Senate
3 December 1929

12th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 523

PAPERS

The following papers wore presented : -

Alsatian Dogs - Admission to Australia: Examination of Evidence for and against, by Dr. W. N. Robertson.

Customs Act - Proclamation dated 27th November, 1929, prohibiting exportation (except under a certain condition ) of Stud Sheep.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Ourimbah, New South Wales - For Postal Purposes.

Public Service Act - Appointment- Department of Trade and Customs - D.S. Bull.

page 523

QUESTION

MIGRATION AGREEMENT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What effect will the cable sent by the Prime Minister to the British Government in connexion with the suspension of the migration agreement have upon the carrying out of the land settlement scheme known as “ The 3,500 Farms Scheme “ in Western Australia?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– On receipt of a reply from the British Government, a statement will be made to Parliament on this and other matters in relation to the £34,000,000 agreement.

page 523

QUESTION

ALSATIAN DOGS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the attention of the Government been drawn to a statement in the Sydney Sun of the 27th November to the effect that Dr. W.

    1. Robertson, Director of the Division of Veterinary Hygiene, has submitted a report refuting many of the allegations made against Alsatian dogs as sheep-killers, and suggesting that it is the intention of the Government to lift the embargo against the importation of Alsatian dogs into Australia?
  2. Has such a report been received from Dr. Robertson, and, if so, will the Minister lay it on the Table of the Senate?
  3. If it is a fact that legislation providing for the sterilization of all Alsatian dogs in Western Australia, owing to their depredations amongst sheep, is now being considered by the Parliament of that State, will the Government consult the various State Governments, and particularly the Government of Western Australia, before removing this embargo ?
  4. In view of the severe injury sustained by the primary producers of Australia through imported pests, and notably through the depredations of the fox, the rabbit, and the sparrow, will the Government have full official inquiry find investigation made before considering the removal of this embargo?
Senator DALY:
ALP

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

  1. The press statement referred to has come under notice. The report to which it relates was prepared by Dr. Robertson for the information of the late Government, and, in response to numerous requests, it was decided to make it available for general information.
  2. I lay on the table a copy of Dr. Robertson’s report. 3 and 4. The late Government imposed a prohibition, for a period of fire years, on the importation of Alsatian dogs. No steps to remove the prohibition will be taken except after full inquiry and consideration.

page 524

QUESTION

CITIZEN FORCE ENROLMENT

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– On 28th November Senator Sampson asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What were the numbers of (a) officers, (b) non-commissioned officers, on the strength of the Citizen Military Forces on the 1st July, 1923, and 1st July, 1929, respectively?
  2. What were the numbers of (a) officers, (b) non-commissioned officers, on the 1st July, 1910, in the Commonwealth Citizen Forces on the active list?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator as follows: - 1. (a) Active list including unattached list-

  1. No information is available in regard to the strength of non-commissioned officers, but the following numbers were provided on the establishment for the dates mentioned -
  1. (a) Active list including unattached list, 1,818.
  1. No information is available in regard to the strength of non-commissioned officers, but an establishment of 4,177 was provided for 1st July, 1910.

page 524

QUESTION

AERIAL DEFENCE

Western Junction Aerodrome

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– On 29th November Senator Sampson asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What is the position with regard to the proposed aerodrome at Western Junction?
  2. Has the site been purchased?
  3. If so, will a sufficient area for Aero Club purposes be immediately made available to the Tasmanian section of the club?
  4. Is he aware whether the delay in affording facilities for flying is adversely affecting the future prospects of the club?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator as follows: -

  1. The position is that a site has been purchased, and the proposals for the development of the area as an aerodrome are being referred to the Parliamentary Works Committee for their consideration.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
  3. If the project is approved, immediate action will bo taken to make available to the TaBmanian section of the Aero Club an ares sufficient for club purposes.
  4. Although delays in anordiug facilities for flying near Launceston will necessarily restrict the immediate activities of the club, it is not thought that the present unavoidable delay will appreciably affect the future prospects of the club.

page 524

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply.

Debate resumed from 29th November (vide page 491) on motion by Senator Dooley -

That the following Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General’s Speech be agreed to: -

ToHis Excellency the Governor-General -

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- On Friday last I made some reference to the industrial trouble on the northern coal-fields of New SouthWales. It is gratifying to honorable senators to learn that as a result of negotiations during the week-end there is every likelihood of a settlement of that dispute. I am sure we all hope that these negotiations will lead to a lasting peace in the industry. I cannot, however, let the occasion pass without drawing attention to the way in which the unfortunate coal-miners have been misled during the last -five or sis months. Months ago they could have obtained terms of settlement, even better than those they are now likely to secure. But they were told to wait until a Labour Government was in power, and they would get better terms. No more dastardly form of conducting an election campaign could have been adopted.

Those who were responsible for these statements, including the political leaders of the miners themselves, were fully aware of the constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth with regard to the control of industry. They must have known that it would be in the interests of the miners to accept the terms, offered previously, but for political purposes the men were gulled into the belief that if they held out long enough they would be able to exact better terms. Consequently they were kept out of employment for many months longer than was necessary. For this state of affairs I blame Mr. Theodore, the present Treasurer, and other leaders of the Labour party in New South Wales. It is disgraceful that any party should adopt such tactics for the purpose of securing votes. I sincerely trust that, as the outcome of the recent developments, we are about to enter upon an era of peace not only in the coal-mining industry of New South Wales, but in industry generally throughout the Commonwealth.

I wish now to refer to the Government’s proposal to abolish compulsory military training. I recognize that there may have been many defects in the manner in which compulsory training was carried out, but no fault could be found with the system itself. It is, I believe, generally’ conceded that it does not take long to- knock the average infantryman into shape.

Senator Sampson:

– Question.

Senator FOLL:

– At all events an infantryman may be prepared for war service in a much shorter time than is required for the training of technical Units such as the artillery, the signallers and engineers.

Senator Sampson:

– That was not our experience in the war.

Senator FOLL:

– Practically the whole of the First Division, which was regarded as the flower of the Australian forces, were men who had previous military training, and nearly all of them were recruited from the ranks of our citizen forces. The original Seventh Battery, of which I was a member, was officered entirely by men who had had experience in the citizen forces, and I believe that 90 per cent, of the battery were citizen force men who enlisted en masse. The compulsory system for the training of our citizen forces in operation at the outbreak of the war laid the foundation for the building up of that magnificent body of men known as the Australian Imperial Forces. Now that the Government has decided to abolish compulsory military training, I am afraid it will be difficult to provide for the adequate defence of the Commonwealth, especially as regards the technical units. I can assure Senator Sampson that in my reference to the infantry I had no desire to belittle the glorious work which our infantry did during the war. All I wished to do was to emphasize that time is required for the efficient training of artillerymen, engineers and other technical units; that a considerable term of apprenticeship is necessary before men comprising such units are fit to take the field. I trust; therefore, that if the voluntary system does not prove satisfactory the Government will reconsider its decision and revert to the compulsory training of our citizen forces. Though the Government’s proposal may be regarded as a fine gesture of peace, it appears to me to be dangerous for Australia to be first among the nations to put into force this policy of world disarmament. The previous Government, I remind the Senate, was always prepared to meet other nations in conference to consider this important matter, and it did not incur unnecessary expenditure for defence purposes. What is the position in other countries? Our friends of the Labour party would have us believe that the spirit of- militarism is absent in Russia, where the spirit of social reform, so we are told, is so much in evidence. During the week end I read with interest an article in the National Review written by Mr. J. Baker White concerning the war policy of the Soviet Government. Mr. White states -

The war policy of the Soviet Government may be divided into four sections -the building up of the armed forces in Russia; propaganda to produce the war atmosphere at home and abroad; war plotting abroad; and espionage. With regard to the first there are some striking details and figures available as to the recent increases in all branches of the armed forces in Russia. During the past two years the Soviet Government has been engaged in adding to the Red Army, which was reduced to a paper strength of 562,000, an enormous militia. Military service has been made compulsory for all men in good health, the periods of service comprising pre-military instruction at 19 and 20 years of age, active service from 21 to 25, and service in the reserve from 26 to 40.

From this it is evident that every Russian subject is compelled to render military service for 21 years. Mr. White goes on to say -

The pro-military instruction is given to 842,000 youths in 4,500 centres, the permanent army trains about 270,000 men each year, and the mobile territorial organizations a further 600,000 men. Russia is, therefore, giving effective military training to more than 870,000 men a year, and competent military experts have estimated that in the event of war the Red rulers would have at their disposal more than 10,000,000 men who had received military training.

Large numbers of women are also being enrolled as Red Army auxiliaries, not only as nurses and canteen workers, but as operatives in the aviation and chemical warfare departments. Moreover, under the Soviet Military Service Act, in time of war all women between the ages of 19 and 40 are liable to compulsory service. Every effort is being made to equip this vastly increased army. The arsenals have been reorganized and, at present, are the most active section of the heavy industries; more preparations are in progress for chemical warfare, in its most horrible forms, than in any other country in the world; and militarist clubs, such as “Friends of the Air Fleet” and the “ Friends of Chemical Defence,” have been formed in all parts of the country. Particularly striking are the figures of the Soviet purchases of high-grade refined nitrate, used exclusively for the production of explosives. At the end of 1927, The Times reported that 50,000 tons had been bought from Chile during the year, while negotiations were in progress for more. In 1926, Russia’s purchases only amounted to about 2,000 tons, and in prewar days to 12,000 to 15,000 tons a year. It is disquieting to note that the financing of this huge purchase of nitrate was arranged in Berlin.

The Soviet Air Force is also steadily increasing in strength and efficiency by reason of extensive purchases of aeroplanes from Germany and elsewhere. Special funds are repeatedly raised among the Russian workers for the purchase of battle-planes, and the slogan of the Osoaviakhim (Air and Chemical Defence Society ) is : “ Every town must have its own aeroplane and aerodrome.” In the field of commercial aviation, which in Russia is part and parcel of the military machine, there is also great activity. According to an article which appeared in the Pravda of July 8th, the following air lines are in operation: - “(1) Two Western European lines, Moscow to Berlin, via Riga, and Leningrad to Riga, worked by the society ‘ Derluft,’ in which the great German air concern Lufthansa plays a considerable part. “(2) TheUkranian air-way, uniting Moscow, via Kharkov, Piatigorsk, and Baku to Pehlevi in Persia. Here the German concern again enters into the picture, as it operates a line from Baku to Enzeli, Teheran, and so to Bouchir on the Persian Gulf, and another line from Teheran to Meched, Merv, and Bokhara. “ (3) The middle-Asia group, operated by the ‘ Dobrolet ‘ society, the most important section of which is the line BakuKrasnovodskKhivaBokharaTashkentTermez, and so to Kabul. It is thus possible to get from one of the Soviet aerodromes in Asiatic Russia to the gateway of India in six or seven hours. “(4) The air system connecting Verhnedinsk with Ulan-Bator, the capital of the Mongolian Republic, and Irkutsk with Yakutsk.”

At present the Soviet air services cover some 11,427 kilometres, and plans are on foot for covering 30,000 kilometres, as soon as possible. On March 17th last, that well-informed French journal, L’ Illustration, publisheda striking article and chart on the SovietcumGerman air activities in the Middle East, and pointed out that more than one Soviet aerodrome is well within striking distance of that vital link, the Suez Canal. A study of the chart proved this, and showed the extraordinary strategic significance of the” Red air activity.

The extent of Russia’s military preparations can, perhaps, be best gauged from the size of the military Budget, which increased from 244 million gold roubles in 1922-23 to 720 million gold roubles in 1926-27, and these figures do not include expenses for barracks, which are borne by the local budgets.

UntilAustralia has received some guarantee of peace from either the League of Nations or the Disarmament Conference, or other nations have given a lead in the matter of disarmament, the Government should not leave the country at the mercy of any nation that cares to attack it. It has been said that Australia is safe so long as the British Navy controls the seas ; but the Scullin Government has told the people of the Old Country that Australia wants neither her goods nor her people. In the face of that declaration can Australia claim Britain’s protection?

Senator E B Johnston:

– Or her money ?

Senator FOLL:

– The Government is adopting an unwise policy. No honorable senator wishes to see Australia in the throes of another war such as that which a few years ago convulsed the world ; but we shall leave ourselves open to grave dangers if, in the interests of economy, our defences are weakened. I feel sure, that however eager the people of Australia may be for economy in administration, they do not want Australia to be left defenceless. I am no advocate of extravagance in administration ; but I claim that we should deal in a commonsense way with matters of disarmament and defence. I hope that the Government will not seriously weaken our defence forces.

The Governor-General’s Speech indicates that the Government proposes to re-establish the Commonwealth line of steamers. Notwithstanding that the object of the Labour party is the nationalization of industry, I trust that the Government will be guided by the experience of both State and Commonwealth Governments in connexion with State enterprises. Before the Commonwealth Shipping line was disposed of, it cost the taxpayers of this country about £750,000 a year. Whenever governments in Australia have launched out in enterprises of this nature, the result has always been a loss to the taxpayers.

Senator Barnes:

– Only when the assets have been disposed of to friends of the Nationalist party.

Senator FOLL:

– That- is an untimely interjection. If .the honorable senator refers to the disposal of the Commonwealth steamers, I remind him that they were sold; at what at the time, was full market price. The same remark applies also to the disposal of the State cattle stations in Queensland. It is true that those stations were sold for less than they cost; but that was because the purchase price was ridiculously high. Any stationowner would be glad to dispose of his holdings on terms similar to those made by the Queensland Labour Government. If there is any scandal in connexion with those cattle stations, it is that their former owners became wealthy by their sale. Australia’s experience in the nationalization of industries has been such that I hope the Government will not embark on further State enterprise. Australia is not the only country which has made the colossal plunder of engaging in State-owned shipping enterprises. The United States of America and Canada have also experienced very heavy losses in the same way. It is infinitely better to allow those who have a knowledge of shipping to carry on the business than for governments to endeavour to engage in such trading enterprises.

I wish now to refer to the unfair position which has arisen in connexion with the introduction of a new tariff schedule. This is not a party matter. A similar position arises whenever a new tariff schedule is brought down. An overseas vessel loaded with a valuable cargo of merchandise, having completed the discharge of a portion of her cargo at Sydney, leaves to complete discharge at Brisbane; but, after her departure from Sydney, and before her arrival in Brisbane, a new tariff schedule may be tabled, with the result that consignees at Brisbane are compelled to pay, in some instances, a much higher duty than the Sydney consignees. That places the Brisbane business people at a great disadvantage. I believe an understanding was once given by a Minister for Trade and Customs that an effort would be made to place this matter on a more equitable basis. It would seem reasonable to provide that when an overseas vessel has once reported at any branch of the Customs Department, the ship’s cargo shall not be subject to higher duties consequent upon the introduction of an amended tariff schedule before the discharge is completed. Under the present circumstances, consignees at certain Austraiian ports are placed at a great disadvantage. Mr. J. Allen, when speaking in Brisbane quite recently, said that on a certain quantity of cotton piece goods duty to the amount of £235 was collected in Sydney, but on a similar quantity of material from the same shipment £341 was collected in

Brisbane. The Brisbane Chamber of Commerce passed the following resolution : -

Jil view of the promise of the previous Go vernment to amend the Customs Act to remove unconstitutional, and, therefore, illegal, collection of new duties with every tariff change, from what the commercial community and public of Queensland have suffered for years, this Chamber respectfully asks you for a Parliamentary pronouncement that, pending the passing of such amending legislation you will, as regards the present tariff changes, authorize a refund of all additional duties paid on good9 from all ships which have ‘reported at any of the branches of Customs before November 22nd last.

A very strong case has previously been made out in support of an amendment of the Customs Act on the lines suggested.

Senator Cooper referred to the proposed suspension of the issue of licenses under the Transport Workers Act, which is a subject of great importance to the Queensland people, particularly as, during the past twelve months, there has been more industrial peace on the waterfront in Queensland than there has been for many years. During the cane-crushing season there is usually a good deal of industrial unrest on the waterfront, particularly at Cairns, Townsville, Bowen and Mackay; but, since the licensing system has been in operation, there has been an almost entire absence of industrial trouble. The primary producers and residents of North Queensland generally view with alarm the proposal of the Government to dispense with the licensing system. When in Bowen a few weeks ago, I was informed that, under the Transport Workers Act, there had not only been continuity of employment ; but a considerable reduction in the cost of handling cargo on the waterfront. A stevedoring company at Townsville also announced quite recently that, owing to the continuity of operations and the expeditious manner in which cargo was now being handled, the company was able to reduce handling costs, which is of great advantage to the primary producer. [Extension of time granted.] I have been assured by many of those engaged in the industry that since the present system has been in operation there has been a marked improvement, not only at the ports where licences are issued, but also in those which are operating under the old system. In ports where the licensing system has not been applied the militant element now recognize that if there is any unreasonable delay or undue interference that system, may be introduced at those ports. Generally speaking, the conditions on the waterfront in Queensland during the past twelve or fifteen months are infinitely better than they have been for many years. As the wool-growers, sugar cane growers, millers and storekeepers and residents generally have derived wonderful benefit from the licensing system, I earnestly hope the Government will not institute a change which may have the effect of bringing about general industrial disorder.

One paragraph of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech states that immediate steps will be taken to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In reading that statement one would almost imagine it to have been made by the late Government, because it has been the policy of the Nationalist Government for the last six or seven years to amend that act so as to make it more workable and equitable. The late Government, when amending the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, was told by the members of the Labour party that it was trying to interfere with our industrial legislation in order to reduce wages and to lower the conditions of the workers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and his followers are well aware, that the limitations placed upon the Commonwealth Government under the Constitution make it impossible for us to make the Arbitration Act really workable. In spite of that, we were “bitterly attacked inside and outside of this chamber when we tried to improve our industrial legislation. The Prime Minister himself has said that he does not believe altogether in the principle of arbitration. He preferred round table conferences between employers and employees to bring about a settlement of disputes. That is the. very thing that honorable senators on this side have been preaching for years. Yet, when we endeavoured to remove the duplication and overlapping of Federal and State industrial awards, the Labour party misrepresented the position to the people to such an extent as to bring about the overthrow of the late Government and the return to power of the Labour party. Fortunately, the people have already recognized that, in voting for the Labour candidates at the last election, they made a grave mistake. That is shown by the fact that at the Victorian elections, last Saturday, the votes cast for the anti-Labour forces were far in excess of those cast for the Labour party. It is very gratifying to us to know that, even within a few weeks, the people of Victoria have recognized that they were misled as to the real issue of the recent federal election.

The people are being burdened with additional taxation, and under the new tariff the cost of living is likely to be increased. This Government has repeatedly stated that it proposes to reduce imports into this country so as to encourage Australian manufacturers. With that principle every senator on this side is in hearty accord, provided, of course, that it does not interfere with the export trade in our primary products. This Government, which is pledged to economy, is proposing to expend, during its first year of office, £600,000 more than the expenditure set out in the budget of the late Government. The Treasurer is relying on his budget to bring in an additional customs revenue of £1,200,000. Yet, at the same time, he is gulling the people by tolling them that he is going to reduce the imports into this country. One thing is a complete contradiction of the other. I trust the Government will not continue the propaganda with which it deceived the unfortunate coal-miners of New South Wales, who were told that, under a Labour Government, peace and prosperity would return to. the coal-mining districts. I trust that as the session proceeds, and as the members of the Government gain more experience, they will realize their sense of responsibility to the community and cease to try to make good fellows of themselves by making rash promises which they are fully aware can never hp carried out.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– As the result of the recent federal elections, the Labour party has been returned to power with a big majority in the House of Representatives. I regret the passing of the Bruce-Page Government, because of its sincere efforts to further the interests of the Commonwealth, and particularly the country dis tricts. Western Australia has suffereda great deal under federation, so also have Tasmania and South Australia, and they afford a striking instance of the failure of federal legislation, because so early in our history, no less than three States - those with the smallest populations - have to receive disability grants contributed mainly by the richer States of the Commonwealth to enable them to function properly.

Senator Dunn:

– Would those States be better off under unification ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No. That is one thing that would absolutely destroy the outlying States of the Commonwealth. I advise the States that are receiving assistance from the Commonwealth to-day to make every effort to retain their powers and privileges, because the more the government of Australia is placed in the hands of the Commonwealth Government at Canberra, the more will those States suffer.

