/
19290815_reps_11_121.xml
2926 lines (2926 loc) · 320 KB
/
19290815_reps_11_121.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1929-08-15</date>
<parliament.no>11</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>2</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>6</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House of Representatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1929-08-15</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom)</inline>took the chair at 2.80 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>MINISTERIAL PARTY MEETING</title>
<page.no>6</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Personal Explanation</title>
<page.no>6</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMQ</name.id>
<electorate>PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to make a personal explanation. In the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Sun NeWS Pictorial</inline> of yesterday appear statements purporting to describe proceedings at a ministerial party meeting held on the previous day. In each report references are made to me, and to opinions I am alleged to have expressed - which are inacurrate in both cases. The report in the <inline font-style="italic">Sun News Pictorial</inline> contains these words - </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>7</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
</talker>
<para>asked questions which indicated apprehension about the result of the bill. One of his expressions was, " The Ministry's object is to throw the workers to the wolves ". </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">I absolutely deny that I ever used that expression at a party meeting or elsewhere, as an indication of my own views, and I object very strongly to the publication of statements concerning my views which are without foundation in truth and unauthorized by me. I can only interpret the publication, of such inaccuracies as an attempt to intimidate public men in the performance of their duties. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTION</title>
<page.no>7</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Motion of Want of Confidence</title>
<page.no>7</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. BRUCE</inline><inline font-style="italic">(by leave)</inline> agreed to - </para>
<quote>
<para>That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders bo suspended as will enable the Notice of Motion No. 1 - Want of confidence in the Government - to take precedence of all other business until disposed of. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>7</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate>Dalley</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>.- I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That, by its withdrawal of the lock-out prosecution against the wealthy colliery proprietor, John Brown, after its vigorous prosecutions of trade unionists, the Government has shown that in the administration of the law it unjustly discriminates between the rich and the poor, and that as a consequence the Government has forfeited the confidence of this House. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The Australian people were astonished nt the Government's recent withdrawal of a prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown without any adequate explanation of the reasons for adopting that course ; especially as the Attorney-General had stated that, as a result of full investigation by his department, he was satisfied that a breach of the industrial law had been committed. If there is one thing more than another in regard to which the Government has prided itself, or at any rate paraded its virtue, it is the rigorous and impartial enforcement of the law, and in particular, the industrial arbitration law. The fact is that Ministers have been very happy when setting the law in motion against trade unionists; towards that section of the community the Government has been unyielding and relentless. The Attorney-General himself has always been lacking in mercy when asked to show leniency when negotiations were in progress for the settlement of industrial disputes then current. Last year when the executive officers of the Waterside Workers Federation were being prosecuted at the instance of the AttorneyGeneral, representations were made to him that the summonses should be withdrawn- because the union had abandoned what it admitted to be an illegal attitude, and had ordered its members back to work. But the honorable gentleman refused to show any leniency. The principles underlying his uniform attitude throughout last year and the early part of this year are crystallized in the answer he gave in this chamber to a request by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> that the summonses against the Federation be withdrawn because the men had decided to resume work - </para>
<quote>
<para>The Government has a responsibility to the people of Australia to administer the laws which this Parliament has made. That responsibility is discharged by the institution of a prosecution in such serious circumstances as now present themselves. The matter is now before the courts, upon which the responsibility of judicial decision depends. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">He declined to take any steps to stop that prosecution or to facilitate the negotiations then in progress. Ever since the Government made more drastic the punitive provisions of the arbitration law, he has been adamant in refusing all appeals for considerate treatment of the workers, but he has never failed to assure the House that the law would be enforced with the same severity against the employers. During the discussion of the amending arbitration bill of last year, he reiterated the statement that the new law would apply with equal force to employers and employees. When scepticism was expressed by honorable members on this side of the House regarding the readiness of the Government to enforce the punitive sections against the employers the AttorneyGeneral and other ministerialists were highly indignant. The honorable gentleman virtuously declared that the penalties proposed in the bill would apply alike to the employers and the employees, to federations of employers and unions of workers. The lockout in the northern collieries of ]STew South Wales this year gave to the Government an opportunity to show that it was sincere in these protestations. As early as February last, attention was drawn to the matter in this House, first when there was the threat of a lockout, and subsequently, when the lockout actually took place, the colliery-owners acting in unison having closed a large number of the collieries operating in the district, thereby throwing out of employment 12,000 workers. As early as February it was put to the Government that action should be taken to enforce the law against the coal-owners. The Attorney-General undertook to consider the matter. He considered it for nearly six weeks, aDd then towards the end of March announced that action would be taken against one colliery-owner only, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown. Process was issued out of court and, I suppose, duly served upon John Brown, and the prosecution was launched. In the meantime negotiations had been proceeding for a settlement of the trouble. Indeed, there had been negotiations between the collieryowners and the coal-mine employees for more than a year. At a later conference the Prime Minister appeared upon the scene, and calmly made public the intimation that it was intended to withdraw the prosecution against John Brown. The mystery of the whole proceeding is that the Prime Minister should apparently have resolved upon that course without making an adequate explanation of his contemplated action. Subsequently he gave varying explanations in the course of two or three successive days. In addressing conference, the right honorable gentleman gave it as his reason for what was being done that the prosecution of John Brown would not bring about the re-opening of the coalmines. On the next day he stated, according to the public press, that he understood that both sides desired the withdrawal of the prosecution. Again, on the following day, he said that so long as proceedings were pending against one of the employers, it would be impossible for them to discuss the coal trouble. The right honorable gentleman shuffled shamefully. On the outburst of public indignation which occurred when the withdrawal of the prosecution was broadcast throughout Australia, the Prime Minister apparently realized that it was necessary to bolster up a rotten case, and so cast about for some sufficient explanation. In setting out what he considered to be an adequate explanation he did a grave injustice to the coal-miners' officials. He led the general public to believe that those officials had consented to the withdrawal of the prosecution, when he must have known that they had given no such consent. They were not consulted on the subject, nor was their advice sought. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davies,</inline> the general secretary of the Coalminers Association, made a statement to the press, refuting the Prime Minister's suggestion that both parties to the conference had consented to the withdrawal of the prosecution. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davies</inline> said - </para>
<quote>
<para>At no time during his consultation with the union delegates, prior to the conference, did <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce</inline> intimate that he intended to withdraw the proceedings against Brown. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce</inline> made a remark to the effect that they had shot the timber-workers for £1,000 and had shot poor old Holloway for £50, and that that had not settled the timber industry trouble; and if John Brown was fined £1,000, probably after months of litigation, that would not settle the coal trouble. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
</talker>
<para>- When was that statement made? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>8</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was published on the 10th April, and the facts were repeated in a further printed statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davis</inline> giving a review of the coal trouble. There is an extraordinary mystery about the whole of the proceedings. The Prime Minister, in addressing the conference, used the words " The Government had decided to do a certain thing," that is, to withdraw the prosecution. I do not know whether the Prime Minister regards himself as the Government, or whether he did actually consult his colleagues in the Cabinet and they resolved upon this course of action, or whether he decided upon it at the suggestion of people outside this parliamentary institution. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Attorney-General came into the picture at about this stage. Shortly after the announcement of the withdrawal of the prosecution, the Attorney-General addressed a very weighty and pointed memorandum to the Prime Minister, presumably for the consideration of Cabinet. In that memorandum he reviewed the whole question of penalties under the industrial law, made special reference to the prosecution of John Brown, and commented very unfavorably upon the withdrawal of that prosecution. He also made allusion in it to the lack of moral and legal justification for the dropping of the prosecution, and said, as well, that it was politically inexpedient. He said that the proceedings against John Brown, who had been charged with instituting a lockout, had been discontinued; that this action had made it impossible to enforce penalties against other persons, and that it had encouraged resistance to the industrial law by the strikers. Subsequently, he said that the action of withdrawing the prosecution was politically inexpedient. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MAXWELL, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Maxwell</name>
</talker>
<para>- From what is the honorable member reading? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am reading from the published report of the memorandum. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
</talker>
<para>- To what memorandum does the honorable, member refer, and where was it published? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The 'AttorneyGeneral is the only person who can say authoritatively whether he prepared this memorandum and sent it to the Prime Minister. I am only assuming that such a memorandum was prepared, because it has been publicly stated in the Sydney press that such a memorandum was prepared and forwarded to the Prime Minister. If he so desires, the AttorneyGeneral can, by interjection, clear up all doubt about the preparation of the memorandum. I do not wish to allege that he is the author of a cabinet memorandum on the matter if that is not the case. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member said that he was quoting from a newspaper, but he did not name it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- My authority is the Sydney <inline font-style="italic">Sun.</inline> It would, perhaps, facilitate the consideration of this subject - because the preparation of the memorandum has an important bearing on it - if the Attorney-General would admit that he prepared a memorandum in which he criticized the action of the Government in withdrawing the prosecution. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6Q</name.id>
<electorate>WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CORSER, Bernard</name>
