House of Representatives
21 May 1914

5th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1224

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When speaking on the censure amendment, I stated that the Prime Minister had acted as paid secretary to the Western miners of New South Wales. I made the statement In the full belief that I was correct as to the fact, because the Newcastle and the Southern miners have paid secretaries, and I thought that the secretary to the Western miners was also a paid official. The Prime Minister assures me that he was not paid, and, in justice to him, I make this correction.

page 1224

QUESTION

INSPECTION OF PRODUCE

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister of Trade and Customs if he has had under his notice the stringent regulations enforced in Western Australia to prevent the importation of produce, especially of potatoes, and if he has taken any action in regard to them?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Trade and Customs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– When the matter was mentioned in this House, I think in December last, the Government made representations to the Western Australian Government, asking for certain information with respect to the fees charged, and a reply was given to our communication which did not contain the information needed. We again communicated with the Government of Western Australia, about February, repeating our request, and received a second reply, which did aot give the information for which we asked. About three weeks ago, we sent an urgent wire, and again this week another urgent wire, asking for the desired information; but without effect. If we cannot obtain the information directly, we shall have to try to get it the best way we can.

Mr Tudor:

– A statement was published last week of the charges made.

Mr GROOM:

– We are asking for an explanation with respect to the nature of the fees charged, with a view to considering the matter in the light of the Constitution. Representations on the subject have been made to us by the Government of Tasmania, and we have brought these representations under the notice of the Western Australian Government. W” shall continue to press our request for information until we have received a satisfactory explanation.

page 1224

QUESTION

TESTING OF EXPLOSIVES

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister any further information regarding the proposal for erecting a testing station for explosives in Australia!

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Minister for Home Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have informed the honorable member that I have certain information, this being a matter about which he has repeatedly asked questions. The last memorandum on the subject received by me is from Mr. Pethebridge, who writes -

With reference to this office minute of the 22nd ultimo, relative to the question asked by Mr. Charlton in the House of Representatives regarding the establishment of a testing station for explosives within the Commonwealth, I beg to inform you that a cablegram, dated 13th instant, has been received from the High Commissioner’s office to the effect that the report of the officer of this department, now in England, would be posted on the 15th May.

page 1224

QUESTION

FREMANTLE . TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY : WIDENING OF GAUGE: CONSTRUCTION OF LINE

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs if the arrangement between this Government and that of Western Australia, in connexion with the widening of the gauge of the railway from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie is a binding one, and what is the position at the present time?

Mr KELLY:
Minister (without portfolio) · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Government of Western Australia, in addition to getting legislation passed through the local Parliament, undertook in the course of correspondence with this Government to widen the gauge of the line simultaneously with the construction of our line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. Some time ago it was stated in the press that the Government of “Western Australia did not propose to go on with the work, and a statement to that effect was, I think, attributed to the Premier, but he, during a visit subsequently made to Melbourne, said that it was intended to go on with the work, but that the Government of Western Australia was not in a position to do so immediately. The spirit of the promise has not been honored by Western Australia.

page 1225

QUESTION

UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE

Mr BURCHELL:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– With reference to the construction of the section of railway from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie, I wish to ask the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs whether it is not a fact that, when the Government of Western Australia promised that they would construct the section, a definite time-limit was fixed as to when the Commonwealth would construct the portion from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie ?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I have been taken rather “ on the hop,” because I did not anticipate this business being raised at all. But, to the best of my memory, the letter to which I referred, and in which the State Government promised simultaneously to construct, had no reference to a time limit.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister when he intends to bring in a Bill to provide for a uniform gauge as agreed to at the Premiers’ Conference? Is it the intention of the Commonwealth Government to pay the cost of the change?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I communicated to the Inter-State Commission the wish of the Government that it should undertake the inquiry agreed to at the Premiers’ Conference, but I understand that it will be necessary for Parliament to make a formal reference to the Commission. The matter is being looked into, but I am afraid that we shall not have a proposition to submit to the House just yet. The Inter-State Commission is now very busy on other matters. I hope that by-and-by it will be able to inquire into this important matter.

page 1225

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister of External Affairs if his attention has been called to a cablegram published in yesterday’s dailies, to the effect that it is the intention of the British and French Governments to send an Anglo-French delegation to the New Hebrides to inquire into the position of affairs there before a new convention between the two countries is ratified? I ask the Minister whether, under the circumstances, it would be possible to have Australia represented on that delegation?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honorable member was good enough to call my attention to the cablegram, and I have just read it. We have had no official communication from the Home Government about the appointment of any such Commission. Our last communication was dated, I think, the 3rd February, and mentioned that a Conference would probably take place between representatives of the Governments of Great Britain and France about the end of May, or the beginning of June. The Assistant to the High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, who has personal knowledge of the condition of affairs, has been summoned to Great Britain to give necessary advice on details of administration, and the French Government, I believe, has the advantage of similar official assistance. I expect that the Conference will take place shortly. I believe that Ministers recently discussed one or two matters informally, and that the scope of the Conference has been somewhat widened. We have sent a communication to the Home Government on the subject. If there is a Commission, the representation of Australia will receive careful consideration.

page 1225

QUESTION

DURATION OF SITTING

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the inconvenience which was caused to honorable members by being compelled to sit up last week all one night without due notice, will the Prime Minister be good enough to say whether it is his intention to ask the House to sit all night?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– I strongly suggest to my honorable friend that he should address the question to his leader and ask him if he will make it possible for us to rise at a decent hour.

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has abrogated his functions in this House, because I will take them up as soon as he is prepared to lay them down?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have only to say that the last remark was quite obvious, and totally unnecessary.

page 1226

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister in charge of the Home Affairs Department yet laid upon the table the agreement which, it is stated, contains preference in its most advanced form in connexion with the east to west railway ?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I informed the honorable member yesterday that I propose to lay a copy of the agreement on the table, and, as he knows, more than one day is usually allowed for preparing a copy.

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Since yesterday, has the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs heard anything to confirm the report which appeared in the Adelaide newspapers that 200 Government employes had been discharged from the east to west railway?

Mr KELLY:

– Immediately after the statement was made in the House, I saw the Engineer -in-Chief for Railways, who assured me that, to his knowledge, no men had been put off. I do not say that it is a fact, but it is quite possible that the men referred to in the press are Mr. Teesdale Smith’s men going off the job at the head of the line. So far as the Government service is concerned, our instructions have been to push ahead with the work, and not to put anybody off.

page 1226

QUARANTINE STATION, SYDNEY

Colonel RYRIE. - Have any steps been taken with the view to finding a suitable site to which the Quarantine Station at Manly might be removed?

Mr GROOM:
LP

– On Monday last, the Minister of Public Health for New South Wales submitted to us two sites, which are now being reported upon, and will be inspected by the officers of the Department at the earliest possible date.

page 1226

QUESTION

COMPULSORY TRAINING

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– As considerable dislocation is now caused in business, and also great inconvenience to young cadets who are apprentices - a. matter about which I have received a number of communications - would it not be possible for the Honorary Minister to consult the Minister of Defence with the view to arranging for drills and parades to be held on such a day that would not interfere so much with business as is done at the present time ?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– May I suggest through you, sir, to the House - and I am surethat it will realize the fairness of the proposal - that as I have nothing to do with the administration of the Defence Department it would really save the time of honorable members and ours if they would put all the questions regarding defence on the notice-paper.

Mr Fenton:

– I only asked youto consult the Minister.

Mr KELLY:

– Yes, but that wasnot the purport of the question. Of course I would be only too happy to do that at any time. If honorable members would put all questions regarding defence on the notice-paper it would save their time, and I am sure that they would be better pleased.

page 1226

QUESTION

GRIEVANCE DAY

Mr TUDOR:

– I desire to ask you, sir, a question in connexion with the business of the House. A fortnight ago last night I understood the Treasurer to move that “ Committee of Supply “ be placed on the notice-paper. As this is the third Thursday since that date, it should, I think, in accordance with standing order 241, be “ grievance day.” I desire to know why “ Supply “ is not the first Government Order of the Day on the notice-paper?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This matter has cropped up on a previous occasion. In September, 1908, Mr. Speaker Holder had the “grievance”Order of the Day removed from the notice-paper until the House had gone into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means. Again on the 6th June, 1909, he decided that the Order of the Day should appear on the noticepaper after either Committee had sat, although want of confidence and AddressinReply debates had not concluded. The Committee of Supply is not open until it has actually sat.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Defence Administration.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

.- I beg to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “the danger of militarism to the youth of Australia, and the expense, conduct, and state of affairs generally in the Department of Defence.”

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr CONROY:

– If there is one question which ought to be above party altogether surely it is the question of national defence. I lay it down as a premise from which there can be no escape, that every citizen in the community is bound to appear in its defence if his assistance is required. I start on this premise, and therefore hold that above all things the question of defence should not, be a party matter. It is doubly incumbent upon honorable members on either side of the House who accept the premise to call attention to the state of affairs if they believe that a wrong is being done or perpetuated. In the first place I hold that, inasmuch as Australia is an island, it is clear that any attack must come from over the water, and consequently the primary defence of Australia is the naval defence. Equally, therefore, by so much as we take to exaggerating militarism by so much do we lessen the powers that can be expended on the Navy, and certainly the amount of money that can be provided in order to give support to the Navy. Therefore, any attention paid to militarism will necessarily weaken our primary line of defence. The only object of our military defence should be to make provision so that small raids can easily be dealt with, and in orderto force the enemy to put up such a raiding force that escape from our Navy looking for them will be impossible. Every penny we spend on militarism is therefore a serious mistake, and it is doubly encumbent on us to keep full control of all these matters. However, we are not doing so, and a spirit of militarism prevails that is distinctly opposed to all our ideas of true, liberty. The history of Italy and Spain in regard to their expeditions to Abyssinia and Cuba teaches us that it is one thing to get men to a field of battle, and quite a different thing to get them to fight when there. Our system of militarism is absolutely wrong and wicked. In the first place, we axe doing what no military country in Europe is doing. We have practically a system of conscription of boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age, so much too young that any country in Europe that has adopted it has absolutely abolished it after a little while. Although in Germany those as young as seventeen years of age can be called on, in no circumstances do those younger than twentythree years of age serve. In most instances in Europe, though, eighteen years is the age of conscription, in no case is a youth under twenty years of age called upon to serve. Experience has taught the older countries that the characters of youths are too unformed, that youths are not sufficiently advanced in mind to be able to resist the evils that the aggregation of men in large camps seems frequently to entail, and that, so far from youths being developed physically, they absolutely go back instead of going forward in this regard - they deteriorate. In Australia we call putting boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age into camps defence; but no true military men in Australia term it defence; they say that the system does not belong to defence, and that it is of no advantage to the defence of the country to have youths of that early age trained in that way. In these circumstances, it seems to me that our compulsory system of defence goes by the board. The experience of Europe ought to be sufficient for us to realize that we should never have initiated a scheme which, because of certain evils that have sprung up, has been abolished in older lands. What is happening under our system ? Instead of our taking boys off the streets, as I have heard the argument used, we put many boys on the streets at night when returning at 10 o’clock from their drills, we expose them in the cities to the solicitations of women, which have never come within their ken before, and to the temptations of drink. If honorable members think that I am exaggerating, let them examine some of these boys after they have been dismissed from their drills at night. I may be said to have some prejudice upon the matter, but I have made it my business to make many observations, and in every case the result in this regard has been unsatisfactory indeed.

Long before their time has expired,, young boys, who were pure in mind and body before commencing their drills at night, or in camps, are likely to be decayed in body and cankered in soul by the vicious training they are given. We ask them to mix with the vicious and criminal, with the result that already in the camps that have been held we have seen the lamps lit at night and watches set. One or two honorable members can bear me out that this is no exaggeration. It is a matter that ought to engage the attention of this House at the very first opportunity. I had hoped that now the fever of militarism has passed away saner sense would have come to us, and that the Liberal party to which I belong would have come forward and held that if we were to have defence it should be by men, and not by boys. There must be a shifting of the sense of responsibility. By not making some alteration we are doing a big injury. I trust a body of men will arise on both sides of the House, who, while recognising that defence is a national question, and that it should be’ dealt with as such, will say exactly what money should be allocated in the way of expenditure upon it. We are now contributing £6,000,000 per annum towards defence, of which £3,300,000 goes in military defence, forgetting .that Australia is an island, and that any invasion must be by way of the sea..- We have wild statements that the fleet may be decoyed away. Fancy a fleet being decoyed away to a spot where there is no enemy, in these days of wireless, and in these days when a ship cannot go 200 miles without passing another vessel ! Fancy it being claimed that an enemy’s fleet with transports can proceed thousands of miles, and escape attention ! When the Russian fleet was rushing round, every one knew its movements. In these days of aeroplanes and submarines, what possible hope is there of bringing transports over the sea without attracting attention? In the circumstances, I say that we are dealing with defence in the wrong way. By drawing these big sums of money from the public to defray, the COst of defence, we are interfering with the prosperity of the country. No matter what taxation is imposed, it must fall, for the most part, on the bulk of the people. The £3,300,000 which goes out from the Treasury is of no true value for defence purposes, because, as I have said, we are relying on the second arm instead of the first. We have in this country a trade of £160,000,000 annually, and does any one imagine for a moment that, in the event of an _ invasion of Australia, the people in the cities would be content to wait for years whilst a desultory land defence was being carried on? The inhabitants of the cities would compel peace to be made, whether the residents of the country liked it or not. If tens of thousands of men were turned out of employment in the cities as the result of the cessation, of distribution, it is manifest that very great injury must follow to the rest of the community.

Mr McDonald:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that the people of the cities would desert the people of the country ?

Mr CONROY:

– I mean to say that the men in the cities would be so hard up that they would be unable to earn a living at all, and a man might almost as well be shot down as starved to death. We are frequently told that conscription fosters obedience. It does not teach obedience but enforces it, which is a very different thing indeed. It does not tend to the formation of national character that the individuality of our young people should be crushed out. I have taken the trouble to consult some military men on this question. The opinion that we are calling upon our youths for purposes of defence at too early an age has been so generally expressed by the military men to whom I have spoken on the subject, that I have been astounded that the system should continue. Most of those whom I have consulted fixed the age at which our youths should be called upon for purposes of defence at eighteen years, and the earliest age suggested by any of them was seventeen years. We are doing a distinct injury to the community in calling upon our youths for defence purposes before that age.

Mr Page:

– Then, why should we send them to school before eighteen years of age?

Mr CONROY:

– That is a very different thing. The honorable member cannot compare ordinary education with military training.

Mr Page:

– Physical drill is education.

Mr CONROY:

– Then it ought to be imparted by physical masters in the schools. Training for defence should not be confused with hygienic instruction, and the class of men employed for the one purpose should be a different class from those employed for the other. It cannot be denied that instructors who are accustomed to command men are not, as a rule, suitable for giving instruction to lads.

Mr Page:

– A little military discipline would have done the honorable member good.

Mr CONROY:

– The honorable member forgets that I went through the Volunteer Forces, and frequently went into camp.

Mr Page:

– They did not catch the honorable member young enough.

Mr CONROY:

– It was because, in my opinion, the system of militarism we have adopted is not as valuable as it might be, that I have given so much attention to it. There is another aspect of the matter which, so far as I can judge, the feelings of honorable members, should have received more attention. Provision should have been made for a system of military pensions. Such provision . is made in the case of every other military force in the world, and it is made elsewhere only because the necessity for it has been recognised. If we ask men to hazard their lives in the defence of their country the least we can do is to make some provision for those who are dependent upon them. In considering the adoption of a system of militarism those responsible should have made themselves acquainted with the best features of similar systems in other countries of the world, and when it was found that a system of military pensions was practically universal provision should have been made for a similar system here. A distinct wrong has been done to those who have been called upon to defend this country by our neglect to make this provision. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be better for us to have a small force of regulars - 3,000 or 4,000 men - because the engineers and artillery must be trained men - and a militia force of, say, 40,000 men similar to the Territorials in England. The militia might be paid £15 a year, and that would involve an expenditure of £600,000 per annum to secure a force of 40,000 agile, active men who would take an interest in their work. This force in time of war might be supplemented by an equal number called upon for the purpose. We should then have a body of men on whom we could rely. On the subject of the value of militiamen, I should like to direct the attention of honorable members to an opinion expressed by General Langlois on the Territorials of England. He visited England holding the view that without regular training men were unfit to be classed as soldiers; but after inspecting the Territorial forces he said -

My opinion is modified of the Territorial army, owing to the energy, resolute will, and, above all, the remarkable spirit of initiative which they have acquired in their ordinary occupations.

With such a tribute to the value of these militia forces we should, I think, be justified in following the example of the Old Country in this respect. It is incumbent upon this House to take some measures to deal with the deadly dangers which, as I have said, are cankering the bodies and souls of the youths of this country. It cannot be pretended that the present system is popular when we know that 20,000 summonses have had to be issued to force youths to drill, and at least as many more should have been issued. We have all this trouble for something which is not defence. It leads to the mixing together of the criminal and decent classes, to the deterioration of the latter. The struggle of the poor to keep their children decent is already severe enough. We have injured the poor in this way. Their difficulties are seriously increased by the system of militarism we have adopted. I may inform honorable members that some of the blankets used at the camp in the Liverpool area were filthy with vermin. In some cases they were covered with excrement, because some of those in camp were too filthy and lazy to get up to relieve themselves. These blankets were issued afresh to youths coming into the camp, and is it any wonder that there should have been an outcry on their part. I am speaking of facts, of which the representatives of the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald were cognisant. The doctors to-day want money to prepare and clean those blankets, so that dirty blankets shall not be used.

Mr Page:

– That is nothing. I have seen a whole army lousy.

Mr CONROY:

– That does not make the condition of affairs in Australiaany better, and it does not absolve the Minister of Defence from responsibility for not seeing to a matter like this. The continuance of such a condition of affairs is a grave reflection on the Minister of Defence, because, having been informed of these conditions, he should have proceeded to at once deal with them.

Mr Page:

– They were only giving the boys service conditions.

Mr CONROY:

– Then the sooner we get away from service conditions the better; and if the system cannot be conducted on better lines, the sooner we abandon it altogether the better. We cannot expect anything better when a lot of the officers, under a regulation made by the previous Government, were turned out at practically a moment’s notice. Men who had given twenty-five to thirty years’ service were suddenly informed that their engagement was terminated, and they are to be turned out of tlie Force without any recompense or compensation. In England, when an alteration of that kind was made, a pension was given to every one of the men; but in this country they were turned out at a moment’s notice, after a record of thirty years’ service. Is there any man with a heart or conscience who cannot feel that a big moral offence is being committed by the Government in so acting 1 There is a moral obligation on us to do justice to those men, and the neglect of that moral obligation by both the present and the previous Governments is deserving of censure. When we neglect a moral right, we are doing an injury, the full consequences of which we do not understand. We cannot commit a big moral wrong without big public sufferings following ; and I say that it is highly incumbent upon this House to take upon itself the conduct of this matter, and see that provision is made for men who are turned out of the Service, and that the Minister of Defence does not go about making club appointments. I am informed that some of the boys in the college are costing £500 a year each to teach, taking into consideration the cost of buildings, salaries, and other forms of expenditure. Indeed, we had a recommendation from one officer, who has lately received a high appointment, that we should buy for those boys tea cups and saucers at a cost of 6s. apiece. Defence is a question that is above all considerations of party, and it is incumbent upon this House to take steps to put a Minister in charge of the . ‘system who will correct all these abuses; who will see that our military expenditure is limited strictly to defence; who will see that the expenses are cut down; and who will recognise that the expenditure of these enormous sums on militarism is the means of weakening our true first line of defence.

Mr Higgs:

– Is not Senator Millen doing all those things?

Mr CONROY:

– All I can say is that, when I inquired into the absence of public morality in dealing with the appointments of these officers, and when I inquired as to whether the appointments they have made are likely to lead to success, I was informed that they blundered nearly as badly as they did in the Teesdale Smith case.

Mr Higgs:

– You have painted red some of the small things they have done. Will you not now paint red some of the big things?

Mr CONROY:

– Until we are united on this question, no true reform can come about. Sound military men say that without compulsory service we could have a good Military Force sufficient to meet all possibilities of invasion. They look upon the Navy as our first line of dofence, and military men, who also ! ike an interest in civil government, say that we are fast going to the dogs; that we are not getting true defence; and that v;e are appropriating from the citizens money which could be better left in their own pockets. The taking of that money from them only deteriorates their condition in life, and the burden is heavier on the poor than on any other section of the community. I do trust that the combined intellect of the House will be applied to this matter, and that honorable members will unite to see if we cannot place the whole system on a sound foundation.

Mr DANKEL:
Boothby

.- The honorable member for Werriwa’ has said that it is incumbent upon this House to take the question of defence into serious consideration, and I agree with him that it is one of the most important matters we can discuss. With some of his statements, however, I do not agree. I shall be only too pleased to support him or any other honorable member who will propose to raise the service age of trainees from fourteen to eighteen years, because I consider that fourteen years is too .early an age at which to compel boys to undergo military training. I would even be prepared to cut down the age from the other end, and make the training terminate at twenty -four years or twenty-two years. But I am utterly opposed to a voluntary system of defence in ‘Australia. Indeed, I believe the voluntary system of defence is the curse of the United Kingdom. I do not think a voluntary system would meet our case; we must have a defence system on which we can rely in time of need. When the honorable member says that a voluntary system would be less costly than the present system I differ from him. In my opinion, the voluntary system would be very much more costly. Is the voluntary system of the United Kingdom and the United States less costly than the conscription systems in other parts of the world ? Not at all. As a matter of fact, in Australia it would be absolutely impossible to have a voluntary system which would be worth anything at all from a defence point of view. Is it conceivable that our Australian youths could be induced to go into barracks for a term of years as they do in the United Kingdom? We could not find young fellows who would go into barracks for six years for a shilling or a little more per day; indeed, we could not get the young men of Australia to go into barracks if we offered them 15s. a day.

Mr Conroy:

– On the continent they go into barracks for two years, and sometimes for only one year.

Mr DANKEL:

– That is under the conscription system, but I am talking about the voluntary system. What has been the experience of Australia? When great public excitement prevailed over the South African war twelve or fifteen years ago,Irish, Scotch and other regiments were formed all over Australia, and the young men flocked to them in thousands. But no sooner had the war fever abated, than those regiments became beautifully less every day, and practically disappeared. A voluntary system would be absolutely insufficient for Australia as a guarantee of efficient defence. Further, it would be far more costly for us to adopt a volunteer system of sufficient strength to make our defence a really effective one.

Mr Conroy:

– Where there is conscription it is impossible to induce a volunteer to serve outside his own country.

Mr DANKEL:

– In Germany no soldier, who is there by conscription, can be compelled to serve outside the Empire, but, of course, many soldiers volunteer to do so.

Mr Conroy:

– They do not.

Mr DANKEL:

– Yes, they do.

Mr Conroy:

– Just about one-fortieth of the number.

Mr DANKEL:

– No difficulty is experienced in inducing quite sufficient conscripts to volunteer for service in other countries, as, for example, againstthe blacks in certain portions of Africa. Another statement made by the honorable member, which is not borne out by facts, is that the volunteer in war will, at all times, prove himself a better fighter than will the man who is serving as the result of a system of conscription. I admit that it may be so in some cases. The honorable member mentioned in support of his statement the case of the Italians who fought in Tripoli. He said that some of the soldiers who served there asconscripts did not exhibit the enthusiasm that was expected of them. However, I feel certain that if Australia should ever be attacked, if there should ever be a number of foreign warships hovering about our coasts, the honorable member would be one of the first to rise up and’ say, “Let us defend our country.” The Citizen Forces of the Commonwealth would be only too eager to defend this continent should the occasion ever arise for them to do so. Did the Italians, when they fought against the Austrians from 1864 to 1866 as conscription soldiers, exhibit the white feather in anyway ? Not at all.

Mr Burns:

– The British soldiers have never exhibited the white feather under a volunteer system.

Mr DANKEL:

– I am answering thestatement of the honorable member for Werriwa that the men who are soldiers by conscription are not as good fighters as are volunteers. I say that when fighting for their country they are just as effective as are volunteers. In any case, if war broke out at the present time wewould all have to shoulder a rifle and to defend our country. That being so, is it not better that we should have menwho are acquainted with military discipline to protect us than that we should have to rely on individuals who, like myself, have never fired a shot in their lives? I would have to learn something of military drill before I would be of any use in defending Australia. I said some time ago that I believed that six months’ continuous training would be preferable to the holding of the many short camps which are in favour at the present time. In my opinion, it would be better to have a continuous training of four or six months than to have a number of short camps, and a lengthened period of service such as we have now - a period extending over fourteen years. I believe that it would make better soldiers of our men.

Mr Archibald:

– What about the business of the country?

Mr DANKEL:

– I do not desire to see amongst business men the spirit which was exhibited in an advertisement which was read the other day by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and in which a certain firm advertised for an assistant, stipulating that a military exempt would be preferred. I hate that sort of thing. But I say that employers here should be treated as they are elsewhere, and absolutely compelled to take back into their employ men who have been temporarily taken from them to undergo military training. In some other parts of the world an employer cannot get rid of such an employe for at least six weeks after his return. The persons who have to undergo military training must not be handicapped, so far as their civil and industrial life is concerned. I am prepared to support any movement which aims at raising the age at which boys shall be compelled to join our Cadet Forces to eighteen years, and at cutting down the term of service at the other end. But I do wish to see a compulsory system of military training continued in Australia, so long as things are what they are. Nobody advocates war. Nobody can argue in favour of war any more than he can arguein favour of getting drunk. But, as things are to-day throughout the world, I should be very sorry indeed to see any system of military training in Australia other than a compulsory one. I know that such a system imposes hardship on some persons, especially if they have religious objections to war. But we cannot study the objections of individuals in any law.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member consider that the age at which the training of a lad should commence should be increased?

Mr DANKEL:

– Yes, to eighteen years.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I would make it 100 years.

Mr DANKEL:

– It is all very well for some honorable members to get on the high transcendental plane and to say, “Let us do away with war.” It sounds very well, and it is difficult for an opponent to offer a reply. But we must regard things as we find them, and not as we would wish to find them. In conclusion, I shall oppose any attempt to abolish the compulsory system of military training with a view to substituting a voluntary system.

Colonel RYRIE (North Sydney) [11.30]. - I was pleased to hear honorable members of the Opposition declare that the question of defence was far removed from the arena of party politics. It undoubtedly is, and its discussion should always be approached from that standpoint. As the mover of the motion has said, our first line of defence is the Navy; but I fail’ to see why it should be suggested that because of that we can afford to dispense with our military defence.

Mr Conroy:

– I did not argue that.

Colonel RYRIE.- I take it that the honorable member’s contention was that the money we were spending on military defence was practically wasted, seeing that we had to depend almost solely on the Navy for the defence of the country. My answer to him is that we cannot afford to relax the efforts we are making to build up a great Australian citizen army. As long as we have the protection of the British Fleet we shall be safe, but it is by no means certain that that protection will always be available. A big European disturbance, with trouble at the same time in India, would give rise to a very serious situation. No doubt the malcontents in India would take, advantage of a serious European disturbance to cause trouble, with the result that the British Fleet might be so fully occupied in other waters as to be unable to afford us the protection necessary for our safety. In such circumstances we should have to depend on the Australian Naval Unit. We have done well in creating a Fleet of our own, but without the assistance and co-operation of the British Fleet, it must be, for years to come, wholly inadequate to protect Australia. That being so, we must endeavour to build up a big land defence force. The Australian Fleet, without the assistance of the British Fleet, is quite inadequate to guard our 8,000 or 9,000 miles of coast-line. We must be prepared, therefore, with a land defence capable of resisting an invading army in the event of our first line of defence failing us. Our defence expenditure is really a contribution to a national insurance fund, and if it were necessary, I do not think that any of us would object to pay an additional £1 or £2 by way of taxation for defence purposes. We gladly pay the premiums necessary to insure our houses, our wool sheds, our hay stacks, and so forth, and why should we hesitate to incur the cost of properly insuring the nation against an invasion ? What would happen if we failed to properly insure it ? Can the honorable member for Werriwa allow his mind to dwell for a moment upon what would follow the successful invasion of Australia by a coloured race ?

Mr Conroy:

– A land force could not prevent an invasion, but an adequate naval force could.

Colonel RYRIE. - Our naval defence might not always be sufficient to repel an invasion, and in such an emergency, if we had not a sound land defence, we should be in a hopeless position. The overrunning of this country by a coloured race is, something that is absolutely unthinkable. No doubt many honorable members have read such books as The Coloured Conquest and the Yellow Wave. If they have, they cannot contemplate with complacency what might happen to our women folk if the country were overrun by coloured races. The cost of our defence system is nothing compared with the outcome of unpreparedness on the part of our land forces to come to our rescue if our first line of defence broke down. We do not want to suggest that any particular race is our enemy; but we cannot help thinking of that race which has suddenly attained to the position of a first-class fighting Power on both land and sea. We do not suggest .that the Japanese are our enemies, but in view of our restrictive immigration laws they can have no love for us. I would not have those laws repealed, for I believe in the policy of a White Australia, but such legislation cannot be viewed with favour by the Japanese. The Japanese are at present allied with Great Britain, but I agree with Senator Millen, who in criticising a recent utterance by the First Lord of ~ the Admiralty, said that the pages of history are strewn with the wreckage of shattered alliances. An honorable member of this House has said that that was an insult to the Japanese. It was nothing of the sort, for it is an acknowledged fact that the pages of history are strewn with shattered alliances. We cannot depend for our safety on the alliance between Great Britain and Japan. With regard to the position of the boys under our compulsory training system, the honorable member for Werriwa said that, if it were necessary, every one of us would turn out and fight for our country. No doubt we would do so, and there are thousands of brave men in Australia who would shoulder their rifles and be prepared to do or die in the same cause. But without drill and discipline, we cannot hope to fight with success: These men individually may be as brave as possible. I do not say that the men in the Forces are any braver than those outside. There may be thousands of them outside brave and determined to do their best, but without drill and discipline it is absolutely impossible to put them together in large bodies, and get them to fight. It is not only the actual fighting, but getting the men on to the spot, that matters. They cannot be moved until they are drilled and disciplined, and they cannot be fed. I defy any one to put 10,000 absolutely undrilled and undisciplined men into camp, feed them and their horses, and move them on to the battle-field. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that these men who are growing up in Australia should have some training while they are young. It is only while they are young that they can be given the necessary training; at any rate, that is the proper time, when their minds are more receptive and their characters more easily moulded than they will be later. If we are going to have an efficient army in Australia we must train our youth. That brings me to the question of whether the age should remain as it is or be raised. ‘ On that matter I have an open mind. There may be something in what the honorable member for Werriwa has said about many boys of decent parentage, well-conducted and well brought up, having to mix with boys who are, perhaps, of a vicious disposition, or inclined to be of the larrikin class.

Mr West:

– The best boys in training were the boys of Wooloomooloo.

Colonel RYRIE. - I will admit that that is so. We have to look at the other side of the question, for may we not be right in supposing that boys who were inclined to be of the. larrikin class would benefit by being put with a majority of better behaved boys? The thing may cut both ways.

Mr Page:

– That is exactly what happened in the Imperial Service.

Mr Conroy:

– It does not benefit them according to the experience of the world.

Colonel RYRIE. - There are many boys who have improved considerably since the system was brought in. I can speak positively on that score. Many lads who would otherwise have been found about the streets smoking cigarettes, or gambling, have benefited considerably by being put into the ranks and drilled. I do not believe that the system has such a baneful influence upon boys who have been well brought up. If they have been brought up well it would take a good deal more than association for a few brief hours with boys of bad character to affect them harmfully in their after life.

Mr Conroy:

– Do not you know that they have had to put the lights on the pickets at night?

Colonel RYRIE. - If anything wrong was going on it would be much better to have as brilliant lights on the camps and parades as possible, but it does not necessary follow that, because the camps and parades are lighted, anything wrong has been going on.

Mr Conroy:

– Oh, yes, there was.

Colonel RYRIE. - At all events, there may be something in the honorable member’s contention that the age is too young. I do not say that a hardandfast age of fourteen should be fixed, but I favour boys being taken in hand young, inasmuch as the training does not then interfere so much with their avocation in after life. Boys are just about leaving public schools at fourteen or fifteen, and have, perhaps, not entered into any permanent employment then. That is the best time to make them do their drill. If it is left until they have settled occupations it is more likely to be irksome. That is a strong, argument in favour of retaining the age at, say, fourteen or fifteen.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– I wish first to congratulate the honorable member for Werriwa on having the courage to move the adjournment of the House on this question in a Chamber where the party lines are so strongly marked. It requires courage for a man to stand up against his own side, and there is no doubt that there is, in Australia, a conspiracy of silence on this military question which makes it almost impossible for men like the honorable member and myself to have our say. We can be taxed and exploited, but it must be remembered that it is the working man who has to pay for everything in the end. It is quite true, as the honorable member said, that we had to retire several officers when we were in power, but the late Minister of Defence was very considerate to them. We found that it would have been necessary to take those officers on stretchers to a war.

Mr Tudor:

– Did the honorable member say crutches?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– No, they had their crutches, and we simply separated them from them. You cannot run a defence organization with men who cannot ride. Mr. Roosevelt, when President of the United States of America, issued an order for his officers to ride 50 miles, and discovered that nearly all of them could not ride. They could not even dance, and most of the military officers are dancing masters. If they are not dancing masters, they are tango-pushers, and so Mr. Roosevelt had to retire a lot of the American officers. It is of no use co keep men like that in the Service, just to provide them with billets. The Service is not a benevolent association, or a charitable institution, and so I was sorrowfully compelled to vote to retire certain officers in our Forces. I am opposed to taxing the Australian people any further to keep up a system that is not based on economy and efficiency. There is not efficiency, but a sort of chaos. As Minister of Home Affairs, I did a lot of work in connexion with the Defence Department; and, speaking from experience, I say that there is not a man in Australia to-day, however strong he may be, who could, under present conditions, put the Department on a proper basis; at any rate, not before a lot of men there had been “killed off.” Soldiers are not trained to be business men; they spend and “let ‘er rip,” so long as some one else pays. It is about time that a Military Committee was appointed in this House to go into the whole question. I may say that I have no desire to be a member of such a Committee, for the reason that I am prejudiced. The work of the Committee should be to devise, if possible, a system for the defence of Australia, but not for aggression. I should be willing to spend millions for defence, but not a penny for aggression. The question is: Are we getting anything for the money we are spending? I say that we are not. We on this side, and, indeed,’ all of us here, are responsible for the present position ; but if we have made a mistake, is that any reason why we should continue the mistake?

Mr Hannan:

– Is it a mistake?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– If we have made a financial mistake-

Mr Sampson:

– Our military system is founded on the advice of one of our greatest soldiers.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– That is just the mistake that we have made: We brought a man out from a little island to create a system of defence for a great continent. We built our railways here on the advice of men from little islands, to which their experience was confined, and the result is that we have a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, a 4-ft. 8J-in. gauge, and a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member contend that Lord Kitchener’s experience is confined to a little island ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I was much amused the other day on seeing in an American newspaper that, when Lord Roberts started from Africa for England, Lord Kitchener said, “ Now that the picnic is over, we shall start business.” In my opinion, the wars of the future will not be fought with solid columns, but will be fought with the head from behind the stone fence, and the useful man will be he who brings his rifle down quickly, gets his sight, and “ drops ‘er.” We shall not have a lot of men marching up to be murdered. What, then, is the use of all the present marching and countermarching ? I see a lot of boys drawn away from their other occupations and made to mar.ch up and down and be drilled, while other fellows yell at them. When I was a clerk in a bank in New York, I am sure that my “ boss “ would not have given me leave under the circumstances; and if he had, some one else would have got my place.