Senator Dunn:

– The honorable senator does not believe in unification ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I oppose it wholeheartedly. During the election campaign I found that the people in the outlying parts of Western Australia were of the firm opinion that the best new? from Canberra was no news at all. I am one of those who regret that the effect of federal legislation has been to create this anti-federal feeling in the smaller States. It seems to me that benefit or suffering has come upon the members of the federation according to their geographical situation. That is to say, States close to the Seat of Government or having a large population, have benefited, while those with small populations and further removed from the Seat of Government, have suffered, Western Australia being the greatest sufferer because it is furthest removed from the federal capital.

It is true, however, that the BrucePage Government displayed a certain measure of practical sympathy with the outlying members of the federation that had not previously been extended to them, and gave evidence of its desire to assist them by the appointment of commissions to inquire into the disabilities suffered by Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. The independent and impartial tribunal which inquired into the position of Western Australia had as its chairman, Mr. Higgs, an exTreasurer of the Commonwealth, and it recommended the payment of an annual grant of £450,000 to the State. We received that full amount for one year, but for the following three years the grant has been reduced to £300,000, two thirds of the amount recommended by the commission. In the meantime, and particularly during the months in which a Labour Government has been in power in the Commonwealth, the disabilities of Western Australia have been enormously increased. Although the States would be pleased to have increased grants I think they would prefer a fairer deal by the removal of the causes of the disabilities they suffer. It stands to the credit of the Bruce-Page Government that it made an effort, belated though it was, to deal with the vicious circle created in Australia by the imposition of high customs duties. We all recognize that a higher tariff means higher industrial awards, with consequent higher prices and higher cost of living, and that a higher cost of living leads to still higher industrial awards. Unemployment is always lurking in the background of that vicious circle, increasing at a faster rate than the cost of living. It follows, therefore, that the higher the cost of living the more unemployment there is; every increase in customs duties leads to an increase in the cost of living and production and. thus greater unemployment is brought about.

The Bruce-Page Government, before its defeat, had begun to realize that the false economic position which had arisen in Australia was due largely to the operation of the tariff, the overlapping of State and Federal arbitration awards and the provisions of the Navigation Act. It came very properly to the decision that federal arbitration should be abandoned. We know the result when the matter was put before the people, mixed up as it was with taxation of picture shows and a number of other side issues. It is significant, however, that three Governments, those led by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Hughes and Mr-. Bruce, have asked the people by direct referendum to give the Commonwealth Parliament additional power over industrial affairs and the people have always said “No,” with a very loud voice. On the last occasion the Labour leaders in the State arena in Western Australia were foremost in advising them to say “ No.” In my opinion they were right in doing so.

Belatedly Mr. Bruce also began an economic investigation into the operation of the tariff, and he promised a proper scientific revision of our protection policy, which, while perhaps giving more adequate protection to key secondary industries would also ensure that the great primary industries of the Commonwealth, which are also key industries, should not. suffer from the pronouncedly grievous burdens imposed on them by a high tariff. He also promised a review of the operation of the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act, with a view to their abolition, so that the primary producers of Australia might obtain cheaper freights, and the people of the Commonwealth might travel from one point to another on our vast coastline in British vessels employing white labour. This they are not permitted to do at present. If a person chooses to pay for a trip from Fremantle to New Zealand, he may travel on an overseas mail steamer from Fremantle to Melbourne or Sydney so long as he does not ask for a refund in respect of the portion of the journey which he does not take beyond either port. But that, of course, is too heavy an expenditure for a great many of the people of Australia who wish to travel from one part of the Commonwealth to another.

There is no doubt that during the last election campaign the very sound policy of the Bruce-Page Government in regard to these existing burdens on the people of Australia, was misconstrued and misrepresented as an attack on the wages of the workers. Not one of its proposals could be so interpreted. On the contrary a sound economic industrial policy would give the workers better wages and a better purchasing power, just as the workers in United States of America and Canada have a greater purchasing power with the higher wages they receive.

Senator Rae:

– The United States of America has a tremendously heavy protective tariff.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– But the conditions in the United States of America are very different- from those in Australia. Primary industries must have a proper measure of consideration. “We have not, for instance, the great waterways that are available to the primary producers of the United States of America or the dense population of that country.

The people of the Commonwealth were evidently not ready for the change the Bruce-Page Government asked them to face. The Australian democracy was not quite prepared to make an apparent sacrifice, which would really amount to an advantage, but I think, already the conviction is growing that the Bruce-Page Government was right in the steps it was taking in regard to these three important burdens on the community.

I was not a member of the party led by Mr. Bruce, but I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the loyalty he displayed to the agreement he made with the Country party. The Government that carried on the administration of Australia for something like seven years, was formed of Nationalists and members of the Country party, and I must say that throughout the whole of that period, the former were always fair and square in their relations to the Country party. The Government did not do all the Country party wished it to do, but I am satisfied that the best results from the point of view of the people generally can only be obtained by co-operation between the Nationalists and the Country party in the administration of the affairs of Australia.

I congratulate Senator Daly, VicePresident of the Executive Council, and Senator Barnes, upon attaining the high and honorable positions which they occupy in this chamber. Their Government has been elected by the people, and it seems to me that any legislation it submits is entitled to our fair consideration. I shall, therefore, be pleased to assist Ministers in the conduct of business in the Senate, but it will be my duty, I anticipate, to oppose a good deal of the legislation brought forward. I am sure thathonorable senators will not forget that the Senate is a chamber of review, and also a chamber for the protection of the rights of the individual States. In these cir cumstances, therefore, I need i > express the hope that there will be ne factious opposition to the Government in this chamber. The new Government will be judged by the people by the legislative fruit it produces, hut the crop in sight so far, I cannot help thinking, must be disappointing to a great many of the supporters of Labour who carried it so enthusiastically to victory at the polls on the 12th October last.

Let me take as an example the very first action of the Government, which I regard as a blow at the prestige of the Senate. This is the more democratic chamber of the federal legislature, because honorable senators are elected by the whole of the people of their respective States on the most democratic franchise in the world. Yet we find that whereas under the late Government four Ministers were regarded as necessary to handle the legislation brought into this chamber, the majority of whose members were all sympathetic with the administration of the day, to-day the new Labour Government has only two Ministers in the Senate. Thus two men are to do all that four capable and industrious men found -a difficult task. The plank in the platform of the Labour party, “ one man one job,” has been absolutely violated in these appointments. That each Minister in the Senate should be called upon to do two men’s work I regard as an insult to the Senate, particularly when we know that we have in the Senate Labour men more capable than some of those in another place who have been elected to ministerial rank. The fact that we have only seven members of the Labour party in this chamber seems to me to be a good reason why we should have at least four Ministers. It is an easy matter for Labour Ministers in another place to get their measures through that chamber. They have a big majority behind them, and if a bill has been fully considered and decided upon in caucus, it should pass through another place quite easily, even without full explanation.. But in this chamber, where there are only seven Labour members out of 36, it will be absolutely necessary for every item of legislation to be properly explained, which seems to me to be a fairly good reason why the full number of Ministers should have been retained.

The Government is grossly overworking Senator Daly and Senator Barnes by allotting to them a task which was previously undertaken by four active and industrious Ministers. Of course, there is a reason for it, a straight out reason to be found in the Labour platform. “We all know that the Labour party aims at the abolition of the Senate, and, with the object of vesting complete legislative authority in. the central government, is in favour of delegating to the provincial governments only such powers as the central government might deem fit. Senator Dunn, in the course of his speech last week, strongly advocated unification in accordance with that plank in the platform of his party. That, I submit, would be a complete repudiation of the federal bond. The States of “Western Australia and Tasmania, for certain, would never have entered the federation, but for the fact that the form of government contemplated offered complete protection in the form of equal representation in the Senate to every State without regard to its population. Yet now we have one of the great political parties in the Commonwealth, only 29 years since the consummation of federation, treating the Constitution as a scrap of paper, by advocating the abolition of the Senate. We may, however, take comfort in the thought that, before such a drastic alteration can be effected, the government responsible for the proposal must secure the approval, not only of a majority of electors in the Commonwealth, but also in a majority of the States. And this, I venture to say, will never be obtained.

Senator Rae:

– Then there is nothing to complain about, in the attitude of the Labour party.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I should not have complained but for the action of the Government in reducing the number of Ministers in this ‘ chamber. This policy, in my opinion, has been adopted to belittle the importance of this branch of the legislature with a view to its ultimate abolition in the terms of one of the planks of the Labour party’s plat form. Therefore, from the States’ point of view, it is important that the sovereign rights at present enjoyed by them should not be impaired in any way. Under the existing Constitution, the States have wide powers, and are able to administer all local and domestic affairs far better and more economically than would be possible by the Commonwealth Government from Canberra. The State Governments are responsible for administration of Crown lands, land settlement, railway construction, education, police, and nearly the whole of the domestic services affecting the every-day life of their people. The Federal Government should confine its attention to those legislative powers entrusted to it under the Constitution, and not seek in any way to interfere with the sovereign rights of the States. The people of Australia deliberately chose the federal system of government in preference to unification, and I sincerely trust that the sovereign powers enjoyed by the States will long be retained by them.

I turn now to the Government’s proposal to abolish compulsory military training. One reason for federation was the. need to provide for the adequate defence of the Commonwealth. It was felt by the people that this important function should be entrusted to the government of the nation. Though we may differ in our views upon party politics, we are all agreed that the security of the Commonwealth should be our first consideration. I am sorry, therefore, that this Government’s first action was to abolish compulsory military training as one step in the direction of destroying the splendid system of defence initiated by the late Andrew Fisher and the Labour Ministry of his day. Also, I regret exceedingly that, before taking this drastic action, -the Government did not consult the Council of Defence . Evidently the Labour party of to-day is animated by changed ideals, since it has deliberately set about to destroy the temple of national safety erected by a former Labour Ministry.

Senator Rae:

– Experience teaches.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– As I have not the necessary technical knowledge I am not criticizing the action of the Government from a military point of view ; but I listened with great interest to the speeches made in this chamber by three generals, and also by LieutenantColonel Sampson, and I have no doubt, from what those honorable senators said, that the Government’s action is entirely wrong from a military as well as a civil point of view.

As a layman, I believe it is necessary to instruct our young people to use . the rifle. This task will be rendered the more difficult if it is left till they reach the age of maturity. We have indisputable evidence that the physical training and discipline afforded under the compulsory system have been of inestimable value to the youth of Australia, and I am assured, upon high expert authority, that in the Australian Imperial Forces’ training camps _ the value of the initial training in military drill was demonstrated to a very marked degree. It is not in keeping with the sentiment of the people of Australia that the Commonwealth should urge the Government of Great Britain to continue with the work on the Singapore naval base, which is so essential to our safety and defence, and at the same time destroy the well proved system of instilling the first principles of military defence into the manhood of Australia. What does the Government propose to set up in its place ? I have given this subject a great deal of thought, and I know of nothing that can quite take the place of that physical training, which, hitherto, our young men have received under the compulsory system. It has occurred to me, and I offer it as a suggestion to the Government, that the boy scout movement might be subsidized with the idea of making it more attractive. Whatever is done, the Government should institute some system of physical instruction to compensate the youth of Australia for what they will lose through the abolition of compulsory military training.

I do not blame the Labour party for endeavouring to give effect to the several planks of its platform; but I consider that, on . such an important subject as this, the party should 3eek to achieve its purpose in a constitutional manner. During the last election campaign, we heard nothing of this proposal to abolish military training, though, as I have said, it is one of the planks of the Labour party’s platform. Therefore,’ I contend that if the Government wished to make the change it should first have sought the approval of both Houses of Parliament. By abolishing compulsory military training without a direction from Parliament, the Government has done the wrong thing in the wrong way. Though the safety of the nation is involved, the Government, without any reference to Parliament, and without even consulting the Council of Defence, by its administrative act ha3 struck a blow at our system of defence. Here again I protest against the Government’s policy in overlooking the Senate and allowing such an important matter as this to be decided by the dominant party in the House of Representatives.

I come now to the third administrative act of the Government - the suspension of . the licensing system under the Transport Workers Act. The system should have been retained though the form of licence might have been simplified to make it less objectionable to many of the workers. The transport workers’ licence could have been made similar to the miner’s right. If this had been done, I have no doubt that it would have been the pride of those holding it to retain it unblemished for a number of years. We have to thank the Transport Workers Act, and* the Bruce-Page Government, which passed it, for the peace which we now enjoy on the waterfront.

Senator Daly:

– Are any licences in force at Fremantle 1

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Yes, and I may tell the honorable senator that the issue of licences was a burning question at Fremantle.

Senator Rae:

– Are any licences in force in New South Wales?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I understand that no licences have been issued at the port of Sydney, but I cannot speak for other seaports in New South Wales. The licensing system has not been adopted for the port of Albany. The waterside workers there took no part in the dispute on the waterfront, though mischief makers from the Eastern States came over, talked about the brotherhood of man, and endeavoured to persuade them to cease working. I am pleased to say, however, that they kept work going at Albany, and many of the men earned very good money for the support of their wives and children. For this reason, as Senator Rae knows, it was considered not necessary to institute the licensing system at Albany.

Senator Dunn:

– If the waterside workers earned good wages in Albany, the shipping agents must have made very good profits.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have no doubt that the men did make good wages. At all events they earned very much more than those who went on strike at seaports in the other States. As I have said, the operation of the Transport Workers Act made peace possible on the waterfront, after many years of turmoil.

From the point of view of our primary producers this peace was absolutely essential because the uninterrupted export of our primary products to overseas markets is essential to the welfare of the Commonwealth. We have had peace on the waterfront now for the last eighteen months, and yet one of the first acts of this Government was to suspend the licensing system. If, unfortunately, industrial peace is succeeded by industrial unrest, the responsibility must rest with the Government. It is true that during the last election campaign, Labour candidates declared in favour of repealing the act; but that has not been done, and again I say that, in suspending licences, the Government has done the wrong thing in the wrong way. Its proper course was to bring about the change, by legislative, instead of an administrative, act. I, therefore, charge this Government with having failed in its duty, through not allowing the Senate an opportunity to express its opinion on this important matter.

I now desire to refer to the suspension of the migration agreement referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech. The Government has suggested to the British authorities that, in view of the unemployment prevailing in Australia, the £34,000,000 migration agreement should be suspended insofar as it applies to assisted passages for migrants. It is a serious thing to seek to vary an agree ment honorably entered into. The agreement provides that for every £1,000 received by a State Government it will provide a new farm, or that for every £75 advanced one migrant will be absorbed. It is further provided that one half of the farms thus established shall be allotted to assisted migrants, the remainder to be made available to our own people. This agreement has been of considerable benefit to several of the States. To Western Australia it has been of incalculable value, for that Sta>te, so far, has received more money under the agreement than has any other State. Consequently, Western Australia’s loss in the event of the agreement being suspended will be the greatest. Already £4,4S9,000 has been spent in Western Australia, under the provisions of the agreement, on public works, railway construction, advances to group settlers - many of whom are migrants - and water supply. Under the agreement that State has already saved £600,000 in interest; the ultimate saving will be about £1,300,000. Every railway now being constructed in Western Australia is being financed by money obtained from Great Britain under the agreement. In addition, big rock catchment water supplies are being provided. Apart from the direct benefit resulting from the expenditure of this money on reproductive works, the indirect benefit is immense. The action of the Government in. seeking the suspension of certain clauses of the agreement is tantamount to asking that the whole of it be suspended, for, in view of the difficulties experienced by the Home authorities, it can hardly expect them to continue to advance money if it fails to carry out Australia’s part of the agreement.

Senator Daly:

– The Government has asked only for the temporary suspension of certain provisions of the agreement pending an opportunity for the Prime Minister to confer with the British Government.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It is left to the British Government to decide whether, in the meantime, it will continue to pay the money.

Senator Daly:

– That relates only to future undertakings, not those to which we are already committed.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– There are many big schemes to which the Commonwealth is not yet committed. It is not committed to the 3,000 farms scheme, notwithstanding that already a good deal of work has been done in connexion with it. Anticipating approval, the State Government put settlers on the land. The suspension of the agreement will affect developmental works already carried out as well as others which have been proposed by the several States, particularly “Western Australia. Indeed, the public works programme of that State cannot be carried out without the assistance of the Federal and Imperial Governments as provided for in the agreement. It is not necessary for me to point out that if, unfortunately, work in connexion with those schemes is suspended, further unemployment will result. Before despatching that cable to Britain, the Federal Government should have consulted with the State Governments, because they are the parties chiefly affected. One would have thought that the Government would at least have ascertained the views of Mr. Collier, the Labour Premier of Western Australia, on the subject before cabling to the Home authorities.

Senator Daly:

– The Government does not discriminate between States according to the political views of the Governments in power.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I mentioned Western Australia because that State has taken greater advantage of the agreement than has any of the other States, and also because I thought that that spirit of fraternity which at one time existed between members of the Labour party would still be sufficiently alive to suggest that a colleague who had been in office for seven years, and whose Government had taken advantage of the offer of the British Government under the agreement, should be consulted. Mr. Collier had more knowledge of the agreement than had any Federal Minister, with the possible exception of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) who administers the department concerned. I shall read to the Senate views expressed by Mr. Collier as soon as he heard of the despatch of the cable to Britain and of the action proposed to be taken to co-ordinate the work of the Development and Migration Commission and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. In this connexion I can only express the hope that the Government will not add to the duties lo be performed by the latter body by entrusting to it the administration of the Federal Capital Territory. One does not know where this co-ordination will end. In a recent edition of the Western Australian, Mr. Collier is reported to have said -

Without expressing any opinion on the broad matter of policy as to whether the Development and Migration Commission should be abolished or retained, I should like to say that its work in Western Australia has been very valuable and of great assistance to the State. Every proposal submitted to the commission by us has been examined most thoroughly, and for the past twelve months it has been making a careful study, of the land settlement project known as the 3,000 farms scheme, with which is associated the construction of many hundreds of miles of roads and railways and some important water supply works. If approved under the Migration Agreement, this big project can be carried out within five years, hut without the assistance provided for under the agreement the State would probably be unable to complete it within twenty years. Of course I cannot speak for the other States, but, so far as Western Australia is concerned, we have been greatly assisted through the investigations of the commission in our task of developing the State.

I believe that Mr. Collier is right; the Federal Government was not justified in tampering with the agreement without first consulting the States.

Senator Daly:

– What was to be the total cost of the 3,000 farms scheme?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am unable to say. Even since I entered the Senate I have been endeavouring to ascertain the cost.

Senator Daly:

– The Government does not know.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am aware of that. I should say that the cost would be at least £5,000.000.

Senator Daly:

– Has the honorable senator considered the absorptive responsibilities of the Commonwealth in connexion with the scheme on the basis of one migrant for every £75?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Yes ; and I have also considered, with far more earnestness and pleasure, our less absorption responsibility if, instead of our being required to absorb one migrant for every £75 advanced, we put one migrant ona farm for every £1,000 advanced. Every migrant placed on a farm provides employment for others. From an Australian point of view, it is a good policy to place men on the land.

Senator Daly:

– The Development and Migration Commission has found that to be impracticable.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It has been done to some extent in the group settlement scheme of Western Australia.

Senator Daly:

– That scheme cost £5,000,000 more than it should have cost.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Benefiting from experience, the State should do better in the future. Although that scheme was costly, it has settled more than 2,000 men on the land. I believe it to be a good policy to place men on fertile land.

Senator Dunn:

– Is the honorable senator aware that “ farms “ in Pitt Street can be obtained for 5s. a week?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The honorable senator is speaking of something with which I am not acquainted. The first agreement with Great Britain was negotiated by the then Premier of Western Australia, Sir James Mitchell, when he was in London. He conceived the plan of placing on some of our empty lands a number of unemployed worker in Britain then in receipt of the dole,and giving them an opportunity to make good in Australia. Subsequently Mr. Bruce, when Prime Minister, made a bettor agreement than any previouslynegotiated on behalf of any State. Existing State schemes became”agreed undertakings,” under the agreement negotiated by Mr. Bruce. The three States which hod individual agreements with the British authorities - Western Australia, Victoria, and South Australia - came under the Commonwealth scheme, and reaped the benefit of the better conditions offered to the Commonwealth by the Home authorities.

