House of Representatives
26 September 1911

4th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 768

PETITION

Mr. HEDGES presented a petition from the residents of Fremantle and Perth, asking for an investigation of the circumstances under which Messrs. Smith and Bryant, Customs House officers, were dismissed from the Public Service.

Petition received and read.

page 768

DESTRUCTION OF FRENCH BATTLESHIP

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The Government proposes to cable, through the GovernorGeneral, to the French nation the following telegram of sympathy in connexion with the destruction of the French battleship Liberte : -

On behalf of people of Australia offer expressions of condolence with sufferers and bereaved relatives of those who perished through sad disaster French battleship Liberte; also sympathy with French nation.

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I am sure that every honorable member is in accord with that action.

page 768

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

no-confidencemotion..

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- I move -

That, in the opinion of this House, the preferences in. obtaining and retaining employment recently introduced into his Department by the Minister for Home Affairs are unjust “and oppressive ; prejudicial alike to the public interest, to the Public Service, and to the relations between Parliament and the public servants.

While this is technically a motion of want of confidence, it differs from such motions because, in the first place, there is not, and was not when notice was given, any doubt of the result, and in the next, because every precaution has been taken to prevent its discussion from occupying more time than the requirements of the situation demand. Notice of the intention to move it was deferred until immediately before the adjournment of the House on Friday last, and at a meeting to-day members of the Opposition resolved, not merely to confine their remarks strictly to the subject, but to make them as brief as the fearless discharge of a peremptory public duty will justify. We have resolved that the debate shall not occupy more time than the importance of this administrative departure of the Government merits. There are temptations to comment on. many matters of administration and legislation, but as the session proceeds, opportunities for doing so will be only too frequent. At present we submit a specific and direct motion, not general or undefined, but as to the meaning of which there can be no question.’ The debate so far as we on this side can control it, will be strictly directed to it. Other matters will be discussed at the proper and convenient opportunity.

This motion clearly states a view which we think should be placed before the public without delay. In submitting it, I shall not detain the House with considerations respecting trade unions as such. These associations are accepted by all parties as a necessary part of our industrial machinery, though indispensable and fruitful only in their legitimate sphere. Neither does the vexed question of a general preference to unionists arise. There is on our statute-book an Act having a history more extraordinary than that of any other measure passed by an Australian Legislature. Its provisions represent the joint work of three Ministries, formed from the three parties into which this House was divided during the first nine years of its existence. As it appears on the statute-book, that Act represents no party triumph, but for once it shows a political trinity in unity in that particular regard, at that time. In the discussion of that measure the battle raged furiously- and I am still speaking of the Act of 1904- over the question of preference to unionists. It was finallypassed under conditions which made it acceptable to all sections of the House, using these words in their usual, ordinary, and legitimate sense. I do not mean to say that eachof the three parties would not have altered the measure, or that portion of it, in some degree had it then possessed the necessary numbers ; but that taking the three together it represents what might be called the maximum of agreement possible among them. It proved sufficient, as I have said, to justify each party in turn, and the House collectively, at that date.

Consequently the preference to unionists, which is open to us for discussion on this motion, takes its root in that original Act of 1904. This limits the tests which we have to apply - I speak for honorable members on this side - to the new departure of the Minister of Home Affairs - and I shall so allude to it, because we are not aware as yet, though we ought to have been informed to what extent similar effect or the same effect is being given te a similar or the same ruling in other Departments. We are equally unaware of any methods or machinery which are being devised for the application of this principle, either in his or in any other Department. A good deal of questioning has left us still greatly in the dark. We must wait for the_ reply which the Prime Minister will make in due course, when we shall hope that light will be let in at last to all the corners of this question, that there shall be no dark corners which shall not be irradiated before he resumes his seat. While the general intention and plan of the Government and their supporters are clearly understood, there is still very much that is open to definition, and that needs definition badly.

Our preference granted in 1904 authorized the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, by its award or by order on application at any time, to - direct that, as between members of organizations of employers or employes, and other persons offering or desiring service or employment at the same time, preference shall be given to such members, other things being equal -

That was the clause creating a new power, prior to that unknown to our statute-book. But important conditions followed. The first of them provided that before preference was granted the proposal to allow it should be advertised far and wide, specifying the industry and the industrial matter in which it was proposed to permit such preference, so that all persons and organizations interested should be heard before the Court.

Then the Court shall, in manner prescribed, hear all such persons and organizations so appearing or represented.

There followed provision for a judicial trial by this high tribunal of that issue, which invited by public notification a challenge from any persons aggrieved. This was coupled also with certain limitations of the power of the Court. A preference could only be directed if the Court, in its opinion, believed that the majority of those affected by the award who had interests in common with the applicants were in favour of its introduction. And, finally, in order to prevent abuses, after this action had been taken, a very important condition was inserted, which endowed the Court with a permanent power of supervision over the working of this new endowment, by way of preference. Moreover, the Court could at any time be appealed to, and could at any time amend or recall the grant of preference, if in its opinion - the rules of the organization are burdensome or oppressive, or do not provide reasonable conditions for admission to or continuance in membership, or that the organization has acted unfairly or unjustly to any of its members in the matter of preference.

Mr Batchelor:

– Those limitations did not appear in the Bill which the honorable gentleman introduced.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Not all of them, but they evolved by natural process during the debates. As I have said, the combined efforts of the three parties resulted in a general agreement embodied in that particular clause. Consequently, the preference to unionists, which the public had in mind up till very recently, has been that particular preference, originally designed in ]9°3’4- As a matter of fact, it has been most materially and vitally altered since then by legislation of this Parliament; but of that alteration, in my own experience, a very insufficient and imperfect knowledge obtains outside. That was manifest during a recent campaign Preference to unionists, associated with these conditions, with a power of the Court not only to grant, but to recall its decision, if necessary, was, in my experience, in the public mind generally, when one addressed any audience on preference to unionists.

Mr Kelly:

– Will the honorable gentleman read the provision against political tyranny by a union?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am coming to that. It is provided for in a different clause. I have been reading only from section 40 of the Act of 1904. I turn now to section 55, dealing with registered associations, which are authorized to ask, to obtain, and, if they obtain it, to exercise this power of preference. After a provision that employers or employes may register any association of not less than 100 members, the section proceeds -

Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference by the Court when and so long as its. rules or other binding decisions permit the application of its funds to political purposes, or require its members to do anything of a political character.

Mr Frazer:

– That is the trouble, is it not?

Mr Kelly:

– Yes, that is the trouble.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Honorable members will permit me to say that this is not the trouble. It was the trouble. There is no longer any trouble in that regard, as the Amending Act shows. Still, keeping to this 1904 declaration as to preference, it must be remembered that the ban against political energies and activities is immensely cut down in the same clause, in regard to all matters which come home to the workers. It does not prevent unions from obtaining preference, who may have adopted provisions in respect to any political matter providing for the preservation of life and limb ; compensation for injuries or death ; sanitation ; the sex and age of employes ; the hours of labour; the remuneration of labour ; . protection of salaries and wages ; or other conditions similarly affecting employment. Cut these out of the political purposes that are forbidden-

Mr Batchelor:

– -And what is left?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Leave these essential matters in the hands of the unions, and I say that practically every power in which the members of unions as such can be directly interested is accounted for. Consequently, the restriction upon the political activities of unions which desire to obtain preference has been removed as far as is necessary. Thus these organizations are free to go outside the consideration of their own necessities or desires, to secure fair earnings, or fair conditions of employment. They can now become political bodies dealing with questions as to which no opinion was invited from members when they joined, with the result that members may find themselves saddled contrary to their own consciences with a whole code of opinions - with some or all of which they may entirely disagree - by the mere fact of their having become members of unions.

The provisions embodied in the principal Act were intended to protect the political independence of the poorest, as well as of the richest, in the land ; they were designed to enable unionists to band themselves together for all purposes which were industrial, or which affected them as industrial workers, and still to obtain a preference from the Court. It was only when’ they went into new fields entirely unconnected with their own interests as industrial operatives that they were required to forego the power to obtain the preference in question. They then put politics first, preferring that power to preference,

Mr Howe:

– We are going to have that power.

Mr DEAKIN:

– May I ask the honorable member to recall what occurred last session? Let him read our statute-book, and he will then, realize that his object has already been accomplished? However, a temporary forgetfulness on his part may be excused. Let me point him to the revolutionary Act which was passed last session - notwithstanding all the resistance that the entire Opposition was able to offer it.

That was passed in a very short time, and effected a revolution in the law, so far as it relates to preference to unionists. Every one of the restrictions formerly imposed upon the exercise of this power was then swept away. Every one was omitted. We now look in vain for any requirement - such’ as is contained in section 40 of the principal Act - that the public shall be notified of the intention to grant a preference to unionists. The measure passed last session omits any hearing by the Court or any other tribunal pf the pleas, persons or organizations who wish to object . to the granting of such a preference; it does not require that the men who are asking for it must constitute a majority of the union interestedindeed, they may be any insignificant number. The Court has no longer any power to supervise, suspend, qualify, or regulate the exercise of this authority. In point of fact, the Court, if it does grant a preference to unionists, must now make that grant unconditional and beyond, recall., That is the result of the amendments made in section 40 of the principal Act by the measure which was passed last session.

Section 55 of the parent Act was the subject of surgical operations of an equally extreme character. At the present time there is no restriction imposed upon any organization. It may enter into politics, to any extent that it pleases, it may adopt any political purposes as parts of its charter, and it may require its members to do anything of a political character. Of course, these restrictions, having been removed, it became unnecessary to preserve - as was preserved in the principal Act - the power to deal with the hours of labour, the sex and ages of employes, the salaries and wages, the compensation, &c, because political purposes no longer operate ‘ as a bar to the granting of preference to unionists. We find ourselves confronted to-day by a law which is still in its operation a new law, and of which the terms and extent and licences are as yet unrealized by the great majority of the public. I have already called attention to the effect of the alterations which have been made in section 55 of the principal Act. I was not speaking altogether without book when I said that the public did not appreciate the amendments which were made by Ministerialists in the principal Act, because in the measure which was submitted to the vote of the people at the referenda, quite as much - I think a great deal more - stress was laid on the amending Bill. This, in place of a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, transferred to this Parliament absolute authority over all matters relating to labour and industry, including preference to unionists. This can now” be granted without any judicial process, under a legislative Act. If that power had been conceded by the people, our Court of Conciliation and Arbitration might have been obliterated. At all events, supreme power in these matters and many others would have been placed in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament. That would have made it easy for the present majority behind the Government in both Houses, before this Parliament had closed its sessions, to transform, out of all recognition the whole of the industrial legislation now on the Commonwealth statutebook or on the statute-books of the State Parliaments.

Mr Webster:

– Hear, hear.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I hope that that 41 Hear, hear” will accompany my next statement, which is that the reply given by the electors to the proposal was an emphatic 41 No.” The people, apparently, realized at the last moment that they were on the edge of a gulf. The fall was to a depth which had not been explored, the effect of which they could not foretell. They preferred to wait until they could see the full results of the last advance they had made. They wished to see their new path clear and plain before them, instead of shutting their eyes and taking a leap into the unknown. Consequently it is not possible now for this Government or its majority to take advantage of any new authority. They must content themselves with the powers they already have. These require all industrial disputes- to be judicially dealt with by a Court after due notice.

In their own amending Bill the Government last year went as close to the constitutional limits as was possible. They endeavoured to make the Conciliation and Arbitration Act passed last year much stronger than the parent Act. By new subsection 2 of section 9 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 19, passed at the instance of the present Government, it is directed that -

Whenever, in the opinion of the Court, it is necessary for the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute, or for the maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society ….. preference shall be given to members of organizations, as in paragraph a of subsection 1.

Fortunately, as the Court was to decide when it was “ necessary,” the judicial power remained. That power was reluctantly allowed to continue only when it became patent that otherwise the whole Act would be risked.

Now, the Governor-General’s Speech to Parliament at the commencement of this session contained this suggestive paragraph -

A Bill will be introduced for the purpose of giving the public servants of the Commonwealth the right to appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. “ Public servants “ there certainly includes the whole of the permanent public servants. We have not yet heard from Ministers exactly what they have done. We have not yet heard from Ministers exactly what they intend. We have not yet seen their Bill or their instructions, except in one Department. Perhaps it will be necessary to examine it before we can gather whether “ public servants “ under this new measure will be made to include those who are temporarily or casually or otherwise employed by the Government, or whether the term relates only to permanent servants. Parliament not having- been informed, it is impossible to say what the promise implies. All that I wish to ask is : This being a proposal of the present Government for the present session in regard to public servants, which is to give them the right to appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, why are the Government now passing over that very mode of appeal in relation to those who are temporarily employed ? According to an official statement to which I shall presently refer, some of the temporarily employed appear to be almost permanently employed..

But why have the Government not been content to make all grants of preference to unionists through the machinery of their own new Bill ? Why is there to be a striking difference in procedure ? Why, without waiting for their own measure about to be laid before Parliament, to be shaped and disposed of as their majority deem advisable, have they taken in a hurry the administrative step which has brought this question into its. present position of prominence and urgency? For what reasons are any of our public servants excluded from the operation of this new Bill ? Certainly, if the permanent public servants are to be included, much less opposition would be offered to the proposal to place the temporary or casual employes in a similar position. In regard to the permanent employes it will be sufficient to discuss the proposal when it arises. I propose not to divert now from the single and straightforward path before me on this motion. But it is a question which cannot be left unasked, and will, I hope, be answered by the Prime Minister in due course - what, if any, distinctions are to be made between the several classes of public servants in the matter of the grant of preference, and the reasons why such distinction should be made.

At this stage, however, the immediate issue is complicated by no such difficulty. We can rely upon the plain circular of the Minister of Home Affairs, with which, after some pressing, he was good enough to favour us the other evening. That instruction of the Minister was important from several points of view. Not the least was where he directed - I am looking at his own order - that “ absolute preference is to be given to unionists.” In both the original Act, and the amending Act of 19 10, the condition is that the grant of preference is to be given to members of unions, “other things being equal.” The Minister of Home Affairs has deliberately omitted those words from, his order. He has directed that absolute preference is to be given to unionists. It appears to me that those words can have no other meaning than that the Minister’s order as to preference is perfectly independent of any such qualification. The Minister’s present silence gives assent to that plain reading of his plain language - that absolute preference is to be given to unionists. It is understood that while the Minister proposed to grant that preference without qualification of any kind being taken into consideration, except the fact that the men were unionists, he objected to the very natural interpretation of his chief officer, who added to it, by way of interpretation, that in dismissing employes non-unionists were to go first. The Minister took some exception to that reading. Judging by his demeanour at the present moment I should say that no more revelations are to be per,mitted from that source. Consequently 1 shall assume that the Minister’s statement of last week still stands, and that his order - the order absolute - does not apply to dismissals. Evidently he intends the absence of the qualifying words which were all important in the original Act, and which were retained in the amending Act. Apparently, they disappear at this juncture because of the Minister’s enjoyment of the issue of what may be termed Napoleonic bulletins to the officers of his Department. I trust, however, as he admitted one error of interpretation on the part of the officer, that he has corrected that. If there be any lurking error in the other interpretation, which appears perfectly plain on the face of his order, he should not delay to make it public.

Mr Roberts:

– I am sure that the honorable member will condone the military flavour in his order.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do. But what I most admire is his sudden acquisition of a bashful reserve never manifest on any previous occasion.

Mr Cann:

– The honorable member will make the Minister blush.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is a healthy sign from a gentleman in his position.

Here we are faced by a situation not of our own creating in any way. The Minister has sprung it upon his Department, which has sprung it upon the public, while for his own part he simply took the bit in his teeth, and bolted. Since then he has been a more silent, possibly a sadder, and, let us hope, a wiser man. With the little light at present afforded us, we are obliged to ask, “ Over what classes of public servants is this ukase to apply?”

Although it is not for me to press the Prime Minister unduly for information, 1 hope that in the course of his remarks we shall have some fairly trustworthy figures showing the number of persons to whom the order will apply. That question becomes of considerable interest when we learn from the report of the Public Service Commissioner that there are more persons employed by the Government outside the Public Service proper than there are inside. That is a very striking and suggestive fact. Our permanent officers are hereafter to be dealt with by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and of that we shall hear more at a later stage. But we shall not hear more then in regard to this greater number unless we press for information. Out of 34,000 persons employed by the Commonwealth, there are 15,000 officers in the Public Service. This means that there are 19,000 employes who are outside the control of the Public Service Commissioner or the Public Service Act.

Mr Riley:

– What is the honorable member reading from?

Mr DEAKIN:

– From the Commissioner’s report quoted in this morning’s Argus.

Mr Riley:

– I thought it was the Age, which the honorable member worships so much.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That will come in a moment; I have it here. It is very important for us to learn how these 19,000 persons are divided or subdivided. I understand that those termed temporary officers are provided for in the Act, that others are casuals indirectly provided for in the Act, that some of them are exempt, and that some have other titles or no titles. But how this new principle is to be applied in relation to these differing sections, we have yet to learn. We are at present absolutely in the dark. What has been termed cross-examination in this House, as well as questions with and without notice, have failed to elicit for us any clear or distinct idea of how this policy is to be applied in practice. Particularly we press for knowledge of the safeguards to be imposed against abuses of the powers of employing or rejecting applicants intended to be intrusted to men vaguely referred to as acting officers.

But more than that remains behind. The Public Service Commissioner, one of the highest officers in the Commonwealth, who has to discharge his onerous duties among difficulties already of a most extraordinary kind, and this in a way which must have won the admiration of all, has evidently grave warrant for his protests. “ Parliament,” says Mr. McLachlan, “ never intended that temporary hands should be employed in a wholesale manner for the performance of duties, which, by no effort of imagination, could be considered as being temporary in character.”

That is a revelation to many of us. Probably we have had opportunities of gaining knowledge as to their numbers. But they have never impressed me with the idea that such a state of affairs existed in our carefully regulated Public Service. The officers whose duties are so ohviously not temporary, but who are called temporary officers, are kept on without the knowledge or indorsement of this House. They may have been kept on, some of them, for aught I know, during the period in which I was a responsible Minister. All I can add is that I was not aware of it.

Mr Webster:

– That is when ft came into existence.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I had no idea that there were any temporary employes in the Public Service not engaged on strictly temporary service. I do not wish to labour that point. The Commissioner continues -

This is manifested by the specific provision in the law that the period of temporary employment of any person should be limited to nine months, and that, on completion of this term, no person should be eligible for further employment pending the expiration of six months. It was considered that, by embodying this provision in the Act, it would become impossible for any person to secure quasi-permanent employment on the plea of special knowledge of or training in departmental work. While the provisions of the law are as indicated, a regrettable omission occurred in the failure to provide for a system of selection for employment which would remove any possibility of undue influence, and enable temporary or casual work to be distributed on fair grounds, without favour to any person.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is a serious omission, and I confidently trust that the Prime Minister will, at the earliest possible date, supply this deficiency in the existing law. Of this, too, I undertake to say, the greater number of us were not aware.