Mr Mathews:

– That occurs in Australia now.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Any one engaged, in whatever capacity, in any great national or private undertaking, is one of the spokes of the wheel, and cannot be spared. Thirteen years ago, in’ this very House, I laid down a plan of defence for Australia, as any honorable member can see if he refers to my first speech as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the ideas I then expressed were scouted, and I was told that what was required was some brassbuttoned and braided man from Europe, whose name was in everybody’s mouth, to tell us what to do. When Thomas Edison began his career as a peanut “ butcher “ on American trains, and he talked to the people he met, they .regarded him as a fool; and I can remember that, when I went to New Jersey on insurance business, I was regarded as a, lunatic for endeavouring to issue a premium to a certain man in the neighbourhood. When Marconi first mooted theidea of wireless telegraphy, it was suggested that he should be examined for lunacy; and it was much the same when Bell introduced his telephone.

Mr Higgs:

– -Chauncey Depew ordered Bell out of his office.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– That is so. When Morse brought forward his telegraphic invention, it was scouted; and, inevitably, we find that the mail with a new idea is regarded as a fool until the world rises to the idea. When I proposed” that there should be a Commonwealth building in London, there was derisive laughter in this House. Even my friend, “ Billy “ Wilks, who was then member for Dalley, inquired whether I proposed to place George Reid on the to,p of the building; and when I inquired why I should do such a thing, Wilks replied, “ To show which way the wind blows.” However, that building is now going up, and “George” will soon be inside it. There is another matter with which I would like to deal. Yesterday, I endeavoured to “ get this in “ on the Prime Minister; but, being shut off, I shall avail myself of the present opportunity. This is an extract from the Argus -

Washington, May 16.

A daring feat by an aviator is a feature of the news from Mexico;

Hanging like a hawk over the Federal gunboat Morelos a determined rebel in an aeroplane drove the vessel out to sea. The story comes from Durango that when the gunboat approached the shore the aeronaut set out from laud. When the vessel moved he steadily pursued, keeping high to avoid the bullets from below. Apparently his object was to drop a bomb into the funnel and blow up the vessel. This was not accomplished, but one of the bombs struck the steamer and caused great damage.’ The bridge was ripped away, several riflemen were killed, and the gunners were silenced. Finally the Morelos. was obliged to steam away to sea to escape.

This is a new science. In 1908, Senator Findley and myself tried to get the Brisbane Conference to recommend submarines and airships for the defence of Australia. I wanted to have the currents of the air studied, but I was in advance of the times, and there was great laughing. Now, no nation thinks of any other kind of defence. In this morning’s Age is a sub-leader which I advise every one to read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

.- I am sorry that the honorable member for Darwin could not continue his speech, because some of his remarks were very instructive. In reply to what the honorable member for Werriwa has said about the training of our youths, I say, as I would say at all times, that a country worth living in is worth defending. This country has been good to me and mine, and had I forty sons, I would expect every one of them to defend, not only their own hearths and homes, but the country in which they live. As instancing the popularity of our Defence system, I might mention that when it was first brought into operation nearly every mail from my electorate brought letters and petitions from schools, signed by 95 per cent. of the scholars, asking me to get noncommissioned officers sent to train them in the art of defence. The honorable member for Werriwa wishes to raise the age of trainees. He should recognise that war to-day is a science. . What would be thought of an artisan who refused to allow his boy to commence to learn a trade until he had reached the age of eighteen years? The training of the mind cannot be begun too soon. I have been in the service, and I have seen war. War is hell ; there is no doubt about that. The honorable member complains that boys have been subjected to indignities at a camp. If he had been on active service, he would know more of the inconveniences that men in the fighting line have to put up with, and these last, not for two or three weeks, but for years, yet I have never hearda complaint.

Mr Conroy:

– The honorable member is referring to men who voluntarily enlisted.

Mr PAGE:

– We cannot afford the cost of a standing army, but are doing the next best thing for our defence, by insuring that every man of twenty-one years of age shall be trained to carry a rifle, and to use it effectively. We are drilling and disciplining our boys and young men so that they will be able to face the world. I recommend the honorable member to read Colonel Hamilton’s life of Stonewall Jackson, one of the most interesting books. If he had read it, he would not have said what he did. The rebels of America, although willing fighters, and made of the best stuff, did not know how to fight until after the battle of Gettysburg. The whole brunt of the fighting on their side was borne by Stonewall Jackson’s brigade. Stonewall Jackson kept his men at work day and night, drilling and marching, always under discipline, and when a rush came, his brigade was always there to stop it.

Mr Conroy:

– He trained men, not boys.

Mr PAGE:

– He made the best of the material that he had, and we are doing the same. If we catch them young, we can instil into their minds ideas which become part of their lives. What harm is done to a boy of twelve or fourteen by giving him physical drill? Compare the lads of Melbourne to-day with those of ten years ago.

Mr Anstey:

– See the boys of Brunswick out in the mud and slush.

Mr PAGE:

– I have had to be out in the mud and slush, not drilling, but earning my own living, and so has the honorable member. The boys he speaks of are lucky if they have nothing more to complain of. Their parents can afford to provide them with good food for their stomachs, but many children in older countries are out in the mud and slush, and their parents cannot do anything for them. Under the German system the men who go into the Army have to drill continuously for two years, and live in barracks. It does not matter what a man’s occupation may be, he must leave his home and his trade or calling to serve continuously with the colours. That causes an economic waste which we do not have in Australia. There has never been a scheme whose inventors, as the honorable member for Darwin said, have not been called knaves or fools, but when a scheme turns out trumps other persons take the credit. Which would the honorable member for Werriwa prefer, that there should be an armed rabble or an armed disciplined force to defend our shores? One cannot have his salt and eat it. To get efficiency, we must have preparation, and preparation means cost. The people of Australia are not growling about the cost of our defence scheme.

Mr Arthur:

– Yes, they are.

Mr PAGE:

– The only persons I have heard growling are members of the Peace Society, who want to go out with a white flag and a Bible, to settle differences by prayer.

Mr Arthur:

Sir Ian Hamilton says that it is going to cost us £6,000,000 a year to get an efficient force.

Mr PAGE:

– If it costs £26,000,000, Australia is more to me, and to every man in it. The honorable member for North Sydney drew a harrowing picture of what might happen if this country were overridden by persons of a coloured race. How should we like to see our wives, daughters, or mothers governed by niggers? That is how the question presents itself to me. Even though defence may cost £6,000,000 or £26,000,000 a year, we should rather pay that price than allow the country to run the risk of being overrun by a coloured race. It may be said that this is piffle. But we know that what I speak of is possible, and we are arming ourselves against it. As to the two gentleman whom we have had as Ministers of Defence, Senators Pearce and Millen, although they are civilians, and know nothing about military matters, they have done marvellous things.

Mr Riley:

– They have done everything that the military authorities have asked them to do.

Mr PAGE:

– I know several instances in which they have not followed the advice of the military authorities. Had they done so in all cases, they would have got into very peculiar positions. Our defence system is yet in its infancy. Rome was not built in a day. But we are doing very well indeed.

Mr Mathews:

– Criticism is a good thing.

Mr PAGE:

– Yes. If the defence system could not stand criticism, it would not be worth much.

Mr Arthur:

– It is a very dropsical infant.

Mr PAGE:

– Infants sometimes suffer from hereditary complaints, for which their parents are to blame. If our defence system is dropsical, the Australian people must be dropsical, and I resent that anyway. There is not a more virile race on the face of the earth than the Australians. The Australian is full of initiative; he knows what to do at a critical time; he knows how to get into a mess, and very often he gets out of it without any assistance, so that there is not much dropsy about him. That is my experience of the young Australian. The honorable member for Werriwa also spoke about pensions. In a sense I am averse to pensions, although I think that if a man gives up his life to the service of his country- something should be done for him when he becomes disabled or unfit for further service. We should not cast him out on the road like a disused ass. If the honorable member had left the matter at that it would have been all right, but he did not. He mentioned that there were three officers who had been provided for.

Mr Conroy:

– I did not mention any number; I said that the Labour Party provided for them.

Mr PAGE:

– The honorable member said that three officers had been provided for. These three men were retired on account of their age, but there were no pensions available for them, and rather than throw them out on the streets to get their living for the rest of their days as best they could they were provided with positions carrying £300 a year and expenses.

Mr Conroy:

– All credit to the Minister.

Mr PAGE:

– These officers fill the positions with credit both to themselves and to the country, so that there is nothing in that contention.

Mr Fisher:

– They are doing good work.

Mr PAGE:

– The honorable member went further than that.

Mr Fisher:

– These are the only three whom we retired.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No, there are others whom you did not provide for.

Mr PAGE:

– I know the three officers who have been mentioned.

Mr Conroy:

– I did not mention a single name.

Mr PAGE:

– I know that the honorable member did not - he was too cute to do that - but he said that there were, three.

Mr Conroy:

– I was told that there were half-a-dozen.

Mr PAGE:

– There is not a member of the House, on either side, but agrees with the honorable gentleman in regard to our first line of defence.

Mr Fisher:

– I am afraid that there are.

Mr PAGE:

– I have never heard them speak about the Navy in that way.

Mr Fisher:

– I have heard them.

Mr Arthur:

– Here are two military experts disagreeing.

Mr PAGE:

– I am not supposed to be a military expert. The only expert knowledge I have is that which I gained in the ranks, and I frankly say that if I could have my life over again I would do exactly the same thing as I did before. That is the feeling I have towards the system. I am not a bit ashamed or afraid of anything I have done with regard to the military business. . It made a man of me, as well as many others. That brings me to something which the honorable member for Werriwa said about well-bred youths associating with ill-bred youths.

Mr Conroy:

– I never used such a term.

Mr PAGE:

– It was just the same thing.

Mr Conroy:

– No.

Mr PAGE:

– The inference was just, the same. We did not all have the chance of receiving a good education and being reared in good homes ; but whether a man is reared in Wooloomooloo or Toorak-

Mr West:

– Do not speak disrespectfully of Wooloomooloo.

Mr PAGE:

– I am not speaking disrespectfully of Wooloomooloo.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

.- I compliment the honorable member for Maranoa on the sentiments he has expressed. I think it is time that we stopped this drivel in connexion with what I might call a party trying to beat a retreat from the well established principles of the defence of this nation. I believe that 95 per cent. of the sober-minded people of Australia are solidly behind its defence.

Mr Conroy:

– Certainly.

Mr Arthur:

– Not behind the wastefulness.

Mr Conroy:

– Not behind the waste of money.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– No. Of course, it, must be understood that in the early stages of the system matters of finance are likely to get a bit mixed, and that it takes some time for the best class of economic administration to be brought into play, but there can be only one opinion entertained on the question of the need for the defence of Australia. Of what value is it to us to possess a continent, to declare a White Australia policy, and to have good laws, if the permanent safety of the lives and the homes of the people is not the first consideration of those who take seats here as their representatives?

Mr Arthur:

– Nobody quarrels with that.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Yes; but it is well that a halt should be called now with regard to this feeling that we are beating a retreat from our defence system. There has been circulated in this Chamber a flaring red pamphlet, coming from the Peace Society, and quoting statements by certain members of the House in regard to the system. On all occasions I have admired the attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition and the exMinister of Defence, who have been steady factors in their fealty to the system. Of course, the sincerity of the present Ministry on the question is beyond doubt. There will be from time to time odd members on both sides ready to take advantage of too many opportunities, as I think, to weaken the general feeling of allegiance to the defence system.

Mr Mathews:

– No; the idea is to strengthen it.

Mr.RODGERS. - We get coloured views from those who make these statements, and wish to retreat from them afterwards. There can be no two opinions on the need for the defence of Australia. What we lack in numbers we can only make up in efficiency; and what defence can we put up for the country if the best of its material is not handed over to the nation to be trained? The time is past for all this silly business.

ColonelRyrie. - Do you believe in taking boys at fourteen years of age to train ?

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I believe that at present we have not too much material with which to recruit an effective Defence Force.

Mr Conroy:

– I expect you to call upon women next, upon my word I do.

Mr.RODGERS.- We are in direct conflict on this question.

Mr Conroy:

– When I shelter myself behind the petticoats of women I will say that it is time for us to breed another race of men.

Mr.RODGERS.-It is well to put on record our separate views on this question. When we glance abroad, what do we find? We find that every nation on the face of the globe taxes its people up to the hilt to provide armaments.

Mr Riley:

– That is a disgrace to civilization.

Mr.RODGERS.- Our position is rather unique.Rightly or wrongly, in Australia we have declared for a “ white “ policy. We have practically thrown down the gage of battle to the coloured nations.

Mr Fleming:

– And they are accepting it.

Mr.RODGERS- How can we maintain our position unless everybody in Australia, young or old, is prepared to acknowledge that he is willing, whenever the time comes, to take his place in the defence of the nation ? My desire in speaking is not to go into the defence system from A to Z. That there is need for economy in the administration, and need for effective control over the Defence officials’, I am quite prepared to admit. I am quite prepared to admit that there should be business methods in such a great Department, in order to prevent reckless expenditure, and to prevent the military experts from running us into too costly a system; but I do hope that no honorable member will attempt to weaken the feeling of the nation towards its effective defence.

Mr Conroy:

– You are fighting a bugbear; no one is attempting to deal with that point.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I know that there is going through the country too much of a feeling - engendered in this House - that we were wrong in going so far in the matter of defence; but I consider that Australia took a step in the right direction, though I admit that the present is the time when we must give very serious consideration to the developments of the system. When speaking recently, I mentioned the confident hope that shortly there would be an Imperial Conference. The advent of aerial craft into the defence of the nations is a great factor. I hope that Australia will take a prominent part in aerial defence, for, having perfected ourselves in that direction, we shall find that our geographical situation, so far removed from other shores, instead of being a menace, will be a security to us. The strengthening of the aerial system should relieve us to a great extent of expenditure on defence within our shores. I have no desire to discount the remarks of honorable members with regard to the value of naval defence - it is an important matter - but I hope that, in the discussion of defence questions, no honorable member will be guilty of weakening the great determination of the people of Australia at allcoststo defend themselves as a nation against the worst that may happen.

Mr. W ATKINS (Newcastle) p.2.22]. - I quite approve of the fact that Australia requires, and is worth, defending; but I believe that the existing scheme of defence has been tried and found wanting in many respects. That there is room for improvement and amendment, every honorable member must see. I do not agree with the honorable member for Werriwa as to the age at which boys should commence training. I would rather see the age fifteen years, but I would put a stop to the compulsory training of those over twenty-one years of age, and I would resort to the old partiallypaid or militia system to form our first line of land defence. It may be a hardship on parents to have to let their boys undergo this training, but it is twice as hard for a man over twenty-one years of age to have to give up his time and lose his work in order to do so. By training boys fourteen or fifteen years of age, there could be much more drilling by day than we have at the present time, when we train men to the age of twentysix.

Mr Conroy:

– We should not allow night drills for young boys.

Mr WATKINS:

– I agree with the honorable member; but night drills are unavoidable. Where youths, and practically men, are trained, they have to work during the day. Many of. these trainees are married, and when they have to go into camp twice a year, run the risk of losing their employment, and they give up the wages they earn on which to support their families, and get from the nation in return 4s. a day. That seems to me to be the greatest hardship from which trainees are suffering. I am not particular as to a year or two in regard to the age at which the training should commence, but I certainly do think that the Australian youths can learn all the rudiments of drilling in five years. After a five years’ course of training, we would have plenty of volunteers over twenty-one years of age infused by the military feeling, and with sufficient knowledge of military matters to volunteer and be members of a partially-paid force, such as the militia system we formerly had. It would be sufficient to make that force stronger than it has ever been in Australia. Every one should take his share iu the defence of the country. Those of us who have escaped compulsory training are imposing it on others; but I maintain that those who are compelled to learn the trade of warfare for the purpose’ of defending the country should be well paid by those who have not the duty to perform. Therefore, I contend that the money that was set aside to pay the militia force of the past should again be set aside to pay a similar force. It would not be more than out-of-pocket expenses to the men for the losses they would sustain in carrying out military work. We have not abolished our technical branch of the defence system, that is, in regard to manning our forts.

Mr Conroy:

– We must have regular Forces.

Mr WATKINS:

– Certainly; but as we cannot afford to maintain a standing Army, the next best thing to do is to train our youths under the compulsory system for four or five years, and follow that up by a partially-paid militia. There is considerable objection to our present scheme. Every one, of course, must take his part in the defence of Australia, but employers and property-owners are those who have most at stake, and, therefore, they should be called upon to make good what the trainees lose when they go into these camps twice a year, and learn to defend, not only their own hearths and homes, but also the property of their employers.

Debate . interrupted under standing order 119.

page 1240

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1184), on motion by Mr. W. H.

Ievine -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

.- When, by courtesy of the Leader of the House, I was given permission last night to continue my speech ‘ to-day, the argument I was seeking to develop was somewhat strained. I have attempted, in the course of my remarks, to show that some of the contentions of the AttorneyGeneral were without any real foundation. If the honorable gentleman’s knowledge of the facts upon which the Government have founded this Bill is not more extensive than his literary information, we have a very easy case to meet. In the course of his opening address the Attorney-General referred to Aladdin carrying the Old Man of the Sea upon his shoulders. As a matter of fact, it was not Aladdin who carried on his shoulders the Old Man of the Sea. Aladdin was the possessor of the wonderful lamp, and I may be allowed to say that the Labour party have the wonderful lamp of truth. They represent a modern Aladdin carrying the lamp of truth for the enlightenment of the community, and to assist to a better understanding of what social and industrial development ought to be. The Old Man of the Sea was carried upon the shoulders of Sindbad. Sindbad, in the person of the AttorneyGeneral, is the man who has sinned so badly. The Old Man of the Sea is represented by the old Conservative ideas which cling round the neck of the Attorney-General so closely that if he is not drowned by them he is likely soon to be politically strangled. I think we have the honorable gentleman fairly in the grip, and that the effect of the measure now under our consideration will be to hasten his political death. The honorable gentleman has spoken of “ spoils to the victors,” and has charged the Australian Labour party with indulging in Tammany Hall practices. In what way have we done so ? It is claimed that we have done so by demanding preference for unionists * and by giving preference to our- own people. Who are our own people? Will any honorable member on -the other side contend that every trade unionist is a pledged man, and supports the Labour party? If they make such a contention they do not know what trade unionism is, and do not understand the feelings of the members of trade unions. It cannot be said that trade unionists in any State of this Commonwealth are pledged and tied down to the Labour party. While the Attorney-General was speaking the other night, and charging us with giving the spoils to the victors, a meeting of trade unionists was being held in Sydney, the newspaper report of which was headed, “The Union Party: Symptoms of Revolt.” Revolt against what ? Apparently it was against the Labour party because they were given no spoils. It was contended that the Labour party failed to give effect to their promises, that instead of giving the spoils to the victors by assisting to forward the Labour platform, they had failed to do anything. At the very time the AttorneyGeneral was making his charge against this party there was a revolt on the part of trade unionists on the ground that we had done nothing for them. Who knows best where the spoils have gone? Is it the Attorney-General, or these people who are said to be in revolt? The people who receive the spoils of victory are not a discontented people. They are satisfied to utilize the spoils, and look forward to more. Our people are not looking for spoils, but for something quite different. They are asking for justice, and are demanding from the members of the Labour party that they shall give effect to the promises they have made. I know how difficult it is to do this. We build up our ideals as high as heaven itself. We sincerely desire to attain those ideals, but the dross and dregs of the world hold us back, and we cannot in a day, or, it may even be, in many years, realize our highest aspirations. But our ideals are ever there, and our purpose is to be ever striving upward towards a greater measure of social and industrial reform. In spite of this, we are charged by the Attorney-General with degrading ourselves and seeking to give the spoils to the victors, because we say that preference shall be given to unionists in the Public Service of this country. If that course were followed, only a few thousand people would be affected j still we are charged with’ giving the spoils to the victors. From organized effort, everything good comes to the individual and to the organization, whether it be a party organization or the wider organization of society itself. The workers organize in their own interests, in the hope that they may be able to meet in that way the organized efforts of employers. From the two organizations it might be expected that a common understanding would be arrived at which must tend to the general good. This House should be prepared to foster organization of every kind.” Our friends opposite apparently desire that the Public Service should be a disorganized mob dominated by the Public Service Commissioner, or by the petty heads of the various Government Departments. They are afraid that the moment the public servants are organized they will be strong enough to meet the heads of the Departments upon an equal footing.

Mr King O’Malley:

– That is what they are afraid of.

Mr HOWE:

– It is what they are afraid of. The Attorney-General asked if we could point to any one case of victimization by the Government, any case in which the Government ‘ had dismissed a man because he was a unionist. That is the difficulty. The Government as a Government, or Ministers as individual Ministers, have not dismissed men, but men have been dismissed through officials and Departments, because they were unionists and had taken a prominent part in the trade union movement.

Mr Groom:

– Where was that?

Mr HOWE:

– I cannot mention names.

Mr Groom:

– I do not think the honorable member could give an instance.

Mr HOWE:

– If the gentlemen to whom I am going to refer will permit me to do so, I will give the names. I know a gentleman who is now in the Newcastle Savings Bank, and who was ordered to leave a political Labour league, or the result would be detrimental to his interests ; if he did not leave, he knew what the result would be.

Mr Groom:

– Was that in the State Savings Bank?

Mr HOWE:

– Yes.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member referred to Federal Ministers.

Mr HOWE:

– I will give another illustration. In the Land Tax Department in Sydney, one of the best temporary hands - he was so good that his time was extended - was dismissed from the service as soon as it was known that he was a member of the Clerks Union, and had commenced to help his fellows in the Department to an understanding of their position. He was not told ‘ You are a member of the Clerks Union, and must go.” Oh, no! When he asked for a reason, no reason was given to him. But the Department was quite prepared to continue his engagement while he kept his mouth shut. I know of other cases. Before I entered this House some years ago, I was told by heads of Departments, “ We like you, Howe, you are a capable servant; but don’t go on in that way, because as sure as you do, you will be booted.” I went on in that way, but they did not boot me. So I say that preference to unionists is a reasonable and legitimate claim to make. In the Public Service if there is not the organized effort of trade unionists, there is a disorganized mob of individuals who may be ruled by the heads of the various Departments. Surely it is better to have an organized body of men in the employ of the Government. Honorable members object to preference, but if all the men in the service joined the unions there could be no preference. In any case, preference does not mean robbing any other man of the right to work; it means only that if there is one billet and two applicants, the organized individual shall have preference over the disorganized individual. Is that wrong ?

Mr King O’Malley:

– If he is competent he gets the preference.

Mr HOWE:

– The Attorney-General has ridiculed the qualification “ all things being equal.” But the honorable member is putting himself in opposition to his own party. The Arbitration Bill was introduced in 1904 by a Liberal Administration, which comprised the Right Hon. G. H. Reid, the Hon. A. McLean, the

Hon. Sir Josiah Symon, the Hon. Sir Geo. Turner, the Hon. Dugald Thompson, the Hon. J. W. McCay, the Hon. Sydney Smith, and the Hon. J. G. Drake.

Mr King O’Malley:

– They are all Labour men.

Mr HOWE:

– They know as much about Labour as a baby knows about sucking pigs. Those were the gentlemen who passed the Bill giving preference, to unionists, other things being equal. Yet the Attorney-General is declaiming against this preference to unionists.

Mr Poynton:

– The present Minister for Customs supported it.

Mr Conroy:

– If arbitration is at the expense of the right to strike, it is a wrong thing.

Mr HOWE:

– So far as I am concerned, I would like to see the right to strike attached to the Arbitration Act.

Mr Groom:

– And are you going to concede the right to lock-out, too?

Mr HOWE:

– Yes, the one is the corollary of the other. I am pointing out that it was not a Labour Administration who passed the Bill giving preference to unionists, all things being equal.

Mr Groom:

– How are you going to get compulsory arbitration if there is the right to strike and lock-out attached ?

Mr HOWE:

– The nations of the world have their diplomatic courts for the settlement of international disputes, and if they cannot come to a peaceful agreement, they appeal to the arbitrament of war.

Mr Groom:

– But the idea of arbitration is to get rid of war.

Mr HOWE:

– Quite so. But we reserve the right to strike just as nations reserve the right to strike after diplomatic negotiations have failed. We desire a peaceful solution of our problems if we can get it, but if the situation evolved by negotiation is not satisfactory, we reserve to ourselves the ultimate right to strike and to fight until one party or other is exhausted.

Mr Fleming:

– Then you have no need for au Arbitration Act at all.

Mr HOWE:

– The honorable member ought to get a brush and clean his brains. He is unable to perceive a clear argument. I wish to know what attitude the Government intend to adopt in regard to this matter. Are they prepared, to follow in the footsteps of the leader of their party, the Attorney-General? Are they prepared to go even further than is outlined in this Bill, because I fear that if he succeeds in pushing this measure through he will afterwards seek to repeal our Conciliation and Arbitration Acts. He does not believe in granting preference to unionists, either in the case of Government servants, who are outside the Act, or in the case of persons who come within the terms of the Act which was passed at the instance of his own party. The honorable gentleman has appealed to us to pass this measure, so that it may be transmitted to the Senate. He has asked whether we are game to fight. My answer is that we are game to fight, and that the Bill will not pass this Chamber if we can prevent it. We throw down the gage of battle to him here, and we shall do the same thing if necessary in the Senate. Before he can whip us he must take us to the country, and we do not fear the consequences. Preference to unionists is a principle in which we believe, and we shall fight it to the bitter end, no matter what may be the result. The Attorney-General paid the honorable member for Boothby and myself the compliment of saying that we were the only two members upon this side of the House who are prepared to support the idea of compulsory unionism. The honorable gentleman holds that certain rights and privileges must be given up by unions, otherwise no such thing as compulsory unionism could come into existence. May I remind him that this Government have promised to bring forward a system of national insurance. Is not that to be compulsory? Certainly it is.From a health aspect its provisions will be compulsory upon the whole nation. But what rights will the nation give up because the principle of compulsion is to operate? Do we not know that compulsion is at our very door ? We are surrounded with it. Our cadet system is compulsory. Why, then, should it be urged that some rights which unions claim for themselves should be given up? It has been argued that the books of all unions should be open to examination. But only last night I quoted from a document published in New South Wales, in which all expenditure by unions in that State is clearly set out. What more is required? Our unions spend their money as they choose, but the majority of them do not expend their funds for political purposes. They have not the funds to spend. Seeing that unionists contribute only about 4d. or 6d. per week, and have to fight costly cases before the Arbitration Court, it is obvious that there can be very little money left to put into a political fund to fight the gentlemen who can hire motor-cars by the hundred.

Mr Conroy:

– The Labour party hired hundreds of motor-cars at the last elections.

Mr King O’Malley:

– We are the poor of the earth.

Mr HOWE:

– I know who have the motor-cars. It is not the Labour party.’ I know who placed them in the hands of my opponent at the last election, when I had to get round my constituency aa best I could. On that occasion money was freely spent, not by the Labour party, but by the Liberal party, and by all the forces of capitalism throughout the length and breadth of Australia. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say more. The Attorney-General has refused the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the value of this Bill. He is prepared to fight the matter to the bitter end. So are we. The honorable gentleman has instituted a comparison between the wages paid in Canada and those paid in Australia. He has pointed out that , higher rates of wages obtain in the Dominion, and that those higher rates have been obtained without resort to conciliation and arbitration. I say, at once, that nobody can read that utterance without recognising how far-fetched it is. One cannot look through the list which he quoted without seeing that those higher rates of wages relate exclusively to workmen engaged in the building trade - to bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, &c. . Now honorable members know perfectly well that, in Canada, for four or five months in the year, outside employment is absolutely impossible. Naturally, therefore, the wages paid in the building trade there are higher than they are here. But the crucial test is : What is the purchasing value of the wages which are paid ? We must learn what prices obtain in Canada before we can institute a fair comparison. In Australia we have established nominal rates of wages. As a Labour party we do not desire to institute comparisons between countries whose conditions are utterly dissimilar. The success of our efforts must be determined by asking whether under the conditions which we have established here, as compared with the conditions which formerly obtained, an improvement has been effected. That is the position which the Government will have to face when an appeal is made to the country. Sitting suspended from 1 until 2.15 p.m.

page 1244

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE: LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- Before the debate on the Government Preference Prohibition Bill is resumed, I desire to raise a question of privilege. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that, before leaving the chair at 1 p.m., you announced that the House would resume at 2.15 p.m., but that you were good enough, later on, to send word to honorable members that we should not resume until 2.30 p.m. I presume that you were acting within your rights in doing so ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think so. I inadvertently announced, when leaving the chair, that the sittings were suspended until 2.15 p.m.; but was reminded subsequently by one of the officers that it was the custom during all-day sittings to meet after lunch at 2.30 p.m. I therefore instructed the officer to advise honorable members accordingly, through the Whips and personally, as far as practicable, believing that, in such circumstances, the adjournment until the usual hour would better suit their convenience.

Mr Fisher:

– The only point is that a message might be sent to members, in your name, giving the wrong time of meeting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I realize that; but it was a desire to meet the convenience of honorable members that caused me to advise them that the sittings would not be resumed until 2.30 p.m., and it was done through responsible officers.

Mr Fenton:

– Is that rule to apply generally ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes; to all-day sittings.

page 1244

GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE PROHIBITION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1244) -

Mr HOWE:

– When we adjourned for lunch, I was dealing with the question of preference to unionists. I propose now to make a quotation from a speech made by the Attorney-General at Sandringham a few days ago, in the. course of which he said -

To him had fallen the task of putting on the anti-preference collar, and his, therefore, was the hand that was bitten.

Let me tell the honorable gentleman that he has not put on the anti-preference collar, and that not only his hand, but his throat, will be bitten before he succeeds in doing so. We are here with a strong determination to fight him. The anti-preference collar is not yet on the union dog. The Labour bullpup is ready to fight him to the end.

Mr King O’Malley:

– And so is the grizzly bear.

Mr HOWE:

– And the grizzly bear will hug him. We are prepared to meet him in every possible way, and we shall not be slow to put our teeth into his neck, or to give him a hug that he will not like.

Colonel Ryrie. - What is the honorable member’s weight?

Mr HOWE:

– It is enough to meet that of the honorable member at any time. The Attorney-General went on to say that -

If any one could wipe out the now notorious preference proclamation of Mr. O’Malley, and the somewhat reluctant consent given to it by Mr. Fisher, no one would be so glad as the members of the Labour Party. It hung like a cloud around their necks.

I do not know that clouds hang round our necks any more than round the necks of the Liberal party. Clouds do not usually hang round any one’s neck, so that the honorable gentleman’s metaphor is not one upon which he can be complimented. If the Attorney-General, however, has a cloud about him, how does he propose to rid himself of it? We are prepared to meet him in every way, and I trust that he will not try to cloud the real issue to a greater extent than he has hitherto attempted to do. I observe that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are now in consultation. Are they very much alarmed? Some serious proposition is evidently engaging their consideration. I should like their attention.

Seemingly the courtesy of the House is not to be extended to me. It is evident that honorable members may discuss between themselves any matter they please.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must address himself to the question before the Chair.

Mr HOWE:

– I will do so if honorable members opposite will afford me an opportunity.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There was no intentional discourtesy on our part.

Mr HOWE:

– Perhaps not, but there was, nevertheless, discourtesy.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The AttorneyGeneral was just considering the argument which the honorable member addressed to him before the adjournment for lunch.

Mr HOWE:

– The Attorney-General, in the course of the speech to which I was referring when interrupted, went on to say of preference to unionists in Government employment that -

It had not even been demanded by Labour supporters.

Only yesterday I showed that absolute preference to unionists had been claimed by organizations throughout New South Wales and by political labour parties in respect of, not only Government, but private employment. The AttorneyGeneral, therefore, has been fighting what has been termed “ the shadow of a sham.” The shadow of a sham is displayed in the attitude which he has taken up. He went on to say -

Before the State could consent to compulsory unionism the unions would have to give up the right to say who should be members and who should not.

He proceeded to demand that there should be numerous concessions before the granting of absolute preference to unionists. Why should we give up anything that we possess to-day, and in what way are we expected to give up that which we have? Preference exists in this community today in a thousand and one ways. There is no aspect of our social life in respect of which there is not compulsion. Why, then, should the Attorney-General take up this attitude in ‘regard to compulsory unionism? Is there anything connected with our trade unions that is not plain and open to the world? Is there any aspect of our industrial methods that is not open to his investigation? Is it not open to him to find out for himself whether trade unions and trade union practices are or are not beneficial to the community? I placed before the honorable gentleman yesterday a document issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions in New South Wales.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is the same in all the other States.

Mr HOWE:

– Is it not satisfactory?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No.

Mr HOWE:

– Why not?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It depends upon how the skeleton is filled up.

Mr HOWE:

– The Attorney-General is answering to-day questions which he refused to answer a few days ago

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall not do so again.

Mr HOWE:

– There is nothing connected with trade unionism to justify the Attorney-General’s objection to the granting of preference to unionists, nor is there any justification for his opposition to compulsory unionism. The distribution and utilization of trade union funds is now in the hands of the Registrars of the Court, and everything relating to them is available to the honorable gentleman. Even when placed in possession of all the facts, what can he make out of them? Can he show that trade union funds are utilized for political rather than for industrial purposes, and even if they are utilized to some extent for political purposes, is that a crime ? Why may they not be so utilized ? Where do the Attorney-General and those behind rather than for industrial purposes, and great organizations of capital, which stand behind him and his party, used in backing him up? Are they not utilized for political purposes ? Will the AttorneyGeneral call on the Employers Federation, and the other associations which stand behind him, to place before this House and the country a statement of how their funds are expended ?

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

.- While the Bill before us relates only to preference in the Commonwealth service, it is contended by honorable members opposite, who purport to represent the interests of Labour more fully than we on this side do - though I challenge their right to so claim - that, by prohibiting preference to any body of men in the employ of the Commonwealth, an attack is being made on unions as a whole.

Mr West:

– That is the ulterior object.

Mr CONROY:

– Nothing of the sort; the aim of the Bill is very different. Whatever preference men can obtain for themselves by voluntary association, by extra work, or extra energy-

Mr J H Catts:

– Or by the force of organization.

Mr CONROY:

– Yes; I concede that to the fullest. As I say, anything that men can gain for themselves by voluntary association belongs to themselves. The moment, however, they call in the forces of the Government, and declare that their wishes are to assume the force of law - the moment they assert that all the power of the community shall be wholly on their side, and insist on the doctrine of compulsion on other members of the community outside their organization - that moment they challenge the consideration of the whole people. The preference by law that many unionists are now asking for would, I contend, be fatal on two grounds. The first, and most important, is that it would be fatal to the best interests of the community, and the second is that it would be fatal to the very organizations themselves. Those honorable members who prattle in favour of compulsory unionism and of preference forget that if it were realized every person would immediately be forced into a union.

Mr Poynton:

– Is that the reason that all the lawyers are in the union?