Senator Daly:

– The Commonwealth also took over schemes in Western Australia and Victoria which had proved failures.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No. Those losses were borne by the States.

Senator Daly:

– They asked the Commonwealth to write off the losses.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Where farms cost more than £1,000 the excess amount became the liability of the States.

Senator Daly:

– The settler - the British migrant - had to bear the loss.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If a migrant could not meet the loss, the State undertook to meet it. I agree with the Minister’s suggestion that, in fairness to the State which had the courage to launch the undertaking, the whole of the expenditure should be brought under the provisions of the agreement. Over 2,000 group settlers in the south-west of the State of Western Australia are transforming that portion into a productive area. The system has been expensive to the State Government, inasmuch as it has to meet a large amount of expenditure which is not covered by the agreement. If honorable senators opposite wish to obtain evidence of the value of migration and land settlement in the matter of providing employment, they should visit the south-western portions of Western Australia, where the group settlements are located. A few years ago Busselton was a small and quiet, but beautiful, seaside resort, with little active rural development in progress.

SenatorRae. - Have only Crown lands been taken up?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Mainly, but not entirely; a few estates were purchased. Since the group settlers have been placed on the land near Busselton, that town has developed to a remarkable extent. New buildings have been erected, additional businesses established, large quantities of butter are being produced, and there appears to be progress and prosperity on every hand. I think I am safe in saying that within a period of two or three years, the town of Busselton has doubled its population. This has had the effect of providing employment not only in the immediate locality, but in other parts of the State. It is only natural and proper that we should make our vacant Crown lands available to Britain’s surplus population, and it is to be regretted that there are not larger areas of suitable wheat lands available for settlement.

It is interesting to note that it was not until 1890 that Western Australia was granted responsible government; Western Australia being the last of the Australian colonies to be removed from the domination of Downing-street. When the request was made, a large body of public opinion in Great Britain was opposed to handing over one-third of the Australian continent, consisting of nearly 1,000,000 square miles which, at that time, was actually owned by Britain, to a small population consisting of 48,502 persons. There was a good deal of opposition - which was actively expressed in the House of Commons - to the proposal in Great Britain, and this was based, I believe, on the contention that this huge area of Crown land should be kept for British settlers. A select committee, consisting of Mr. S. H. Parker, Sir Alexander Cockburn-Campbell and Governor Broome, was appointed to lay the case before the British Parliament. At that time an assurance was given by them, and it has always been a State policy since, that those Crown lands would be held in trust for the people of Australia and of Great Britain. It may be that the Australian Labour party is not versed in our history in this respect, but this is undoubtedly one of the many obligations we owe to the Mother Country which has always treated us with unfailing generosity.

It was a generous act, not only to give us, at. that time, the self-government that we desired, but also to hand over to 48,502 people without any restrictions whatever, an area of nearly 1,000,000 square miles, to be settled in the way we thought best. It is a trust which the successive governments of Western Australia, including the present Government, have always honoured by providing land, in small areas, for settlement by white people of the British race, as opportunity offered. It seems that the Federal Labour party wish Australia to adopt the role of an ungrateful child who has persuaded its mother to make it a gift and then forbids her to enter the home.

I trust the nominated and assisted migration system will continue since it appears to be the best that we can adopt. Under that system the nominator guarantees the migrant em ployment or support for, I think, a period of two years. In Western Australia, the Government grants, free of cost, an area of 160 acres of land to any migrant who will occupyit. The only charge made is the cost of the survey. A land settlement, migration and development policy is the only one which can make the State prosperous, and it is a policy that is being carried out by the present Labour Government as it was by its predecessors.

Senator Barnes:

– Is an area of 160 acres sufficient to enable a man to make a decent living?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It depends upon the locality and quality of the land. Most of the group settlers in the south-west of the State were placed on less than 160 acres at the outset; but in the poorer areas the Government have increased the area. In the wheat belt, a man requires 1,000 acres of land, and the average size of the blocks consist of about that area. A settler is given 160 acres free of cost, and the balance is made available to him on easy terms extending over 20 or 30 years without interest. Mr. Collier, in the” remarks I have read, referred to the 3,000 farms scheme, which has been established on land which comprises a considerable area of good sheep and wheat country, and where the State will not be faced with the losses which occurred in connexion with the group settlement scheme. Mr. Collier has said that under the migration agreement the scheme can be carried out in five years, but if the assistance, which that agreement provides, is not available, it will take twenty years to do the work. I, therefore, ask honorable senators to consider what the position of Western Australia will be if the operation of the agreement is suspended.

It is true that promises have been made to the effect that the scheme will be proceeded with; but it is necessary to remember that a good deal of preliminary work in connexion with surveys, road-making, and clearing has already been carried out under the agreement. If the agreement is suspended at this stage, the position of hundreds of settlers between Southern Cross, Ravensthorpe, Esperance, Albany and the great

Southern districts will be very serious. These areas were made available for settlement after the Lands Department had advertised the properties, and the Agricultural Bank had advanced large sums of the State Savings Bank’s funds for their improvement in anticipation of the work being brought under the Migration Agreement. The settlers have also spent their own money in improving the land in absolute good faith, and not one of them would have been on the land or have spent his own or government money had it not been for the promise made that these areas would be opened up by roads and railways and provided with a water supply under the migration agreement. Many of these settlers have done a good deal of preliminary work, and it will mean their ruination if there is any repudiation or serious amendment of a definite undertaking between the Imperial, Federal and State Governments. I, therefore, trust that the Commonwealth Government will be very careful before it interferes with the developmental work in the matter of railway and road construction and water supplies which the authorities have been carrying out under the agreement. The most effective way in which to defend Australia is to provide for the occupation of its empty spaces, and an active policy of land settlement and development which has the approval of the State Labour Government should be allowed to continue.

I wish now to refer to a paragraph in the Governor-General’s Speech in which reference is made to a revision of the tariff schedule. Since the speech was delivered a new tariff schedule has been tabled, in which higher duties are imposed on no less than 221 items. These duties are now in force. The schedule appears to be in a veritable drag-net; nothing has been overlooked. Not only have luxuries been heavily taxed, but very heavy duties have also been imposed upon the necessities of life.

The main complaint in Western Australia against successive Federal Governments is the manner in which Customs duties have been increased. It would appear that if the Bruce-Page Government in this regard chastised the

Western Australian people with a whip the present Government is subjecting them to the sting of a scorpion. Included in the list of commodities on which higher duties are to be imposed we find clothing, textiles, metals, machinery, oils, paint, paper, crockery, petrol and motor trucks. Nearly everything required by the man on the land has to bear higher duties, and this will have the effect of increasing the price to a majority of the Australian consumers. The cost of living and the cost of production will be seriously increased, and these higher duties will be a crushing blow to primary production - the true source of Australia’s national wealth.

Those engaged in the pastoral, agricultural, mining and timber industries have to sell their products in the markets of the world; but the articles they require to assist them in production can only be obtained under the new tariff at prices which will make it almost impossible for them to compete in the overseas markets. It is quite clear that the cost of producing wheat, wool, metals, including gold, must be increased, and that the extra cost will fall very heavily upon the shoulders of the consumers. Further, I am afraid that the new tariff will have the effect of accentuating the drift of population to the big cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, and will certainly increase unemployment, particularly in the country districts. I intend to oppose the whole of these increases in duty.

I hope that the Government will deal with the schedule immediately, because it is quite unfair to collect these increased duties, for perhaps, months before ascertaining whether the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and particularly the members of the Senate, approve of them. This action shows a callous disregard for the interests of those engaged in the primary industries of Australia, and I am sorry that before the Government introduced the increased tariff, it did not see fit to weigh carefully and have regard to a warning that the Premier of Western Australia (Mr. Collier) issued on this very subject. I was at a gathering at Narrogin on 18th October, and at that time it was apparent that there would be a change of government. At that gathering Mr. Collier made some remarks which he, to some extent, directed at me. He actually said that he hoped that I would keep in mind what he said, and I told him that I was entirely in agreement with bis views and that I hoped that his triumphant colleagues, when they took over the reins of Government of the Commonwealth, would agree with him, as thoroughly as I did on that occasion. This appeared in the West Australia on the 19th October -

Speaking at the reception in the Town Hall, Narrogin, this morning, the Premier (Mr. Collier), said he sometimes felt that a very considerable portion of the people did not realize that Australia was dependent almost entirely on the wealth produced from our primary industries. When people realized that a fall in the price of wool meant a reduction in the national income of about £30,000,000, they appreciated the importance of the primary industries. He hoped that members of the Federal Parliament would be mindful of the fact that prosperity was not brought about in the cities, but that Australia’s future progress and prosperity depended entirely upon the manner in which Parliament realized that it was the primary industries that were the source of its wealth. The party that endeavoured to place burdens or difficulties in the way of those engaged in primary industries was doing a dis-service to Australia.

If I spoke in this chamber for a week, I could not put the position more clearly and emphatically than did Mr. Collier when he threw out that warning to the Federal Parliament, and to the members of his own party, who on that date were about to take over the reins of the Commonwealth Government.

The tariff has been largely increased in spite of that warning, and in spite of the report of the Big Pour, who came out from England without receiving any payment for their services, and gave us their views on the tariff and other subjects. This increase in tariff has been made despite also the report of the Economic Advisory Committee consisting of Messrs. Dyason, Brigden, Giblin, Copland and Mr, Wickens, whose most interesting book was tabled only a few weeks before the change of Government took place. These five great economists made their report after prolonged research, and following the example of the Big Four, they made it without fee or reward. They showed conclusively that the high tariff policy has been disadvantageous to the

States of Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, and also to Australia generally. They estimated £36,000,000 annually as the cost that the old tariff put upon production in Australia. I am afraid that under the new tariff that enormous sum will be heavily increased. That must certainly be most disadvantageous to Western Australia.

The royal commission that inquired into the disabilities of that State under federation made two outstandnig recommendations in respect to the tariff. The first of these was -

That the State of Western Australia shall, during a period of 25 years and thereafter, until the Parliament otherwise provides, have the absolute right - (a) to impose its own Customs tariff as in pre-federation days, provided the State of Western Australia shall not impose higher duties upon the importation into the State of Western Australia of any goods produced, or manufactured, in, or imported from other States ofAustralia, than are imposed on the importation into the State of Western Australia of the like goods produced or manufactured in or imported from other countries.

To impose its own excise tariff.

This commission, composed of very capable men, said that the only real relief under federation that could be given to Western Australia would be to permit it, for a period of 25 years, to have its own Customs tariff. Unfortunately, that recommendation cannot be carried out under the Constitution without the approval of a majority of the States. This it is practically impossible to obtain, because it is not likely that our brethren in the Eastern States would permit us to take an action of that kind.

Senator Carroll:

– Western Australia is too good a customer of the Eastern States.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That is so. I admit that such an action would be against the spirit of the Constitution, one of the first provisions of which is that there shall be interstate freetrade. Had that recommendation been given effect, it would have done more than anything else could do to put Western Australia upon its feet, and make it independent of any other part of the Commonwealth. The second recommendation was -

That until the State of Western Australia is granted the right to impose its own Customs and Excise tariffs, the Commonwealth shall pay to the State a special payment of £400,000 per annum in addition to the 25s. per capita payment made in accordance with clause 4 of the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910, the aforesaid special payment to include the special annual payment now being made to the State of Western Australia in accordance with clause 5 of the said act. The above special payment of £450,000, to commence on the 1st July, 1924.

As a result of that report we received the sum of £450,000 only for one year, and then the grant was reduced to £300,000 per year. After that ‘ recommendation was made, the Financial Agreement came into force. I was one of those who opposed it. The 25s. per head capitation grant was, in consequence, reduced. Now, on top of that, the tariff has been considerably increased. If the Commonwealth wished to honour fully that recommendation and put Western Australia in the position that the majority of the commission wished it to occupy, it would probably cost £900,000 a year. The way we can, and should, be assisted is not so much by the payment of large sums of money, as by placing us upon a better economic basis by permitting our primary industries to be relieved of the tariff exactions that are being put on them year after year by the Federal Government in the interest of the wealthy manufacturers of the Eastern States, resident largely in Sydney and Melbourne, and their employees. It is true that our secondary industries in Western Australia are comparatively unimportant, but we shall not be able to make them important while we have severe competition from the established manufacturers of the Eastern States. South Australia, as well, is suffering all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of the high tariff policy. Every State of the Commonwealth has a vigorous land settlement policy, which is described in every Governor’s Speech at the opening of Parliament. We find, for instance, that every State has spent millions of pounds on settling returned soldiers on the land, and quite properly too, because nothing but the best should be given to our returned soldiers. The policy of the respective States is to say, “ Go on the land young man.” It is peculiar, however, that concurrent with that instruc-

Senator E. B. Johnston. tion is the levying of taxation by the Federal Government through the tariff on everything that affects the settler from the moment that he goes on the land. I have had a great deal to do with land settlement in Western Australia, as I represent a country constituency. I have repeatedly seen men going on land that is naturally waterless, heavily timbered, and quite unproductive until substantially improved. A great deal of it is simply the home of the dingo and kangaroo, and it takes brave men and women to settle in parts remote from railways, and to face the discomforts of a pioneering life outback. When the settler decides to go on the land, the first thing he requires is a motor truck in addition to food, stores, equipment, clothing, tools and axes, and the prices of the whole of these requirements are being increased, because of the exactions of the tariff. It is also evident that railway freights must go up, because of the increased cost of living following in the train of the increased tariff.

Senator Dunn:

– Should not all our farming implements be manufactured in Australia ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I should be pleased if all our implements were made in Australia provided their price was reasonable. Mr. McKay is very glad to get protection for his industry at Sunshine, but, then, he complained to the royal commission on the Navigation Act that the coastal provisions of the act were oppressing his industry. He said that in Western Australia he had to charge for agricultural machinery from 10 per cent, to 12£ per cent, more than in Victoria. He was compelled, he said, to take that action much against his will, be-‘ cause of the high freights brought about by the operation of the Navigation Act. This vicious circle does not please any one. Mr. McKay wants a protective tariff, but he also wants to be relieved of the taxations imposed by the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act. Western Australian settlers suffer in this way. They not only pay high prices for the protected article manufactured in Melbourne, but also bear an additional increase of from 10 per cent, to 12£ per cent, on the price to the Victorian farmers, because of the oppressive incidence of the Navigation Act.

We certainly entered federation with our eyes open. To-day we are the victims of a granted prayer. We desired a federation” and we got it in the neck. We have the Massey Greene, the Pratten and the Fenton tariffs, and from the point of view of every one engaged in the pastoral, agricultural, and other primary pursuits, each one of those three tariffs has imposed greater and increased burdens upon production. Petrol, for instance, has just had a third penny in extra taxation placed upon it. Perhaps some members of the Labour party regard the petrol tax as a luxury tax upon joy riders, and from that point of view it would certainly be proper.

Petrol, however, is absolutely essentia] to the farmers and settlers of Australia. They must have it, not only for their transport but also for a large portion of their farming operations. To-day, ploughing and harvesting are done very largely by the use of tractors. Petrol is needed for the motor vehicles which enable new farmers to make a start. It is only by their means that farming operations can be carried on at a distance from a railway line. The man who will be the worst hit by a tax of 3d. a gallon on petrol will be the one who is situated furthest from an existing railway.

Not only is the motor truck absolutely essential for the transport of wheat; it is also largely employed for the transport of stock as.well as the everyday requirements of the farm, particularly the new farm. I have with me a cutting from the WestAustralian referring to the economies of motor transport and pointing out that bullocks have been brought down by motor transport, eight at a time, from Roy Hill Station 300 miles to the railhead, and thence carried by rail 600 miles to market in Perth, where they have realized £17 a head. Honorable senators will, therefore, see how essential petrol is to new settlement, as well as to farmers and pastoralists already established. All primary producers should be granted a rebate of the tax of 3d. a gallon placed on petrol.

Gold-mining is an industry of vast importance to Western Australia. At Wiluna a mine is being developed at a capital expenditure of £1,000,000, which promises to be the largest in the world. The people of the State are pleased to note that a good deal of the capital invested has come from the Rand in South Africa for the first time in the history of the gold-mining industry in Australia. When I look at the 221 items of tariff increases, super-imposed as they are upon an existing high tariff, I find that they are all a direct tax upon the gold-mining industry. Not one person engaged in gold mining or in any other primary industry derives the slightest benefit from this tariff. It is no wonder that the people engaged in gold-mining have asked for a bonus on the production of gold. Although their proposal might not stand a strict economic test, it has been brought before this Parliament on many occasions by the gentleman who is the only representative of the gold-mining industry in another place, and who is now Minister for Defence (Mr. A. Green). The people on the Kalgoorlie goldfields and at Meekatharra and Wiluna are hoping that the present Government will afford them the relief they have so long advocated in this direction and . which has been given to other industries.

The tariff increases show a ruthless disregard for the interests of ‘the primary producers, but the worst feature about them is that, so far as I have been able to ascertain by a series of questions which have not been directly answered, they have not been made as a result of any recommendations by the Tariff Board. On that board we have men of science and understanding, whose task it is to study with care the relation of every alteration to the tariff schedule as a whole and its. effect upon all industries. I certainly think that no increases should be made except as a result of recommendations by the board. It appears to me, however, that the Government’s haste to increase the tariff in all directions may have the effect of destroying the whole basis of the existing tariff schedule.

If the Tariff Board is not to be consulted, why retain it? The Government seems to have a passion for the destruction of existing institutions. I have already pointed out its anxiety to abolish the Senate and State rights. The Labour’ party seeks the abolition of Upper

Houses. The Federal Labour party has suspended or abolished compulsory military training and the licensing provisions of the Transport Workers Act. It is also attacking the gold standard, and the migration agreement seems to be in danger. It will not hurt very much to add another little bit of destruction by abolishing the Tariff Board, if, in future its recommendations are not to be followed, and the tariff is to be ruthlessly raised as a matter of Government policy without regard to the possible economic effect on the whole schedule.

I am afraid the new tariff will react more heavily on the wage-earners and workers than on any other section of the people. The basic wage-earner, who predominates in the community, will certainly find the cost of living heavily increased. He will have large increases, up to 50 per cent., imposed on the cheap clothing he buys for himself, his wife, and his children, particularly on cotton goods, socks, shirts, and hats.

Senator Dunn:

– The honorable senator is merely suggesting these things.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have already pointed out that with every increase in the tariff there has been a practically corresponding increase in unemployment. Of course, that is not what honorable senators of the Labour party wish. They think that these tariff increases will lead to the employment of more factory hands in the great cities, and thus increase employment in Australia. The increases will do nothing of the kind. Each increase in the cost of living reduces the purchasing power of the community, because the cost of production is increased, and to that extent decreases the measure of employment in the Commonwealth. That is the view I have been sent here to express. The people of Western Australian feel that the Australian policy in regard to tariff increases is wrong, and they are fortified in that view by the report of the commission on the finances of Western Australia as affected by federation, and by the opinion expressed by a number of economists that a high tariff policy is injurious to Australia, and particularly to the States of South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania. At any rate, when the basic wage-earner finds that in addition to having the cost of living in creased, he is out of a job through the increase in the cost of production, I am sure he will notthank the government of the day for the new tariff schedule.

Senator Daly:

– There are already 180,000 unemployed in Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I hope that the number will not be increased, but I am firmly convinced that the best way to get that180,000 people back at work in the country districts would be to reduce the tariff, and thereby reduce the cost of production in the directions I have already indicated.

I do not want the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) to take my criticism as applying wholly to his Government - previous Governments have ruthlessly increased the tariff - but the present Government happens to be the latest and worst offender, and therefore is the subject of my theme at the moment.

Senator Hoare:

– What about the duty of 6d. a lb. on New Zealand butter?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If the tariff is to be increased in every direction the primary producer is entitled to come into the vicious circle. [Extension of time granted.] The Government has entirely disregarded the warning issued to it by Mr. Collier, the Labour Premier of Western Australia, and the people engaged in primary production throughout Australia will all have to pay increased tribute to the secondary industries at a time when many country districts are suffering from droughts, and from the low price of products. It is no wonder that many country towns and districts are stagnating while the drift to the big cities continues, and, in my opinion, will grow apace under the artificial stimulus of the new tariff.