It must be acknowledged that where opportunities occur for the exercise of patronage they are liable to be availed of, and, in the absence of restriction as to the method of engaging temporary assistance -

Surely that ought to be made quite clear and precise.

The greatest temptation exists to find work for solicitous applicants, irrespective of the requirements of Departments, or of the claims of other applicants for prior consideration.

So the question becomes more and more serious for all of us.

Sir John Forrest:

– It is all new to me !

Mr DEAKIN:

– It becomes most serious for us just now when read in connexion with the action taken by the Minister of

Home Affairs. That honorable gentleman does not propose to amend the law - or has not stated that he so proposes - so as to prevent those abuses of the law. He has not proposed, so far, to remedy the law’s defects. They are to continue while he takes this whole matter into his hands, doing as he thinks fit in regard to the whole of the vast Department under his control.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Minister does not propose to do so, but is doing so.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The report of the Commissioner proceeds -

And the danger does not end at. this stage, as once having secured temporary engagement by means of undue influence, the same influence is brought into play to prevent the services of temporary hands being dispensed with. Viewing the matter not only from an economical standpoint, but also from that of efficiency, the present system is detrimental to Departmental interests and nothing but demoralization of the permanent service can result from a wasteful introduction of temporary hands.

Mr Page:

– Hear, hear ! We all say that !

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am reading the report of a man who is above party, and on neither one side nor the other -

It is hopeless to look forward to the establishment of a well-organized and efficient Department, so long as the possibility exists of maladministration owing to the existence of an unsound system of temporary employment.

This would have been an important report in itself, even if recent events had never occurred or been suggested. Read with these events, the report contains not one, but several danger signals, pointing to grave abuses under the present law, which can only be removed by its amendment.

Mr Bamford:

– Who sanctioned the past appointment of temporary hands?

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is a matter for a return which will, or ought to be, laid on the table of this House ; indeed, for all I know, such returns have already been presented.

Mr Page:

– We cannot have a staff of permanent navvies - it is only temporary work !

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is another question not touched by the one we are now discussing. The question is, who is responsible for the appointment of temporary hands - not casuals, but men in the Departments who have been engaged temporarily, but are apparently kept on after the period allowed by law has expired.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I think the honorable member is going beyond the motion.

Mr Fisher:

– Does the Public Service Commissioner say that the men are being kept on?

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is implied.

Mr Fisher:

– I should like to hear the Public Service Commissioner say so in plain language.

Mr Poynton:

– The Argus has said so !

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am quoting only the Public Service Commissioner.

Mr Page:

– It is no use burking the fact that there are temporary hands - and there ought to be.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The Public Service Commissioner speaks of the regrettable omission to provide for a system of selection for employment which will remove any possibility of influence, and enable .temporary or casual work to be distributed on fair grounds, without favour to any person. I can quite understand his attitude as a public officer dealing with a subject of this sort, and not desiring to affect individuals more harshly than he can help. When the Prime Minister has an opportunity to read this report in full, he will note a reference to persons having secured temporary engagement by means of undue influence ; and we are told that the same influence is brought into play - not might or could be brought into play, but is being-

Mr Fisher:

– I can remove all difficulty on that point by saying that there can be a return presented giving the names, and so forth.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No doubt, and such a return should go back to the time of preceding Ministries.

Mr Thomas:

– I have just telephoned to the Public Service Commissioner, who informs me that the temporary staff mentioned in his report includes those doing work’ for the Department on day labour that previously was done by contractors.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I hope that Hansard has heard that interjection of the PostmasterGeneral, who says-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Ballarat is now dealing with a matter outside this motion. I have allowed the honorable member considerable latitude, and now ask him not to continue on his present line.

Mr Deakin:

– But you will see, Mr. Speaker, that I am not saying this for myself, but because the PostmasterGeneral is supplying what he thinks a proper qualification of what I have been saying.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In the remarks to which I take exception, the honorable member for Ballarat is distinctly out of order. On an occasion like this, I allow as much latitude as possible; but I must confine honorable members to something near the question. The interjection by the Postmaster- General was distinctly out of order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order. The motion covers any and every matter relating to the public “interests - to the Public Service, and the relations between Parliament and the Public Service. Therefore, the engagement of every man employed, the manner of his appointment, the conditions under which he is appointed, and all particulars of that kind, are covered by the motion. Nothing can possibly be “wider than a motion which relates to what is prejudicial to the public interests; such a motion cannot be widened by any stretch of the imagination. I submit that the honorable member for Ballarat is in order in dealing with an aspect of the Public Service and of public employment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In my present attitude I am merely following- the practice of this Chamber, and a practice laid down by the late Sir Frederick Holder. That gentleman, when specific motions of this kind were before the House, confined the discussion strictly to the questions raised. On the present occasion, the honorable member for Ballarat distinctly stated, in his opening remarks, that he intended to confine himself purely to the question of preference to unionists. He went on, however, to deal with another question altogether - with a report referring to the employment of certain temporary hands. I desire to allow ample latitude; and the honorable member was enabled to make the remarks he desired. But then the discussion seemed likely to turn on the question whether this, or some other Government, had employed the larger number of temporary hands. That is not the question before the Chair; the question is that of preference to unionists; and, beyond a casual reference to them, other matters cannot be introduced.

Mr DEAKIN:

– What I was saying, when called to order, was not in any way necessary for my argument, but was merely repeated by way of courtesy to the PostmasterGeneral ; the ruling of the Speaker is no deprivation to me personally. The quotation from the report of the Public “Service Commissioner seems to me to be in order in so far as it throws light upon the classes of persons who, known to us up to the present only under some vague classification, are now subject to the order of the Minister of Home Affairs, which my motion condemns. There are employes described as temporary, some described as casual? and there are yet others outside. Are these all to come under the ukase of the Minister of Home Affairs?

There is another important point which I offer to honorable members opposite as an argument of weight. In an application for preference to unionists, to a Court with continuing control, we have a body which arrives at a decision judicially after close inquiry, and is able to vary that decision should any changes make that necessary. In the present instance, on the other hand, we have a great number of temporary employes under the Home Affairs Department who are to be selected on a new plan - giving absolute preference to unionists. The mere fact of their unionism will put them into positions without regard to the other qualifications required for the posts. And all this is to be done away from the eye of a Court or of the Public Service Commissioner, merely by the direction of what are termed acting officers. These, if they are “ to know anything of the men, must be in the localities in which they are employed. The gangs employed may be anywhere in Australia or Tasmania. They may be in the Northern Territory, or in Federal territory under Commonwealth control. The parties may be of any size, small or large, and may be drawn from widely differing districts. But some selection must be made by these acting officers, and made by methods which we can only surmise. Trieste officers’ are now to be given, not an authority to select the best men available, but a direction to grant an absolute preference to every man who claims to be a unionist, and against whose claim no disproof is forthcoming.

Is not the whole principle of selection revolutionized by the extraordinary circumstances of applying it to numbers of men scattered here and there over this whole continent. Because of their remoteness these groups must be in only intermittent communication with officers of standing? Is not the whole principle of preference to unionists revolutionized by its being rendered absolute and unconditional ? Is it not threatened by its administration being intrusted to individual officers themselves temporary in different parts of the Commonwealth, but clothed with authority to employ or not to employ ; with the right to declare whether men shall remain in a particular district where their families may be, or whether they must leave it to seek work elsewhere? Is it not evident that this authority will be capable of being abused to an extraordinary extent, owing to the scattered nature of the works that the Commonwealth will be carrying on, and the unqualified responsibility imposed upon individuals never selected for their capacity or responsibility, for discriminating?

What we not unnaturally require, in these circumstances, is a clear and specific assurance as to the means by which this machinery is to be made to operate, at least in some rough and ready way, with justice as between man and man. We require, also, some security that there shall be afforded those who are unfairly treated an opportunity to have their case reconsidered by some competent officer not too remote from them. These are the very essentials - the A B C - of honorable employment. They are the essentials for the proper conduct of business, and surely the Commonwealth Government is not going to depart from them. The Government is introducing a system which - whatever may be said for it as applied by an Arbitration Court under the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1904 - places, in these circumstances, a sceptre of tyranny in incompetent hands ; it can be exercised, if thought fit, in a manner most disastrous to individuals, who, in order to earn their daily bread, are to be coerced into the acceptance of a control which may be repugnant to them.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are they not allowed to join the unions?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Some of them may have personal objections to joining. As free citizens of a free country I hope they will always be allowed to exercise their independent judgment in this or any other regard.

Mr Page:

– We are coming into a little of our own.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Maranoa remembers when they “ blacklisted “him?

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Fawkner knows something about that.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I catch references to a blacklisting by which an honorable member opposite at one time suffered. Am I to understand that this is an argument for more blacklisting, this time by the Labour party, which has, or thinks it has-, an op portunity of using against others the very weapon whose use against Labour men they condemn? That is the basis of the argument.

Mr Charlton:

– That is the argument that the honorable member puts up.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And the honorable member for Maranoa says they are getting a little of their own to-day.

Mr Page:

– Yes, and we will have alittle bit of yours- a “ little bit off the top.” It does come well from you - barracking for these “ scabs.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Maranoa to cease his continuous interjections, and I make the same appeal to other honorable members.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– His interjections ire most offensive.

Mr Page:

– The unions did so rauch for the honorable member.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is time the honorable member behaved himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I now ask the honorable member for Parramatta and the honorable member for Maranoa to cease interjecting.

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member resume his seat?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Am I not permitted to rise to a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the honorable member’s point of order?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– My point of order is that the honorable member for Maranoa is addressing to me offensive personalities, and that I desire to be protected from them, instead of being reprimanded for resenting them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will be fully protected. If the honorable member for Manaroa addresses to him insulting remarks which escape my hearing, it is his duty to draw my attention tothem, and not to remind me of my duty. I ask honorable members to cease these continuous interjections. It is not pleasing to me to have to rise again and again, and so to interrupt the speech being delivered by the honorable member for Ballarat.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It would be foreign torn y purpose, and to the wishes of the House, were I to diverge from the direct path of my. argument ; but in view of these interjections, may I ask honorable members to recall for a moment the greatest achievements of our civilization and of our nation? Are they not the establishment, even for the weakest amongst us, of religious liberty in its most absolute form, of political liberty to its widest extent, and of the industrial liberty that we are now endeavouring to safeguard ?

Mr Roberts:

– We agree with all three, but the latter two the honorable member’s party has never permitted.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am satisfied that ninety nine-hundredths of the party with which I ha.ve the honour to be associated cannot be held guilty of or responsible for the offences alluded to, which we all deplore. Wealth and rank have had their day of dictatorship. This is now a democratic world. No one attempts to defend all the abuses or uses that have been made of power, but now that the power is shifted to other hands, are we to condone its abuses? Is it not the main article of our Liberal creed to endeavour, as far as possible, to adjust these warring forces, bringing them together under the aegis of justice? That is why a unanimous House agreed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in 1904. It agreed further, that in consideration of the sacrifice of the right to strike, the workers should receive in exchange preference to unionists when granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. That was the sole reason which brought over scores and hundreds, and even thousands, outside these walls, who had been absolutely opposed to that principle previously, but who, with the great aim of industrial peace and justice before them, were content that sacrifice should be made since that was the wisest course to pursue in order that justice might be done.

Mr Page:

– But the Court has not given a single instance of it, showing that the provision is a dead letter.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Some friend or colleague of mine will, no doubt, take up that very point. I assure the honorable member that it can be fully disposed of. The record of the Court up to date, considering all the difficulties by which it has been surrounded, is very remarkable, and very creditable. I wish to avoid all divergencies. Surely we are met here together on an accepted basis of agreement. However we may differ about means, I trust we have no serious difference with one another as to ends. We can have no differences in the assertion of those main principles of religious, political and industrial liberty, . for which our fathers’ died. The greatest inheritance we have from them, and our proudest possession, survives only under the shelter of those very rights.

Mr Page:

– Many men on this side have suffered very nearly death for the same principles that the honorable member is now enunciating.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Every such cause supplies martyrs, and all honour to the martyrs who made the cause ; but I never heard of a martyr who preached the martyrdom of his opponents when his following had obtained the upper hand.

Mr Page:

– 1 have no feeling of revenge in my soul towards those who made me suffer.

Mr DEAKIN:

– We all agree ; but can we not meet on the common foothold of an agreement based upon the plain and inevitable facts of each situation, in order that we may deal with this industrial question equitably, and in a manner that shall be above angry suspicion from either side? Our challenge to the present mode of action by Ministerial ukase is that it puts aside all the guarantees, all the sureties which the Court, or tribunal, its inquiry or investigation, and calm deliberation, bring to bear. It takes a power which can be wisely and justly placed in the hands of a Court, but which it is extremely dangerous to place in the hands of particular individuals. That is the whole strength of the particular argument that 1 am now directing, and surely it is one to be met on its merits. We do not aim at injustice to any one. We seek justice between the different applicants. If I could quote him again, the Public Service Commissioner, a little lower down than the passage read, refers to the evidence taken by the Postal Commission as calling for and justifying some such reformatory and precautionary action.

This, then, is the point at which we have arrived in discussing the question : Has this preference for unionists been introduced at the proper time, in the proper manner, and with the proper safeguards? So far as we know it at present, it has been satisfactory in no one of those respects. We have been complained of for questioning Ministers too much, but we are still in darkness about the all-important conditions on which it is proposed to confer this very important power of granting or refusing employment, for exercise, anywhere and everywhere. It must often be far beyond our oversight, and far beyond the control of even our principal officers, in remote parts, amongst small populations, where employment or non-employment may involve the most serious consequences to the unhappy man who presents himself before the autocratic arbiter of his fate.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then the honorable member’s motion is a little too previous ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Not so, since my motion is based, wholly and solely, upon the document signed by the Minister of Home Affairs. Otherwise there would have been no motion. We should have waited and questioned until we had elicited the intention of the Cabinet. But when once we had a Ministerial statement, under the hand of the Minister responsible for one of the most important Departments of the Government, couched in those terms - “ absolute preference to unionists “ - there could be no longer doubt. There was a challenge, which we were bound to take up.

Mr King O’Malley:

– The honorable member’s motion deals in abstractions.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If it does, it ls because the honorable member has not supplied us with sufficient material. I am glad to see that his long period of frozen silence is over. Perhaps the honorable member will now contribute something more pertinent, if you, Mr. Speaker, will allow him to do so. For instance, in to-day’s Age there appears a series of questions-

Ministerial Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr DEAKIN:

– I refer to the Age simply because this morning it saved me the trouble of framing a number of questions, which, it points out, may well be asked, and ought to be answered, this afternoon. They appear to be questions that ought to be asked, but I will add also some of my own.

Mr Page:

– Why did not the honorable member take the Argus into his confidence as well ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– If the Argus had a series of questions, I did not see them. The Ase asks -

Does the Government support Mr. O’Malley’s interpretation of its policy as “ absolute preference “ to unionists ?

Or the Prime Minister’s interpretation, preference to unionists, “other things being equal?”

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in quoting from the newspaper.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Shall I not be in order in quoting questions relative to the matter in hand?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Not in quoting the newspaper.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I shall ask the questions myself. I should like to know, from the Minister of Home Affairs, “ is preference to be applied in the discharge of men as well as the employment of men ?”

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is now trying to evade my ruling.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If you think so, sir, I shall abandon the questions. There are eleven of them. I have asked three, and commend the remainder to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs. That will serve my purpose as well. It is the answers for which we are pressing. The Ministerial replies have been examined and. found to be imperfect on eleven different points upon which information is respectfully required. In addition, I have to put one or two questions of my own. which have been omitted from that list. I notice that the Prime Minister has in his mind some distinction between unions. There are unions and unions. Apparently some are to be included and some excluded under this ukase. I have already put one question unsuccessfully in that regard, and now hope we shall have the two classes defined. As recorded on page 677 of Hansard for this session, I asked “ whether the members of unions not registered will be able to claim this privilege as well as members of registered unions?” And the Prime Minister’s reply was, “ They will be treated on their merits.’”’ That needs further definition.

The Minister of Home Affairs, in the preliminary part of his memorandum to his officers, raised the rates of pay. We have yet to learn on what principle. Apparently he has raised the rates two or three times during the continuance of contracts.

Mr Higgs:

– He is the taxing-master.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Exactly ; but he must have some grounds for his choice. He increased the rate to 9s. 9d. or 9s. lod. per day. Why did he not make it 9s. nd. ? Why not 10s. ? On what principle has the Minister arrived at the particular sum there set down? All this, remember, is paid out of the public purse. Has the Minister satisfied himself, or is he satisfying himself, and, if so, how, that the public are about to obtain value for that money?

Mr King O’Malley:

– Union rates.

