1932-02-19 13 1 1 SENATE 122 0 Senate. 1932-02-19 The President (Senator the Hon. "W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. 122 bill BM1 brought up by Senator MoLachlan, and read n first time. 122 bill Motion (by Senator McLachlan) agreed lo - That leave bc given to introduce u bill for hh set to amend Hie Brankruptey Aci 1324-IOKO. 122 Miscellaneous Address-In-Reply Debate resumed from the 18th February (vide page 73), on motion by Senator Duncan-Hughes - Th;it the following A Address-in-Reply be agreed to: - To His Excellency Hie Governor-General - Mav rr PLEASE Yourg Excellency : We, the Senate of thu Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our 'Most Gracious Sovereign, n.nd to thunk Your Excellency for the speech which von have been pleased to Address to Parliament. 122 K1Z New South Wales 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE . - When I obtained leave to continue my remarks last night, I was referring to the proposals made from time to time that New South Wales should discontinue to pay the present basie wage in force in that State, dispense with the shorter working week, and confer with the other States in arriving at a uniform policy with respect to these matters. I have no doubt that beneficial results would follow the adoption of a uniform basic wage and a uniform working week; but my contention is that the other States should bring their policies into lino with the policy of New South Wales. It is most undesirable that the other States should endeavour to interfere with the rates of pay and the hours of work maintained in New South Wales in the interests of the workers. To endeavour to effect a change by forcible and oppressive measures is not only undesirable, but iniquitous. Honorable senators must recollect that the proposal to balance budgets was originally brought forward under the Premiers plan, which was agreed to by the New South Wales Premier, Mr. Lang. It was then agreed that a percentage reduction in expenditure should be made, within certain limitations, but that each State should adopt whatever measures it thought fit to bring about the desired result. The methods by which economics were to be effected worn the concern of the States, and not of the Commonwealth, as a whole. Con.sistent with that policy, the Lang Government continued to maintain the basic wage, a 44-hour week, and motherhood endowment. The most determined and unjustifiable efforts have been made by the Commonwealth, with the concurrence of some of the. other States," to force the hands of Now South Wales, and to nullify the understanding reached that the States should have the right to determine in what way effect should bo given to tha Premiers plan. The pressure that is being brought to bear upon New South Wales in this direction is wholly unjustifiable, and must inevitably fail, lt will not fail to bring about a greater degree of dissension between the States than has previously existed. The coercive measures being attempted arc beyond all reason. Some time ago, when Western Australia thought it was being unfairly treated, the Western Australian Parliament introduced a measure providing for the taking of a referendum on the question of secession from the federation. I admit that that bill was not carried, although it mct with a good deal of support oven from the Premier of the State. If the present, coercive measures are continued, I venture to say that, even without a referendum, New South Wales would be justified in taking steps to secede from the Commonwealth. If that should happen it would soon be found that, without the co-operation of the most populous and richest State the federation would commence to crumble. If the present Government intends to proceed with legislative proposals to coerce New South Wales, and practically deprive it of all semblance of independence- 122 10000 0 0 KINGSMILL, Walter The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill - I direct the attention of the honorable senator to the fact that he must not anticipate debate on a measure which has not yet been introduced into this chamber, but which is on the notice-paper of another place. 123 K1Z NEW SOUTH WALES ALP; LANG LAB from 1931 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - I presume, sir, that I shall not be prevented from directing attention to the coercive measures that Have been, threatened to prevent New South "Wales from maintaining the present rates of pay and a 44-hour week to which I have previously referred. 123 K09 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator Payne - And maintains its evil reputation. 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - Its evil reputation, if it has one, has been manufactured by the tory press. A majority of the electors in that State are solidly behind the Lang Government. 123 K09 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator Payne - Any State' that relies upon other States to pay its debts must have an evil reputation. 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - I am not concerned with the reputation that ha3 been built up by a campaign of vilification and denunciation of everything pertaining to the New South Wales Government. 123 K8P 0 0 THOMPSON, William Senator Thompson - Will the honorable senator tell us something about the coercive measures that are being adopted in. conin.exi.on with a 25-hour working week and increased wages? 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - That is not n matter of coercion at all. 123 K8P 0 0 THOMPSON, William Senator Thompson - Is it not? 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - No. If the people of New South Wales believe that it is in their interest to provide for a shorter working week and increased wages, it is not coercion. There is no coercion in establishing a 44 instead of a 48-hour week. If a State government believes that it can overcome the unemployment menace bv reducing hours of labour instead of increasing them, and thereby distribute employment over a larger number of people, it has a perfect right to adopt such a policy. If the working week were reduced to 30 hours, or 25 hours, throughout Australia, the system would soon be followed by other countries, and we would then obtain some benefit from machinery instead of suffering in consequence of its use. The result of the introduction of improved methods is that machines have mastered men, instead of men mastering machines. I resent the statement that New South Wales has dishonoured its obligations. The assertion that the Premier of that State deliberately broke a promise is not a correct statement of the facts. New South Wales had not sufficient cash in hand to meet its interest commitments when they fall due. The Loan Council stipulated that, if the New South Wales Government remitted £468,000 which it had in hand, the Loan Council would provide temporary accommodation of £500,000 to make up a total of £968,000. That accommodation was refused, and, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes), even those newspapers which express United Australia party or Nationalist party sentiments strongly condemned the action of the Loan Council in treating New South Wales differently from the other States. The interest, welfare and reputation of Australia have been deliberately sacrificed by this Government, and by the Loan Council, in order to pursue a vendetta against the New South Wales Government and its Premier. 123 KOF 0 0 HAYES, John Senator J B Hayes - Why a vendetta ? 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - The reason is quite plain. There is a vendetta against the State which is upholding the weekly basic wage of £4 2s. 6d., and adhering to the 44-hour working week. 123 KOJ 0 0 HAYS, Herbert Senator Herbert Hays - The other States are paying for it. 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - The other States have the unbounded audacity to suggest that that is what is happening. The State represented by Senator Herbert Hays has been on the doorstep of the Commonwealth asking for financial assistance year after year. 123 KOJ 0 0 HAYS, Herbert Senator Herbert Hays - The other States have always kept their word. 123 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - And they have kept New South Wales' money. I challenge any one to refute the assertion that annually the people of New South Wales pay into the Federal Treasury 14s. 4d. a head more than they receive from it. From time to time grants have been made to Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia, by the Commonwealth Parliament. I have no objection to that being done; but I say that the richer States are called upon to make the necessary provision, and as the most populous of the States, New South Wales has had to contribute the largest proportion of it. Consequently, it cannot be said that New South Wales has lived on the other States ; on the contrary, some of the other States have been living largely on New South Wales. I have never been an advocate of State rights to the extent of adopting an un-Australian attitude; but that is the position which is being taken up by some of the other States at the present time. Both they and the Commonwealth Government are attempting to browbeat and coerce New South Wales into discarding industrial measures on which it has pinned its faith. All the facts go to prove that prosperity cannot be increased or unemployment reduced by a lowering of wages. If such were the case, the lowest wage countries would be the most prosperous in the world; and that is not so. Therefore, by stupidly continuing the attempt to coerce the only State which objects to this policy, into doing that to which the majority of its inhabitants are opposed, the other States are guilty of an act of usurpation and tyranny. Wherein comes the sovereignty of a State and its right to administer its own affairs, if such action can be taken? I, for one, would stand behind any government which openly struck a blow at such tyranny by seceding from the Commonwealth. I trust that either Mr. Lang or any one else who has the power will take steps to that end if the measures that are proposed are adopted. New South Wales is the key State of the Commonwealth, geographically and in other ways. If it refused any longer to be coerced, browbeaten, vilified and denounced by the rest of Australia, what would become of the federation ? It would crumble to pieces. 124 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - Who would pay their debts if they did secede? 