Mr CONROY:

– Does the honorable member approve of lawyers being in a union? I think I have, time and again, heard the honorable member denounce lawyers and their union; and honorable members opposite have gone so far as to prevent them, appearing in the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. I point out, however, that the legal profession is open to every citizen who is not a criminal, and who passes the necessary examination; under the circumstances, therefore, the argument by analogy fails. I truly believe that I am now speaking in the interests of the unionists themselves. Voluntary organization should not be interfered with when, by its means, citizens are struggling to exact the best they can from the conditions of life, because by so much as such struggles raise the general tone so is the community as a whole benefited. Honorable members opposite, however, wish to go back to the rusty, musty, fusty past, and are catching up with the legislation of a little over 4,000 years ago.

Mr Arthur:

– That was the Golden Age.

Mr CONROY:

– Was it the Golden Age for the workers? They then had to belong to an organization whether they liked it or not; there was practically ncescape. If we go back to the first code of which we have any record, namely, that of Hammourabi, of 4,300 years ago, we find that a man could carry on> one trade only, and that his wages and conditions were fixed by law. At the dawn of the Roman Empire, 700 years b.c., in the days of Numa Pompilius, guilds were recognised. We must remember, of course, that industry was not then carried on as it is now, but was much simpler, and fewer artisans and craftsmen were employed. Fortunately for themselves, the bulk were protected only by custom, which had the force of law, and it was not for a long period that they sought the sanction of the law itself. After a lapse of 700 or 800 years, we find a good many instances of workmen being, as it were, controlled by law,, and forced into unions, because thereby better supervision could be exercised over them by the authorities, and then decay began. ‘ In the year 226 a.d. we find an instance of the very porters engaged in carrying goods to and from the quays obtaining an. edict which, declared as a blackleg, and forbade to work, any one not a member of the fraternity. It will be seen that compulsion is a very old idea indeed.

Mr Atkinson:

– It belongs to the Stone Age.

Mr Arthur:

– It is interesting to hear troglodytes talking of the Stone Age.

Mr CONROY:

– Who are the troglodytes? Honorable members opposite desire to revert to a condition of thingswhich we find near the dawn of history - a condition of things which men, as soon as they began to progress, sought to alter. However, as I was saying, I draw a great distinction between voluntary and compulsory organization. Voluntary organization is flexible and capable of adapting itself to. the needs of the timesand the seasons, and it can readily be modified almost at will. On the other

Shand, an organization which is fixed and controlled by legal authority is not flexible. What would have happened, for instance, supposing that in 1902 a law of preference had been passed, and every worker forced into a union? The agricultural workers, for instance, if banded together, would represent a body over 400,000 strong; and such large bodies in all the industries would show all the defects of the compulsory principle, for they would inevitably become antagonistic one to the other.

Mr Fisher:

– The little unions fight each other.

Mr CONROY:

– Quite so. What I am showing now is that, if all are compelled to join unions, and these large unions become antagonistic, the battle will be continued with an utter disregard of the public interest, as has frequently happened. Many of the advantages now enjoyed by some of the unions could never have been gained had unionism applied to the whole people. Will any one say that the large body of agricultural workers would have permitted the railway servants, for instance, to obtain the advantages that they did, seeing that these meant additional freight on produce?

Mr J H Catts:

– That is an argument for complete organization right through.

Mr CONROY:

– Voluntary and sectional unionism can obtain their fullest desires compatible with the carrying on of a business, but this advantage would disappear, as I have shown, under compulsion’. Again, when the wharf lumpers struck for better terms, can we imagine that with compulsory unionism the farmers and others engaged in agriculture would have conceded their demand, seeing how it would affect their pockets? There is the other fact, that if unionism becomes compulsory under the law, it becomes hereditary. In every case, unions which liave been able to obtain the co-operation of the masters or the Government have shown this tendency. I need scarcely refer to the fact that in India the great castes have practically sprung from industrial associations of the kind, so far as we can judge, though the evidence on the point is not complete. Under such a system, a man is all right whilst his particular industry flourishes, but if adversity comes he cannot go into another; and no better illustration of that fact can be found than that if a man, at the present time, is out of employment, he finds it impossible to get into another union under a couple of months.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is not correct.

Mr CONROY:

– I do not think I am exaggerating.

Mr Falkiner:

– The unions take the fees as quickly as they can get them.

Mr CONROY:

– In many cases, even money will not induce unions to admit other citizens. Under the circumstances, one can easily see the great evil that might be entailed on unionists themselves by the policy suggested by honorable members opposite.

Mr J H Catts:

-Does the honorable member say that preference should be given if the unions can enforce it by their strength J

Mr CONROY:

– Yes; provided they are voluntary and are not infringing on the rights of others. With that condition, a man should have the full benefit of his energy and industry, and he can best obtain that by voluntary association.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Arbitration Acts, both Commonwealth and State, prevent men from obtaining tlieir objects in that way.

Mr CONROY:

– I do not agree with the Arbitration Acts, as I have frequently pointed out. In my opinion, if the dictates of the Courts are absolutely enforced, they tend to make serfs or slaves of the men belonging to the unions; and it is because we on this side stand for liberty and order that we are so strongly opposed to the principle of compulsion.

Mr J H Catts:

– Then the honorable member favours strikes?

Mr CONROY:

– I undoubtedly favour strikes, because the only alternative to strikes is slavery; and the risk of strikes is the price the people pay for liberty. It is better that there should be this risk than that we should live as slaves; and it is because we wish to see the people of Australia free to conduct their business as. they choose, without infringing the rights of others, that we are so much opposed to compulsion. In my heart of hearts I am certain that the true friends of voluntary unionism are on this side of the chamber, and that the action that honorable members opposite would take if they had the power, would bean absolutely wrong one. They propose the wrong remedy, and do not know that their political strychnine is a poison. Compulsion would destroy the value of the unionism that they seek to foster. There should be no such thing as fostering by parliamentary enactment the interests of either individuals or sections of the community. Every decent, honest citizen, rich or poor, occupying a proud or a humble position, is entitled to the protection of Parliament, but neither favour should be shown nor preference given to any one in the community. The more fully we recognise that, the better it will be for the country.

Mr Arthur:

– We want to give preference to our men, because you give preference to yours.

Mr CONROY:

– Is the honorable member complaining of the law which obtains preference for any citizen by reason of his possession of a better brain or better health than his fellows ? If . so, his quarrel is with the Almighty, who decreed men unequal. He is complaining of something which it is beyond human power to regulate. Parliament should make no laws for the giving of preference; its first object should be to destroy privileges of every kind. Whenever a citizen is found appropriating gains that, do not belong to him, Parliament should try* to alter the laws which allow that to be done.

Mr Webster:

– That is what we wish to do.

Mr CONROY:

– No; you are seeking to create fresh privileges. Is it not manifest that the type of trade unionism which will not allow those outside a union to work, is not in the interests of labour as a whole? The attitude of honorable members towards free labourers proves that. True unionism admits the right of every one in the community to work. Every free man could enter the old English unions. We seem to be departing from that principle. This so-called Labour party evidently cannot speak in the name of labour as a whole. What is its object in compelling every one to become a unionist? The special advantages of being in unions will disappear when all are unionists. No preference could be shown to unionists as against other unionists. If an organization is to continue to exist, it must observe the ordinary rules of justice. The enemies of trade unionism are those who seek unwittingly to destroy the advantages of voluntary association. They would enslave the community. A body of men who are not at liberty to work or to settle matters as may seem best to them cannot be said to be free. Strikes are declaimed against, but are they so dreadful ? They were never heard of in the Southern States of America. Why? Because all the workers there were slaves. In the Northern States there were free men and many strikes, the strikes being evidence of freedom.

Mr Hannan:

– Would the honorable member say that on the platform at election time?

Mr CONROY:

– Yes. I have been saying it for years past. Every man has the right to refuse to work. I honour the man who says, “ I will not work for any one under compulsion.” I am prepared to fight on the side of such a man. I am prepared to take the part of the down-trodden citizen who is oppressed at the will of a slave-master, or at the dictate of a Judge calling himself a Court. The name may be changed, but the man who dictates to another, saying that he shall work when he does not wish to work, is a slave-driver, and the man who obeys him is a slave. The experience of the ages, if properly studied, shows that the worker has nothing to gain from being directed in every way, and that he will do most for his own advancement and that of the country when free to use. the intelligence with which the Almighty has gifted him. There are two systems by which the world can be ruled; one is the system of status, under which a man lives, marries,, and dies in the status into which he was born, there being no escape from it. What contributed largely to the decay of the Roman Empire was the creation of castes. Laws were made forcing bakers, sailors, and others to continue perpetually in the condition of life into which they were born. The accumulation of property in the hands of the Government in the early centuries of the Roman Empire tended to accelerate the enslavement of the people, and many recognising that this meant slavery fled away to escape the thraldom. The same thing will happen if honorable members opposite have their desires. .But consider the injury and harm that will be done to the country. Honorable members opposite wish to obtain the control of the political funds of a large body of the people. If they stated that openly, instead of speaking of wishing to consult the interests of the people, they would be more honest. Each unionist pays from 10s. to £2 12s. a year in contributions of one kind and another, the payments being compulsory, and recoverable at law. Parliament acted stupidly in allowing this. The present funds, which may amount to £700,000 or £800,000 a year, could be increased to £2,700,000, especially if the women were forced to join unions, by doing what honorable members wish to do.

Mr Arthur:

– The fees and conditions of the unions must be reasonable. If they are not, the union may be deregistered, and cannot sue for recovery.

Mr CONROY:

– I know that the fees are not reasonable. They might be reasonable for men in the position of the honorable member or myself, but it is not reasonable to ask workmen to pay £1 or £2 a year. Some of the shearers who are employed for only a few months in the year pay even more in proportion, as they are employed only during part of the year,

Mr Pigott:

– The fee they pay has gone up 10s.

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member for Werriwa knows more about other subjects.

Mr CONROY:

– The honorable member feels that I know too much about this subject. If honorable members opposite did what they want to do, they would have a political fund amounting to something like £2,700,000 a year. Are they venturesome enough to tell the public that that is their object? Will they say to the people, “ We wish to compel every one of you to be unionists, and to contribute to union funds. Our intention is that a man shall not enjoy the rights of citizenship unless he be a unionist. The Trades Hall Council is to be your real Parliament.” When this Parliament permitted union secretaries to recover their fees at law, we should have safeguarded the union funds, which are contributed by poor men. It is estimated that the levies and fees paid by unionists throughout Australia amount to something like £750,000 a year. That calculation is made on the basis of the New South Wales figures. In that State the contributions exceed £300,000, and the unionists amount to about 36 per cent. of the workers. Had honorable members opposite really desired the welfare of the workers, what would have been done with these funds? At the end of twenty years a sum of over £20,000,000 would have been accumulated, and any body of capitalists would have lent another £20,000,000 on it being shown to them that the money would be used properly. That would have given £40,000,000 for investment, and would have allowed those who have contributed to unions to build their own cottages, to buy their own farms, to start business on the share system, and to obtain many more advantages. This may come about in the future. What big results might be accomplished by effort in that direction ! The accumulation of savings with a view to their application for the benefit of the contributors would be a fine example of voluntary thrift, which is worth more than the compulsory thrift exercised through membership of compulsory State insurance societies and in other ways. The practice of thrift raises the dignity of a man, tending to the formation of character, and the strengthening of the nation. In this way, therefore, honorable members opposite, if they had understood their business, might perhaps have taken a big part in the movement, and deserved the support, not only of every member of . voluntary unions, but of every citizen of Australia, because of the betterment that would have come to the large class of workers they profess to represent. In the near future it will be our duty to safeguard by law the funds of the workers just as they have been by law collected; and when we find that the hard-fisted grasping concerns, which the Labour party declare the large corporations to be, can carry on their businesses at the rate of 2s. in the pound, surely men in the Labour party, overflowing with the milk of human kindness, can well undertake the management of the funds of unions at a cost of 4s. in the pound. If we allow that sum for management, and safeguard the funds of the unions above that amount, we shall confer on. the workers of Australia a greater benefit than has ever been brought about by the party opposite. Of course, while these associations were voluntary they could not be interfered with, and could spend their money in their own way, but the moment they became compulsory bodies and asked to be brought under the law the Legislature had the right to insist that the funds they were able to collect by law should be safeguarded by law, and in omitting to do so Parliament committed a big wrong to the’ members of the community. Some people urge that unions have increased the remuneration of labour, but as a matter of fact the remuneration of labour is not increased until the utility of labour is increased, which is a very different thing indeed. Honorable members may be surprised when I say that the advance in wages throughout Australia has not been as great as it would have been had there been no interference from the various Arbitration Courts. The continual hindrance of business by the necessity to observe fresh awards of the Arbitration Court - one employer works under 43 different awards secured by what I may term entrepreneurs of labour disputes - every one of which tends to detract the attention of valuable commercial men from their business, and to lessen their profits, and undermine their health, has been a distinct injury to the community. It may seem ridiculous to honorable members opposite to assert that wages are not always increased by the Courts, but the coal miners got all they could obtain long before Parliament took a hand in trying to manage these things.

Mr Mcgrath:

– No.

Mr CONROY:

– Clearly that is the case. The Federal Arbitration Court did not come into existence until 1903, and the State Act was not in force in New South Wales until 1902, but the coal miners of that State had their wages fixed by mutual agreement long before then, and anything the Courts have done since in raising the wages in other unions has only tended to lower their wages by increasing the cost of the articles they purchase, thus in effect not increasing their wages, but reducing them.

Mr Mcgrath:

– Do you apply that statement to the miners in Victoria ?

Mr CONROY:

– I am not so sure of them, but the honorable member can see that the matter depends very little on unions. When wages for miners in Kalgoorlie were £4, miners in Victoria were being paid £2. The question really rests on the natural law of supply and demand, which nothing honorable members may say can overcome. Let me take the case of domestic servants, 140,000 in number, as an instance of wages being increased without the aid of any unions. The domestic servants form the second largest body in the community.

Mr Hannan:

– And they are the poorest paid.

Mr CONROY:

– They are certainly not the poorest paid to-day. Their wageshave increased by 100 per cent., allowing for extra cost of keep.

Mr Fenton:

– Because most of the girls prefer to work in factories.

Mr CONROY:

– If a girl is to do her duty to the nation, a factory is the last place to which she should be put. A factory is no training ground for the rearing of children. The union of man and woman is natural. There can be no departure from the big law of following the great dictates of nature; and I ask any man of sense whether he would rather choose for his companion in life a girl who has been in domestic service, who can make his home comfortable and his life happy, as against a girl who is employed in a factory, and has had no training in domestic work. Any man of sense would say that the girl with domestic training is infinitely better fitted to take on the duties of motherhood and of attending to> a home. That is common sense. I quote- domestic servants to show that the greatrise in wages they have secured has been purely without the efforts of a union. Next take the case of the rural workers in pastoral and agricultural pursuits, numbering over 435,000. Taking into consideration the increased cost of living, the increase of wages in their case has been from 50 to 60 per cent.

Mr Spence:

– What is your authority for saying that?

Mr CONROY:

– I have seen the books of scores and scores of men, showing the rates of wages paid previously and those paid now.

Mr Fenton:

– What were the wages previously ?

Mr CONROY:

– In the rural districts they were extremely low. The honorable member for Grey recollects the time whensturdy men worked for 10s. a week. You could not get those men to work for that wage now. The cost of living is fully 5s. or 6s. a week more; but you would not get those men under 25s. a week at the present time. The big increase in wageshas been dependent on something utterly without and beyond the control of Parliaments. It has been dependent on the big increase in the price ‘ of our products the world over. Thirteen years ago I told honorable members who were then in Parliament that the development of our export in meat would cause a rise of wages utterly beyond the power ‘of any one to anticipate ; that if, through the agency of cold storage, we could land our meat and our other products in the Old Country in the same condition as they reached the consumers in Australia, Australia would rise in the scale of nations; but that the increase in wages would be enormous. I challenge any honorable member to say that this was not a perfectly correct prophecy. I pointed out, however, at the time, as I point out to-day, that by our Tariff we do, and we are about to still further, deprive the workers of the Commonwealth of a large proportion of that increase that would otherwise be theirs. We now contribute about £16,000,000 a year through the Customs.

Mr Fenton:

– And I reckon that the workers pay about £13,000,000 of that amount.

Mr CONROY:

– Does that not bear out what I have said - that there is no way of imposing taxation so as to avoid its falling more heavily on the poor man than on the rich 1 As the poor man always seems to have to bear the burden of taxation, even though we attempt to put it on the rich man, let honorable members agree with me when I say that we should make the taxation light on the rich man, so that when he passes it on to the poor .man, it will also be light upon the latter. That is the true- principle on which Governments should act. If coercion and intimidation are necessary to maintain trade unionism, it would be better for the State and for the people that unions should utterly perish; but I deny that coercion is necessary for true voluntary unionism. Tyranny, violence, and compulsion all bring their punishment sooner or later. They are merely symptoms of decay, or of such gross ignorance on the part of Legislatures as to bring down in the scale of comfort the people for whom these acts are done. Therefore, it behoves us to regard all these encroachments with a jealous eye; and if honorable members opposite thoroughly understood the history of the past, and thoroughly understood their duty to unions, they would have been the very first years ago to safeguard the funds of unions. There was natural hesitation on the part of the Liberals to interfere with them. The Liberals said that surely these men should know what they were doing, and they delayed dealing with the matter. Honorable members assert that in the past legislation has always been on the side of the employer.

Mr Finlayson:

– Hear, hear !

Mr CONROY:

– The honorable member will be surprised when I point out that Henry I., in a law concerning the weavers of London, said that no one but themselves should introduce themselves into their creed; while in 1363 it was decreed that all artisan craftsmen should be joined in one trade only. Again, as far back as 1305, in the reign of Edward I., it was enacted - lt shall He a conspiracy for employers to combine together to lower wages or increase the hours of work or alter the hours of work to the detriment of the poor man.

It is utterly forgotten that a great deal of the legislation that was passed in early times aimed at the fixing of prices. In fact, the legislation in the past mainly consisted of fixing the labourer to the place in which he was born, and it was enacted that no man, unless he was receiving a certain amount per annum, could be allowed to apprentice his children to artificers. Fortunately for progress; with the free spirit that seemed to come over England for a time, a big body of men were able to throw themselves into everything without interference by the Government. It is only 120 years since the last of those restrictive Acts was passed in Great Britain. Over 200 various Acts had been passed regulating the conditions of life, and the very word “ outlaw “ originally referred to a man who was outside the union, craft, or guild law.

Mr Hannan:

– How were the workers regulated ?

Mr CONROY:

– They were regulated in the direction of fixing men in. the mode of life in which they were born. Trouble arose as soon as the unions called Parliament to help them. Immediately they become compulsory bodies instead of voluntary bodies, that moment trouble arises.

Mr Hannan:

– The system of those days is absolutely different from the system of to-day.

Mr CONROY:

– The honorable member thinks so’, but in each case when the unions sought the aid of the law these evils resulted. In the days of King Otto of Germany, about a thousand years ago, a number of men were outside the union laws because they were annoyed that the unions were charging them such heavy fees for interest, and they called upon the King, and said that they wanted to start work outside the unions. King Otto said, ‘” Certainly not; the unions were ordained by our fathers for the purpose that every man, by and through them, should get his living.” King Otto honestly believed that to be a fact. He did not realize that those free men were initiating the system of competition which was ultimately to be the power to lead to the progress of to-day. It is only during the last 120 years that competition has really begun. Before that time it was almost impossible for even a transcendental genius to rise. If a man belonged to a noble class he could get along, but, if not, it was extremely difficult for him to do so. True progress has been made only by sweeping away those old laws and customs; it has consisted in breaking down those old laws of compulsion which members on the Opposition side wish us to revert to. They forget that if we went back to those laws we would go back to the same conditions of slavery as then existed. We could not escape from that result. Competition may bring about certain evils, and it unquestionably has done so, and it is the duty of Parliament to see how far it can control what one may call the evils of the competitive system, and yet allow of a full development of the initiative of the people. Honorable members opposite seek, in the interests of humanity, as they say, to put down competition, because regulating every man in a union means regulating prices, regulating his dress, his food, the hour he shall rise, and the hours he shall work ; but let honorable members not forget that all that has been done before. It has been tried so many scores of times in so many different ages, amongst so many different nations, that, if there had been any way out of the morass into which they had plunged themselves, surely the ability of some man would have enabled them to find that way. But they never found a way out, and in the last 120 years more has been done for the development of the worker by competition than by anything else. Thanks to the gospel of competition, he, at last, can walk the streets without bowing down, cap in hand, to the nobleman who passes him by. Thanks to the gospel of competition, he can go abroad in the country as a free man, stay where he likes, and work where he likes, and when he likes. And yet honorable members, professing to be on the side of the worker, would bring him back to that slavery from which his soul has only recently escaped. Even Watt, the great inventor of the steam-engine, who, by developing mechanical pursuits, did more for human progress than any other man, was not allowed by the Guild of Glasgow to sell his invention there, because it was feared that it would displace men from their employment. So it is to-day; if the unions became compulsory bodies they would stop the march of progress, and everybody would sink back to the conditions of past ages. Can any honorable member point to an instance of progress having been made until the compulsory laws were broken down ? Has it happened in England, France, Germany, or even in older civilizations, such as India, Egypt, Babylonia, and Syria? Surely the characters of people have not changed so much; their fears, hates, and loves, all their passions and emotions, were much the same then as they are now, and if through all their histories advancement only came when they broke away from the trammels of the compulsory law, let us at least allow the voluntary system some chance of showing whether it can be operated successfully or not. I say that voluntary association does promote order and foster liberty.

Mr Arthur:

– And ends in Syndicalism.

Mr CONROY:

– Honorable members do not understand that, after all, there is only a certain wealth fund annually created, but by our system of confidence and credit one with another, we can make use of the wealth we have to a fuller and greater extent every day, according as that confidence increases. Honorable members who try to stimulate class hatreds are doing the most injury to the great masses of the people; they are, in effect, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. And a proverb like that would . never have sprung up except after misery untold had been experienced, not once or twice, but thousands of times, so that it became so notorious as to pass into a- proverb. If honorable members want another illustration, I can quote from the old ‘Biff Veda the advice given to a king of India, “ Take care, Oh King, not to oppress thy merchants with too heavy taxes, but, above all, drive not the tillers of the soil off the land by thy oppression. Them thou canst not restore.” By seeking, as some do, to develop the industrial trades at the expense of the great agricultural trades, honorable members are, in effect, seeking to do an injury that cannot be overcome. They do not show understanding of the fact that, until there is a development of all trades, there can be no true development a’t all, but honorable members must learn that, because, if they do not, they are not studying what is the best thing in the interests of the country. How easy it would be for members on this side to say, “ We, as a Parliament, can lighten your lot in life; return us, and there will be a haven of happiness for all.”

Mr Hannan:

– You do say that.

Mr CONROY:

– We say nothing of the sort. We say, “ Beware of Parliaments; they are a curse, and are swallowing up your substance. Unless you people do the work first, there can be no funds for us to take.” I say to them, “ Guard yourselves against Parliament. In times past tyrants and kings robbed you.” Parliament is robbing the people by taxes today, and we have to appeal to the intelligence of this country to prevent it. The whole force of the legislation of honorable members opposite seems to be directed towards increasing the burden of taxes on the people. After all, if the advancement of the country could come about through Parliament, what a foolish thing it is not to have three Parliaments in existence, working three eight-hour shifts. What a happy home Australia would be ! We should have three Parliaments - Labour Parliaments, of course - working eight-hour shifts, grinding out laws from day to day, regulating conditions, wages, and everything else, and, in the end, calling upon the worker to pay for them. That is the big injury Parliaments are doing to Australia. We are taking away the money of the people, and so surely as we spend it, so surely do we rob and deprive the man who has earned it of the right to spend it in his own way. I hold it as a cardinal principle that any man who earns money by the sweat of his brow, the use of his brains, or by the expenditure of capital, is entitled to every penny so earned. When Parliament deprives him of that right, it is taking away from him a large part of hia freedom; it is injuring the community as a whole, and destroying that confidence and credit which should belong to all sections of the community. If we depart from that principle, we tend to bring the nation to ruin. “ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods “; it is an eternal principle and a Divine commandment. Some honorable members on the Opposition side say, “ Let us stir up class hatred so that we may get into Parliament; punish the people; but allow us to have a parliamentary majority.” Is that the way to do away with all those feelings and class prejudices that have tended to keep down nations in times past? It is only by the observance of the eternal principles I have enunciated that there can be any true advancement in the life of a nation. As long as I and other members on this side are associated, we will always bear in mind that there is one law to hold fast to, and that is to preserve to every man his liberty of speech, his liberty of conscience, and the liberty to utilize his earnings. His liberty to utilize his earnings is at present being threatened. Unfortunately, in times past, the Liberal party have been up against the Tories of Labour. What are honorable members op’posite but Tories ? In the matter of militarism what are they doing but following the Tories in England ? Is there anything they can do in the way of legislative or administrative oppression that they have not attempted to do? They are the Tory party, and the fight of the people of Australia to-day is against the Tory party masquerading under the sacred name of Labour. That name should have been reserved for those who have fought and are fighting for the interests of Labour. I, and many others on this side of the House, are proud to dub ourselves “The Labour-Liberals of Australia,” because we know that we are fighting for the real interests of Labour. I can understand the loud guffaws of honorable members opposite. It is really absurd to speak to them of Labour having any rights. They talk of the rights of Labour, but invariably vote against them. In a thousand ways the Labour party have lost the right to the use of such a sacred name. The whole of their legislation has been contrary to the interests of Labour. We on this side must carry on the fight for liberty, whether it be against militarism - I refer not to the proper defence of the country, but to militant militarism - or legislation such as was abandoned ages ago by wise men as being calculated to do injury to the working classes. We shall do well on this side of the House to remember what the name “ Liberal “ means It means that we are a free party - a body of men united to fight for the freedom of every citizen.

Mr Arthur:

– It may mean that, but it is not actually so.

Mr CONROY:

– It is; and as long as we keep that goal in view we are likely to attain success. Our principle must be to “hitch our waggon to a star.” Parliaments, after all, are only big Committees of management, and where they attempt to correct the mistakes made as between one body of men and another, they often do injury. When Parliaments, by taxation, by interference of any sort, seek to regulate the worker, then, to that extent, they make him a slave. When they bind him down in the Courts they undoubtedly do so. We object to the use of the Courts in this respect. We are “fighting for the free man - for the unionist who wants to be a free . citizen, able to combine with -others in voluntary association, and seeking not the support of the law, because he knows that in the long run it will do injury not only to himself, but to the rest of the community.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

. - Whatever may happen to unionism as the direct result of this Bill, or any other legislation, the honorable member for Werriwa, who has just resumed his seat, will be able to say that he warned us sufficiently, and that he “ told us so.” He has prophesied ruin. He has cajoled the unionists. He has invited them to consider their operations and their methods. He has spoken in denunciation of the whole gamut of unionism, and he will be able to say, in the days to come, . whether the unions meet with disaster or success, “I prophesied in Parliament what would happen.” One statement made by him was interesting to me, because of its contradictoriness. He said, for instance, that all his advice, all the in formation he was supplying and the illustrations he was giving from history, were designed to be in the interests of the unions themselves. The unionists of Australia will be pleased to know that the honorable member has taken so much interest in them. Unfortunately, however, unionists for centuries have been accustomed to be told that some one knows better than they themselves do what is good for them. We have a clear recollection of the good old times when, the worker was told to fear God, honour the King, and be content with the sphere in which it had pleased the Almighty to place him. He was patted on the back, and told that he was a jolly good fellow as long as he tipped his hat to the squire and was content with the wages he received and the hours that he was asked to work. The honorable member for Werriwa indulged in a perfervid speech designed to show unionists that he is their friend, and that he knows better than they do what is good for them. He certainly used some remarkable arguments. In the first place, he said that Parliament should protect every man, and secure to him the full results of his labour. He went on to quote from ancient history to prove that unionists had been so protected. He quoted comparatively modern laws declaring that employers should not combine or conspire to lower the wages or lengthen the hours of the workers. But almost immediately afterwards he proceeded to denounce appeals to Parliament, declaring that the workers would do better to depend upon voluntary associations rather than upon the law to protect them. He urged that interference by Parliament in this respect was wrong, leading only to disaster, and that every attempt to rely upon the parliamentary institution to effect this purpose was altogether immoral.

Mr Conroy:

– I should have said that unemployment amongst the workers was never so great as in those days.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Here is yet another argument coming in. The honorable member at the outset declared his emphatic approval of the use of the parliamentary machine to protect the workers in the matter of wages and hours of employment. But in closing his speech he appealed to them to be, free citizens, acting independently of Parliament, and depending entirely upon voluntary association. One of the ~most peculiar and in- teresting parts of his speech was that in which he referred to compulsory unionism. He evidently overlooked the fact that if unionism were compulsory it would be ridiculous to ask for preference to unionists. The honorable member must recognise how idle it is for him to suggest that we are in favour of compulsory unionism when we declare for preference to unionists. The quotations which he made from ancient history told more against than in his favour. He declared that ancient history dealt with periods during which compulsory unionism was in active and effective operation - when men had no freedom to decide whether they would join a union or to which union they would belong. Does he not see that our position to-day is the exact antithesis of that - that so far from being in favour of compulsory unionism, we advocate preference to unionists, and that the two things are in no wise corelated ? Does he not recognise that they are really antagonistic? If every man belonged to a union no question of preference could arise. We say that there should be no compulsion on a man to join a union. We make no attempt to compel a man to join one. The doors of trade unions stand wide open to all who choose to enter. But we claim most emphatically that those who voluntarily join these unions shall have preference of employment.

Mr Conroy:

– If every man were in a union what would the honorable member do?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Then this question would no longer be acute, because the very strength of that union would compel preference.

Mr Conroy:

– There would be no advance in wages.

Mr FINLAYSON:

-Quite recently we have had in Australia a refusal on the part of certain unions to ask for preference. They have declared that by the strength of their own organization they will secure preference. And yet these unions are in no sense compulsory organizations. All the facts of ancient, as well as modern, history are opposed to the honorable member’s contention. The waterside workers to-day do not ask for preference at the hands of the Court. I do not know but what they would refuse to accept it from the Court. They say, in effect, “ By the strength of our own voluntary association we can secure preference.” And they do so. The whole purpose of this Bill, however, is to attack the very existence of the unions themselves. The honorable member for Werriwa, who has just interjected in regard to the matter of wages, told us a few minutes ago that the increase of wages that had taken place was not as great as it would have been without the unions.; It requires a tremendously vivid imagination to lead one. to believe that there is anything in that argument. The honorable member is asking too much of the workers when he calls upon them to believe that if they had not agitated and combined to secure betterment for themselves they would have been treated better than they have been. It requires, indeed, a tremendous stretching of one’s intelligence to make such, a suggestion. The honorable gentleman illustrated his contention by referring to the position of domestic servants and agricultural labourers. It is a satisfactory fact that great improvements have been made in both those avenues of employment; but those improvements are due to the fact that other avenues of employment have been made more attractive by reason of the advantages secured by the unions relating to them. Agricultural labourers and domes-: tic servants have been induced, in this way, to leave their original callings for other avenues of employment. Another reason for the improvement is the scarcity of labour. If there is anything in the law of supply and demand, then the rise in the wages of domestic servants and agricultural labourers is due to the supply of labour not being up to the demand.

Mr Fenton:

– And to unionism in other quarters.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Quite so. The honorable member for Werriwa suggested that the increase in the wages of domestic servants and agricultural workers was beyond the control of unions or Parliaments; that it was due really to an increase in the values of food products throughout the world. I am quite unable to follow the honorable member’s argument when I remember his contradictory statements in regard to the power of Parliament to increase wages, and the interference of Parliament to protect the workers. He told us that 120 years ago a man, unless he belonged to the noble class, had no hope of improvement. The increase in the wages of those engaged in’ ordinary avenues of employment - the ignoble classes, if I may use t-hat term without offence - is because, and solely because those people have realized that we have no business to be content with the sphere in which, it is said, God has placed us, but that we have an equal right, in the name of God, to demand a place in the sun with those who consider themselves above us. There we have the secret of the whole workers’ agitation and the principle on which we base our right to demand, not only through the unions and through Parliament, but by the use of every means the country affords, our right to the sunshine, to life and health, and the good things of the world, without any regard to whether we belong to one class or another.

Colonel Ryrie.- The only “right” there is the “right” of the man who has nothing.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The honorable member is absolutely correct, and he gives expression to a greater truth than he himself, perhaps, would be willing to admit. It is the man who has nothing who wants something; and is it not a fact that there are people in the world to-day who have nothing, and who cannot be denied the right equally with others to have a share of the’ good things of life? I deny the suggestion of the honorable member for North Sydney that there is a class in the community that is entitled to have everything, and one entitled to nothing.

Colonel Ryrie - I did not say that.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is the suggestion

Colonel Ryrie. - No; the honorable member is a champion twister of words !

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I have given considerable attention to the remarks of the honorable member for Werriwa; but we have had from him so much denunciation of anything and everything - of our party and of his own party - in the most free and unfettered way, that one may be excused for giving him special notice. I desire to congratulate the honorable member on having the courage to declare the policy of his party in regard to unionism. He told us that he does not agree with the Arbitration Acts, that he is in favour of strikes, and that he is no believer in political unionism. We on this side have repeatedly claimed that we are tho party of peace in industrial matters, and we have charged honorable members opposite, quite openly, with being the true Syndicalists. At last an honorable member opposite has had the courage to admit the true position; and I suppose that the truth, as it very often does, proves very inconvenient for some of his colleagues.

Mr Gregory:

– We have had a lot of peace lately, with strikes everywhere!

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The honorable member for Werriwa has given the answer to that; he has said he is in favour of strikes, because where there are no strikes slavery is the alternative. The honorable member for Dampier is sufficiently well read to know that where there is a cessation of agitation - where there is a weakening of the demand for the bettering and improving of things - there is an absolute and irresistible declension. Scientifically we can only advance or retrograde. There is no possibility of standing still, balancing is impracticable; and where there is a cessation or weakening in the demand for betterment there must of necessity be a going back. I am delighted to hear from the honorable member for Werriwa a most candid admission that he favours strikes, as a sign of progress, the alternative being, as he calls it, slavery. It is very satisfactory to hear an honorable member, who calls himself a Liberal, declaring himself against the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, because it tends to make unionists slaves, and that he is in favour of strikes because of the alternative. I confess that to me there seems much contradiction in the honorable member’s attitude; but there it is; and he is quite willing to make those statements and to stand by them. I should also like to congratulate the honorable member on his application to himself of the word “ Liberal.” Personally, I am quite willing to give honorable members opposite any rights they may claim to the use of the word. I further congratulate them on the fact that, in the early stages, when they first adopted this name - which is the latest of a string of names by which they have been known, and which may, in its turn, give place to another more or less popular - it was always printed in inverted commas. In the election of 1910, at any rate, the word was always so printed, notifying as clearly as possible that it was a quotation, an imported word, which did not belong to them, but to somebody else.