<name role="display">Mr CORSER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the statement that the honorable member for Dalley has read contained in the memorandum? </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>9</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Apparently, the newspapers which published the statement had sufficient authority for circulating it. We may take it from the silence of the Attorney-General that there is at least some truth in the published statement that a memorandum was prepared, and that in that memorandum the Attorney-General questioned the wisdom of the action of the Prime Minister in withdrawing the prosecution. He questioned the wisdom of the action on moral and legal grounds, and in a public statement, published on 10th April - about the time that the memorandum was prepared - he said - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The withdrawal of the prosecution against John Brown was obviously a condition precedent to the coal conference now being held in Sydney. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That statement has never been denied. In a separate statement published on the same date he said - </para>
<quote>
<para>Both sides recognized that a frank exchange of views was imperative, and this was impossible if one of the parties were subject to a pending prosecution and thus prevented from making any disclosures which might prejudice the case in the court. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">In those statements the honorable gentleman attempted to make an excuse for the withdrawal of the prosecution by suggesting that it was a condition precedent to the conference that the prosecution should be withdrawn. Who made that condition ? The AttorneyGeneral could not have known or even have reasonably assumed that the miners consented to it, for they did not, and have repudiated the suggestion that they did. If there was a condition precedent to the conference it must, therefore, have been made by the employers. No one has said that they did make the condition, but the Prime Minister has allowed it to be inferred that the condition was made. </para>
<para>I ask honorable members to contrast the public utterances of the AttorneyGeneral upon this matter with the statements made in his memorandum to the Prime Minister that there was neither legal nor moral justification for withdrawing the prosecution, and that it was politically inexpedient to withdraw it. A comparison of these statements must lead to the conclusion that the prosecution was withdrawn by the Prime Minister without consulting the AttorneyGeneral. That point needs to be cleared up. Who administers the laws of the Commonwealth? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>10</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr James</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, apparently! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>10</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Well, who, nominally, is administering the AttorneyGeneral's Department. The AttorneyGeneral should be consulted and his advice acted upon when an important prosecution of this description is involved. At any rate, he should not have been ignored by- even the head of the Government. When it was first proposed to withdraw the prosecution the Prime Minister should surely have had some consultation with the Attorney-General. Apparently, he had none. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>In these circumstances, we are justified in examining the facts, in so far as we can ascertain them, and in drawing what inferences Ave can from the various statements that have been made upon the subject, in order that we may arrive at a sound judgment as to what considerations have operated in this matter and what influence has been brought to bear upon the Government. In one of his explanations the Prime Minister referred to "pending proceedings." He also referred to the difficulties of the situation. In that connexion he used these words - </para>
<quote>
<para>As long as these proceedings" were pending it was impossible for the employers to discuss with the representatives of the miners the economic conditions of the. -industry, as any statements made by them might be used in the prosecution. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Who told him that? Who pointed out to the right honorable gentleman the difficulty of conducting the inquiry while a prosecution "was pending against this colliery-owner? Whoever did so appears to have assumed the responsibility of dictating to the head of the Government. Some one obviously did it. A great deal of explanation will be required to get over that difficulty. It is true that the Prime Minister met the representatives of the coal-owners before the conference, and there was nothing wrong in his doing so. He also met the representatives of the coal-miners. Doubtless he was actuated by the hope that something might be done to bring about a settlement of the trouble. When he met the coal-owners did they inform him that there could be no settlement of the trouble unless the prosecution against John Brown were withdrawn? That they did is the only reasonable infereoe that can be drawn from the facts and the statements that have been made public. If that is so, the coal-owners acted as dictators. As a matter of fact they have been the law breakers from the very stai't of the trouble. They have offended more grievously against the Commonwealth law than any unionist or body of unionists since the Arbitration Act was amended last year. </para>
<para>It must be remembered that when unionists or unions commit an offence against the law by going on strike, as admittedly they have done on occasions, they not only risk a prosecution under the law, but also subject themselves to extreme suffering, hardship and lo3S not provided for in the law. A body of unionists that is dissatisfied with" an award, or has some grievance or fancied grievance which causes it to commit an offence against the arbitration law, subjects itself to hardship and sacrifice whether the Government takes action against it or not. That cannot be said of the millionaire coal-mine owners who close down their mines. Not only are they able to avoid the suffering and hardship which falls upon the miners irrespective of the law, but apparently they are also immune from prosecution, because of the political influence they are able to wield. This influence is so great, seemingly, that they are able to commit most flagrant breaches of the law and still go unpunished. They are able to inflict untold suffering, hardship, degradation, starvation and destitution upon their employees and the families of their employees, as they have done in the Newcastle district, without fear of the consequences. There was never any justification for the closing down of the collieries in the Newcastle district. That was a most tyrannous attempt to force the employees to agree to a wage cut, but although it was wholly illegal the Government has proved itself unable to enforce the law. </para>
<para>In these circumstances, what becomes of the high-minded attitude, or the exalted pose, of the Attorney-General who said that he intended to see that the Commonwealth law was vindicated where" either employers or employees committed a breach of it? If the Attorney-General had had a spark of manhood in him he would not have remained in the Ministry after his advice in respect of this prosecution was disregarded by the Prime Minister. Seeing that he made it so clear in his memorandum that there was neither legal nor moral justification for withdrawing the prosecution he should have stood by his opinion even to the extent of resigning his position. There must surely be a limit to the degree of humiliation that a man should stand at the hands of his political chief. He should not be compelled to act unjustly or to remain silent while an injustice is being done. The Attorney-General cannot excuse himself by saying that this action was taken by the Prime Minister. Every member of the Government must accept equal responsibility for it. But apparently all ideas of what is just and fair and reasonable and manly must go by the board. </para>
<para>There might have been a modicum of excuse for the Attorney-General if he had taken a different attitude throughout in regard to the enforcement of penalties under the Arbitration Act; but towards unionists he has shown no mercy. He enforced the law against the waterside workers and the timber workers, and in February of this year - just a few weeks before the John Brown prosecution was launched and only a few days before the lockout occurred on the coal-fields - he enforced it against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Holloway,</inline> an official of the Melbourne Trades Hall. On that occasion he refused to consider any suggestion by the officials of the trade unions that there should be a gesture of leniency, with a view to bringing about a better feeling between the parties and possibly a settlement of the dispute. The AttorneyGeneral said that that was beyond him. In reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> on that point he allowed it to be inferred that once a prosecution was launched it was no longer his responsibility, but became the responsibility of the particular court which had to deal with the subject. When a prosecution is launched, and a summons or other process of the court, whatever it may be, is issued, it is usually considered to be beyond the control of the political head of the Department of Justice. Does that not place it in the hands of the judiciary or the magistracy, as the case may be '( How, then, does the PrimeMinister justify his action in interfering? There have, of course, been cases, under both State and Commonwealth law, in which a prosecution has been stopped by government intervention, to facilitate the securing of industrial peace, and exception would not be taken to the withdrawal of the prosecution of John Brown if that procedure had been in accord with the ordinary conduct of the Commonwealth Government in these matters, when the settlement of a. serious industrial trouble might result. It appears, however, that the Prime Minister was told by the coal-owners that there could be no settlement unless the prosecution was withdrawn; that he was given to understand that a settlement would be arrived at if that were done; but that, after the prosecution was withdrawn, the coalowners threw the right honorable gentleman overboard, and would not agree to any settlement. At the conference which followed they proved as uncompromising as they had been previously. </para>
<para>It is to be hoped that the AttorneyGeneral, when speaking upon this matter, will state why a prosecution was initiated against one colliery-owner only. When it was assumed that the timber workers had offended against the Commonwealth law, this Government did not single out some one particular timber worker, and prosecute him to make a test case. On the contrary, it prosecuted the whole union, as well as a representative official in Melbourne. But in this case it was only after six weeks consideration that the Government decided to launch a prosecution, and then it proceeded against one coal-owner only, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, although all the members of the Colliery Proprietors' Association were concerned in the lockout which occurred, and the officers of that association were responsible for carrying the lockout into effect. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Charles</inline> McDonald is one of them; but there has not been even a suggestion of prosecuting him. </para>
<para>The Attorney-General has assumed an attitude of impartiality and aloofness in these matters. He has referred to his position as involving semi-judiciary responsibility, and no doubt it does. The honorable gentleman has to make decisions which are judicial in their nature. But he has used his responsibility and his powers ruthlessly against the trade unions, and in the administration of his department has resorted to practices which I consider most questionable. The Attorney-General was responsible for the prosecution a little while ago of the secretary of the Australian Seamen's Union, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Jacob</inline> Johnson. I may say, for the information of honorable members, that in Sydney the opinion is prevalent that the Attorney-General's Department - at any rate, so far as it is represented by his officers in Sydney - acting principally under the instructions of himself or of his officers in Canberra, carries on most questionable and doubtful practices. It apparently does not hesitate to use faked evidence to support its prosecutions. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>12</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! I ask the honorable member to withdraw the suggestion that the Attorney-General gave instructions to his officers to use faked evidence. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>12</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- If that charge can be inferred from my statement, I withdraw it. The Attorney-General's Department certainly acted in a very questionable manner in regard to the prosecutions launched against Jacob Johnson and in regard to its prosecutions against unionists. It is also acting in a very doubtful manner in the matter of the prosecution against John Brown, by withdrawing that prosecution without offering any adequate explanation for its action. The Jacob Johnson prosecution was under the personal consideration of the Attorney-General, who directed it, in the sense that he issued the instructions to his officers, and, undoubtedly, persons employed by his department were making use of faked evidence. That statement is supported by affidavits read in this House. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Attorney-General has since been invited to make an inquiry into the matter, but he declined to do so, notwithstanding the grave implications in the statements which were made. Yet he poses as a purist in administration, as one whose sole concern is to administer the law justly. In the instances which I have presented he has given no indication either that he has justly administered the law or that he has administered it with impartiality. </para>