124 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - Any other questions that might arise would be settled if the act of secession took place. The payments that have been made by New South Wales have gone a long way towards financing the Commonwealth in the past; but, because it maintains in power a Labour government that has the courage of its convictions, and has resolutely set its face against any attempt to pull down the standards it has set up for its people, it has received in return nothing but the enmity and the narrow-minded opposition of the present Government, and of those who pander to it. It has received more than an endurable amount of that sort of persecution and tyranny, and will not submit much longer to it. So, I warn honorable senators who come from other States to beware how far they go in their attempt to twist the tail of the New South Wales lion. I absolutely deny the charge that New South Wales has repudiated its debts. I challenge any one to show where the State Premier has on any occasion repudiated or threatened to repudiate the liabilities of that State. What he did in the first place was to demand a suspension of interest payment for a period not exceeding two years, in order that the country might be able to get on its feet without sacrificing the whole of its population to the onslaughts of poverty and unemployment. Subsequently, he sought permission from the authorities in the Old Country to negotiate with the British bondholders for a suspension of interest payments. He was denounced on all hands on the ground that he had adopted a policy of repudiation ; whereas, in truth, his was a rational and reasonable proposal to suspend interest payments until we were so far out of our financial difficulties as to be able to pay up. 124 K8P 0 0 THOMPSON, William Senator Thompson - That is default, which is just as bad as repudiation. 124 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill - I point out to honorable senators that the subject under discussion is sufficiently provocative without making it more so by interjection. All honorable senators will have an opportunity later of speaking to the motion, and they would consult their own advantage, as well as that of the Senate, if they withheld the expression of their views until that time arrived. 124 K1Z 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - The policy of the New South Wales Government is definitely referred to in the Speech of the Governor-General, and consequently is fair matter for discussion on this motion. Some years ago the State of New South Wales, under a previous government led by Mr. Lang, passed a measure enacting a 44-hour week. When that Administration was succeeded by a Nationalist government led by Mr. Bavin, the latter repealed that act and reverted to the 48-hour week. It also emasculated a good deal of the other Labour legislation that had been enacted by its predecessors. When the Labour party again went to the country, it pledged itself to restore all those Labour enactments that had been either repealed or mutilated. The policy then propounded received the overwhelming endorsement of the people, the Labour party being returned with a larger majority than any other party had previously received in the history of the State. Consequently, we have a right to assume, until another election alters the position, that the present Government in New South Wales possesses the confidence of the people of that State, and that the other States of the Commonwealth have no right' to attempt to coerce it, on financial grounds, into repealing the legislation it has enacted. The Lang Government on several occasions has introduced and passed through the New South Wales Parliament measures designed to raise sufficient revenue to meet its liabilities, and to conform to the Premiers plan. In several instances, those measures have been defeated in the nominee Legislative Council; consequently, it is not its fault that it has failed to raise the necessary funds to discharge its obligations. Therefore, I say that the attacks which are made day after day, and week after week, principally in the capitalist press - which has no object other than to discredit a Labour administration - are entirely unwarranted, arid justify any action that the State may think fit to take to defend its own interests and the policy to which its people are pledged. It is not my intention to enlarge upon other measures that are referred to in the Governor-General's Speech. I wish, however, to make a few further observations with respect to the proposed Disarmament Conference. Whenever I rise to speak, allusions arc made to Russia and sovietism. Whatever the faults or the defects of that country may be, there i3 no denying the fact that it has made the only genuine proposal that has been put forward for disarmament. Russia proposed that all armies, navies and air forces, all military equipment, ordnance and munitions of war, should be completely wiped out. That proposal was made before the League of Nations, but it was not even debated. Later, Russia proposed that, if the summary wiping out of militarism was considered impracticable, the same object could be achieved by making reductions in four annual instalments, thus enabling a gradual disbandment of armies and navies to take place. That, also, was refused consideration. Now we are told that Russia is increasing her armaments in every direction. Probably that is so. She is menaced by the States that surround her on all sides, and must maintain a force capable of defending herself. All the other countries of the world, while advocating disarmament, are increasing their expenditure on armaments, proving that they are inconsistent and insincere. Therefore, the time spent on the discussion pf disarmament at the Geneva conference will be absolutely wasted. Failure to bring about disarmament is inevitable when each nation demands all kinds of guarantees before being willing even to consider what reductions shall take place. The elaborate calculations that are made in regard to tonnage and the fighting strength of the various navies, disclose an effort on the part of those who are to participate in this conference to secure the most powerful fleet possible, consistent with a nominal adherence to the proposals agreed to. That being so, it is impossible for the great powers to come to any decision that will lead to a considerable reduction in armaments. Even if some such agreement as the Washington Treaty is arrived at for the limitation of battleship tonnage, it will simply mean that the different governments involved, realizing the enormous strain that is being placed upon their financial resources, have agreed to call a halt in the armament race. Unless something like complete disarmament is brought about, the only result will be a cheapening of the cost of war without the removal of the causes that' bring it about. Deplorable though the fact is, the conditions under which the League of Nations is constituted preclude the doing of any effective work as the result of the proposed conference on the limitation of armaments. If I am wrong I shall rejoice, but it seems to me to be a vain hope to expect any practical results from the deliberations of that assembly. The group to which I belong is small, but it has a definite policy. Its platform embodies, among other things, the nationalization of banking. We are not going to be content with a mere extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Bank. Our objective is the absolute abolition of private banking, and the establishment of one banking system under which there shall be a national bank established in every town and village throughout the Commonwealth, having complete control of currency, and sole responsibility for the financial commitments of the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) may call this a foolish and harebrained proposal. Greater men than either he or I make any pretence to be have written and spoken favorably of a similar scheme in other countries. Australia may pioneer the movement. If we do so, we shall set an example to other countries and confer a blessing on mankind. At the same time, I am not one of those who believe that the nationalization of banking alone will solve all our difficulties, or that it will be the panacea for all our public ills. I believe, as I have said on other occasions, that we must socialize industry to the fullest extent; that all works and services must be the property of the people as a whole. In short, I believe that we must abolish the capitalist system in its entirety before we can hope to solve any of those great difficulties which now confront Australia in common with other countries. 126 KRZ Western Australia 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH .- The Address-in-Reply debate upon which we are now engaged is sometimes regarded by outside critics as a waste of time, as a discussion upon a variety of subjects from which no practical proposal is evolved. I remind those who take this view that Parliament, as the name implies, is a place where the elected representatives of the people meet to parley, or talk together, upon those subjects which are engaging public attention ; a place where they have an opportunity to express the opinions which they hold, in the hope that, 'as the result of the play of reason and the interchange of spoken thoughts, it may be possible to reach agreement as to the wisest course to pursue. What is said on an occasion like this is, so to speak, merely said in advance. Often in this debate the arguments employed are those which perhaps could be used on other occasions, and possibly in extended form. This being so, I challenge the suggestion that time occupied in speaking to the Address-in-Reply is wasted, because, as we all know, not infrequently a great deal of discussion is necessary for the crystallization of opinions in the legislatures of all countries. It is not a waste of time for the simple reason that it gives members an opportunity to say what is in their minds, and enables others to hear diversified viewpoints, to judge their merits, to measure and , weigh them, and determine whether or not the things said are a worthy contribution to the structure of our laws. Just as it has been said of modern warfare that it takes a ton of lead to kill a man, so in the field of legislation we may say that reams and reams of speech-making are embodied in the official parliamentary records, before the laws under which we live are finally evolved. Therefore, notwithstanding opinions to the contrary sometimes expressed outside, this debate is not a waste of time. Also it should he noted that the great majority of those who hold such views take very good care not to enter these legislative halls. If they did, not infrequently they would prove to be sorry legislative guides for the people. Soon they would sink to their proper level under the