I play second to no one in my admiration of the old Liberal party in the Imperial Parliament; and I wonder what possible association in opinions or methods there can be found between such men as John Bright, Richard Cobden, or W. E. Gladstone, and those who now occupy the Treasury bench in this House. The suggestion that the word “ Liberal,” which represents such men as I have mentioned, can be identified with the Government and their supporters, has only to be mentioned to prove its absurdity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I cannot connect these remarks with the question before the Chair.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– It is the easiest thing in the world to connect my remarks with the question. I do not agree with everything that Mr. Gladstone said, and I have several grudges against him myself; but he was the honoured and unrivalled leader of a great party, and he declared that trade unions were the salvation of the country- were the one thing that stood by the workers, and could be depended on to elevate and improve their positions. Honorable members opposite not only utterly deny that fact, but their whole methods and operations, and the whole purpose of this Bill, is to deny unions the right to exist. The measure is intended to prohibit preference to unionists; but, before dealing with preference, I should like to say a word or two about unionists and unionism. All over the world to-day there is, undoubtedly, an attack being made on trade unionism, so that the Government of the Commonwealth are not alone in their attitude. In every country where unions are in operation there is a determined and active attempt to break them up. The strikes that are taking place in most parts of the world, and the strikes that have taken place within the last ten or twenty years - the industrial unrest that is, unfortunately, so prominent in the world to-day - revolves around this question. In 1911, I think, there was a great strike in the Old Country amongst the seamen, who claimed the recognition of their union, higher wages, and a conciliation board to settle disputes. The transport workers also had a strike, their grievances being low wages, long hours, and the refusal of the employers to recognise the union.The railway men struck, and their principal claim was for the recogni tion of their union as a means to a more effective and speedy betterment of conditions of labour. The Melbourne Herald of 25th August, 1913, stated that there were 5,000 painters on strike in London for1½d. per hour increase and a recognition of their union; and the same paper of the 26th of the same month contained the news that the electrical fitters and assistants in the employment of the Admiralty had struck as a protest against the employment of non-union painters. The Brisbane strike had the same basis. In the last speech I made on this subject I pointed out that it was the determination of the Tramway Company not to recognise the union that caused the trouble. If Mr. Badger, the tramway manager, had used the five words, “ I recognise the men’s union,” the strike would never have taken place. It is the denial of the right of the unions to exist -not only the voluntary, but the legal right; - that is causing the trouble in the world to-day. As I have said, there is an active and determined combination and agitation - whether due to an understanding amongst employers of labour I am unable to say - to break up the unions. Let me prove this by one or two illustrations. I have here a copy of the speech delivered by Mr. Blackwood, the President of the Victorian Employers Federation, before the British Constitution Association in England, in December, 1912. Referring to the Free Workers Union, which the Employers Federation have formed in Victoria, he said - the rules of these new unions are framed and maintained so as to guarantee that the original object is carried out - namely, to build up once more non-political trades unionism, also that the unions when created will not go over in a body to the socialistic political unions. One rule you will find gives a guarantee on this point, as it states that the independent unions shall not join or affiliate with the Trades Hall (the body with which all the socialistic unions affiliate), or any other body having political objects; and, further, that this rule can only be altered by the unanimous vote of those attending a properly convened meeting.

Honorable members must not overlook the fact that, in connexion with such unions the names of respectable men are entered on the books, and employment is found for them as soon as possible; but before taking up a job they must become members by paying1s., and promising to contribute 6d. per week per man. Here is an extract from the balance-sheet of a company in Queensland, which shows that a similar idea is in operation there, with a view to breaking up the men’s unions -

Hampden-Cloncurry Copper Mines Ltd., Friezland, via Cloncurry.

Dr. to W. Leighton, Friezland. Cheque No. 2035.

June 20 - To cost of advertising and preliminary expenses of Western Workers Industrial Association - £50.

Passed for payment,

Chairman.

Wa;)certify that the above sum waB expended for the benefit of the Hampden-Cloncurry Copper Mines Ltd. (Sgd.) Drummond, Accountant.

Erle Huntley, General Manager.

We had a remarkable exhibition of this in Dublin lately. May I read parts of an article that appeared in the Brisbane Standard on the 5th of this month, and consists of extracts from a letter received by Mr. L. English, the branch secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners -

For several months public attention centred on Dublin, where the Federated “Employers conceived the idea that to rid themselves of the inconvenience occasioned by strikes amongst members of the Irish Transport Workers Union it could be broken up by insisting as a condition of employment that members of that union should sign a document practically severing their connexion with it, whilst members of other organizations who catered for a similar class of labour were required to sign a pledge not to support the aforesaid union, either morally or financially, and to refrain from all and every Kind of militant action in respect to objectionable workmen or questionable material.

The seat of operation is now transferred to London, where, as far back as 1859, an attempt was made in the building trades to break up trade unions by the introduction of a document which men were required to sign, pledging themselves not to belong to any society that in any way, directly or indirectly, interfered with the rate of remuneration, hours of work, or any other arrangement between employer and the employed, no less than 225 firms joining in the lock-out to enforce the above conditions. . . . History repeats itself by a similar attempt on the part of the London builders to enforce the signing of a document as a condition of employment, which, _ if not in the same terms as the one of 1859, its effect would be the same had the men agreed to give the pledge required therein; and, in their refusal, they are certain of having the wholehearted approval of all trades unionists in this and every other country. . . . Owing to a threatened strike for improved conditions of labour on the railways-

The reference is to the recent South African trouble - supported by other organized bodies of workmen, martial law was declared, trade union meetings prohibited, and books and documents confiscated, many of the officials being sent to prison, and nine of them (of which are included two of our own members) deported out of the country and sent as prisoners to England, where they have safely landed and received a hearty welcome from trade unionists and friends of labour generally.

That is one side of the picture. There has been a deliberate attempt in Dublin and in South Africa quite recently to repeat the coercion of 1859, with a view te compelling men to leave trade unions, and to create opposition by the formation df antagonistic societies. Here is the other side of the picture - the quotation is from the Christian Commonwealth of 12th November of last year. It is headed, “Prom bad to worse “ -

The Daily Citizen rendered the Labour cause a signal service last week by publishing the text of a circular sent by the Shipping Federation to the various employers’ associations, inviting them to contribute towards a fund of £50,000 in support of the Dublin employers. Secrecy was an essential condition of this appeal, and Mr. Cuthbert Laws, the general manager of the Shipping Federation, who signed the circular, did not exaggerate when he remarked that publicity for the proposals, unless and until they were adopted, would result in injury rather than benefit to the employers in Dublin. A more open and flagrant exposure of the employers’ gain could not well be made. Hereare thousands of women, children, and men. starving in the Irish capital, notwithstanding the generous support of their British trades unions comrades, and all that the employers are concerned to do was to raise sufficient money to carry on a campaign of starvation against them. To fight their battle at the expense of other people is what the Irish employers have been doing for a generation in Dublin, and it is time that other considerations were forced upon their attention by a superior authority.

Coming now to South Africa, let me read something that appeared in the Adelaide Herald of the 13th January last -

The Commission appointed to inquire into the riots on the Band last summer issued its report last month. After expressing regret that the miners’ organizations boycotted the inquiry, the Commissioners explained that 200 witnesses - representative of all classes - were examined. They dealt separately with the differences between the New Kleinfontein Gold Company and its employes, and observed, “ It was due almost entirely to the refusal of the mine management to meet the representatives of the men that the solution as regards the dismissal of the five men became impossible, and that this led to the further complications, which eventually culminated in a general strike.”

The evidence proves that by every possible means the employers have tried to prevent their employes from forming unions, and, where unions have been formed, to break them up, even by the encouragement of antagonistic unions. I shall not quote extensively again from the judgment of Mr. Justice Higgins in the Tramway case, hut I should like to read a paragraph of that judgment -

I have no difficulty in finding they have granted indulgencies . privileges, benefits, attractions of all sorts to men to retire from the union, and that they have encouraged and bolstered up rival unions - what the men call the “ company’s union “ - in order to injure the men’s union. From the point of view of the companies, the endeavours to stifle unionism may seem justifiable, but from the point of view of this Court the endeavours cannot be treated as legitimate or reasonable.

Al the time of the Brisbane strike, the wearing of a badge was a matter greatly in dispute, and Mr. Badger, the manager of the Brisbane Tramways Company, refused to allow the tramway men to wear the union badge, stating that it would cause action by the public which might result in harmful treatment of the nonunionists; that the public might be so dissatisfied with those who did not wear the badge that they would pay them unpleasant attentions. Mr. Justice Higgins, referring to this matter in his judgment, says -

What causes the abusive language is the antipathy between unionists and non-unionists - an antipathy which would exist whether there is a badge in use or not. What causes the antipathy is mainly the favoritism shown by the companies to the non-unionists, as well as the aid which the non-unionists afford to the companies in their efforts to paralyze the union.

It is a remarkable fact, and somewhat amusing, that the man who refused to allow the Brisbane tramway employes to wear the union badge, on the ground that it would cause unfair discrimination, permitted the drivers and conductors to wear the colours of a certain political party at the following State election. The unionists made no objection to this, thinking that if the public chose to take notice of it, well and good. Mr. Badger himself had his car decorated with blue ribbons, the colours of the Liberal party, and spent the day in driving voters to and from the poll.

Mr Riley:

– What success had he?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The Liberal candidate won in the electorate in which Mr. Badger worked ; but the ten metropolitan constituencies which had formerly returned only two Labour representatives returned six Labour representatives, Mr. Badger’s unfair discrimination consolidating the union vote against him, although his action in allowing tramway employes to wear the Liberal colours gained no ad vantage for him. Ministers and their supporters may denounce unions and preference, the political use of union funds, the rules for the admission of members, and the methods, aims, and operations of unionism, but they can no more break up trade unions, or put a stop to unionism, or prevent unionists from using Parliament, the Arbitration Court, and other institutions to further their ends, than they can prevent the sun from rising to-morrow morning. In further support of my statement that the endeavour of the employers to break up trade unions is world-wide, let me give an American illustration, which, perhaps, is the strongest of all. This is what the Age of the 25th August of last year published, as received from its San Francisco correspondent -

Australia and New Zealand have been spared a biased and one-sided investigation of the relations existing between capital and labour in those countries, due to the timely publication of serious allegations of corruption against the National Association of Manufacturers. That organization is composed of men whose chief wish in life is to destroy the labour unions. With the undisguised purpose of seeking to gather information showing that the activity of the union in Australasia lias been detrimental to ex-presidents of the Association, David M. Parry and John Kirby, junior, were on’ the point of taking boat from San Francisco last Thursday when they were stopped by a telegraphed subpoena, requiring them to proceed at once to Washington and testify regarding charges that the Association has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in influencing legislation and elections. The charges they are going back to endeavour to refute are contained in the confession of a former employs of the National Association of Manufacturers, M. M. Mulhall, who told in detail of spending large sums of money on behalf of the Association to influence legislation and the election of Congressmen. Probably it is an excellent thing for Australia and New Zealand that the proposed “investigation” by these extreme antiLabourites has been nipped in the bud. They were going on their quest with none of the open-mind attitude that should be the chief requisite of an investigation, and .almost avowedly with the purpose of picking holes in systems in vogue in the Commonwealth and the Dominion for settling industrial quarrels. Their conclusions could not have been anything but misleading, and possibly harmful. That Messrs. Parry and Kirby have prejudged the case , against organized labour, and are therefore out of court as investigators, is shown by their reference to the chief labour organization in the country, as “ the greatest criminal trust this country has ever known.”

It is stated that the story of Mulhall directly involves -

Kirby and Parry and their activity during their terms as president of the National Association of Manufacturers. This Association consists essentially of a club of millionaires, who have always fought for the “open shop,” but not always with clean hands, if Mulhall is to be believed. From 1903 to 1912 Mulhall was what was known as the “field agent” of the Association, and its chief lobbyist. During that time he states he expended more than £40,000 of the Association’s money in lobbying work and in electoral campaigns, all with the object of breaking up the unions.

That is verified by the statement of Mr. Samuel Gompers, the President of the American Federation of Labour, and the strongest figure in the American Labour movement. He says that -

A man named Broughton Brandenburg, the author of several books, who is now a convict in Sing Sing, came to him and represented himself as in charge of a bureau of the National Association of Manufacturers, organized to “ expose the dishonesty and immorality of the leaders in the Labour movement.” He wanted Gompers to issue an “ exposure “ of the Labour leaders and then retire from the presidency. “ My object in coming to you is to say I want to save you,” Brandenburg is quoted as saying to Gompers, “ I want to save you, and while I do not want to say in specific financial terms what the National Association of Manufacturers is willing to do, yet I can guarantee that you will be financially safe for the rest of your life.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have been endeavouring for some little time to connect the honorable member’s observations with the motion before- the Chair, but, although the debate has proceeded on very broad lines, I think that he is somewhat wide of the question, and I ask him to direct his remarks more closely to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– My remarks may have been somewhat wide of the question of preference to unionists in Government employ, but the Government have stated that the Bill is really to cover the whole position of unionism and the right of unionists to preference. The Bill is certainly a covert attack on unionism, and an open attack on the principle of preference to unionists, which comes well from the Attorney-General, who is an active member of the Bar Association, whose rules, methods and operations not only secure a very strong and rigid form of unionism, but insist on a very specific and well-guarded system of entry, which provides absolute monopoly, as well as preference, to the members of the Association. The Bill, while professing to deal only with casual employment in the Service of the Commonwealth and unionists in the Commonwealth employ, really opens up the whole question of the right of unionists to claim preference and of any person to prohibit them in the exercise of that demand. Some say the measure is a hollow sham; others advise us that it is a waste of time to discuss the measure - we are told ° so in the columns of the press - but I refuse to accept that advice, because I give the Government some credit for putting forward the Bill as an important measure. In their opinion, the measure is of sufficient importance to warrant the GovernorGeneral’s dissolving both Houses of Parliament. As to whether the GovernorGeneral will deem the measure, or the question of what class of men shall be> employed in Government activities, sumciently important to warrant that course remains to be seen ; but we have this fact before us, that the AttorneyGeneral, well secured behind a rigid form of unionism, which not only altogether removes the matter of preference from the sphere of questioning, but also absolutely guarantees -the members of the union a monopoly of work, has the courage to bring down to the House a Bill which seeks to interfere with the work of men employed on casual work in the Commonwealth Service. If it is the intention of the Government that the measure shall deal only with Commonwealth employes, I might be content with saying that it will not accomplish what it is intended to do, because Ministers have already, by administrative act, done a certain measure of which it proposes to do ; but here is where it must utterly fail. In the future the Commonwealth must employ men to carry out its works, and by any law they choose to put into operation Ministers will not be able to prohibit the employment of unionists in the carrying out of those works. Indeed, they will be unable to prevent preference to unionists being given - because there are certain callings, trades, crafts and industries to which Ministers must give their attention, in which the unions will be so strong that they will be in the position to demand preference - and why should Ministers handicap themselves by carrying this Bill, which will prevent them from employing these men ? Otherwise they will need to form organizations to break up the trade unions and prevent! preference to unionists being given. Are the Government prepared to take on that job! Are they prepared to say straight out thai, if necessity arises, they will create an agitation against trade unions, and try to break them up, or that they will form other organizations to break up trade unions and take the place of trade unionists in Government employ ? That is the only alternative. The attitude of Ministers is a reflection on the unions. I have in my possession a report of the annual conference of the dried fruits industries, held at Adelaide early in e> this year. Referring to political unionism, the report says -

It was felt by the growers that, in view of the fairly large expenditure of money which was willingly subscribed by the association growers each year for the carrying on of this association in their interests, the outside growers were reaping an unfair advantage in refusing to share in these burdens, and steps will bc taken during the year to explain the methods of the working of this association more fully to some of the outside districts, with the hope that they may be induced to throw in their lot with their fellow growers in the association, whose interests were identical with theirs.

That would be something in the nature of a reasonable invitation to those outside this association to join, but the individual members of the association were not so careful in their statements. For instance, Mr. R. Atkinson, who directs the fruit interests of Frazer, Ramsay Proprietary Limited, stated -

It is imperative that all dried fruit producers who are at present outside the association should be compelled to join.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Mildura. I would, like to show the Government that the employers and employes engaged in the fruit industry at Mildura are decidedly in favour of the principle of preference. Giving evidence before the Fruit Commission, Mr. C. J. de Garis, a packer in that district, was asked -

Do you think a wholesale fruit distributing association should stick to your association, and give preference over those who go back on the conditions? - Undoubtedly.

Then you. believe in preference to unionists? - I have never said anything against preference to unionists. Where unionism is animated by the desire to protect industry, free from political motive, I am with it, hand and glove.

Does the principle of preference to unionists appeal to you as a unionist? - As a nonpolitical unionist.

It is most important to notice how carefully those opposed to preference to unionists try to protect themselves by hiding behind the wall of non-political unions. This witness was also asked -

You say that you are non-political, but you asked us this afternoon to recommend the passing of an Act of Parliament to fix prices? - Yes, but in the interests of the fruit industry.

The honorable member for Werriwa was very enthusiastic in his denunciation of appeals to Acts of Parliament, but in the next breath the honorable member said that there was only one way in which the men could protect themselves. So it will be found that in every industry, prominently in the dried fruit industry, the employers and employes favour preference, “ and are consistent in also believing in preference to unionists. It is a subject of common complaint among those who have to employ union labour - the honorable member for Werriwa referred to it - that they do not get the same results as from non-union labour. They say that the Government are fully justified in securing the best labour they can. They claim that if the non-union labour is better than union labour the non-unionist is entitled to some preference, because ability must be the determining factor. Mr. Thomas Charles Rawlings, fruit-grower, and chairman of the Irrigation Trust at Mildura, in giving evidence before the Fruit Commission, said, in reply to questions -

You stated that the cost of harvesting and drying fruit was £6 per ton. How many years has the price been £6 per ton? - I have contracted at that price for twelve or fourteen years ago.

Then really the labour cost of harvesting and drying fruit has not increased during the past decade? - It has increased very little, if any, because we have better methods of doing the work than we had then.

So that, in spite of the fact that your wages have gone up 33 per cent., the cost of harvesting and drying your fruit has not increased? - It has not increased to any extent. As I have said, wo have better methods of doing the work, and I also think we have a better class of men to do our work, taking them on the whole. It pays a good man to come along and to do the work; he is well paid for doing ‘ it.

Has your experience been that higher wages means higher efficiency? - In that respect there is no doubt it is so. There is one trouble, and that is if we have a gang of ten men as packers there might be nine good men and one bad one amongst them, usually called a “ magpie “ ; that is, a man who considers it is his destiny to talk and not to work; such a man will spoil a gang unless you can get rid of him quickly.

A good deal of platform oratory is expended by honorable members opposite in regard to the rural workers’ log. They claim the agricultural workers should by every possible means be prevented from approaching the Arbitration Court in order to get awards dealing with their conditions of labour. If the Government mean to limit the operations of unionism they had an honest, honorable, and upright course to take instead of trying - what they must fail to do by the very circumstances of the case - to prevent the employment of unionists or the giving of preference to them in Government employment. That honest course they could have taken was to seek to alter the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which gives the Court the power to award preference to unionists. It may be of interest to know how the awards of Mr. Justice Higgins have operated in the case of the dried fruits industries. Mr. Rawlings, in giving evidence, was asked -

Have you had any complaints against the arbitration award of Mr. Justice Higgins? - No; if the men arc willing to work they can earn that money.

Generally speaking, have you any complaints against the men? - None at all. We have a better class of men now than we have ever had.

Have your profits increased the past ten years? - No, they have decreased.

Have your net returns for fruit decreased during the past ten years? - In the early stages, before we had a combination among ourselves, we were being ruined. In 1894 was the first year we had anything worth putting on the market, and we had no combination amongst the growers. Every man hawked his own fruit or sent to Dick, Tom, or Harry in Melbourne. The consequence was the fruit was brought down to 1 1/2 d. per lb.

He was further asked -

Are the whole of the growers in your co- . operative association? - No; I am sorry to say there are one or two “ scabs,” who seek to gain the advantages without taking any of the liabilities, which they have successfully done up to the present. There are only one or two of them, but if the number increased 1 to any extent it would mean that the whole concern would collapse, and in seeking their own interest they would cause the fall of us all.

This gentleman and every other fruitgrower who gave evidence expressed almost an intense desire for Parliament to protect them in their operations. Those are the gentlemen who decry political unionism, and yet the whole tendency to-day is to ask Parliament to give them protection. For instance, I have here, in the evidence of Mr. de Garis, question 32,949 -

When you mentioned an Act of Parliament to fix the retail prices, you evidently have faith that an Act of Parliament could fix the retail prices. What provisions would be in the Act so far as the retailer is concerned? - That the fruit should be Australian fruit; that the price at which the buyer should buy should be the price at which he could buy imported fruit from the distributor. Those would be the two main conditions. and then question 32,953 to the same * witness -

You have faith in an Act of Parliament . being able to effectively fix the prices? - That is correct.

And so on. I have not time to further quote from this evidence, but I may be excused for referring to one or two matters which, I think, are of some importance. I have pointed out proof that not only can the Arbitration Court make an award that is satisfactory to the growers themselves, but that preference to unionists, not only amongst workers, but amongst employers also, leads to the very best results. There is better work from the men and better results to the employers. Although wages have risen, the introduction of better methods and the effect of increased wages in securing better employes and more satisfactory work, has resulted in a gratifying increase all round. And so far from the award of the Arbitration Court having caused any difficulty or created any disturbance, there have been peace and satisfaction and a better spirit prevailing between employes and employers as a result of that award. I remember that when an award was announced it was stated in the press, almost in tears that one could see, that the award would ruin the industry, just as honorable members on the Government side are saying now that any award in the rural industry would ruin it. The facts of the case are against’ that statement, and if the Government were sincere in this matter, and really meant business, they would make an honest effort to attack the Arbitration Act, and, not by a side issue attempt to do what they are afraid to do honestly and openly. In regard to preference to unionists, one thing of which we are sure, is that the employers during the whole history of the trade union movement have never hesitated to give preference to non-unionists as a means of . breaking up the unions. I have referred to the fact that they have on occasions demanded, before they would give employment, the signing of documents in which the man undertook not to join a recognised trade union or affiliate himself with any political body. I read last week, from The Church in the New Age, by the Rev. Henry Carter, a document which was used in 1851. I desire to extend that quotation by this further passage by the same author -

Union after union collapsed as withdrawal from its membership became the sine qua non of employment. Leave the union or starve, was a virtual but crushing alternative.

Nor was the arm of the law left un invoked. Public opinion would not permit repeal of the Acts of 1824-1825, but legal subtlety found another way of repression. The classic instance is the trial of the Dorchester labourers in 1834. Hunger, and despair of better times, led the agricultural labourers of the Southern counties to organize and claim higher wages. At first successful, they secured an advance to 10s. a week, but, a year after, the farmers in the neighbourhood of Tolpuddle, a village near Dorchester, reduced the rate of hire shilling by shilling till their unhappy serfs were receiving only 7s. weekly. In distress, the labourers inquired about the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, and obtained a visit of two of its delegates to their village. A “ Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers “ was formed under their guidance, and arrangements made for the initiatory rites of its “ Grand Lodge.” The farmers placarded the village with warnings that any who joined the union were liable to transportation. Events proved the threat to be no empty one. George Loveless and five other labourers were arrested. No charge was brought other than taking the initiatory oath of their “ Lodge,” an act held to be illegal under an obscure and almost forgotten Statute. The men were of good character, two of them Methodist local preachers. Yet, after a brief trial, they were actually sentenced to seven years’ transportation, and the next month sailed as convicts to Botany Bay!

Mr Poynton:

– Although they were reprieved afterwards, some of them never heard of the result.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– We have evidence, in Tasmania particularly, of men deported as convicts because they had been impertinent enough to gather a few of their fellows in their homes in order to discuss matters relating to their employment. In 1867, it is stated by the Rev. Henry Carter, during the great strike of London tailors, the masters posted up a notice, “ Good hands wanted; no unionists need apply.” Let me repeat that all the facts of history go to prove that it is because of the fact that not only by individual acts, but by combinations sup ported by Acts of Parliament, the law has been used against trade unionists in every age of industrial history, that the workers have been driven into combinations, secret or otherwise - secret when they were compelled to be so, but open and honest when they were not harassed by the law. All along they have’ had to fight, not only the employers, but also the use made of the law against them. To be a unionist a few years ago was to be branded as a criminal, and to ask for preference to unionists was to demand a privilege unreasonable and unthinkable in a free country. But events move rapidly in this world. An agreeable change has come over the spirit of the dream within the last few years. People are realizing to-day, as men have realized and honestly expressed in this House, that the only hope of industrial peace, and the only satisfactory way out of the industrial unrest at present existing in the world, is by recognising the right of men to have their unions, and all the advantages that result from those unions, and by recognising the further fact that the men who refuse to associate themselves with their fellows, and stand aside in a selfish attittude, neglecting and refusing the responsibilities and obligations of association, have no rights to the benefits that result from such association.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- I happen to be one of those members who do not care to make any distinction, in a community like ours, between those engaged in the Government service and those employed outside that service. Unlike some honorable members on the opposite side, I fail to see how, because a member of the community engages in casual employment under the Government, he is a different kind of being from those engaged in work under a contractor or in other private employment. I see no difference at all between employing workers directly under the Government, and employing them under a contractor or some other person, and paying them Government money indirectly. Those who are engaged under the Government are taxpayers and citizens, and are called upon to obey the laws of the country just the same as those outside the Government employ. I have always failed to see - and, perhaps, this comes home to me more than to other honorable members, because I was for seven years a Government employe - why people can argue that because a man belongs to the Government Service he should be deprived of certain privileges. I am glad that this Parliament has decreed by regulation that those engaged in the Public Service of the Commonwealth are entitled, equally with their fellow-citizens, to take a part in political affairs. I am proud to belong to a Parliament that allows that privilege to the Public Service. Unfortunately, to employes under the State Governments that privilege is not accorded.

Mr Poynton:

– Recently in South Australia a circular was sent out instructing Government employes that they were not to take any part in politics, either State or Federal.

Mr FENTON:

– I think that sort of thing emanates from the Premiers’ Conference, because in this State we have had the Premier posting up notices in every Department, notices that bore no signature, that any public servant engaging in political concerns would be liable to a fine or to be degraded or dismissed. In the Federal Service we have’ got beyond the narrow limits which the States seem to have adopted.

Mr West:

– Their attitude is quite consistent.

Mr FENTON:

– It is quite consistent with Conservatism, but it is confining the political capabilities of men and women in the service within very narrow, limits. I believe that the honour of introducing that principle into the Commonwealth Service belongs ‘to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, who, as a Minister of a previous Administration, issued a minute to his Department that every man in the service was entitled to take a full share of political responsibility and an interest in political affairs. I am one of those who believe in putting the man inside the Government Service on the same footing as the man outside, because he is a citizen, and worthy to be intrusted with those privileges. I referred to my own connexion with the Public Service, and I remember that, after coming direct from the country, where I had served my apprenticeship, my first employment in Melbourne was in the Government Printing Office. I was hardly fairly settled down at my frame before the steward approached me and asked me if I was a member of the Melbourne Typographical Society. I told him that I had lodged with the secretary my papers, showing that I had served my apprenticeship, and had qualified to become a journeyman printer, and I had paid my entrance fee. He said that he had no evidence that I was a member ; but at lunch time he went to the Trades Hall, and on returning said, “ It is all right; you were made a member at a Board meeting last week.” Nothing more was said; but the significant way in which the question was put to me gave me to understand, as a youngster just green from the country, that, unless I had become a member of the society, there was likely to be trouble in the Government Printing Office. That happened in a Government Department long before there was a Federal Parliament in existence, and a considerable time before any Labour member had found his way into the State Parliament. So that honorable members will see ihat what we are blamed for now, viz., the giving of preference to unionists, and insisting on a man becoming a unionist, was in operation long before a Labour member came into Parliament. I am glad to know that those members who nave since entered Parliament are prepared to take action similar to what was taken in those days.

Very much has been said on the opposite side of the House about the inefficiency of the workmen of to-day. I have had it on the best of authority that the Australian workman stands head and shoulders above any workman in any other part of the world. And that statement has been made by men who have had experience of workmen all over the world. In reply to those who complain sometimes of lack of efficiency on the part of the workers, I would say that such a thing occurs more often among the employing than among the employed class. If we could investigate various business concerns in Australia we should find that there are more inefficient employers than inefficient workmen.

I do not propose to read the definition of the term “ preference to unionists in Government employment,” as laid down by the Fisher Ministry, since it has already been quoted many times. I would remind honorable members, however, of the carefully prepared series of questions which was submitted by Mr. Deakin, then Leader of the Opposition, to the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Fisher - a list which had probably been drawn up by the honorable gentleman, in conjunction with other lawyers. To those questions the right honorable member for Wide Bay replied to the effect that “ other things being equal,” preference would be given to unionists in casual Government employment. Later on the honorable member for Darwin, who was then Minister of Home Affairs, stated in this House during the discussion of the New Works and Buildings Estimates on 9th August, 1912, that he was carrying out the principle as defined by his leader. He read the answers given by the present Leader of the Opposition to the questions put by Mr. Deakin, and said that he was observing them. It is recognised in most Parliaments that the policy of a Government can be announced only by its leader, and a policy statement so made is invariably accepted, not only in the British House of Commons, but in the Legislatures of other countries. A minute or a regulation framed by an individual Minister cannot be construed as representing the policy of a Government if it be contrary to its policy as declared by the leader. As I have said, the right honorable member for Wide Bay informed Mr. Deakin that, other things being equal, preference to unionists would be given in respect of casual employment in the Government service.

Mr Sampson:

– That statement was repudiated later by the then Minister of Home Affairs.

Mr FENTON:

– The announcement was made by the honorable member for Wide Bay in August, 1912.

Mr Sampson:

– And the repudiation was made, I think, in September, 1912.

Mr FENTON:

– The question arose, if 1 remember rightly, as the result of the. placing on the table of the House a contract to which was attached an intimation that absolute preference was to be given to unionists. The contract involved an expenditure of £2,000 or £3,000. The then Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. King O’Malley, having read the questions addressed to the Prime

Minister by Mr. Deakin, and the replies thereto, went on to say - l am absolutely carrying out that system. When I first gave preference to unionists, other things being equal, my* instructions were not complied with. Then I issued the order that there was to be absolute preference to unionists, which meant that the first order must be carried out. Absolute preference to unionists means exactly what it says - other things being equal. But there is not to he preference to non-unionists, and they are not to refuse to carry out my absolute orders.

Mr Sampson:

– How could “ absolute” preference to unionists mean “ other things being equal?”

Mr FENTON:

– I admit that Gilbert and Sullivan might have founded a comic opera on these words.

Mr Groom:

– Is not the word “ absolute “ used in the Labour programme?

Mr FENTON:

– No; we have adopted the words inserted in *the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the Liberal Government - “ preference shall be given to unionists, other things being equal.”

Mr Groom:

– Those words do not occur in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr Riley:

– The President of the Court has power under the Act to grant preference.

Mr Groom:

– That is so.

Mr FENTON:

– He has power to grant preference to unionists, other things being equal.

Mr Tudor:

– I think that the present Minister of Trade and Customs helped to frame the clause in question.

Mr FENTON:

– Quite so. Politics were then far more mixed than they are to-day. The present Prime Minister took part in the discussion to which I was referring when interrupted. He said -

Does the policy, as declared by the Prime Minister, still obtain?

The reference was to the policy of preference to unionists, other things being equal, and the Hansard report of the debate proceeds as follows: -

Mr Fisher:

– Yes.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– There has been no variation ?

Mr Fisher:

– No.

Later on in the same debate the right honorable member for Wide Bay interjected whilst the honorable member for Parramatta was speaking -

The policy of the Government is preference to unionists, other things being equal.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– ThenI hope that the language which has been referred to will be taken out of the terms of contract at the earliest possible moment, since it misrepresents the Government policy.

Mr Sampson:

– And the Minister of Home Affairs said that he took his instructions from no one - that he ran his own circus.

Mr.FENTON..- I believe that that statement was made at an earlier date. The honorable member for Laanecoorie, Dr. Carty Salmon, followed the present Prime Minister in the debate, and pointed out that State Governments had taken the wise precaution of providing in all contracts for the recognition of the union log trade. Even Conservative State Governments have recognised that the trade union log shouldbe observed in connexion with Government contracts. The Labour party went a step - and a natural step - further by declaring that there should be preference to unionists, other things being equal.

The honorable member for West Sydney quoted yesterday the drastic rules of the Bar Association . They are now recorded in the pages of Hansard, and the people of the Commonwealth will have an opportunity for the first time of reading them for themselves. The Attorney-General, who is a member of this Association, has gone further than I think some of his colleagues would go in declaring that he would wipe out altogether the granting of even a legal preference to unionists. On the 14th August, 1913, speaking on the debate upon the Address-in-Reply in this House, he said -

IfI had my own wayI would say that Parliament should wipo off the statute-book as the ugliest blot ever put upon it n provision which enables a legal tribunal to grant a legal preference to unionists in any shape.

Mr Riley:

-And he, as a legal man, grants preference to himself?

Mr FENTON:

– Quite so. The AttorneyGeneral belongs to one of the most exclusive unions in the world.

Mr Arthur:

– And one of the most beneficent.

Mr FENTON:

– I shall not say that. The members of the Bar Association know exactly what to charge the public, and have hedged themselves about with various safeguards. They may charge their clients certain fees, and may do practically as they like in the conduct of any case with which they are intrusted. If a barrister who belongs to the Bar Asso ciation mishandles a case, there is no redress for the aggrieved client. A member of the Bar Association has practically a free hand, and his client has no redress if he “ mulls “ his case. No court would entertain a charge made against a barrister that he had so badly handled a case intrusted to him as to do injury to his client. On the other hand, if a working man carries out his duties in a slovenly way, then, whether preference has been granted to him or not, he can be sent about his business, and in some cases even damages may be recovered against him for neglect. Our legal friends of the Bar Association, however, are perfectly safe. They may almost take away with impunity the character of not only the party whom they are opposing, but other individuals. And the Attorney-General, who says that he would be glad to wipe away preference to unionists - even the legal preference under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act - is a member of the Bar Association. There are two strong unions in Australia to-day, members of which are employed by the Government from time to time. These unions are, first, the legal profession or Bar Association; and, second, the British Medical Association; and we ought to see exactly how the members of these bodies stand in relation to the general community. Yesterday morning I asked the Minister of External Affairs a question in regard to the Marconi case, which has been hanging fire for some time, and he informed me that so far as he knows, the Crown Solicitor is engaging counsel. Now, I venture to say that neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister of External Affairs would dare, in this connexion, to give a brief to any member of the legal profession who is not also a member of the Bar Association; and, therefore, at the present time, this Government are actually giving preference to unionists. The Attorney-General is not only a member of the Bar Association, but is also a member of the Council of the Association, which has the duty of dealing with any member who may commit an offence, and who may, in consequence thereof, be put; out of the profession. There are similar rules in the legal profession in every other part of the world. In Victoria, barristers and solicitors are amalgamated, but in England barristers have the exclusive right to appear in the superior Courts., and he must be a member of the Inns of Court, the Inner and Middle Temples, Gray’s Inn, and, in Ireland, the King’s Inn. These rules date back to the 13th century, so that it will be seen that the union is very old, with firmly planted roots, and of great strength. We are told -

The benchers of the different Inns of Court have the right of rejecting any applicant for membership with or without cause assigned and for sufficient reasons, subject to an appeal to the Common Law Judges as visitors to the Inns. They may refuse to call a student to the Bar, or may expel from their society or from the profession even barristers or benchers.