I do not desire to say any more, because I shall have opportunity to deal with the tariff items at a later stage. The balance of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech is inclined to he nebulous, but I hope that every item in it will receive fair and full consideration on its merits. We in this chamber are certainly in a position to prevent any great injury being done to the people of Australia by the legislation brought forward, unless they are previously consulted; but I hope that drastic action will be unnecessary. I feel sure that all honorable senators will deal with the Government’s proposals on lines that they believe right, and on lines that will make . for the happiness and true welfare of the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I congratulate the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) upon his political good fortune. Very shortly after his election to this chamber he was elected Leader of the Opposition and now, after the appeal to the people, he occupies the position of Vice-President of the Executive Council. He is one of the luckiest men I have ever met in politics. I am pleased to be able to add that I consider he is performing the duties of his office most efficiently. I wish, however, to protest against the treatment of this chamber by the present Government. Ever since I have been a member of the Senate we have had at least one Minister with a portfolio and two assistant Ministers. On one occasion when, owing to the illness of a Minister, the business of the Government was in the hands of his two colleagues, the strain proved too great for them. The decision of the Government that ‘it should be represented in this chamber by only the Vice-President of the Executive Council and an assistant Minister is an insult to the Senate itself. It is not as if the Labour party lacked members with administrative ability. Our old friend Senator Rae has been identified with the Labour movement for nearly the whole of his life. He was in the Senate many years ago, and surely has the necessary qualifications, yet he is thrust aside as if he were nobody. Then we have also Senator Digger Dunn, who announced himself as one of the young members of the Labour party. Why has he been overlooked? We are told from time to time that youth is going to regenerate the world. Why was not Senator Digger Dunn entrusted with the task of regenerating the Labour party? I am surprised that he has been ignored. His military training should have fitted him for administering the Defence Department, and if he had been selected, the Labour party would merely have been following the practice of having the Minister for Defence in this chamber. Other members of the party in the Senate chamber also were qualified for ministerial positions, but apparently Mr. Theodore was the power behind the scenes. He has for so long ignored the upper branches of our legislatures that, apparently, he decided the Senate should not nave adequate representation in the Ministry.

When he was Premier of Queensland, Mr. Theodore, in defiance of the wishes of the people, abolished the Legislative Council. We understand that he has similar designs on the Senate, but I warn him that if he has any such ambitious scheme as that in his mind, the task will be beyond him. The people will never agree to the abolition of this chamber. I do not say that Queensland is the most important State, but it is second in size to Western Australia, and its potentialities are unequalled in any other State. Yet the only representative it has in this Ministry is an assistant Minister. It is not fair that Queensland should be ignored in this way.

Senator Rae:

– Queensland has not sent many Labour members to this Parliament.

Senator Thompson:

– la that the reason ?

Senator Rae:

– Obviously it is.

Senator REID:

– Ministerial representation in this chamber should not be determined by party strength. The Senate represents not the State political parties, but the States.

Senator Daly:

– An ex-Premier of Queensland is in the Ministry.

Senator REID:

– The election’ of Mr. Theodore to this Parliament, and his appointment to the Ministry cannot be regarded as a compliment to the people of Queensland. They were very glad to get rid of him. It is unfortunate that electors for the division of Dalley did not know the present Treasurer as well as we knew him in Queensland. In that State he has left a trail of financial and industrial trouble that will take a long time to obliterate.

The attitude of the Labour party to arbitration, during the election campaign, indicated that it was attempting to ignore economic facts. The appeal to the people was the direct result of two industrial disputes, during which the principle of federal arbitration was deliberately violated by not only the rank and file of the industrial movement, but also the leaders of trade unionists throughout Australia. Scarcely a day passed without denunciation of the court and its awards. A good deal of attention was focussed upon the timber strike, which was the outcome of an award by Judge Lukin. The bush timber workers were not in any way affected. They had always worked 48 hours, but an upheaval took place because workers in city timber mills were required to work longer hours. Honorable senators opposite consistently ignore the fact that very little timber is now being used in the erection of big modern buildings. For the most part, they consist of steel frames and concrete or bricks. Even the window frames are of steel. In the majority of modern buildings, the only timber used is to be found in the doors, though in some there is a thin layer of flooring over concrete. The effect of this modern practice is to paralyze the timber industry. Our hardwood timbers are too heavy and our pines are unsuitable for concrete casing, so practically the only structural timber used is Oregon, which is imported. I say, therefore, that Mr. Theodore and other Labour leaders, who urged the timber workers to defy the award of the Arbitration Court, were ignoring plain economic facts.

In the coal industry, the position is much the same. The men engaged in the northern coal-mines of New South Wales have been on strike for the last ten months. A day or two ago there was an announcement that their leaders had agreed to a reduction of 9d. a ton in the hewing rates, so all they have gained, after ten months idleness, is 3d. a ton on the offer made by the mine-owners at the beginning of the strike. It is a scandal that Labour leaders should have urged the men to continue on strike in the face of the economic facts of the industry. Coal is not now used so largely as it was a few years ago. Crude oil fuel is displacing it in steamships and in many other means of transport. Mr. Theodore, during the election, declared that if Labour were returned the coal-mines would be re-opened in a fortnight. Of course that was impossible. Even when the tribunal, which was appointed by this Government to investigate the position, made a recommendation, it was rejected by the miners, so it is safe to say that this Government has humbugged the miners at every turn. The settlement, which now appears to be probable, could have been achieved six months ago, if the men had been in a reasonable frame of mind, and if their leaders had been desirous of ending the dispute. The high cost of coal, as we all know, has an important bearing upon other industrial activities. A reduction of 5s. a ton in the price will do much to relieve the economic pressure in a number of other industries.

Senator Daly:

– What would be the profits of the mine-owners if they had not watered their stock?

Senator REID:

– That is an old tale. I do not know of any such action, and I am sure that Senator Daly knows less about the matter than I do. The evidence does not show that there has been any watering of stock. In any case, to prove that there had been watering of stock would do nothing to solve present conditions.

Senator Daly:

– Would it help John Brown ?

Senator REID:

– During the election campaign, there was almost a continuous cry fromthose persons who delight to sit in the back corners of halls, “What about John Brown ?” The Government has not the courage to prosecute John Brown ; but, supposing it had, and he were prosecuted and fined £1,000, what would that matter to him? It certainly would not open the mines.

Senator Rae:

– The honorable senator’s remark shows the huge fortune John Brown has made out of coal.

Senator REID:

– We must take things as they are. All the commissions of inquiry which have investigated the coal industry, including the Hibble tribunal, have reported to the same effect. There has been no evidence that the miners were returning profits greater than from 2s. to 2s.1d. a ton. A good deal has been said of the misery and privation experienced by the coal-miners and their families; but if they would agree to a slight reduction in their wages, the mines would be re-opened and the miners again placed on their feet.

Instead of trying to heal the breach between the coal-miners and the timber workers and their employers, the Labour party encouraged the men to break the law. I desire to direct the attention of the Senate to the following resolution, carried by the Parliamentary Labour party-

Sir:

I desire ‘to convey to you the terms of a resolution that was carried at a meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party on 14tl August -

This meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party congratulates the rank and file of the miners and timber workers on their splendid unity against the general attack on wages and hours.

Yours, &c,

Norman MAKIN

Secretary, Federal Parliamentary Labour party, Canberra.

The passing of that resolution was an entirely wrong thing for a political party to do. The Labour party has now been in power for some weeks, but the coal-mines have not yet been re-opened.

The Governor-General’s Speech contains no reference to the action ,of the Government in suspending compulsory military training. I well remember the convention held in Queensland, at which, the then Labour party decided on a scheme of compulsory military training. Among those present were Mr. Watson, Mr. Holman, and Mr. Hughes. The arguments then advanced in favour of compulsory military training apply with equal force to-day. Australia is as worth defending to-day as it was then. If it was then right, that in a democratic country every citizen should take an equal share in its defence, it is right to-day. At a later convention held in 1918 the present Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, said -

The alternatives of knocking out Citizen, Forces for home defence were disarmament and standing down helplessly, Britain sending out her own army and navy, or a hybrid volunteer system, which would create military caste. Surely, in viewing those possibilities, the least objectionable of all was the maintenance of a citizen army. … He wanted conference to understand that if ever a certain power sought to invade the fair land of Australia, he would not hesitate to conscript the manhood of Australia to defend the hearths and homes of this young democracy. . . . He realized that sending untrained men into a fight meant leading them to a shambles, in which they became a menace to themselves and all those around them. Let the age for training be raised, if delegates liked; let it lie physical training at first, and military training in manhood; but he urged them not to lose sight of the vital question at issue. Let them vote so as to keep Australia free - free in the face of the warlike spirit of the world.

Mr. Scullin’s address was followed by one delivered by a. gentleman who has devoted the greater portion of his life to the Labour movement - I refer to Senator Rae. Speaking at that convention, Senator Rae said -

He had always advocated, since the compulsory system of home defence had come into force, that there should be a citizen army. He did this because he feared aggression from outside, and, believing that to be a possibility, he had come to look upon the compulsory system of training as part of a system of national education. . . . Whilst the danger of foreign aggression existed, it would be folly to abolish the defence laws, which had beel brought in for the protection of Australia.

I have listened carefully to the remarks of honorable senators opposite, but I have not yet heard one sound reason for altering the opinions the Labour party then held. I am not an advocate of war - indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy with the endeavours now being made for world peace - but I cannot understand the reason for the change of attitude on the part of members of the Labour party in matters of defence. If Australia is worth living in, it should be worth defending.

Senator Dunn:

– The Labour party has never said otherwise.

Senator REID:

– If Australia is worth defending, our young people should be trained to defend it so that, should the occasion arise, they may be fit to take their part. Probably the objection of the Labour party to compulsory military training is based on the assumption that it encourages a military spirit. I do not believe that it does anything of the kind. I have not yet met one young man who has become a militarist because of his training in the Citizen Forces. The military spirit will always be apparent in some whether the volunteer or compulsory system of training is in operation. In this democracy we should welcome anything which will assist the development of Australia’s manhood, and particularly a system which gives all young men an opportunity of meeting on the same footing. Under the compulsory system of training every man is the equal of his companions; it is a method which dispenses with class distinction. The Leader of the Government in the Senate said that his party was opposed to the compulsion of youths who had not a vote. That, however, is only claptrap, as votes have nothing whatever to do with compulsory military training. Is it not the responsibility of a young man who has not reached the age at which he is entitled to vote to train for the defence of his country? It has already been proved, beyond doubt, by military experts in this chamber that compulsory military training has had a very beneficial effect upon the physical development and discipline of our young men. What was the attitude of the members of the basher gangs during the timber workers’ strike? Their first incentive was to strike the other fellow.

Senator Hoare:

– Themembers of the basher gangs belonged to the underworld.

Senator REID:

– Do the members of the Timber Workers Union belong to the underworld? Those who took part in those scandalous outrages were supplied by the trades hall authorities with pieces of iron piping which they concealed in their clothing for use against deserving workers.

Senator Dunn:

– But such action is contrary to law.

Senator REID:

– The law does not destroy the spirit within a man. The voluntary system is likely to be more expensive than the compulsory system, and the defence policy of the Labour party is more likely than that which preceded it to bring about that class distinction to which it so strongly objects. It will have the effect of encouraging the banding together of those possessing a military spirit and entirely separating them from other sections of the community. .

I wish now to refer to the attitude of the Government in declining to tax the gross receipts of the moving picture combines - which action was largely responsible for the return of the Labour party at the last elections.

Senator Rae:

– That was not a factor.

Senator REID:

– It was. The Government is taxing the people by the imposition of heavy Customs duties, and by means of very high income and land taxation rates; but at the same time it is declining to tax the American picture combines which supply the films to Australian exhibitors. The Bruce-Page Government endeavoured to impose a tax upon these combines; but whenever an effort has been made to tax them it has been found that the profits go to the combines in America, and therefore can not be taxed. During the last election campaign the members of the Labour party were acting as the agents of these big American interests. As pointed out by Senator Ogden, the Labour party, which was once opposed to combines in any shape or form, is now openly assisting them instead of relieving the very heavy burden which the workers have to shoulder. According to the budget, taxable incomes of individuals from £201 to £1,500 are to bear a super tax of 10 per cent., from £1,501 to £3,000 15 per cent., and from £3,000 upwards 20 per cent. The taxation on companies is to be at the rate of 20 per cent. It is astounding that the Labour party, which has always been so opposed to combines, should practically have given an undertaking that if returned to power it would not tax these picture combines, while at the same time it is imposing an additional burden upon every other section of the community. With the exception of a few big showmen in the cities there are very few exhibitors in Australia who are making a living, and in some cases suburban and country showmen are actually losing money. Australian people who are using Australian capital will have to pay the heavy income taxation rates I have quoted, while the American combines who lease their pictures to the exhibitors here at such high rates that they are hardly able to carry on, will escape taxation.

During the election campaign the Labour candidates said it was the intention of the Bruce-Page Government to impose an amusement tax which would have the effect of increasing the price of children’s tickets. That was never intended and the statement was a gross misrepresentation of the position. The Labour party received substantial financial assistance from the picture combine, without which it would not have been able to obtain the publicity it did. Although the coffers of the Labour party were empty owing to the strike of timber workers and a previous election it obtained such publicity by the way of cartoons and propaganda generally that it received a greater measure of support than it ever anticipated. Where did the money to pay for these cartoons, and advertising generally, come from. It did not come from its own political supporters, but was supplied by the picture interests. The first proposal of the BrucePage Government was to impose a tax of 5 per cent, on the total receipts from charges for admission. Under this the small showmen would have escaped, as there was an exemption of £100, which would have benefited all but the big city showmen. If taxation were imposed upon the gross receipts it would come out of the money which the combines are making in Australia. As the result of the advent of the Labour party these big American interests are avoiding taxation which they should be paying, while some small showmen will have to pay at least 20 per cent. tax.

The sooner the Labour party wakes up to the ‘ real position and imposes taxation upon the gross receipts of these American combines the better it’ will be for Australia. The theatres in which “ talkie “ films are projected are seriously interfering with those in which silent films are screened, and also ruining the legitimate drama and practically every other form of entertainment. The money which these concerns are taking from the people is all going out of Australia, and the Labour party will not raise a hand to prevent it. Do honorable senators opposite call themselves the f riends of the working man when they refuse to tax combines which are charging 7s. 7d. a seat as is charged at the State Theatre in Sydney on a Saturday night. The taxation of gross receipts could not have been passed on, although the entertainment tax on tickets is in most cases borne by picture patrons. Moreover, the price at which a film is leased to a showman is determined by the financial position of the house requiring it. The com bine squeezes the utmost out of the exhibitor every time. There are very few British films being exhibited, and if the present policy is persisted in, it will be even more difficult for British producers. It was the proposal of the Bruce-Page Government if returned to tax the picture combines to the extent of 12-J per cent, on its gross profits - on the money that went to America for the purchase of films - and thus encourage British production. The decision of the present Government to allow these American combines to escape is in conformity with the Treasurer’s attitude when he held office in Queensland. He is quite accustomed to extracting money from this class of people, and despite the fact that Senator Daly, the other day, endeavoured to repudiate the suggestion that Mr. Theodore is connected with the wealthy interests, I emphatically state that that gentleman has always been connected with them. In one instance the present Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr. Theodore), the late Premier of Queensland (Mr. McCormack) and Mr. Fihelly, acting as a subcommittee of the Labour party, took certain action during an election campaign in Queensland. I had left the party just previously, because the element that Mr. Theodore and Mr. McCormack represented wanted to boss, with the industrial unions, the whole political show. I refused to obey the dictation of a section that wanted to boss the political Labour party altogether. There was no trouble between the members of the party and myself in connexion with my resignation. I was head of the executive for years, and I know, therefore, a good deal about its finances. I was asked to stay with the party until the State elections were over, but I refused to do so. What took place was this : The present Treasurer of the Commonwealth entered into a contract with the Licensed Victuallers not to interfere with licences for three years in return for the payment of so many thousands of pounds.

Senator Daly:

– What was the amount f

Senator REID:

– About £10,000. Portion of that sum was used in connexion, with the Labour party’s campaign, and I should like to ask Mr. Theodore. through Senator Daly, what became of the remainder. I am not making that statement under cover of the Senate. I said it on the public platform of Queensland, and I am prepared to return to that State to repeat it to-morrow.When the election was over this money was distributed, but even in that connexion Mr. Theodore took down one of his own mates - Mr. T. J. Ryan. When the conference took place at Rockhampton and Mr. McCormack was removed from the executive, he took up the balance-sheet and said : “ This is not a balance-sheet ; it is only humbug.” I invite Senator Daly to ask Mr. McCormack to explain what he meant by those words. They are to be found in the records of the conference. Mr. Theodore has always been behind the liquor trade. He has a thrifty nature, and he left Queensland worth thousands of pounds, while his fellow-politicians were worth practically nothing. Where did the money come from? Many other concessions were granted to Mr. Theodore. He is behind the picture combine, and his refusal to impose the amusement tax proposed by the late Government speaks for itself. I base my statements upon facts.

Senator Barnes:

– How many brewery shares has the honorable senator ?

Senator REID:

– Not one. I do not deal in brewery shares. The honorable senator might ask Mr. Theodore how he came to have over 8,000 £1 shares in timber companies that were receiving concessions from the Queensland Government, and getting it into New South Wales, while at the same time the timber workers, backed up by Mr. Theodore, were out on strike.

Mr. Theodore, when in Queensland defended the Italians that had settled in that State. I am not blaming him for his action, but I ask why his change of front? He is to-day a member of a Government that is proposing to restrict foreign immigration to Australia. I prefer that immigrants of my own. race should come here, but I have nothing to say against the Italians that are already settled in Queensland. They make very good citizens ; not all of them, of course, because there is always some scum in every race. Mr. Theodore and Mr. McCormack strenuously defended the Italian settlers, even in defiance of members of their own party. Mr. Theodore has now changed his views in respect of foreign migrants, but where would he be to-day had his father been turned out of Australia, because he came from Southern Europe or next door to it. I do not object to Italians coming here so long as we have room for them. The Treasurer’s attitude is nothing but camouflage and his words so much humbug, and no doubt the people of Australia will find this out for themselves before the term of office of this Government expires. A great many members of the Labour party will discover, as did the Labour members in Queensland, the perfidy and ruthlessness of Mr. Theodore. There is not a grain of Labour feeling or sentiment in him, and there never has been. He has used the movement for his own ends and to help him to realize his ambition. He is not far from his goal, and I am waiting to see whether he reaches it eventually. In Queensland he sacrificed his colleagues to further his own interests, and 1 guarantee he will do the same thing in the federal arena. I advise the members of the Labour party to ascertain carefully the extent of Mr. Theodore’s connexion with the licensed victuallers and various combines.

Sitting suspended from 6.14 to 8 p.m.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator Dooley, who moved the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply, started off by saying that the Bruce-Page Government was defeated because it had been responsible for destroying the principles of arbitration. No statement could have been more incorrect. The Bruce-Page Government was at no time opposed to the principles of arbitration. On the contrary, it would have taken all arbitration powers under the control of the Federal Parliament, and it made several attempts to do so. Some years ago it asked the people at a referendum to give additional industrial powers to the Commonwealth Parliament, but the people turned its proposals down.

Senator Foll:

– And a section of Labour definitely opposed those proposals on the hustings.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That is so. The Bruce-Page Government then made an endeavour to introduce amendments into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with a view to making it more workable. That it did not prove to be more workable was due to the fact that no assistance was obtained from the other side. There was no possible chance of enforcing awards ; the men simply flouted them, and the Government thereupon asked the States if they would hand over to the Commonwealth Parliament the power to control arbitration. The States declined that request, and I believe they were right in doing so. In my opinion industrial matters should be controlled by the States. Nevertheless I supported the Government in the attitude it took up. Seeing how apparent it was that there should not be two arbitration authorities in Australia, the one overlapping the other, the Bruce-Page Government then offered to abolish federal arbitration, and allow the States to control industrial matters. If that had been done, it would have led to a reduction of industrial turmoil. This gave the people another opportunity to express a voice on the matter, and their verdict was that the Federal Parliament should control arbitration, and that the Labour party should administer the affairs of the Commonwealth.