play of reason, the study of comparisons and the interchange of views, and the opinions which previously they voiced so confidently would very. often prove to be very commonplace ideas. Having said so much on that point, 1 now turn to what has been said by my respectable friend, Senator Rae, on the time-honoured subject of socialism, of which there are so many brands - almost as many, ' in fact, as there are of tea or whisky. We are told that Sir William Harcourt, on one occasion in the House of Commons, declared - "We are all socialists now." So we are. But, as I have already observed, there are many brands of socialism. The particular social order of which Senator Rae is one of the stoutest protagonists, is one of the new old brands of which we have heard so much for many a long day. I remember, in my youth in Ireland, reading passages from Plato picturing a perfect system of human control under which the people would enjoy peace, order and prosperity - a state in which the old Adam in man would disappear, and society would be a sort of community of angels living in perfect harmony with one another. I have read Plato on many occasions since then. Also I have dipped into the works of other philosophers, including St. Augustine's "City of God", Mora's "Utopia" and Bacon's "The Lost Atlantis", all of whom dwell speculatively on this order of society to which Senator Rae has referred. I wish to tell him, candidly and respectfully, that if he claims communism as an ideal human state I shall dispute every inch of the ground with him. By way of a preliminary, I say it has neither a rational nor a philosophical basis. It seeks to destroy the basic elements in human nature itself - energy and prudence. The bees kill their drones; communism breeds them, and they are pure, as I shall prove. 127 K0F 0 0 PEARCE, George Senator Sir George Pearce - Do not. forget Karl Marx. 127 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I may have something to say upon the doctrines preached by Marx, as well as Engel, and others, before I resume ray seat. All these writers, as I have said, picture either seriously or ideally, a superior order of society under which the people would live in happy unity and perfect goodwill. Some tell us that this state of affairs is possible. If it is, why ha.ve not we reached this ideal social state after 2,000 years of preaching and teaching of the benefits of socialism, especially when opportunity served, as it often did? When the people of Prance, in my opinion with every justification, rose in revolt against the rule of an unbearable tyranny under which they had suffered for so long, and when the Paris Commune was within measurable distance of 'being established, the movement was suddenly stopped. Why? Carlyle tells us that when this Eden-like era was about to be ushered in, the people of Prance called insistently for that brilliant young artillery officer who had fought so valiantly against the Austrians. Their cry was heard and, as we know, the young officer used grape shot on the unruly, bloodthirsty mob, the Commune disappeared, and the young artillery officer became the Napoleon of history and the virtual dictator of Prance. Although the revolutionary movement in Prance was conceived and engineered by the most brilliant political thinkers of the time, including Mirabeau, Marat, Dan ton, Robespierre, and the rest, it did not culminate in the establishment of the idealized social state which Senator Rae is so confident will end our troubles. The disillusioned Dan ton, as he was being taken along the banks of the Seine, soon to lay his head on the block, declared bitterly - "It is better to be a poor fisherman than meddle in the art of governing men." All the illusions of these dreamers went overboard under the stern and driving force of an awakened public opinion. " Liberty, equality, fraternity," tickled their ears, but the people called' for a dictator, and got him, and would have no communism. So much for France. I turn now to the happenings in Germany in more recent years. When the war was over the people had a splendid opportunity to set up this new social order. They were in indisputable possession of the field, because they had behind them the disbanded military forces which had fought a desperate but losing battle. The time had come to change the social order. But what did the people do? They rose in their wrath against Karl Liebnecht and Rosa Luxemberg, the leaders and the chief exponents of this new communistic creed, and as the chroniclers of events tell us, foully murdered them. They would have none of their doctrine. Competent eyewitnesses have attested that the German people " dreaded communism as they dreaded a plague.'.' More recently the people of Spain made the same decision. They had got rid of their monarch, and though those misguided leaders of the revolution, adopting the moral standard set by Moscow, had the baseness to urge the remodelling of the law relating to the marital condition of the people, they yet had a very decided opinion on communism. Thus, when for the time being, the populace of Spain had a chance to establish this much advertised superior social system, they refused point blank to have anything to do with it. Only a few weeks ago they deported 800 Communists. The people took much the same course in Italy, following the election of that cowardly poltroon Nitti to the leadership of the nation. What did he do? Like a coward he retreated into his hiding place rather than stand up to his work and words. He was the embodiment of weakness and vacillation - an example of that useless type of government which would endeavour to tell the people what they should eat, drink and wear, instead of making them work out their own destiny as men should do. Bolshevism had already begun its work and the Mat motor works were taken by the mob. The nation was in peril. When the people of Italy had to decide whether they would live under sovietism or individualism, did they say that they would accept sovietism because it was the most perfect social system under which they could live? No, emphatically no ! They, like the Germans, looked upon communism as a plague. Up rose the men of Rome, of all Italy, under the leadership of a comparatively obscure man, and refused to have anything to do with the system. Why did not- the populace of Italy. demand to live under Soviet rule? The answer is that they knew that it would never work. In the light of these examples, a man who still advocates sovietism is either bereft of his reason or is unwilling to he convinced. It is still true that - He that complies against his will Is of his own opinion still. I have shown that these countries, when asked whether they would live under this new social system, thundered back the answer, " No ! No !" England, to-morrow, through her franchise, could adopt communism; but she realizes what evils are associated with it. So here are the four leading countries - the very heart of civilization itself - having the power to adopt communism, yet shunning it as a plague. It is true that one- European country has given the new system a trial. The new order of things has its head-quarters in Moscow. I have previously said in this chamber that the only contribution that Russia has made towards human progress is to show how to eat a tin of fat without becoming bilious. No Shakespeare, Newton, or Pasteur has come from there; no Columbus, Watts, or Faraday, not to speak of Rontgen, Lister and Ampere, besides legions of other giant intellects who have lightened man's material burden and elevated civilization from savagery ! Yet we are told that the eyes of the world are turning and should be turned towards Russia, as the Mohammedan turns to- wards Mecca at' sundown, because of the great things which are to be seen there. I remind those who look to Russia for salvation of the examples which I have quoted of other European countries which refuse to adopt socialism when they could do so as easily as breathe the morning air. Getting away from Europe, let us come now to our own land and ask ourselves what have we done? Senator Rae said yesterday that the " capitalistic system has failed ". I shall show where sovietism has failed, and failed ignominiously where it had the best chance in the world to succeed. Senator Rae would have us believe that under a state of socialism all would be well; the people would live in peace, enjoy prosperity and not want for any good thing. I shall show that the opposite would be the case. It is well to have records of the experiences of those who have tried socialism, in order to be able to confound those who would mislead the people. In the early 'nineties a number of Australians decided to make a grand experiment in socialism. Some of them I knew well. -Under the leadership of William Lane those who had drunk deeply of the poisonous draught of socialist propaganda decided to put into practice what they had read by establishing a new socialistic colony in South America. Those who made that decision were not ignorant peasants, but the very cream of the intelligent workers of Australia - some of the finest men I have met. They put into a common pool a minimum of £60 each. Some of them, like Ananias of old, withheld some of their possessions, showing even at that early stage, that the old Adam was in them. I saw in the Sydney Harbour-the Royal Tar - the vessel by which they were to leave Sydney. I did not believe in the experiment then any more than I believe in socialism to-day, but it is remarkable that so many intelligent men and women were caught up in the new movement and became zealots. Before they left for South America there was a big demonstration in the Sydney Domain. I was there that day and I heard Peter McNaught, Gilbert Casey, and the rest. I also heard an address by a schoolmaster from South Australia, during which he pointed to the Royal Tar, and told his hearer 3 that the vessel had been quite needlessly delayed for repairs by an unsympathetic government. He told them further not to sympathize with those who were leaving Australia, as they did not need sympathy. He went on to say that he was a native of Australia of the second generation, but was leaving this land of capitalism and tyranny. He urged his hearers not to squander their sympathy upon him, but to reserve it for themselves, since they were unfortunate in that they would have to live under the cursed capitalistic system in his native land which, he hoped, he was leaving for ever. Thousands listened to him, and many cheered his utterances. I did not cheer. But notwithstanding the high hopes of those who set out to establish the new colony, the venture was a ghastly failure. It failed not because those who espoused the new doctrine were ignorant, indolent, or unenlightened - they were the exact opposite - but because of inherent defects in the system itself. It did not assess and 11low for the unconquerable ingredients of human nature itself. When put to the test it was found that socialism, even when inaugurated under the most favorable conditions, would not work. When asked whether socialism would work, Tolstoy wanted to know who would "clean out the cesspits?" It was much the same thing in the new colony in South America; some of the devotees of the new order of things wanted to know who would do the " washing up." There was an unwillingness to undertake the menial jobs, a willingness to dispute authority, and an inclination on the part of the growing minority to loaf on their fellows. Honorable senators who entertain a friendly feeling for socialism would do well to read Where Socialism Failed, by Stewart Grahame. 