<para>So that we may not be told that drastic criticism to the withdrawal of the Brown prosecution has come only from members of the Opposition in this Parliament, I shall quote now what the Nationalist press has said about the matter. I shall not quote the personal opinions of honorable members opposite, as they may themselves desire to reiterate them during the course of this debate. This is what the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> had to say on the subject on the 9th April, 1929, the day after the prosecution was withdrawn - </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>THE HAND OF LATHAM AND THE VOIC.U OF BRUCE</title>
<page.no>12</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">It will now be asked what new facts or circumstances have induced the Government to withdraw the prosecution. We fear that in suspicious quarters it may be suggested that the altered circumstances arc that Parliament is now in recess. It will be suggested that the proposal to prosecute <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown served a very useful political purpose. It will be suggested that subsequently in the Cabinet or in the party room it was considered impolitic to Sool the law on to a wealthy mine-owner who might be a contributor to party funds. And it will be suggested that the Prime Minister was instructed to take the first favorable opportunity of getting the party out of the awkward position in which it had been landed by the legal enthusiasm of the AttorneyGeneral. </para>
<para class="block">The Adelaide <inline font-style="italic">Register</inline> of the 11th April stated - </para>
<quote>
<para>In the case of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown the Federal Government has committed an amazing and even inexcusable blunder. In a democratic country nothing is better calculated to provoke intense feeling than a suspicion that there is, in reality, one law for the rich and another for the poor. The Government should not have launched a prosecution against an eminent and influential employer, except on an adequate basis of proof. But, once set in motion, the law which recently penalized the lumpers and timber workers should have been allowed to take its course. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">On the 12th April the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Am</inline> published this statement - </para>
<quote>
<para>Astonishment caused by the sudden withdrawal of legal proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline></para>
<para class="block">Brown, coal-owner, is developing into intense public indignation. It is certain that no other Australian Government has in recent years so foolishlly or brazenly exposed itself ibo the onslaughts of its opponents or subjected the loyalty of its fair-minded supporters to such severe strain as the Bruce-Page Ministry has done by this single set. To use the conference and the possible embarrassments of one of its constituent clements as a smokescreen will satisfy only those ready to defend the Tact Ministry at any sacrifice. The community's sense of justice has been affronted; its faith in the administration of the law has been shaken. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The Sydney <inline font-style="italic">Bulletin</inline> said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The Bruce-Page Ministry made a silly mess of its dealings with the coal baron, Brown. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">On the 20th April the <inline font-style="italic">Australasian</inline> had this to say - </para>
<quote>
<para>The announcement of the withdrawal of tho prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, charged with having done <inline font-style="italic">something "</inline> in the nature of a lockout," came as a thunderbolt. . . . The public's faith has suffered a rude shock. </para>
</quote>
<para>Those excerpts sum up more tersely and more pointedly than I can do the real nature of the action of which the Government has been guilty. It has shown grave partisanship; it has acted as the cat's-paw of wealthy interests; 'it has demonstrated the facility with which it can discriminate between the rich and the poor. That facility has been shown in the past in its treatment of certain taxation cases. An ordinary citizen who evades or avoids the payment of income tax is haled before a magistrate and fined. There is no equivocation in his case; but in the case of the millionaires who defrauded the Commonwealth to the extent of £500,000, no prosecution whatever was instituted. The public knows, too, that prior to the case of the Abrahams brothers, another millionaire, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Sidney</inline> Kidman, was allowed to evade the payment of land tax due to the Commonwealth. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>13</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr Jackson</name>
</talker>
<para>- He was not. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>13</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- His arrears of land tax were allowed to accumulate for years, and eventually he was allowed to go scot free. In the present case, John Brown, a millionaire coal-owner, and a political friend of the Government, has been allowed to escape. A prosecution against him was not pressed home. Evidently he has some mysterious influence over the Prime Minister, not possessed by the common worker, which enables him to flout the administration, laugh at the Government, and act the part of a law-breaker who is immune from the penalties that the law imposes on others. The Government, which was prepared to prosecute the workers, not once, but innumerable times, to drive home with the most bitter, relentless, and ruthless enthusiasm in their case the penalties provided by Commonwealth law, has allowed wealthy law-breakers to escape because, apparently, there is some little known, but, nevertheless, real, political influence, which works in their favour. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>13</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate>Flinders</electorate>
<party>NAT</party>
<role>Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - The grounds upon which this censure motion is founded are the most serious that could form the basis of a motion " of want of confidence. Leaving out of consideration the verbiage of the motion, such as the reference to " one law for the rich and another for the poor," and coming directly to the gravamen of the charge, we find that it is that the Government has not been impartial in its administration of the laws of the country, but has been subject to certain influences, to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, referred in the concluding words of his speech. Were the charge substantiated, the Government would not be entitled to remain in office for five minutes longer. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The task of presenting the case of the Opposition has been undertaken by its Deputy Leader. I cannot congratulate him upon the manner of its presentation. He has not dealt with it in the manner that the seriousness of the charge required of him. His statements contained the innuendo that the Government is subject to some outside influence. In one portion of his speech he said that the prosecution of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown was withdrawn at the instance of some one not connected with the Government; later he stated that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown</inline> appeared to be immune from prosecution, because of the political influence that he wields. He also said that the Government is the cat's-paw of wealthy interests and its millionaire political friends. There is not a scintilla of justification for any of those statements. I suggest that in making them he degraded the debate to a level below that to which he should have descended. </para>
<para>A considerable portion of the honorable gentleman's speech was devoted to an attack on the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Latham).</inline> While I am content to leave the Attorney-General to defend himself, I propose to show that for the charge that the Attorney-General allowed himself to be overridden by the Prime Minister and was guilty of a serious dereliction of duty, there is not the slightest basis of fact. The honorable gentleman's personal hostility to the Attorney-General led him to use words which he was called upon to withdraw, whereupon he suggested that the officers of the Attorney-General's Department are prepared to produce faked evidence in prosecutions initiated by the Commonwealth against Australian citizens. Not only is that not the truth, but the statement is an insult to public officials who have served this country so well. To suggest that a man of the integrity and reputation of the Solicitor-General would be guilty of such an action is to level an unfair charge against a public servant who is not able to defend himself. The officers of the Attorney-General's Department maintain that high standard of honour for which the public servants of this country are renowned. I resent bitterly that the honorable gentleman, because of his apparent hatred of the Attorney-General, should have descended to such tactics. </para>
<para>I shall not refer further to the innuendoes against the integrity of the Attorney-General, but propose now to deal with the substance of the charge levelled against the Government, namely, that it improperly withdrew the prosecution against John Brown. That prosecution was initiated towards the end of the last session of this Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that there was an unwarrantable delay in initiating proceedings. That is not so. Appearances indicated that a lockout of the coal-miners in the northern portion of New South Wales was taking place, but considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining evidence that that really was the case. The AttorneyGeneral was alert, and took all steps to see whether or not there was any breach of the law by the coal-owners- on which to base a prosecution. Nor did he rely entirely upon his own judgment, for he sought the opinion of eminent counsel in Sydney. The greatest difficulty was experienced in finding evidence which would justify the Government in initiating a prosecution; but eventually sufficient evidence became available to do so, although grave doubts still remained as to the possibility of success. As soon as the AttorneyGeneral felt that there was a <inline font-style="italic">prima facie</inline> case, and a possibility of success, he initiated proceedings. The honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> also asked why only one owner was prosecuted, and not all the members of the Coal Owners Federation. I do not think the honorable member asked that question seriously. He knows that the Coal Owners Federation is not the owner of the coal mines, and could not as a body be made responsible for a lockout; that it is only against individual mine-owners that proceedings could be taken. As to the suggestion that proceedings should have been taken against all the mineowners concerned in the dispute, let me say that there were so many complications and difficulties associated with any prosecution, that the Government had to select one coal-owner and proceed against him as a test case. In prosecuting for a lockout, the Government has to establish certain facts. It cannot merely assert that men are not being employed in a mine and that therefore a lockout exists, and the owners of the mine have rendered themselves liable to a penalty. In addition to establsihing the fact that a coal mine is not being worked and that employment is not being offered, the Government has in such a case also to establish the fact that the mine was being carried on at a profit. Unless that is done; we cannot prove that a lockout exists, or that a coal-owner has committed an offence against the law. To get the strongest possible case, the Government instituted proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, because it was believed that the mines under his control were probably the most profitable in the northern coalfields of New South Wales. The Government realized the gravity of the situation, and felt that no advantage would be gained by prosecuting indiscriminately. The honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> suggested that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline></para>
<para class="block">Brown must possess some wonderful political influence, and some mysterious influence over me. But if <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown's</inline> mysterious influence over me was responsible for the withdrawal of the prosecution, why was he in the first place singled out for prosecution? The circumstances certainly do not indicate that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown had any particular influence over me, in the early stages of these proceedings, at any rate. I do not know whether the innuendo went further, but I presume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not suggesting that I was bribed. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>15</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
