 28th. - Peace Treaty with Germany signed by representatives of Allied and Associated Powers and by representatives of Germany to-day at 4 o’clock. Concluding article of Treaty provides that first proces verbal to deposit of ratification will be drawn up as soon as Treaty has been ratified by Germany on one hand, and by three of principal Allied and Associated’ ‘ Powers on the other hand. That from date of this first proces verbal Treaty will come into force between high contracting parties who have ratified it. That for determination of all periods of time as provided for in Treaty this date will be date of coming into force of Treaty, and that in all other respects, Treaty will enter into force for each Power at the date of deposit of its ratification.
Date of ratification, i.e., of coming into force, of Peace Treaty cannot be stated yet. .
The two other cables, which I propose to lay on- the table, are from ‘the Imperial Government, intimating that by Royal Proclamation issued in Great Britain,, the 6th July has been fixed as a day of general thanksgiving, and the 19 th July, has been set apart for .the general celebration of victory. The hope is expressed in the cables that similar dates will be adopted throughout the Empire, although it is recognised there may be local circumstances to prevent that being done.
– I cannot allow the motion to go without expressing my dissatisfaction that important information of the kind is submitted in this manner at the tail-end of the sitting. I venture to say that the Minister has absolutely failed to appreciate what has happened, and I express my surprise at his treatment of correspondence of this kind.
– Two of the cables have been received only during the currency of the sitting
– I think they are of sufficient importance to have warranted an interruption of the business.
– The interruption of the honorable senator’s speech ?
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 12.18 a.m., Thursday.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 July 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1919/19190702_senate_7_88/>.