Mr DEAKIN:

– But union rates differ, and may be misapplied. It altogether depends upon the work on which a man is employed. The question is whether you receive a sufficient return for the sum you are paying. On that point the Minister

*Preference to Unionists :* [26 September, 1911.] *No-Confidence Motion.* 779 must be Beard. 1 am sure he does not desire to be regarded as an unjust steward of the public purse, who takes no account of the value to be received for the public money disbursed by his Department. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- The honorable member ought to compare them with the lawyers' union rates. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- There comes that gibe againfrom the honorable member, who must have his jest. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr Higgs: -- I cannot get an explana tion from the honorable member about it. Mr.DEAKIN.- This is not the place for an explanation, if any is really sought. The honorable member is under a delusion if he thinks that the fees paid by those entering the legal profession swell the funds of the union ; the money is used for the maintenance of the Supreme Court Library. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- To provide lawyers with books. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- For the benefit of all the Courts and officers and of the general public. If preference to unionists has been an integral part of the policy of the Labour party for twenty years or more, as the honorable member for Bass, and others, insist {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- We were working for it in 1867. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Why is it that the policy was not brought into force until the third Labour Administration has been in power for a year and a half, and conciliation and arbitration legislation in operation for several years? The Minister of Home Affairs has held office for eighteen months. At any moment, he could have issued a ukase similar to that which has produced this discussion. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- Only seventeen months. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Why has the honorable gentleman waited seventeen months? Why did not the two preceding Labour Administrations give effect to this policy? The honorable gentleman was not a member of those Governments. Is that the answer? I think not. If it had been in the minds of Ministers to give effect to this policy, we should surely have been told so beforehand, though one can understand why it might have been suppressed while the amendment of the Constitution Was being recommended to the people. Honorable members opposite must : explain to their constituents why they and their followers have missed so many oppor tunities for bringing into effect what they say now always was a fundamental principle. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- I gave effect to it on 4th August, 1 910. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- If so, the honorable gentleman contrived to shroud his action in obscurity and a silence most remarkable in his case. He would find it more difficult to explain his silence than to explain his inaction. The whole question of industrial privilege is likely to attain very marked prominence in politics. No one who studies the evolution of our social system will deny that unions are bound to play even a larger part in the future than they are playing now. Hence, on their actions, we must now direct the full light of public scrutiny. Those in authority over them will be called much more strictly to account than in the early days, when their influence was less and their operations of smaller importance. One of the problems of the day is how to harness the great forces of unionism so that their strength may be applied most advantageously to the community as a whole. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Unionism has been legironed in the past. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- It will not help the cause of honorable members opposite to evoke bitter memories where there are any. The organized strength of unions is now so great that no step should be taken by them without the greatest circumspection, and a full forecast of the principal *results that* will flow from it. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- Is not that the case now? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- No. The manner in which the present proposal has been launched, and the neglect to provide machinery for its proper operation will prejudice its reception. A complete scheme of appointment should have been laid before *this* House, upon which the criticism even of opponents should have beenw elcomed. It should have been revised, ifneccessary, under the full light of public scrutiny, so that our citizens might realize not only the need, but the wisdom, of the step that was being taken. But the proposal was launched privately by an individual Minister, apparently months ago, without either Parliament or the public being informed. Honorable members opposite, as well as we on this side, were entitled to a statement as to the success or non-success of the experiment, so far as it has been tried, and should have been told whether readjustments were necessary, and to what length it was proposed to go. This new policy has been sprung upon us in a fashion most likely to create suspicion and arouse opposition, although it should have been launched in a manner which would have disarmed many of its opponents, leaving the chief consideration whether the best practical methods had been adopted. But we have now to discuss it under a cloud of heat and excitement not of our generating, which I hope will not long obtain. As it is we have to make the best of a bad job. We have to face this question. When we have once discovered what are the definite proposals and has been practical working of this new proposition, we shall be in a position to debate it, and, so far as we can, to endeavour to re-shape it wherever necessary to meet the circumstances of the situation. As it is at present before us, it represents a transformation so wholesale, violent, and unprecedented, and, as applied to Australia, it appears so impossible, that I fear that the task of dealing with it fairly upon which we are about to enter is one of the most complex with which we could be confronted. The whole situation is complex. Surely a new departure of this kind might better have been taken by degrees, and with caution, instead of by a header of the Minister of Home Affairs. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr Kino O'Malley: -- Did not the London County Council introduce this fifteen years ago? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Yes, seventeen years ago; and they have continued its operation ever since. A number of other municipalities have done the same. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Honorable members opposite have been industriously trying to discover precedents. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I am reminded by Ministers that the London County Council, and many other municipal councils, have had experience of the operation of a principle of this kind. The experiences of such bodies are no doubt very useful, but any one who proposes to apply the methods of an English County Council to the government of the Continent of Australia is providing for himself a very difficult proposition indeed. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- That is no answer. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- It is an absolute answer so far. Municipal methods are often such as could not be adopted even by the State Governments. It is possible that methods adopted by th» State Governments could not be adopted bv the Government or. the Commonwealth. Questions of area, diversity of interests, distribution of population, and many other nutters, must be considered. A principle which might be applied with brilliant success by the municipal council of a great metropolis might be utterly hopeless if applied to a vast region extending through many degrees of latitude, and embracing many and varied conditions for many and varied employments. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- That is mere wind. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- All I can say is that the Minister of External Affairs judges himself, and not me, by a remark of that kind. To every one else, it is obvious that these comparisons can only be made with the utmost caution. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- They meet the suggestion as to the unprecedented character of the proposal. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Not in the least. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- Nothing could. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Nothing honorable members opposite can say or do would completely meet this case, though several things which they might invent or imagine might appear to do so. We are dealing now with what honorable members opposite have done, or are doing. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- It is all right; the honorable gentleman accepts the principle. His only complaint is as to the method of its application. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I' accepted the principle as adopted by this Parliament in 1904, and shall see that the same, or a similar principle, shall apply, so far as I am able, in 1911. The real problem of industrial employment and remuneration either in this connexion or any other, is not to be solved by these methods, or these methods alone, even if we take the whole of them. There is far more hope for those who are engaged in our industries in the consideration of the new methods of work which **Mr. Winslow** Taylor has recently developed in an important volume, which is likely to mark an era in industrial history. He shows that an increase of wages up to hitherto unexpected rates is perfectly possible without sacrifice of the workmen by the adoption of scientific methods of training and production. The solution of a large number of the difficulties which beset our modern enterprises is to be found in that direction. A discussion *Preference to Unionists :* [26 September, 1911.] *No-Confidence Motion.* 781 would take us much too far afield, although it is strictly germane to some most important features of the present industrial situation. While the methods of preference and of fixing rates of pay in a general way condition industry, they cannot do anything to inspire, invigorate, or develop it. They impose conditions, many of which are necessary, though some, no doubt, are unwise or impossible, which our industries must accept or replace. Sooner or later those which are sound and wise will be sifted out and adopted. But we must go much beyond this if we are to maintain in our industries an effective development. - Those engaged in them must unite in mastering the new scientific processes by which their physical labour is reduced, but by which intelligence in its application increases remuneration, while the fruits of the industry are enormously multiplied. This progress will benefit the worker, as well as the employer. But in Australia, when our protection through the Tariff has already been overtaken by the increase of prices on every hand, we shall put the whole of our industries in a most parlous state by the introduction of new restrictions, raising the cost of production without any increase of protection against importations so as to provide a means of developing our industries and of employing more labour. It is perfectly true that the conditions of labour need examination. We have a Court which exists for that purpose so far as inter-State disputes are concerned. There are growing up throughout the Commonwealth State organizations of an industrial character dealing with these problems so far as they can. But if a limit is put upon the expansion of industries where will be the prospects of our young men,or for the future of Australia. We have now to deal with the special ukase issued by the Minister of one Department and its effect by reaction upon our industrial enterprises. Although it touches the industrial life of Australia at many different points, the same rate is apparently to be applied without qualification to all kinds of employment, and to all places within the Commonwealth. I say that while it is proper and legitimate to adapt restrictions of this kind to one part of Australia, they must be entirely unsuitable and illegitimate if applied in the same way in another. Yet the ukase of the Minister of Home Affairs goes forth from his Department affecting the whole of Australia. That is one of the most serious considerations to be borne in mind when dealing with his minute to his officers. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -i should like to hear the honorable gentleman on the other side of it now. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- -I do not know what other side there can be. I conceive myself to be arguing in support of a doctrine which all in this House must support, although they may approach it from different sides. We may adopt diverse means of reaching the same ends. All depends on the growth and progress of our industries, and in this connexion we cannot overlook the universal state of unrest in our industrial life. Every day we have news of fresh disturbances, and the last from Tasmania implies an industrial disturbance of most appalling dimensions. I say nothing about its cause or merits, but it is of appalling dimensions - a crisis which we cannot hear of without alarm and apprehension. Until these disasters - for they are disasters - we might fairly term the difficulty which has arisen at Mount Lyell a national disaster - can be coped with- {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Is this a Protectionist speech ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I am now referring to far more than Protection - which comes first - to the proper organization of industries, carrying with it proper responsibilities, and amongst these first and last the acceptance of fixed standards of efficiency. A minimum wage, as I argued the other day, is in itself a humane and necessary thing. But a minimum of efficiency is very properly required for a minimum wage in all bodies of organized labour. Without that minimum of efficiency there can be no claim on the part of the individual to a minimum wage. In Germany the trade unions take' these matters into their own control, placing the attainment of a high degree of efficiency amongst their chief objects. Their certificates, as we know, are accepted over the whole of Europe - and, indeed, everywhere else - as the hall-mark of efficiency. Wherever a workman is possessed of a German certificate, that marks his grade and quality. By that means the trade unions in Germany not only increase the productive power of the nation, but raise their own status, expand their influence, while at the same time improve the condition of the workmen. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- We are doing the same thing in Australia. 782 *Preference to Unionists :* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *No-Confidence Motion.* {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- No. Why, many of the unions in this country seem organized more for political purposes than for anything else ! It is the confusion of political principles - which, in themselves, may be perfectly sound - with principles of industrial organization - which, in themselves, may also be perfectly sound - that destroys both, to a large degree, when they are blended. Not. until our industrial questions are considered as such - the humanitarian element being always prominent - and not until our political questions, which range over an immense area, are considered as such, shall we get thefull motive power of the nation, from the free judgment of every man and woman in Australia who is capable of expressing an opinion- {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- You cannot separate the two things. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- We must do so. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Every political question is a question of bread and butter. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- If it should prove impossible to separate them, one or other of our essential aims as a people must sink far below the height which it ought to attain. In other words, we must be either a far less important nation industrially, or a far less important nation politically. We cannot be great from both stand-points while we administer political affairs through industrial machinery and interests or industrial affairs by political machinery, according to party interests. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- The experience of Germany, which the honorable member quoted just now, is quite the reverse. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I venture to say that it is not. The Government of Germany is in the hands of a majority which stands right outside the organized labour of that country, and which, except in the concession of a few important industrial laws, has governed Germany quite independently of it. However, I commenced my remarks with a determination to adhere as closely as possible to the subject-matter of my motion. That is the only reason why I am stating the position dogmatically. Not until our industrial and political organizations stand side by side, each of them determining its own sphere of action and its own course, and each consisting, doubtless, of the same men who, whilst agreeing politically, may differ on industrial matters, as they are entitled to do, or who, whilst agreeing upon industrial matters, may differ politically, as they are also entitled to do - not until we obtain that severance, which is consonant with perfect freedom in both spheres, can we hope to see either of. them attain the height which they could reach. If there be one principle upon which the existence of the State, as a State, depends for full fruition and for the accomplishment of its best ends, it is that it should draw no distinctions whatever between its citizens. That is to say, in politics, in religion, in matters of private opinion; in all concerns in which human freedom can be extended, the State should deliberately stand aside, treating every unit as absolutely independent entitled to make its own free choice, and to follow its own rule. Until we obtain that absolute freedom of judgment and criticism on the part of the whole community in respect of all matters of State - until we obtain it unbiased by any partisan associations or any other influences than those whose purpose it is to infuse into our legislation those humanitarian principles which shine here more conspicuously than they do in any other part of the world, with the exception of Germany and Denmark, we shall not develop upon sound lines. Speaking broadly, the humanitarian element in our legislation must never be lost. But our legislation must make no distinction between citizens which is not imposed upon it by the necessary needs of their citizenship. Consequently, this industrial principle of preference to unionists, when applied by a political body or by political action discriminating between its citizens, is unsound and indefensible. Its justification can only be found when, in industrial affairs, it is balanced by the sacrifice of the right to strike - apparently that right has never been sacrificed, and but for its agreed sacrifice the original preference to unionists would never have been incorporated in our law. Use can be made of such preference only under judicial methods and by purely judicial means when strikes have ceased, and when a properly-constituted tribunal regulates the wages to be paid and the hours to be worked in any industry in which disputes arise, and in which the organization is based upon just principles and methods. Thence come the only just and secure preferences. Otherwise a distinction drawn between one citizen and another because one does or does not belong to a union, would justify a similar distinction being drawn because one does or does not belong to a particular church. It introduces into the State the danger line of division - on one side the *Preference to Unionists :* [26 September, 1911.] *No-Confidence Motion.* 783 elect, on the other the rejects - those who are inside a union, and those who are outside of it; and it thus divides the State against itself. That is the fundamental peril underlying the action which has been taken by the Minister of Home Affairs. Well-intentioned in its industrial sphere, it could never be more out of place than when coming from a representative of the people, acting on behalf of the whole State, because it cannot be his duty, as Minister of State, to discriminate in employment between those who belong to a union and those who do not. I repeat that a similar distinction might be made with equal justification in regard to the question of a man's religion. If he may be challenged on the one, he may, with equal propriety, be challenged on the other whenever it suits a particular faction to do so. Honorable members opposite might just as well claim that the State should grant a preference to the members of a friendly society. There is just as good logic in favour of doing so. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Victoria does that. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Victoria does not discriminate between the men who belong to friendly societies and those who do not. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It grants assistance to friendly societies. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- That is for the purpose of encouraging a useful movement, one of many so favoured, which is quite a different thing. Several Ministerial Members. - Oh, oh! {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- The derision of hon orable members is that of men who do not measure the difference which exists between the rights of man and a gift of money. Only those who are purchasable would place money in the forefront. There are many things not purchasable, and amongst them are the rights and equalities of citizenship. The State subsidizes, and so encourages hospitals; but it does not make any distinction between the persons who shall be treated there. There is just as much warrant for extending consideration to individuals who insure their lives as against those who do not, as there is in favour of granting a preference to unionists. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Some States refuse to employ men who have not insured their lives. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- A State which distinguishes between its citizens in the matter of giving them employment on any of these grounds - which has regard to anything except the qualification of the individual for his task - takes up a false position. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- The principle has been operative for years. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- In a Court of Justice, as already noted. If the State is to stand on its own feet, it must stand apart altogether from considerations of political colour or religious creed, or of industrial discrimination between those who shall be employed by the State and those who shall not. No nation of free men and women will submit to anything else. Honorable members opposite may think that the price of principle is worth paying ; but I am sure that, in the end, it will prove to be too high. I have said, perhaps, as much as is necessary now on that general part of the subject, and I have no desire to attempt to develop it at present. But I believe this proposal of the Minister of Home Affairs, as launched, to be contrary to those basic principles of freedom which he himself has often professed in this House, and that the discrimination by the State simply on account of the industrial organizations to which men belong cannot be justified in reason, and is certainly not just. It makes against the liberty of individual citizens, which in these days of State co-operation and State action we must take more and more care to preserve in all their vitality. If ever that sense of individual responsibility and freedom is stifled, as it must be by such devices as this, good-bye to those privileges which we have so hardly won. The very strongest of the great nations of the world to-day are those which place in the front rank the culture of men of independent judgment and character. You may speak of the value of scientific knowledge, training, and skill in Germany, or of the development of the patriotic emotions in other countries, but in the long run the greatness of nations rests upon one and the same thing - the personality of its men and women, their capacity, their freedom, their education, their readiness to apply themselves to the reform of accepted doctrines, and to the re-shaping of institutions, refitting them to fulfil the needs of the present day. You are trespassing against a great principle when you sap in this manner the independence and the liberty of the individual. You are making a greater sacrifice than can be compensated for by all the boons which you are immediately obtaining. And those boons themselves will not remain. Their multiplication must proceed, and this will deprive you of many of those very advantages. If once you sap the liberty of your individual citizens, if once you make them subject, in matters of conscience or of common right, to the *ipse dixit* of some one in command, who is able to say to that man, " Go," and he goeth, and to this man, " Come," and he cometh, so that those who would be free are forced to obey the commands of persons set in authority over them/ the end is at hand. This means, I say again, a sacrifice of liberty and a sacrifice of justice. It therefore leads to a sacrifice of the true manhood and womanhood of the nation. And you will find that one step in this direction will call for another. The misfortune is that, just as opening the door to freedom enables you to open other doors, until more and more freedom is obtained, so does shutting the door, after a step in the direction of slavery, forces you to go on shutting other doors, in the same direction Honorable members will find before long that persistence in this course involves vital sacrifices of national life. {: .speaker-KHU} ##### Mr Howe: -- We have not looked back so far. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- A good many honorable members are looking back. The regrettable circumstance is that honorable members opposite do not look far enough forward. The fates are not exhausted by this latest step. Finality will not be reached by this discrimination which is being exercised in this way in a particular Department. No doubt, we shall hear in a few minutes what changes have been sanctioned by the Government as a whole. What has already been done marks an important turning. The first was taken when the Arbitration Act was emasculated. Now another step has been taken. It has been done by means of the administrative power of Ministers. By an executive act they are politically discriminating between "industrial organization and nonorganization. But the harm will not cease when the members of organizations have received full value for their subscriptions. As I have said, I have always favoured, and still urge, the foundation and extension of industrial unions for industrial purposes. But you are administering to them the poison of politics when you take an administrative step by means of which yon sacrifice the safeguards of political free dom of judgment and action which have hitherto prevailed. I venture to say that you will find the mistake you have made before long, and will regret it. You will also regret that any change that was deemed necessary was not made deliberately, quietly, calmly, on full information after debate in Parliament, everybody knowing, everybody being able to criticise, and by a well thought out scheme at last completed after mature consideration and deliberation. Thanking the House for having listened so patiently, I conclude by submitting the motion. {: #subdebate-2-0-s2 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP -- I shall not detain the House long, and in the brief time that I shall occupy I shall deal with only some of the questions touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. His motion is one of censure, though he admits that it is couched in limited terms. It says that what has been done by the Government is " not in the public interest." But it is singular that, although the honorable member argued that what has been clone is objectionable, he did not point out one single instance as to where danger will arise. If evidence of that statement be wanted, I will give his exact words. Towards the close of his speech, the honorable member said that this thing which we have done is only a different means of reaching the same end that both sides desire. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- No, not this thing; ours will be a different thing altogether. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do not wish to *do* an injustice to the honorable member. It is quite true that he said that his method would be a different method. The honorable member might bring down a different proposition; he might state it differently ; he might introduce it differently ; but he said that the object that he had in view was entirely the same as ours. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- No. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- The Leader of the Opposition said that the Act of 1904 represented our view. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member for Kooyong says thai the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Act of 1904. What did his leader say in 19 10? On page 1 2 12 of Vol. LV. of *Hansard,* he said - >Economic faith forms a large part of the political creed of all politicians, and seems to form the whole of the political faith of members opposite. He was referring to the honorable member for Parramatta, the honorable member for Lang, and others who now sit behind him. He went on to say - >The issues, as we put them, are: Preference? -yes ! Unionism ? - yes ! Encouragement to unionism besides preference ? - yes ! For what purpose? For the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Industrial disputes ! {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I said so to-night. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I quite agree with the honorable member. I have heard him so often that I know what is in his mind. He cannot get away from the feeling which he has, and which we, too, have, that this is the right way to do what is desired. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- It is the wrong way. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member said that we would shut one door after another until we had slavery. What is the evidence? The evidence is that in every country where unionism has not prevailed slavery exists to-day. The countries where noble-minded men and wemen refused to be crushed by tyrants, whether capitalists or otherwise, are those which ' are great; and they are great because men preferred to die rather than to lose their independence. These men and women were the leaders of unionists, and their names are emblazoned on the scrolls of history. No one knows that better than does the Leader of the Opposition. The work is not done yet. If there were not men and women available to take up that work and pursue it, even in enlightened European countries to-day, would not the condition of the toiling masses be one of absolute misery and degradation? They come into conflict with authority sometimes in a way which they themselves do not approve, and of which few of us could approve; but they have to do what is done to perform the work which is necessary for the progress of civilization and humanity. In taking this step, with regard to the Public Service, the Government have acted deliberately. Complaint has been made of the method in which the matter was brought before Parliament. On that point, I intend to say very little. The honorable member must choose his own way of presenting that aspect of the case. It is true that there are different methods of dealing with a question of this kind. Had the honorable member, or another party, been in power, I have no doubt that, instead of pursuing this course, they would have pursued quite another course. and one where Ministers might use their influence over the Departments. But that would not be a better one. ! shall not accuse the honorable member for Ballarat of doing so. This Parliament has been clean ; the Administrations have been clean; we are proud of the fact, and the community ought to be glad of it, too. Long may it continue to be so. If we, as a Government, have made a mistake, it is one which can be corrected by the people at any time. It is known - it could not be hid, because preference to unionists was stated quite clearly- {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- It was hid until the 12th September. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- It is a plank in our platform. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes. The Leader of the Opposition contends that there may be a number of persons outside who thought that preference to unionists only meant preference after judicial decision. But our contention has been more than that. We have always said that, until society is organized industrially, there can be no real freedom. We owe a great debt of gratitude to unionists who have continued their efforts to organize society, and enabled us to get concrete cases brought before a judicial tribunal which would admit of a decision being given on facts as presented. Without these unions we could make no progress at all. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether, taking the worst possible view of what is being done. by the Ministry, he is prepared to repeal this proposal. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- What proposal? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- This proposal. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Certainly I would repeal the proposal of the Minister of Home Affairs. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I will give the honorable member time to answer my question. He stated that we left him in the dark. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Put a plain question to him now, and he will answer it. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- On Thursday the honorable member submitted to me seven distinct questions, not hurriedly drawn up, as honorable members will see, although, I must confess, hurriedly answered. I take no exception to the answers I gave, and stand by them. It may be well to quote the questions, together with the answers. First, the honorable member asked me, upon notice, this question - >Whether he will define the classes of Government employes within which members of unions will henceforward be given priority of appointment over all who are not unionists? My answer was - >Other qualifications being equal, preference will be given in all cases. The second question was - >Whether qualifications, such as ability, experience, or physique will be considered, and, if so, to what extent, in the appointments made? My answer was, " See No. i." {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- But that is throwing the Minister overboard at once. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- lt is nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- The Minister declared for absolute preference - unconditional and unqualified. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The Leader of the Opposition saw the notice of the Minister of Home Affairs, but the latter said that his "absolute" meant no more than was conveyed bv these answers. The Minister did say that on the same evening. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I do not remember him saying so. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member's third question was - >Whether the Ministry proposes to distinguish between unions when making appointments? The answer was - >No. Commonwealth law now provides a means of determining this question. That is. the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court has machinery for determining what is a union and what is not. The fourth question was - >Whether Ministers intend to impose any new conditions upon the choice of permanent employes under the Public Service Acts? The answer was " No." The fifth question was - >Whether, if preference is to be granted to unionists, other things being equal between the applicants, who is to determine, and on what evidence, their comparative qualifications? The answer was, " The officer charged with the duty of selecting." The remaining questions were - {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Whether the determination mentioned will be final, or subject to appeal? 1. Whether non-unionists appointed on the ground of greater personal qualifications or capacity will be liable to be subsequently displaced in favour of unionists applying for appointment ? The answer to those questions was - >No alteration in the present method will be made in these respects. The honorable member further interrogated me at the next sitting of the House, and it is only fair that the interrogations and the answers should be placed on record, so that the people of the' country may knowexactly what we are. doing. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Those answers still stand. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes, they stand. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- They cannot be amended ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It does not matter whether they are amended or not; the Government stand by their position. This policy will be pursued until we see some better method ; the Government are not bound to any fetish in their administrative or legislative action. We shall look at circumstances as they arise, and, with our best judgment, do the best we can for the people. I am sorry I must trouble the House for a few moments with further quotations. The honorable member for Ballarat, as reported in *Hansard* of 21st September, again addressed me as Prime Minister - >Much uncertainty prevails among honorable members on this side as to the area over which the proposed new preference to unionists is to apply, and the methods of its application. Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making a statement which will remove the doubt and anxiety in this regard? My reply was - >I am surprised that there is doubt and anxiety. The proposal is not a revolutionary one, but merely a straightforward and honest statement of policy. Instead of favourites being appointed at the nod of the Minister, as under the old system, the officer whose duty it is will consider the fitness of the applicant for the work' to be done. The honorable member for Flinders then asked - >Will he receive instructions from the head of his Department to give effect to the policy of the Government? I replied - >In some cases, instructions have been given. I have given none, but no doubt the policy announced will be recognised. Then the honorable member for Ballarat asked - >I do not expect the Prime Minister to make a statement now, but ask him to define later the areas over which the proposed preference will apply, and the method of its application in the States, the Northern Territory, and the Federal Capital Territory. I replied - >If the responsible officer wanted a man he could ask him whether he was a unionist or not. Then, in reply to further interrogations I said that no man who is a unionist should be sorry or ashamed to say so, and so, forth. Let us now turn to the honorable member for Parramatta. There is no reason why that gentleman should not be considered in this matter, seeing that he occupies the important position of Deputy Leader of the Op- position. In *Hansard,* volume XXIV., of 1904, page 7846, that honorable member is thus reported - >I have no sort of sympathy with the man who will work alongside another man, and see that other paying every week of his life into an organization to protect his rights, and to maintain his position, whilst he himself is skulking, and deriving the benefit for which the other is paying and working. > >The honorable member there says that he has no sympathy with men who stand idly by and reap the benefits of unionism. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Nor has anybody ; I have no sympathy with that kind of thing mvself. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- What I desire to ask the Opposition, and the people of the country, is whether unionists, and leaders of unionists, are to go on for all eternity fighting, not only for themselves, but for those other " skulking " people who are unworthy the benefits they derive. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr Ryrie: -- Then the Prime Minister says that outside unions all are skulkers ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member for Parramatta used the word " skulking. " The honorable and gallant member for North Sydney need not make himself so obvious - I shall say no more about him than that. Are unionists to go on and on, securing benefits for non-unionists? Are unionists, who sacrifice themselves, to suffer indignities rather than give up what they consider to be their regal rights? What is their position? We are told that these organizations are composed solely of political supporters of the Labour party. Nothing of the kind ; some of them are the most militant opponents of this party, and honorable members opposite know the fact. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Is it intended to give preference to those unionists, too? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- There will be no political distinctions while this Government hold office; I cannot answer for any other Government. Further, in reply to the honorable member for Wentworth, I may point out that in connexion with the census, we were charged with unfairness in giving positions as collectors, and so forth, to obvious political partisans, and even the independent press drew attention to this matter. I can only say that the answer of the Minister concerned is that he chose the best men. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'malley: -- And he made a mistake ! {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I am now speaking of what I read, and heard publicly - not of anything I heard privately. However, no evidence is necessary to prove the *bona fides* of the Government as to impartial administration. The Opposition has not raised one single question of administrative incapacity or administrative favoritism. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I am sorry I am getting away from the question. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Still the Prime Minister's statement is not correct; I have raised questions myself in connexion with two great public contracts. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I should have liked to dwell on this matter, but perhaps I had better leave it to my colleagues. I desire to say, in plain, unvarnished language, that this Government intend to re-organize industrialism, so far as they can. We have no fear at all of sapping the liberty of the country, nor of destroying the independence of individuals. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Then sever it from politics ! {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The Government will give no heed at all to the politics of a man when his position as an employ^ is being considered. I should scorn the Minister who would knowingly let himself be led away into appointing political partisans. I saw too much of that system before the Labour party came into power. I have seen the evils of the system in administration, and the injury it did to the men themselves in more than one State and in the Commonwealth. We hope, and we have reason for hoping, that a better era is introduced by this proposal of preference. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Prime Minister spoke of evils in the Commonwealth - I suppose he is not referring to Commonwealth administration ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- No; my previous statement shows that, in my opinion, the administration of the Commonwealth by all parties has been clean. In 1902, or 1903, I made a statement in this House which was subsequently misquoted. That misstatement I have never corrected; but I should like to mention it now. From 1893 to 1899, no public officer or civil servant in Queensland dare express an opinion in favour of the Labour party without inviting disaster. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I mention that only to repeat that no Labour Ministry will countenance such a policy. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- Public servants cannot do that in Victoria to-day. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I am sorry to hear it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- It is incorrect. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- It is not. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Some reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition on a previous occasion to the character of the deputation that waited upon me. If the honorable member would like to have the names, I shall be pleased to supply them. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Was there an official report ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes j I have the transcript of the shorthand notes before me, and can lay it on the table of the House. Unfortunately, the heavy cold under which I am labouring renders it impossible for me to go on. I wish only to say that the policy of the Government is preference to unionists, and that that means the employment of unionists, other things being equal, in preference to non-unionists. It also includes the granting of reasonable facilities for workmen to become unionists. I am tempted, in conclusion, to quote from a writer who I know is a favorite of the honorable member for Angas, as well as the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to John Stuart Mill, who, seeing far beyond his own day into a time perhaps ahead of our own, wrote- >The form of association which, if mankind continues to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves, on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations and working under managers elected and removable by themselves. Here we have the managers of the business of the Commonwealth, elected by the majority of the people, and elected with the full knowledge that they were in favour of preference to unionists. The work being carried out by the Ministry as an Executive is their own. They are in control qf it, and they feel themselves in duty bound to give preference to unionists. On that the Government take their stand. Whether the people approve or disapprove our policy in this regard will influence neither us nor those of our supporters who believe in the principle, for we have had too frequently to pioneer causes which were unpopular and more often misunderstood. The object of this motion, I have no doubt, is to cause our policy in this respect to be misunderstood, and to be misunderstood for purposes which I need not dwell upon. There are two incidents about to happen in different parts of the Common wealth in connexion with which a misunderstanding of our application of the principle may be of use to our opponents ; but certainly no good purpose has been served by the indictment launched against us to-day by the honorable member for Ballarat. {: #subdebate-2-0-s3 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- 1 am sure I am expressing the feeling of honorable members of the Opposition when I say we are exceedingly sorry that the Prime Minister is not in the best of physical health, since the occasion is an important one, and we have been particularly curious to know what defence would be set up by the Ministry to the action taken by them. With a good many statements made by the Prime Minister this afternoon I fully agree, but scarcely one of them is relevant to the motion. The question at issue is one of principle, not of degree, and admits of being dealt with within the limits of a short speech. Before putting the issue as it occurs to me, I should like, however, to refer to the reference made by the Prime Minister to the action of the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in connexion with the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill of 1904. Dealing purely with the difference in the method of application before I come to the question of principle, let me say that preference to unionists, as provided for in the Act of 1904, applied to States, and that the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that the Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was at the head, resigned rather than agree to the insertion of that principle. It is somewhat significant that one reason why the Deakin Government resigned was because the principle of arbitration was extended to the servants of the State. It was considered by the draftsman of the Bill that preference to unionists was essential to the principle of arbitration, as it was included in the Bill ; and it seems to me to be a complete reply to the reference made by the Prime Minister to the attitude then taken up by the honorable member for Ballarat that he refused to agree to the States, who would be bound by the principle of preference, being kept within the purview of the Act. We have not had from the Prime Minister one statement as to how, as between unionists, he is to apply this principle, or as to what safeguards can be applied. The Act of 1904, as amended by the Act of 1910, still contains some safeguards as between the nonmembers and members of unions affected by it. The schedule, for instance, and section *Preference to Unionists :* [26 September, 1911.] *No-Confidence Motion.* 789 60 contain a provision as to the class of rules that shall be binding upon members of organizations. I shall not quote the section bearing on the point, but it provides that if there is any tyranny, either in the expression or the application of the rules, the registration can be cancelled. Even under the amended Act of last year this preference can only be granted in circumstances that cannot arise as regards the Commonwealth. It is to be granted only where it is necessary to the settlement of an industrial dispute, or where, as being connected with an industrial dispute, it would serve some purpose of public welfare. I am not here to justify the insertion of the principle in the Act of 1904; but point out that, even under the Act, as amended last year, the Court has not an absolute discretion as to when preference to unionists is to be granted. It may exercise some discretion, but the Act contemplates certain circumstances under which it would be the duty of the Court to refuse preference to unionists. These circumstances do not include the condition " other things being equal." For instance, " other things being equal " might apply as between man and man ; but not as between different bodies of men. Under the Act as it stands, **Mr. Justice** Higgins would be authorized - in fact, I think he would be bound - to refuse preference to unionists if he thought that the minority represented by the association would not justify the application of the principle. To come now to the questions raised by the speech of the Prime Minister, I do not think there is a member on this side of the House who differs from him as to the expediency of organization and unionism. Let us remember what the object of organization and unionism was. Was it not the basic principle of Labour action during the whole of the last century, and right up to the present, that you must combine if you want to assert the principle of equal opportunity as between the classes? Fifty or sixty years ago, what possibility had the masses, as units, of impressing either upon the Legislature or upon capital, over whom they had no control, their views as to the remuneration of labour, unless they combined ? It is quite a truism that, without organization, the. Factory Acts could never have been passed. There was no freedom of action before those Acts were passed. The whole fight of Labour in the early part of the last century was to establish freedom, to establish equality of conditions under the law. Equality of opportunity was the very basic principle of almost every reform in society, and we recognised that there were cases where people were nominally free, but, as a matter of fact, were not free. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- That is the case to-day. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- 1 think I can absolutely distinguish the conditions. At the time the first Commission under **Sir Robert** Peel was appointed, what freedom of action had the employes who were practically starving, and whose children had to work as many as sixteen hours a day- children whose bright faces might, under other conditions, have shed a radiance about the gloom of the existence which their parents led ; but who, according to the report of the Commission, from the ages of seven to sixteen, were standing at the side of their looms for periods of from twelve to sixteen hours a day? If the question was put then as to the necessity of unionism, of organization of labour, in order to impress its demands upon capital, over which it had absolutely no control, the answer could be only one way. The people had no suffrage then by which they could control the operations of capital. We have a suffrage under which people can check the operations of our Parliament. In those days there was nothing left for the masses, because, as units, they were without power, but to combine in order to better the conditions of life and labour, and in order to establish equality of opportunity within the law. When we consider the fight that was put up against whatI think **Mr. Stanley** Jevons described as practically industrial slavery, when we remember that all the laws passed by Parliament against combinations of workmen had for their objective practically nothing less than unfair restraint, who can hesitate to say that unionism was absolutely essential to the reforms of the last fifty or sixty years, and is still perhaps one of the essentials of the fight to be waged in communities like those of Great Britain? But let us now turn to the Commonwealth. Unionism is not essential to the settlement of the conditions of labour under the Wages Boards of the States, which are really designed to attain its ends. Have we not our democratic institutions in the State as well as in the Commonwealth ? In the State of South Australia there is an adult suffrage quite as wide as ours- {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Oh, no; the honorable member overlooks the Legislative Council. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- At all events we have had, in that State, Liberal Governments, and even Labour Governments, introducing and extending the principle of Wages Boards within the State. A Ministry of which, I think, the present Minister of External Affairs was a. member, introduced the Wages Board system in South Australia. That system is not based upon unionism. Unionism is not essential to the fixing of wages by Act of Parliament under the Wages Board system. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- It is essential to proper representation on the Boards. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I beg the honorable member's pardon. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- We have had instances of employers endeavouring to elect the representatives of the employes, and of those endeavours being only frustrated by the unions. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The honorable member can assert anything ; but it is impossible, without going into each particular case, to say whether or not duress has been brought to bear upon employes to make them elect or prevent them from electing particular persons. The fact remains that unionism is not required at all as part of the system of fixing wages by Act of Parliament through Wages Boards in the States. Neither in South Australia, nor wherever else a fair system of Wages Boards holds, is unionism recognised as an instrumentality, nor is it, or preference as an inducement to it, necessary. Let us come to the question raised by the introduction of preference to unionists here- What is the object of unionism? Is it not to coerce, to bring pressure to bear upon, the employers? *1* am speaking apart from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to the machinery of which unionism or organization is necessary. How is pressure brought to bear upon the Commonwealth ? Is it by one section of the employes combining? Is it not rather through the suffrage? Who is the employer? Is it not the State? The ballot-box is the means by which people impress their views upon Parliament in order to prescribe what the wages ought to be. Even if to-morrow the principle of bringing the public servants within the Arbitration Act were established - and I understand that that is part of the policy of the Ministry - no organization would be wanted in order to enable disputes between public servants and the Commonwealth to be submitted to an Arbitration Court. You must have organization as between private employes and employers, because it is impossible for the employes to have proper representation of their case before the Court unless the particular class of employes affected can be identified. There you bring in the organization ; but in the case of the Public Service the class is differentiated already by the Act of Parliament. They are the men who are in the employment of the Public Service. The class is identified at once, so that organization is absolutely unnecessary in order to apply the principle of arbitration to the Public Service. Besides, it can never be a partial application. Whatever is done within a class ot the Public Service must apply to all. You cannot have, as you have now under some awards of the Arbitration Court, some employes bound because they are members of the organization, and some not because they are free labourers. Hence one may admit to some extent the expediency of acknowledging the principle of preference to unionists in connexion with private arbitration ; but it is absolutely unessential when dealing with the employes of the State, because, in that case, you cannot prescribe one rate of wages for employes who are members of an organization within the State service, and another for those who are not. Whatever rate is laid down by the President of the Arbitration Court must be applicable to every class within the service. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903 -- Who wants to do that? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- If, as " has been fore shadowed by statements in this House, the wages to be paid to the Public Service are to be fixed by appeal to the Court of Arbitration, I contend that organization such as exists for the purposes of the Arbitration Act is not essential. That being so, the principle of preference to unionists is not essential either. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- If there is no organization, who will put the case before the Court. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The public servants affected are all classified. Is it necessary that the telegraphists should join a union to have a case put? {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- They belong to a union. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- They have a general association, not a union. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- It costs many hundreds of pounds' to have a case stated before a Court. Half-a-dozen individuals .could not afford to appeal to a Court. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- We could pass an Act to-morrow providing that if any number of civil servants wished to raise the question of the inadequacy of their salaries, or any other matter, it should be submitted to the Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-KHU} ##### Mr Howe: -- Who would pay the costs of the submission? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I am dealing simply with the proposal to bring some of the public servants under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the point I make is that it is not indispensable that they should be organized. The Prime Minister has stated that the honorable member for Ballarat failed to show that the policy of the Government is opposed to the public interest. Now, I understand that the Minister o? Home Affairs, early in August, 1910, informed the State officials intrusted with the duty of supervising Commonwealth work that, other things being equal, preference must be given to unionists, with the result that a man who had been in the employ of the State for part of the week, became incapable of working under the direction of a State official, for Federal purposes, for the remainder of the week, because he was not a unionist, and not eligible for Commonwealth employment. Subsequently, the Minister directed that the rate of payment for labour should be 10s. a day, when, at the time, a State Government was paying 8s. and 9s. a day. Painters to whom, under the Minister's minute of August, 10s. a day had to be paid, were awarded only 8s. 8d. a day by the determination of the State Wages Board. Is it conducive to the maintenance of industrial peace to force State officials, who are our agents for the employment of men to carry on Commonwealth works, to pay 10s. a day for work for which their own Government only pays 8s. 8d. a day? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- There has not been a word of complaint. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I made inquiries yesterday, and find that there has been a good deal of trouble. The Minister's definition of tradesman in connexion with building contracts covers men who are really labourers. I understand that some of the unions hold that all men working on a building are tradesmen, and entitled to the highest rates, although the Departmental officials may regard them as unskilled labourers. At present, such men, when working for the South Australian Government, are paid one rate for part of a week, and when transferred to a Commonwealth job, a higher rate for the Test of the week. The Prime Minister tells- us that he is going to apply the Arbitration Act test to unionism, but will that work? The Arbitration Act deals only with industrial unions, and the large labour unions, such' as the Australian Workers' Union and the Barrier Labour Union, are not so registered. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- They are strong enough to demand preference. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Are they to be recognised ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I understood the Prime Minister to say that the provisions of the Commonwealth Act are the test. Under that Act, if a union can be represented by another union, which is registered, it may be regarded as registered. But most unionists belong to unions which are not registered, and cannot be registered. If preference is to be given only to members of unions registered under the Commonwealth Act, two-thirds of the unionists will be excluded. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- No one has said that that will be done. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- None of the safeguards of the arbitration law can be applied. There are organizations which cannot be registered, because they are not industrial, but political. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Or because they are local. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Local unions may be registered, because they may become parties to an industrial dispute. That was decided in the Jumbunna case. Apparently, then, the unionists to which preference is to be given are those who do not represent onethird of the unionists. Is that democratic? How many workers altogether are members of unions? Not one-fifth or one-sixth of the total number. Coming over in the train last night, I was reading a report about the strike which recently took' place in England. I do not desire that honorable members should be under any misapprehension, and I therefore say that I believe the workers in most cases were fighting a splendid cause in Eng: land. I understand that the Manchester men were asking merely for a minimum' wage of 20s. a week for unskilled labour. Under the conditions of modern society, such a demand must find support from every reasonably minded man.I saw the statement made in connexion with the big strike that took place of railway employes that the total number of unionists affected was 75,000 - the number had declined in three years by about 15,000 - while the total number of railway employes affected by the question of arbitration and conciliation, the matter concerning which the unionists struck, was 420,000. There a unionist minority of one-fourth or one-fifth took action affecting a total number of workers estimated at 608,000. I am expressing no opinion as to the justice of the demands made by strikers in the railways and tramways in the Old Country. In some cases the wages paid there approximate very closely to ours. As the Minister of Home Affairs has said, the London County Council did grant preference to unionists, though the public always resent interference by strikes, or any demand of the kind with an organ of government. The London County Council pay wages which, in some cases, run up almost to the rates paid in Australia ; but a miserable pittance of 20s. per week was the height of the ambition of some of the strikers in the Old Country, and the grant of that wage would have brought about industrial peace. I have not had time to go fully into the subject, but from figures I have seen, I believe that the proportion of those who, as unionists, would be entitled to preference here, is not more than onesixth of the whole. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Where there is no union, there can be no preference; that is obvious. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The proposal is to give preference to unionists against employes of the same class who are not unionists. The principle of Democracy does not justify the Government in declaring that in the Public Service, which rests upon the votes and taxation of every one in the community, an absolute preference must, by departmental practice, be given to one-fourth or one-fifth of the persons applying for employment, as against all the rest. I say that, under the proposal, the choice must rest on unionism, and on unionism alone, because it is utterly impossible to test the relative capacity of applicants. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- How is it decided today? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- There is no examination, and the departmental authorities take them as they come. It is impossible before employment to test them as to their capacity. Some will say that unionists are the better men, and others that free labourers are better. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Will the position be any worse now in that respect? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes ; because there is a direction given that the authorities must now give preference to unionists; and, as they cannot test the capacity of applicants, the discriminating, factor in every case will be unionism, and nothing else. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Does the honorable gentleman mean to say that it is not a matter of common knowledge that the best men are those who are members of unions ? {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925 -- No, it is not. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- If the honorable member will say that, he will say anything. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I shall not express an opinion on that point one way or the other. I have read a good deal about the necessity for " slowing off," in order to widen the field of employment. I have heard it said in connexion with contracts for buildings that unionists do not now give 60 per cent, of the results that were obtained some years ago. That may or may not be true. I have no report from a Commission to which I could turn for disinterested testimony of the kind, but what I say is that we are not to assume that unionism will always give us the best men. While I sympathize with the contention of the Prime Minister with regard to men who keep out of unionism;, when it is the only power that can be used to enforce their demands, I say that that cannot possibly apply to Commonwealth employment, and I therefore do not see the relevancy of the contention. When I consider the disproportion of unionists as compared with those who do not belong to unions, and the absence of any ground of necessity for the grant of preference in the way proposed, I believe that such a thing is absolutely unjustifiable. The principle we ought to look to in all appointments in the Public Service is 'personal merit, and if the law is to be changed as between man and man it should be after an appeal to the electors on the point and by an Act of Parliament. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- There is a most inconvenient preference provided for in the honorable gentleman's own union. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Surely the honorable member will not contend that a man who is trained professionally under some curriculum is in the same position as a man who has had no such training? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- The honorable gentleman cannot say that the standard laid down proves efficiency. Mi. GLYNN.- There is no standard. There is no scale of fees that is not prescribed under the law by the Court, and all fees are prescribed, I venture to say, with the object of cheapening litigation. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- The members of the honorable gentleman's union will not even let me try to qualify for membership, because I am earning honest money. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -I do not know what the honorable member means. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- It a man earns money while he is an articled clerk he is debarred from admission to the Bar. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -I beg the honorable member's pardon. There was a rule in the Old Country that while a man was an articled clerk he had no right to earn money in any pursuit. He had no right to earn money even in teaching others who desired to enter the same profession. But that does not apply to the Bar at Home or to the profession here. Honorable members opposite are confusing the fact that a standard of efficiency is prescribed for doctors and lawyers, with the question of equal efficiency, which the condition " other things being equal " implies. The proposal now made is to put a ban upon a certain number of applicants because they do not happen to belong to unions. That is absolutely undemocratic. A departmental distinction is to be made between classes in the community. It is inexpedient and unnecessary. It is not necessary for any purpose of enforcing demands against the State. It will not be required as part of the machinery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, if, as the Government propose, Public Servants are to be brought under that Act, and it ignores the democratic principle of the Wages Boards established in the States. I understand that on Government contracts the rate of wages adopted is that prescribed by the Arbitration Court, where there has been an award of the Court, or the determination of a State Wages Board. Do honorable members opposite propose on the one hand to say that the proper method of arriving at the wages of unskilled or skilled labour is to resort to the determination of a State Wages Board, and on the other hand to impugn these determinations for which organization is not required by saying that preference to unionists is in all cases essentia! ? I am sorry that this principle has been introduced, and without wishing to say anything invidious to my honorable friends opposite, I think I may be allowed to say that it seems rather a political and party move than one considered essential to the proper regulation of labour. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Nothing of the kind. It is the policy always enunciated and advocated by this side. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I remember reading, in Lord Acton's *French Revolution,* a statement of the principles which ought to operate in a State as between the various classes who were applying for its protection. He says - >A man's most sacred property is his labour. It is anterior even to the right of property, for it is the possession of those who own nothing else. Therefore, he must be free to make the best use of it he can. The interference of one man with another, of society with its members, of the State with the subject, must be brought down to the lowest dimensions. Power intervenes only to restrict intervention, to guard the individual from oppression, that is, from regulation in an interest not his own. Free labour is one of the first conditions of legitimate Government. That is, freedom from arbitrary discrimination between persons who belong to the various classes, and he says - >There is an implied contract that no part shall ever be preferred to the whole. The departure which has been taken by the Ministry is unnecessary, and is unjustifiable upon Democratic grounds. Perhaps its true significance was expressed by the Prime Minister when he said, "It is the only way of doing it" whatever that may mean. Doing what? Making unionism a political force throughout this country? If that be his meaning, I say that the principle of preference to unionists is absolutely deserving of the wholesale condemnation which has been heaped upon it by the Leader of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-2-0-s4 .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY:
South Sydney .- I desire to take my share of blame - if there be any blame to be distributed - for the policy of the Government in regard to this question of preference to unionists. We are here as representatives of the great industrial organizations of the Commonwealth. Why should not unionists be granted a preference? The unionists, not only of this country, but of the civilized world, have been the pioneers of liberty and freedom. If we look back to the beginning of last century, we shall find that the condition of labour in Great Britain at that time was absolutely one of serfdom. There were no restrictions as to the hours of labour, or as to the rate of wages to be paid in any industry. The men and women of the country were almost in a state of chattel slavery, and thousands of young children were rushed into factories, where they were done to death by overwork and bad sanitary conditions. The early pioneers of unionism in Great Britain were men of great courage. By combination and cohesion they waged an heroic battle to defeat a system which was grinding the people of that country down into a condition of slavery. The history of Great Britain in that connexion is only a repetition of the history of ancient Greece and Rome. At one period in Rome, trade unions were encouraged by being granted a preference. But a time came when the Government of that" country attempted to crush unionism, and from that day may be traced its decay. It is true that there were other causes which contributed to that result, but the real cause was that the people were in a condition of slavery. Had unionism been fostered in ancient Rome, it would have prevented the chaos which ultimately overtook that Empire. We of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic race should be encouraged in our endeavours to prevent racial decay. No race has. struggled more to .uphold its supremacy than has that to which we belong. At one time Great Britain was fighting for the markets of the world. With the advent of steam power at the close of the Crimean war we found that competition was so keen that the cry raised was, "The race to the strongest. The weakest must go to the wall." These were the conditions under which the present industrial system was established. From that period up to the present time, it has made great strides. It has reduced the hours of labour, raised the standard of living, and exerted a beneficial influence upon the whole civilized community. Trade unionists in every country are an unselfish class. They ask nothing from the employer that they are not willing to extend to every employ! in the industry with which they are associated, irrespective of whether or not he belongs to their union. It is because we have sacrificed our time, our home comforts, our money, and any ability that we may have, in endeavouring to improve the social conditions of the people, that we say the time has arrived when a preference should be granted to unionists who have done so much for the country. The objection has been raised that these unions are political in their objects. I do not regret that circumstance. 1 rather welcome it. In what direction has their political influence been exerted? It has been exerted to establish an eight-hour day throughout the Commonwealth. That influence has been behind all legislation for the benefit of the country. It was the trade unions which fought for the Factories Act, the Early Closing Act, the Old-age Pension Act, the Compensation to Seamen Act, and for laws relating to the betterment) of our coal miners., All these measures have had the stamp and approval of the great trade union movement. Unionists should not be sneered at merely because they have political aims and aspirations. We are not going to fight as we have done hitherto, with one hand tied behind our backs. We must use our political power. The more of that power we exert the better will it be for the country. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of political unions. He has been in politics all his life, and if he chooses to devote himself to politics, why should not the working classes do likewise, and thus endeavour to make the conditions of life better? I had the honour of occupying a seat on the New South Wales .Industrial Arbitration Court for a period of three years. I was elected by 70,000 trade unionists, and during that period I had an opportunity of dealing with case after case in which a preference was granted to unionists. A great deal has been made of the point that the Court had power to say under what circumstances this preference should be granted. It is quite true that in nearly every award it was provided that, so long as the entrance fee to a union did not exceed a certain figure, and so long as the contributions to it did not exceed a fixed sum per week, other things being equal, the unionist should have a preference. That may be the law laid down by the Arbitration Court, but when you boil the whole thing down, it is the employer, not the Court, who decides on the engagement of a man. When a man presents himself for employment, the Court is not there to see justice done. The employer has the right every time to say under what circumstances he shall engage an employed Unfortunately, therefore, the employer can always get outside the preference provision. If a unionist presents himself together with a non-unionist, and the employer does not want to employ the unionist, he has only to say that he does not wish to engage a man at that particular time. He can delay the employment of a man until, through his foreman, he can communicate to the non-unionist the fact that there is room for' him. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Do not employers occasionally apply to union secretaries for workmen ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- They do sometimes. I may mention that preference has been given in New South Wales in the following trades : - Ship Painters and Dockers Union; Boot Operators and Rough Stuff Cutters Union ; Shore Drivers and Firemens Union *v.* Caledonian Coal Company ; Slaughtermens Union ; Shipbuilders and Painters Union *v.* Morrison and Sinclair ; the Sydney Trade Union of Painters *v.* Balmain Ferry Company; the Operative Bakers Association; Photographic Employes Union *v.* Charles Henry Kerry, trading as Kerry and Company ; the New South Wales Brushmakers Union *v.* the Brush and Broom Manufacturers Association ; the Barrier Typographical Union; Sydney Steam Colliery Owners and Coal Stevedores Association *v.* the Federated Seamens Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch ; Undertakers Employes Union *v.* Master Undertakers ; Coal Lumpers Union *v.* Steam Colliery Owners ; Cold Storage Union *v.* Pastoral Finance Association ; Trolley and Draymen and Carters Union *v.* Langdon and others : Brush Makers Union *v.* Campbell and Kinsela ; Saw-mill and Timber Yard Employes Union *v.* Kauri Timber Company Limited ; United Furniture Trade Union ; Journeymen Farriers ; Bookbinders and Paper Rulers Union ; Tanners and Curriers Union ; New South Wales Timber Yard Employes Union ; Letterpress Printers Union ; Marble and Slate Workers Union ; Seamens Union *v.* Sydney Steam Colliery Owners ; Brewery Employes Union ; Sydney and Manly Ferry Employes Union *v.* V. Brown ; the Federated Stewards and Cooks Union of Australasia ; Joseph and Riley *v.* the Wire Mattress Makers Union ; Milk and Ice Carters Union *v.* Fresh Food and lee Company ; Wire and Mattress Makers Union; Carpenters and Joiners *v.* Ship Builders and Ship Joiners Asociation ; Newcastle Wharf Labourers Union *v.* Hudson and others; Sydney Wharf Labourers Union *v.* Sydney Stevedores Wool Dumping Asociation ; Ship Painters and Dockers Union *v.* the New South Wales Inter-State Ship Owners and Mort's Dock and Engineering Company Limited ; Coopers Union ; Cutters and Trimmers Union ; Brickmakers Union *v.* Brick Masters and Pipe Makers. During the time when I had the honour to be a member of the Court, preference was granted in. all those cases by the Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- In those cases, was there not a majority of unionists in each industry? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- In all cases where an industrial union came before the Arbitration Court it secured an agreement for preference, and in no case was any friction caused by the grant. The. principle worked well, and during the existence of the old Arbitration Court in New South Wales - and it lasted for over six years - there were fewer strikes than has been the case since the Act went out of operation. Why? Because preference operated in nearly every industry. Therefore there was industrial peace. Many of the strikes that have since taken place have been on account of the friction entailed by the employment of non-unionists. We are advancing to-day, and because we are advancing our opponents are becoming suspicious of us. I remember the industrial conditions that prevailed when I was a boy. A man who was a bootmaker worked in his own home, with the boots he was making on his knee. His tools were his own. He was not compelled to work in a factory, as workmen are to-day. He was not obliged to go to work at the ringing of a bell or the blowing of a whistle, and to knock off at the prescribed regulation time. *To* a large extent the manufacturer in early days was his own employer. He held his own capital. All these things have changed. To-day we have the spectacle ot great factories being controlled by a few individuals. Under this system there are fewer opportunities for industrial workers to become employers. Indeed, there are fewer opportunities for workmen to become foremen or managers. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Why ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- Because great industries are conducted under one management under one roof. This has taken place because of the introduction of labour-saving machinery, which has enabled wealth to be produced more rapidly. But one of the consequences has been that the best intellects amongst the workers, which used to be drawn from the industrial class to serve as foremen and managers - and eventually, in some instances, to become employers of labour - no longer have such opportunities open to them. On account of these changed circumstances, men who formerly would have left the ranks of labour to become supervisors for those who employed them now find scope for their abilities by becoming secretaries and presidents of trade unions. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Why do they net buy shares ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- Because they cannot afford to do so. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- If they did they would be put upon .boards of directors. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- Unfortunately, the wages earned are not sufficient to enable men to become company shareholders. If the principle of co-operation were extended, that might be done, and would be all the better for the industries of the country. The point is, however, that honorable members opposite must expect unions to become more aggressive under modern conditions, because, as I have pointed out, the ablest workmen, who formerly would have become managers and foremen, are now being chosen presidents and secretaries of unions. Their intelligence and brain power brings them to the front in the organizations to which they belong. In proof of what I say, we have only to look at the Treasury bench to-day. Every man upon it has been connected with a union, and has earned the confidence of his fellowworkmen. All these men have had practical experience of the life of the industrial classes. No man can rise to the position of a union leader who is not a man of sound moral character, and who is not sober and decent in all his habits. No man who has f ailed to rise to a good position in the trade union movement has received the indorsement of any union in a candidature for Parliament. Of course, we have had men who have slipped- . {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is the honorable member going to connect his remarks with the subject of the motion? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I am giving reasons why preference should be given to unionists. I can assure the House that the country is quite safe in the hands of unionist leaders, and we are not satisfied to be mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, as we have been in the past. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Read some of the recent speeches by unionist leaders - incitements to murder. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- The honorable member for Wentworth said things just as bad the other day. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- The honorable member ought to hear some of the speeches made at the Employers Union and never published. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are occasions when men do overreach themselves, when they are carried away ; but I ask honorable members to read the history of the strikes which have taken place recently in Great Britain. When a strike has ceased, and a settlement has been arrived at, what is the position of the men? The carters, for example, have won the great and glorious victory of having their hours of labour reduced to seventy hours per week. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! Is the honorable member going to connect these remarks with the motion before the House ? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- That is what I am trying to do, sir. Unionists do not want this preference with the view of crushing out of the Public Service any man who is not a unionist, but because they desire to lift the nonunionist up to an equal standard of comfort and civilization. As regards the statement made by the Minister of Home Affairs, I do not believe that the Government should allow an order to be issued at the present time, with the view of injuring any person in the Public Service. Every non-unionist in_the Public Service should receive immunity from the order ; but in the case of men to be engaged in the future, preference should be given to unionists in the interests of the country and the men themselves. {: .speaker-KTT} ##### Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- ' ' All other things being equal." {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- " All other things being equal." We would give them an equal opportunity to join a union. The honorable member has made an interjection for which I am very thankful. He and those associated with him are closely allied with banking. He knows well that the men who are engaged by banks are the smallest-paid and the longest- worked men in the community. Notwithstanding that they have so much collar and starch about them, they are the white slaves of the banking institutions. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! Is the honorable member going to connect these remarks with the motion? {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY: -- Yes, sir. I am going to try to connect them, and very strongly, too. If the unionists could organize the bank clerks into a union, with a preference to unionists, they would not be under the dictates of the bank directors, who say that their employes shall not get married until they have a certain salary. Employers talk about preference. Where is a preference given to a man in a bank when he wants to take unto himself a wife? He has not the opportunity to marry, except in certain circumstances. Another point I wish to make is that the employers always exercise a preference in selecting their employes. They never accept the first man who comes along *y* but they discriminate between men, ''and take those who are the strongest and most alert. If an old man applies at the same *Preference to Unionists :* [26 September, 1911.] *No-Confidence Motion.* 797 time as a young, fresh man, the employer exercises a preference - he takes the better man. The Government believe that unionists are the best men, and, therefore, ought to be preferred. I am very pleased that they have decided to give preference to unionists, and I believe that the principle will be honestly and fairly carried out. *Sitting suspended from 6.26 to J. 45 p.m.* {: #subdebate-2-0-s5 .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan .- The speeches from the Government side seem to be directed to show that unionism is a very desirable thing. But no one on this side is supporting the motion with a view to showing that he is in any way opposed to unionism. We all recognise, as I certainly do, that it is right for a freeman to join with other free men to protect his own interests. If such a right were denied me, I should think I was forfeiting that freedom which I regard as inherent in all of us - the right to combine to further the interests of those with whom we are associated, or to further one's own interests. That, I suppose, is the foundation of all unionism. There may, of course, be other motives in other individuals. No one is actuated by quite the same motives as his fellows; but to further the interests of our associates, and our own interests, and, probably, to a lesser extent, the interests of humanity, is an inherent right. The honorable member who last addressed the House did not, so far as I can gather, say one word in reference to the motion, which is a protest against the preference to unionists, in the Government Departments, given by the Government, which we consider unjust and oppressive. That is the only question to which I desire to direct my remarks. I could, of course, as honorable members before me have done, dwell on other issues ; and it seemed to me that the Prime Minister desired to avoid to a large extent the question immediately before us, and to make it one of opposition to unionism. As a matter of fact, however, the question that we are now discussing is that of preference to unionists in Government Departments. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Which the right honorable gentleman supported in 1904 ! {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- No. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Yes; the right honorable gentleman was a member of the Government at that time. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I am accustomed to that sort of interjection. I was never in a Government that proposed to give preference to unionists for employment in the Government Departments. For the information of the honorable member, I may say that, although I was a member of the Government which introduced a Bill giving preference to unionists under judicial supervision, I was never personally in favour of even that. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Then why did the right honorable gentleman not leave the Ministry ? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- The Ministry of which I was a member resigned rather than allow Government employes to be included in the Bill. Why does not the Minister of Customs leave the Ministry when he cannot get his own way in regard to the Tariff? The Minister of External Affairs has been in several Governments, but I do not know that he ever resigned from one ; he knows when he is "on a good wicket." {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- That does not happen to be true. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I did leave a Government once. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- So did I, before the right honorable gentleman did. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- Personally, I do not believe in preference to unionists ; but there was no reason why I should leave the Government which introduced preference to unionists to those outside the Government service, in a modified way, and under judicial supervision. I consider that preference is contrary to the natural instincts of man. However, I know that anything I may say tonight - and I shall not say very much - will not have any effect on the votes of honorable members opposite. They are as solid as cast-iron. Why? Because they are pledged to vote as the Caucus dictates. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- King Charles' head. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- For instance, when I was in Western Australia the other day I read a newspaper letter - not a speech - written by the honorable member for Coolgardie in regard to a matter of controversy then engaging the attention of the people of that State. I do not know that the honorable member for Coolgardie is a great favorite with honorable members opposite; I gather that he is considered rather dangerous, and for that reason was not selected to be Minister of Home Affairs when the present Government was formed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! 798 *Preference to Unionists :[REPRESENTATIVES.] No-Confidence Motion.* {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- In the newspaper letter which was published on the 4th September, the honorable member for Coolgardie used the following words - >The authority which fashioned the policy of the Labour party can at any time revise, alter, or withdraw that policy, and any change, when made by the proper authority, is binding on every Labour representative in Parliament. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- It is not retrospective ! {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I maintain that practically it is retrospective. Honorable members opposite, being the nominees of the unions, have to do as they instruct them. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the right honorable member intend to connect his remarks with the question before the Chair? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- Yes ; I desire to show that honorable members opposite are pledged, and, therefore, are not in a proper constitutional position to give a vote on the question. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The right honorable member must not follow that line of argument. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- The question before us is narrowed to the action of the Minister of Home Affairs. We are told that members of unions are to have preference of employment, before all others, in the Government service. That means a prior right to employment ; and we on this side call it favoritism. There is no question of qualifications. A man, to secure preference of employment under the Government, must be a unionist, and, what is more, if any one is to be dismissed, the non-unionist must be the first to go. The Opposition say that that is " unjust and oppressive, prejudicial alike to the public interest, to the Public Service, and to the relations between Parliament and the public servants." {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- That is what the *Age* says. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- It is what the Leader of the Opposition says in his motion. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- Well, that is the *Age* statement. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- If it is, then the *Age* must have copied it from the motion before the House. This principle is altogether opposed to the spirit of the Public Service Act, which was passed in the first session of the first Parliament of the Commonwealth. In that Act, provision was made for the appointment of a Public Service Commissioner, and for candidates for admission to the Public Service qualifying by examination. There is nothing in the Act as to preference to unionists, nor do I remember any one suggesting, from the present Ministerial side of the House, that the insertion of such a principle in the Bill was necessary or desirable. If it is good for one, it must be good for another; and I suppose the next move will be the passing of a Bill directing the Public Service Commissioner, in appointing permanent officers to the Public Service, to be guided by the same rule as that laid down in the memorandum issued by the Minister of Home Affairs. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- They will certainly want preference to unionists on the Treasury benches. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I should not be surprised at anything done by the party opposite. I have always said that we cannot judge that Socialistic party by what they have done. Hitherto they have not had the power; but give them the power, and they will do anything they believe to be in their own interests, absolutely without regard to the interests of the rest of the community. I read the other day in *McClure's Magazine,* an article by **Mr. Ray** Stannard Baker, a well-known American writer on labour problems, bringing into focus the views on labour organizations which were expressed by **Mr. Roosevelt,** when he held office as President of the United States. He is, I believe, one of the great men of our time. His views represents the opinions that I hold to-day, and have held ever since I entered public life. He says - >I believe in corporations; I believe in tradesunions. Both have come to stay, and are necessities in our present industrial system. But where, in either the oneor the other, there develops corruption, or mere brutal indifference tothe rights of others, and shortsighted refusal to look beyond the moment's gain, then the offender, whether union or corporation, must be fought; and if the public sentiment is calloused to the iniquity of either, by just so much the whole public is damaged. I ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether "brutal indifference to the rights of others " has been shown in the minute which he directed to his officers? {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- It was a great Christian act. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- What is it that the honorable member describes as a great Christian act? It is an order that favoritism shall be shown to one poor man over another poor man, because the one is a unionist whilst the other is not. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Do not play the " poor man " too much. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- Surely the honorable member is not ashamed of the poor man? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The poor know that I am not. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- Then why take exception to my statement? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- i do not trade on the " poor man " cry. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- This "great Christian act ' ' on the part of the Minister of Home Affairs is that favoritism shall be shown to one poor man over another poor man because the one is a unionist whilst the other is not. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- We must always divide the sheep from the goats. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- The second reason why I hold that the action taken by the Minister of Home Affairs is not a Christian one is that it provides that the non-unionist poor man, no matter what his qualifications may be, shall be the first to be dismissed. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'malley: -- There is nothing in my minute to that effect. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Then why did the honorable member ask for a list? {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- Every business man wants to know who is working for him. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I have often said in this House, that it is time honorable members of the Labour party, if they wish to be esteemed in the community, and regarded as men who believe in rightdoing, should take a hand in denouncing all wrong-doing. Honorable members opposite may be considered as leaders in the unions of Australia ; I do not suggest that every member of a union is to be held responsible for what every other member of that union does. That would be an unreasonable view to take, and I hope that honorable members opposite are opposed to all wrong-doing, whether on the part of unionists or others- {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Why do not they say so? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- My complaint is that they do not say so, and that their silence has a very bad influence. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Does the honorable member believe in everything- that Walpole said ? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I am not speaking of what is said. I am complaining that honorable members do not express their views in this connexion. The time has arrived when the leaders of the unionists of Australia, whether in this House or out of it, should denounce violence and wrong-doing on the part of unionists. Members of Parliament, more particularly, should set a good example in that respect. What did President Roosevelt have to say on this point - There is no worse enemy of the wage worker than the man who condones mob violence in any shape, or who preaches class hatred. By sitting still, as Ministers and their supporters opposite have done for years, and not denouncing violence and wrong-doing, they are condoning it, and doing a great wrong to the community. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- It takes us all our time to denounce the wrong-doing of the Opposition. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- I should be just as strongly opposed to wrong-doing on this side as oh that, but I know very well that we do denounce wrong-doing, while all the time that honorable members opposite have been in public life they have refrained from denouncing it. I have heard honorable members opposite refer over and over again to those who are not unionists, and who, it should be remembered, are the largest portion of the community, because I saw in the newspaper to-day that there are only 128,000 unionists in Australia- {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- That is not half the number. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- Even allowing more, they cannot be a very large proportion. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- According to *Knibbs* there are only 150,000 unionists. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: -- If those figures are correct, honorable members opposite must secure a large number of non-union votes, or they would not be able to get into the"" House, but how do they treat those who must support them at election time? What do they call those who are not unionists? "Blacklegs" and " scabs," and other opprobrious epithets. I have heard them do so over and over again in this House.-. I heard one honorable member say the other day that non-unionists ought to be shot. I know that non-unionists are very often maltreated, and sometimes half killed, but not a word comes from honorable members opposite in denunciation of such wrong-doing. If there is one thing the Prime Minister poses as, it is as a very honest person - as a man who says what he thinks, even if it is to his disadvantage. But I. have never heard him say a word in denouncing those who are doing wrong in the community by assaulting peaceable citizens. I noticed in the press only this morning an account of some trouble at a place called Sunshine. I mention this only to show that honorable members opposite do not do what they ought to do. They have great power, and ought to use it for good. According to the press there was trouble between a large number of unionists and a small number of non-unionists, the latter being insulted, stoned, and pursued to the railway station. But not a word of disapproval has been uttered by anybody opposite. In fact, I think from the' only words I have heard in regard to these transactions that honorable members opposite must approve of them rather than otherwise, because I certainly have heard these men called "scabs" and "blacklegs," and the statement made that they should, be shot. I suppose those persons who insult and stone and pursue men who, as far as I know, are peaceful citizens, are the persons to whom the Minister of Home Affairs intends to give preference, not because they are well qualified or better qualified than others, but because they are unionists. I shall quote one more statement of. President Roosevelt which is very *apropos* of the present case. These words of his should be preserved in letters of gold. In his reply to the delegates headed by President Gompers, of the American Federation of Labour, which waited upon him in September, 1903, he said - I am the President of all the people of the United States, without regard to creed, colour, birth-place, occupation, or social conditions. My aim is to do equal and exact justice as among them all. In the employment and dismissal of men in the Government service, I can no more recognise the fact that a man does or does not belong to a union as being for or against him than I can recognise the fact that he is a Protestant or a Catholic, a Jew or a Gentile, as being for or against him. Those words cover the whole ground, and I am absolutely in accord with them in every particular. They express the sentiments and principles of that honesty of purpose and fairness of mind which God has implanted in human nature, and which is called by the sacred name of " natural "justice." The action of the Minister of Home Affairs is based on no principle of right or justice, but on the contrary is founded on unfairness, selfishness, and tyranny. I shall vote for the motion. {: #subdebate-2-0-s6 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Corangamite .- The motion declares that the action of Ministers in sanctioning preference to unionists is unjust, oppressive, and prejudicial to the public interest, but not one honorable member who has spoken in favour of it has attempted to prove this contention. The right honorable member for Swan, like others on that side,- commenced by saying that he is not opposed to unionism, but proceeded to quote from ex-President Roosevelt all the. nasty stinging things he could find against it. The right honorable gentleman told us,- too, that he supported a Bill brought in by the Government of 1904, in which he was a Minister, but admitted that he did not believe in it, and stood by it only because he was bound by his Cabinet promises. Immediately afterwards he charged us with being pledged to the Caucus, and accused the Minister of Trade and Customs of violating his principles in order to hang on to office. He further declared that it is remarkable that we on this side are of one mind. If it is remarkable to find men unanimous who are all pledged to a common platform, the unanimity of honorable members opposite, who are not so bound, is more wonderful, and suggests that some pressure has been brought to bear on them. The Leader of the Opposition said that his followers are in favour of preference to unionists as a general principle; but the right honorable member for Swan declared that it means the favouring of one poor man against another, and his leader devoted nearly the whole of his speech to finding reasons for its nonapplication. The question we have to decide is : Are Ministers acting in accord with the will of this Parliament? If they are not, they should be censured, or removed from office. I intend to consider the motion purely and wholly from the point of view of the public interest. . We have been charged by honorable members opposite with endeavouring to placate the unions, because of the support we get from them. That does not apply to me, because any candidate for Corangamite who had to depend on the support of unionists alone would not save his deposit. I am not concerned with the accusation that unions are tyrannical, nor shall I take notice of anything that has been said against non-unionists. My argument will be devoted wholly to the question, How is the public interest affected by the action of Ministers now under discussion? {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925 -- Their action is opposed to the public interest. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I shall prove that it is not. We are all agreed that if there is a dispute between employers of labour and employes regarding the sharing of the profits of industry, the public, which is equally concerned, should take part in its settlement. In recognition of this view, Parliament decided that, just as disputes regarding titles to property are determined by Courts of Law, so the bargains made in the buying and selling of labour should be dealt with by judicial tribunals. In 1904 a Bill to establish an Arbitration Court was introduced by a Government of which the honorable member for Ballarat was leader. It provided for preference to unionists. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Two other Governments introduced the same measure. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The honorable member has pointed out that three Governments indorsed the principles of arbitration and preference to unionists. It was seen that arbitration would be impossible without unionism, because there could be no enforcement of awards upon individual employes. It was, therefore, provided that employes should not approach the Arbitration Court except as members of organizations. This compelled employes who wished to use the Court to join unions. They were asked to lay aside a weapon which they have possessed all through the centuries - the right to strike. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- Which they will not give up. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Neither as a private nor as a public man have I advocated the breaking of any law. In a Democracy law breaking is undemocratic, because the people who make the laws have always a remedy to their hand. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- The honorable member should come over to this side. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- There isno place for me there. Ever since the 13th April last there has been more talk of law breaking on that side than was ever heard on this. During the referenda campaign we heard a great deal about blunderbusses and bloodshed. Those who are now in Opposition had no need to talk about breaking the law when they were in a position to make laws and enforce them. Now that they are not in that position their attitude is different. The unionists, when asked to give up the right to strike, pointed out that those who did not join unions would remain free to strike as before. If an award did not suit them, the need not comply with it, while if it did suit them, and higher wages resulted, they could take advantage of it without having to pay any part of the cost of going to the Court. Moreover, employers of labour might substitute non-unionists for unionists as a reprisal for any increase in wages that the Court might order. They were speaking from their past experience of some of these employers. That objection was frankly met by this House in this way. Honorable members said that preference should be given to unionists when an award wass made. But they gave it with one hand and attempted to take it away with the other. Still, the principle stands in that Act, which was passed by three Governments in this Parliament, and it is in the Act as we have it to-day. The men who enter unions make peace possible. The men who stand out of unions make peace impossible. Without arbitration we cannot have industrial peace, and without unions we cannot have arbitration. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- What about Wages Boards? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The honorable member seems to require a little education. Let me inform him that Wages Boards have never attempted, and have not the power, to prevent men striking, or employers from locking men out. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- They settle more disputes than does the Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The Wages Boards endeavour only to regulate wages. They cannot deal with a strike or lock-out whilst the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has taken away the weapons of the strike and the lock-out. Preference to unionists is really protection of unionists. Were it not for this principle, the non-unionists would be in a splendid position. Honorable members opposite have talked of tyranny, favoritism, and unfair play. I may here say that I am a strong believer in arbitration, and desire to see it given a fair trial under proper conditions. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Does the honorable member support the right to strike? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I have deliberately said that I do not support the right of any union that comes under the Arbitration Act to strike. I say that the position of the non-unionist without the adoption of the principle of preference to unionists would be a splendidone.If there were a reductioninwages, the non-unionist would beat liberty to accept or reject the award. He would be free to respect or violate the law. If, on the other hand, an award were made increasing wages, he could rely upon many of the employers to give him preference. Honorable members opposite tell us that they are responsible for the adoption of preference to unionists as a principle of law. The honorable member for Ballarat had a great deal to say about the necessity for not distinguishing between man and man on political, industrial, or religious grounds. But, having once conceded the principle of preference to unionists, the honorable gentleman makes the distinction, and it is absolutely essential in the interests' of arbitration. In order to have arbitration, we must have unions, and we are bound in the interests of industrial peace to encourage their formation. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Does the honorable member regard the latest move as coming under any arbitration system? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I was just coming to that.When I rise to speak, I speak to the subject, and the honorable member can rely upon me to cover the ground. I have explained what I consider to be the principle underlying preference to unionists. I have shown that the formation of unions was necessary for the carrying out of an Act of this Parliament. I claim now that this Parliament should give preference to its own employes as unionists for carrying out the laws it has passed. The question is asked whether the Ministry are acting in this matter in accordance with the will of Parliament. I go back again to the Conciliation and' Arbitration Act of 1904, which has been in operation for seven years. We have deliberately said in that Act that it is desirable to have arbitration, and to have industrial peace. Unions are necessary for this purpose, and it is desirable, therefore, to encourage their formation. If that is good for the private employer it should be good enough for the Commonwealth as an employer, and we should set the best example. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- The Act of 1904 no longer exists. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- It still exists with the amendments which were made in it in 1909 and1910. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- They have taken the whole soul out of it. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Very well, we shall examine them. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that in the matter of preference to unionists the only difference between the present Act and the Act of 1904 is that the restrictions contained in the original Act are not in the Act as it stands at present. What is the chief restriction that has been removed, and the removal of which causes honorable members opposite so much anxiety? It is that which said that unionists should get preference, providing they did not use their funds for political purposes. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- That is only one of them. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- It is the main one. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Each one is important; they are almost of equal importance. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- That is the one the removal of which honorable members opposite object to. The other restrictions which were removed were restrictions which made preference to unionists impossible. I shall confine my remarks to the restrictions concerning political actions by unions. The Prime Minister has pointed out that we on this side are not concerned about the political opinions of unions. We know that there are some unions the members of which are almost unanimously opposed to us politically. It is remarkable that, in the opinion of honorable members opposite, preference to unionists is a good thing, and the formation of unions is desirable, until they become political organizations. It is desirable to encourage unions to protect their interests against those of the employers, but as soon as they become political, and may have the power to unseat certain honorable members, they become bad. Then we see the honorable member for Ballarat and others like him turn their backs upon the principles they profess to believe in. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- The honorable member may call that argument, but it is sheer nonsense. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The Leader of the Opposition cannot get away from it. Preference to unionists has been conceded, from the first attempt to arbitrate between employers and employes, by this Parliament. Briefly explained, it means that, if two men are applying for a job, one a unionist and the other a non-unionist, the unionist shall be employed, other things being equal. If that be tyranny, if that means starving men, I would point out that somebody is going to be tyrannized over or starved. If the unionist is not to be employed, the nonunionist must be. As a matter of fact, the principle of preference to unionists has been adopted as the only means by which we can prevent a preference being extended to non-unionists. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Where is that the case? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- All over Australia, and indeed all over the world. The only time that a preference is granted to the unionist is when he is a better man than the non-unionist, and when his employer can make a bigger profit out of him. So far as this particular administrative act is concerned, it does not apply to the permanent employes of the Public Service. But it does apply to men who are seeking casual employment. The question has been asked - and it is a fair one - " Where is the necessity to enforce preference to unionists against the State as an employer, seeing that it is not likely to extend a preference to nonunionists?" {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why should not the principle be applied to the permanent employes of the Public Service? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- That is for Ministers to explain. My answer is that our permanent public officers are working under an Act of this Parliament. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member would be in favour of extending the principle to them? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- When they have been brought within the scope of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. "Yes." . The men who are to-day seeking casual employment in our Public Service belong to unions which have been organizing, and thus rendering arbitration possible. As a matter of fact, individual members of these organizations are often compelled to seek such employment because they are denied an opportunity of earning a livelihood outside as the result of being prominent unionists. That being so, I say that, all other things being equal, we are bound to extend a preference to them. We have been told during this debate that trade unions are exclusive, that they will not allow their fellows to join their ranks. But it is no argument for honorable members opposite to quote a couple of isolated cases in that connexion. The right honorable member for Swan declared that we do not condemn any of these organizations on that account. I have never hesitated to condemn any act on the part of unionists which I conceived to be opposed to the true spirit of unionism. I have never hesitated to condemn the few isolated unions winch are of an exclusive character: The' very fact 'that only a few such cases can be cited out of the hundreds of unions which exist throughout Australia is convincing proof that, generally speaking, these organizations adopt the open-door policy. But when we turn to the professional unions we cannot find one which adopts a similar policy. It has been said that unions are the cause of strikes. It is true that throughout the ages unions have fought for improved conditions for their fellows, and in so doing have been responsible for many strikes. But during the last seven years, so far as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act passed by this Parliament is concerned, the unions which have come under its operation have respected the law, and have never broken an award of the Court. It has been suggested that, because there has been tyranny in the past, because private employers ' have treated their employes unfairly, the granting of a preference to unionists is intended as an act of retaliation. If 1 thought that, I would oppose it. I say that no matter what wrongs have been done, we are not here to wreak vengeance on the wrongdoers, but to prevent them from repeating those wrongs. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the whole strength of his argument lay in the fact that the proposed preference to unionists is not to be applied by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, but by the representatives of Parliament, the highest tribunal in the land. The honorable member may smile. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I was smiling, because I did not say any such thing. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Did not the honorable member say that the whole strength of his argument lay in the fact that this preference to unionists was to be applied by Parliament ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I said that it was to be applied by officers anywhere and everywhere all over the continent. Why does not the honorable member state my argument fairly? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I have no desire to misrepresent the Leader of the Opposition. I understood him to say thai the entire strength of his objection to preference to unionists lay in the fact that it is to be granted, not by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, but by the Government through their administrative officers. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- By miscellaneous officers scattered all over Australia. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Then the honorable member's whole objection to it is that there is- a possibility, pf those officers not being as capable of- administering the principle as is the-C'ourt?' {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -" Possibility " is a mild word to use. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- If that be the gravamen of the honorable member's charge, where arises all the need for hysterics about unjust, oppressive, and coercive measures? If honorable members opposite believe that the whole objection to this principle lies, not in what has been done but in how it has been done, all their charges that v.e are attempting to tyrannize over nonunionists fall to the, ground. The Leader of the Opposition stated that this is not the proper time nor the proper manner in which to deal with this question. He also said that we had not adopted proper safeguards. These are the small side issues to which he reduced his objections after having discussed the matter for two hours.- {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I pointed out that the proposal ought to have been laid before Parliament in definite terms. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Why did the honorable member narrow his objections down to details? Because he has a political past, because there was a time when he stood for progressive measures in this House, and because he wishes to justify his present association with the Tories of this Chamber. He declared that this step should have been taken gradually, and also that it was unprecedented. When he was challenged with the statement that the principle was recognised by the London County Council, he pooh-poohed the idea, quite oblivious of the fact that that Council legislates for a population nearly double that of Australia. The honorable member for Ballarat said that he accepted the principle. Yet he attacked the principle throughout. What was the meaning of his argument about religious, political, and industrial liberty, if he did not mean to attack the principle? The honorable member for Angas said that unions were not essential to Wages Boards, and did so just after having admitted that had it not been for unions there would have been no factories legislation on the statute-book. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I did not say that. I said that unions were not part of the machinery of the Acts. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I .say that the administration of the Wages Boards would be impossible were it not for the unions, which elect their representatives upon those Boards. The honorable member also dwelt upon the question of personal merit. I want to know, if preference to unionists is given - other things being equal - where does the argument about personal merit come in at all. The honorable member wound up his remarks by saying that preference to unionists was a political party moye. Let me return the compliment by saying that the launching of this motion is a political party move. The honorable member for Parramatta has not yet spoken in this debate. But when he was speaking on the question of preference to unionists in 1904 - *Hansard,* page 7846 - he said this - >When I was secretary to a union - Imagine the honorable member for Parramatta as secretary to a trade union! we always insisted upon preference to unionists; and he added - if I were in the same position to-day I should do the same again. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- That is all we are doing. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- In the same speech, the honorable member declared that he had no sympathy with the man who would not pay into a union, but would go skulking: around taking advantage of the benefits obtained by unions. I have never used the word "skulking" in this connexion. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Did not the honorable member for Parramatta also say that he insisted on preference to unionists in a " summary manner " ? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Yes ; "in a summary manner." {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- I thought so. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I will read the whole passage from *Hansard.* The honorable member for Parramatta said - >The honorable member for Newcastle referred to me as an old time secretary of a trade union. The honorable member is quite right. When I' was secretary to a union we always insisted on1 preference to unionists, and in a very summary fashion. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA · PROT -- What was the union? {: #subdebate-2-0-s7 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The Coal-miners' Union. We had no difficulty in doing that, and. I am free to tell the honorable member that if I were in the same position to-day I should do the same again. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- Many big strikes took place over this question. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am thankful to say that, during the whole time I was secretary, *1* never had a strike. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- How long was the honorablemember secretary? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- For some years. If I were in that position again I should adopt the same attitude. I have no sort of sympathy with the man who will work alongside another man and see that other paying every week of his life into an organization to protect his rights, and to maintain his position, whilst he himself is skulking and deriving the benefit for which the other is paying and working. I have no sort of sympathy with that kind of thing. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Read on. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- That is enough. While the honorable member for South Sydney was speaking, the honorable member for Ballarat interjected - he does that sometimes - and said that union leaders had incited to murder. That observation is characteristic of the misrepresentation with which we on this side have always had to contend. Honorable members opposite will pick out an individual instance, and blame the whole body of unionists for an expression used by one man. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- The honorable member's party does the same, exactly. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I have never been guilty of doing such a thing. It is no argument to say that such things are done. The honorable member is so anxious to say, " You're another," that he pays a very poor compliment to his own leader. But that does not excuse the honorable member for Ballarat. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- He does not need excusing. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The honorable member needs a great deal of excusing, but if I were to talk here for six hours, I could not excuse him for all his political misdeeds. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I would not ask the honorable member. He knows that this incitement has been given in this city by one of his own officers within the past few days! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- It will not do for the honorable member for Ballarat to continue these numerous interjections. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I think I have made the point plain. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The honorable member is getting excited. He has stated that union leaders have incited to murder. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- And that within the last two days - here in this city ! {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Suppose we agree that some union leader did incite to murder. I have no sympathy with that. I do not indorse it. But what I want to know is - what has that to do with this question? The honorable member professes to believe in unionism, and in preference to unionists, but does he not show by such an observation that right at the bottom of his heart he is opposed to that principle ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Ah, that is logic! {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- When the honorable member throws the interjection across this chamber that a union leader has incited to' murder, I say that he is endeavouringto belittle unionism and unionists generally. If that be not the object, I should like to know why the honorable member went to the .trouble to make the interjection. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Is it true? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I do not know the circumstances. I do not know to what the honorable member refers. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- What does he refer to? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I do not know. I am not saying that the honorable member's remark is not true. I have not denied it. All that I say is that if the statement be true, I do not indorse it. Honorable members on this side of the House do not indorse it. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Hear, hear. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Trade unionists generally do not indorse it. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Hear, hear. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Then why was the honorable member's interjection made? Why are arguments of this kind brought down to try to prejudice the question with which we are dealing? I am not repre'senting trade unionists in this House, but I recognise that trade unionists have fought the battle of the working classes through' all the ages. ,1 recognise, and honorable' members opposite have agreed, that without' unions the workers would not have attained the position which they enjoy to-day. I recognise that without unions we could not make arbitration possible, and carry out the' law of this Parliament. Therefore, when" we are discussing this question is not the time to suggest that unionists would commit murder. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Well, get rid of **Mr. Cohen,** then. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Honorable members opposite ought to get rid of the honorable member for Parkes, the honorable member for Grampians, and the member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales - **Mr. Wetherspoon** - who said, " I have a gun, and my little boy has a gun." I do not charge honorable members opposite with holding these views, but they do not get rid of them. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- And get rid of the hon:orable member for Wakefield, who talked of revolution. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- If I had my way, I would get rid of every trade unionist who incited any person to murder, because he is doing damage to the trades union movement, and no good to the community at large. {: .speaker-KXP} ##### Mr Palmer: -- Would you get rid of members of Parliament who did the same thing ? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Yes, and there would be less of them on the other side. I do not intend to detain the House much longer. I accept the statement made by the Minister of Home Affairs that his minute does not mean the dismissal of any men. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- Why does he want the black list? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I am not aware that he has asked for a black list. {: .speaker-JMG} ##### Mr Atkinson: -- He has admitted that. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I am not concerning myself whether the Minister has a black list; but if he should use it with the view to dismissing men, then it will be time enough to discuss that question. In the meantime, I accept the Minister's assurance that his minute does not mean the dismissal of men. Honorable members opposite are very sorry that it does not. They have been endeavouring to stir up party strife. The reports in the newspapers have borne such headings as " Hitting non-unionism," and "Coercion of Labour Party." Paragraphs which have appeared in both morning papers have been almost identical, and have been headed ' ' Union Domination," and " Public Protest," with the words at end " Apply to **Mr. J.** T. Packer." These newspapers which make so much fuss and talk about hitting back and coercion, do not employ any non-unionists. The majority of the men who write these articles are members of unions, and no non-unionist sets up the type in which these arguments are given to the world.. There is no talk there about preference to unionist's, and tyranny, and all that sort of thing. Summed up, the position of the Labour party is this : We believe in attempting to bring about industrial peace. We realize that with the growing organization of capital on the one side, and of labour on the other, industrial war, like international war, will be more grievous every year. The advancing science amongst the nations, and the increase in armaments, will make international arbitration absolutely essential. The same thing applies in the industrial arena. Holding that the community generally should be considered in this matter, that employers and employes should not be left to fight out their individual battles, at the expense of the rest of the community, I believe in passing Arbitration Acts, and ende'avouring to make them possible. One of the essentials to that end is that unions shall be formed, and that they shall approach the Court, and shall be responsible to the Court and to this Parliament. Holding that belief, I must say that when men outside who helped to make the unions possible by joining them, and thus make arbitration and peace possible, approach the public Departments for employment, if they are capable of doing the work they should get preferential consideration as reward for their aid in the carrying out of these laws. Therefore, I stand behind the Government in this action, not because it is tyrannical, as is said ; but because it is consistent with the principles laid down in the Arbitration Act, and because I believe, despite the fears of the Leader of the Opposition, that the power will be used, not to tyrannize over anybody, not to deny to any person the right to earn a living in the country, but to carry out the principles of the Act passed by this Parliament. {: #subdebate-2-0-s8 .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong -- There has been launched by the Leader of the Opposition, in an able and a comprehensive speech, an indictment against the Government ; but, so far, there has not been any attempt at an answer. We regret that, through ill-health, the Prime Minister was unable to deal fully with the stinging indictment; but there has not been any attempt on the part of any other Minister to answer the grave statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. Particularly did we expect from the Minister who is chiefly concerned, and who is mentioned in the motion of censure, some explanation as to what he meant when he issued this all-important minute, marking, as it does, a very serious departure. The Prime Minister complained that the Leader of the Opposition was rather severe on the Minister of Home Affairs ; but the right honorable gentleman himself was infinitely more severe on his colleague when, on the evening of Thursday last his circular was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, When the Prime Minister was asked whether he confirmed or repudiated the minute of his colleague, he asked for time for further consideration. In these circumstances, it was obviously an individual act on the part of the Minister of Home Affairs, and one which the Prime Minister was not prepared, on behalf of the Cabinet, to adopt. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- That is pretty strong. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I am only stating what took place here. First of all, it was obvious to everybody that the Prime Minister was shocked by the circular ; and when he was asked if he adopted it, he said at once that he would have to consider it. There could be no more severe condemnation of the act of the Minister of Home Affairs than the statement of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition has said that, as regards the general principle of preference to unionists, under certain conditions and safeguards, there is no objection on this side of the House. We can appeal to our career as evidencing the sympathy which we have at all times had with legitimate trade unionism. But the position now is that the old-time trades union, which rendered yeoman service to the community when engaged in the pursuit of the legitimate object for which they were formed, have been supplanted by political organizations. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Through all the ages our opponents have said the same thing. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- When I make that statement, I say what has been affirmed in the strongest possible language by your own supporters, and particularly by the honorable member for South Sydney, and by the honorable member for Corangamite. Those gentlemen have avowed with satisfaction that what were previously trade unions are how political unions. It would be doing themselves and their intelligence a gross injustice to dispute so obvious a fact. I shall, therefore, take it as admitted by honorable members opposite that trade unions are political unions. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- What is the matter with that? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Being political unions, the design and object of this new departure of preference is to show favoritism to a class who are supporting Labour members and the Labour Government. It is a departure which means "spoils to the victor," and ultimate corruption, innocent as it may appear at the present moment. It is a departure which means that this Government are going to assist their own political supporters at the expense of others by this administrative act. What is the argument by which this position is supported? First, honorable members opposite say that unionism is essential to the maintenance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and, to a limited extent, that is so. I. remind honorable members, however, that that Act is a Federal measure, and applicable only to InterState disputes, but with that, aspect of the question I shall deal a little later. The object of that Act was to provide a peaceful industrial tribunal ; it did not mean that everybody was to become a trade unionist. There are scores and hundreds of industries which would never have to resort to this tribunal, simply because the relations between employers and employed are satisfactory. I emphasize the fact that, under the scheme of the Constitution, industrial affairs are a matter for settlement by the States ; and that principle was reaffirmed by overwhelming numbers on the 26th April last. We have, therefore, to go to the State industrial tribunals for the purpose of bringing about a peaceful settlement of local differences; and I may say for Victoria that unionism is not essential to the existence of Wages Boards, and is not" recognised so far as those Boards are concerned. This system of Wages Boards was instituted, not only with the object of securing industrial peace, but with the further object of providing for the workers a share in the benefits of the fiscal policy of Victoria. Wages Boards were instituted in 1896, and for the next ten years industrial strife and strikes were practically unknown in this State, because employers and employed were able to meet together, discuss their differences, and arrive at a reasonable agreement as to wages and conditions. Could there be any greater success for an industrial tribunal? It is clear, I repeat, that unionism is not essential to arbitration or the settlement of industrial disputes. {: .speaker-JW6} ##### Mr Cann: -- How did it work in New South Wales ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I shall tell the honorable member. The Arbitration Court, which now commands so much admiration and support on the part of my honorable friends opposite - for obvious reasons, into which I need not now go - has in New South Wales been supplanted by the successful Wages Board system initiated in Victoria. {: .speaker-JW6} ##### Mr Cann: -- With what result? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- It was discovered in the mother State that the Arbitration Court became so congested that in many instances two years had passed before cases could be heard ; and, therefore, the Victorian Wages Board system' was adopted. {: .speaker-JW6} ##### Mr Cann: -- Has that system abolished strike's in New South Wales? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Not since the advent of the Labour party. That is the germ of the whole position. Had it not been for the advent of the Labour party, our industries would have proceeded on the same peaceful lines as previously. However, because of irresponsible promises from my honorable friends opposite, and their more or less indifference to threats of violence made from time to time - threats which have not been repudiated by the Government - the people have been misled - some honest, worthy workers have been misled - into the belief that, with a Labour Government, the millennium would arrive, and they would be in a position to claim and secure advantages whether they were entitled to them or not. That is the reason wEy, at the present time, there is industrial unrest. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- All difficulties would disappear if we would but change places with the Opposition. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Thatis perfectly true, Mv honorable friend occasionally allows a wise saying to escape. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- That is the honorable member's one difficulty. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- That is why, during the last twelve months, we have known more industrial unrest, and more strikes, than ever before in Australia. {: .speaker-JW6} ##### Mr Cann: -- That is not true; what about the coal strike,? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- It is absolutely true. During the twelve months ended 30th June last there were no less than seventyfive strikes, large and small, and be it said, to the credit of Australia, that such an appalling condition of affairs - a condition of affairs brought about entirely by the irresponsible conduct of the present Government, and particularly by the Minister of Home Affairs - was never previously known. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- And notwithstanding it all, Australia to-day is more prosperous than ever. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- In spite of it all, Australia is more prosperous than hitherto. Her prosperity, however, has been alarmingly discounted by this industrial unrest. It has frightened off industrial investments which otherwise would have taken place, and this has meant loss to the Commonwealth and to the workers. I earnestly hope that we are fast coming to that time when both sides will deem it their duty to pull together. It is impossible for the Arbitration or any other Act having for its object the peaceful settlement of industrial affairs, to succeed when we have leaders of the Labour party inciting antagonism to the Arbitration Acts and Wages Boards, and, indeed, violence - deliberately inciting the workers to refuse to obey the law, and declaring that "no. matter what the law is, we will not give up our right to strike." {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- Who said that ? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- A shocking and wilful misrepresentation. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- It has been said! half-a-dozen times in this House. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- By whom? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- The honorable member for Maranoa said in this House that the workers refused to give' up their right to strike. My honorable friend cannot go 'about with his ears closedSuch a statement has been made by a number of honorable members. The honorable member for Corangamite, who has just resumed his seat, strove to display great indignation because the Leader of the Opposition indicated what is known to everybody - that several of the leaders of the Labour party have been deliberately inciting to violence, and going so far as to incite to murder. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- What about two honorable members of the Opposition? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Whoever has done such a thing - no matter where he sits - is an enemy of the State. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Then why do not the Opposition throw out the honorable member for Wakefield, the honorable member for Parkes, and the honorable member for the Grampians, who recently spoke of bloody revolutions? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- The Trades Hall have the credit, at all events, of compelling, by secret pressure, this movement on the part of the Government, and a leader of the Trades Hall party was one of the men who made statements to the effect that the non-unionists ought to be wiped off the face of the earth ; that any violence to nonunionists could be justified, and that even if they were shot they would only receive their deserts. This is a sample of the language expressed by leaders of that party, and one has but to recall the incidents of the more important strikes during the last year or two to realize that it is by no means an isolated sample. If language of the kind is not indignantly resented the moment it is uttered,, then the party must suffer the discredit. They were, however, but a repetition of similar sentiments expressed by a representative member of the parliamentary Labour party itself. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- Who made such a statement ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- The honorable member knows ; if he does not, I ask him to read a speech made by a member of another place, and to judge for himself. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- What about Wetherspoon? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I repudiate at once any attempt to incite to violence. Law and order must be secured at all hazards, and any man who is an enemy of law and order is an enemy to his country. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- If a man commits murder, is the honorable member responsible for that act? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- If I incite to murder, I am. The honorable member for Corangamite, in an acrid speech, sought very hard to justify the policy set forth in the departmental memorandum by the Minister of Home Affairs. I invite honorable members to examine his logic. I have already given my views as to unionism not being essential to arbitration, but this is the logic whereon the honorable member bases his justification for the policy in the memorandum bv the Minister of Home Affairs : He says that because in our Arbitration Act the principle of preference to unionists is acknowledged for the purposes of arbitration, that principle can therefore be introduced, as has been done by the Minister of Home Affairs, by acts of administration. Let us consider for a moment the absurdity of the proposition. The Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out the particular class of preference to unionists, hedged with certain safeguards, which originally was provided for. He has shown how, by the amending Act of last session, that principle was watered, down to its lowest extent. In that Act provision is made for a judicial preference to unionists. In other words, if, in the opinion of the Court, it is necessary for the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute, for the maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society, the learned President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, after closely investigating the character of the dispute before him, and especially the whole of the circumstances of the industry, may, on those grounds, grant preference to unionists. But what provision is made for a judicial investigation in the proposal which we now condemn? It is too absurd to contemplate. The Prime Minister has said that, "all things being equal," preference is to be given to unionists, but what a hollow farce such a suggestion is ! The officers of the Department will in practice take the political colour of- the Minister for their guidance in carrying out this principle and the only real qualification will be unionism. The Director of Public Works most truly and properly interpreted the meaning of the Minister of Home Affairs, whose instruction was : First, " Absolute "preference to unionists;" second, '*' A list of nonunionists in employment to be prepared and submitted to me. ' ' That is subject to only one interpretation - that in dismissals nonunionists should go first. There is no qualification of the phrase "absolute preference," and so a system of patronage, a system of favoritism, is being re-introduced in this insidious fashion into the adminstration of our affairs - a system totally opposed to the whole principle upon which our Public Service Act was founded. While it may have this innocent beginning, I venture to predict that if it is permitted to go on, it will have a disastrous ending. Suppose that, as one of the leading acts of the last Administration, we had issued an edict that absolute preference was to be given to non-unionists, and that a list of unionists was to be submitted to the Minister, what would have been the result? We should have been branded as the most corrupt and debased of Ministries. We should have been accused of doing it with the design and object of showing favour to those who, it might have been alleged, were supporting us. If a ukase of the kind had been issued by the late Government, there would have been a whirlwind of indignation throughout the length and breadth of the place, and my honorable friends opposite would not have been able to restrain the violence of their feelings. Is that not an exact parallel to the present case? Are we not justified in viewing with much concern an act by which the great principle of equal opportunity, and employment according to merit, is being departed from ? I, therefore, join in the strong protest which we are now making against such a departure, feeling that it is founded on the worst of precedents ; that it has as its design and object the rewarding of Government supporters; and that it will have as its result the granting of the spoils to the victors, and corruption as its ultimate end. {: #subdebate-2-0-s9 .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney -- I am sorry to see that no one rises from the Ministerial benches. Probably when honorable members opposite see me get up to speak on the question they say to themselves, " Here .is another man who is opposed to the poor worker, ' and to unionism," but let me disabuse their minds at once of that idea. I do not think there is any honorable member on either side of the House who has more sympathy with the *bond fide* working man than I have. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Why not show it in a practical way by coming over here? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I show it 'in a practical way, both here and outside. There is no reason why I should have an atom of antagonism towards the working man. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and have never had time to get one there since. I have done, perhaps, just as much hard work as those honorable members who sit upon the Ministerial benches, and I know what hard work is. I see one honorable member smiling, but I can assure him that I have done my share of hard work - real solid " yacker," and not playing at work - in my time. I have worked for *£30* per year, which was probably below the union rate, and I did not work any eight hours a day. If anything, it was eight hours before dinner, and eight hours afterwards ; and for this I got ,£30 and the run of my knife. .1 did not belong to a union ; but I have always been an upholder of the principle of unionism. Union is strength, and I believe it is right that men should combine in unions to protect themselves; but I do not believe in unionism run mad. I have supported unionism nearly all my life. I suppose I was one of the first to put up a union agreement in a shearing shed. That was in Micalago shed. Although not compelled to do so, I always supported unionism; but there came a time when unionism expected too much, and in the pastoral industry we had the spectacle of a general call-out of the shearers. That gave us a bit of a sickener of unionism. The unionists did not give us a fair deal, but, of course, they expected us to deal fairly by them. I have absolutely no opposition to the principle of unionism ; but we aire discussing now the question of preference to unionists to obtain work, and to make a living, over those who do not think fit to combine in unions. I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition on one point. Of course, we, on this side, are free to dissent from the opinions of our leader, and are not bound to accept what he says as the only doctrine. I disagree with him, in so far as he approves of preference to unionists under the Act of 1904, which provides for the application of the principle, subject to judicial inquiry. I do not approve of that at all. I object to preference to unionists in any shape or form. It is class legislation of the very worst description. I do not see why one set of individuals should be given preference over another, or why a. small minority of the workmen of Australia should have preference over the great bulk, because the unionists are only a minority. I should not grant preference to any class, section, or creed. Men should be absolutely free. We are supposed to live in a free country. The dictum of honorable members opposite is supposed to be that the government shall be carried out " By thepeople for the people." That is the doctrine that they are always preaching; but their creed really is, " Government by the Trades Hall for the unionists." No one but a unionist is supposed to have a right to get a living in this country. Honorable members opposite would really like to see those who do not think fit to band themselves together in unions, and take the union ticket, starving and dying in this country, no matter whether they are honorable citizens or not. What constitutes good citizenship according; to my honorable friends opposite? Is it the possession of ability and uprightness? No. The seal of a good citizen with them is the holding of a union ticket, the *being* branded with a union label. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Does the honorable member favour strikes? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- If it can be shown that a strike is in the best interests of the people I am in favour of strikes, but it would be hard to prove that. There is no need for strikes under our laws. New South Wales has excellent legislation for the settlement of industrial disputes. Although the Labour party" said that it would wipe out the Industrial Disputes Act as soon as it got into office, it has not dared to do so. The Act provides for the creation of Wages: Boards, whereby some hundreds' of industrial disputes have been settled. Under the present Labour Government there have been more strikes than ever before, because Labour members have incited the people to disregard the law. Under the preceding Liberal Government, strikes were fewer than they had been for many years. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- Was the Labour party responsible for the strike in Great Britain? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- All troubles of this kind are to be laid at the door of the Labour party. No wonder that the intelligent electors hurled the referenda proposals back in the teeth of honorable members opposite. They saw that it was the intention of the Labour party to give preference to unionists, and objected to hand the control of all Australian industries to the Commonwealth. This Government, however, has acted very timidly in the matter. Nothing was done until the Minister of Home Affairs, taking the bit in his teeth, and bolting, issued the following ukase to the Director-General of Works - >I am informed that in the building trade we are paying men only 8s. 3d. per day for 44 hours a week. I desire that we should pay not less than gs. per day, irrespective of the number of hours worked per week ; absolute preference to unionists. > >Please furnish a list of non-unionists employed. We have been told by the Prime Minister that that was done with the sanction of the Government. Nothing is said about "other things being equal." The order was given by the Minister with the approval of the Cabinet, that no one except a unionist should be employed by the Department. What other construction is to be put on the memorandum? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Does preference mean exclusion ? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- What else can it mean when the preference is to be absolute? Furthermore, the Minister called for a black list. Not satisfied with ordering that unionists should be employed in preference to non-unionists, he asked for a- list of non-unionists, so that when hands had to be dismissed the non-unionists might be sacked first. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- Perhaps he wanted to convert them. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- The sole idea of honorable members opposite is to compel men to join unions. I am not averse . to unionism, but I object to coercion. If it is such a good thing for men to belong to unions, why are there tens of thousands of honest, sensible workers . who are nonunionists. The majority of the workers are non-unionists. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- For every man who was a unionist ten years ago, there are ten unionists now. /Mr. RYRIE. - For every man who is a unionist there are six non-unionists. Honorable members opposite desire to force men into unions to increase their political support. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Does the honorable member think that men who are forced into a union will vote for those who forced them? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- We know how bad a time a man would have at the hands of fellow unionists if he declared that it was not his intention to support the Labour party. Occasionally, at the ballot-box a unionist may vote against a Labour candidate, but 90 per cent, of them support the Labour party, while 90 per cent, of the nonunionists support the Liberal party. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- If the honorable member's figures were correct, the Liberals would be in power. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I hope that they will be after the next general election. The Prime Minister said that it was not intended to pay heed to a man's political beliefs, but preference to unionists means giving preference to those who support the Labour party. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Does the honorable member employ men because of their political views? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I never ask whether a man belongs to a union or not. It is a wrong thing for the Minister at the head of a public department to ask an applicant for employment whether he is a unionist. He might as well ask him what his creed is, or what his religion is. Why do not Ministers go the whole hog and say that men shall belong to a certain religion before they can secure employment in the Public Service ? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The honorable member knows that squatters have sacked men time and again because they knew they had voted for Labour. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- Some little while ago I heard an honorable member on the opposite side deprecating a suggestion from this side that, because one union official had incited men to murder, responsibility for that rested upon the whole of the Labour party. I ask the honorable member for Gwydir, now why he suggests that, because one squatter may have sacked a man for supporting the Labour party, the whole of the squatting fraternity should be saddled with! responsibility for that? When the Prime Minister said that responsible officers were not to take any cognisance of whether men belonged to a political organization, he was burking the real question, because he must know that, in giving preference to unionists, the Government propose to give preference to those who support them in politics. The honorable member for South Sydney told us that these organizations are now political. I say, therefore, that it is wrong for a responsible Minister to give preference to the members of them. We know which political party they support, and the Government are proposing to give preference to the men to whom they owe their political position. It is an attempt to force as many as possible into these unions, with the knowledge that when they have joined them, pressure will be brought to bear upon them to vote for the Labour party. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- What I said was that the members of trade unions use their influence as unionists to get certain legislation on the statute-book. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- The honorable member told us that they are now political bodies. The Prime Minister, in answer to an interjection, made a statement to which I take great exception. He said in effect, that all men outside unions are " skulkers." {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- That is a shocking misrepresentation. The Prime Minister was quoting what the honorable member's Deputy Leader had said. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- That may be so, but he went on and used the same words himself. I do not know whether the right honorable gentleman intended to be abusive to me or not, but he told me that I was " obvious." I object to be called any of these names. I should like to direct attention to what might happen in the near future when some big national works are undertaken by the Labour Government. Letus suppose, for instance, that in a short time the Government will undertake the construction of the transcontinental railway. We know that members of the Labour parly are in favour of the construction of public works by day labour. We may take it that this railway will therefore be constructed chiefly by day labour. This will mean the spending of some millions of money and the employment of tens of thousands of workmen. I should like to know whether this principle of preference to unionists is going to be enforced throughout in the construction of this great work. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- It would not make the slightest difference, since there is hardly a railway man who is not a member of a union. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I hope that honorable members opposite will realize what it would mean when they come before the intelligent and enlightened electors of the Commonwealth at the next election. I do not think that the taxpayers will approve of their money being used in this way, for the employment of members of a small section of the community. It is the taxpayers' money that will be used in the construction of the transcontinental railway, and all the great national works proposed. As one who does not belong to any union, I object to my money being used for the employment of one particular class of men, and there are hundreds of thousands of men who are in the same position as I am. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Does not the honorable member belong to the Pastoralists' Union? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- No, I do not belong to any union. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Then the honorable member is " scabbing " on the Pastoralists' Union. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I am not "scabbing" on any one. I pay 20s. in the *£1,* and always try to do a fair thing. I understand that there are something like 19,000 temporary hands employed in the Federal Public Service. They will immediately come under this order of the Minister of Home Affairs. I think, in the circumstances, that the black list we have heard of will assume rather alarming proportions by the time it reaches the hands of the Minister. {: .speaker-KXN} ##### Mr Ozanne: -- What black list? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- Does not the honorable member know that the Minister of Home Affairs has called for a list of non-unionists employed in his Department? That is only a first instalment. Other Ministers, no doubt, will call for similar lists, as they will also desire to know the nonunionists who are employed in their Departments. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What do they want to know that for? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- In order that when they wish to reduce the number of hands employed they may sack the non-unionist first - give them what is called the " bullet." I am not referring to a suggestion that the object may be to murder people when I say they will give them the " bullet." I merely use a slang phrase which those who have been accustomed to shearing-sheds will understand perfectly. I have no doubt that this list is to Be in the hands of Ministers in order that if it be necessary to dismiss any employes they may fire out the non-unionists first, and then put on unionists in their places. I take it that it is public money with which our public servants are paid - the money of those who do not believe in extending a preference to unionists as well as the money of those who favour that principle. It is not fair that money should be taken from the pockets of men who do not agree with this principle for the purpose of paying unionists. Why should a preference be given to this small minority of the workers ? There is no reason why they should be singled out for special treatment. It has been urged that they have brought the standard of wages up to what it is today. I am not prepared to discuss that question. But I say that if free and independent men are averse to joining political organizations, they should be at liberty to please themselves. The composition of trade unions is very different today from what it was some time ago. . Now, they are only tyrannous rings and combines. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Then the honorable member ought to protect them. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I am not in favour of rings or combines. Honorable members opposite know very well that a man cannot now join a union when he desires to do so. I can give specific instances in support of my statement. Two of my men endeavoured for a month to secure admission to the Wharf Labourers Union, in Sydney, and failed to do so. They realized that if they attempted to work without having joined that organization, they would be called scabs and blacklegs, and might, perhaps, be kicked to death. The old unionists are desirous of making their unions monopolies. Consequently, I say that these organizations are merely combines and rings, which are used principally for political purposes. The tyranny of unionism is worse than the tyranny of capital has ever been. If we are not careful, this unionism will get its foot on the necks of the people. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Who are the people? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I am speaking of all classes of the community, and not merely of one section which consists entirely of union workers. I take it that, according to honorable members opposite, the test of good citizenship is not ability, nor uprightness, nor clean living, but the possession of a union ticket. Without such a ticket a man is to be denied the right to earn a livelihood for himself and his wife and family. I am very pleased, indeed, that the Minister of Home Affairs has precipitated this matter, though I do not think that his colleagues share my feelings. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- Wait until the vote is taken, and the honorable member will see. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I do not worry about the vote. I recognise that I may. talk here till I am black in the face, and it will not alter the vote of a single honorable member opposite, because they dare not vote against extending a preference to unionists. Their political lives depend upon their action. If they dared to vote against that principle, the Trades Hall would soon have the halter around their necks and over the beam. Hanging to that halter would be good sturdy members of the Australian Workers Union, and the moment they broke away from their party, up they would go. Their very political existence is at stake. The proposal to extend a preference to unionists means government by the Trades Hall. It does not mean responsible government by the representatives of the people, but government in accordance with the dictum of the Trades Hall. I suppose that the Australian Workers Union is the most powerful union in Australia to-day, so that, in a great measure, it controls the Trades Hall. Consequently, this great Commonwealth is being governed by shearers and rouseabouts. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Why make personal attacks ? {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I have not a word to say against shearers and rouseabouts personally. I know that a lot of them are most estimable fellows. All I say is that they are not the persons to govern Australia. A man should be free to work when he likes, and under what conditions he chooses. If he does not care tojoin a trade union, that circumstance ought not to operate as a bat to his employment. It is scandalous that men should have to produce a union ticket before they can obtain employment in our Commonwealth Public Service. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- If unionists are not good enough to govern Australia., they are good enough to stand in the firing line to defend the country when the colonels are in the rear. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- The non-unionist is just as good a man as the unionist any day in the week. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- It will not be the "scabs " who will defend this country if ever it is attacked. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I am sorry indeed that the honorable member should have introduced such remarks into this debate, and I believe that, in his calmer moments, he will regret having used such terms in regard to our Defence Forces. I take it that the free labourers of this country are just as good men asare the unionists. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925 -- There are good men in the ranks of both parties. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- Yes. This motion specifically deals with the granting of a preference to unionists, and I oppose that principle in every shape and form. Had I been present in this House when the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904 was passed, it would have encountered my bitterest opposition. I do not believe in one class of the community securing a preference over another class. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- Does the honorable member support **Mr. Wetherspoon?** {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I do not know anything about **Mr. Wetherspoon** ; but we will give honorable members opposite **Mr. Henry** Willis. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I must appeal to honorable members on the Ministerial side to cease these continuous interjections. {: .speaker-L0I} ##### Mr RYRIE: -- I have only another word to say. The action of the Minister of Home Affairs only goes to prove what I have stated over and over again from many public platforms, that the party who are, unfortunately, in power in this country represent but one class, namely, the class of organized labour. They do not wish to give any other class a chance in any shape or. form. They profess to legislate only for union labour. But that is not true Democracy. I call myself a true Democrat, because I support legislation giving privileges to every class, and would not make any difference between class, creed, or sect. I venture to predict that the con- duct of honorable members opposite in supporting the action of the Minister of Home Affairs will recoil upon themselves when the intelligent electors of this great Commonwealth have again a chance of recording their votes at the ballot-box. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Charlton)** adjourned. House adjourned st 10.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19110926_reps_4_60/>.