As to King’s Counsel, we are informed, on good authority -

A King’s Counsel may not, unless by special licence, take a brief a.gainst the Crown, but such a licence is never refused unless the Crown desires his services in the case.

I hold that when we have, as a prominent member of this House, and of the Government, a member of the legal profession, and the country requires his services, all the other briefs he holds should be dropped, and he should devote himself to safeguarding the interests of the Crown.

Mr.Arthur. - But supposing hehas been engaged in the other cases for years ?

Mr FENTON:

– I understand that a retainer can be dropped at any time; at any rate, I hold that the Crown should have the first call on the service of a King’s Counsel.

Mr Archibald:

– The Crown does not use any call of the kind.

Mr FENTON:

– I am speaking, not so much of an ordinary King’s Counsel, but of one who happens to be AttorneyGeneral, and who ought, in my opinion, to give the Crown a prior right to his services. Section 10 of the Legal Professions Amalgamation Act of Victoria, which was assented to on the 23rd November, 1891, is as follows -

After the passing of this Act no person shall be admitted to practise as a barrister or a solicitor solely, but every person admitted by the Supreme Court shall be admitted both as a barrister and solicitor.

There is, of course, no such law in the Old Country, where the professions are not amalgamated. I point out that here, in Victoria, a barrister and solicitor gets his license to practice as such from the Supreme Court; but if a client desired that his solicitor should also appear as his counsel in the higher Court, it would be found that, although he is fully qualified by law, no member of the Bar Association would appear with him; indeed, such refusals to act have occurred. I know of a Doctor of Law in Victoria, who practises here as a barrister and solicitor, and who desired to get on the barristers’ list for New South Wales. He asked a barrister friend to advise him how to proceed, but the friend expressed his sorrow that he could not give him any advice on the subject, being bound, as he was, by the rules of the Bar Association. I can understand the honorable member for Bendigo, and honorable member for Batman, both of whom are barristers, being opposed to the proposal contained in this Bill, but the position taken up by the Attorney-General, who is a member of the most exclusive union that we have, is, in my opinion, neither fair, logical, nor charitable. To use a phrase often usedin legal circles he is. as a member of that strong union, entirely “ out of court,” particularly when we remember that the Bar Association of Victoria, in view of the provision in the Act of 1891, has been breaking the law for over twenty years.

Mr Arthur:

– It is not breaking the law.

Mr FENTON:

– If the Bar Association does not break the law it connives at the breaking of the law. I feel quite sure that if the Attorney-General had been instrumental in passing a law which applied to ordinary people, and they persisted in ignoring it to such extent as to constitute practically a violation, he would ‘ have those people charged and duly punished.

Mr Arthur:

– If there is a violation of the law any one is entitled to prosecute. Why is there no prosecution?

Mr FENTON:

– We cannot get anybody to undertake the prosecution.

Mr Arthur:

– There is the honorable member for Kooyong.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member for Kooyong belongs to another branch of the profession; and we know that a legal practitioner in Victoria has to declare in which branch he will exclusively practice.

Sir Robert Best:

– I did not do anything of the kind; it would be a fraud on the law.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member was admitted prior to the Act of 1891.

Mr Ahern:

– That makes no difference.

Mr FENTON:

– So the honorable member says. The point is mentioned over and over again.

The attitude of our opponents’ journals sometimes gives us a glimpse of what is passing through the minds of the politicians they support, and I have here an extract from the Sydney Morning Herald, of 6th February, 1913, which I should like to read. In a leading article we find the following : -

We are, of course, not living in any Oceana or other imaginary Commonwealth, and it is perhaps to be expected that whatever party is in power, other things being equal, men> who belong to that party, are known to members of the Government and appreciated by them, should in some cases receive appointments in preference to supporters of the other political party.

I say, without hesitation, that this Bill means neither more nor less than preference to non-unionists; and of this, I think I can give some little evidence. In January last, Mr. Watt, the Premier of Victoria, on accepting office, had to submit himself for re-election to the State Parliament, and a very strenuous fight ensued. Some years ago when the Commonwealth Attorney-General was Premier of the State, and the late Sir Thomas Bent was Minister of Railways, there was a strike amongst the railway servants, and a number of non-union men came forward as strike-breakers, and acted as engine-drivers, and so forth. These men were given by the Railways Commissioners the high-sounding title of “loyalists,” because they had offered to undertake the work of the railways in the time of strike and trouble. A number of these “loyalists” live in the constituency which Mr. Watt now represents, and they did what they could to secure his return. After the election, a letter was sent by these men to Mr. Watt, complimenting him on his victory, and in response the honorable gentleman sent a note of thanks. It is peculiar how fate occasionally plays into our hands, and somehow or other this letter of thanks found its way to the secretary of the Railways Union. I have here a facsimile of the envelope and note, and they are as follows : -

The President,

Loyalist Engine-drivers, Firemen, and Cleaners’ Association, Head Branch, Melbourne.

Premier’s Office, Melbourne, 24th January, 1914.

With compliments and sincere thanks for congratulations on result of recent election from W. A. Watt.

As I said before, this Bill means neither more nor less than preference ito non- unionists. I believe that there are men in high Ministerial positions who, if they had the chance, would give preference to non-unionists. A man of the stamp of the Premier of this State is always likely to get the support of non-unionists of the kind to which the letter of thanks of which I have read was sent.

I should like to analyze a little further the figures in the last report of the Public Service Commissioner, giving the numbers of persons employed under the Commonwealth Government. Every one knows that the politician who tries to influence the Public Service Commissioner to obtain either temporary or permanent employment for a man is likely to do that man harm, because the Public Service Commissioner will probably run his pen through his name, and quite rightly. If there is one thing that he does right, it is that. If he acted otherwise, it might be said when he appointed men who had been recommended, that he had allowed himself to yield to political influence. He is jealous of his independence, and has shown himself to be a strong-minded man.

Mr Archibald:

– An obstinate fool.

Mr.FENTON. - I have met him only once; but he impressed me as a very determined man, . and one whom, once he had taken a stand, it would be difficult to shift. It needed only one interview to convince me that he was prepared to stick to the letter of the Public Service Act, and that any one who attempted to influence him on behalf of an applicant for employment would rather injure than advance that applicant’s chance.

Mr Page:

– And a good thing, too.

Mr FENTON:

– Yes, though I do not agree with all that the Public Service Commissioner does. The total number of. persons employed by the Commonwealth Government is 39,828, of whom 34,696 are permanent and temporary employes subject to the Public Service Commissioner. As to the balance, most of them are employed in the Commonwealth factories. I believe that there is only one man south of the line who knows anything of the manufacture of cordite, and it was necessary to give him absolute power in dealing with applicants for employment in the factory. The managers of the clothing, saddlery, and other factories were similarly left at liberty to choose their own hands. So far as the saddlery factory is concerned, it was found impossible to obtain first-class saddlers who did not belong to the Saddlers Union, but the manager is a good man, and the returns show the enterprise to be well on the right side of the ledger. The persons employed in the Government factories number 3,162, and there are 739 person employed in connexion with the Commonwealth railways. The exEngineerinChief had almost absolute power in the making of appointments, and I suppose that his successor is in the same position. Therefore, it is only to about <1,200 persons that the provisions of this Bill would apply. If the Government obtains a dissolution in connexion with such a measure, I shall be very much mistaken.

Let me quote some words by Mr. Justice Higgins, which form part of a judgment printed in the Registrar’s report, which has been in the hands of honorable members for some days -

Parliament, recognising that an , employer who has tremendous power of giving or refusing bread, can often force an applicant for work to accept less than is just in order to get bread, prescribes - or allows this Court to prescribe - a minimum below which the employer must not go. It still leaves him to dispense with the services of any worker who does not come up to his standard, and to give higher wages to exceptionally good workers whose services he desires to secure. . . . The reason seems to be that the employer usually needs no Court to enable hiin to reduce wages - he has simply to refuse to give employment at wages winch he thinks, to be too high. It ought to be frankly admitted that, as a rule, the economic position of the individual employe is too weak for him to hold his own in the unequal contest. He is unable to insist on the “ fair thing.” The power of the employer to withhold bread is a much more effective weapon than the power of the employe to refuse to labour. Freedom of contract, under such circumstances, is surely misnamed; it should rather be called despotism in contract; and the Court is empowered to fix a minimum wage as a check on the despotic power.

Mr. Justice Higgins believed in giving the workers a fair deal, and his utterances prove that conclusively. The State and Commonwealth Governments, are large employers of labour, and must act as the private employers of labour act. Preference to unionists has been long accepted by many of the principal contractors in Australia, who never think of employing other than union carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers and other tradesmen. They have made it a rule to do so to secure the peaceful and efficient performance of their contracts. I belong to the Printers’ Society, and although it may happen, that “if a unionist calls at a printing office at which there is a vacancy, that he may be put on, but the master printers, when they need a man, usually ring up the union secretary, his office being a registry for master printers and workmen.

The Attorney-General thinks that in this Bill he has plainly a trump card, but at the last election the question of preference to unionists was given great prominence. A friend of mine, who is a large contractor, related to me a conversation he had with a very important canvasser, which is of interest in this connexion. The canvasser said, “ I have come to have a chat with you, as a large employer of labour. You employ a good number of men.” “Yes,” he replied, “week in,’ and week out, I pay wages to about eighty men, and have a lot of work on hand.” “ In that, case,” said the canvasser, “you will be very much interested in the question of preference to unionists.” “Yes,” answered the contractor, “ but if you think that I shall vote for the opponent of Mr. Fenton, you never made a greater mistake in your life. Whenever I need a man, I send to a union secretary, because I believe in preference to unionists.” He told me that he belongs to the Contractors and Builders Association, and that several of the principal contractors in the State recognise preference to unionists. The Commonwealth, as a large employer of labour, must do the same. Under certain conditions, the Arbitration Court can4 compel employers to give preference to unionists. The honorable member for Wide Bay last session spoke of the difficulties that would be created if during the construction of a Commonwealth railway a contractor employing large numbers of men recognised the principle of preference to unionists, and trie Commonwealth, employing other men, did not. The contractors are wise in recognising preference to unionists, because they desire to have their work done efficiently and expeditiously.

Mr Yates:

– The Government has nothing to fear from the recognition of the principle.

Mr FENTON:

– No. Whenever I. meet a man who is not a member of any organization, I say to him, “ It may be plain speaking, but you are a fool not to join an association which would back you up in time of stress. All who are opposed to you, and all the employers, are organized.” I believe in organization.

The honorable member for Riverina knows that the graziers are well organized.

Mr Falkiner:

– Not for political purposes. You cannot get a political subscription from them.

Mr FENTON:

– Seeing that the honorable member pays £11,500 in land tax, he would spurn the idea of any one sending him a subscription; he would return the cheque, and say, “ I have money to burn in my own contest.” But he cannot lead honorable members to believe that men like Mr. Blackwood are not big contributors to the funds of honorable members opposite.

Mr Falkiner:

– The pastoralists do not pay anything like the sum contributed by the Australian Workers Union.

Mr Page:

– In Queensland the pastoralists are levied at per hundred sheep. I have had their cheques sent to me in mistake.

Mr Falkiner:

– It is only some who pay. Others will not pay.

Mr FENTON:

– We know all about what squatters do at election time. The two strongest unions in Australia are composed of those in the legal and medical professions. Let me direct attention to a resolution which was carried unanimously at a meeting held in Sydney, the proceedings of which were reported in the press of the 14th November, 1913. The report is headed, “Doctors and Lodges. The Fight in New South Wales. Attitude of Protestant Alliance,” and the resolution adopted was -

That the council, having considered the question of the differences that have arisen between the friendly societies and their medical officers, trusts that it will be possible to arrange a fair and reasonable agreement between the societies and their doctors, and thus continue the mutual kindly feeling hitherto existing between our lodges and the medical officers, but failing conciliatory efforts being successful, the Government bc asked to introduce legislation, so as to provide for arbitration similar to the existing system relating to industrial arbitration.

I believe that a conference of the whole of the friendly societies in regard to their present dispute with the medical profession would unanimously agree that the matter should be submitted for the consideration of the Arbitration Court. More and more in the future shall we need to employ members of the medical profession. The London correspondent of the Age has told us that the leading barristers and Judges of Great Britain are now drawing up rules and regulations, under the instruction of the British Government, to provide a means by which the poorer portion of the community may obtain legal advice free of charge. No doubt, if this is done in Great Britain, where we say the people are very conservative, it will not be long before we shall have to make a similar provision in Australia. Under the insurance’ scheme that is being talked about, medical men will need to be employed as we now employ them in connexion with the oldage pension and maternity allowance schemes, but no member of the Ministry would dream of going outside the British Medical Association in order to obtain the services of a doctor. Absolute preference to unionists exists to-day in regard to the legal and medical professions. The British Medical Association is so strong that it is putting up one of the strongest fights ever known in New South Wales.

Mr Falkiner:

– Yes, but the members of the Association do not have to vote always in the one way.

Mr FENTON:

– The British Medical Association would not, even to save a life, attend a case with one of the cleverest medical men we have in Melbourne today, because that man does not happen to belong to the Association.

Mr Falkiner:

– When a man joins a trade union you make him vote as you direct, and if he does not do so, you send along ‘an organizer and threaten to expel him. That was done in Riverina.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member is quite wrong. During the last political contest, one gentleman wrote to me and told me that, although he was a member of the union to which I belong, he intended to vote and do all he could against me. The same remarks apply to hundreds of cases. Why, if the trade unionists of Australia were united in the way the honorable member suggests, there would never be anything but a LabourGovernment. In fact, the Bill before us will do more to solidify the unions than anything else that I know of.

Mr Falkiner:

– Then why worry?

Mr FENTON:

– Never mind. We wish to talk so long upon it that the unions will never forget it. This is the finest bit of organizing work that has ever been done. Let me read the report of that meeting in Sydney to which I referred -

At thu sixteenth biennial session of the Federal Council of the Protestant Alliance Friendly Societies’ of Australasia reference was made to the fight with the British Medical Association. The discussion indicated that the society was preparing to fight to the bitter end. Besides the instance of Casino, where the local lodge built a separate hospital and has now two doctors specially engaged who are not members of the British Medical Association, cases were quoted from Queensland, where a similar course of action had been taken. “ Attendance upon members of friendly societies by doctors is not a matter of charity, as is too often implied,” stated Bro. G. H. Stillito, P.M.G. (Queensland). “Many doctors assume that they are giving charity, but I take exception to any such statement, and deny the imputation. The arrangement between a lodge and a doctor is purely a matter of business, ‘and there is no need for him to accept it unless he likes. In many instances in Queensland we are in the doctors’ hands as far as starting new lodges is concerned, for if the local doctor does not want to attend our members then we cannot form another lodge. Even as far as the matter of charity iis concerned, I would like to say that there are hundreds of young doctors who have climbed from poverty to affluence by the aid of the friendly societies. There is no semblance <of charity in this.”

Bro. J. Salmon, grand secretary for New South Wales, gave several concrete instances regarding the fight between the doctors and the societies. “I heard of one case,” he said, “ in which a member of the British Medical Association came to the lodge and made the proposal that he should be paid £1 6s. per head, as asked by the British Medical Association, and that he would refund the difference between that and the 18s. offered by the friendly society. I am glad to say that the lodge turned him down, because a man who would throw down his own society like that would throw us down also.”

They realized that a man who would renegade on his union was one who could not well be trusted.

Another instance that came to my notice was in a small town in New South Wales, where the local doctor, who belonged to the Australian Medical Association, was offered £300 to walk out of his practice. He refused. In another instance, however, where an offer was made to an Australian Medical Association man, he accepted, and a British Medical Association man was put in his place. The present executive of. the British Medical Association is composed of men who have built up their large private practices by means of the lodges. T do not blame them for their practice, hut they are now turning round and dictating as to what fee should be paid by the lodges to the men who are going through the same stage. The British Medical Association has a special man, Mr. Barr Johnson, whose duty it is to travel all the time. He gets men who have not already joined the British Medical Association to join, and sees that branch societies are formed in every available place. The British Medical Association at the present time is the best formed union in existence.”

Bro. Phipps, W.G.M. (Queensland), stated that several lodge hospitals and medical institutions had been formed in Queensland, but that it was in the country- where they were feeling the pinch, and where the doctors had them at their mercy.

During the discussion the suggestion was made that should the fight continue the only apparent way out of it was to pay doctors for every individual call, and to amalgamate the medicinal fund, as some lodges had very heavy calls, while others only had light calls. By this method they might be able to get over some of the difficulties, and arrive at some settlement of the trouble, which was at the present time affecting every friendly society in Australia.

I make this extensive quotation in order to have it placed in Hansard, and to show how the members of friendly societies regard the British Medical Association. More and more the members of this Association will be employed by our various Departments. It cannot be avoided. I am not averse to it. I believe in preference to unionists in the legal profession and in the medical profession, but I do appeal to members of the legal profession, who are mostly opposed to the Labour party in politics, to be a little logical and fair-minded, and to bring a little common sense to bear upon a question such as that now before the House. In a few days the Attorney-General may have to send for a barrister, and he must send for a member of the Bar Association. In other words, Ministers must give preference to unionists so far as that Association is concerned. Again, in regard to the appointments of medical officers, they cannot go outside the British Medical Association. . There also they give preference to unionists. If they require a civil engineer, they must employ a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. And so it is right through the professions. There is no chance of Ministers appointing a professional man unless he is a member of a union. Seeing that the Government now give preference to those drawing high salaries and occupying high positions, why should they deny it to the ordinary worker, who has to fight hard to get a crust for his wife and family ? It is a hard thing to keep a home going or 9s. or 10s. a day with irregular employment. Men in the legal and medical professions can manage well without Government employment, but right throughout the piece preference is given to the most privilegedclass, and it will continue to be given. If these professional men are entitled to preference, I claim that the poor unfortunate working man, who gets irregular employment, is certainly en titled to preference at the hands of the Government.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- Unfortunately, so far I have not “had an opportunity of speaking on the question of preference to unionists during this Parliament. It is assumed by some honorable members that those on this side of the chamber are taking turn and turn about in speaking, but I have searched in vain to see whether I made any remarks on the matter last year, and last week, when the motion for leave to introduce the Bill was closured, I was shut out. Therefore I am entitled to make a few remarks upon the question. I have not had the experience in trade union circles that can be claimed by the honorable member for Darling and the honorable member for Maranoa and others; but since’ I was seventeen years of age I have been a financial member of the union to which I was entitled to belong, and have held office in it, not only here, but also in England and America. Therefore I should possess a little knowledge of trade unions. I know that the Attorney-General will say that this measure only prevents unionists from obtaining preference in Government employment. During the last election campaign, at my first meeting, at which a man is supposed to put forward any policy he has or to account for those things he has done, I was asked only one question, and that was whether I was in favour of preference to unionists in Government employment. And I said, “Yes, I am.” I pointed out then that this could only apply to the few persons who are temporarily employed in the Government service, and are exempt from the Public Service Act.

Sir John Forrest:

– Were you taking a great risk when you said that?

Mr TUDOR:

– I was not; but if I had been taking a great risk, the answer would have been the same. That was not one of the burning questions in my electorate; it had been alleged that I had fallen short in regard to other things, and I was a “goner.”

Mr Sampson:

– Your electors think only the one way.

Mr TUDOR:

– No, they do not. If they had all thought the one way there would have been fewer Liberal representatives in the Senate, because the few votes that Senator McColl got in that electorate enabled him to attain second place on the poll. That the majority of my electors think the one way, however, is greatly to their credit.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– To your credit.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not say that, but I admit that I have done my best to educate them. I believe that the AttorneyGeneral has been the best organizer the Labour party ever had in Victoria. He has done more to consolidate the Labour party and ‘the Labour vote than any other person, notwithstanding that he has always been doing his best to crush them, and prevent them obtaining what is their right. We were told by the honorable member for Werriwa this afternoon that history repeats itself, and that the Labour party are the Conservatives. If history does repeat itself, it will not matter whether this Bill is carried or not, because everything the Attorney-General did against the workers in the Victorian State Parliament had to be repealed. It was his Government In the State Legislature who enacted that a decision of a Wages Board should require a seven to three majority. That has been repealed. The honorable member for Bourke, who was in the State Parliament at that time, will be able to recount the various Acts passed by the honorable member for Flinders. The Attorney-General appears to be very anxious that this measure should pass, but I am not sure that a great number of the Government supporters are so anxious to have the Bill become law. If honorable members thought that the rejection of this Bill would have the effect of bringing about a double dissolution, as the Attorney-General says, they would be quite inclined to, if possible, reverse the decision they have arrived at to push on this Bill at all hazards. It waa precisely the same with the Loan Bill of last session. When the “gag” was applied it was thought by honorable members that the Bill would be disposed of in ten or fifteen minutes, but once they had put their hand to the plough’ they had to continue moving the “gag” to get that Bill through all its stages; and it took hours when it was thought it would take only minutes; and they haveto do so now, notwithstanding that they know there is no likelihood of getting a double dissolution. The AttorneyGeneral admitted that at Sandringham a few nights ago.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I absolutely repudiate that statement.

Mr TUDOR:

– Then the AttorneyGeneral thinks there is a likelihood of getting a double dissolution if this Bill fails to pass ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We will see.

Mr TUDOR:

– Then the Bill is only a gamble.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not follow the honorable member for West Sydney and yourself in expressing any opinion on a question that has to be decided by the Governor-General.

Mr TUDOR:

– This Bill is only a gambler’s throw - the Government may get a double dissolution or they may not.

Mr Riley:

– That is the whole object of the Bill.

Mr TUDOR:

– The sole purpose ofthe Bill is to bring about a dead-lock between the two Houses. We were told by the honorable member for Parkes, in the course of his speech on the amendment to the Address-in-Reply, that the Senatewould accept the Bill, so as to avoid the danger of a double dissolution. Does any memberon the Government side think that now? Surely their eyes have been opened during the last fortnight. In moving the second reading, the AttorneyGeneral said that the Labour party put him in mind of a man who, when convicted of stealing ducks, said he wished he had never seen the ducks. The honorable member stated that if the Labour party had the opportunity to deal with this matter again they would never give preference to unionists as they have done.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Hear, hear!

Mr TUDOR:

– If the AttorneyGeneral believes that, there is absolutely no need for this Bill at all. The Government have wiped out, by administrative act, all that was done by their predecessors in the way of giving preference to unionists, and they say that they give no preference to unionists or anybody else to-day.

Mr Riley:

– Only to contractors.

Mr TUDOR:

– They say that they do not give it to any one; but I could show how they give preference to contractors, to lawyers, and to other people who could do without it. But the class in the community who should have the most assistance, the Government are prepared to shut out. Doctors, lawyers, contractors, men who are organized well, are the only people the Government take any notice of. They get preference without asking for it. But the Government say that the workers shall have no preference. If the Government have abolished preference to unionists in their Departments, and if, as the Attorney-General says, the Labour party are sorry that the principle was ever introduced, what is the necessity for this Bill ?Of course, this is only a political placard, and the Government might be called a Government of professional bill-stickers. This. Bill and the Bill for the restoration of the postalvote are merely two measures to be placed before the people if there should be an election. These comprise the Government’s whole programme, and the Attorney-General has referred to that in much better terms thanI could hope to use. There could be no greater denunciation of the Government’s programme than that by the AttorneyGeneral, nor could there have been anything- more emphatic than the words of the present Prime Minister in regard to the Coercion Bill introduced by the Attorney-General in the Victorian State Parliament.

Mr Anstey:

– Have you got it?

Mr TUDOR:

– I understand that the honorable member for Barrier . read it yesterday, and I do not desire to repeat what is already in Hansard; but if the Attorney-General’s duck tale is all right, there is no need for the Bill that is before the House to-day. Surely the honorable member protests too much, and is destroying his own case.

Mr Bennett:

– Then why fight it?

Mr TUDOR:

– So far as I am concerned, this involves a principle.

Mr Sampson:

– Apparently it is important.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am pointing out the position of the Ministerial party, because they must hang together, or else they will hang separately at the hands of the electors. Although many of them know that this is not a measure upon which to appeal to the country-

Mr Bennett:

– You are wrong.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not so far wrong as the honorable member was in the statement that he made at Koonwarra, as reported in the Leongatha Sun of 9th May, that the only question put to applicants for employment in the Government service when the Labour party were in power was, “ Are you a unionist?”

Mr Bennett:

– Do you deny that?

Mr TUDOR:

– Absolutely. The honorable member was no nearer the truth than he was when he made the statement about contingencies.

Mr Bennett:

– When you wanted a cinematograph operator for the Northern Territory, did you not ask him to join a union?

Mr TUDOR:

– That appointment was not made in the Department I controlled, and I am not sure whether that question was asked or not. But the honorable member said that the only question asked of an applicant for Government employment was “ Are you a unionist?”

Mr Bennett:

– I said that that was the main question asked.

Mr TUDOR:

– Does the honorable member deny the report?

Mr Bennett:

-I cannot answer for what was in the report, but I said “ main question.”

Mr TUDOR:

– Apparently the honorr able member, like the Prime Minister, is so often misreported that it is difficult to pin him down to a definite statement. * The Government desire to make use of this Bill on the hustings, because they will not tell the electors that preference to unionists applies to only a few persons in the Government service. It will be said that the principle will apply to every avocation ; and if honorable members are confronted with their statements they will say, like the honorable member for Gippsland, that they were misreported, just as we have had them explaining statements on other occasions. How many men are there to whom this Bill could apply ? Honorable members will find in the annual reports of the Public Service Commissioner a statement showing the number of temporary and exempt employes in the Commonwealth Service, and they will see that from 1910 to 1913 - the three years during which the Labour Government held office- comparatively few people were affected by the decision in regard to preference to unionists in Government employment. It should not be imagined that employment in the Public Service as a temporary or exempt hand paves the way to a permanent position. A temporary employe can be engaged for only-six months, but if it be desired to retain his services for a further period, an extension of three months may be granted. At the end of the nine months’ period the temporary employe must be dismissed.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member say that the temporary employes are always dismissed at the end of nine months’ service?

Mr TUDOR:

– They must either be dismissed, or an Order in Council must be passed providing for their further employment, and there must be published in the Government Gazette the names of those whose services are so retained, together with the reasons for their retention. Will the Attorney-General say that of the 39,000 or 40,000 Commonwealth servants in Australia to-day there are 200 temporary employes who have been kept on for more than nine months without the publication of their names in the Government Gazette, together with a statement showing the reasons why their services have not been dispensed with ? Por the most part, the cases in which temporary hands are employed for more than nine months occur in the Postal Department. In the Telephone branch of the service, for instance, there is always a shortage of skilled labour, and there are employed there many temporary hands who can carry out the technical work required of them, although in some cases they cannot pass the prescribed examination, while in others they are debarred, because of their age and other reasons, from submitting themselves for examination. They have a thorough practical knowledge of the work, although they are not able to pass the examinations. I doubt whether outside the Postal Department there are fifty temporary employes in the whole of the Commonwealth Service whoseservices have been retained for more than nine months. There are also some exempt officers. These for the most part consist of women who are employed in cleaning the public offices, and who receive to-day 25s. per week, and others who do labouring work. Among the exempt officers are also some casual watchmen and mailmen, as well as those who are in charge of small allowance post-offices. All these are exempt from the provisions of the Act. But there was no great increase in the number of temporary and exempt employes in the Commonwealth Service during the regime of the Fisher Government. In December, 1910, according to the Public Service Commissioner’s report, there were 15,472 exempt employes in all Departments in the Service, and the average wage received by them was £19 14s. each during the twelve months. No one will suggest that that amount - representing the average wage earned by these employes - left much room for the application of the policy of “ spoils to the victors.” Of these 15,472 exempt employes no less than 14,954 were employed in the Postal Department, and the average amount earned by them was £18 16s. Then again, at the same date in all the Departments of the Commonwealth Service there were 3,867 temporary hands, whose average earnings were £28 16s. Of that number, 3,308 were employed in the Postal Department, their average remuneration being £28 3s. Honorable members opposite go into the country and declare that the aim of the Labour party is to give preference to all unionists and to swell the ranks of the Commonwealth Service. The country is their stronghold. In the cities and towns, where we have a chance of overtaking their misstatements, they do not do so well. At the last general election they set up a candidate to oppose me. He was a champion at making misstatements, and it was not difficult to overtake some that he uttered. The people, however, did not believe him, nor did they believe what the daily press said about me. In the country honorable members opposite say that our aim is to give preference to unionists-

Mr Yates:

– And they talk about the marriage tie.

Mr TUDOR:

– I shall have something to say to the Attorney-General, when the opportunity offers, in regard to a statement concerning the sanctity of marriage which he made at a meeting where he spoke of “Labour’s ugly brother.” On Grievance Day, perhaps, I shall be able to bring forward statistics showing that the birth rate is higher in the workingclass suburbs than elsewhere.

Mr Falkiner:

– It is highest in the agricultural districts.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– How does the honorable member connect this with preference to unionists?

Mr Page:

– There should be a preference to the union just spoken of.

Mr TUDOR:

– There is a preference, in the shape of the maternity allowance, for which the Fisher Government provided. The Fusion party declared that they would do away with that allowance. Why do they not bring down, as a test measure, a Bill to do away with the maternity allowance, or one to repeal the Federallandtax? They prefer, however, to go to the country on something on which they think they will be able to score.

Sir John Forrest:

– Is not that reasonable?

Mr TUDOR:

– And by means of misrepresentation

Sir John Forrest:

– Oh, no.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; by means of political misrepresentation on the public platforms of the country honorable members opposite hope to score.

Mr.Falkiner. - What about the long loans to farmers, at low rates of interest, which were to be made by the Commonwealth Bank?

Mr TUDOR:

– I should not be in order in dealing with that matter on the present occasion. The Government and their supporters, when addressing meetings in the country, talk of the enormous growth of the Commonwealth Public Service, and say that preference to unionists in Government employment would cause a greater rush than ever to get into the service of the Commonwealth. May I ask the Attorney-General with which section of the Public Service he intends to do away if he has the chance?

Mr Bennett:

– It is not in order to ask questions at this stage.

Mr TUDOR:

– Quite so; but the AttorneyGeneral puts questions to us in the same circumstances, and we are not permitted to answer them, with the result that people reading Hansard may conclude that we cannot reply to them. I have a right to put questions to the AttorneyGeneral in the same way. Some of my supporters, reading my speech, may say, “ There you are. Irvine could not answer those questions.”

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should be sorry to be responsible for what some of the honorable member’s supporters might say of me.

Mr TUDOR:

– At all events, will the Attorney-General tell us what section of the Public Service he intends to curtail or abolish, if he has the chance? Does he propose to hand over the Postal Department to private enterprise ? The present Postmaster-General talks of placing it under the control of Commissioners. He is attempting to popularize it, and, by means of an improved parcels post system , to bring the town and country into closer touch. Do the Attorney-General and his colleagues propose to cut down the Postal Service, or to hand over t’o private enterprise the collection of Customs duties, the control of the Treasury, or the Crown Law Department? Which of these Departments would they hand over to private enterprise if they got the chance, in view of their expressed belief that private enterprise is better than State control? They say that the Public Service is growing, and it will undoubtedly grow, for the people, as time goes on, will do more and more for themselves. The Government quite recently handed over certain work to a contractor, and they are sorry now that they did so.

Mr Bennett:

– They are not.

Mr TUDOR:

– Not one honorable member opposite defended the action of the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs in handing over the work in question to a private contractor. If men employed on railway construction works were working under an arbitration award, a Wages Board decision, or an agreement registered in the Arbitration Court, surely they would be entitled to receive the prescribed wages; and if the Government were carrying out some public work by day labour they would desire to obtain the services of men as efficient as those employed by contractors. Unionists are at least as good as those outside the unions. My experience in my own trade is that they are better. In the industry in which I was employed all the men were in the union, and we were able to enforce preference.

Mr Bennett:

– There were two of you, I suppose - yourself and another:

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member is trying to be sarcastic. I belonged to a branch of the union in England in which there were over 4,000 men, and to another branch in the United States which numbered 14,000 members.

Mr Falkiner:

– I thought that the honorable member was an Australian.

Mr TUDOR:

– So I am, but I have travelled. Surely, it is open to an Australian to travel and to seek employment in other countries? Travel broadens a man’s knowledge and widens his experience. The honorable member for Gippsland was sneering at the workers, as he is always doing.

Mr Bennett:

– Rubbish!

Mr TUDOR:

– When he said, “ I suppose there were two of you,” he was undoubtedly sneering at the workers, but I dare say that if he had had my experience he would not be ashamed to acknowledge it.

Sitting suspended from. 6-80 to 8 p.m.

Mr TUDOR:

– The Attorney-General and others have declared that preference to unionists means the introduction of “Tammany” methods and of the principle of “ spoils to the victors “ into the Commonwealth of Australia. ‘As a matter of fact, “Tammany” flourishes in the United States, where there is no Labour party, but where both political sections of the community, if they were here, would be found supporting the present Government. In my opinion, the absence of a Labour party in America accounts for the presence and strength of “ Tammany” in the United States; and when the Labour party does emerge there, it will, as elsewhere, make for purity of public life, and sweep “Tammany “ out of existence.

Mr Atkinson:

– There was no “ Tammany “ in Australia’ before the Labour party came into being.

Mr TUDOR:

– There is no “Tammany ‘ ‘ in Australia to-day, except that which is evidenced by the acceptance of contracts without calling for tenders.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is the honorable member referring to the powellising contract ?

Mr TUDOR:

– No, I am referring to the Teesdale Smith contract, entered into by the Department presided over by the Prime Minister.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Of course, the honorable member forgets all about the powellising contract f

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not forget the powellised timber that was ordered by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Defence in 1910.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is that?

Mr TUDOR:

– That was before the Labour party came into power. The fact came out in evidence before the Powellising Commission yesterday, and no doubt the honorable member for Dampier, who is the chairman of that body, will be able to tell the Prime Minister all about it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I know nothing of it.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am glad to be the means of giving the Prime Minister some information.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I hope the honorable member will tell the House all he knows about the matter.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member for Dampier is now in the House, and I ask him to come down to the front bench, and tell the Prime Minister about the powellised timber ordered in 1910.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member for Yarra ought to hold his impertinent tongue. Mr. Speaker ought not to allow the honorable member to talk like that.

Mr TUDOR:

– If honorable members were “ pulled up “ for every unruly thing they said, the Prime Minister would be the first affected. I was about to say that in 1912 the Public Service Commissioner made his report dealing with a period which terminated at the same time as the financial year, namely, on the 30th June, so that the figures in the report are for eighteen months. The wages, it is shown, are a little higher than they were in the previous twelve months. The total number of exempt and temporary employes in all the Departments was 12,238 in that year, less than in the previous twelve months, showing that fewer, instead of more, temporary and exempt employes hadbeen appointed by the Labour party. The average wages in all the Departments averaged only £55 per year. The exempt employes in all Departments numbered 10,705, at an average wage of £50. In the Post Office alone there were 10,138 exempt employes, at an average wage of £46 per year. There were 1/535 temporary employes in all the Departments, as against 3,000 for the previous year, with an average wage of £97 per annum. A number of these latter were in the professional branches. In the Post Office alone there were 1,325 temporary employes at an average wage of £83. The total number of exempt and temporary hands’ in the Post Office only was 11,463, at an average wage of £50. On 30th

June, 1913, the exempt employe’s numbered 14,614, with an average wage of £66, so that there was not much “ spoils” even if every one had received the full amount. Of these 14,614, some 10,655 were in the Post Office, owing to the undergrounding of the telephone wires, the construction of country telephone lines, and other works. There will not be so many shown in the report of the Commissioner for this year, for the temporary and the exempt men will be largely diminished. As a matter of fact, seeing’ that the Government are going to do away with day labour, and employ contractors, there can be no necessity for the Bill before us, and, therefore, no realization of the prophecy of the Attorney-General that, if the Labour party were returned to power again, they would not reintroduce the principle of preference. The Bill is simply a political placard with a view to a single or double dissolution, though I do not know that the Government are so anxious for either. Are the Government in favour of preference to nonunionists? The Prime Minister is, I think, the only honorable member on the Government side who has ever been a member of an industrial union, and he knows the position better than does any of his colleagues.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I hope the honorable member will tell the House all about the powellised timber he said I ordered !