</talker>
<para>- There was no suggestion of anything of that nature. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>15</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should like to make it clear that I did not see <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown</inline> or have any negotiations with him, nor was any influence brought to bear upon rae in regard to him, individually, concerning the withdrawal of the prosecution. Within a few days after this Parliament adjourned, I left for Sydney, where I arrived on the Wednesday before Easter. On arriving there, I was communicated with by telephone, by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Rees</inline> or <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davies</inline> - I do not remember which - and it was- suggested that I should confer with these two gentlemen in connexion with the then existing circumstances. I arranged to see them at once. They waited on me, accompanied by a third person who, at the time, I did not know. The object of their visit was to inform mc that the union had a scheme to submit which they thought would be acceptable to the owners, and might lead to a settlement of the trouble in the coal industry, the reopening of the mines, the re-employment of the men, a cessation of the losses which were then being incurred, and an end to the sufferings of women and children. The gentleman who accompanied them was a <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Miller,</inline> an accountant, who, I understood, was primarily responsible for the scheme which they submitted. We spent some time in considering the basis of their proposal, and I said that I thought it desirable that I should meet the executive of the Miners' Union and should bring <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> to any conference with them. We accordingly arranged another conference the next afternoon, which was attended by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> and representatives <inline font-style="italic">of</inline> the unions engaged in the coal-mining industry. We had a lengthy discussion on the scheme for which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Miller</inline> was responsible. It was considered exhaustively and the impression was made on me, as I told the conference, that the scheme might form the basis for negotiations, but that as I was not a coal mining expert, and unfamiliar with the problems of the industry, I could not express a definite opinion on the value of the scheme. I suggested that the way to arrive at a decision regarding it was to arrange a conference between representatives of the miners and of the coal owners. When we were discussing the possibilities of such a conference, the representatives of the miners - who at that stage believed in the scheme, but subsequently ascertained that it was not so attractive as they originally thought it to' be - maintained that the owners should be compelled first to re-open their mines, as in the case of a strike the workers were always required to return to work before negotiations for a settlement were begun. There was much discussion on the subject. I said that the Government was desirous of continuing the negotiations as there seemed a possibility of a settlement. I pointed out, however, that it was most doubtful whether the owners would agree to the conditions on which the miners' representatives proposed to insist; that there was a great difference between the action of individual miners in going back to work and the re-opening of coa] mines in which operations had been reduced to such an extent that only safety men were being employed and there was no certainty of a permanent resumption of work. I said that the Commonwealth Government could not compel the mine owners of New South Wales to re-open their mines and offer employment to the men, not having the power to do anything of that sort, and that if the State executive determined to act in the matter the reopening of the mines could not be brought about on the following Tuesday, because it would be necessary first to summon the State Parliament, to consider and pass legislation empowering the State Government to take over the mines. And such legislation having been framed and passed, there would be delay before it could be put into operation, so that there was no possibility of the mines being opened compulsorily before three or four months, or an even longer period, had elapsed. The conclusion arrived at was that action along those lines would not have the desired effect. We then considered whether any other steps could be taken, in the course of which we dealt with the subject of fines and penalties. It was at this stage that the remarks to which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davies</inline> referred were made: that, although the Timber Workers Union had been fined £1,000, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Holloway</inline> had been prosecuted, the timber strike was not thereby settled nor the timber mills re-opened. Similarly, I said, we should not secure the opening of the coal-mines by the contemplated prosecution of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John.</inline> Brown for having caused a lockout. I mention these facts to show that the whole purpose of the discussion was to discover what could be done to get the mines opened immediately. After every possibility had been traversed, the conclusion was arrived at that there was only one way in which we could bring about a conference between the representatives of the miners and the mineowners. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> and I undertook to see if we could induce the owners to agree to a conference. Incidentally, let me say that we had no power to force them to a conference. The representatives of the miners did not, that night, vary the condition upon which they would agree to a conference, namely that the mines should first be re-opened. On the following day, Good Friday, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> and I saw <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDonald,</inline> who was the only representative of the mine-owners then in Sydney. W e placed the position before him, and he undertook to consult the members of his organization to ascertain whether they would participate in a conference. I then left for Melbourne, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> continued the negotiations. The coal-owners met on the following Tuesday, and, after having considered the matter, said they would not agree to the re-opening of the mines prior to the holding of a conference. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> saw the representatives of the miners, and eventually they gave way on that point. We then had to consider the pending prosecution of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, and consequently I returned to Sydney on the Wednesday. The coal-owners said they could not take part in a conference, the whole basis of which would be a consideration of their profits and the cost of production in the mining industry, when one of their number had been prosecuted for a lockout, and every other coal-owner was liable to be similarly prosecuted, because it would be impossible for a full, frank and open discussion to take place. I promised to consider their representations and advise them of the course I was prepared to take. The AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Latham)</inline> was in Melbourne, and I telephoned to him. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> made an incorrect statement, when he said that the Attorney-General knew nothing about the proposal to withdraw the prosecution of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown. He knew all about it, because I discussed it fully with him. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>16</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KV8</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STEWART, Percy</name>
<name role="display">Mr Stewart</name>
</talker>
<para>- Before it was withdrawn ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>16</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. It was clear to me at the time that if we withdrew the prosecution we should open our flank to every kind of political attack. I could n"ot deceive myself on that point. It was obvious; it jumped to the eye. I realized fully that Ave would immediately bc charged with administering the law in one way where the worker was concerned, and in another way in connexion with 'the big coal-owner. I could not disguise from myself the fact that every form of political propaganda would be launched against the Government. Almost the first remark made by the Attorney-General when I rang him up was, " If this is withdrawn, the political atmosphere is going to be extraordinarily bad for the Government and its supporters." Our subsequent conversation considered the question from every angle. He asked me what I thought were the prospects of a successful outcome of the suggested conference. I informed him that, although I could not be definite in the matter, there appeared to be a very good possibility that the conference would succeed. After we had discussed the matter fully we agreed that, although from a political stand-point it would be an act of lunacy to withdraw the prosecution - because such an action must have a repercussive effect upon the Government and its supporters - all that mattered was that the opportunity should be given for the parties to meet each other in the hope that there would be a settlement of the trouble in the coal-mining areas of New South Wales with the result that the mines would be re-opened, and the men would return to work. We agreed that that was the main consideration in the interests of, not only the miners and their dependants, but also the whole industrial life of the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General and I, therefore, concluded that the best course was to withdraw the prosecution, and allow the conference to proceed. The conference took place on Monday the 8th April last. In opening it, I made a fairly long statement, a portion of which it is essential I should read. It was attended by representatives of the Northern Collieries proprietors and the combined mining unions. The latter were represented by the following gentle- in on: - D. Bees, general president, Miners' Federation; D. J. Davies, general secretary, Miners' Federation; T. Hoare, Northern District president, Miners' Federation; A. S. Evernden, general president, Amalgamated Engineering Union; J. Atkins, general secretary, Federated Engine-drivers' Association ; H. C. Morton, secretary, Colliery Mechanics' Association ; and E. S. Miller, accountant to the unions. After I had stressed the desirability of getting the parties together, and had appealed to them to forget their past troubles, and to face the proposals that had been advanced in an endeavour to bring about the reopening of the mines, I went on to say - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The Government believes that this is the best way to deal with the situation, and, for that reason, and because it would be impossible to carry on the deliberations of this conference and got that full expression of opinion from both sides with absolute frankness of discussion, otherwise the Government does not propose to proceed with the prosecution for a lockout which has already been initiated. Representatives of the mine-owners have pointed out that this prosecution - which, as I have shown, is for the recovery of a penalty, and unhappily would not solve the problem - will, if proceeded with, render it impossible for them fully to discuss this question and put every aspect of the case as they see it; because all the time there would be the possibility that statements they made here might.be of such a character as to influence the result of the prosecution. After very full consideration the Commonwealth Government came to the conclusion that the wisest course was not to proceed with the prosecution. The consideration that has influenced us in that course has been that while, if successful, we might recover a penalty of £1,000, that would do nothing to help the unfortunate minors and their dependants, or to get the mines re-opened. On the other hand, if this conference were in any way hampered by one side being prevented from putting its case as fully, as clearly, and as explicitly as it would bo otherwise prepared to do, that would be imperilling the success of the conference. Having to choose between the two alternatives, now that both parties are prepared to meet and frankly discuss the matter, we have decided not to proceed with the prosecution. We trust that very much bettor results will come from full and frank discussion than any benefit that would be derived from the possibility of success in a prosecution for the mere recovery of a monetary penalty. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That statement was made at the opening of the conference and in the presence of representatives of the unions. Afterwards the delegates agreed to a short adjournment to consider the position. On the following day when the conference was resumed, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDonald,</inline> for the owners, made a long statement, as also did <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Rees</inline> on behalf of the unions. In the course of the discussion, not one word was said against, and no exception whatever was taken to, the action of the Government in withdrawing the prosecution instituted against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown.</inline></para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>17</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr James</name>