129 K1Z ALP; LANG LAB from 1931 0 0 RAE, Arthur Senator RAE - Does the honorable senator think that I have not read it? 129 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - No doubt the . honorable senator has read the book, but with his prejudices rather than with his eyes, as Emerson has said. If the honorable senator has read the book, then I can only liken him to Emile Zola - he who poisoned the innocent minds of millions with his published works of the grossest sensuality - who went to Lourdes, saw there the piles of crutches and invalid chairs which had been discarded by cripples who had been cured, read the documents attested by men who did not believe in Christianity, and yet "was unconvinced that miracles had taken place. Rather than accept the testimony of honest men, he preferred to adhere to his own opinion. The same spirit has been displayed by other unfortunate victims of that perverse quality in our nature, who mistake stupid obstinacy for consistency and will not obey the bidding of their senses. As Sydney Smith said, when men will not believe the evidence of their own senses, they only make an indecent exposure of their intellect. In the face of facts, they stand dumbfounded, but not convinced. Yet some of them Bet up to be guides to their fellows. God help the men who are willing to be guided by them. Socialism has failed, and must continue to fail, because it postulates that human nature is different from what it is. It runs counter to or seeks to neutralize the best qualities in human nature; it wants men to be satisfied with less than the fruits of their toil. The average mortal is never satisfied with less than his due ; he would prefer to live under the rule of the club man than under a social system which deprives him of the equivalent' of his sweat and labour. That is why socialism failed in South America. The experiment in socialism attempted in Paraguay was investigated by Mr. Findlay, who was deputed to inquire into the cause of the failure of the settlement. The papers are to be seen in the British Foreign Office. On page 207 of the book which I have mentioned is an extract from his report in which he starts! - The first of these we visited, evidently the ' show " clearing belonging to a Frenchman. This man had cleared a space of about 1.0 acres in thirteen months. . . Compare the 70 acres of forest land cleared at New Australia in one year by 250 persons, with the achievement of a single Frenchman on an individualistic colony in another part of Paraguay. Mr. Findlay's report continued From this it would appear that one Frenchman, working for himself, is worth, as a colonist, some 35 Australians labouring for each other. One Frenchman working for himself did as much work as was done by 35 Australians working for one another, because in the one case the man's heart was in his work, and in the other there was no incentive to work. The old Adam asserted itself even in the ideal socialistic community. Yet Senator Rae would have us believe that a man will work with a heart and a will for himself but not for the hated capitalist. These pages teem with similar instances. Socialism in theory may appear to be good; but it will not work out in practice. Like the rainbow in the sky, socialism may be good to admire, to look upon, or to read about. ; but it cannot be grasped. The human imagination is a wonderful thing; but when we get down to the solid fact thai one Frenchman in the circumstances I have mentioned was equal to 35 democratic Australians, we no longer wonder why a socialistic or communistic regime is given no credit, save that, of its capacity to reduce an otherwise intelligent and able-bodied group of men into a hopeless set of half-starved, ill-tempered, ill-clad unfortunates with not a single ray of hope to brighten their gloomy existence. What became of those who put their money into this venture? There was no capitalistic effort to prevent the very pick of the world's democrats from providing an object lesson on state socialism. There was no capitalistic press there to poison the wells of thought and sow dissension in their ranks. There was no landlord, usurer, or sweater of employees to grab the fruits of their labour. Yet they failed, confessedly and lamentably. We are told that at night they gathered 'and read sermons to one another. But when those who did produce n few pumpkins and vegetable marrows went to the communal store to dispose of the result of their labours, they began to scratch their heads when they found what a meagre return they got. They began to ask themselves why should they work to keep others who were prepared to loaf. It is no wonder that in the end they all became a community of loafers with nothing to eat, and their children clad in rags, because the willing and the working got tired of working for the unwilling and the unworking. These idealistic Communists, the intelligentsia of the world, could not make socialism a success. Any intelligent school girl- could have told them so before they started, because in any cluster of human beings, even in the family circle that springs from the same common stem, there a"re those who will, go short and save, and those who will, as has been well said, waste their glorious youthful prime. Liberty, equality, fraternity ! Let me quote this from page 213 of this publication - The hatreds which had sprung up during the period nf Socialist rule left deep feuds, which it took u long time to heal, and the mutual jealousies were so bitter that even the children, who lived at the villages of Los Amigas, or Lorna. Rugua were hardly on speaking terms with those of Las Ovejas or Tuyu. Worse than that, such bitterness had arisen in some cases between members of the same family that father and son who lived on adjacent Mocks forbade one another to ross the dividing fence. What a sad lapse from the high hopes, the boundless enthusiasm, the cheerful camaraderie at the outset of their journey to the new Utopia. They had 350,000 acres of the choicest land in South America. If Senator O'Halloran, who is a farmer, had ten acres of that land, ho would dream sweet dreams at night. They had this rich land, an ideal climate, easy transport, a ready market, and a clear blue sky over them ; every condition was ideal. Only one rock stood in the road, the old Adam spirit, the desire to get easy sustenance at somebody else's expense. There was not evident among them the desire to stand up to those social duties which the world has demanded of every individual throughout the ages. This book I have is crammed with most fantastic accounts of the way in which, human nature behaves on occasions, and some of these would almost make your sides split with laughter. When the wild animals were coining into the settlement and breaking the dog-proof fence, the community would hold a committee meeting to decide who should go out to repair the damage. In Australia the fence would have been mended in ten minutes. There are scores of instances to show that socialistic efforts of this nature will not work. 131 KOJ 0 0 HAYS, Herbert Senator Herbert Hays - What was the end of it all? 131 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - It would waste too much of the time of the Senate if I were to tell honorable senators how it all ended. William Lane became the editor of a New Zealand paper. These men sacrificed their homes in order to escape a regime which they hated, but under the stress of poverty and starvation, they said, like the Cappadocians of old, " Give us anything in preference to this." They abandoned their socialistic ideals, the community broke up, and they lived prosperously under a totally different system - the old hated capitalistic, or competitive system if you will. This book gives clear proof of the failure of communistic effort, even when applied by men credited with the highest intelligence. Probably most of them had road Marx's Das Kaptial backwards, and knew more than Lenin and Stalin put together. How then can we expect men with the low intelligence of the Russian moujik to succeed ? Oil and water will never mix, yet that is what the socialist is vainly aiming at. It takes a " Red " army, armed with rusty bayonets, to force the Russian workmen to work. A British sea captain recently in South Australia told us of his experience when he brought his vessel alongside a wharf at Odessa. After a time, the ten-foot walls were put aside and down marched a Russian guard in charge of a body of workers, men and women. The women were set to work in the afterhold and the men in the forehold Such is the advance Russia is making on the road to civilization. The women are forced to work by a guard with fixed bayonets. This captain has told us that when the scullery trap was lifted and the galley rubbish was allowed to flow into the sea the happy proletariats jumped overboard like a parcel of wild savages, to salvage bits of meat and bread discarded from the table of men living under the old regime. Such instances could be multiplied, but we do not read them in the Russian official publications. The Russian Government stole every penny piece it could lay its hands oil, repudiated the country's debts, and expropriated all the property it could get into its claws; yet, in its official Year-Book. it admits having an army of unemployed 1,500,000 strong. How much more there would be if labour were not conscripted Heaven only knows. In New South Wales there are people living on a dole which, in some instances, brings to a family as much income as it would have if the members of it were working. In fact, in this country, men are marrying on the dole. In Russia, where men work under the threat of the bayonet, the daily wage is a rouble and a half. The rouble is worth about 2s. in English money. The Russian proletariat is thus getting 3s. a day. Is