Mr TUDOR:

– What I say is correct. The Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, ordered some powellised timber.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I never paid for it, and I turned down the proposal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This has nothing to do with the question before the Chair.

Mr TUDOR:

– I leave the members of the Powellising Commission to lay the facts before the House. What I am asking now is whether it is the intention of the Government to give preference to non-unionists.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I hope not.

Mr TUDOR:

– Last year the electricians obtained an award in the Arbitration Court, and the members of the union individually had to contribute towards the costs of the case. When Mr. J ustice Higgins gave his decision ‘ he directed it should apply to members of the union only; so that if the Government pay non-unionists at the rates decided by the Judge they will give preference to non-unionists. In 1904 the

Prime Minister, speaking in this House, said -

When I was secretary to a union we always insisted on preference to unionists; if I were in that position again I would adopt the same attitude.

If the Government came down with a proposal to repeal the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which gives public servants the right to go to the Court, I could understand their- position; but if they propose to extend to non-unionists the benefits of the awards in favour of unionists, then I say they are giving preference to the former. On the 17th December last year, Senator Russell, in another place, asked the Honorary Minister, Senator Clemons, whether it was the intention of the Government to pay the award rates to those employes who were not members of the union, Mr. Justice Higgins having directed that it should be applicable only to the organization which had taken the case to Court. The Prime Minister, in his speech, said that those men who “ skulked,” and were not prepared to do their share in the fight for improved conditions, had no right to their enjoyment; and I think we all agree with that view. If non-unionists are allowed to participate it is breaking away from the decision of the Judge. In the A ge of the 2nd instant there appears the award in the case of the telegraph linesmen, which was the last given by Mr. Justice Higgins before he went away, and which contained the following: -

The minimum wage to be paid per annum to employes who are linemen of various grades in the Electrical Engineer’s Branch of the Post Office Department, if they are members of the claimant organization, shall be as follows : -

Thereafter follow the rates as laid down ; and I ask what the Government are going to do in view of the direction by the Judge. I knew there would be silence when I asked this question, because the Prime Minister dare not answer. I saw what was going on, when the “boss” of the Government said, “ Do not reply to this.” The Prime Minister was -prepared to .say what the Government were -going to do, but the Attorney-General practically told him that he was not to answer; and other honorable members as well as myself saw what happened.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is only another effort of the honorable member’s imagination I

Mr TUDOR:

– At any rate, I saw the Attorney-General speak to the Prime

Minister when I asked the question. Are the Government prepared to say what they will do with what the Prime Minister calls the “skulkers” - the men who are not prepared to pay for the advantage they receive.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is a perky, impudent little man.

Mr TUDOR:

– What delightful language from the beautiful Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask that these personalities cease.

Mr TUDOR:

– The reproof is quite deserved so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Of course, the honorable gentleman is naturally annoyed at the question I have asked.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– May I speak to the Attorney-General ?

Mr TUDOR:

– The Prime Minister may please himself, and he may please himself about answering the question that I have asked. Notwithstanding all his interjections, some of them insulting, he has not dared to say what he is going to do with the men who are outside the unions in these cases, where the Judge has given a decision. There are no two men whom the Opposition would sooner see filling the places of Prime Minister and Attorney-General than the present occupants of those offices if the present party are to retain possession of the Ministerial benches. The AttorneyGeneral has done more to consolidate the forces of Labour in this State than any other man.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is why you are all so pleasant to me.

Mr TUDOR:

– More legislation brought in by the honorable gentleman has “been repealed than has been introduced by any other honorable member. The number of persons that would be affected by the Bill if passed is so small that it would not be worth while to appeal to the GovernorGeneral for a double -dissolution were the measure rejected by the Senate. The honorable gentleman said last week that the Labour party would never have introduced preference to unionists had they known the effect of their action, and that if they could get rid of it they would be glad to do so. If that is his belief, what is the need for the Bill? This Government by administrative action has put an end to preference to unionists in Commonwealth employment. Let me read theAge report of what the AttorneyGeneral said at Sandringham recently -

The anti-preference Bill had been described with almost sickening reiteration as an empty sham, because the Government had already settled the matter by reversing in administration the policy of its predecessors. The reply to that assertion was continued in his unanswered challenge to Mr. Fisher, and which he now repeated. Was Mr. Fisher prepared to pledge his party and himself that if returned to power again they would not resort to this practice ? If so, he, for one, would be prepared to withdraw this Bill. (Cheers.) The framing of the Bill would prevent a Labour Government giving preference in future behind the back of Parliament. The Bill was chosen as a test measure because it represented a clean-cut difference between the two parties.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is a fair challenge. What is the answer to it?

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member would not have issued the challenge had he expected to get a double dissolution by means of the Bill. I shall fight the Bill. The honorable member for Parkes said that the Labour party would accept it and pass it through the Senate, but the minds of honorable members opposite must now have been disabused as to our action.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– The Labour party is watering down its opposition.

Mr TUDOR:

– That is not so. More opposition has been shown to the Bill on this occasion, because we have not yet been “gagged.” On the last occasion I had not an opportunity of speaking, all discussion being closured after a debate of three or four hours. . Let me now say a word or two about the recognition of preference by many who are in favour of the Bill. The Attorney-General has been shown to be a member of an organization which compels preference to its members, who will not work with others who are not members. Then the Cartage Contractors Association of Melbourne, a section of the Victorian Employers Federation, acknowledges preference. The Federation is the organization which employed a secretary to go into the country to preach that marriage is a luxury for the workers. Mr. Walpole went to Lilydale, and made a statement to that effect when the Federation was opposing the factory legislation. Members opposite profess now to be in favour of that legislation. Of course, the present Liberal party is formed of a number of parties. It was well described by Mr. Deakin as the wreckage of all parties, although he himself afterwards joined the wreckage. It is made up, as he said, of the wreckage of the Free Importing party, of the Anti-Socialistic party, of the Black Labour party, and of others. The only thing which honorable members opposite have in common is their hatred of the Labour party. If the Labour party ceased to exist the various sections of the Liberal party would disunite. The honorable members for Calare and Werriwa, with others, would form themselves into a Free Trade party.

Mr Pigott:

– Hear, hear !

Mr TUDOR:

– Other members would announce themselves as Protectionists, others as Conservatives, and others as Liberals. The opponents of factory legislation in this State, and the opponents of the Commonwealth Arbitration laws, are to be found supporting the Government. But to return to the Cartage Contractors Association. These are some of its rules -

  1. Members must give preference to association members wherever possible when requiring teams to assist them in their work.
  2. Members must also refrain from assisting or employing non-associated carriers who are known to be working adversely to the interests of the association.
  3. In the event of members being asked to tender for cartage (such cartage at that time being done by another member of the association, they must refer to the present contractor, who must acquaint them with the net rates he intends quoting) ; they are then at liberty to quote the same rates, but not lower, even should such rates be lower than the association rates. But if, when asked for a quotation, an immediate answer is required, and there is not time to refer to the existing contractor, then association rates must be given.
  4. Members are at liberty to quote association rates without reference to any existing contractor.
  5. Members are not tied to association rates when competing for business done by a nonassociated carrier.

Of course the members of the Cartage Contractors Association have as much right to associate as have any body of employes; but they have no right to ask for things for themselves which they are not prepared to allow others to have. The Argus, the newspaper which chiefly opposes preference in this State, supplies members of the Authorized Agents Association two hours before the members of the Cash Agents Association. But the Age is just as bad in this matter. Both newspapers have the right to give preference; but when they do so, they ought not to denounce others for advocating preference. In every country town the newspapers have an authorized agent, and they will not supply any other person there. In thickly-populated districts like my own’ constituency it is of great advantage to be an authorized agent. At the Richmond railway station the authorized agent is supplied a little after 5 o’clock in the morning, and the cash agents do not receive their papers until nearly 7 o’clock.

Mr Falkiner:

– The honorable member has already told us all this.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am merely showing that preference is given by the very persons who blame us for supporting the principle. The preference given to authorized news agents has made a news agency business worth much more than it should cost. In moving the second reading* the Attorney-General . quoted from the Book of Revelations. I think that no other honorable member has quoted Scripture in this Parliament.

Mr Falkiner:

– The honorable member for West Sydney, did so, and did not quote correctly.

Mr TUDOR:

– He quoted from the Prayer Book, which is not the Scriptures, and the honorable member, being a good Anglican, corrected, him. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he should read the fourth chapter of the Epistle of St. James, which denounces the rich who have- robbed the workers of their earnings. It is said that a certain person quotes Scripture for his own purposes. I would not say that the AttorneyGeneral does that, or that he is the person referred to.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That would not be worse than what has been said of me.

Mr TUDOR:

– Honorable members opposite say that they believe in freedom; but we know that the Employers Federation, which backs them up, has called into existence in this State a bogus union, to break up a strike in connexion with the agricultural implement making industry. -It was said that that strike-breaking organization was so strong that it would beat the legitimate unions; but what are the facts? Recently there was an election for positions on a Wages Board. The daily papers did not publish the result of the election or state who were returned ; but; as a matter’ of fact, the five representatives of the union were re turned, and the five Packerites, as I may call them, we’re at the bottom of the poll. The genuine unionists received from 825 to 836 votes, and the Packerites from 168 to 189 votes. The bogus unionists were wiped out. Honorable members know that these bogus unionists are fostered by employers. If, as they say, Ministers are opposed to preference to unionists,, why does not the Attorney-General bring in a Bill to deal with preference to unionists generally, and to wipe out the preference provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Why should Ministers by a side-wind try to attack the smallest section they could possibly attack by a Bill that can have no effect, because we have learned from them that they have already done by administrative act that which is how sought to be done by Statute. I trust the Bill will not be read a second time.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- I desire to offer my opposition to the second reading of the Bill on altogether different grounds. I look upon the measure as a direct challenge to organized labour from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, and as I am a representative of organized labour, I shall do all I possibly can to prevent the passage of this Bill at every stage. The Bill has for its aim and object the striking of a death-blow at organized labour. On several occasions the Attorney-General has said that whenever the opportunity is presented he will bring in a Bill to prohibit the Federal Arbitration Court giving preference to unionists. I commend him for his straightforward intentions. I look upon the Attorney-General as a direct enemy of organized labour. But what, has organized labour done that the Attorney-General and those who support him should be prepared to take the first opportunity to annihilate those organizations which have done so much to build up the civilization of the world? That which has brought the workers of the world from a system of serfdom to their present stage has been the establishment of trade unions. The organization of labour has benefited the workers in every country, and has been the forerunner of civilization. Nothing has had a more beneficial effect on the workers of the world than combinations with a view to getting more for their labour. The history of Great Britain shows that even iri the nineteenth century women were compelled to work in shops and factories, and in their homes, for twelve hours a day, for the small pittance of 4s. 6d. per week. That waa because they were not organized. Being unorganized, they were the free prey of the employing class, and the sweating class, and the class whose .cause is championed by our honorable friends opposite. But since the great strikes that took place in Great Britain towards the end of the nineteenth century the condition of these women has improved, because men and women have gone out and organized their fellow-workers, and in common sense they have said, “ Let us reason together to benefit ourselves.” However, I defy any one to say that trade unions are selfish. Every reform they have secured for their own uplifting has not been brought about alone for those engaged in the struggle, or for those in the unions ; the unionists have endeavoured to make it embrace every one in the industry concerned. Unionists are prepared to spend their time, their weeks, and their years, in endeavouring to bring about better social conditions for those with whom they mix, and for the benefit of the whole community. Every award brought about is a benefit, not only to the trade union concerned, but also to all in a particular industry. I am afraid the Attorney-General and his friends supporting him do not know what they are doing. They are playing with fire. If organized labour is challenged as the Government are challenging it, and if it should take the course of fighting the Government, what will be the result? We know what took place in Russia. When Labour . demanded its rights, and the military were called out, the workers were shot down on that Sunday in hundreds; but that fact did not stop the onward march of those Russian workmen, for to-day there is a complete change in the government of Russia, and the workers have representation in the Russian Parliament, while also they have gained shorter hours of labour, and the standard of living has been improved. Now, contrast the conditions of people in Ireland. Unfortunately for the Irish people they have been split up for nearly half a century by a great political issue, and while they have been fighting that issue, they have neglected the industrial side of affairs, with the result that the men and women of Ireland have been compelled to leave the country, because the wages they were receiving were so small. When the Irish have gone to America, England, Scotland, or Wales, they have been found in the forefront fighting for their rights and for better wages; but in their own country, where there were no industrial organizations, the wages paid were less than those received by workers in other countries. There has been no increase in wages in Ireland among the general body of workers for thirty years. There have been small increases in Belfast and in other places, but the rural population has remained in a state of drudgery. We have also seen what took ‘ place during the recent strike in Dublin. Mr. Larkin, who had had some experience in organizing work in the United States of America, returned to Ireland and determined to organize his fellow countrymen. He was successful. His efforts secured for the workers in Dublin a 30 per cent, increase in wages, while in the rural districts surrounding the city the workers improved their wages to the extent of ls. a day. These increases would’ not have been gained had it not been for the organization of trade unions. Because Mr. Larkin was successful in his efforts, the employing classes retaliated by the lockout and the boycott, and provided that unless a man seeking employment signed a form stating that he did not belong to the Larkin organization, he would not be employed. Thereupon we had one of the most loyal and successful strikes that has taken place in Ireland, and I am sure that the Irish will no longer neglect the industrial side of their life. Show me the country where Labour is not organized, and I will show you a country where there is poverty, misery, crime, and stagnation. I glory in the fact that people ask for more wages and better conditions. It is my wish to see the people in every country getting a better proportion of the wealth they produce. In these times wealth can be produced more rapidly by the aid of science and machinery, and workers should no longer be asked to work the long hours they formerly worked, or for the small pittance some of them are still receiving. Our intelligence and cooperation should be employed to secure more of the wealth that is produced. The pivot on which organized Labour revolves is that more justice should be gained for the workers, and it can be obtained. A challenge was thrown out to the railway workers of Great Britain. It was a fight for unionism. What took place? When the railway workers ceased work the coalininers stood by them loyally, and the waterside workers stopped work. When organized Labour stopped work there was no smoke issuing from the chimney stacks, machinery ceased to revolve, railway engines were not running, and steamers remained idle in the harbors, If the organized workers of Australia are challenged, as the Bill before us seeks to challenge them, a similar result might be brought about. Labour has the power. The workers have their labour to sell, and if they do not sell their labour, all the wheels and machinery of industry must remain in the one position ; and they cannot be moved.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You have the power; but why do you want a privilege?

Mr RILEY:

– I hope to be able to show the honorable member that we seek no privilege. I do not anticipate that I can convert him to my way of thinking. The honorable member has good points, but they are overshadowed by his environment. He is a creature of environment. If I happened to be born a member of a wealthy family, and if I had had university training and had studied for the Bar, and obtained my living at the Bar from wealthy clients, I might look at things through the spectacles of the AttorneyGeneral; but I believe that I would still be a man with humane instincts. I tell Ministers that if they challenge the industrial workers they are incurring a great risk; it may end in chaos. Through a large industrial strike the employing class lose hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the industrial class receive a set-back, because, when a man is out of employment, he gets into debt, and his wife and family starve. It is for that reason that we, on this side of the chamber, do not wish to see strikes, and are advocates of peace, and stand for conciliation and arbitration. That, however, cannot be brought about until people are organized. The law of this country provides that no people can go before the Arbitration Court until they are organized. It is because they are organized that the Court will give people a hearing. They have to assure the Court, before they get a hearing, that they will be guided by the award of the Court, and will give up the right to strike. Therefore we have endowed the Arbitration Court with the power to say that it will give preference to any. industrial union under certain terms, other things being equal. We ask the employes to go to the Arbitration Court, and give up the right to strike; and, in return for giving up the right to strike, the employes ask for preference to unionists. Those who incur the expense of carrying their claims to the Arbitration Court ask for preference. It may seem a selfish request; but let me explain what organized workers mean by preference. If the members of a union decide to bring their, employers to the Arbitration Court, they have, first of all, to obtain evidence. Suppose the Attorney-General happens to be an employer and I am in his service. I am cited before the Court to give evidence against my employer. I attend and give that evidence, and perhaps I sit behind my solicitor and instruct him iu his cross-questioning, because I know the full details of the business. The employer may have to answer questions that are awkward, and because I am prompting the solicitor, the employer looks upon me with suspicion. That goes on day after day. Other” employers come before the Court and are cross-questioned. The result is that the leading members of the union, who have had the courage to go into Court to give evidence and help forward the case of their fellowemployes, are marked men, and after the case is concluded they are told that their services are not wanted any more.

Mr Brennan:

– Of course, not because they have appeared in Court.

Mr RILEY:

– Oh, no; because of something that has turned up in the meantime, and because they ho longer suited the employer. The only means by which we can protect the rights of men who have the courage to fight for the rights of their fellows in the Court is to allow the Court to give preference. By that means we can protect the men who have stood in the forefront and fought for rights, which, when conceded, are of benefit to the whole community. We want preference, not for selfish reasons, not for the sake of getting more continuous employment for unionists, but in order to protect the men whom we elect to do our fighting. That preference is absolutely necessary. I had the privilege of sitting in the Arbitration Court in New South Wales for three years as the representative of the employes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– How does your argument apply to the employes in the Public Service?

Mr RILEY:

– I understand that this Bill deals only with the casual labourers. If it dealt with public servants who are in the Government employ for life my argument would not hold good.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Do you suggest victimization by any Government?

Mr RILEY:

– Yes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What evidence have you?

Mr RILEY:

– I can give an instance out of my own experience. At one time I was President of the Sydney Labour Council, and the Council was successful in having an inquiry held into a joinery contract in connexion with the Prince Alfred Hospital. That inquiry reflected on the Government Architect of the clay, and although I had no part in it, but simply because I happened to be head of the Council that caused the inquiry to be held, I was told to go. As a matter of “ fact, my dismissal did me no harm, because I was able to get other employment. But there are hundreds of cases of that sort. The high officials in the Public Service are only human, and when they are cross-questioned in a Court by the employes in their Departments they are not inclined to look upon those employe’s with the most kindly eyes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Allow me to ask you another question. If a bad Government on some occasions such as you suggest victimized men, is that a reason why a good Government should give preference to all unionists in Government employment ?

Mr RILEY:

– By Act of Parliament we gave the Judge of the Arbitration Court the right to award preference to unionists in any industry, and, having given that power, we, as employers of labour, are not consistent if we deny that preference to our own employes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then there is no distinction between a judicial order and an arbitrary order by a Government.

Mr RILEY:

– If this House says that preference shall be given to all unionists, that is a judicial finding and should be the law of the country.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But you say that because a Court, after a judicial in quiry, may give preference to one union, the Government, without judicial inquiry, should give preference to all unions.

Mr RILEY:

– I take it that a Minister’s order is equal to a judgment of the Arbitration Court. He is an employer, and is responsible to the people. The honorable member asks why the Government should be compelled to give preference to unionists in casual employment. The Commonwealth Government have in their employment at the present time something like 2,000 men engaged in constructing war vessels at the Fitzroy Dock. They are temporary hands, but I venture to say that the Government must give preference on that work whether this Bill is passed or not. Let two boilermakers, one a unionist and one a non-unionist, go to Fitzroy Dock for a job; if the manager gives the job to the non-unionist all the others will cease work. The Government know that, and yet they bring forward this Bill. Let me give another instance. There is an Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and the Government employ hundreds of men in the trade. Every one is a casual employe and a unionist, and the Government are obliged to give preference to unionists. The Government have a Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, and every man employed must be a member of either the Amalgamated Society of Engineers or another union, otherwise the others would not work with him. There is also a saddle and harness factory in this State belonging to the Commonwealth, but every casual employe there is a member of a union. Still we have the farce of the Government proceeding with this Bill, which cannot give effect to the will of Parliament, because the unions outside have more power than the Attorney-General has, or would have, even if he had this measure behind him. The Government are obliged to give preference to unionists when the unionists present themselves. If the Government succeed in carrying this measure, and attempt to put it into operation, and not to give preference at Fitzroy Dock, the Small Arms Factory, or the Saddle and Harness Factory, there will be trouble. This is merely a means of inflaming the minds of the people, and bringing about industrial chaos, instead of harmony amongst the workers. We are justified in trying to prevent any great industrial upheaval. All over the world unions to-day are recognised and respected. The day was when the individual dominated society, and his will was the law of the country. That state of things obtained for generations-. Then there came another period at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the doctrine of the survival of the fittest obtained, when the old and the weak were hustled to the wall to make way for the strong. That was Herbert Spencer’s idea of liberty. The man who could work cheapest and work hardest was employed in preference to the man who was physically weaker, notwithstanding that the latter might be a married man with children, and a good citizen. Free competition was the rule. What was the result? We have only to look through the pages of history to find that thousands of people were unemployed, that the work-houses were overcrowded, and that the asylums were filled with unfortunate men and women who had lost their reason in the trouble; the whole race had deteriorated. Now the trade union has stepped in, and said that such competition is bad for the human race, that the hours of labour must be reduced, that the weak must be protected from the strong, that we must have a standard of wages, so that men and women shall not have to struggle with and undercut each other for the right to work. The trade unions have swept away that competition to a great extent, and I hail with pleasure the introduction of a system that’ will regulate the hours and conditions of labour and succour the weak and distressed. The Labour movement is the cause of humanity, and stands for the uplifting and protection of those who need assistance in any direction. I am sorry to think that we have a Government on the Treasury bench of the Commonwealth to-day who have launched aBill that is a direct challenge to the organized workers of this country, and who say, “ Come along. We are prepared to fight you, first of all, on this question of preference to unionists, and afterwards we will bring in a Bill to prevent a Judge of the Arbitration Court awarding preference in any of his awards.” We on this side are making our position clear, and we say that the Government have no mandate to undo the good work of the Fisher Administration. The Fisher Government went a little further, perhaps, than other Governments, and said that the civil servants have a right to justice; and they passed a Bill to extend the operations of the Arbitration Act, so as to enable the public servants to avail themselves of its provisions. Some employes in the Government service have gone to the Court, and they have obtained better conditions from the Judge than they could have obtained from the Public Service Commissioner. They are freer men, because they know their wages and conditions, and there is not so much bowing and scraping to members of Parliament and interviewing in the Queen’s Hall in order to get increases and mere justice. The Fisher Government widened the scope of the Act, and allowed the public servants of the Commonwealth to have their grievances sifted to the bottom, and the Judge of the Arbitration Court to award them justice.

Mr Fenton:

– Have not the teachers in New South Wales joined the Trades Hall?

Mr RILEY:

– Yes, and I hope that they will soon get an award. In every State we have what are called clerical workers. If there is a class in the community who have my sympathy it is the clerical workers, because they have not backbone enough to fight for themselves.

Mr Burchell:

– They are beginning to wake up.

Mr RILEY:

– They are. I remember a case coming before the State’ Arbitration Court of New South Wales in which we had to deal with the soft-goods trade. For six weeks we took evidence with regard to the position of the employes. Every employer who entered the box said, “ We have done the best we can for our employes; we have even provided them with chairs on which to sit.” We discovered, however, that if any of the employes were found sitting on one of these chairs, he was promptly dismissed. Their provision was a mere blind. We found that the profits of the industry were sufficient to justify the payment of good wages and the provision of comfortable working conditions for the employes. These, however, they had not received. I remember one man coming into Court looking very clean, but very shabby. His examination ran something after this fashion: “Where do you work?” “Mark Foy’s.” “What do you do?” “I am a clerk in the office.” “How long have you been there?” “Five years.” “Are you married?” “Yes, and have a family of four. I live at Randwick, .pay 10s. a week rent, and have to walk in to the office and out every day, as I receive only 30s. per week.” There was no trade union to take him in and help him. The clerical workers of New South Wales - and I suppose the position is the same in other States - are afraid to join a union, because they are -constantly under the eye of the employer, and if they talk union or Labour they are dismissed. We sa:y to these people, “ We want to enable you to breathe more freely, and to give you an opportunity to enjoy some of the good things of life. We therefore ask you to come into the Arbitration Court and’ have justice done to you.” The Labour party hold that, in this Bill, there is something more than a direct challenge. The Government are preparing a case on which they desire to go before the country. What do they propose? Their object is to pass the Bill through this House and to send it on tq the Senate, where, as is well known, there is a majority opposed te it. The Bill will be rejected by the Senate, and the Government will then ask for a double dissolution. What does it all mean ? The Government and the Opposition in this House are equal in numbers. The Government know, therefore, that in this House there is no salvation for them, and that when they go to the country- -

Mr King O’Malley:

– There will be less.

Mr RILEY:

– There will be less. They therefore make the excuse, “ We shall not go to the country until we have made provision for a double dissolution by the rejection of two test Bills by the Senate.” The Senate, however, has a perfect right to reject the two test measures. It is elected by the adult citizens’ of the Commonwealth. At the last general election, the Fusion party went to the country with fourteen senators, and came back with seven. Seven of their number lost their preference to a seat in the Senate.

Mr Sinclair:

– The Labour party lost a dozen in this House.

Mr RILEY:

– And yet we have as many as there are on the Government side of the House.- The Government are trying to bring about a crisis. Although I .am not a lawyer, I think that I have a little common sense, and I am confident that the provisions of the Constitution in regard to a dead-lock were never designed to allow one party to bring forward Bills merely with the object of creating a crisis. They were inserted really to overcome a crisis; but- the whole strength of the Government is directed to an effort by means of this measure to bring about one. If the Bill be rejected they will say, “ We cannot carry on, because the Senate has rejected, this measure.” That is all very well, but we ask the Government to submit measures likely to be beneficial to the people. The recent conference of State Premiers agreed that the locking of the Murray would be a great national undertaking, giving employment to thousands, and that the storing up of nature’s waste waters in that way would convert the banks of the Murray into an Eden. The Government are not prepared to submit a Bill to carry out that undertaking, although we should be ready to assist them in passing such useful legislation. Then there is another great question - that of the break of gauge - with which the Government could deal in a nonparty measure. A Bill providing for a uniform gauge of railways which would link up all the States is one that all parties would be glad to assist in passing. Instead of submitting such measures, however, the Government have introduced two paltry Bills in which they hold out a direct challenge to the Opposition and seek to bring about a dispute - in the Senate. Such measures are unworthy of the Ministry. When the Fisher Government were in power they issued a minute declaring that preference should be given to unionists in Government employment. The present Government on taking office issued another minute directing that no preference should be given. In that way they undid that which their predecessors had done. Preference to unionists in Government employment no longer exists. If this Bill became law to-morrow it would not affect one individual in the Public Service of the Commonwealth.

Mr Kendell:

– Then why not let it become law?

Mr RILEY:

– We desire to place our views before the country, and when we have done so I do not think that the verdict of the people will be pleasing to the honorable member and his party. The Bill is merely a political placard. Ministers and their supporters wish to go to the country and to say to the farmers and others, who may have sons desirous of obtaining employment in our cities, “Our desire in submitting this. Bill was that your sons should not be required to join a union in order to obtain employment in any city of the Commonwealth. We are standing up for your rights. We ask you to vote for the Liberal party, which seeks to give you and your sons the right to secure employment without joining a union.” But preference to unionists in Government employment has already been abolished, so that the Government are trying to pass a Bill which means nothing and can really do nothing. There is very good reason to believe that when an appeal is made to the people the Labour party will come back to power. If they do, then we shall be able to repeal this Bill if it has become law. The Government, therefore, are merely bringing it forward with a view of furnishing material on which they may work with the object of blinding the people to the real position. When the Fisher Administration came into power it promptly repealed the Loan Bill passed by its predecessors in office, and which authorized the raising of £3,500,000. We did not believe in a loan policy, aud we therefore repealed that Act. In the same way, in the event of this Bill becoming law to-morrow, we should be able, if returned in sufficient numbers, to repeal it. We believe in the principle of unionism, and in granting preference to those who are prepared to give up the right to strike. It is all moonshine for the Liberal Government to say that from their point of view there is a great national principle at stake. The Attorney-General is merely showing, by his introduction of this Bill, that he is determined to be true to his pledges, and that he is, as he always has been, a solid Conservative, working in the interests of the Conservative class. I question, however, whether it is to the advantage of the employers that industrial discontent should prevail.

Mr Fenton:

– The decent employers do not want it.

Mr RILEY:

– A large number of employers in New South Wales believe in preference to unionists. All their em ployes are unionists, and if any dispute arises it can be referred at once to the unions concerned for settlement. In the absence of such an organization there would be no one to act as the mouthpiece of the employes, and industrial chaos would prevail. You ‘ remember, Mr. Speaker, what took place recently in South Africa. The unionists asked the mine managers for an eight hours day., and for the observance of certain working conditions. Their request was refused, and the Government of the day thought that they would be able to stamp out the whole movement by taking strong measures. The military were called out, and the leaders of the movement were deported, but that did not put an end to it. The principle of unionism is not only observed in South Africa; it prevails in Australia, America, Germany, France, and, in short, all over the civilized world. Unionists all the world over sympathized with the labour leaders in South Africa who had been deported in this way, and the result was that the demonstration held in Hyde Park, London, to express sympathy with these men was the largest gathering ever known. Hyde Park could not accommodate all who wished to attend the meeting. The proceedings were over, and night had fallen, before the end of the first procession had reached the park. Since then there has been an election in South Africa. There were thirty-six to be elected, and I think that only four-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am afraid that the honorable member is going far beyond the question before the Chair.

Mr RILEY:

– I merely desire to show the danger attaching to any legislation the object of which is to cause irritation on the part of trade unionists. As the result of such legislation, we may have here a reflex of what has taken place in South Africa. As the result of the great demonstration in London, trade unionism and the whole labour movement has been strengthened there, as -well as in South Africa. Those who opposed trade unionism in South Africa were wiped out at the recent election. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but I venture to predict that if this Bill becomes law, and an attempt is made by the Government to victimize unionists, as no doubt they desire to do, the Labour movement will be materially strengthened. We have nothing to fear because of our opposition to such legislation. Coercion Acts, and all measures having for their object the crushing of the people, have invariably failed. This young country of ours, with its population of 5,000,000, is the very home of unionism. No country is more organized than we are, and in no part of the world are there to be found 5,000,000 people so well off as are the people of Australia. The social conditions of the workers of Australia are far ahead of those of other countries. They enjoy shorter hours of labour, better wages, a higher standard of living, brighter homes, and a broader franchise. All this prevails in Australia,where unionism predominates. If unionism is such a bad thing as the Government would have the people’ believe, how is it that the conditions of the country have so improved under the dominance of unionism ? Unionism guided rightly aims ever in the one direction, and strives to bring about better social conditions. When a disaster occurs in any part of the country the hearts of the workers go out to the injured, and to those dependent upon them. If an accident occurs in a coal mine, who are the men who go to the rescue at the risk of their lives? Unionist workers recognise no danger where human life is to be saved. The same applies to the workers at sea. When the Titanic, one of the finest ships that ever sailed the Atlantic, met with disaster, who was it that stood by to render assistance ? Do we not know that the musicians on board, who were members of a union in London, bravely played the hymn, “ Nearer my God to Thee “ to the last, until the vessel went down.

Colonel Ryrie. - How does the honorable member know that they were unionists?

Mr RILEY:

– I do know that they were unionists.

Mr P P Abbott:

– Would nonunionists allow people to drown ?

Mr RILEY:

– The honorable member does not see the point I wish to make. Some of our honorable friends opposite sneer at unionists because they ask for preference. They say that the unionist wants spoon-feeding, and that we have too much union domination, and I am trying to make the point that to-day unionists take the foremost step in all reform, and that they are never afraid to take their lives ‘in their hands to go to the assistance of those in distress.

Mr P P Abbott:

– Surely nonunionists would do the same.

Mr RILEY:

– I believe that the honorable member would do so.

Mr.Palmer. - Unionists have said, “ Let non-unionists burn.”

Mr RILEY:

– I am surprised to hear that remark, but I am glad that the honorable member for Echuca has had the courage to say something. I hope that he will get up and make a speech. It is strange that honorable members sitting behind the Government are afraid to stand up and champion this Bill. It is strange that the Prime Minister himself has not had the courage to defend it. He has been a trade unionist, and knows the working of trade unions, and I feel sure that in his heart he does not believe in this measure. I do not know how it is that the Attorney-General has been given charge of the Bill, as it deals with a matter that is not in his Department. It should be in the hands of the Prime Minister, since it is considered the allimportant measure of the Government party. The honorable gentleman sits here to- night, and says, “ When are you going to let this thing through ?” But why does he not get up and champion the Bill? Our honorable friends are afraid to speak in favour of the Bill, because they feel that it is likely to prove a two-edged sword. I personally hope that the measure will be a test measure between the parties when we go to the country. I had a majority of over 8,000 at the last election, and I may expect a majority of 18,000 if this Bill is made the test question at the next election. The workers of this country will be aroused when they learn that an attack is to be made on them by the present Government. The Attorney-General has said that if the Government had the power they would prevent a Judge of the Arbitration Court from granting an award of preference. Some honorable members opposite have advocated free competition amongst the workers, and have said that they do not believe in unionism. They ask why a man should not be allowed to work for any wages he may be able to arrange with an employer. But the day when that kind of thing was done has gone by, and we now have organizations of employers and employes and the system of collective bargaining. That is the only salvation of those who are not strong enough to fight for themselves. It is only by organization that the workers have been able to demand increased wages and improved conditions from their employers. Honorable members will have noticed upon the windows of the premises of a certain insurance company the picture of a strong man trying to bend a bundle of twigs across his knee. He is clearly unable to do so, because they are united by a cord. The united bundle of twigs is a fair representation of the unionists of today. If the bundle were untied, the man could take each twig by itself and snap it across, and that may be said to fairly represent the position of an individual employe asking an employer for work. He may ask for a wage of 25s., but if another man, having a larger family to provide for, and, therefore,’ in greater need of employment, is prepared to take the work for £1 per week, he would be given the employment. That cursed system of competition for their labour went oh amongst the workers for half a century. I am surprised that some honorable members have not made themselves familiar with the industrial conditions of the Old Country. Any unbiased person who will read The People of the Abyss, a book by Jack London, recently issued, must be convinced of the great need for organization amongst the workers, and of legislation in every country to uplift the Unfortunates at the bottom rung of the social ladder. As members of the Labour party, we are proud to be the representatives of the industrial classes, and we may be trusted to leave no stone unturned in our efforts to resist any attack upon industrial organizations. Some of our friends opposite say that they have no objection to trade unions, but that what they do object to is that unionists should enter the political arena. If unionists had nob done so, we should not have the factory legislation which is on our statute-book to-day. It was only after many years of agitation that the unionists succeeded in placing upon the statute-book of the Old Land, of this Commonwealth, and of other countries, the legislation which has been passed for the protection of the lives and limbs of the workers in factories. If trade unionists had not taken a deep interest in navigation, we should not have been able to pass the great measure which was passed by the Fisher Government for the protec tion of seamen and of the public travelling by sea.