</talker>
<para>- The miners' representatives had not a chance to object. The right honorable gentleman walked out of the conference. I was there. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>17</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFK</name.id>
<electorate>DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GROOM, Littleton</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The honorable member for Hunter will have an opportunity to reply to the statement of the Prime Minister when his turn comes. The honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> was given a fair hearing and the same courtesy should be extended to the Prime Minister. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>17</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- When the conference resumed on the day following the statement made by me, no reference whatever was made to the Government's action in withdrawing the prosecution. The honorable member for Hunter <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. James)</inline> has stated that he was present at the conference. That being so, it is very strange, judging by our experience of the honorable member's behaviour in this chamber, that, if he felt so strongly on the subject then as he appears to do now, he restrained himself from commenting on the matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>17</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr James</name>
</talker>
<para>- The threat was made at the Canberra conference that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. West</inline> would be thrown out if he intervened in the proceedings, and I did not wish to be thrown out of the Sydney Town Hall. That is the reason why I did not object on that occasion. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>18</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that, from day to day, I gave varying and conflicting explanations of the Government's action. I absolutely deny that. The only statement made by me was that which I have just read, and it was available to the press on the first day of the conference. If, as has been indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, paragraphs appeared subsequently in the press which suggest that I made conflicting statements, the responsibility is not mine. I made a full and clear announcement concerning the Government's action on the first day of the conference, and gave our reasons for the withdrawal of the prosecution. The statement which I made at the opening of the conference was fully reported in the Sydney press, for the very good reason that it related to a matter of grave importance to- the State. But, apparently, in the press of the other States only the brief report that the Prime Minister had announced the withdrawal of the prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown was published, and the reasons for the Government's action were not made known. I was in Sydney until the Wednesday, the statement to which I have alluded having been made at the conference on Monday, and, as I have said, no protest was made on behalf of the unions concerned. When I left Sydney for Melbourne on the Wednesday night, it was obvious that the serious position in the coal-mining industry in New South Wales was regarded as of vital and paramount importance, and there was general agreement that nothing should be done which would prevent a settlement of the dispute. Everybody realized that it was imperative that the coal mines should be re-opened and the existing dislocation of trade terminated. When I arrived in Melbourne on Thursday, however, I found that there was a considerable amount of turmoil and misunderstanding, because of the inadequacy of the reports that had appeared in the press of that city concerning the reason for the Government's action. I therefore made a statement amplifying those reports. I am convinced that much of the trouble in this matter is due to the fact that the reasons for the withdrawal of the prosecution had not, until then, been published. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>On the day following the opening of the conference I saw the SolicitorGeneral and instructed him that the proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown</inline> were to be withdrawn in view of the negotiations that were then proceeding for a settlement of the dispute, advising him that I had consulted with the Attorney-General, who concurred in the action which the Government proposed to take. The Solicitor-General then sent the following instruction to the Crown Solicitor on the 9th April:- </para>
<quote>
<para>I am instructed by the Prime Minister to instruct you to apply for the withdrawal of the information against John Brown. </para>
<para>The court is to be informed that this step is taken in view of the conference now proceeding between representatives of the miners and the mine-owners, with a view to resumption of work at the collieries. </para>
</quote>
<para>On the Thursday the matter came before the Court and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Nield,</inline> instructed by the Deputy Crown Solicitor in Sydney, said - </para>
<quote>
<para>In view of the conference now proceeding between representatives of the miners and the mine-owners, with a view to resumption of work at the collieries, I ask that leave be given for the prosecution to be withdrawn. </para>
</quote>
<para>The Court gave the necessary permission. </para>
<para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that Governments have intervened again and again to stay legal prosecutions when it was thought that that might tend to bring about a settlement of industrial trouble. The offence alleged against the Government is, therefore, not that it withdrew this prosecution, but that it has not been impartial in its prosecutions, and ha3 singled out a particular section of the community for attack. Honorable members opposite are extremely angry that this prosecution has been withdrawn. But suppose that the conference which was being held when the proceedings were stayed had succeeded, and the collieries were open to-day, suppose that the wheels of industry had been re-started as a result of the Government's action. Honorable members opposite would then not have dared to open their mouths about this matter, and we should not have heard a. word about it. Again, suppose the prosecution had been directed against the miners, and a conference which offered the only possibility of a settlement could not be held while proceedings were pending. Would honorable members opposite in such circumstances charge the Government with acting wrongly if it brought about a stay of proceedings? The logic of the honorable member's case is not very good. Again, what would have been the feeling in New South Wales if the holding of the conference had been prevented, because the Government stood obstinately by the course it had adopted? Surely everybody would have condemned the Government, and rightly condemned it, for not allowing the opportunity to be availed of for getting industry working again. </para>
<para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a certain quotation from a newspaper. I ask him whether he has any document in which appear the statements which he quoted? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>19</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have no document, nor knowledge of the existence of any document, beyond what I have seen in the newspaper referred to. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>19</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4B</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The statements contained in that newspaper could, if correct, have come only from a Cabinet document. But the document from which the newspaper paragraph purported to quote, but which it did not quote accurately, conveying quite an erroneous impression as to its contents, was circulated by the Attorney-General, and sent not only to me, but to every other member of the Cabinet, and was marked as a Cabinet document. No one outside Cabinet except an officer could have any knowledge of its contents, unless the document were stolen, or its contents had been improperly disclosed in dereliction of duty by some public officer. It is a lamentable thing that a journal should use a document which it knew to have been stolen, or should publish statements which it knew could be disclosed only by some trusted officer in dereliction of duty. It must be clear to all honorable members, and to no one more than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who was himself for some considerable time the head of an administration, that government would be rendered impossible in any country if the members of a cabinet could not circulate among themselves documents freely expressing their opinions on important matters of public interest, and it is a serious thing for journals to use documents of this kind coming improperly into their possession. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Government has been charged with being other than impartial in its administration. It has been said that we have picked out individuals and organizations amongst the workers for prosecution, and have taken no action against the employers. It is true that we prosecuted the waterside workers. We tried to avoid the necessity for that prosecution by repeated appeals to the persons concerned that they should obey the law. In spite of that they persisted in their course, and we were forced in vindication of the law to take action against them. That was also the position with regard to the timber-workers. It was very much the position with regard to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Holloway,</inline> who went out of his way to make the Government prosecute him. While prosecutions were carried through in those cases, I remind honorable members opposite that we have not vindictively pursued the trade unions or the workers under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Let me point out that practically every trade union in this country has recently been flagrantly defying the law of the land by collecting levies for the support of the timber workers on strike. We have not pursued those organizations. Although it is anticipating the introduction of legislation which would have been brought down to-day or to-morrow but for this censure motion, I must point out that we have come to the conclusion as a result of recent experiences that we cannot prevent strikes and lockouts by the provision of penalties and the infliction of punishments. This position has arisen because recently the overwhelming majority of the trade unions of this country have not cooperated in observing the law, and the responsibility for the present situation rests on their shoulders. The action of the Government in the case of. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown was not different from that adopted by it throughout the dispute. While there appeared to be the possibility of bringing about what the people desired, the prevention of strikes and lockouts, the Government was prepared to retain and enforce the arbitration law. It has now been made clear, by the happenings of the last few months, that the object desired by the people cannot be achieved in that way, and the Government therefore proposes to institute a system that will prevent the law from being brought into contempt. </para>
<para>I have explained the facts and circumstances of this case to the House. I have been intimately concerned in the matter throughout, and I take the major share of responsibility for what ha3 been done by the Government. Being in Sydney at the time, I was the Minister who was closest in touch with the parties to the dispute, and I had to come to a decision and convey my views to the AttorneyGeneral. These were concurred in by him, and subsequently endorsed by all members of the Cabinet. I say emphatically that I have kept only one object in view, and that was the resumption of operations in the coal-mining industry and the ending of the loss and suffering caused by its dislocation, and the crippling of all the industries of this country. Were I again faced with similar circumstances, and had I to decide whether I would foi low the course of political expediency and avoid giving an opportunity to my political enemies to attack me for my action, or pursue a course which I believed to be in the interests of Australia, I would unhesitatingly take the action I took on this occasion. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>20</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate>Hunter</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I desire to comply as strictly as possible with the rules of debate. But I feel the position keenly, for the simple reason that the whole of the locked-out miners reside in my constituency. They number 12,000, and reckoning that the number in each family averages three, one may safely say that 36,000 persons in my constituency are dependent on the coal industry for their livelihood. I support this motion of want of confidence. I believe that the people of Australia have lost faith in the present Government because it has shown discrimination between rich and poor in its adminis'tration of the arbitration laws. Statutes enacted to deal particularly with the workers are invariably put into operation; but, when the interests of the wealthy classes are threatened, the Government tells us that it is impossible to administer those laws by inflicting fines. For 25 years, the party opposite has assisted to administer the arbitration legislation of the Commonwealth, and it has only now awakened to the fact that so far as those laws touch the rich they cannot be put into operation. Let me remind honorable members of the following remarks in a speech made in this House by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce)</inline> on the 21st February last, during the debate on the coal-mining dispute. According to <inline font-style="italic">Hansard,</inline> he said - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Several of the mine-owners are already taking steps to close down some of the mines. Honorable gentlemen opposite will have a great deal to say on that subject, but let me first say that if the mine-owners take any action which infringes the law of this country, the Commonwealth Government will proceed against them just as it will against any one else in the community who breaks the law. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The Prime Minister went on to say that, so far as the coal-owners were concerned, he was guided by the findings of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin,</inline> the Premier of New South Wales. He added: - </para>