I understand that Labour’s present proposal is to revert to the attitude taken up by many of us who have always advocated the system of boards of conciliation. In any case the Nationalists will give the Government more assistance in carrying out the arbitration law of the Commonwealth, with a view, to ensuring peace, than was given by the Labour party to the late Government, and any measure that is introduced for the purpose of ensuring that both workers and employers shall be fairly treated, will meet with the approval of honorable senators now in Opposition to the Government.

Senator Dooley also said that the Federal Government was responsible for the volume of unemployment in Australia. It is one of the worst features of Australian life that men. who want to work cannot obtain employment. It is a national waste and a tragedy to the men who are thus situated. The cause of all this unemployment is to be found in artificial legislation. Any tariff increase means an increase in the cost of living. Each increase in the cost of living means an increase in wages. Each increase, in wages creates a demand for a higher tariff, and in the end the working man is no better off than before. It is this vicious system which is responsible for our unemployment, yet the new Government has further increased the tariff. There are troublous times ahead.

Ministers are not to be blamed for taking any step that they think will relieve unemployment. It is usually the practice to borrow a few pounds and spend it on a job to give relief to unemployed, but that is not the way in which the problem should be tackled. The only remedy for the unemployment evil is to produce something and sell it at a price at which people can afford to buy it. At present, the product of labour will not sell abroad at a price which will pay for the cost of the labour. Wherever we go in Australia we find three things uppermost - work everywhere, plenty of money to do the work and no dearth of labour. There are opportunities, for work everywhere. There is land to be cleared, scrub to be cut, houses to be built or repaired. The banking returns show that there is plenty of money available. There are £215,000,000 on deposit in the Savings Bank. That is not ail money deposited by the workers. A great deal of it represents the money of the people who are afraid to put it anywhere else. The other banking returns tell the same tale. Why is so much labour walking about seeking employment and unable to obtain it? It is because people lack confidence. They are afraid that they cannot get a return for the money they spend if they pay others to clear the land or do any other essential work. I am afraid that until we can produce articles at a cost at. which people can afford to buy them, we shall never get rid of our unemployed.

The Labour plan to relieve the position is to raise the tariff and make in Australia everything Australia wants. I am an Australian and I believe in using Australian goods, but the action the Government has taken in this respect will simply add costs to people who cannot pass them on. I am of opinion that the new tariff will give more employment in the big cities, especially in Melbourne and Sydney, and, in that respect, it may do some good; but what about the farmers? Mr. Scullin tells us that we shall have to make more goods in Australia and the people will have to pay for them. But what will be the position of those people who cannot pass on the added cost? The costs of those who have to sell their products outside Australia for whatever they can get for them will be increased, and I am afraid that, in consequence, they will be put right out of business. The tariff cannot be of assistance to those who produce wool and wheat, our staple commodities. On the contrary, the producers of wool, wheat, fruit and other primary products, cannot stand additional burdens, and the policy that increases the amount of labour in the big cities will have the effect of throwing out of work, in country districts; thousands of men who are doing infinitely better and more essential work than those who are employed in the cities. If the Labour party has no better method of solving the unemployed problem than that of increasing the tariff, all I have to say is that I do not think it will prove successful. The farmer, who has to sell his product in the open market and has no say in the price he gets for it, also finds that he has very little say in the price he pays for everything he requires. The amount he pays to the man he employs, or for the plough he uses, the food he consumes or the clothes he wears, is increased by this artificial legislation.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Is it not a fact that most of the farmers’ troubles are brought about by speculative land values ?

Senator J B HAYES:

– The honorable senator is touching upon a very big subject. It is hard to say just how land values are fixed. I think it will be generally admitted that at present they are too high if land is to be taken simply on its productive value. There is a school which says that land values are based on the price the land will bring on the market. But we know that many people place a fictitious value on land because they want to acquire it for some special purpose other than that of making a living on it.They may like a par ticular area, or a block may be acquired by a man because it adjoins his own. On the other hand it might not be a good thing to reduce land values at one fell swoop. It might deprive many people of all the equity that they possess in the land and the last situation might be infinitely worse than the first.

Senator O’Halloran:

– The honorable senator will not contend that land values have been appreciably increased by the operation of the tariff.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I have not been speaking of the effect of the tariff upon land values, but I may say in passing that I am not of opinion that any reduction of the tariff would alter the position in that respect. Many people are working their land for what they can take off it, and the only way in which they can get more work for the wages they pay, so that the product of the land may be sold at a price at which people can buy it, is to reduce the cost of production by reducing the tariff.

Senator Foll:

– The high price at which land was acquired for many soldier settlements was responsible for many failures.

Senator J B HAYES:

– The honorable senator is also opening up a big problem in referring to soldier settlement schemes. As a matter of fact, all the governments of Australia, Commonwealth and State, were pushed into those land settlement schemes by a public which was intensely sympathetic with the soldiers, but utterly irresponsible in the matter. The governments realized that if they did not buy land on which to settle returned soldiers, others would be got to do so. In my ministerial capacity in the State of Tasmania I had a fair amount of experience of purchasing land for soldiers. I had, on many occasions, to act practically as agent with both buyer and seller against me, the seller sitting down, knowing well that he would get the price he wanted, and the buyer pressing me to buy at the seller’s price. The governments were forced into that position. But many who talk of the price paid for land for soldier settlement forget the price at which produce was selling in those days. For wheat 10s. a bushel could be obtained, for butter as much as 3s. a lb., and for a calf £5.

Senator O’halloran:

– I think we were all sinners in that respect.

Senator J B HAYES:

– Yes. It is easy to play the game backwards, and say now how foolish every one was then. The governments certainly did lose a lot of money over soldier settlement, but plenty of private capital was lost in the same way. Individuals bought land and stock, and made just as many losses as were made in connexion with soldier settlement. I could give numerous instances of this; but, of course, these persons were not governments, and the public generally did not hear anything about their failures. There are two sides to the question of the losses sustained on soldier settlement.

Increases in cost, following the increased tariff, will be very harmful to the fruit industry, which looms so largely in Tasmania. At one time applegrowers could ship their apples to London and do very well on a return of 8s. or 9s. a case. To-day it costs the applegrowers 8s. or 9s. a case to send them to London, and the apples do not bring in any greater return than in previous years. The new tariff will therefore bring about unemployment in the apple-growing districts of Tasmania. Growers will try to do without fertilizers. They will try to dispense with the labour that they should employ. If we increase the cost of everything the apple-grower uses, his food, his clothing, sprays and so forth, and he gets no more for his apples, the result of the tariff, so far as he is concerned, is not difficult to estimate. The manufacturer, on the other hand, does not care how much his costs are increased. He simply raises the price of the article he is producing and so passes on the extra cost. It is quite impossible for the farmer or the fruit-grower to do this.

Senator Rae:

– Does the honorable senator support freetrade?

Senator J B HAYES:

– I am not a freetrader, but I say that the tariff has gone far enough. We have been going round in a vicious circle. Following an increase in wages we get an increase in the cost of living, then a demand for higher tariff, a further request for increased wages, and so it goes on. It is about time we called a halt and endeavoured to do a little more work for a change.

The fruit industry in Tasmania provides a great deal of employment for not only the growers themselves, but also the saw-millers, box-makers, and other workers, but lately the cost of everything has been increasing at such a rate as to threaten the stability of the industry.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Everything has been going up except the price of fruit.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That is so, and, unfortunately, we appear to be making no effort to improve matters. We all agree that to retain the export trade, the quality of the product sent overseas must be unchallengeable. In this connexion I wish the Minister to note that some time ago there was a revision of the various standards of fruit intended for export; and experience has shown that the enforcement of the new regulations is going to damage the Tasmanian apple industry. It should be remembered that Tasmania is not in the same position as the fruitgrowing States on the mainland. The growers in South Australia, Victoria or Western Australia have big cities in which to market their surplus product, whereas the Tasmanian grower must ship the whole of his output either to the other States or to Great Britain. Last year, as I have said, revised regulations to control the export trade were drawn up as the result of a conference of inspectors from all the States, with the exception of Tasmania. Unfortunately, Tasmania was not represented by an inspector from its own agricultural department, though I do not think that this was the fault of the State Government. A Commonwealth inspector, however, was present. One regulation agreed to provides that the ends of all export cases must be planed. I agree that an export case planed in this way will look much better, but I wish the assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) to bear in mind that the majority of Tasmanian orchardists have to obtain their cases from bush mills which have not the facilities for planing, and while the cost of the work, if done in a city mill, ought not to be more than id. a case, the price at Tasmanian bush mills, if they were compelled to put in the machinery, would be very much higher. Another regulation prohibits the export of plain grade apples. These, I may inform honorable senators, are apples in which a certain percentage may have a blemish not exceeding in the aggregate ½ inch in diameter. They realize just as good a price in England as some of the better grades, and we have to dispose of them somewhere. I am aware, of course, that this is not the place for the discussion of the technical aspects of the regulations, but I wish to emphasize that a regulation of this nature will press heavily upon certain growers in Tasmania, and I strongly urge the Government to obtain the advice of the State Fruit Advisory Board, appointed by the department and the growers, before these regulations are given effect. I believe in standardization, and when I was a member of the State Parliament, I was instrumental in passing legislation to this end. I was the first to provide for it.

Another matter to which 1 direct attention is the request for a bounty on evaporated apples. If our growers could dispose of another 200,000. cases of dried apples, the position of the industry would be materially improved. The return to growers of dried apples is only 2s. per 50 lb. which equals about one bushel and a quarter of green apples and makes 6 lb. of dried apples, so the price works out at only 4d. a lb. American growers land their evaporated apples on the London market at from 5½d. to 6d. a lb., so that the price received by us allows only 2d. for processing.

Senator Foll:

– Is there a duty on evaporated apples in Great Britain ?

Senator J B HAYES:

– 1 do not think there is, but the lowest price at which Tasmanian evaporated apples can be landed on the English market is 7¼d. or 7½d. a lb. If the Government could see its way to provide a bounty of between £3,000 and £4,000 our growers would be able to carry on. One of the Parliamentary committees, of which I am a member, proposes to visit Tasmania in the course of a few weeks, . and I believe it should be instructed by the Government to inquire into the condition of the apple industry in that State. Few people realize how extensive are the operations of our orchardists and what splendid machinery they have installed to carry on their business. So keen are they to exploit every avenue in the export trade that they have sent tons of cores and peelings to Germany, where there is a market for that by-product of the industry, and our growers have been content with a profit of a few shillings a ton. I sincerely hope that the Government will see its way to grant a small bounty for the assistance of the industry.

I also direct attention once more to the position of our berry fruit-growers, particularly the growers of black currants. Because sugar is too dear they are unable to process the fruit. If they could get sugar at anything like export parity, this class of fruit could be sold to jam manufacturers for export. This year, I am sorry to say, the great bulk of theberry fruit will fall to the ground. Recently a deputation, of which I was a member, waited upon the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) with a request that he should make representations to the Queensland Government to allow Tasmanian jam manufacturers to obtain sugar at £15 or £16 a ton for the processing of our berry fruits and he promised to do so. I appeal to the present Prime Minister to do the same. At present they have to pay over £30 a ton for it.

Senator Foll:

– Why do not the growers ship that fruit to our mainland States?

Senator J B HAYES:

– A few hundred cases were shipped to the mainland last year, but there are the difficulties in connexion with the development of that trade. The fruit has to be packed in small boxes and all work has to be carried out at the highest possible speed owing to the risk of fruit being ruined by heat or rain. Apparently the only hope is for the growers to market the product for jam manufacturing purposes and this could be done if sugar could be obtained at export parity. Our growers deserve all the assistance which the Commonwealth can give them. They are not making a decent living wage, and this year they are absolutely faced with ruin because the processers have informed them that unless sugar can be obtained at export parity, they cannot buy the fruit.

Turning again to the revised standards, which I mentioned a minute or two ago, I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) to note that the new regulations which provide for the elimination of a number of varieties will do serious injury to a number of growers in Tasmania. I am aware that the newer varieties of apples sell better than old varieties, but we have in my State three or four wellknown kinds, that are a good marketable product, and should not be interfered with. One in particular, called “Crows egg” grown in Southern Tasmania, commands a good price in the English market. An orchardist of my acquaintance ships between 800 or 900 cases every year, and always obtains a satisfactory price in London. Some time ago, an Englishman arrived in Tasmania and bought an orchard comprising mainly this variety of apple. He has been working it for four or five years, and is making a good living on the place; but he informed me that if this variety is eliminated from the list of export apples permitted under the regulations he will have to abandon his property and return to England. I am sure that these revised standards have been drawn up without a complete knowledge of the splendid varieties grown in some of the colder fruit-growing localities, and I therefore urge the Minister, before the regulations are gazetted, to seek the advice of the Fruit Advisory Board in Tasmania., because I am sure this Ministry docs not wish to do anything to injure Tasmanian orchardists.

We shall have other opportunities to discuss a number of other subjects that are mentioned in the Governor-General’s Speech, so I. shall conclude my remarks by again urging the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) to give close attention to the various aspects of the apple export trade, to which I have directed attention to-night.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– It is over fifteen years since I last addressed members of this chamber. Since then many great changes have taken place. One that strikes as being particularly significant is that many of those who then were associated with the party to which I belong, are now in opposition in this chamber, and I have noted that, in the discussion this morning, the most virulent attacks on the Ministry have come from them.

Senator Thompson:

– Perhaps they have seen the error of their ways.

Senator RAE:

– I can only conclude that they feel some remorse for the position in which they find themselves and endeavour to salve their consciences by trying to lay the blame on their former colleagues, who stood to their guns. But I have no intention of dealing at length with that aspect of the debate. Suffice it to say that I would rather have remained outside this chamber for another fifteen years than continue to be a member of it by the means which kept some of them in this Parliament. There has been considerable criticism of the Governor-General’s Speech, but I have not found any disposition on the part of honorable senators opposite to get down to fundamentals. They have indulged in more or less carping criticism regarding statements alleged to have been made by Labour candidates at the recent election. One of the charges made by several honorable senators opposite is that Labour candidates made wilfully inaccurate statements, in order to gain votes. Although I was not a candidate at the election, I must share my responsibility for the statements made, because I was one who spoke on behalf of candidates for election to another place. Not one wilful misstatement has been sheeted home to us.

Senator Foll:

– What about the statement that the mines would be re-opened within fourteen days?

Senator RAE:

– I believe that Mr. Theodore, who has not long been a federal member and probably lacks knowledge of the Constitution, honestly thought that it could be done. Indeed, the very fact that the coal-owners consented to meet the miners in a further conference soon after the new Government assumed office, is evidence that the election had some effect even on the coal situation.It has been said that the Labour party accused the Bruce-Page Government and the Nationalist party, generally, of an attempt to reduce wages. I cheerfully admit that I made that statement, and I am prepared to back it up. Indeed, facts - not mere opinions - bear out the statement. From the very inception of the coal trouble the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) was avowedly on the side of the coal-owners. Another wing of the Nationalist movement - Mr. Bavin and his’ Government in New South Wales - also openly sided with the coal-owners throughout the dispute. I go so far as to say that both Mr. Bruce and Mr. Bavin were practically the instigators of the coal-owners’ demand for reduced wages.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The honorable senator knows well that the miners could long ago have obtained exactly the same terms as they have now been offered.

Senator RAE:

– It is not what they could have got, but what the coal-owners demanded. Their demand was for an even greater reduction than the miners are now being forced to accept. It is well known that Mr. Bruce and Mr. Bavin were in close consultation on numerous occasions regarding the coal trouble, and that they stood, determinedly, for a reduction in wages.

Senator Thompson:

– And also for the owners’ profits being reduced.

Senator RAE:

– They insisted on the miners making a greater percentage reduction than the owners were called upon to make. In the coal industry in New South Wales, it has been the custom for many years, for the owners and the miners to share in any advance in the price of coal. If the price of coal improves by ls. a ton, the miners get 3d. and the owners 9d. a ton of that increase. On this occasion the deduction was to be ls. per ton each. The contract miners, whose only capital is their labour, were to accept a reduction of ls. a ton, and weekly hands ls. a day, whereas the coal-owners were to accept a reduction of only ls. a ton. For the purpose of showing that a reduction of ls. a ton was a great concession on the part of the owners, a determined effort has been made to prove that their profits were so small that they could not possibly forego a greater amount.

Senator Thompson:

– In their case the reduction was 50 per cent, as against 8-J per cent, in the case of the miners.

Senator RAE:

– It was nothing of the kind. If the honorable senator does not know better, I can only excuse him on the ground of ignorance.

Senator Thompson:

– Those facts were brought out in the commission’s findings.

Senator RAE:

– The findings of the commission are not worth 2d., because it was a purely faked concern. From its inception the commission has steadfastly refused to take evidence in public, or to have the owners’ profits disclosed, and, “consequently, no confidence can be placed in its findings. The present Government has so little confidence in the commission that it will terminate it as soon as possible. I am not a coal-miner, but at one time I was a member of the coal-miners’ organization, and paid levies in support of those on strike, as I would do again if the necessity arose. There is one mine in northern New South Wales the shares in which were of a nominal value of £10. When those shares had been paid up to the extent of £6, the company decided to regard them as fully paid up. On those £10 shares, paid up to the extent of only £6, a 100 per cent, dividend was declared for several years. Another mine in New South Wales has repaid more than twice over in bonuses the whole of the capital invested, and until recently paid big dividends on capital which did not exist, because it had all been returned to the shareholders.

Senator Thompson:

– Mining is a wasting asset.

Senator RAE:

– And mines are purchased accordingly. There is no more reason for regarding a coal-mine as ‘ a perpetual asset than that the labour of a man who toils in it should be so regarded. Is not a man’s labour a wasting asset? Day by day as he toils in the mines he loses his energy until he eventually reaches a position in which he can earn no more.

We have been told that the miners make big wages. Indeed, altogether fancy rates have been published as their earnings. In every industry in which piece-work obtains some men make big wages for a limited period. But the average wage of a coalminer in most years is considerably below the basic wage.

Senator Thompson:

– That is because the miners work short time.

Senator RAE:

– If they did not work short time voluntarily they would do so compulsorily because of intermittency of employment. All the talk of their high wages is so much bunkum when the average earnings of those engaged in the industry are considered. The average wage, and not exceptional cases, is the only fair basis of comparison. If a man makes big wages on piece-work, he does so only by the expenditure of more than average energy, and, consequently, he is the sooner incapable of earning anything. Some men, who appear to think that their great strength and energy will last for ever, tear out the coal at such a rate that they outdistance the average man and make exceptionally high wages; but their term of usefulness ceases much earlier than is the case with men who work more rationally. Many miners become broken down early in life from that cause. Honorable senators should also remember that mining is a dangerous occupation. Every hour of every day that a man is underground he takes his life in his hands. There are, unfortunately, numerous instances in which men have forfeited their lives while working in coal-mines; while accidents of a minor character are so common as to appal those not acquainted with the industry. Whatever wages the miners make they can never be more than they deserve.

Senator Foll:

– Under the amended proposals, was it not shown that every miner would get a larger annual income?

Senator RAE:

– Nothing of the kind was ever shown. What was claimed - and that is an entirely different matter - was that if a lower price were charged for the coal there would be a greater demand for it, and therefore more employment. That was a purely hypothetical statement. In Great Britain after the long coal strike in 1926, hours were lengthened and wages drastically lowered ; but many thousands of miners are still unemployed. Indeed, the remedy there was worse than the disease.

Senator Thompson:

– The trouble is that there are too many miners.

Senator RAE:

– In almost every avenue of employment the position is the same.

Senator Thompson:

– Not in rural industries.

Senator RAE:

– That seems to be so, because they are not so massed together. In the rural industries more men are seeking work without any prospect of getting it than ever before in the history of this country, but because they are scattered, their plight is not so obvious as is that of the miners.

Senator Daly:

– What about the men who have been licensed to work on the waterfront ?

Senator RAE:

– A good deal has been said about issuing what some of us call “ dog licences “ to men to entitle them to work at certain occupations. The suspension of those licenses means that no more men will go into that overmanned industry for the time being. The Government hopes soon to abolish that degrading method of industrial servitude on the part of a worthy class of men.

Senator Foll:

– Would the honorable senator take away the licences of luggage porters ?

Senator RAE:

– Their case is different. I have never said that the late Government was entirely responsible for the unemployment that existed during its regime, nor do I now claim that the present Government can abolish the evil. Unemployment is an integral part of the capitalistic system which, I freely admit, I am out to destroy.