Mr Finlayson:

– Would the honorable member mind saying what has become of the Navigation Act?

Mr RILEY:

– That is a subject which will probably be dealt with later on. The Act referred to is a monumental measure, and surpasses any legislation of the kind in any other part of the world in the provision it makes for the protection of seamen and the public travelling by sea.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr RILEY:

– I referred to the Navigation Act only to show that the better protection for which it makes provision for seamen and the travelling public is due to the influence of trade unions. Trade unionists have gone further. Invalid and old-age pensions have had no stronger supporters than the trade unionists of the country, who are always prepared to give their funds freely for the support of the widows and orphans of their members. . In every part of the civilized world trade unionists have used their political power, not for their own exclusive benefit, but for the benefit of all in need. In a country where trade unions have not been organized, the social conditions of the people will be found to be bad, wages will be low, and the hours of labour long. Trade unionists start out to annihilate poverty, to prevent crime, and to bring about better and happier conditions for the people. By the introduction of this Bill the party on the other side have issued a direct challenge to the unionists ofthe Commonwealth. All the minerals produced in this country are produced by unionists, yet there are men in this House who sneer at unionists. Let me remind them that -

It’s coming yet for a’ that

When man to man the world o’er

Shall brithers be, and a’ that.

I wish,. in conclusion, to refer to the great benefits which trade unionism has conferred on business people. If I start a draper’s shop, and the honorable member for Darwin opens a shop next door, and sells linen at 8½d. a yard, while I sell it at 6½d., because I give 30 inches instead of 36 inches to the yard, the law steps in and refuses to permit that kind of competition. The law says to me, “ You must give 36 inches to each yard.” The laws of the country protect the honest trader, and prevent him from being undercut by the unscrupulous trader. If I am dealing in groceries the law says I must give 16 ounces to the 1 lb. If another trader competing with me gives only 12 or 14 ounces to the 1 lb., the law deals with him. As members of a trade union party we say that the law should protect in the same way the man who has hia labour to sell. We ask the Government of the country to make laws which will prevent one man from undercutting another in the sale of his labour, and by doing so we should protect the employer as well as the employe. No honest trader can keep his market if he is obliged to compete with an unscrupulous man who pays less wages to his employes and works them longer hours. Thus the trade union movement all over the world has a levelling-up tendency. All the strikes which are experienced tend in that direction. If we level up one class of society our action must tend to level up another class. The Labour party are anxious to realize that grand ideal which was foreshadowed by the Great Reformer of the universe when He preached peace on earth and good will towards men. That is our object. We are out to obtain justice, and the best way to obtain it is by encouraging the growth of industrial organizations, and by preventing men who take a leading part in them from being victimized as a consequence.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Preferential justice.

Mr RILEY:

– My honorable friend comes from a dairying district, I think.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is wrong.

Mr RILEY:

– Then I suppose that he comes from a farming district. I know of the case of a man in Sydney, who is engaged in the manufacture of grain bags. He had women working in cellars for a miserable wage and under filthy conditions, and he was thus able to undersell the honest trader who was paying decent wages and observing fair conditions oflabour. Would my honorable friend patronize the former?

Mr Finlayson:

– Every time.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable member would only confine himself to the subject of preference to unionists in the Commonwealth Public Service he would be all right.

Mr RILEY:

– My honorable friend has been here nearly a year now, but the only thing he knows is that he has been told that he came here to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew previously. I ask him to take a broad national view of this question. I trust that the Bill will be fully debated, and that the supporters of the Government will have the courage to explain what they mean when they say that no preference shall be extended to unionists. If the measure becomes law, and the Government attempt to carry it to its logical conclusion - seeing that the employes engaged at the Fitzroy Dock are unionists and will not work with non-unionists, that the men employed at the Small Arms Factory are unionists and will not work with non-unionists, and that the employes on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway are unionists, who will not work with non-unionists - we shall witness a great strike. We shall have the experience of England, Africa, and America repeated, and I know what will be the result when the electors are afforded an opportunity of dealing with honorable members opposite.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- I desire to remind the honorable member for South Sydney that this is not a Bill by which it is proposed to put unionists out of employment. It is rather a measure to give every man equality of opportunity.

Mr Thomas:

– Except the unionist.

Mr PALMER:

– Under it applicants for Government employment will not be asked whether they are -unionists or nonunionists. The only question put to them will be, “Are you a man who is capable of doing the work for which you desire to be engaged ? “ There is one very solid reason why this Bill should be received with a great deal of favour by all sections of the House. Of recent years we have heard a good deal of complaint that the power of Parliament is passing to the Executive, and that there is a growing disposition to deal with matters by regulation an’d by Executive act. In regard to this matter of preference to unionists, that is exactly what has been done. The Fisher Government while they were in office took a course of action which practically embarked them on a new policy. They decided for the first time in our Commonwealth history that a man who desired to obtain Government employment should be asked, “ Are you a unionist?”

They went further than that, because it is on record that a certain officer was appointed to a position subject to his being a unionist, or to his becoming a unionist. Such a course of action must lead to disastrous results, and one of the first results which we witnessed was that a prominent Government official in the Northern Territory, who was in receipt of a high salary, went upon picket duty for the purpose of preventing Commonwealth employes from pursuing their legitimate avocation. This was one of the direct results of the policy of granting preference’ to unionists. The honorable member for Darwin, I believe, was the greatest offender in this respect. He went further than did any other Minister, by directing that in his Department only unionists should be employed. By an Executive act this policy has now been reversed. It remained for the present Government to determine that the order issued by the Fisher Government should be discontinued. Once more, therefore, we have restored the normal condition of things, under which every person has an equal opportunity of enjoying all that the country can give. No amount of sophistry will persuade the right-thinking individual that that is only a reasonable condition. It has been said that because preference to unionists was granted by the Fisher Government as an Executive act, and abolished by the Cook Government by Executive act, there is no need for this Bill. That is one of the virtues of the measure, in my judgment. It confers upon this Parliament the right to say whether or not preference to unionists shall be the policy of the country. The Liberal party are in a majority in this Chamber to-day, and we exercise the power of the majority to do what we consider to be right. Therefore, we are about to legislate on this matter. We are satisfied that we will do so in this Chamber. What may be the fate of the Bill in another place nobody can tell. It has been urged that the measure is merely the shadow of a sham, because it undertakes to do by legislation what has already been done by Executive act. But I would point out that Parliament has never had an opportunity of determining this question. The honorable member for South Sydney, during the course of his speech, said that he would defy anybody to prove that unionists are a selfish body. I intend to prove it. The unionists are the strong, active working men of the community. They are up against those who are unable to protect themselves.

Mr Arthur:

– A lot the honorable member cares for them.

Mr PALMER:

– I have no more right to judge the honorable member than he has to judge me. During the course of the speech of an honorable member opposite, he said he had been informed - he could not vouch for the accuracy of his information - that a certain union, before it would admit any new member to its ranks, had demanded an entrance fee of £20. I can vouch for the accuracy of that statement. The union which made this charge was the union to which the honorable member for Yarra belongs - the Hatters Union.

Mr Brennan:

– Does the honorable member say that that is the position in connexion with the Hatters Union today?

Mr PALMER:

– It was the position, and I believe that it is so still. Now the men who are required to pay this fee are good, honest tradesmen, who are capable workmen in every way, bu6 who have wives and families to support. They are not men who usually have £20 to fling away. Yet, according to the rules of that union, unless a man were able to pay a premium of £20, he was not to be allowed to earn his bread.

Colonel Ryrie. - It is a ring. That is what it is.

Mr PALMER:

– It is a close combine, such as honorable members opposite condemn, formed in the interests of those who bave against the interests of those who have not. The honorable member went on to say that he had been told, but did not know whether or not it was true, that the Fremantle Wharf Labourers Union, before it would admit a new member, demanded a fee of £50. I am not prepared to vouch for the truth of that statement.

Mr Hannan:

– Why does the honorable member make a statement for the truth of which he cannot vouch ?

Mr PALMER:

– When I heard the statement made, I wrote to the Commonwealth Statistician, in order to ascertain at first hand what were the facts in regard to the fees charged by the unions, and the answer I received was that he had not been able to obtain the information from the various secretaries. We have the assertion made by honorable members opposite that unions charge certain fees; and we are led to infer that they may or may not be demanding considerable sums before they will admit per.sons to membership. The honorable member went further, and said that some members of the Port Adelaide Workers Union had paid hundreds of pounds into the funds of the organization, which he described as comparatively wealthy. It would appear that these unions have established vested interests and the rule of property; and. it is perfectly right that, having done so, they should enjoy all the advantages; but it is the last thing we should expect from our friends opposite. I am agreeably surprised that the members of the Labour party are like ourselves on this side in their view of the right to the enjoyment of the advantages of vested interests. The honorable member for Boothby applauds* the position taken up by the unions, and says that if they did not charge those fees, they would be doing wrong. Do we not see to what this leads? It shows the inherent selfishness of the unionists. They have built up unions with great powers, and, before they will allow any one else to participate, they demand large sums of money. The evil is that our friends opposite proclaim loudly, from hundreds of platforms, that they are out in the interests of the workers and of the poor of the community.

Mr Page:

– Thousands of platforms !

Mr PALMER:

– Yes, thousands of platforms; but it is not in the interests of the community to establish a close combine, and then charge entrance fees which, to the majority of the workers, are simply impossible. I justify the Bill on the ground that it is intended, so far as Government employes are concerned, to “ knock out “ a close combine, which is a great evil, and which has disastrous effects on the community generally.

Mr ARTHUR:
Bendigo

.- The Attorney-General in introducing this Bill waxed very fierce, more fierce than one is accustomed to see or hear him. Apparently the honorable gentleman has been reading of, and is now endeavouring to emulate, President Wilson, who said that he had been described as an iceberg, but that he was really a volcano. The AttorneyGeneral evidently desires to be considered, to some extent, as a volcano, contrary to the reputation he has already achieved in this House. The “ethics of quoting the Scriptures in this House has been canvassed to some extent, some honorable members regarding it as an unheard-of thing. The Attorney-General, however, has quoted the Scriptures, and it has been said that men “ may construe things after their fashion clean from the purpose of the things themselves.” I propose to look for a moment at what the Attorney-General quoted, and see how it applies. I may point out that the interpretation that the Attorney-General put on the portion of Holy Writ that he quoted is absolutely heretical, and in other times he would have been burned to save his son1 alive. The Attorney-General has placed the stigma on the Labour party that we are the “beast” of the Apocalypse - that we have branded men with the “ mark of the beast,” and that we will not buy from them, nor sell to them, nor treat with them unless they have the “mark of the beast” upon them. That is a very strange thing to say, and you, Mr. Speaker, might regard it as unparliamentary; but when we look at the whole chapter from which the AttorneyGeneral quoted, we see that the interpretation is quite otherwise. In that chapter we find that there are two beasts, one of which is the beast that the AttorneyGeneral said we were. I am not going to say who the other beast is; but of the other beast we read in the beginning of the» chapter -

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns. …

There are seven representatives of the Government in this House, and they are the seven heads ; while there are ten members of the Ministry in both Houses, and thus we have the ten horns. Wo have, further, this which points the ap plication most emphatically -

  1. . and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority-

The “ dragon “ is, I suppose, the Liberal party which returned the Government to power -

And I saw one of his heads, as it were, wounded to death ;- and his deadly wound was healed ; and all the world wondered after the beast.

One of those “heads” was badly wounded in connexion with the TeesdaleSmith contract. The wound was severe and caused dissension, but, by some manner of means, it was “ healed,” and “ all the world wondered.” The Prime

Minister stated at a public meeting that if he had the opportunity he would have a Government which would be the wonder of the world for wisdom and for sanity. Well, we have seen his Government, and we have heard it to some extent described in Holy Writ. The second beast, which, according to the Attorney-General, “the Labour party is, but really the beast which keeps the first beast in authority, is thus spoken of -

And he excerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

It is this “beast” that puts the “ mark “ on the people of the community; it is this “beast” which, as the trust, combine, and vested interests of every kind, puts its “ mark “ on the people, and says, “ You shall not buy unless from us, and we will not sell except to certain persons.” Have we not known the Typothetae, the Stonemasons Association, the Millers Association, and other combinations . in this country? It is that “beast” which has raised the cost of living - the most effective cause of that industrial discontent which it is the purpose of this Bill to foster and encourage. One might liken the Attorney-General to the great mountain which laboured grievously with many groanings and outpourings of spirit; and what has he brought forth? We all know that the , mountain which laboured brought forth something; and the Attorney-General has brought forth this ridiculous mouse of a Bill. The scope I prescribe for myself this evening is to examine what this Bill is, what it purports to be, and what its ulterior object is. First of all, the Bill is ridiculous in its form, and ridiculous in its grammar; it is not even English. One is surprised that this learned gentleman, the Attorney-General, should venture to draft for the consideration of this House a Bill in this language. The whole Bill consists really of about four lines, and we should have expected it to be without flaw or fault - A gem of purest ray serene.

Yet in the four or five lines we have an example of this kind -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person-

Who ever heard of a phrase of that, kind - no “preference” shall be “made for” any person T Is it English? Did any one here ever see the like? Evidently the words “ discrimination “ and “ preference “ have been brought together, and there have been placed after them words that do not apply to either. The language only makes an absurd Bill more absurd. This is not an important point in itself; but such drafting from the learned AttorneyGeneral is almost an insult to Trinity College, Dublin.

Mr P P Abbott:

– The honorable member is hard up for argument if he has to attack the grammar.

Mr ARTHUR:

– I have heard from honorable members opposite, who have had the advantage of education, some sneers at small errors made by honorable members on my own side; and when we find an error of this kind, made by a man who pretends so much, and for whom so much is claimed, we may be permitted in revenge - because I believe revenge is not unknown on the floor of this House - to say something in return. Another reason why I consider the Bill is absurd, looked at as a legislative measure, ls that it has no substance. We have been asked, Why are you fighting this “ shadow of a sham”? as it has been called. We are fighting the Bill, not as a legislative measure, but as a party declaration, under which members opposite propose to go to the country. We are opposing a wrong use of legislation. If the Bill is intended to become an Act which will do something, it is worthless and absurd. The honorable member for Echuca said that it was intended to provide equality of opportunity, and to prevent preference of any kind being given anywhere; but it does not, and cannot, do that. It is simply a declaration that certain things shall not be done. What is the use of such a declaration if there is no penalty provided for an offence against it, and no means for enforcing its provisions?

Mr Orchard:

– Would the honorable member insert a provision making the penalty decapitation, or some punishment like that?

Mr ARTHUR:

– If the Government regarded this as a legislative measure, a penalty would have been provided. It is not for me to say whether the penalty should be decapitation, boiling in oil, or a fine of £5. To introduce a Bill making a prohibition, and to attach no penalty for a breach of its provisions, is absurd.

Mr Glynn:

– There are a great many directory provisions in Acts of Parliament to which no penalty is attached.

Mr ARTHUR:

– That may be, but whatis the good of them?

Mr Glynn:

– The honorable member is challenging the correctness of proposing a declaration without attaching a penalty, and I ampointing out that there are Acts of Parliament containing such declarations. Municipal Council and District Council Acts do so.

Mr ARTHUR:

– The Bill prohibits preference or discrimination; it does not contain a mere directory provision, such as may be found in Acts which contain also a number of other provisions, the directory provisions indicating the policy to be pursued by the bodies constituted under the Acts. The prohibition in the Bill stands by itself, like the Ten Commandments, and I suppose will be placarded over the country by the Liberal party as the Eleventh Commandment, and greater than them all.

Mr.Ahern. - Is there a penalty for disobeying the Ten Commandments?

Mr ARTHUR:

– Yes, for some; because they are embodied in our law. Without the legal sanction, there would be merely the moral penalty, which I hope my honorable friend will never incur. I wish to convict honorable members opposite of insincerity in supporting the Bill. I believe that Ministers are insincere in their alleged motives for its introduction, and have brought it in merely to manufacture a party cry. Going beyond Ministers, I wish to convict their supporters of insincerity. Such legislation as this was beyond the imagination or wildest dreams of any former Ministry.

Mr Orchard:

– Why does not the Opposition move to insert a penalty?

Mr ARTHUR:

– This is not the stage. My honorable friend will learn later what amendments are to be moved, and may show his sincerity by supporting such as may commend themselves to his judgment. The provision of a penalty would, I am sure, do that, because he is a reasonable person. To make merely the bald declaration, “ Thou shalt not kill,” “ Thou shalt not smoke,” “ Thou shalt not drink,” and to attach no penalty for a breach of the prohibition, is the last word in legislative absurdity.

Mr Palmer:

– On whom would the honorable member impose penalties?

Mr ARTHUR:

– On those who do what is prohibited.

Mr Palmer:

– That is, on the Government.

Mr ARTHUR:

– My honorable friend has not read the Bill; and, until he has done so - and it will not take him long - he should desist from asking absurd questions.

Mr Sampson:

– Would the honorable member impose a penalty on a Minister for breaking the law ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– Certainly; if there were a prohibition against its breach by a Minister.

Sir Robert Best:

– Will the honorable member quote one precedent for that? His position is quite unheard of.

Mr ARTHUR:

– Will my honorable friend quote me a precedent for legislation of the kind now proposed? When he does so, I shall quote him plenty of precedents for what I am contending. I am asked on whom would penalties be imposed. The Bill is general in its prohibition ; “ no preference shall be made.” Therefore, the person who gives a preference is the person to be punished, whether he be a Judge, a Minister, or an officer. Honorable members opposite, I gather from their observations, would punish officers, but regard Ministers as sacrosanct, and above the law. If a penalty is attached to the prohibition, it must be applied to every one guilty of the crime of giving preference to unionists. But what the Bill prohibits has already been prohibited. Although this has been said again and again with most “ damnable iteration,” it cannot be too often repeated. People ought to know that the legislative proposal which the Government are solemnly bringing forward with all possible ceremonial, including the phenomena produced by all-night sittings, prohibits something that it has already been provided no one shall do. As soon as Ministers came into power, they abolished preference to unionists in Government employment. Why propose to kill what is already dead? The speeches of the Attorney-General and his friends remind me of Galvani’s experiments on dead frogs. By the application of electricity to the muscles of dead frogs, Galvani caused the bodies to take upon themselves the grotesque semblance of life. That is what the Attorney-General and his friends are doing in regard to the Bill. It is a spectacle that I hope never to look upon again.

Mr Ahern:

– Is preference to unionists dead, or only moribund ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– This Bill has been dead many months, and now offends the nostrils of the community. The Attorney-General said that the Bill would prevent a Court from giving preference to unionists in Government employment. That, he said, was part of its value. I pointed out to him that the contention was moonshine, because the Court now has no power to give preference to men in Government employment only in circumstances which are too remote to be considered, that is, should the Commonwealth, together with other employers, be engaged in a general dispute extending beyond the borders of one State. The Public Service Arbitration Act does not give the Court power to grant preference to unionists; therefore, why pass a Bill to prevent the Court from granting preference ? The only preference that can be granted is preference by Ministers or by their officials; and that sort of preference has gone. The Ministers who said that it should be, are not, and those who have said that it shall not be, are. The Bill, therefore, is nothing but a party declaration, a misuse of the solemn forms of the House for party ends. I do not want to flog this dead thing. Most of those who support the measure are already ashamed of it, and will find it hard to explain to the people why they attempted to misuse the forms of Parliament, and to abuse the Constitution to serve a selfish party end.

Mr Conroy:

– Is it not more than a party end ? Is not every one in the country concerned ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– I think not; but I shall not digress by dealing with that matter. I have tried to show that this Bill is a ridiculous thing in regard to what it purports to do. It purports to do a thing that is already done; and it cannot in any way affect the future, because, as has been pointed out before, suppose some one did this thing which is prohibited, there is no punishment provided. Are human beings deterred from doing things which are prohibited by mere general prohibitions without any penalties? We know that the Ten Commandments, against which penalties are prescribed, but not by the strong arm of the law, are broken. Even in some cases where a penalty is provided under the law, people, if they think they will not be found out, break them.

Mr Conroy:

– “ Be sure your sins will find you out.”

Mr ARTHUR:

– The finding out of the sin is nothing in this particular case, because the punishment does not come until after the death of the offender, and it is too long to wait until then. People are not deterred by idle prohibitions of a general character. It is absurd to expect it. I wish to point out the fallacy that exists in the mind of the AttorneyGeneral in regard to the Arbitration Court. That Court is given power to prescribe preference to unionists; and the Attorney-General, by way of an interjection, to-night has said, “ You want to give these men preference without any judicial intervention.” That is the gravamen of the charge of the AttorneyGeneral against the Opposition.. But the hollowness of that charge is that- preference in this case is not possible with judicial intervention. Judicial intervention cannot apply in regard to Government employes unless we pass a measure giving the Arbitration Court power to deal with them; so that in saying, “ You want to leave out the Court, and leave it a matter for the Minister alone,” the Attorney-General is implying that there is a Court to which the Government employes can go, and that we desire to give the go-by to the Court and to rely on the mere declaration of a Minister. That is not so. There is no Court to go to. The only way in which preference can be given to unionists in Government employment, the only way in which we can do that which we impose on any employer, is to grant it by Ministerial act. That is why we believe in preference by Ministerial act. Because there is no other means of doing it. Surely to goodness the Minister in charge of a Government Department can set an intelligent example to other employers in the matter of the regulation and organization of labour. He is as fit as a Judge to do it, if he exercises his functions properly, and we must give a Minister of the Crown the credit that he tries to do so. He is in a position to consider the matter, and see whether preference should be given or not. He is in a better position than a Judge, especially in this case, where a Judge cannot deal with the matter. I have submitted that, as a legislative act, the Bill is an utter shadow of a sham, as has been said so often; but it is not as a legislative act that the Government intend to use it. They intend to take it to the people, and to accuse the Opposition of indulging in a policy of spoils to the victors, and of binding about the clean limbs of Australia, as the AttorneyGeneral said, the broken fetters of Tammany, which means accusing us of buying votes by giving navvies and casual employes Government jobs. In regard to this charge, the want of intelligence of the doings of Tammany would be admirable if it were not so disgusting. It is a colossal assumption to think that any Government imagines that it can keep itself in power by giving preference to unionists. It is all very well to make these cries for party purposes, but when we know the conditions of things we realize the utter absurdity of them. If the Labour Government, which gained such a large majority at the elections preceding the last, and in giving preference to unionists after getting that majority, was buying votes, why did it not have that effect at the last election? To think that any Government with any pretension to intelligence would attempt to do openly that which Tammany does secretly in regard to spoils to the victors, or buying votes, is absurd. What was done by the late Government was done by Ministerial decree, which was known to every one at the time.

Mr Sampson:

– It was discovered by the then Opposition.

Mr ARTHUR:

– It was published to the world. I saw it in the papers as soon as it was done. As for this Tammany business, its roots, its tree, and its fruits are all in the dark of secrecy. There has been nothing of the kind here. When we hear these accusations we can retort that we do not believe preference is Tammany, or that it is spoils to the victors, or that we are using it for such purposes. We say that we use this policy because we think that it is an . aid in industrial organization, which is a preliminary essential to industrial peace; we think that we, as Government employers, should set an example to other employers to bring their men into organizations, so that the law will take hold of them and bring about that condition of industrial peace which only organization can bring about.

Mr Sampson:

– Then you believe in Ministerial preference ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– I believe in Ministerial preference in a case like this, where no Court can give preference. I believe that any Government that believes in organization and industrial peace which is brought about by organization-

Mr Conroy:

– That may be the aim, but it is not the desire.

Mr ARTHUR:

– We may be ignorant, as the honorable member thinks ;. we may be below common intelligence, as tha honorable member thinks; but we wish the honorable member to give us credit for honesty of purpose. We believe in Ministerial preference because it is an essential aid to organization, because no Court can give it, because the Minister alone oan give it, and because organization brings about that condition of industrial peace that no other means can establish.

Mr Sampson:

– Do you think that the Minister is entitled to abuse the public purse to that end?

Mr ARTHUR:

– I do not believe that a Minister is entitled to abuse the public purse. I do not believe that any Minister who is attempting to bring about industrial organization is abusing the public purse. I believe that he is fulfilling to the utmost his public trust. Why we resist this Bill is not in respect to its efficacy as a legislative effort. We are fighting it because it is an attack on a principle, an attack which will be carried through the country if the success which is wished for by some honorable members on the other side - not by all, I am glad to say - that of bringing about a double dissolution, is obtained. It will be said against us if we let the Bill go through that we were against the principle of preference to unionists, and if we oppose the measure it will be said that we are for it, and therefore are for Tammany, and spoils to the victors, and all sorts of horrible things too numerous and too terrible to mention. It is because of such cries as these that we are fighting the Bill on the floor of the House to the best of our ability. Then, too, we believe, that this is the first instalment of an attack on a great principle, the first instalment of an attack upon unionism, upon industrial regulation by law, upon industrial organization, and upon what we believe to be the only effective means of gaining industrial peace. We believe it is the first step, a small step and an absurd, but still a step, as the Attorney-General has outlined again and again, towards the real attack. In the debate last year, when I interjected, “ You do not dare to reinstate the old section “ - that is, the old section which made political unions outside the scope of the Arbitration Act1- the Minister of Trade and Customs replied, “ Our opposition to the present position is just as teen as ever “; whereupon I said, “ Why do you not repeal that part of the present Act r’ and the Attorney-General immediately said, “ We intend to do -“So.” And the Attorney-General has -again said that the provision of prefer>ence to unionists in any shape or form, or of any kind whatever, is a blot on the statute-book, and that he will try to remove it. That is why honorable members are opposing the Bill. It is the first step, this thin edge of the wedge, towards removing that which we are honest in believing - though some honorable members think we are deceived - is the means to industrial peace that we oppose. I wish to point out that the question of preference generally is in jeopardy, not under this Bill, but through the use which is attempted to be made of this Bill. That is why we shall oppose it all we can here until we go down, and we intend to oppose it to the utmost degree outside. People say that we are foolish to oppose shams, but we do so because they are a misuse of the Legislature. It is not so much the sham that is the trouble. If this Bill were all, we could let the thing go, and give it our blessing, as being worth nothing ; but it is not the Bill itself that is the trouble; it is the use and misuse that will be made of the measure in the country that we shall have to fight. It is our logical position, and we stand by it. It is the root of the whole matter. Honorable members opposite preach freedom and liberty. In the sacred name of liberty they are ready to slay liberty in their own interests. They preach Liberalism, which means liberty. We have heard it so many times that we are utterly tired of hearing it, as no doubt honorable members are tired of hearing many things we say. The liberty they preach in this direction means, and must mean, a condition of industrial anarchy. Liberty is all right if it can be obtained, but it is impossible to obtain it. The old legal maxim is that one is at liberty to act as he pleases so long as he does not injure his neighbour, but that is not complete liberty. The whole point is the question of injury to the neighbour. “ Liberty as long as one does not injure one’s neighbour.” The point we differ on is not liberty or no liberty, but the injury to the neighbour. We see injury to our neighbour, but honorable members on the Government side see profit to themselves, and it is because of the injury to our neighbour that we want to restrict the efforts of honorable members opposite to do what they wish in regard to industrial matters. We hear honorable members supporting the Government say that it was they who uplifted the working man, but that statement is too utterly ridiculous for serious consideration. I know that some of my honorable friends are serious, and desire to do their best, with an idea to the hereafter, but it is absurd for them to say that they .have uplifted the working man.

Mr Boyd:

– I do not pose as a hypocrite.

Mr ARTHUR:

– I am not posing as having done anything, but I do object to honorable members opposite posing as the friends of the working man, whereas, as history shows, they are his bitterest enemies, and are supported by his bitterest enemies in the community. I desire to show why we believe in preference generally, and in preference to Government employes in particular. ‘We believe that organization is the only hope of industrial peace. We have heard from the Syndicalists on the Government side. The honorable member for Werriwa is a Syndicalist, and thinks that these industrial questions should be fought out by men like rats in a pit, and that the strongest should survive. In America, that system exists. There is ample liberty in America, so far as labour matters are concerned. In that country there is no regulation by law of any kind, and there is complete liberty, not only to the workmen, but to employers. They have used that liberty, but have they not done it to the injury of their neighbour?

Mr Conroy:

– Unionists will not work themselves, and they want to stop other men from working.

Mr ARTHUR:

– I desire to show that the liberty which is the god of the honorable member for Werriwa obtains in

America, and the condition of the working man in America, where there is no industrial regulation, is too horrible to contemplate. If the honorable member could be dragged back from the Big Veda and the code of Hammourab - history of 4,000 years ago - and shown the picture of the industrial position in America today, which is the result of unregulated labour, he would not think that we are so utterly misguided as at present he believes us to be. The removal of the nonunionist trouble is the solution of the problem of industrial strife, because the non-unionist is at the root of industrial trouble to-day. Honorable members opposite are shutting their eyes to the fact that if there is one trouble that is more serious than another it is the ‘refusal of the unionist to work with the nonunionist, and if we give no authority to deal with that question we are leaving untouched more than half the field of industrial disturbance. Let me indicate to honorable members, and the honorable member for Werriwa in particular, what have been the results in America of the non-regulation of labour. I have here the figures from 1881 to 1905, and they show that the Bureau of Labour tabulated 36,757 strikes - that is, in twentyfive years. The writer says -

In 1003 there were 3,494 strikes - an average of nearly ten per day. Some of those strikes lasted for months, even years. In 1894, the year of the Pullman strike, 610,425 men were out of work. The number of strikes for recognition of union has multiplied fivefold in twenty-five years.

That is the great trouble before those who are honestly attempting to settle the industrial question today. The Prime Minister, who sits there so peacefully, can hear echoing in his ears the sound of industrial strife in the old days. He knows that the question of non-unionism is at the root of the industrial trouble ; that it is the wood-borer that will bring down the tree of industrial regulation if it be allowed to continue. The honorable member knows that, and for that reason he did not introduce this Bill, and does not speak in support of ib. He has expressed so many times his absolute faith in the principle to which this Bill is opposed.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Since you have got politics into your ‘unions strikes have multiplied indefinitely.

Mr ARTHUR:

– And they will.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In the same ratio as you put politics into your unions does unrest increase.

Mr West:

– The schoolmaster is abroad.

Mr ARTHUR:

– Yes, that is the cause of the whole thing. Did the honorable member believe as he does now when he wrote the letter claiming political representation for his union? The honorable member will know to what I refer.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not object to political representation.

Mr ARTHUR:

– I am desirous of indicating the state of things in America, where there is no preference to unionists by law. The writer I have already quoted says -

The worst feature of American strikes, however, is not their number, but their bitterness, and the weapons with which on both sides they are fought. The Labour war is fought with dynamite and gunpowder, exactly like any other variety of war. But American unions use a yet more deadly weapon, the boycott.

And he gives a terrible picture of the results of the boycott, with which I will not trouble honorable members. I want to emphasize the point that this question of non-unionism must be seized hold of and dealt with by any intelligent Government, because, for obvious reasons, it is at the root of industrial trouble. If a body pretending to be a Government does not seize hold of this question and break industrial strife by regulation, industrial strife will ultimately break it, and deservedly so. I am not one of those who condemn the Syndicalists altogether. Their militant movement has a value in the community, the value of keeping us in fighting trim. But I dp think this’ method of regulation goes hand and hand with it. The Arbitration Act encourages men to come within the law, and when men consent to do that, to give up their strike weapons and to be regulated for the benefit of the community, we say they deserve preference, because they are law abiding, as against the non-unionist, who does not observe the law.

Mr Boyd:

– You do not win your cases on arguments of that kind.

Mr ARTHUR:

– I can afford to pass by with the contempt it deserves an utterance of that kind from the honorable member for Henty. The honorable member is not innocent of strike matters or strike breaking. He does not believe in preference because be thinks he is strong enough to break any strike that ever occurred. In that respect he believes in liberty. To continue my quotation from the American writer -

The employer relies on a new trade to fight his battle, the trade of “strike breaking.” There are large detective agencies which make it. a business to furnish “union and non-union men and women of all trades for secret-service work for locating ‘ disturbers,’ “ as one of them advertises. These concerns have reduced strike breaking to a science. One firm advertises guards for protecting property and life during strikes and lock-outs. “ These men are all above 6 feet in height, and are selected for their ability to handle this class of work”; and again, “ secret men attend all meetings and report, proceedings. The service possesses the necessary equipment, such as Winchester rifles; police clubs, cots, blankets, &c, to handle any sized trouble.”

Fancy the callousness of advertisements of that kind ! That is what they have in the great free country of America, where there is unregulated labour, andthe same thing would happen here to-day if the law were not active, if the people were not encouraged to come under the law, and if there were not a deterrent to those who would keep the workers outside the law so that the masters could wreak their will upon them. Let me continue my quotation - “Where do you get your strike breakers?” I asked one of these experts. “ They are a wandering class. Some have a. past, some are ex-union men who went to work contrary to instructions and were ostracized, moved away from their old homes, and are doing this as a sort of way of getting even with the unions. Most of thom love adventure, and, when the danger is over, get restive. They get their fun out of the danger, are used tb guns and clubs, and can hit hard when necessary. They have a sense of loyalty that is remarkable. They obey orders like soldiers, and you can’t tell me they do this just for the money that is in it.I have had men clubbed, stabbed, and shot, and their orders are to return the compliment. It is war and excitement, and when a bunch of infuriated men are after you, you use the weapon and don’t shed fears.”

That is the millennium looked forward to by the honorable member for Werriwa.

Mr Conroy:

– It is better than slavery.

Mr ARTHUR:

– We do not think it is better than wage regulation by law. While we are a party we are out to prevent that class of thing sullying Australia. We believe in the law, and we are out to encourage the law to do its work. That we poor ignorant men on, this side are. not alone in this regard is shown by the attitude of Sir James Mills, the managing director of the Union Steamship Company towards the necessity for organization. He had to do with the strike in Wellington, where a certain section of the unionists who called themselves the “Red Feds” broke away from the Arbitration Act. The employers did not like that. They wanted them to remain under the Arbitration Court. That was a case where they wanted, preference to arbitration unionists, so that the “Red Feds” should be beaten. When preference is to their benefit, they support it. I suppose that is the law of human conduct. When it is to their interests to come within the law they support arbitration with their utmost strength. Sir James Mills says -

The statement that an attempt is being’ made to crush unionism is absurd. It is merely the revival of an old cry. As a matter of fact, all large employers recognise that their interests are best served by the workers being organized so. that the conditions of labour may be properly regulated; that there may be some assurance that all employers may be placed on the same footing.

It is only those employers who think their interests are served by being able to get hold of non-unionists who are against preference. The large employers recognise that regulation is. absolutely necessary.

Mr Conroy:

– So that you are working for the big employer whom you so much condemn.

Mr ARTHUR:

– We are working for all employers and all employes. My honorable friends opposite think they are working for the employers’ interests, but as. a matter of fact they are not, and the large employers recognise that that is so. It has been recognised for years that the organization of labour is the most essential thing in the world. Carlyle said it was the most vital problem in the universe. His words -

This that they call organizing of labour is, if well understood, the problem of the whole future for all who will in future pretend to govern men.