the country where such a wage is paid one which we can set up as a pattern for Australia? Yet there are some who poison the minds of the unfortunate innocents of Australia with sophistries about the wonderful success of the socialistic effort of the Soviet Republics, doing them incalculable damage. Even in this chamber utter nonsense is talked about the need for adopting methods which the human race has withstood for thousands of years and the universal judgment of mankind has condemned. Such methods could only be applied nowadays in a benighted country like Russia, and even there only at' the instance of a body of scoundrels in Moscow with the Red army at its back. Marx had to leave the land of his birth and find an asylum in " capitalistic-ridden England." His countrymen condemned, as a " plague ", the socialistic system he would have set up. That plague has settled on Russia. It is bound to end in the failure to which the survivors of the New Australia effort could bear testimony if put- in the witness box. Some of them are available and could easily be questioned. I gave accommodation to John Lane when he was here on his futile recruiting mission years ago. I had a fair inkling of what the human mind was lacking, and I asked him how it was possible for any one to agree that if he strived better than his fellows, he must, for the benefit of his fellows, sacrifice his reward for that extra effort. Socialism cuts across human nature, and for that reason fails unless enforced by the rusty bayonets of a "-Red " army. It has no scientific basis for its existence. Man will not work unless he has a reward in prospect. "We have heard .mention' of " shock troops ". In Russia " shock troops " are those who are sent from Moscow into different parts of the republics to stimulate their fellow workers to better efforts. Reliance is not always placed on these " shock troops ". Last year aeroplanes were sent' from "Moscow to bomb coal-miners into subjection. If the people of Russia are living in a modern Garden of Eden without the serpent, why should there be any need for " shocking " at all ? If work under communism is a labour of love, as, doubtless, Senator Rae would have us believe, where is the need for spurring, prodding, or "shocking"' the Russian proletariat? He must have some kind of notion that he is not working for himself after all. I have in this publication evidence of the efforts of this shock brigade. 132 JTL 0 0 DALY, John Senator Daly - The publication looks like a music book. 132 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Senator Daly asks if the publication from which I am about to quote is a music book. When in the South Sea Islands some years ago, I heard what was known as the cannibal tom-tom, but that was not in the days of King Thakombau. The cannibal tom-tom was always in evidence when a feast of human flesh was in progress, and although I heard it, it was not on such occasions. This publication is a tom-tom of so-called civilization. 132 K09 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator Payne - What is the publication to which the honorable senator refers? 132 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - What is it? I shall place it at the disposal of the honorable senator if he so desires. It is an official publication of the Soviet Government. It is a most remarkable work; its pages are not even numbered. I have already referred to the fact that under the industrial system at present in operation in Soviet Russia " shock troops " are employed to stimulate the efforts of those engaged in industry. In the absence of such troops the men would not work as they should. They have to be gingered up, with the aid of bayonets, to set an example to their fellow men. One would imagine from the utterances of Senator Rae and those who support the pernicious policy he favours that Soviet Russia is a Garden of Eden. If it is an industrial Eden, why should " shock troops " be employed to remind the people that they are working for themselves? Here is the other side of the picture. I quote the following from this publication which is entitled, "U.S.S.R. in construction":- Shock brigader Muravyev for exemplary work rewarded with, a trip on the steamship Ukraine. That gives away the whole show. This young man was rewarded for giving effect to competitive ideals. He was compensated by being given a trip on an excursion steamer; that facility was not afforded others. Even in Soviet Russia a person putting forth his best efforts is rewarded. What is the difference between a recognition of effort, as is apparently the custom in Russia, according to the paragraph I have quoted, and the payment by results which would be of such benefit if universally adopted throughout the Commonwealth ? It will be seen from what I have read that those who did not put forward their best efforts were not rewarded by a trip on an excursion steamer; their noses were still on the grind stone. The supporters of the Soviet system do not regard these bodies of men, who are constantly urging others to greater effort, as " shock troops " or anything out of the way in Russia. They do not mention them. They' have, however, a good deal to say concerning the employing class in Australia, who expect from the men whom they employ, under conditions infinitely better than obtain in any other part of the world, only a fair return for the wages they are paid. They refer to the employer as the "boss" or the " capitalist " - as a " blood sucker " who is out to drag every ounce of energy out of the worker. He is, they contend, trying to grind down his employees by constantly " speeding " them up. In Russia, " speeding up " is quite all right, and " shock troops " just the thing according to communist experiments. But not so in Australia. " Speeding up ", after all, is a matter of geography or politics. It depends where it is practised. In Soviet Russia they have " shock troops ". 133 K0F 0 0 PEARCE, George Senator Sir George PEARCE - They are slave drivers. 133 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Of course they are. but the supporters of the Soviet system do not regard them as such or call them by that name. They are heroes in Russia, but devils in Australia. Here is a shocking example - taken from the same official publication - of the strenuous life which has to be lived in Russia to earn cottage soup - For 26 hours Comrade Sirota did not leave the blacksmith shop. He was asked to go out for a rest, but he did not forsake his post beside the ten-ton hammer, so long as the forging of the engraving for the Magnitogorsk blooming was not completed. Shock brigader Sirota gave an example of socialistic attitude towards labour. Absolute slave-driving in a land in which we are told there is no slavery! This poor unfortunate was compelled to work for 20 hours at the anvil without a break for the declared purpose of setting an example to his slothful comrades who would not extend themselves, and so he is extolled. If a man in this country had to work for such a period under the so-called capitalistic system his employer would be denounced from Wilson's Promontory to Cape York. But in Soviet Russia it does not matter. It is just the thing. Can it be denied that under communist control, in which shock troops are employed, the workers are anything but slaves? Further, and I want an answer to this question: Can it be said that workers who need " shocking," or urging, or pushing, are contented human beings? If they are not, the system is rotten to the core. Even in Russia extra effort is rewarded. The man who, in the case to which I have just referred, rendered additional service was given, as his reward, a trip on an excursion steamer. In fact, they are doing there exactly what we are doing here, but ever so mildly, and they deliberately belie their system and themselves in the process. Under the competitive system men arc rewarded for the extra efforts they put forward, and it is only the general adoption of such a system in this country that will help us to overcome the difficulties that now surround us. Don Bradman has come to the front in the field of sport and his achievements are applauded from one end of Australia to the other.' He puts forward his best effort and he receives the plaudits of the crowd. If we applaud the Bradman touch in the field of sport why not admire it in other spheres of activity? The people of Australia admire Bradman because he does his best, and if we could only introduce the Bradman stroke into industry the country would be in a better position financially and industrially than it is to-day. If we admire the achievements of our athletes, why not reward in like manner those who do their best in the industrial sphere? 133 K09 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator Payne - They are termed " scabs." 133 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Exactly. There are no " scabs " in Russia. Where the thing is done wholesale not a word is said, whereas if it were mildly attempted here the air would be filled with execrations by the same two-faced Communists. What has Soviet Russia done by the adoption of its so called advanced methods with respect to marriage? In effect John Brown and Mary Smith agree to be man and wife, and they are told to sign on. There is no marriage ceremony ; the blessing of; God upon the parties to the union is not invoked. Some time ago I said in this chamber that I would rather see this country a thousand fathoms beneath the sea than that we should ever adopt the awful and degrading practice that is being followed in Moscow. It makes a decent swine blush. Under sovietism the human race has been brought down to the level of the beasts of the jungle. John Brown when he tire3 of Mary Smith or Mary Smith when she tires of John Brown, merely says, " Sign off, I have finished with you." Moscow has dragged noble womanhood from its high pedestal from which for long age3 she has, by the exercise of her silent power, guided the footsteps of wayward, erring men, and made her the plaything of brutal unbridled lust. It robs her of that which has helped civilization to survive. It is a terrible responsibility. Let honorable senators who support the vicious policy which Senator Bae favours -turn their eyes towards Moscow. It is a city in which honour and virtue are dead. They know not honour, they know no god. We are asked to take a pattern from these loveless, honourless, godless men. God forbid that that should ever happen, or that we should ever be so mad or so base as to adopt such a system. I turn again to the Soviet Year-Booh. What does it say with respect to finance? Although it paints a rosy picture of the condition of affairs generally in Russia, it