<quote>
<para>The only fact that wo know for certain is that at the suggestion of the Bavin Government an investigation was made by expert accountants into the books of the various coal-owners, and that their inquiry showed that the difference between the cost of producing coal and the selling price of it was 2s. per ton. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">We find that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDonald,</inline> the chairman of the Northern Collieries Association, who, I understand, supplied the figures or hooks of the owners upon which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin's</inline> conclusions were based, has now given evidence on oath before the coal commission that he is not responsible for the conclusions to which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> came. We do not know how much profit has been made by the coal-owners. In a statement in the New South Wales legislature in October last, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> said that he had come to the conclusion, from the reports of the various accountants who had inspected the owners' books, that the margin of profit was not more than 2s. per ton. Presumably, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Barton</inline> is the accountant to whom <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> referred, but that gentleman said in evidence before the commission that he saw no books, and that his calculations were based merely on figures submitted to him by a responsible official of the Premier's Department. </para>
<para>I turn now to the Prime Minister's justification of the withdrawal of the prosecution of John Brown. Perhaps I was responsible for the institution of proceedings ; at any rate, I advocated that a prosecution of him should be made a test case. I was one of his slaves before I was elected to this House, and from my first-hand knowledge of him and his methods, I regarded him as an ideal subject for prosecution. I stated in the House in February that an ex-manager of one of Brown's collieries had declared that coal could be sold at 6s. per ton less than the present price without necessitating any interference with the men's wages. I have with me a cost sheet which I obtained from that manager, after the Attorney-General had announced the intention of the Government to prosecute <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown.</inline> The information was submitted to the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor in the Customs House, Newcastle. My informant was manager of the Richmond Main colliery before he was sacked for having had the courage to engage a man who had been blacklisted by the Coal-owners' Federation. There is some humanity about that man. I honestly believe that the same may be said of the Prime Minister; but. unfortunately, forces are at work which compel him to act in opposition to his better nature. When the man to whom I refer was manager at the Richmond Main colliery, the hewing rate was 2s. 11.2/8d. per ton. The detailed costs were - </para>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="121331192908155_15_0.jpg" />
</para>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="121331192908155_15_1.jpg" />
</para>
<para>total outputfor two weeks (1918 -5,407 tons. </para>
<para>Traction to Hexham -1s. 5.16d. per ton. Stores- 8.83d. </para>
<para>Approximately 10s. 4d. per ton to Hexham. </para>
<para class="block">The colliery was then in the developmental stage, and production costs were at their maximum. Its output in1918 was only 5,407 tons per fortnight. To-day the average output is 3,000 tons per day, or 27,000 tons per fortnight. It is true that the wages of the miners have increased by 17½ per cent., and those of the offhand labourers by approximately 3s. 6d. per day. But those increases were more than offset by an advance of as. 6d. per ton in the price of coal. The honorable member for Moreton <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. J. Francis)</inline> stated in the House in February last - </para>
<quote>
<para>In Queensland a little more than half the increases approved by the Coal Tribunal have been put on to the price of coal by the proprietors of the mines. In 1916, the Queensland industry made an increase of1s. 9d. a ton instead of 3s. per ton as laid down by Judge Edmunds. Another increase of 15 per cent. to the miners followed in 1919. When the increase in the price of coal in New South Wales was 2s. 9d. per ton, Queensland increased the price by only1s. 6d. a ton. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The honorable member's statement supports the argument I have advanced. The Queensland colliery-owners were allowed to increase their selling price only in proportion to the increase in wages. Yet the Prime Minister said that it was uncertain that the prosecution of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown would have been successful. The right honorable gentleman referred to the proceedings at the conference in the Sydney Town Hall. It is remarkable how many "B's" have been connected with the present dispute in the coalmining industry. At the head of the list is the baron of the coal-fields, John Brown. Next in order of priority is the </para>
<para class="block">Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce),</inline> who is supported by two able lieutenants in the persons of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin,</inline> Premier of New South Wales, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Butler,</inline> Premier of South Australia, and also " lancecorporal " Buttonshaw. Another " B " is <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Wallace</inline> Bruce, of Adelaide. I attended the conference, not as a delegate, but as a visitor, and when the Prime Minister announced the intention of the Government to withdraw the proceedings against John Brown, I was inclined to protest; but, recollecting that for interjecting at the conference in Canberra the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. West)</inline> was threatened with ejection, I kept silent, and so avoided the indignity of being thrown out. In the newspapers published on the following day, however, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davies,</inline> secretary of the Miners' Federation, declared that that body was not a party to the withdrawal of the proceedings, and I have sworn statements by him and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Rees</inline> to that effect. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>22</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NELSON, Harold</name>
<name role="display">Mr Nelson</name>
</talker>
<para>- Did not the Prime Minister hit and run? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>22</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>- In opening the conference the Prime Minister spoke for fully three-quarters of an hour. Then <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin</inline> spoke. When he had finished the Prime Minister introduced <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Wallace</inline> Bruce, and then, with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bavin,</inline> walked out of the conference and did not give men a chance to protest then. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>22</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PATERSON, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Paterson</name>
</talker>
<para>- That was the proper procedure, after having formally opened the conference. He was not a delegate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>22</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Prime Minister deliberately sought to convey to the press the impression that the representatives of the Miners' Federation were parties to the withdrawal of the proceedings against John Brown. In a pamphlet they have issued, the federation officials declare that they were not consulted in regard to this matter, and that, had they been consulted, they would certainly have objected to any interference with the ordinary course of the law. The withdrawal of the prosecution against John Brown shows absolutely that discrimination has been made between the rich and the poor. Before this debate is concluded I hope that a decision will be made to prosecute not only John Brown, but also some of the members of the Government. The cry of the Nationalists, in order to save the coal industry from ruin is to reduce, reduce, reduce. Up to the present I have not heard any supposed genius among them suggesting, in order to save this country from ruin, a reduction in interest rates, in profits and in dividends. The coal industry to-day is in a position similar to that which I forecast in this Chamber in February last. At that time I- referred to the visit of the Prince of Wales to the desolate coal areas of Great Britain and I said that we did not want in this sunny land of Australia the deplorable conditions which his Royal Highness had the courage to expose. To-day, similar conditions are existing in Australia. There are on the Northern coal-fields 36,000 people in want of bread and clothing, and of these 12,000 are responsible for the welfare of the remainder. They want to work and to obey the laws of this country; yet they are denied the right to work under the industrial awards simply because the coal-owners, backed up by the Government, have callously locked them out until such time as a reduction in wages is accepted by them. During the war a food blockade was instituted by Great Britain, and how cruel was its operation to the enemy nations.. We all look with horror even in war time upon the action of a nation in trying to starve innocent women and children into submission, yet to-day, in peace time, the coal-owners of this country have imposed similar conditions upon the coal miners to try to force them to accept a reduction in their standard of living. When this subject was debated in this House last March, many honorable members opposite were in sympathy with the miners. I refer now to the honorable members for Wannon <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Rodgers),</inline> Fawkner <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Maxwell)</inline> and Angas <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Parsons).</inline> In February the honorable member for Wentworth <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Marks)</inline> said he was satisfied with his investments in the industry. They gave him a greater return than any other of his investments, including investments in city properties. To-day pressure has been exerted upon them by the Government and they have deserted this Chamber, refusing to stand to their guns. Previously they said that they stood not for any party, but for the nation. To-day,. one section of this community is suffering a cruel injustice. They have suffered the pangs of hunger and the want of clothing during the cold winter months. No one expected the miners to withstand the hardships that have been imposed upon them, and they would not have been able to do so had it not been for the loyal assistance of their comrades in other industries. This has enabled a married man to obtain a food order of 15s. a week with an additional 3s. a week for each child. A single man receives a food order of 8s. a week. Honorable members behind the Government said last February that they stood for justice. Let us have justice now. This question concerns the welfare not of individuals ruling this country but of the whole nation. Do not let it be said that this Parliament stands for discrimination between the rich and the poor. Last March I said that this Government was running into recess, that the various Ministers were burrowing into their various dugouts to conduct a war of tyranny upon the miners. In view of what has transpired, can that be denied? There are in my constituency numerous returned soldiers who have received ejectment notices from the "War Service Homes Department. I would remind honorable members that during the war there were sent from my constituency two battalions of infantry, including one miners' battalion, to fight, as they thought in the interests of this country and to make it fit for democracy. They did their part, and now the administration of the War Service Homes Department has served returned soldiers, who are locked out of work, with notices giving them from 21 to 42 days to vacate their homes, and, in addition, to pay