Senator Ogden:

– What would the honorable senator put in its place?

Senator RAE:

– Nothing worse could be substituted. The keystone of the capitalistic system is unemployment. The system would break down in no time if there was no unemployment. On the other hand, when unemployment becomes rampant, as it is now, it becomes a danger to the very system which creates and fosters it. The system is one which does not create wealth for the primary purpose of conserving the needs of the people, but wealth in the form of goods or commodities for selling at a profit. When such commodities can no longer be sold at a profit those who control them in effect refuse to produce, and, consequently, the system breaks down.

Senator J. B. Hayes referred to the imposition of high customs duties; but we have to realize that high tariffs cannot possibly lead to a perfect order of society. They become necessary in one country largely because of the adoption of high tariffs in other countries. To a great extent they are measures of retaliation, and, as Senator J. B. Hayes said, while the tariff may have the effect of increasing the number of employees in city industries, it cannot benefit every one to the same extent. The honorable senator referred to its effect on the fruit-growing industry in Tasmania; but I point out that if protective duties lead to more people being employed in the big cities, the home market for primary products must necessarily increase. Whilst protective tariffs are imposed for the benefit of those directly concerned, they are of indirect benefit to many others. I would not for a moment pin my faith to the piling up of tariffs as a means of founding a new social system; they mean only a temporary alleviation of the troubles from which the system suffers.

The subject of arbitration has received a good deal of attention during the debate. For the past twenty years we have heard the same old story concerning the manner in which industries of this country are suffering as the result of the awards of arbitration courts and similar tribunals. Some honorable senators have quoted au article which I wrote in the journal referred to by Senator Lynch - The PanPacific Worker - in which I decried arbitration on the ground that it practically took the fight out of the workers and caused them to lean on the courts and their officials for those improvements in industry for which formerly they had to fight in order to obtain the wages and conditions to which they are entitled.I am not going back on what I said. I was strongly in opposition to the arbitration policy of the Bruce-Page Government which wished to skittle arbitration without putting anything in its place. Honorable senators opposite have said that that Government was not opposed to arbitration, but sought either to have it entirely under Commonwealth control, or hand it over to the States. We must recollect that the Bruce-Page Government made arbitration impossible by creating a num ber of penal offences, and making criminals of unionists in this country who dared to do what they are free to do in Great Britain and other civilized countries.

Senator Ogden:

– The penal clauses were already in existence.

Senator RAE:

– They were intensified tenfold and twenty new offences were created by the last Government’s repressive legislation.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– But prior to the introduction of that legislation, the penal clauses operated against only one section.

Senator RAE:

– They never operated effectively against those whom the honorable senator represents.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– They operated against the employer and had always done so.

Senator RAE:

– I dispute that. On the contrary, they have operated largely against the workers, and to a very slight extent against the employers, for the simple reason that, while the employers may be summoned and taken to court for breaches of an award, they can always get even by reducing hands and wholly or partially closing down their works, thereby throwing the whole crowd out of employment. While there is’ one section of the community, which owns the means of production, the land, the machinery and capital, it will always have the big end of the stick, irrespective of the arbitration laws that are passed.

Senator Foll:

– Did the honorable senator support the Bruce-Page Government’s proposal for increased industrial powers for the Commonwealth?

Senator RAE:

– I bitterly opposed it, and lent my services towards a movement to defeat it. While in favour of the Commonwealth Government having complete industrial powers, I thought the late Government’s proposal was the most absurd and reactionary that could be conceived. Instead of giving this Parliament greater powers, that Government would have shackled Parliament by taking the power to appoint a body to create industrial conditions, without giving Parliament the power to alter the conditions under which the tribunal worked, regardless of any situation whichmight arise. If that proposal had been carried, it would have been possible to obtain an alteration of the system only by another referendum. If the BrucePage Government had used its ingenuity and power to devise the worst possible way in which to bring about an alteration, it could not have ‘been more successful than it was in suggesting what it did. Perhaps honorable senators have forgotten the fact that these proposals were defeated by a much smaller majority “than former proposals of a similar nature. From the time when the Fisher Government first submitted proposals for an amendment of the Constitution in regard to industrial matters, until the last occasion, the majority against such proposals has always been smaller. I am certain that if the Bruce-Page Government had submitted a sensible and rational scheme, it would have been carried, and the Labour party would have assisted it.

Senator Ogden:

– Does the honorable senator favour a restriction of federal powers ?

Senator RAE:

– If I had my way, I would make the Constitution alterable by the Parliament.

Senator Barnes:

– Have no Constitution at all?

Senator RAE:

– Practically. The less we shackle ourselves with constitutions and laws, the better it will be for the people. Have honorable senators considered the enormous trouble there has been in connexion with an amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America ? Modern development in science and industry has made it an obsolete instrument of government, and it would be radically amended but for the insuperable obstacles.

Senator Ogden:

– Does the honorable senator wish to give Parliament the sole right?

Senator RAE:

– Not the final right; but I would give the people authority to ask for a referendum. I would be in favour of giving the Commonwealth Parliament greater powers than it possesses at present, and particularly would give the people the right to challenge any law and compel its submission to the electors.

Senator Barnes:

– They have that right now, at election time.

Senator RAE:

– Indirectly. On every occasion when a referendum has been rejected by the people, those who have proposed the question submitted to the people have, at an election shortly afterwards, received the confidence of the people, which shows that they are capable in connexion with a single issue, of dealing with it free from the personal equation.

Senator Foll:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that all parties should agree and then go to the country?

Senator RAE:

– There are very few subjects upon which all parties could agree. In the matter of arbitration I may say that I believe that the workers of this country should get what has systematically been denied to them. They should get it both ways. They should have the right to arbitration if they please, and also the right to reject arbitration and strike if they think fit.

All criticism of trade unionism which I have heard during the debate has been of a carping nature. There has been no recognition on the part of honorable senators opposite of what all the greatest public men of this and the last generation regard as the greatest factor in the elevation, not only of the material, but of the moral and mental standard of the working class. No one contends that unionists are perfect or that they are superior to those in any’ other walk of life. There has been considerable criticism of the little mistakes that unionists have made; but their critics have ignored the fundamental principles of unionism and the part it has played in industrial affairs during its long and chequered career. Trade unionism has succeeded in preventing unscrupulous employers, who, if not in a majority, lead the majority, from beating the workers of this and every other country down to the lowest possible level. It has been organized labour that has put up a fight for better conditions than, those which they possessed. Whatever unions do, I am always behind them, not only with verbal support, but with whatever funds I can make available to assist them.

Senator Foll:

– No one on this side made a general attack upon trade unionism.

SenatorRAE. - Unionists are always accused of doing the wrong thing; they are charged with errors of judgment and being led by agitators. There are some who say that everything associated with unionism is rotten and that those who assist them are associated with the criminal class.

Senator Ogden:

– The King can do no wrong.

Senator RAE:

– I say emphatically they can do wrong, but we should not consider only the errors which the workers make. We have to decide whether fundamentally trade unionism is or is not a valuable institution. There is no more valuable institution in this or in the Mother Country for improving the condition of the great masses of the people than trade unionism. Those who desert us are called scabs and blacklegs. We use these terms of opprobium advisedly to express our contempt for those who do not give allegiance to the class to which they belong.

Senator Carroll:

– The honorable senator at the recent election supported others who deserted their party.

Senator RAE:

– I did not support certain members of the party represented by honorable senators opposite who sought the fleshpots of Egypt.

SenatorFoll. - They were assisted by the Labour party.

Senator RAE:

– We did what any other party would have done. We did not fire our guns at those who were incidentally helping us. No one has heard me or the other members of my party praising those honorable members of another place who deserted their party; that is their business. If by refraining from helping to wipe them out, we incidentally helped ourselves, no one can say that, in a political fight, we adopted an unusual course, but we would not take them into our ranks even if they desired to come.

Senator Colebatch, who, I think, has made the most valuable contribution to this debate, referred to Soviet Russia. The honorable senator approved of two principles in the constitution of that country, one of them being that it should be not only a responsibility but a privilege for a person to prepare himself to defend his own country. The second was that every citizen should give service to the community on the principle that he who does not work neither shall he eat. Senator Colebatch commented on those two principles in order to eulogize the system of compulsory training which our Government has seen fit to suspend. The honorable senator got very near to being just on that occasion ; he just missed the point, which is that the obligation on the part of the people of Soviet Russia to be prepared to defend their country exists because of the second principle to which the honorable senator has referred. When the honorable senator uses his influence to try to bring about a similar condition of affairs in Australia this party may reconsider its attitude in regard to military training. I consider that a man is a fool to prepare himself to defend this country on behalf of its capitalists. If I were of military age I should not raise a finger to assist those individuals, from who we not only reap no benefits, but receive disadvantages, by reason of the heavy burdens that we have to carry on their behalf. Prior tothe Great War, no politicians would have dared to restrain the liberty of the people by introducing such measures as the Crimes Act. the Transport Workers Act, and a certain amendment of the Industrial Arbitration Act. Those actions were scandalous infringements of our liberty.

Senator Ogden:

– Will the honorable senator define liberty?

Senator RAE:

– Liberty, like many other principles, is an abstract thing which does not exist in its entirety. We enjoyed a much greater measure of freedom before the war than we now do. Then there was no question of attacking the freedom which has since been lightly thrown away, with scarcely a protest from those concerned.

Take, again, the ban by the late Government on working class literature. That was a direct affront to every adult worker in Australia. The Government took to itself absolute power to dictate what should be read and what adults should be forbidden to read, just as a father might do with a little child whose mind was immature. We were told that we should not be permitted to read anything considered by the Government to be unfit for us, on the principle that we might run amok after absorbing the proscribed literature. That was a denial of freedom to which no past generation would have submitted without raising the greatest outcry that has ever been heard in the country. Unless our own Government quickly repeals that infamous embargo, I shall be as bitter in my attack upon it as I am upon the last Government in the matter. It is an inconceivable insult to every adult in Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– Would the honorable senator have no censorship at all?

Senator RAE:

– I did not say that. Those who associate the censorship of obscene with that of political literature, forget the existence of one fundamental difference. Theoretically, it may be claimed that no one has any more right to dictate whether I shall read a moral or an immoral book, than he has to say that I should not read a revolutionary treatise. But here is the difference : The political literature to which I have referred can, by its composition, only appeal to adults. Young children would not’ understand the import of the words contained in such works, whereas obscene literature is couched in such language that it appeals particularly to the minds of the young, and to their detriment. That is the difference between literature of a seditious ‘and revolutionary character, and obscene literature. That difference is quite wide enough for a broad distinction to be drawn between them, and what should be done in one case is no criterion, of what should be done in the other.

I come now to the assertion that the Labour party received assistance from the picture interests during the last general election. Personally, I very seldom patronize picture palaces, as I do not like the ordinary type of picture. I believe they do more harm to the morals of the young than any other method of propaganda. T have nothing against Americans individually, although collectively I think that country is the most jingoistic power on earth. It is most callous in its disregard of the needs of other nations. We owe the United States of America nothing. That country has done every thing possible to shut out our few exports by raising a high tariff wall, whereas, unfortunately, our people use a great deal more of their products than they need to. I am not speaking out of sympathy to Americans, whether they be regarded as monopolists or otherwise. Although it is claimed that the New South Wales picture interests, after raising a great outcry against the imposition of the proposed amusement tax, were about to fall into the arms of Labour. I point out that, for some mysterious reason, about three or four weeks prior to the recent election, we heard no more of their protests. Personally, I did not know of any one receiving a red cent of their money. The campaign director for the Labour party convened a meeting of those concerned immediately after the election, and made an appeal for money because our funds had, on the strength of our good name, been overdrawn by £12,0.00. The followers of the party liquidated that debt by means of donations from trade unions and sympathisers. The opposition of this party to the proposal to impose that amusement tax was raised from the outset, before the proprietors of the picture concerns had time to make any outcry. It is our belief that, in spite of the assurances of honorable senators opposite that the tax would not be passed on, the people who patronized the picture shows would have had to pay it, and the vast majority of them are workers and their families. I believe that even the workers are entitled to a little amusement sometimes.

I desire to say something about the attacks made upon the Labour party in regard to Soviet Russia and communism. I say cheerfully that if any one reads the objective of the Labour party, the socialization of industry under democratic control, he will find no fundamental difference between that and communism. Both aim at exactly the same goal.

Senator Ogden:

– That is frank.

Senator RAE:

– It is. If honorable senators will read Free from Bias, with their minds freed from theological prejudice, they will find that the founder of Christianity was a Communist, if he was anything. The early church was purely communistic both in regard to its teaching and the practice of its followers. So far I can see there is nothing of a criminal character or that condemns a man to obloquy in the profession of communism. I have never been a member of the communistic party, but I ‘ believe that that body has the same right to place its opinions before the people, and to endeavour to secure their support, as has any other. I object to the tendency on the part of those who happen to be in the majority to persecute and practically to dub as criminals all those who differ fundamentally from themselves.

Senator Foll:

– Does the honorable senator think that the Labour party ought, to have let the communists into its ranks?

Senator RAE:

– That is purely a matter for the Labour party to decide. I am not a member of its executive. That party, in my opinion, is definitely opposed to the capitalistic system. The doom of that system is approaching. That is proved by the chaos that exists to some extent in every country of the world, whether it has an arbitration system, a strong organization of labour, or otherwise.

Honorable senators opposite have been trying to attribute the ills of this country to the alleged evils of high wages, due to Australian industrial awards. Honorable senator after honorable senator opposite b»s claimed that our production is being harassed, that our employers are upset; that those who can do so will invest their money elsewhere rather than put it into industry, owing to the evil effects of arbitration. Yet, what is the position of the United States of America, with all its huge resources, its wonderful advance in scientific and technical matters, its enormous population, its home market, and its practical lack of trade unionism? There unionism exists only amongst the highly skilled artisans; they are the only people to receive high wages, and they do not represent more than 5 to 10 per cent, of the workers of that country. In spite of the individualism for which the United States of America is famed, and of its claim that every man there may do as he likes and invest his money as he desires,- recent statistics disclose that unemployment in that country is practically on a par with unemployment in Great Britain. We know that the number of unemployed in Great Britain is great, and that even since the advent of the Ramsay MacDonald Government it has increased. So that even if we take individualistic countries like the United States of America or semi-socialistic countries like our own, or even if we regard Asiatic countries where cheap labour exists at about 10d. a day, and where there are millions of workers, we find that unemployment is rampant, with its attendant wretchedness, destitution, vice and crime. We also discover that those conditions are in the main attributable to the failure of capitalism to support in decent comfort the people of the community. Until that system is abolished, no efforts can be more than palliatives of existing conditions. We cannot hope fundamentally to cure those evils until we deal with fundamental causes. The fundamental causes of these evils is that while we have capitalist production we have anarchy in distribution while we talk about giving a basic wage and settling things on systematic lines we over look an important fact. Take a case where inquiry is being made into what should be the basic wage. Witnesses from various sections of the working class are examined. They bring into the court articles of wearing apparel, and the prices of these articles are compared. Evidence is taken to show just how much clothing women and children require to live decently, how much food they consume, and even what it costs to purchase toothbrushes, powder puffs, and so forth. Evidence is taken as to how much they spend on newspapers, amusements and life insurance. All these confidential details are gone into exhaustively to ascertain the minimum amount on which an employee can live. At the same time employers are totally exempt from examination of a similar character. We do not know whether they live on .turkeys and truffles, or whether they give 50 guineas for dresses or cloaks. No evidence is taken to show what dividends they draw, what incomes they enjoy, or what they spend on pleasures or vices - there is nothing to show what it costs to maintain them in their positions. Until both sides are treated equally in this respect, until both are subjected to the same humiliation, I object to one class being signalled out in order to ascertain the minimum amount on which it can maintain sufficient energy to earn more dividends for the employers who are exempt from these humiliating investigations.

I want honorable senators opposite to know that we are not out as a class to beg concessions from the employers. We are out to get them. And if we cannot get them by one means we shall get them by any other means available. We are under no obligations to employers. Whenwe work for a man we give him considerably more than we get in return in the shape of wages. Otherwise he would not employ us. The dignity of the workers is as great as that of honorable senators opposite who, whether they are workers or not, in their official positions, have the powers of wealth, money, and influence behind them.

Senator Ogden:

– We are nearly all workers in this country.

Senator Thompson:

– It is merely a question of degree.

Senator RAE:

– It is a question of principle also. It may be hard work to sign cheques. The criterion is whether one is doing useful work - whether the work which is done is useful or serving a social purpose.

Senator Thompson:

– Is there no room for brains in directivity?

Senator RAE:

– Brains are certainly employed in directivity, and there are plenty of brains going to waste among the workers for lack of opportunity. I do not say that brains used in directivity should be disregarded, or should go unrewarded, but I say that there are many speculators and investors, and people who have been fortunate enough to have wealth given to them by wealthy relatives.

Senator Thompson:

– There are very few of them.

Senator RAE:

– There are quite enough of them to have a share in the shaping of the destinies of those who are economically beneath them. It is influence and not numbers that counts.

Considerable criticism has been levelled against the Government in regard to certain matters that have arisen out of the recent election campaign, and one is the case of John Brown. The Government has been twitted with having withdrawn the prosecution against him. But honorable senators opposite have missed the point of our objection to the action of the previous Government in regard to the John Brown case. The BrucePage Government prosecuted the timber workers and fined them as heavily as the law allowed, and it prosecuted Holloway who stood behind the timber workers.

Senator Foll:

– But it did not collect the fine, because it might have been a hardship to Holloway.

Senator RAE:

– It would have meant no hardship to him, because others would have clubbed to pay the fine.

Senator Foll:

– He would probably have preferred to suffer imprisonment.

Senator RAE:

– The honorable senator’s interjections are assisting me. They show that the Government was bad in its intentions but lacked the courage to carry them out. If the fine was a legitimate one it should have been collected. If it was not legitimate it should never have been imposed.

Senator Carroll:

– The Government did not fine him.

Senator RAE:

– Of what use is it to quibble about the matter? It was the Government’s instrument that imposed the fine. If the Government had not taken action in the first place the fine would not have been imposed.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable senator must know that it is out of order to comment on judges.

Senator RAE:

– I am sorry that that is so. That is another fault that I have to find with the existing order of things. The gentleman, who is a barrister and is the servant of any one who will give him the biggest fee to argue that black is white, becomes sacrosanct, the mirror of impartiality, never does anything crook, and is quite incapable of taking sides or showing bias as soon as he is put en the bench. It is most regrettable that we cannot criticize judges. I remember hearing a judge hurling an offensive epithet at a witness the moment he was sworn in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. When two men were tried for an offence connected with the Broken Hill strike one man was acquitted by a jury and the other a day or two later convicted by another jury. The same judge went out of his way to say that the man who had escaped should have been found guilty. I know that many judges make remarks quite unworthy of the positions they hold, and, consequently, I say that no worthy judge need fear criticism, and one who is not worthy deserves it. It is not for me to lay down any strict law saying “ This is good and this is bad,” but I maintain that if a judge, by his general conduct, merits the support, approval and veneration of the community, he will get it and if occasionally some individual in the community abuses his position, no matter how objectionable the abuse may be, it is better that he should be allowed to go free than that judges should be placed on a pedestal of sanctity and all criticism of them forbidden.

But I wish to revert to the John Brown case. What We objected to was that while unionists who committed breaches of the law were fined and promptly dealt with - whoever the judges were it was certainly the Government that instituted the prosecutions - while the transport workers were dealtwith at very short notice and given no time to retrace their steps, the BrucePage Government withdrew its proceedings against John Brown, although longdrawn out and exhaustive inquiries had ascertained that there was a prima facie case against him and a summons had been issued. There may not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, but there is certainly one rule for administering the law in the case of the rich and another for administering it in the case of the poor. The Labour party does not believe in the penal provisions of the Arbitration Act. It has no desire to prosecute either John Brown or the timber workers. Its decision in the John Brown case is therefore not inconsistent with its policy. There is, however, another point. The proper time to proceed against John Brown was immediately the offence had been com mitted. If the psychological moment is allowed to slip by it is a mistake to launch a prosecution at a later date.

Senator Foll:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of removing the penal provisions from the Arbitration Act?