does not contain a single word concerning the social or domestic conditions of the people. There is not a solitary reference to the savings of the people, their earnings, the price of foodstuffs, or the conditions under which they are housed. The reason is obvious. The story is too bad to be told. But we give all this information in our " capitalistic " Year-Booh. Is not Russia the richest country in the world ? It possesses potentialities greater than any other country. There is no other country in the world equal to it. How would it be developed by the peoples of other countries, who in comparison are vainly endeavouring to render productive much that is unproductive land? In 1930 no less than 300,000,000 acres of land were under wheat in Russia, which is more than is under cultivation in the four leading wheat countries, Australia, the United States of America, Canada and the Argentine. The Russian wheat areas which are adjacent to their river systems and elsewhere can be so developed as to increase the present area tenfold. But this great country with all its potential wealth and all its stolen gold is paying its workers 3s. a day, which is less than the dole on which in New South Wales some people are actually marrying. That is the difference between a " capitalist-ridden land " and one in which liberty, equality, and fraternity reign supreme. Turning to page 381 of the Soviet Union Year Booh of 1930, printed in Moscow, we find in the chapter relating to finance an example which political leaders of the Lang type should study. A paragraph reads - Every expenditure must exactly correspond to the amount allotted, and to the decision' of the legislative organization. Any departure in this respect is regarded by Soviet law as a criminal offence. Is Senator Daly listening to that. How would Mr. Lang fare were he in Russia? Under his Government, higher rates of wages are being paid than in any other State in the Commonwealth. If Mr. Lang were in Moscow, and subject to the laws of Russia, he would probably run the risk of being placed against a stone wall and shot. That is probably how Moscow treats men who play fast and loose with the public finances, as he has done in New South Wales. But so long as he remains in Australia his skin is safe. If Senator Rae even whispered or even sneezed at the Russian Government, the order would be " stone wall to-morrow morning, and ten Russian guns ". If he said " booh !" it would be the last " booh " that he would ever say. He can "boon" here to his heart's content, and nothing happens to him. Although he was a supporter of the last Government, he lashed it so unmercifully that neither dog nor cat would drink its blood when he was finished with it. Yet he was perfectly safe. As an old friend and colleague I have the utmost respect for the honorable senator; but I suggest to him that he is living in the wrong country. He ought to go to Russia and help to free the slaves there. There is more need for his services in that land, which has been so magnificently dowered by mother nature, but in which men will not work without compulsion. One thing produces another. The people of Russia unquestionably were badly treated during the Czarist regime; but who sympathized with them to a greater extent than the democracies of the world? We know that the Russian nobility went abroad and made the balance of trade so difficult for the Russian Government to handle that all sorts of devices had to be resorted to to place it on anything approaching a tolerable or endurable basis. Those rich men who lived on the blood and tears of their fellows produced the unfortunate conditions that were responsible for the equally unfortunate results that followed, culminating in the institution of the Soviet rule. An old saying has it that there is no tyranny so terrible as that of the slave. But because one had lived under one form of tyranny, would that justify the institution of a similar or an even worse form of tyranny ? Undoubtedly it would not. Yet that is what happened in Russia. The fact of communism being successful in Russia is not a tribute to the inherent qualities of communism, nor a proof that it possesses philosophic attributes. Russia was the easiest country in the world in which to try communism, and no more suitable time could have been chosen for the establishment of a socialistic state than when the conditions were so horribly unspeakable, as they were in t lie Czarist regime. There was then plenty of suitable material for a body of designing men to work their will upon. A cowed, illiterate, and spiritless race offers a happy opportunity for the shallow-brained gabbling demagogue to work his will. But let that demagogue try this quackery upon the New Australians of Paraguay. The result in that case was a fiery lesson to the whole world. Communism and enlightened man will never go together. The universal judgment of mankind is that it will never work. There is another gem in the publication from which I have just quoted. It shows that this country of which we hear such glowing accounts, and which is ruled by the proletariat, is paying on money it has borrowed interest rates ranging from 6 per cent, up to as much as 12 per cent. Who is getting that money? We were led to believe that under conditions such as those that obtain in Russia to-day there would be no receivers of interest, and especially, no usurers; yet up to as late as three years ago rates as high as 10 per cent., 11 per cent., and 12 per cent, were being paid. Why do we waste time trying to induce intelligent Australians to believe in an order that we know has been tried and proved a failure, and that, according to the universal judgment of mankind, is entitled only to unequivocal condemnation ! It is a sad commentary upon our intelligence as a nation that so many of our people have followed the foolish advice that has been offered to them. Look at the condition of New South Wales at the present time. It is the richest State in Australia, and yet is the greatest cadger. You can see now the fruits of its people having drunk long and deeply of the poisonous trash that no other self-respecting community has ever touched. It is well that there are two classes of New South Wales men - the good sort, who are typified by those who now sit on the Government side of this chamber, and the other sort whose mouthpieces are to be found on the Opposition benches. But for the fact that there is that good sort, there would be no hope for the State. Are we to stand idly by and allow the poorer States to make up "the deficiency of such a rich State as New South Wales ? Not so. We are becoming tired of it. Senator Rae issued a warning to honorable senators who come from other States. I issue to him a counter warning, and that is that we will not continue to bolster up the finances of New South Wales at the expense of our working harder and longer, and living on poorer food than its people. If he expects us to do so, he expects what is mean and despicable. Thai State has sunk so low that it is dragging into the mire the fair name of Australia. Such a position cannot be sustained. Even Senator Rae will admit that we cannot prosper unless we have a good name. Consider how richly endowed is New South Wales by nature. Her capital has a harbour the value of which to her can probably be assessed at not less than £40,000,000. Nothing had to be done to it to make it navigable. Yet the estuary at the mouth of the Swan river cost the State of Western Australia £3,000,000. What did it cost Melbourne to provide herself with shipping facilities which New South Wales got for nothing? Then there is her climate. Look at what it costs Queensland to work that State under tropical and sub-tropical conditions. Can it be wondered at that the people of Queensland on the one hand, and of Canada on the other, look with envious eyes at New South Wales because of her unrivalled climate? Yet they pay their debts, while New South Wales defaults ! Look at the boundless resources of coal that she possesses within a circumscribed area ! At the present rate of extraction the supply is sufficient to last for 2,000 years, while outside that area no attempt has been made to compute its boundless store of fuel. There is not enough coal in the State of South Australia to boil an egg. Yet the quantity with which a bountiful Providence has supplied New South Wales cannot be computed. Notwithstanding all these advantages, this State shoves its hat in front of others far poorer by comparison and says " Please help us to pay our debts." What an ignoble spectacle! One would really think some Australians had sold their manhood. Then take the pastoral and dairying areas. In the north of the State there are magnificent dairy lands which, when I was there, were worth as much as £60 and £70 an acre. No other State possesses their equal. At one time New South Wales carried half the total number of sheep in Australia. Yet this rich and prosperous State is the one that comes to unfortunate Western Australia, with its vast expanse of light and sandy land, and says " Give us a helping hand." It makes a similar plea to struggling Tasmania, which has always been a pronounced victim of federation. At one time it was a maxim that we should help the poor and needy. That has now been reversed, and it is the rich and powerful who are the greatest Beggars. I speak of New South Wales only because it is referred to in the Governor-General's Speech, in which. ways and means are suggested of remedying the existing unhistorical grievance. Was it ever contemplated that such a thing would happen? Never in the history of British-speaking countries was it considered that a man would incur a debt on behalf of his State and then have the effrontery to say that he could not pay either the principal amount or the interest upon it. How can we expect to win and hold the respect of others if we act in that way? We can only win respect if we respect ourselves; and the first step is to stand up to our responsibilities and, as was the case with the old village blacksmith, " Owe not any man." New South Wales, once the leading asset in the nation's balance, is now fast becoming the nation's leading worry and liability. I wish to say a word or two in regard to the tariff proposals of the Government. I hope it will be proved that I am mistaken ; but it appears to mc that the members of the Government have wilted somewhat in connexion with this matter. I trust that such measures will be taken as will enable those who go into the interior to thrive and prosper. If there is any more tariff aggravation, instead of having the different sections of industry thriving side by side we shall have a country of merely shepherds and sundowners. The shepherd will be only the pale embodiment of what he should be, a prosperous farmer and grazier; the sundowner will be forced off the land and, as a mere vassal of the other, eke out a miserable, shiftless, precarious existence. We must have a well-balanced tariff, with the scales held equitably between all sections. The Government has shown some signs of weakening upon this issue. I hope it will stand up to the opinions that its members expressed when in opposition. Otherwise, there is a bad time in store for this country. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m. 136 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - If, as Senator Rae declares, wage and living standards are to be preserved in New South Wales, regardless of the consequences of this policy to other .States', soon the time will come to call a halt, because we cannot tamely submit to a condition of affairs under which the rich and opulent State of New South Wales involves the other States in financial loss. With States, as with individuals, default demands investigation and action. The publication issued to honorable senators over the signatures of Professor Copland and Mr. Shann, sets out clearly the efforts made by individual States to adjust their finances in accordance with the solemn promises and assurances given by their respective mouth-pieces at the Premiers Conference in August last. In 1929, the basic wage for the Commonwealth was £4 15s. per week. In New South "Wales in that year it was £4 5s., and in November, 1931, it was £4 2s. 6d., a decline of only 2s. 6d. per week. In Queensland, in 1929, the basic wage was £4 5s., and in November, 1931, it had shrunk to £3 14s., a decline of lis. per week. In South Australia the basic wage in 1929 was £4 5s. 6d., and in November, 1931, it had shrunk to £3 3s., a reduction of 22s. 6d. In Western Australia the basic wage in 1929 was £4 7s. per week, and in 1931 it had declined to £3 13s. 6d., a reduction of 14s. per week. These figures show that in some of the States the sacrifices have been very substantia], but as the basic wage in New South Wales was only reduced by 2s. 6d. per week, that State Ls still, comparatively, on a high level- 137 K1L 0 0 BARNES, John Senator Barnes - The other States had a chance to do likewise. 137 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - If the Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to justify the position in New South Wales, I shall be glad if he will explain why the sacrifices demanded have not been distributed equally, as promised by the responsible mouth-pieces for the various States. He should not complain, because he put through the Premiers plan requiring those reductions. What justification is there for the opulent and much favoured State of New South Wales maintaining a higher basic wage than obtains in the other States, and being allowed to default in its interest payments, which have to be made good by the financially weaker States? The challenge thrown out by Senator Rae in defence of the Lang policy will undoubtedly be accepted on behalf of the other five States, because they cannot be expected to continue making sacrifices, simply to confer advantages upon a State already so well favoured by Providence. The facts are plain. The other States have at least made an attempt to stand up to their obligations, by conforming to the plan agreed upon for the restoration of financial stability, whereas New South Wales has done practically nothing, and its mouthpieces, not only in this Parliament, but elsewhere, in justifying its attitude, apparently expect the other States to supply the wherewithal to make good deficiencies in Commonwealth accounts caused by the default of New South Wales. The role adopted by Mr. Lang, the Premier of that State, that of being a good fellow to his supporters, at the expense of the other States, is as old as the hills. But soon this business will come to an end, because the representatives of the people in this Parliament will decline to continue shovelling out financial aid to this rich State at the expense of the poorer States of the Commonwealth. If there is anything of the Australian or British spirit of fair play about the Premier of New South Wales, and his political supporters, they will realize that the burden should be equally adjusted between the people of all the States. The last reference which I wish to make is to the position of the party now sitting in opposition in this chamber. In its ranks are to be found apologists for and defenders of this lop-sided system whereby the poorer States of the Commonwealth are called upon to make good deficiencies caused by the default of the richest State in the federation. Its numbers in this Parliament have been -very much reduced. Two years ago Labour came back with a total of 45 members in another place, and, figuratively speaking, bands were playing and hymns of rejoicing were sung. After two years of Labour rule, there was again an appeal to the people, and Labour came back in such depleted numbers as to be unable, almost, to provide a corporal's guard. But the important point to remember is that, in its earlier years, the main planks of Labour's policy were markedly different from those of the party of to-day, the contrast being as great as the difference between the brightest noonday sun and the darkest night. In the course of time restriction after restriction has been imposed upon its members with the result that, instead of Labour being one united party with lofty ideals, and enjoying the confidence of the overwhelming bulk of the people, it has come to be regarded as a purely industrial party with a policy applicable only to city and suburban areas. What has been the result? Very few representatives of the agricultural areas of Australia are now in the ranks of the Labour party. I have examined the list of members of the two wings of the Labour party in this Parliament, and I find that out of nineteen members only six come from what may be termed rural constituencies, while thirteen represent city and urban electorates. Stated in other terms, two-thirds of the party look after the city and one-third looks after the continent. Therefore, although the Labour party claims to be continental in its outlook, it is now largely an industrial party, and has, for' some years, been endeavouring to foist a city policy upon a continent. It has adjusted its policy to suit the narrower views of industrial areas, and has ignored, almost entirely, the interests of rural- electorates. For this reason Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia are, for the most part, not now represented in that party. If any honorable senator cares to examine the figures relating to the membership of the last Parliament, he will find that out of 45 Labour members, only 15 represented rural electorates. ' These figures are further justification for my statement that Labour has shortened its fighting line, and adjusted its policy to suit the interests of industrial areas. It draws its political sustenance chiefly from Sydney and Melbourne. These are facts which cannot be ignored. The agricultural areas have turned their backs upon Labour, because they recognize that its policy is not in their interests. It is, in fact, a city party that is attempting to foist a city policy upon the Commonwealth. This is an attempt to put the cart before the horse - to do something which cannot be done, because, notwithstanding the simplicity of country electors, they know the .difference between the two policies. The people know the difference between a policy that ministers to their progress and the ease whereby they may make headway in life, and one that gives them no such chance. If the honorable senators, on your left, sir, desire to recover their lost popularity and ingratiate themselves with the people of the Commonwealth they must alter their policy and put an end" to the activities of Communists, who are the curse of Australia. They must re- lease the Labour party from the bonds which restrict it, and ostracize that element which can only be prejudicial to that party and to our country. Then will they have a . chance of recovering the popularity they once possessed. lt is improbable that they will do so merely by indulging in palaver and fulsome promises. I admired the attitude of the present Government during the last election. Its candidates disdained to obtain support by giving promises that they knew they could not fulfil. I have never given such promises and I never shall. Supporters of the various branches of the Labour party glibly declared that there would be work for all if they were returned. There will be work, when confidence is restored, when men who have a few hundred pounds are encouraged to invest it in our primary industries rather than place it on fixed deposit. Then shall we see the wheels of industry turn again. During the two years that the Scullin Government was in office, immigration in Australia became a negligible factor; in fact we finally witnessed the extraordinary anomaly of Australia shipping away its population. There was a surplus of departures over arrivals. The Scullin Government had so lost the confidence of the people that it was unable to arrest that state of affairs. I repeat what I have previously said on many occasions. Governments in this country have ceased to rule, in the true sense of the word. Their authority is merely a pretence. One industry after another has closed down. The extremists say, " Stop," and all things stop. They command " start," and all things start in a sort of way after ruinous idleness. Those in control are not the Government, the appointed representatives of the people, but a sinister influence behind the party which is represented on your left, sir. If these gentlemen would take courage and tell the extremists to take a holiday, to cease meddling with the progress of Australia, our affairs would be in a vastly different position. 