court costs. Another injustice has been perpetrated in respect of pensions. I have appealed to the Minister for Defence to give these men justice by taking action against the Government of New South Wales, which is administering the dole to the poor, starving miners. The Police Department of that State refuses to issue a food order to any person who is in receipt of a pension of £1 a week. The returned soldiers, in view of the promises that were made to them at the time of their enlistment, should receive every assistance. Under the system of tyranny that is being conducted in Australia to-day - I have sworn affidavits to support my statement - the Department of Labour and Industry of New South Wales, which is commonly referred to as the "Flying Gang," has refused to supply milk to a returned soldier's wife who is in the last stages of tuberculosis, although that diet has been prescribed for her by her medical attendant. Her husband protested te those administering the department, and said, " Are you prepared to allow my wife to die?" They callously replied, "Yes." Another man, who recently lost his wife, has four little children to support, and one of them is trying to keep house so that they may remain together. The department has refused to give him any ration supply simply because he has no wife. He has been told to place his children with the State, or. else get a woman to assist him in the house. I am not exaggerating these cases; I am giving honorable members cold, solid, and unvarnished facts. My candid opinion is that industry is being mismanaged by highly-paid servants, while those in control are keeping themselves busy by running round the country and squandering the profits. Since the lockout took place John Brown has paid from £2,000 to £4,000 for yearling colts, while those who helped to build up his wealth are starving. This position has had much to do with bringing about the chaos that prevails in industry to-day. It explains partly why so many people are starving, not only in the coal areas, but in other industrial areas. We are continually being told that the Government must act according to the Constitution; but the plain fact is that it ignores the laws made under the Constitution when it suits it to do so. What we need is an amendment of the Constitution which will effectively prevent extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the community. Thousands of our citizens are in dire need of food and clothing, and we should do something to help them. If the Government had sufficient courage it could alleviate the position ; but it appears to have no courage whatever. I should like the AttorneyGeneral to tell me which sections of the </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">Constitution would need to be amended to make <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown the legal king or dictator of Australia. If he will not do that, perhaps Tie will tell me how we could amend the Constitution to give effect to the views expressed by the Prime Minister at a meeting of the Nationalist Association in Sydney last month. The right honorable gentleman said on that occasion that he believed that the time had arrived for the owners of industry to take the workers into their confidence, and to eradicate all idea that industry was being carried on merely for profit. He said that the employers should submit their books for examination, and reveal the actual profits that were being made. If the Prime Minister were honest - and I think he would be if he had not behind him a body of callous legal gentlemen with neither heart nor soul - he would take immediate steps to remedy the present grievous troubles. I suggest to him that he should alter the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, and enable it to compel the coal-owners to submit their books for public examination, so that the people of Australia, as well as the coal-miners, might know the exact position. That would clear the air. I suggest, also, that the mines should resume work under the conditions whichprevailed before the stoppage, and that we should take the result of three months' output as a basis for assessing the profits. The commission could easily have its officers at the collieries and make a careful record of the business done. If the Government would do this, it would regain the confidence of at least some of the people. The Prime Minister said that a lot of discussion had taken place on the statement of the miners' representatives that, in the past, when disputes have taken place and work has been continued under the existing conditions, grievances have been ventilated and remedied. The miners were justified in advancing that claim, and I submit that the coal-owners should agree to resume working under the old conditions until the points in dispute have been considered and determined by the competent authority. No one denies that the coal-owners have broken the law. When the workers do that they must pay the penalty, and the coal- owners should also be obliged to pay it. The Government has plenty of courage when the workers commit breaches of the law. It has shown on numerous occasions that it is prepared to prosecute them to the bitter end. Consequently, we feel the injustice of allowing the collieryowners to go scot free. The vicious prosecution of the workers is indefensible; but so also is the exemption from prosecution of the colliery-owners. Months were spent in gathering evidence upon which to base a prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, and, when the department was instructed to launch the action, it should not have been withdrawn by the Prime Minister without any consultation with his colleagues. The following paragraph from an article which appeared in the Sydney <inline font-style="italic">Sun</inline> yesterday is worthy of our close attention : - </para>
<quote>
<para>The Attorney-General commented unfavorably on the withdrawal of the proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, who had been charged with instituting a lockout. This action, he said, had made it impossible to enforce penalties against other persons, and had encouraged resistance to the industrial laws by the strikers. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Latham</inline> described the stop taken as " politically unwise." </para>
<para>Cabinet, it is understood, was not consulted by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce</inline> before the announcement was made that the proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown would be withdrawn. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Nor were the coal-miners consulted on the subject.. We gather from that article, which is said to have been based on a departmental document, that the Attorney-General was not consulted. I heard the Prime Minister say " we have decided to withdraw the proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown." May I ask, who were the " we " ? According to this article, the Attorney-General was not consulted and the miners <inline font-style="italic">were not. Were</inline> they the Prime Minister and the coalowners ? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>24</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
</talker>
<para>- What, in fact, was said was that the Government proposed to withdraw the proceedings. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>24</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>- That was said a long while afterwards. The Government deserves censure on another count. Surely it should take care that the lives and limbs of those who "go down to the sea in ships " are protected ; but apparently it is not concerned about that, as is shown by the following report, which appeared in the Adelaide <inline font-style="italic">News</inline> on the 15th July, 1929- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>Carrying about 7,000 tons of coal for the Adelaide Electric Supply Company, Limited, the steamer <inline font-style="italic">King Cadwallon</inline> has been abandoned owing to fire in two holds. The outbreak occurred about 500 miles from Durban (South Africa). </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. F.</inline>W. Wheadon (managing director of the company) stated this morning that the loss represented six weeks' consumption. Coming at this juncture, it was a serious matter. </para>
<para>A shipment of 0,000 tons was due about August 23, and another of 8,000 tons a month later. The company was not actually badly off. Since the start of the coal trouble in New South Wales in February it had been carrying on with its own stocks. </para>
<para>Air. Wheadon said that the cause of the coal cargo on the <inline font-style="italic">King Cadwallon</inline> catching on lire was probably the oxidization of the sulphur in it. It was well-known that coal in large heaps, even in Australia, caught fire. Occasionally after being stored for a long time, Australian coal contained rather less sulphur than English coals. </para>
<para>The shipment on the <inline font-style="italic">King Cadwallon</inline> was specially selected for having low sulphur content, lie said. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That fire may have led to a most disastrous loss of life. When coal ignites through sulphur fumes, or through what the miners term " spontaneous combustion," serious explosions result under conditions which make it impossible for persons in the vicinity to escape. Almost the only time when the miners win the sympathy of the general community is when they are concerned in an explosion of that character. The fact is that the coal-miners always run excessive risks. Men working in favorable positions are sometimes able to escape when explosions occur in the mines, but older men, who are physically not so fit, who may be working in dangerous places, are often the victims of these accidents. Moreover, men who work in dangerous places cannot mine so much coal as others who work under better conditions, and this is reflected in their wages. The mcn in the dangerous places see a possible indictment in the tonnage sheets that are submitted daily and fortnightly, and realize that probably other men less physically fitted than they, may be hewing more coal and that they will be termed slackers or "polers." So, instead of timbering dangerous roofs, they endeavour to keep pace with others who do not need to take such precautious. Consequently, we read, periodically, of men being carried out of those mines into oblivion. Honorable members opposite take care never to read such accounts, or to extend sympathy to the victims of casualties in mines. The only time when the unfortunate miner receives sympathy from them is when 50 or 100 of his fellow workers are involved in a dreadful catastrophe and blown into eternity through a gas explosion in a mine. The Prime Minister said, " We must produce more," probably referring to himself. I warn honorable members opposite that if the coal-owners insist upon the sacrifice of the " seniority" clause this fight has only just begun. The miners will suffer anything rather than the loss of that essential principle for which" their forbears fought and suffered. A lot of capital has been made of the principle of the right of seniority of employment, and of what the boss terms his right to hire and fire those whom he desires. Some honorable' members may ask themselves why the owner of an industry should not have the right to engage or to dismiss whom he likes. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>25</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOG</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAYLEY, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is not in order in discussing the conditions of work obtaining in the industry. The motion is confined to the action of the Government in withdrawing the prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>25</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>- I consider that the point with which I was dealing is an essential one and in order. You, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> extended leniency to the right, honorable the Prime Minister when he wandered over every subject under the sun. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>25</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>-Order! The honorable member is not in order. He will either continue the discussion of the motion or resume his seat. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>25</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr JAMES</name>
</talker>
<para>- I regret that honorable members opposite, who originally condemned the withdrawing of the prosecution against John Brown, have gone out of the chamber. They should be here to listen to the proper presentation of the facts. They have declared that they do not stand for a government administering only in the interests of one class, and they should be here to support their expressed convictions. This Government has proved beyond doubt that it is prepared to prosecute workers over any trifling technical breach of the law, but that when it comes to the coal-owners or owners of any other industry committing a similar or worse breach of the same law it allows them to go scot free. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>26</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYI</name.id>
<electorate>Forrest</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
</talker>