Senator RAE:

– Yes.

Senator Foll:

– I shall support the Government if it brings down a proposal on those lines.

Senator RAE:

– I hope that it will do so.

It was almost a crime for the BrucePage Government not to take the steps which the present Government has taken to stop immigrationwhen we had thousands of people unemployed in Australia. It is not a question of whether our immigrants are Southern Europeans or Britishers. While we leave our doors open to those who like to come here voluntarily, with certain necessary restrictions, of course, we should do nothing to encourage, still less to spend our own scanty income in assisting, people to come here when we have no means of absorbing them. Honorable senators opposite admit that there are many unemployed in Australia. No one can deny that there are tens of thousands of them. The old story that every fresh migrant makes more work for the people already here if carried to its logical conclusion would mean that the most thickly populated country would be the safest to receive immigrants; that England and Belgium should be better off than Australia, and that China and India should be rolling in luxury and affluence. As a matter of fact the whole question is whether immigrants can be absorbed. If they can be absorbed in the industries of a country without displacing others they add to the national wealth. If they cannot be so absorbed they simply add to the national poverty and to the national disgrace that people cannot obtain means of livelihood in a country with the vast potentialities that Australia possesses. There can be no greater indictment of the absolute failure of the presentday system than the fact that unemployment is rampant in all countries.

Senator Thompson:

– Not excluding Russia.

Senator RAE:

– Russia offers no objection to recording the number of those who are out of work. The Soviet Government points out that as the cities grow, absorbing a greater number of workers, who live under better conditions than the rural population, there is a tendency on the part of the peasantry to flock into the cities. But before they can be absorbed in employment provision must be made for them. In a country where great changes have taken place it would be impossible even under the most ideal conditions to bring every one into employment immediately. Although Russia withdrew from the war before its termination it lost more of its citizens than any of the other combatant nations, and subsequently it endured three or four years of what could scarcely be called civil war, because it was instigated and assisted by every one of the great powers. The Home Secretary in the Lloyd George Government stated in the House of Commons in reply to a question, that Great Britain had spent, in munitions and actual cash advances, over £100,000,000 to assist the counter revolution in Russia to break down the Bolshevik régime - to defeat a government with which Great Britain was not officially at war. Troops were also sent from the United States of America, Japan, Germany, France and Italy.

Senator Barnes:

– And British warships took part in the campaign.

Senator RAE:

– That is so. British warships bombarded Archangel. Furthermore, Great Britain and the other nations subsidized Kolchak, Wrangel, Denikin, and every Russian leader that revolted against the Soviet regime. But in spite of the forces arrayed against it the Red Army in Russia eventually crushed the counter revolutionary movement. These protracted struggles caused the destruction of an immense area of cultivated land, as well as thousands of miles of railway line. Thousands of bridges were blown up and millions of railway sleepers were piled in heaps and burnt, and the blockade rendered it impossible to get even medical requirements into the wartorn districts for the use of the wounded and sick in the hospitals. Notwithstanding all these attacks, backed up by the combined powers of the so-called civilized nations, the Soviet system of government survives, and instead of having the poverty, misery and degradation which characterized the centuries of Czarist despotism, Russia is gradually emerging from her troubles and re-building her industries. In many respects she has reached a stage of production greater than that prior to the war. All this goes to prove that there is something to be said for the other side, despite the attacks on the Soviet system by those who are continually deriding the leaders of Russia to-day.

Senator Thompson:

– But what a sea of bloodshed the Soviet regime waded through to reach its present position.

Senator RAE:

– What happened in that regard during the revolution is not to be compared with what occurred under Czarist regime.

Senator Foll:

– What prospect has Great Britain of getting back the money which she lent to Russia?

Senator RAE:

– I hope none, because that money was loaned for the purpose of keeping Russia in servitude. The leaders of the Russian revolution made no secret of the fact that if they got on top they would repudiate all debts contracted for the purpose of reducing them to abject slavery. And I say now - “ More power to them if they can get through with it.”

I turn now to the Government’s migration policy. Why should we invite other people to come here and share the starvation which our unemployed are facing? Why should we induce people living in other countries to break up their homes, sever all their associations and family ties to come to Australia only to be thrown on the scrap heap when they get here or else filch a job from some one else who has to be displaced in their favour? There could be no greater tragedy than that. Surely no one suggests that any person would leave his own country and come to Australia merely for the pleasure of travelling.

Senator Dunn:

– Or come here to be used as pawns in industrial disputes.

Senator RAE:

– In the majority of cases, a man leaves his own country only when the industrial conditions there are intolerable, or nearly so. Consequently, if a man breaks up his home and severs all his associations to come to Australia, this country should be in a position to absorb him in industry. If it is not able to absorb him, those who induce him to come here are committing a crime against him. I have seen copies of glowing advertisements published in the English newspapers, apparently at the instigation, or, at all events, with the connivance of, the Commonwealth Government, through its representatives at Australia House, setting out the wonderful opportunities for people who come to Australia, telling them there is work to be had at high wages, or land to be obtained on easy terms. We know, of course, that all these statements are absolutely false.

So far as Southern Europeans are concerned, the only objection I have to them is that, being ignorant of our language and accustomed to conditions worse than our own, they can be used themore readily to break down our standards of living. It is for that reason that I consider it dangerous for this, or any other, country to have too great a proportion of foreigners in times of acute industrial depression. It is a fact that they are being used to break down our industrial conditions. It is alleged, in some instances, that if they are in work, they are getting the award rates of wages. We have ample proof to the contrary, but, unfortunately, the evidence would not be accepted in a court of law. In many instances these foreigners are alleged to be working at award rates, but actually they are sharing a contract with one of their own countrymen, and not getting standard wages. These things are being done, even by some of our own people. They are supposed to be getting a certain wage, but they have to allow the boss a rebate, so that actually they are not in receipt of the award rate. If this can be done with our own people, how much more easily may it be done in the case of foreigners, who are unable to speak the English language? Unless we can first make provision for the employment of migrants, without displacing our own people, it is criminal on our part to induce them to come to Australia. I hope, therefore, that steps will be taken to prevent any assisted migration until the whole of our own unemployed are absorbed, and that is not likely for some considerable time.

One of the chief reasons for the unemployment that exists to-day is the growth of mechanical inventions. The world is becoming so mechanized that if one half of the adult workers were tipped into the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, the industries of the world could be still carried on by those that were left.

Senator Thompson:

– Does not the honorable senator think that increased production is the remedy for unemployment?

Senator RAE:

– I do not. Increased production will merely mean a still further glut in the world’s markets, unless it is possible to increase the purchasing power of the people. This cry about increased production is obviously a fallacy. I advise honorable senators to consider the position in Great Britain at the time of the great coal strike. Exactly the same condition of affairs exists in Australia to-day, fuel, oil, and the development of hydro-electric schemes have lessened the demand for coal for industrial purposes. The depression in the coal industry in Great Britain was partly due to the poverty of the nations, consequent on the war, resulting in a decreased demand for British coal. It was further stated that the trouble could be cured by increasing production. This meant longer hours of work; but, instead of curing the evil, the methods adopted intensified it. As we know, the British Government abolished the sevenhour day and substituted a working day of eight hours. At the same time a drastic cut was made in the wages of the miners. What has been the result? There has been more unemployment in the coal-mining industry in Great Britain since then, and those who are in employment are living under wretched social conditions.

SenatorFoll. - Was not some of the trouble due to the increased output from the Ruhr coal mines?

Senator RAE:

– If there had been no war the Ruhr mines would still have been producing. Under the reparations scheme, coal was sent to Prance in excess of her needs, and some of it was shipped to Great Britain. Consequently, while British miners had to submit to a reduction in wages, the mine-owners were able to pay dividends by the importation of reparation coal. The miner depended solely upon his wage-earning capacity; but the owners had at their command profits earned in more lucrative times and invested in other industrial concerns, including shipping, which enabled them to live while the miners were starving. All these facts go to show the utter inability of the present system to cope with the demands of modern civilization to remedy the state of anarchy which prevails and make it possible for the great bulk of the people to live decent lives. This continuous struggle between the fortunate possessors of the most modern methods of production and those who depend on employers for the right to work and” live is the class struggle, about which we hear so much.

I have heard people talk about the class war as if the term were invented by trades hall agitators whose one desire is to ensure their own livelihood. The class struggle is as old as humanity itself; but it has been intensified in modern times because of the enormous increase in production and the remarkable disparity between those who own and those who do not. This class struggle is going on, and will continue until the working class subdues the other class ; until we reach that stage in our social evolution mentioned by Senator Colebatch, when he who does not work neither shall he eat; when there shall be no wealthy investors, and no John Browns who can indulge in the maintenance of expensive horse-racing establishments while their employees starve. The working-class movement will continue to organize and solidify its ranks, till it has the power and the strength to overthrow the existing conditions.

Senator Thompson:

– When that is done the only change will be that the other fellow will be on top.

Senator RAE:

– And I will be one .of the “ other fellows.” It is time I had my innings. It is said of Mark Twain that, when asked if ho believed in an equal division of the good things of the world, he said “ Not as a general practice, but I would not mind trying it once.” All this talk about the objective of the socialists being an equal division of the world’s wealth has no foundation. I have never yet heard a socialist seriously make such a proposal as that. It is simply a figment of. the imagination of those who desire to cast ridicule upon the movement. A better organization under a saner system of society is urgently needed to replace the present condition of chaos and barbarism, which is the worst the world has experienced for the last 2,000 years. Other systems of reform are merely palliatives. We shall have to get down to fundamentals and make both land and machinery the property of the whole of the people.

That brings me to the consideration of a subject which our opponents wrongly describe as socialism - the undertaking of enterprises by the State. Senator Poll said that State enterprises are never successful, but always result in losses. I could name several shining successes of Government enterprises in Now South Wales, and could support my claim by official figures which honorable senators opposite would not dispute.

Senator Thompson:

– Some State enterprises in Queensland have not been successes.

Senator RAE:

– I do not say that they have all been successes. A great deal depends on their management. The great irrigation works at Yanco, for instance, has resulted in the loss of large sums of money. But take the case of the State brick works in New South Wales. Prior to their establishment there was a brick combine. If a builder ordered a quantity of bricks from one man the order was sent on to the secretary of the combine, and if, after consulting his records, he found that that particular brickmaker had already supplied his quota, the order was passed on to another manufacturer. That was done openly in New South Wales. Prices were raised tremendously. The establishment of the State brick works resulted in the price of bricks being reduced. Those works supplied for governmental works millions of bricks which otherwise would have been bought from the combine at greatly inflated prices. The State brick works have paid since their establishment. Again, the State Monier pipe works have not only paid their way; they have also repaid the whole of the capital invested in them. They are still paying dividends. The Walsh Island engineering shops have also been a paying proposition.

Senator Thompson:

– Walsh Island has paid only since the introduction of piecework.

Senator RAE:

– That is not the point under discussion.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– They have paid because they have had a customer, and have not had to seek for orders.

Senator RAE:

– That is not so. A great deal of publicity is given to the failure of State enterprises, but we hear nothing of the failure of private enterprises.

Senator Carroll:

– They deal with their own money.

Senator RAE:

– -Not always, for sometimes they squander the money of investors. When honorable senators opposite talk about the injury done to our credit in Britain . by the despatch of a certain cable to the Home authorities I am reminded that “ wild cat “ schemes in Australia, in which British investors have lost their money, have done Australian credit infinitely more harm. I instance the Commonwealth Oil Corporation which started the Newnes shale works, in which money was squandered wholesale. A man who occupied a deputy-managerial position there told me that young fellows who were relatives of some of the big shareholders, came out from Great Britain to fill “ cushy “ jobs, although they did not know the difference between shale and blue metal. They were a parasitical drag on the whole concern. In another town a copper mine was started and a huge chimney stack was erected in the wrong place, and had to be re-erected elsewhere. After a huge dam had been excavated in another case, it was found that it was on a higher level than the creek which was to supply it with water. Private enterprise which had sunk the dam was unable to induce the water to run up hill, and, therefore, the dam remained empty. Numerous instances of that nature can be seen throughout the country, but they do not receive the same publicity that is given to failures in State enterprises.

Senator Ogden:

– The investors belonged to the moneyed class, so it does not matter !

Senator RAE:

– I hold that it is better to spend money wisely than unwisely, for money spent unwisely is a dead loss, whether spent by a government or a private concern. The existence of a number of State enterprises does not necessarily constitute socialism. The socialising of a few industries while others are left in the hands of private enterprise is not socialism. Under a proper system of socialism the common needs of the people are collectively controlled. The starting of one enterprise of a so-called socialisticcharacter in a capitalistic world is not the way to prove its success or otherwise.

The time is ripe for drastic alterations to our Constitution. I object to handing over control of arbitration to the States because it would mean not one system but half a dozen different systems. The time is ripe for an increase and not a decrease of the powers of the Commonwealth. Industry is so widespread and so interlocked, not only between State and State, but also between country and country, that the sooner it can be placed under one authority the better. There should be another democratically elected convention to revise the Federal Constitution. The recommendations of the convention would, of course, have to be submitted to the electors for their approval or otherwise. That would ensure a proper security, while providing that elasticity which is necessary to meet changing conditions. In the United States of America there is, in. addition to the Federal Constitution, a constitution for each of the several States. Some of them were granted in the days of English monarchs, when those States were British colonies; but after the War of Independence they were revised. A number of those State constitutions provide for their own periodical revision by an elected convention which may make whatever amendments are deemed wise. A similar provision in our constitution would be a great advance on the present hide-bound constitution under which we live.

Senator Thompson:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the Canadian system is better than ours, or even that of the United States of America ?

Senator RAE:

– Yes; but we may learn something from the constitutions of other countries. As a member of the State

Parliament of New SouthWales over 30 years ago, I was a critic of the Federal Constitution when an enabling bill was introduced into the State Parliament by Sir Henry Parkes. I then condemned the more or less unnatural and hybrid form of the Constitution which embodies some portions of the Constitution of the United States of America with a number of British principles, without blending them. I am still of that opinion. The recent decision that the British dominions are practically independent nations is an additional reason for the revision of our Constitution. We should know exactly where we stand in relation to the other dominions and the centre of the Empire. It would have been well had the British Parliament passed a short act declaring that the selfgoverning dominions were independent. There could have been an agreement for the settlement by arbitration of any disputes that might arise. Those who believe that the British Empire is different from other empires, and will survive where they have crashed, are hugging a delusion. There cannot be a political or economic union, of widely scattered countries where there is no physical union. The differences which exist between the component parts of the British Empire are already revealing themselves. Our recent decision to prohibit the exportation of stud sheep was directed chiefly against another part of the Empire having the same rights and privileges as we have, and a similar constitution to our own. That embargo was directed chiefly against South Africa, because it was felt that that country was a potential rival to Australia in the wool industry. For the same reason the Government of South Africa some time ago refused to allow ostrich eggs to be exported to Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– The recent tariff schedule is a further blow at the Old Country.

Senator RAE:

– Duties on goods manufactured in Britain have been in existence for many years. In the nature of things we must have such duties. Our first concern must be for ourselves; the effect of our action upon other people must take second place. That every country seems to be trying to retain its wealth by excluding the products of other coun tries is evidence of the mess into which the capitalistic system has brought us. (Extension of time granted.]

In the limited time now at my disposal I wish to deal with a subject of great importance, and one which has been discussed at length during the debate - I refer to compulsory military training. Quotations from utterances made by me and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) in support of compulsory military training have been made. I am not going to dispute the accuracy of those statements; but they were made a long while ago.

Senator Ogden:

– In 1918.

Senator RAE:

– Yes, eleven years ago. Even if they were uttered only yesterday there is no disgrace in changing one’s opinions. Many of us once had the idea that the compulsory military training of all citizens would lead to that equality of service which some claim for the system, and would make all citizens subject to the same discipline. We also thought it would prevent the growth of the military system by dispensing with the necessity for a standing army; we accepted it as the lesser evil. My experience, however, has been that it has not had a good moral effect. While I believe in discipline, I contend that self discipline is the only true discipline. As a result of experience I have found that the evils associated with a system of compulsory military training are a hundredfold greater than the benefits attaching to it. During the war three of my sons were in the training camp at Liverpool. Two were there for a period of three months, and later another went into camp and did not have an opportunity of getting away for nine months. The first two who were in camp told me that it was impossible to leave anything of the slightest value lying about without it being stolen, and that even a used tooth brush would be taken.

Senator Foll:

– That was carrying socialism too far.

Senator RAE:

– The honorable senator can supply his own definitions of socialism.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The incident to which the honorable senator refers was not under a system of compulsory military training.

Senator RAE:

– Itwas a concomitant of it. Every one told me that it was exceedingly difficult for any trainee to retain his personal possessions.

Senator Sampson:

– They were volunteers.

Senator RAE:

– I am speaking of the effect of compulsory camp life upon our young men. Further, instead of the officers trying to wipe out thieving, they encouraged it.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– They should be ashamed of themselves if they did so.

Senator Thompson:

– I do not think they would do it.

Senator RAE:

– In one case my son’s bedding was taken away, and when he informed his officer he replied, “ You go and pinch some one else’s.” I have been told of similar statements having been made by other officers. Under the compulsory military system there is no equality in the matter of training. Boys attending the Sydney Grammar School, and other such educational institutions, are drilled during school hours, while the sons of working men have to lose their Saturday half-holiday in order to undertake their training. Those who belong to the well-to-do class, those who were attending the higher-grade schools, were trained in what was virtually their school time, and, therefore, did not lose any recreation. They were entirely distinct from the common herd.

Senator Thompson:

-When they left school they were trained under the same conditions.

Senator RAE:

– Many of them do not finish their education until they are men.

Sir William Glasgow:

– I do not think there are many who remain at school until eighteen.

Senator RAE:

– What is a hardship to one is a change to the other.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– I do not think the honorable senator is right.

Senator RAE:

– I have seen it myself. They are trained from fourteen to eighteen.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Boys do not enter the citizen forces until they are eighteen.

Senator RAE:

– But they join the cadets at fourteen, and undergo military training. When I supported the Fisher

Government, I endeavoured to have it made compulsory for politicians to undergo compulsory training; but, unfortunately, they, like parsons and priests, were specially exempt. They should be in the front ranks.

Senator Sampson:

– Politicians who make wars should be compelled to participate in them.

Senator RAE:

– Yes, every time. When I urged that politicians should be subject to the same conditions as other citizens, the Government said it might be a disadvantage for the Parliament to be emptied of its valuable members.

I wish now to refer to some of the incidents associated with the early training of compulsory trainees. I mention, as an instance, the case of Harry Flintoff who was imprisoned for his refusal to train. According to an anti-conscription publication, I find that -

Harry Flintoff did not drill or perform any alternative service during his first imprisonment. To some persons, his refusal to accept non-combatant duties may appear to be unreasonable. We ask such critics this question : “ If you were holding the coats of two men fighting, would you not feel that you were aiding and abetting the fight?” And. again, “ If either pugilist killed the others would you not, in part, be responsible for his death?”

The whole question of non-combatant duties has been disposed of in a few sentences by Ley ton Richards, M.A., in a fine sermon delivered to his (then) congregation in the Collins-street Independent Church, Melbourne. He said : -

Do the framers of the act imagine for one moment that they can hoodwink conscientious men and women by a verbal distinction between combatant and non-combatant? An army is an engine of combat in all its branches. It is not against the mere firing of a rifle that conscience rebels; it is against the whole spirit and purpose of combat for which the military machine is called into being.

There were conscientious objectors, such as quakers and others, who were instructed to refuse to train, and the question arose whether they should obey the military power or their parents. The value of parental control was thrown to the winds and the military control became the deciding factor.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Conscientious objectors were always allowed to join non-combatant units.

Senator RAE:

– There is no vital distinction between a combatant and a noncombatant unit.

Senator Sampson:

– Is there not? I should like to have my choice in the matter of service.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I ask honorable senators to extend to Senator Rae that courtesy to which he is entitled, and to refrain from interjecting.