138 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill - Order! The honorable senator has exhausted his time. 139 K09 Tasmania 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator PAYNE . - -Following the very able speech delivered by my colleague, Senator Lynch, I am somewhat diffident about continuing the debate this afternoon. At the same time I have no desire that it should collapse, as there are matters of great importance, apart from those enumerated in His Excellency the Governor-General's Speech, which should receive attention at this juncture. His Excellency's Speech is a most important document, as it comes before us at the most critical time in the history of the Commonwealth. Honorable senators and every other citizen of Australia must be deeply sensible of the fact that we stand at the 01'088 roads, and that matters in every department of life are more difficult to-day than ever before in the history of this fair lund. I was surprised to hear an interjection to the effect that His Excellency's Speech contains nothing, in substance. We all realize that it is prepared by the Government of Australia, whose policy it propounds. On perusal one finds that it is full of important matters, although it does not reek with promises that are impossible of attainment, as did a similar speech at the opening of the last Parliament. In that speech, and in the policy speeches of those gentlemen who later became Ministers of the Crown, there were promises aplenty, which were designed merely to catch votes. We know how few of those promises were put into effect. One of the first dealt with the necessity of finding employment for those of our people who are out of work. The specious promise was made that if Mr. Seullin became Prime Minister our unemployment problem would be solved immediately. Instead, unemployment increased by over 130 per cent, during the Scullin Government's occupancy of the treasury bench. There is no instance on record of any attempt being made by that Government to deal with the unemployment problem. Members of the Government confined themselves to internecine squabbles, and to keeping Parliament in session, without transacting any business. It is stated that this Government proposes that Parliament shall meet only for a short period. If that is so, it is a wise decision. It is essential that, instead of wasting time in talk, the Government should set about the task for which it was appointed. His Excellency the Governor-General has been pleased to point out that there are two fundamental problems to which we should devote our energies during the coming months. One is to provide employment for the workless. Every man and woman in Australia, irrespective of the party to which he or she may belong, grieves sorely over the fact that we have so many thousands who are willing to work, but who cannot find employment. In many instances work could be provided for them, but, because of our frustrated. That makes the problem even industrial legislation, their efforts are more acute. It is time that the people of Australia awoke to the fact that it is futile to establish a standard of living which prevents persons who want to work from doing so. People who desired to provide work for those unemployed would have to abide by the rates laid down by wages boards and the arbitration courts, which precludes their making the work available. 139 JTL ALP 0 0 DALY, John Senator DALY - The honorable senator should spend more time on the mainland. 139 K09 0 0 PAYNE, Herbert Senator PAYNE - I spend a good deal of time on the mainland, and have given much attention to this problem, particularly in the State of New South Wales. As a public man, I make it my business to move among the workless to obtain information as to the difficulties that confront them. If Senator Daly, who so ably represents his State, will come with me any Sunday to Sydney and visit Hyde Park, I shall bring him into contact with these people, and he will find that my words are true. I meet hundreds of men who are classified as casual labourers. They tell me that there is any amount of work available in the suburbs of Sydney for those who are willing to work at a wage commensurate with their earning capacity, but that our industrial laws preclude their accepting it. So they have to exist on the dole. Only recently the Victorian press reported the case of a woman who was brought before a court for employing a man for two weeks as a casual labourer, at the rate of 10s. a day. She was informed that the standard rate was 16s. a day, and waa fined £2 or fourteen days. She refused to pay the fine, and declared that she would let the State of Victoria maintain her; that she had merely attempted to provide employment for one who needed it. I could enumerate many similar cases. It is time that we abandoned many of the pet theories that we have thought necessary iu Australia. We have built up a system that could not be maintained anywhere else in the world. We have told ourselves that we are the chosen people, and must have a higher standard of living than the inhabitants of any other country. The whole structure is crumbling. We can no longer afford to hold those views. We must realize that we cannot live to ourselves; that so long as we are in competition with other countries which produce the same commodities that we produce we cannot maintain the standard which we have set up for ourselves during recent years. In saying that I do not advocate that men should live as slaves, or be paid for their services a sum which will not enable them to live in a reasonable measure of comfort and happiness. After all, the pound is worth only what it will buy. If a man can live comfortably on £3 a week, maintain his family, and save 5s., he is better off than if he obtained £5 a week and at the end of the week was in debt. I trust that the Government will look into these matters and do its best to bring the States to a realization of the position confronting Australia. Reforms of this kind are not brought about in a moment, but unless we take a common sense view of things, we shall not return to prosperity. The third paragraph in the Speech reads - A policy of merely waiting for an improvement in world prices would involve very grave risks to the nation as a whole. Expenditure, both public and private, must be adjusted to available means. That paragraph strikes a note which should appeal to all honorable senators. We must indeed keep our expenditure within our means. It is obvious to all thinking men that we cannot hope to retrieve our former position by imposing additional taxation. During the last two years it has been proved that every additional £1,000 extracted from the people by way of taxation means £1,000 less to spend in providing work. The heavy taxation imposed during the last two years has increased unemployment. The only funds available to pay for work done is the surplus revenue of private individuals. If that revenue is taken in additional taxation it cannot be used to provide employment. It is obvious, therefore, that we must call a halt with regard to taxation. Indeed, we must do more ; we must endeavour to reduce the burden of taxation now pressing on the people. If we do so, it will follow as the night follows the day that unemployment will grow less. The Speech states that employment cannot be found by governments ; that it must be provided by private enterprise - companies and private individuals. Unfortunately, many of our people do not realize the heavy burden of taxation placed on the shoulders of that section of the people on which we rely for the money necessary to carry out our undertakings. I have investigated the financial position of New Zealand in regard to taxation. Last year the Government of the sister dominion found it necessary to increase the burden of taxation on its people. With many apologies, it informed the taxpayers that the rate of income tax would have to be increased by 30 per cent, for this financial year. My investigations show that a person in New Zealand whose income from property is £500 per annum pays in income tax the sum of £24 7s. 6d., which sum includes the 30 per cent, increase which I have mentioned. A similar income in Australia is taxed by the Commonwealth to the extent of £62 10s., in addition to which the State taxation amounts to probably £40 or £50, and, in some cases, even more. It will be seen that on similar income the Australian taxpayer pays in income tax approximately £100 as against £24 in New Zealand. I have searched the records of other British dominions, and nowhere do I find the burden of taxation so pressing as in Australia. It is time that we realized that the limit of taxation has been reached. We should do our utmost to relieve this pressing burden upon our people so that funds may be made available to provide employment for those who are out of work. I ask leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. , 141 papers The following papers were presented : - Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer's Statement of Receipts and Expenditure fur the year ended 30th June, 1931, accompanied by the Report of the Auditor-General. Norfolk Island - Report for the year ended 30th June, 1931. 141 Questions 141 141 KTR UAP 1 0 MCLACHLAN, Alexander Senator McLACHLAN . - This morning Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following questions, upon notice: - Is it a fact that the federal authorities have debarred the Dominion League of Western Australia from utilizing broadcasting station (Musgrove's)6ML, Western Australia, for a series of short addresses on the subject of secession ? If so, what is the reason for citizens of Western Australia being thus denied the right to address one another on a question of importance, which it is understood has lately been under the consideration of the Government and Parliament of the State? Will the Government have the prohibition, if any, removed promptly? I regret that an answer was not then available, but I am now advised that after considering representations made by Western Australian members, Cabinet decided on the 10th February, 1932, to grant permission for the broadcasting of these addresses. 141 Payment in Western Australia. 141 KTR UAP 1 0 MCLACHLAN, Alexander Senator McLACHLAN . - An answer was not available this morning to the following question, asked by Senator Lynch,upon notice: - Has the Government heard of any complaints from Western Australia about the slow rate of progress in the payment of the wheat bounty in that State? If so, will the Government take steps to expedite such payments? In the case of a wheat-grower who definitely states or estimates a certain quantity of wheat for seed purposes, and afterwards finds out he does not need such quantity or any part of it for such purposes, will he be entitled to a bounty on such wheat? I am now able to advise the honorable senator that the replies to his questions are - >Abou t51 per cent. of the claims for wheat bounty received in Western Australia have already been paid. The delay in the payments is clue largely to the fact that many claims have to be returned to growers for completion. It is hoped that as growers become more fully aware of the necessity for inserting all the prescribed particulars in the claims that payments will bo greatly accelerated. Bounty is payable on the wheat referred to provided it is sold or delivered for sale before the 31stday of October, 1932. 141 14:56:00 Senate adjourned at 2.56 p.m.