<para>.- AsI listened to the motion of censure upon the Government and to the reply of the Prime Minister, I came to the conclusion that a considerable amount of inconsistency exists amongst honorable members of the Opposition. That leads me to a retrospective glance at the world's history and compels me to sympathize very considerably with the Prime Minister of Australia. History has revealed that a certain section will always follow a leader, not to assist but to find fault with and harass him. Like a certain other Leader, the Prime Minister of Australia has been bitterly assailed while faithfully performing his duty. Whether he goes to the right or to the left he is attacked by the Pharisees of his day. When, swayed by a sympathetic consideration of the sufferings expounded to him, he tried to relieve the suffering as it were on the " Sabbath Day " and set aside the majesty of the law in the belief that by so doing he would alleviate distress, it was said that he had committed a sin, and he was forthwith assailed by the Pharisees. Doubtless those mine men who interviewed the Prime Minister and laid before him the troubled lot of their colleagues, were sincere. They recognized the seriousness of the position. It was not the Prime Minister who stirred up this alleged hornets' nest. The right honorable gentleman explained that he went to Sydney to visit the Show, not to withdraw proceedings against John Brown, but that he was approached by those who felt genuinely concerned in the distress occassioned by the coal dispute and gave attention to them. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>26</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L07</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LAZZARINI, Hubert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Lazzarini</name>
</talker>
<para>- Who were they? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>26</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYI</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Prime Minister explained who they were. Those representative workers approached the right honorable gentleman and he entered into conference with them in a conscientious endeavour to bring about an amicable and desirable result. I am confident that those nine Labour men foregathered with the </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">Prime Minister at the suggestion of the coal workers, and that the honorable member for Hunter <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. James)</inline> realizes in his own heart that the right honorable gentleman was genuinely sympathetic with the request that they brought before him. It is obvious that the view of the mine-owners could only be that it was impossible for them to enter into a round table conference with the miners and participate in a frank discussion while the case of John Brown was pending. John Brown was representative of the mineowners and his case affected them all. I submit that the Prime Minister entered into that conference with the best of intentions, with the desire to help people so sadly in distress that he considered that, although it was the " Sabbath Day," or an apparent breach of the law, the element of human compassion should enter into the matter and that the case of John Brown should be set aside in order to clear the atmosphere for amicable discussion. I believe that the nine representative workmen who sat in conference with the right honorable gentleman felt that he had done the right thing. But now the political Pharisees come upon the scene and see in what was done an opportunity to make capital, not on behalf of those in distress, but on behalf of themselves. Their desire is merely to get on to the Ministerial benches. The records of that conference are printed and disclose that the workers who attended it felt that the Prime Minister of Australia was doing the right thing in cancelling the case against John Brown. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>26</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Beasley</name>
</talker>
<para>- Could it not have been adjourned. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>26</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYI</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable membermust realize that an adjournment would have been ineffective, as the case would still have been <inline font-style="italic">sub judice.</inline> It is my belief that the Prime Minister took the correct action, and that his object was solely to alleviate the distress caused by the inactivity of the coal mines. The honorable member for Hunter <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. James)</inline> thinks that a noble action was done when one of the bosses reinstated a. man who had been black-listed by an owner. He holds a different opinion when the position is reversed, and a loyalist worker is concerned. This whole matter centers upon the question whether the Prime Minister was justified in his action and was actuated by the best interests of the country when he decided to cancel the case against John Brown; whether he believed that he would then leave the way open for a round-table conference between owners and miners with the object of re-establishing work at the mines and. relieving the distress in that industry in New South Wales. The right honorable gentleman has been frank, and has convinced me that he acted with the best of intentions, realizing that man was not made for the law but that the law was made for man. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>27</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KX9</name.id>
<electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATKINS, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr WATKINS</name>
</talker>
<para>.- The charge that has been levelled. against the Government is a very serious and definite one. The honorable member for Forrest endeavoured to make the House believe that in withdrawing the charge against one colliery proprietor the Prime Minister was actuated with the best of motives. But the charge levelled in the motion before the House is that a similar opportunity obtained when the waterside workers were endeavouring to negotiate to prevent further trouble on the waterfront, and nothing was done except to prosecute them. A similar opportunity also existed during the timber workers' strike, but instead of accepting it, the Government had the Timber Workers' Association prosecuted, also one of the leading union officials in Melbourne. The genesis of the present coal trouble arose out of the closing down of a large section of the industry by the owners, who made the bald statement to the miners, " Accept our terms, or be unemployed." They were operating under a law passed by this Parliament. The miners could not obtain an increase of wages without first approaching the tribunal appointed to deal with such matters. Apparently the coal-owners can, with impunity, flout the legislation which this Parliament has enacted. Without fear of the consequences of disobeying the law, the coal barons can say to their employees that, unless they are prepared to accept a reduction of wages, they will be thrown out of employment. What is the use of passing legislation when employers can do such things without question? When the stoppage occurred every one of the mines was paying handsome profits. Now the owners say that they do not know what profits the industry as a whole was making. Let us take the case of a mine with an output of 5,000 tons of coal a day. Even if the profits were only 2s. a ton, that represents a very satisfactory return to the mine-owners. Indeed, many other industries would be regarded as flourishing if they could show similar results. That the northern mines need not have closed is demonstrated by the action of the coal-owners in southern and western New South Wales continuing operations and paying the wages which were in operation prior to the stoppage of work. In the light of that fact it is idle to say that the coal-owners were justified in closing down their mines because they did not pay. Apparently the departmental officers considered that John Brown was the person whose prosecution was the most likely to be successful; but, had action been taken against other companies whose stock had been watered, more satisfactory results might have been achieved. Whatever the Government's intention in instituting proceedings against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brown,</inline> it is significant that, at one period, it was rumoured that he proposed to break away from the coal-owners' association. It may be that the action taken against him was instituted with a view to keeping him in the association. Instead of withdrawing the prosecution against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> Brown, the Government should have proceeded not only against him, but also against other coal-owners. That there is a stoppage of work in the coal industry to-day is a disgrace to the Government. It is responsible for the privation and suffering among those engaged in the industry. Only last week I visited a family on the coal-fields whose members had not tasted meat for a week, and, through lack of nourishment, were ill. A good deal has been said about an inquiry to ascertain the amount of profits made by the coal-owners. Although the officers of the Collieries Employees' Federation have offered to return to work at reduced wages if the coal-owners can prove that their profits are not more than 2s. a ton, we still hear on all sides that these officials are holding up the industry. The responsibility for the present conditions certainly does not rest with the miners. Honorable members who blame the workers know nothing about the coalmining industry. Had there been any real desire to ascertain the amount of profits made by the coal-owners; the Government of New South Wales could have taken over the mines and worked them, and found out for itself what the profits really were. If that action had been taken in the beginning, the trouble would have ended before this. Now, however, we have reached such an <inline font-style="italic">impasse</inline> that either the Commonwealth Government or the Government of New South Wales must intervene to effect a settlement. In its administration of the law the Government is acting in the interests of the coal-owners and to the detriment of the workers. The Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce)</inline> has made no effective reply to the charges levelled against his Government; they remain unanswered. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>28</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L07</name.id>
<electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LAZZARINI, Hubert</name>
<name role="display">Mr LAZZARINI</name>
</talker>
<para>.- The language of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> in moving his motion of censure was clear and definite, but so far the charges he levelled against the Government have not been answered. The Prime Minister has not shown that his Government has administered the law impartially. Throughout the trouble in the coal industry, he has shown himself an able advocate of the mine-owners. Indeed, had he been briefed by them, ho could not have put the case from their point of view, more effectively. Members of deputations which have waited on him have felt that they were dealing, not with an impartial and independent Prime Minister, but with a partisan whose sympathies were entirely with the coal-owners. His re-* plies to various deputations have revealed a knowledge of the coal-mining industry which he could have acquired only from the mine-owners themselves. Throughout the dispute the stand taken by the miners lias been that before they will discuss the matter in conference, work must be resumed under the old conditions. That is in accordance with the attitude of the employers throughout industry generally. We have seen it in connexion with the timber dispute: the men have been told that they must first return to work under the iniquitous Lukin award. The Prime Minister said that, in any case, work in the coal mines could not be resumed under four months. That is absurd. The safety men are still employed in the mines, and if the coal-owners were really desirous of re-opening the mines, work could be resumed within a few days. On one occasion, the Prime Minister said that the Commonwealth Government did not possess the power to enforce a resumption of work, but that possibly the State Government had that power. The right honorable gentleman knows very well that if the Nationalist Government in New South Wales desired to do so, it could force the coal-owners to re-open their mines within a very short time by threatening to cancel their leases if they failed to do so. The coal companies hold the areas they are working, under lease from the Government of New South Wales and pay tribute for every ton of coal won. The Prime Minister endeavoured to convey the idea that the Government of New South Wales could not do anything, but if a Labour Government had been in office in that State industrial trouble on the coal-fields would not have occurred, because immediate steps would have been taken by such a government to cancel certain of the colliery leases. The <inline font-style="italic">Evening News</inline> of the 9th April, states - Consider <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce's</inline> confession of political impotence. The Commonwealth, lie explains, cannot take over the mines, but "between the Commonwealth and State Governments there was power if it was deemed wise to exercise it." But, "even if the State and Federal Governments were absolutely convinced that the owners were wrong, and were acting to the detriment of the public, and had to step in and insist that the mines should be worked, it would take a very considerable time to do it. Whatever steps were taken in that direction would occupy months, because the necessary legislation would have to be put through." </para>