Senator RAE:

– There is no difference in principle. A non-combatant is aiding war-like activities. There were numerous cases similar to that which I have quoted, and frequently I had occasion to take exception to the treatment meted out to trainees. The publication to which I have referred reports the case of Thomas Roberts with which I was personally acquainted, in this way-

Great relief and not a little jubilation must have been felt by the military officers and heads of the Defence Department when Harry Flintoff’s resistance was broken. One can imagine the “strong men” amongst them rubbing their hands - or more likely, tapping their canes against their leggings - and saying, “We told you so.” Only a little firmness is necessary, all this foolishness will stop.

In this jubilant spirit, and flushed with success, the Queenscliff officers, during the early days of June, 1914, took in hand the Quaker lad Tom Roberts, aged 16, for his first term of imprisonment of 21 days. Although no worse than that of several others - Flintoff, Size, Yeo, and Giles - the treatment of this boy was destined to give full publicity to the shameful happenings taking place under the name of military discipline in the military prisons. His affair, coming so soon after and so much resembling Flintoff’s, could not he ignored, even by parliamentarians determined to whitewash conscription.

Here, again, we prefer to let the lad’s case be told rather than tell it. So the next paragraphs arc just a cutting from the Federal Hansard of 18th June, 1914. Mr. Higgs is speaking. He says -

Only to-day I received the following letter : - 125 New-street, Middle Brighton, 19th June, 1914.

Dear Sir,

Finding I am unable to obtain justice from the Defence Department, I write earnestly appealing to youto kindly use your influence in connexion with the unjust treatment of our lad, who, through loyalty to his parents’ views of Christian teaching, is undergoing solitary confinement in the cells at Queenscliff fortress.

Tom is a lad of16, and was sent to Queenscliff on Wednesday last for 21 days, for refusing to train under the Defence Act. My wife and I are members of the Society of Friends, and hold strong views on the matter of militarism, which is a vital one in the religion of the Quakers, and, however you may differ from me on this point, I am quite sure, as a man, you will agree that this is not the treatment for a boy of 10, even if he had committed a crime.

For continuing in his refusal the boy was placed in a cell next the guard-room on Thursday night, where he was confined until 11 o’clock on Saturday morning, and then courtmartialled. The military court then order him to be placed in the cell for seven days. He is locked in a cell 10 feet by 10 feet, built of wood, with an iron door. It has no window, the light coming in through a grating. He has a wooden stretcher; the mattress and blankets are taken away in the morning and not brought back till dark. He has half an hour’s exercise in the morning, and again in the afternoon. He is on half diet; has not been allowed to read, nor to write to his parents.

We were quite unaware of this treatment of him until we visited Queenscliff on Monday, when we found him looking worse than when seen five days previously. This we attributed to the mental strain of solitary commen t, a recent illness of a month in bed, and to the reduced diet - after lunch on Satin day he received only bread and water until breakfast on Sunday.

The civil court ordered the boy into military custody, but surely it is going beyond the intentions of the citizen army for a court-martial to be allowed to step in after a case has been dealt with by the civil court. Furthermore, solitary confinement should never be ordered. The question may well be asked: Is this a citizen army, controlled by Parliament, or a military army, controlled by the Military Board? A Melbourne lawyer states that solitary confinement is considered inhuman, and only used in the case of refractory criminals of the worst type.

My wife and I earnestly appeal for your influence in this distressing matter. . . .

Yours very sincerely, (Sgd.) F. J. Roberts.

That letter only reached me to-day( continued Mr. Higgs). I understand that the boy has now been taken out of solitary confinement. All authorities are opposed to solitary confinement as a punishment, even for prisoners who have committed crimes like theft. Imagine a boy being placed in a room by himself, and kept there day and night, without being allowed to read or write, for a period of a week.

Mr. Bamford. ; It is scandalous.

Mr. HIGGS. ; It is scandalous. I do not think that any member of either House would say that a cadet refusing to drill should be punished with solitary confinement. It would have been better to compel this lad to read than to prevent him from reading. Authorities in various parts of the world are challenging the wisdom of imprisoning as a means of reforming the adult criminal, and surely it is, to say the least, an abnormality to put into solitary confinement boys who, under the direction of their parents, refuse to drill.

Previous to this, on being informed of the sufferings of young Roberts, I had asked the then Minister for Defence a series of searching questions. Senator E. D. Millen’s replies indicated delays, but I was insistent -

Senator RAE:

-I would press the Minister for a reply to the substantial part of my question. Ishe prepared to release the lad or order his release from solitary confinement, and prevent that barbarous punishment from being again inflicted upon offenders?

Senator Millen:

– Certainly not, upon the information that I have now to hand.

Senator RAE:

– We will upset your military system if you do not. The practice is barbarous, atrocious, scandalous. - Hansard,11th June, 1914 (page 1924).

On the following day I again opened fire -

Senator RAE:

– Has the Minister for Defence any information to give the Senate, in pursuance of the promise he made yesterday to communicate first, thing this morning by telegraph, with regard to the detention of Cadet Roberts in solitary confinement, and my statement that he was committed by a court-martial subsequent to civil proceedings.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have caused inquiries to be made, and am informed that there was no court-martial.

Senator Guthrie:

– What was it?

Senator MILLEN:

– The action of the Commandant there was responsible for what had taken place.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was that legal?

Senator MILLEN:

– It has been the law ever since the Defence Act has been in force.

Senator Guthrie:

– Can an officer put a man in prison?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is the procedure that exists all over Australia to-day, and has existed for some time. I am not saying whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. - Hansard, 11th June, 1914 (p. 1991).

TomRoberts served his full week in the solitary cell. It was a windowl ess dungeon, badly ventilated. His father furnished the following statement, which he was prepared to put in the form of a statutory declaration, if necessary: -

Three military officers adjudicated at my son’s case, at a table in a room in the Queenscliff fortress, on Saturday morning, 6th June. Three military witnesses were called, and altogether there were seven persons present - six military officers and my son. A statement of the charge was made, and witnesses were called to give evidence, and then the sentence of seven days’ solitary confinement was ordered.

The door was looked for five days, and not until Senator Rae had brought the matter before the Senate was the chain used to keep the door ajar.

My wife and I visited Queenscliff on the Monday. The boy had had half an hour’s exercise in the morning, and again in the afternoon of the preceding day. This was subsequently increased to an hour, morning and afternoon. Also, after we visited him the letters he had written to us several days earlier were forwarded on.

There is a good deal more, which I shall not read. That is only one of many cases. The argument that compulsory training provides valuable discipline is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong.When my sons were under military training, before they went to the barracks, they were taught bayonet exercises in which the dummy of a man was placed before them, and they were shown how to inflict fatal injuries. They were taught to do everything in an endeavour effectively to slaughter a man.

Senator Thompson:

– Otherwise they would be slaughtered by their opponent.

SenatorRAE. - The system that teaches men to slaughter each other is a damnable one; to call that “discipline” is to misuse the English language. It is a damnable thing that men should be taught scientifically to murder each other.

Senator Thompson:

– Then the honorable senator must eliminate war.

Senator RAE:

– If there is one thing more than another that produces war, it is preparedness for it. A nation cannot make what the military authorities believe to be adequate preparations for war without imbuing in the trainees a desire to try their hand at that work. The doctrine of preparedness for war as a remedy for peace is a doctrine of hell, and should be consigned there. It is totally opposed to all human experience. I hope that the self -gover nin g dominions of the Empire will become imbued with a self-respect that will induce them to inform the sovereign power, Great Britain, if she ever seeks to call them into another world war, that they will not humbly and dumbly follow her if there is any possibility for them to remain neutral. That would be a greater evidence of our wisdom and morality than to rush eagerly into warfare to glorify a great Empire.

I think that the military razor gangs of the world have inflicted enough harm on the community, and that we should take steps to institute amicable relations between all countries. Instead of indulging that national egotism which boasts about its own virtues we should be prepared to meet other nations face to face in a friendly manner, and assume a decent responsibility. So long as the capitalistic system exists the League of Nations, the Kellogg and Locarno Pacts, can do nothing to prevent war. The League of Nations is the great illusion of the present age; it is a league that will precipitate the world into war. It is composed of all the victors of the Great War, the rabble from the Versailles Conference.

SenatorCarroll. - It also includes the vanquished.

Senator RAE:

– Who were induced to join it. The small nations have only a shadow of power. The few great nations of Europe run the League of Nations. Furthermore, the small nations, oppressed by the larger nations, have no remedy when aggrieved. I cite the example of the Italian attack upon the Greeks on the Island of Corfu. Innocent women and children, the occupants of a convent, were killed and, when the case was brought before the League of Nations, that body fined the Greeks, apparently because some of their people were killed!

Senator Thompson:

– That is an ex parte statement. The honorable senator is giving only one side.

Senator RAE:

– I am repeating statements made in the daily press. Certain Italians, allegedly making explorations in Albania, came into’ conflict with some Greeks, and were killed. On the strength of mere allegations, and without investigation, the Italian Government, under Mussolini, sent armed ships to the island of Corfu and blew up a number of the residents, including a number of children, under the care of a convent. The League of Nations then adjudicated in the matter, and fined the Greeks for having allegedly allowed some of their subjects to commit murder. Italy collected the fine.

Senator Thompson:

– Is the honorable senator setting himself above that high tribunal ?

Senator RAE:

– I do not admit that to be a high tribunal. In the circumstances, I say that it is a dastardly tribunal. I believe that the League of Nations is injurious, inasmuch as it misleads people to believe that its existence is a guarantee of peace. The most conservative individual must admit that the last war was, in its final analysis, the result of commercial friction between the greater powers of Europe. The cause of the conflict was an avariciousness to control the world’s markets, and the position is more intensified now than it ever was. With every new country that comes into the manufacturing arena, and begins to manufacture where it used to import, the position becomes more acute, and finally will cause conflicts which must lead to war. For that reason, we should endeavour to organize the workers of the world to fraternize one with the other, and to determine to resist the machinations of the capitalistic system, which has brought about the world’s suffering and degradation.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

– I did not anticipate having to reply when I moved the AddressinReply in this chamber. But certain honorable senators opposite have deliberately misunderstood the position, or have failed thoroughly to grasp what I intended to convey when I referred to political trickery. It was my intention to make it apparent that, at the last election, the people had before them a clear-cut issue, devoid of all the misleading side-tracks that have been associated with federal elections for so many years. Time after time the Labour party has been accused of fraternizing with bolsheviks and communists; red herrings of all descriptions have been drawn across the trail.

This party was accused of aiding and abetting in the strikes that so frequently occurred just prior to the holding of general elections. It was unfortunate for Labour that those troubles took place at such a time; but it was still more unfortunate that it should be accused of aiding and abetting them. The people of Australia were tricked by the Bruce-Page Government when it declared that it would deport Walsh and Johnson if returned to power.

I also referred in my speech to the Bruce-Page Government having endeavoured to put back the clock 25 years. My reference was to its endeavour to abolish Federal arbitration. There is no question that had the Federal Government been returned to power, State arbitration would also have been abolished.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The honorable senator knows very well that the Federal Government could not abolish State arbitration.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I know that it was definitely agreed that it should be abolished if the Nationalist party got back to power.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– I give that an emphatic denial.

Senator DOOLEY:

– What proof have I of that? We know that honorable senators opposite stand for decreased wages and increased hours of labour.

Senator Thompson:

– No, only for” greater production.

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Ogden stated that the miners were too lazy to work.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator knows that the miners employed the darg from time to time.

Senator DOOLEY:

– There is no question in the minds of the people that the object of the Bruce-Page Government was to assist employers to lower the standard of the workers. Although I was not a candidate, I spoke in support of many members who are now representing the Labour party in another place. I pointed out that I was satisfied from the utterances of Nationalists that they could see no way out of the difficulty, but to reduce the cost, and to increase the hours of labour. By that they claimed that they would increase employment.

Senator Cooper:

– It was our desire only to increase efficiency methods.

Senator DOOLEY:

- Senator Sir Hal Colebatch has recently written a number of articles in the Melbourne Argus, and on Wednesday last one of those articles appeared, headed “ The Economic Muddle.” Although the hour is late, I shall read an extract or two from it, to show that the policy of reduced wages is endorsed by all honorable senators opposite. He writes -

The One Known Remedy.

I have said that from the suggested competition for a cure for unemployment, the one known remedy must necessarily be excluded. Mr. Thomas knows from experience what that remedy is. It was his sound appreciation of the economics of the position that led him to induce the railway employees of Great Britain to accept reduced wages as an alternative to unemployment. Reduced working hours mean only reduced production, reduced spending power, reduced prosperity, and increased unemployment.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Is that not quite true ?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The honorable senator’s argument from his point of view is all right. Further on in his article he writes : -

Let those who know a better method put it forward - but in the name of national sanity let us abandon palliatives like working short time, paying doles to the workless, spending money on profitless relief works and bonuses to unpayable industries.

It is really necessary to go through the whole of the article to convey the meaning intended, but the fact remains that the honorable senator’s idea is that there is only one way out of our present difficulty. With others he recognizes that Australia is hard pressed. The Government also recognizes it and is doing its best to meet the situation, but the only suggestion advanced by the Nationalists is that a greater sacrifice should be demanded from the wage-earner. Senator Ogden has inferred that because the coal.miners and other workers are not prepared to accept a reduced wage or work longer hours and harder, they are necessarily lazy. Senator Reid has laid stress on the fact that the use of concrete and steel in building construction in the cities has displaced a number of carpenters. Industrial strife cannot be blamed for that state of affairs. A considerable amount of labour is thrown out of employment by the use of mechanical contrivances, which we all realize must largely take the place of the human machine. We have had instance after instance of men engaged in railway construction work being displaced by the use of mechanical navvies. But it is useless to say to the men so displaced that they should work longer hours or harder, or work for a reducedwage. The fact remains that they have no work to do, and as the machinery which displaces them is probably made overseas, Australia is thus losing, in the matter of employment, at both ends. If we have twenty menworking eight hours a day and find that we can dispense with ten of them by the use of machinery, the only logical conclusion is that if twenty men are to be kept in employment,- we must dispense with the machinery or call upon the men to work shorter hours, so that the work available may be distributed among all. It would be absurd to ask half of the number to work longer hours and harder in order that the other half might be kept at work. I am one of those who believe in the employment of machinery, but if it should not give a proper return, or if it should not prove of benefit to us, why cannot we follow the old method and keep our people employed on the old lines? The Labour party stands for improving the lot of the people.

The Nationalist Government was in power for nearly seven years, and although it was well aware that there were thousands of Australians out of employment, it made no endeavour to prevent others from coming to this country.

Senator Thompson:

– How can Australia compete with the world on the lines suggested by the honorable senator?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I heard Senator J. B. Hayes speak of the selling of apples. The trouble of the apple producer is that he is producing too many apples, and he has to ask the Government to help him to place them on the market and get him a price for his crop. If we are to. increase production generally, we are likely to strike the trouble of glutted markets.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Does not the honorable senator think that Australia can support more than 6,000,000 people ?

Senator DOOLEY:

– It appears that, at present, Australia cannot support 6,000,000 people. We have thousands of men out of work, and they cannot obtain work unless they take it at a starvation wage.

Senator Cooper:

– Has not the primary producer to accept a starvation wage if the worldwill not pay more for the produce he supplies?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The primary producer is in the same category as any other wage earner, except that he is the most poorly paid in the Commonwealth.

Senator Cooper:

– Then why does not the honorable senator do something for him?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The Government is doing whatever it can for him. We realize that he is in a most helpless position. Whereas the ordinary labourer, who works under an award of the Arbitration Court, has some idea of what he will get for his labour, the farmer has no idea of what he will get for his. He works long hours, and is certainly entitled to more than he gets, but he simply places his product on the market, asks the purchaser what he is prepared to give for it, and accepts the price offered. The trouble is that certain interests fix the prices of primary produce. The Government has at present no control over them, but it hopes in future to be in a position to exercise some control over the prices that will be obtained for primary produce.

Senator Thompson:

– It is a big order for the Labour party to attempt to control world’s parity.

Senator DOOLEY:

– No project is too big for us to tackle. Starvation is staring many of our people in the face. Every day additional men are being thrown out of employment, and we cannot stand idly by. It is useless to keep on harping about bolshevism and about the control of the Labour party being in the hands of reds and extremists. Such talk gets us nowhere. In any case, it is merely political trickery, such as enabled the late Government to maintain its hold on the Treasury benches for years. The people can no longer be deluded into the belief that the Labour party consists of a lot of revolutionary madmen. It is no recommendation for the late administration that the new Government should have come into office to find great armies of men. starving in Australia. I hope that by the time the present Government has been in office for seven years, something will have been accomplished to remove all this unemployment. I shall be very disappointed if such is not the case.

Senator Thompson:

– A Labour Government was iu power in Queensland for twelve years, yet there was unemployment there.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am surprised to hear honorable senators belittling their own State.

Senator Thompson:

– I am not belittling the State. I am talking of the government of the State.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I doubt if there has been any improvement in Queensland as the result of the change of government. I know that immediately the Nationalist party secured control in the State, it allowed the squatters to reduce wages by abolishing the rural workers’ award, and in !New South Wales there is no question about _ the Government’s intention to abolish the rural workers’ award, with the object of permitting bargaining to be resumed. That is to say, advantage is to be taken of the unfortunate position of the workers of Australia, who to-day are tramping the country in search of food. I have read articles in the press in which certain agents have stated that they can find employment for quite a number of people in country districts of New South Wales if the rural workers’ award is swept aside and the workers are allowed to accept work at a small wage. Twentyfive years ago, before arbitration laws were in operation, many men worked for low wages, and some for no return at all. It was not uncommon for men to work for a month or so for a road contractor, under the contract system - for which the Nationalist party stands to discover later that he had nothing with which to pay them, or that the cheques he gave would not be honoured by any one in a country town. Therefore a man working for such road contractors never had a remedy. That happened to me, so I can speak with some authority on the subject. In those days there was no arbitration court award and no eight-hours day. Employment was a matter of arrangement. A road contractor for whom I worked owed me money which I could not get. I .worked for fifteen days at the rate of 10s. a day, although at that time the ordinary pay was 8s. a day. One morning I discovered that overnight he had gone to the local storekeeper, who was really the contractor, and, having drawn the money owing to him, disappeared without paying me.

Senator Thompson. Such instances were rare.

Senator DOOLEY:

– It was a common experience for employees of road contractors in those days. If an employee asked how much he was going to get the contractor would say that he would see what the man was worth, and it was a common experience for a man after working for three or four weeks, to be paid only portion of the wages owing to him, and to have to wait till the end of the contract for . the balance due. To put an end to that state of affairs the working class organized themselves into unions and decided to support a government that pledged itself to bring in legislation for their protection. Arbitration was then instituted, and from that day onwards the worker knew what his hours of work would be and also how much he was entitled to get. Although conditions to-day are not what we should like them to be, they are infinitely better than the conditions that obtained 25 years ago. Employers are legally bound to honour awards and to give employees reasonable working conditions. Senator Foll commented upon the silence of honorable senators supporting the Government concerning the dispute in the coal-mining industry. No one knows better than honorable senators opposite what steps have been taken to reopen the mines in New South Wales. This Government has left no stone unturned to overcome the difficulty.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The honorable senator knows very well that the terms which have now been accepted by the leaders of the unions could have been secured while the previous Government was in office.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I have yet to learn that the mine-owners were prepared to compromise. I understood they were definitely pledged to stand to their original proposal that the minersshould suffer a reduction of1s. a ton or 12½ per cent. The terms of settlement are somewhat bettor than that. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to declare that the miners should have compromised at an earlier stage in the dispute. If they themselves were in the position of the miners they would be equally reluctant to accept auy reduction in wages or an increase in the hours of labour. We should endeavour to view all these disputes through the eyes of those most intimately concerned. I say, therefore, that the miners very properly held out for the terms which their leaders had laid down. I know what all these reductions in wages mean to the workers. No matter how economical a man may be, he never has anything to spare from one pay day to another, especially if he has a wife and family dependent upon him, and he would be a spineless creature if he were not prepared to put up a fight in their interests. I am sure that Senator Glasgow respects every man who has the spirit to stand up for what he believes to be his rights. Senator Foll, in his references to migration declared that the Labour party took the narrow view. Others share the view held by my party. I quote the following from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 10th January, 1929, dealing with the report of the British Economic Mission-

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator has exhausted the time allowed for his reply.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 575

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That the Address-in-Reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany him.

Senate adjourned at 10.56 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 December 1929, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1929/19291203_senate_12_122/>.