Pastoral members know how much better it is for them to-day to have their industry regulated by law than when it was regulated by the burning of boats and sheds, and the throwing of waggons into rivers. It is desirable to bring these men where they can be controlled by law, and preference is necessary to bring about that organization.

Mr Falkiner:

– You want to give preference to them only if they will vote for you.

Mr ARTHUR:

– That is unworthy of the honorable member. It is an utterly false position, which brings shame on those who insinuate it. The Archbishop of Canterbury may also be quoted in this House to show the importance of organization. He recently said -

Could any clear-headed observer doubt that the real power and governance of the country in the years that were not far off would rest, indirectly at least, with the organized industrial forces of English manhood - or, possibly, manhood and womanhood together? It was a force capable,he unhesitatingly believed, of carrying into practical effect the very noblest ideals.

In that authority we have somebodyon our side who cannot be accused even by the honorable member for Werriwa of complete ignorance. It was never intended that a Bill should be put forward to excite dead-locks, as the AttorneyGeneral knows. The dead-lock provisions of the Constitution were insertedto deal with matters of serious import. Every Constitutionalist knows that it is constitutionally unthinkable to use a party Bill for the purposeof exciting another House to anger,and deliberately creating a situation to gain a party advantage. Such a use of this Bill would be a fraud upon the Constitution.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Would you mind telling us exactly what that means ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– It is using the Constitution for a purpose which the users know to be utterly foreign to the intention and objects of the Constitution.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And what does that mean?

Mr ARTHUR:

– A fraudulent use of the provisions of the Constitution, devised for a purpose well known to the persons using it to be contrary to the intentions of the Constitution. This provision was put : in to solve a dead-lock when it had arisen ; not to create dead-locks. The Chief Justice of the High Court, dealing with another constitutional provision, said -

Unfortunately, attempts have sometimes been made to take advantage of this provision of the Constitution for the purpose of creating so-called disputes, not for the real purpose of preserving industrial peace, but for the purpose of taking thecontrol of industry out of the hands of employers. In my opinion, such attempts are a fraud upon the Constitution, and ought to be so treated.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Do you agree with that?

Mr ARTHUR:

– Yes, with the principle. I say that this Bill is a fraud upon the Constitution, and I hope it will be treated as such.

Mr HANNAN:
Fawkner

.- Before giving reasons why we, as a party, are justified in opposing the Bill, I should like to reply to some of the statements of the honorable member for Echuca. He said one particular trade union charged an entrance fee of £20, meaning his hearers to draw the inference that what applied to that union applied to many others. He was reminded that that entrance fee was not now in operation.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is the entrance fee to the Hatters Union now ?

Mr Tudor:

– I can tell the honorable member. Any one who has been apprenticed in Australia gets in for nothing, and always has.

Mr HANNAN:

– It is evident that the entrance fee has been considerably reduced. The honorable member for Echuca referred also to the Waterside Workers Union. I do not know who has given him his information, but if his other statements are as accurate as his remarks regarding that union, very little dependence can be placed on them. He said that the entrance fee to the Waterside Workers Union of Western Australia was £50. One could hardly credit that a man who has been so long in the Federal Parliament, where industrial matters have been so prominent, could make such a statement, but he did. I understand that both the Felt Hatters and the Waterside Workers Unions are registered organizations under theConciliation and Arbitration Act. When a union applies for registration, it has to submit to theRegistrar a copy of its rules, and if the Regis-‘ trar considers that any rule is unreasonable, he has the right to call on the union to make it reasonable; and, if they fail to frame their rules inaccordance with the Act, the Registrar has the power to refuse registration. The two organizations referred to by the honorable member for Echuca are registered under the Commonwealth Act. The waterside workers are now working under an award from the Court, and the case of the felt hatters, I believe, is now before the Court. We on this side make no apology for requesting the right of preference to unionists when seeking employment. We say, on the other hand, that when the whole case is summed up trade unionists are not asking for preference because unionists cannot seek employment except in trades where union conditions are recognised. Only in such trades can unionists apply for employment. When a unionist applies to a firm in connexion with his trade, he is asking for work under conditions which he, as a member of the organization, has assisted to bring about, and therefore he is asking for no preference. But when we take the case of the non-unionist, the question of preference comes into operation. The nonunionist does not believe in trade unions or in organization of any description, but he certainly believes in asking for the rights and privileges which trade unionists have fought for and won. That is the position in which the non-unionist is today. The State Government, municipal bodies, and even the Federal Government in the past have in almost every instance inserted in their contracts conditions of labour which specify that the recognised trade union conditions for the district in which a work is to be carried out shall operate during the performance of the contract. Practically in every State the Government recognise to that extent the usefulness of trade unions. What is the position that confronts us? During the regime of the Labour Government a great deal of construction work was being carried out. The ex- Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. King O’Malley, issued an instruction that in the case of casual employment preference should be given to the unionist. Prior to issuing that instruction, as the result of a deputation from trade unionists with a request to that effect, the honorable gentleman brought into operation for the first time the recognised union conditions in Victoria and other States. His act meant that any non-unionist applying for employment immediately after his instruction was issued must get the benefit of the work done by trade unionists. Of course, some persons may say that it is an easy matter for the representatives of the unions to wait upon a Government and get them to agree to comply with certain union conditions. The unionist makes no sacrifice in making such a request to the representatives of the Government - that I am prepared to admit. But the unionists have made sacrifices to obtain the very conditions which they request the Government to observe. Considerable sacrifices were made in the early stages of the Builders Labourers Union and the General Labourers Union in Victoria, the organizations which were principally responsible for making the request to the ex-Minister of Home Affairs. A great deal of exception was taken to his decision by a particular section of the community who do not believe in trade unionism in any shape or form. During the present debate a number of honorable members have said that they are in favour of the trade unionism which they knew in the years gone by, but are totally opposed to the trade unionism which is operating in Australia to-day. Amongst these honorable members I have failed so far to recognise one man who in the days gone by had the courage to go upon the public platform and indorse the action of the trade unions and their officials who were then fighting to better the conditions of the people of this State. Honorable members on the other side come along with the plea that, while they are opposed to the present system of trade unionism, they are wholehearted supporters of that form of trade unionism- which practically exists no more. They oppose the present system of trade unionism because it has political tendencies - that is the ground of their opposition. They are quite in favour of trade unions which are simply mutual admiration societies. But immediately a trade unionist becomes militant, and tries, by means of organization, to better the conditions of the people who are dependent upon its success, they have no further use for him. Political action, I am prepared to admit, is interwoven with the system of trade unionism as it exists in Australia to-day. I go so far as to say that a trade union that is not political to-day is not fulfilling its highest duties. In my opinion, a trade union that does not devote a portion of its funds to political purposes is not fully carrying out its functions. That, too, is the opinion of the great majority of the people in our movement to-day. There would have been no objection from the other side to political unionism if it had failed. It is only because political unionism has been so successful that it arouses the bitter opposition which is expressed by honorable members sitting opposite, and by their supporters outside. In public life in Australia to-day we have a Conservative party, which is known as the Liberal party. If political unionism continues to gather strength at the rate it has done for the last twenty years, it means that in ten years the great Conservative party will have been practically wiped out of existence. That is where our honorable friends perceive the danger; they do not approve of political unionism. They approve of the unionism that existed in the days gone by. Before the leaders of trade unions thought of taking political action, what was the attitude of our honorable friends towards the leaders and the members of those organizations? The latter were persecuted; they were victimized whenever an opportunity was given to their opponents. In England, Ireland, and Scotland, particularly in England and Scotland, union leaders were sentenced to transportation to this land because they had the courage to rise and demand rights on behalf of the men and the women whom they represented. When the agitation for the inauguration of the eight-hour principle was started in Victoria, the leaders of the movement were Chartists from the Old Country who had been leaders in the industrial movement; many of them were sent here, as some persons expressed it, “ for the good of their country,” but as other people express it to-day, these men were transported for no other reason than that they were officials of industrial organizations. The men who bore the brunt of the fight for the eight-hour principle in Victoria in 1852, 1854, and 1856, were men who had been connected with the great industrial movement at Home. At that time in the Old Country trade unionists, in addition to struggling for improved industrial conditions, were agitating for the right to say who should represent them in Parliament. The honorable member for Werriwa stated here to-day that, on investigation, he had found that the leaders of the Labour movement in Australia were simply going back and copying legislation passed in England 400 or 500 years ago. He quoted how wage3 and hours of labour were regulated by law 400 or 500 years ago, and he said that, in doing what he considered to be in the interests of the workers, we were simply returning to the form of slavedom that then existed in England.

He said that in our movement there was nothing for the betterment of the people.. I do not contradict his statement that England did have industrial laws fixing the conditions of labour; but I point out to him that there is a great distinction between the form of industrial legislation operating in England at that time and the form of legislation which we are advocating and placing on the statute-book in Australia to-day. I find that, under the legislation to which the honorable member referred, a maximum wage and the hours of labour were fixed by law. No man could work less than the hours fixed; no man could receive a penny more than the wages for which that law provided. No employer could give a penny more; and if a worker refused to accept the wages so fixed, he was liable to suffer a term of imprisonment. Then, again, if he removed from one district to another to seek employment, he also committed an offence under that legislation, and was liable to be imprisoned. The honorable member for Werriwa, having investigated the form of industrial legislation operating in those days, now declares that that which the Labour movement is seeking to place on the statute-book of Australia is but a copy of it. I hold that the two forms of legislation are entirely different. The men who were legislated for in those days were not consulted as to the conditions which should be fixed; the men who were to be affected by the conditions to be imposed were not consulted by those who had the power to fix them. The very legislation for which we have been fighting, and which is in operation in the Commonwealth to-day, makes it necessary that the workers shall organize in order to reap the benefit of it. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act passed by this Parliament declares that there shall be organization. Parliament itself, therefore, has approved of organization on the part of the workers, as well as on the part of the employers. Then, again, the workers are afforded an opportunity to place their claims before the Court. The employers are likewise given an opportunity to put their case before it, and the President of the Court, having heard the facts, is then to give his decision. I recognise the good accomplished in the past by trade unions in older countries. I recognise the good that has been accomplished by trade unions in Australia, but

I recognise also that the industrial movement has made more real progress since the workers exercised the right of political action than it did before. Those of us who recommended political action have no reason to regret our advice, and I believe that if it is consistently followed up we shall never have cause to regret it. We have heard a great deal of what trade unionism has done, and of what it stands for. In this connexion I desire to read a letter which was addressed by Lady Dilke to the Treasurer of the Women’s Trade Union, London, and was read by her at a public meeting held at Rye Hill Chapel, Newcastle presided over by the Rev. Walter Walsh, and called by the members of a Trade Union Congress, then sitting in Newcastle, representing practically the industrial workers of Great Britain. The subject under discussion was “ How trade unionism raises the social, as well as the industrial position of women.” The letter is as follows: -

Pyrford, by Maybury, near Woking,

September 4 th, 1891.

I shall be glad if you will express to Mr. Walsh and to the friends who may attend his meeting, my deep sympathy with its object and my regret at my inability to be present. Tell them that I do not base the claims of this movement on industrial grounds alone. The cause of trades unionism amongst our women is inextricably bound up with all that makes for their moral as well as physical well-being. Membership in a trades union does not only educate our working sisters and develop their powers of mind and character; it gives them social protection and support in the bitter hours of sickness and out of work. The principles which make the strength of trades unionism are those of the gospel of Christ. There is no more potent force than this for the salvation of souls enslaved by the machinery of modern labour. Therefore I would urge the claims of the work on all who hold sacred the ties of our common womanhood.

Yours affectionately,

Emilie F. S. Dilke.

In the discussion which took place at this congress there was a difference of opinion as to whether political action ought to be taken by trade unions in the older countries. That difference of opinion exists even to-day amongst prominent trade unionists in Great Britain. I feel confident, however, that as soon as the unionists there are as solid for political action as are the unionists of Australia, there will dawn a better era for the workmen of the Old Country. But for the difference of opinion prevailing amongst nonunionists in this regard, they would have made more progress than they have.

During this debate we have heard some references to Syndicalism. We have always been told that Syndicalism is a new thing. I believe that it means neither more nor less than the general strike, and I find, in a report of the address delivered by the president of a congress held at Bradford, as far back as 1888, to deal with industrial conditions, the following statement: -

The miners have set a splendid organizing example to their brethren of other industries; yet, while they may have powerful associations in various parts of the country, it is found well nigh impossible to obtain concerted action either for a reduction of the output or an advance of wages; and when a strike occurs in Northumberland, in South Wales, or in Yorkshire, the men practically stand alone - or, what is worse, the members of other miners’ associations are practically made the unconscious instrument of defeating their brethren. Thus the coal which cannot be obtained from the strike district is procured from other fields. So long as this course of isolation is pursued, the miners will not succeed in materially raising their wages, or universally obtain an Eight Hours’ day.

Even as far back as 1888, the president of that congress went so far as to advocate the genera] strike as the only means by which the miners of the Old Country could better their ‘conditions. I believe that the form of Syndicalism referred toby the Attorney-General is neither more nor less than the general strike. The officials of the unions in Australia have at all times strongly objected to the principle of the general strike, and have succeded, so far, in preventing a genera) strike taking place in the Commonwealth. It must be admitted that the Trades and Labour Councils of all the States, as well as the Labour party in the Federal and State Parliaments, have at no time advocated industrial strife. We have, at times, indorsed a strike when those participating in it have had no other means of bettering their conditions, and I, for one, am not yet prepared to vote in this House for the prohibition of strikes. In their time, strikes have done a great deal to better the conditions of the people of Australia, as well as the workers in other countries. The workers in this community to-day are enjoying many benefits for which they have made, perhaps, but few sacrifices. The sacrifices have beer* made by those who have gone before. But we, as a party, do not stand for the principle of a general strike. We believe that the conditions of the workers can be materially improved by political action, and that through the ballot-box we can obtain better conditions for those whom we represent than by asking them to cease work and to make the sacrifices that are usually associated with an industrial upheaval. In a little work dealing with the eight-hours movement, I find the following -

The war of ‘66-70, and the long peace following, had done for Germany what the great civil war accomplished for American workmen - it turned soldiers into Socialists. Bismarck infused, a spark of enthusiasm into the hopes pf the German Socialists by a speech in the Reichstag on old-age pensions. “ If,” cried the great Chancellor, “you will give the labourer the right to labour as long as he is in health, secure to him care when he is sick, provide for his support when he is old - if you will do that, and not cry out about State Socialism whenever the support of the aged is spoken of; if the State shows some Christian solicitude for the working people, working men will respect and champion the Government.”

That is the attitude which the trade unionists of Australia have adopted. We are absolutely constitutional in our methods. When we relied upon the strike alone as a means of remedying the evils under which the workers laboured, we had no representation in Parliament. We had not taken the trouble to secure it. But since we have secured it we have obtained better results. No person can over-estimate the good that has been done to the people of this country, and, indeed, to those of all countries, by the trade union movement. We see its influence and effect on every hand. Where organization has taken place in any trade or calling, its effect is manifest. Where there is no organization in any trade or calling, the effect is clearly apparent, and is ofttimes of a deplorable character. I have another one or two interesting quotations to make in reference to political parties as we knew them in the Old Country, and as we know them in Australia to-day. In the older countries, political parties were never too eager to assist the workers to better their conditions until public opinion practically compelled them to do so. It frequently happened that the party responsible for passing the Act under which industrial conditions were improved received all the credit for so doing. Personally, I think that the credit should be given to those connected with the industrial movement, seeing that it was that movement in almost every instance which carried on the agitation. Mr. Thorold Rogers, in referring to that matter, says -

It is no wonder that working mcn have no great trust in government by party, for the two great historical parties have fleeced and ground them down with impartial persistence - according, we may add, as their interests are alternately affected.

That has been the experience of the workers of the Old Country, and it was the experience of the workers here until they took on themselves the responsibility of direct political action. In a book which I hold in my hand relating to the agitation which was carried on in Victoria

Mr Brennan:

– Who is the author of it?

Mr HANNAN:

- Mr. W. E. Murphy, who for many years was secretary of the Trades and Labour Council in Victoria, and of the eight hours movement in this State. The title of the book is The History of the Eight Hours Movement. The passage which I wish to quote reads -

On the 5th of the same month a conference of the masons’ delegates was held at the St. Lawrence Hotel, Gertrude-street, Fitzroy (since demolished), and subsequently at the Belvidere Hotel, on the Eastern Hill, where the following resolutions were passed - 1st. “ That in the opinion of this meeting a reduction of the hours of labour would be greatly beneficial to the trade, and also tend to improve our social and moral condition, and that this meeting pledges itself to use every lawful endeavour to bring about so desirable a result.”

That resolution was carried as far back as 1856, and from that time the agitation in favour of the eight hours principle has been carried on in this State. Notwithstanding, however, that it was started so long ago, I regret to say that in many trades the eight hours principle is still not recognised. It is not recognised principally in those trades in which there are no unions. In the trades in which there is effective organization, the principle is in operation. Unfortunately, I repeat, there are many workers who do not enjoy the blessings which flow from a recognition of that principle. I have no hesitation in saying that amongst the majority of rural workers to-day the most deplorable conditions exist. Of course I am not referring to the men who are connected with the pastoral industry. They have been well looked after by the Australian Workers Union. The influence of that union is clearly discernible in the conditions which its members enjoy. But in the majority of cases the condition of the rural workers in Australia is positively deplorable. Yet we find that honorable members opposite, who are never tired of proclaiming their interest in. trade unionism, are quite prepared to deprive these workers of their just rights.

Mr Howe:

– I draw attention to the state of the House, and ask for a quorum. [Quorum formed.’]

Mr HANNAN:

– When I was interrupted by the call for a quorum, I was referring to the condition of the rural workers throughout Australia. They are the poorest-paid class of men in the community to-day. They are absolutely the worst fed, and, in many instances, the manner in which they are housed is a disgrace to any civilized community. Yet in almost every Parliament - State and Federal - the country representatives have dominated the position of the Government.

Mr Bennett:

– On what authority does the honorable member make that statement 1

Mr HANNAN:

– My authority is that when men are sent to the country to employment, they cannot be kept there because of the prevailing conditions.

Mr Falkiner:

– When one of the Labour members in the New South Wales Parliament introduced a Bill to improve the conditions of the rural workers, not one of the country Labour members was there to vote in favour of it.

Mr HANNAN:

– The honorable member for Riverina must recognise the fact that the men in the shearing sheds are now properly housed, as the result, first, of the Act passed by this Parliament, and, secondly, of the efforts of the organization, which spent thousands of pounds in taking their grievances to Court. Even after an award was obtained it was necessary to have certain prosecutions to compel individuals to comply with the law. Shearers are now well housed, because the pastoralists of Australia are compelled to comply with certain conditions. I am prepared to admit that many farmers treat their servants like human beings, but there are others who do not so treat even their own children. A gentleman who recently returned to England, after a tour through the rural districts of Australia, expressed his astonishment at finding that in this sunny land child slavery is in operation. In the manufacturing districts the young are protected by law, but there is no protection for them in the country, where boys and girls from seven to ten years of age have to rise at 5 o’clock in the morning, milk for three or four hours, walk, perhaps, 3. miles to school, and do more milking again in the evening. The farmers have ruled the State Houses in Victoria and New South Wales for a number of years, and, while they are prepared to vote for factory legislation, they always stipulate that it shall be confined to the manufacturing industries. Child slavery exists to-day, and it has always existed in Australia and elsewhere where there are no trade unions to take the necessary action. At every Labour Congress in the Old Country child labour is discussed, as it was in the early stages of our movement in Australia. The unions, whenever they have had the power, have regulated child labour, and the conditions of work generally, and they recognise that it is necessary to have behind them the power of the law. From this idea has sprung the agitation for that political unionism to which our friends opposite are so bitterlyopposed.

Mr Palmer:

– Is that the reason the unions charge high fees for admission to membership ?

Mr HANNAN:

– I am sorry the honorable member was not in the chamber when I replied to his stupid statement made to-night in that connexion. It is monstrous that an honorable member should here state that a wharf labourer, who is looking for employment, has to pay an entrance fee of £50 to join a union.

Mr Palmer:

– I was quoting the honorable member for Boothby.

Mr HANNAN:

– The honorable member for Boothby said nothing of the kind. The honorable member for Echuca went on to say that workmen at Port Adelaide had paid hundreds of pounds to obtain the conditions under which they work today, whereas the fact is that it was the union, and not the men individually, who paid. When the men in the rural industries have subscribed an amount equal to that subscribed by the waterside workers, they will obtain much better conditions than they have to-day. It is not any wonder that our friends opposite object to the rural workers obtaining any rights or privileges, seeing that the representatives of their party in the Stat©

Houses have always worked against any effective legislation with that end in view. An instance of this was given in the early history of this Parliament, when rural workers were expressly excluded from the benefits of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is a great cry to-day for immigration, with no ready response from the Old Country. The reason is found in the fact that many men who have come here are bitterly disappointed with the conditions of employment in the country, and they so tell their friends in the letters they write home.

Mr Pigott:

– That is perfectly wrong.

Mr.HANNAN. - The honorable member must know that, except for the shearing, decent men cannot be induced to go to the country to work. When the Wages Board system was becoming somewhat effective in Victoria, there was an agitation for country Wages Boards, so that lower rates might be fixed for employment outside the cities. Honorable members are opposed to trade unionism, and the honorable member for Echuca has at all times been a bitter opponent of the system in every shape and form.

Mr Palmer:

– That statement is incorrect, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the honorable member for Fawkner to withdraw the statement if it is regarded as objectionable by the honorable member for Echuca.

Mr Hannan:

– Did you hear the statement that I made, Mr. Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is customary to withdraw a statement that is regarded as objectionable by an honorable member.

Mr HANNAN:

– I withdraw the statement, but the honorable member for Echuca when speaking said he was bitterly opposed to political unionism, and as I have always been a wholehearted supporter of that policy, I have as much right as he has to feel resentment. Honorable members opposite are opposed to political trade unionism, because they know that if the Labour movement progresses as it has in the past it means the wiping out practically of their political party. In the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provision is made for preference to unionists, but there is no provision for extending preference so far as the Public Service is concerned. Even under the law as it stands there is a certain form of preference to the non-unionist and to the unfair employer, because only the employer of unionists can be cited to the Court, and only members of a trade union can legally claim the rates fixed in an award.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr.Palmer. - I have been accused of having made a misstatement in saying that a £50 entrance fee has been charged by a trade union. What I did was merely to quote the declaration of the honorable member for Boothby, a member of the Labour party, that he had been told in a railway train that the Waterside Workers Union in Queensland had demanded £50 by way of entrance fee. He also said that another union had charged £20. For the truth of that statement I can vouch, because that charge was, and I believe still is, made by the Hatters Union.

Sitting suspended from 12.2 to 12.30 a.m. (Friday).

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– The Bill, the second reading of which we are now engaged in discussing, has been described by the most powerful newspaper that we have as trumpery, and of little importance. It is stated that a gentleman who has recently come from the Home Land to take up the duties of a high position, could not possibly be induced to grant a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament upon the rejection by the Senate of such a measure. That may appear to be harsh criticism, and it may be wondered why we are opposing the measure. But behind the Bill is the deadly intent of the second-in-command in this Ministry, the Attorney-General. Ten years ago he was engaged in an almost similar cause. I venture to prophesy that, should this measure be carried through both Houses, it will, ten years hence, be “bumped out” as severely as another measure passed at his instigation was “bumped out” by the Victorian Parliament. I have before me a cutting from the Review of Reviews, copying a Bulletin cartoon, which depicts in an artistic manner which you, Mr. Speaker, would appreciate, a figure covered with tar and feathers being borne on the shoulders of a man representing the Legislative Council, and of the late Sir Thomas Bent, representing the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. Sir Thomas Bent is made to say, “ We are removing our old frieud Irvine off the premises for good.” Then follows this letterpress -

Both Houses of the Victorian Parliament have passed the Separate Representation Repeal Bill. . . . This practically abolishes the last of Irvine’s legislation.

The cartoon was among the best that has been done by that splendid blackandwhite artist who signs himself “Hop,” and the occurrence reminds one of the futility of the legislation which was repealed. The union of railway employes in Victoria is to-day ten times stronger than it was ten years ago. And why should it not be? The highest economic authorities in the world are of the opinion that men must combine for the preservation and advancement of their interests. I am about to quote now a passage that I quoted in that terrible time, ten years ago, when our present Attorney-General, who was then Premier, Attorney-General, and Solicitor-General of Victoria, would not listen to the men. But Professor J. Ashley, of the Harvard University, writing on the railroad strike of 1894, in quoting perhaps the greatest mind, in some regards, that England has ever produced, John Stuart Mill, says-

It is the opinion of almost every economist of repute, of whatever school, that Labour combinations, with a power to appeal in the last resort to the joint refusal to work, i.e., to Strike, are, under the present system of competition, the indispensable means of enabling the sellers of labour to take care of their own interests. - (J. S. Mill, Principles of Political

Economy, book V., chap, x., second half.)

With these words of Mill may be compared the language of Fawcett, Walker, and Marshall. These are not writers particularly sympathetic towards trade union policy, or particularly hopeful of good results from such action. They merely state that, even though, in very many cases, strikes may have been unwise, the right to strike is in itself a necessary safeguard of workingmen’s interests.

In the Victorian era the trade unionists had to practise secrecy in their attempts to benefit themselves. In one case, three men asked for an increase of wages when they were getting a little over 7s. 6d., and were transported for a term of seven years ; but the term was shortened because of the indignation expressed by the public, and after two years they were reeased.

Mr Webster:

– There should be a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Dr MALONEY:

– I propose to give another quotation, but before doing so-

Mr Howe:

– I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that a quorum isnot present. [Quorum formed.]

Dr MALONEY:

– Honorable members are aware that Mr. Ford, the American employer, has given a large sum of money, somesay £4,000,000, and others £2,000,000, to his workers, and itmay be thought that he is opposed totrades unionism. As he is paying amini- mum wage of £1 a day, I do not blame the workers for not pressing matters. But every man working for him, I am credibly informed, is a contributor tounion funds, knowing that it is only by the strength given by association thatthey can keep up their wages. I might tell the Prime Minister that I dislike thework in which I am now engaged as much, as I believe he used to dislike it when on. this side. But one must play the game. I have before me a picture showing him as the hero of the piece in connexion with a parliamentary struggle of some years ago. A stone is shown inscribed ‘ ‘ To thememory of the martyred members wholost their sleep - the word ‘ lives ‘ iscrossed out - in the glorious stone-wall of 1905.” Below is printed- “ I know not what ‘twas for,” quoth he, “ But ‘twas a famous victory.”

The Prime Minister will appreciate the humour of the picture, with the memorial pile of Hansards that is shown. I labourunder a disadvantage by which he was not then handicapped, inasmuch as I cannot speak for more than sixtyfiveminutes - though for that I am not ungrateful j he aad those assisting him had no limit placed on their speaking time. Another quotation I wish to read iswhat Mr. Potter Palmer, of Chicago, is reported to have said -

For ten years I made as desperate a fight against organized labour as was ever made by mortal man. It cost me considerably morethan 1,000,000 dollars to learn that there is nolabour so skilled, so intelligent, so faithful,as that which is governed by an organization whose officials are well-balanced, levelheaded men…… I now employ nonebut organized labour, and never have the leasttrouble, each believing that the one has no right to oppress the other.

Thoughts crystallized, perhaps, by thepoet and handed down, bear fruit, and frequently these seeds of truth blossom forth and benefit the world. We know that in the past the workers were first of all crucified, and, later, hanged for the only crime of being poor. We know that the beggars were branded on the cheek,. and were hanged for the third offence. We know the old prayer called tha beggars’ prayer, “ From Hell, Hull, and Halifax, Good Lord deliver us.” Not having work to go to through lack of combination, the workers had to beg or steal, and they were punished when convicted of either offence. There would be no Labour party to-day had it not been for trade unions, and this Bill to-day, which attacks them, is such a trumpery affair that even its father would look back upon it with as much pride as he feels for those two infamous Bills he passed in the Victorian Legislature that have now been relegated to the limbo of oblivion. No other Bills were repealed with such unanimity. Gladstone once said that the principle of Liberalism was trust in the people qualified by prudence, and that the principle of Conservatism was mistrust of the people qualified by fear. I hold that the principle of the Labour party is trust in the people all the time. Therefore I hope that this Bill will not be allowed to go on the statute-book until it has been voted upon by a referendum. The honorable member for Gippsland, if he is true to the ideals of the initiative and referendum, will support me if an amendment is brought down with that object in view.

Mr Bennett:

– Your party are doing their best to stave off the initiative and referendum.

Dr MALONEY:

– The Bill before us has one purpose, and that is to twist matters so that there will be a double dissolution. I do not blame the Government. Their party went out of the Senate fourteen strong, and returned reduced by 50 per cent. They have everything to gain; they may win, but if they do not bring in the initiative and referendum the finger will be pointed unerringly at them, that they fear to trust the people, and they will have applied to them the description that Gladstone applied to the Conservatives. I spoke of the Victorian Statutes that were sent to the limbo of oblivion, though they were enacted by a Ministry supported by the strongest majority I know of in modern times, and were intended to crush trade unionism. At the time the men pleaded with the head of the Government to have the dispute arbitrated upon by any Judge of the Supreme Court he cared to name, though they knew that Judges were culled from the. ranks of those who were not workers. I do not know of any Judge who has sprung from the workers. The Attorney-General should be one of the very first to believe that unionism benefits the welfare of the community. No crime in the code punishable by imprisonment could have been condemned in more scathing terms than those in which the Age and the Argus of the 5th December, 1891, spoke regarding the constitution of the proposed Bar Association. I have accused the AttorneyGeneral of belonging to an unregistered, illegal union formed to defy and destroy the Legal Practitioners’ Practice Act, and I consider that it was his duty, as an honorable man, when he was Premier of Victoria, and with a powerful majority behind him, to have torn the Act from the statute-book if he considered it wrong. This measure, unfortunately, contained no penalties, otherwise had he, as chairman of an unregistered illegal union, continued doing what he is doing to-day, defying an Act of Parliament which he was sworn as Minister to carry out, he would have been haled before a Court, and the Barristers Union would not have been allowed to carry on as it has. Here are some remarks that the honorable member has made -

One thing felt by everybody in all parts of the world was an appreciation of liberty, and everybody should have the benefit of being able to stand equal to others in the law.

Equal to others in the law in Victoria of all places, where, as everybody knows, money commands the best brains, and, unfortunately, the best brains will always take the retaining fees! To quote the Bible is rather dangerous, but the AttorneyGeneral quoted from Revelations the description of the beast of the Apocalypse -

And it had power to cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. “By a strange coincidence,” said the AttorneyGeneral, “ the number of the beast was 666.” It is an astonishing thing that the letters in the name of the AttorneyGeneral give the same result. William has seven letters - one too many;

Henry has five, hut if you add the extra letter from William you get six; and Irvine, of course, counts six.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Where did you get Henry from?

Dr MALONEY:

– I am sorry if I have made a mistake. What is the honorable gentleman’s second name?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Hill.

Dr MALONEY:

– Well, evidently there are only seventeen letters in the name instead of eighteen, as I thought, so the honours will remain with the honorable gentleman. I desire to quote from the Age newspaper-

Mr Falkiner:

– I thought you were going to quote Scripture.

Dr MALONEY:

– I should choose better company than the honorable member if I ever desired to preach from the Bible.

Mr Jensen:

– I think we are entitled to a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Dr MALONEY:

– The argument used against trade unionists is that they do not allow others to join the union, and charge a big entrance fee. Those statements, of course, are absurd, and I challenge any honorable member to go amongst the largest contractors who are erecting buildings round Melbourne, and ask them if they want any men but unionists, or if they want any man from Packer’s union. Let them ask David Mitchell if he would employ any more men such as he had from Packer.

Mr Brennan:

– He should have been prosecuted.

Dr MALONEY:

– That gentleman left the party I belong to, but he won his spurs with the other party, and I regret that any man should fall through a vaulting ambition. However, reverting to the statement that trade unionists prevent other men from earning a livelihood, I would like to ask what the AttorneyGeneral does? Will he even meet in Court the honorable member for Angas, than whom no man is held in more kindly regard by every member in this House, and who, when he joined a former Ministry, was cheered by members of both sides of the House? If the Attorney-General dared to meet his colleague, the honorable member for Angas, except on a constitutional question, he would break the rules of the Barristers Union. The Age, of the 10th September, 1913, speaking of the Attorney-General, said -

The offence charged against the Ministry is that it has collectively violated its public obligations, owing to Mr. Irvine having declined to relinquish a “general retainer” from the Marconi Company, now in litigation with the Commonwealth.

Labour claims that the Attorney-General’s first duty should be to the country that pays him. No matter whether it be the Beef Trust, the Kerosene Trust, the Sugar Trust, or any other combine, such a body has only to brief the Attorney-General and his lips are silent, and his brain must not give assistance to his country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the honorable member is introducing matters that are not relevant to the Bill.

Dr MALONEY:

– I am showing that the honorable member is a member of an illegal union, formed for the purpose of defying an Act of the State of Victoria, in which he resides, and which he has sworn, as a Minister, to carry into effect. I am quoting from the Age newspaper to show that the Attorney-General will not meet certain other men in his own profession, and so, applying the argument that had been used by honorable members opposite in regard to the attitude of unionists towards non-unionists, is depriving those other men of their living.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Do you not think that retainer was a preference?

Dr MALONEY:

– All retainers should cease as soon as a man accepts the honorable position of Attorney-General.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yet you object to the Marconi Company having a preferent right to the Attorney-General’s services.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I fail to see what the Marconi Company has to do with this matter.

Dr MALONEY:

– Let me continue my quotation from the Age -

The significance of this is clear. It means that Mr. Irvine can always be prevented from acting for the Commonwealth - although he is Attorney-General - in any suit in which the opposite party should be a person or corporation, from whom he has accepted “ a general retainer “ ; for such a party would only need to give Mr. Irvine a brief to put him “ out of action.”

I have known Attorneys-General who gave up everything as soon as they took office.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the honorable member is out of order in these utterances. I am unable to connect them with the matter before the House.

Dr MALONEY:

– It is stated that trade unionists prevent others from earning their living-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The reference to trade unions is in order, but I think the honorable member is going rather too far in stressing the question of the Attorney-General’s retainer.

Dr MALONEY:

– What I wanted to show was that the Attorney-General will not meet a solicitor, who is honorably carrying out the law which does not allow a man to be merely a barrister or merely a solicitor. However, I will pass along. I have to again thank the Age newspaper, because in its splendid articles it has shown clearly how illogical, unjust, and wrong was the action of the Attorney-General. Even a Judge of the High Court Bench, whom an honorable member has insulted more than any other Judge in this country, but who, I think, is a just Judge, fell into a mistake, and the Age showed clearly that in section 10 - “ The Legislature had given to members of the Bar exclusive right to practise in the Courts, and the Bar should do its best to command the confidence of the Legislature and the public.” Mr. Morley feebly objected that “ there is nothing to compel counsel to charge in every case in which he appears.” But his Honour was inexorable. ‘ ‘ Then the brief should have been marked ‘ fee declined,’ “ he retorted sternly, and he suggested that if the Bar committee “got hold” of Mr. Morley it would “ deal with him.”

Mr Fisher:

– What for?

Dr MALONEY:

– To prevent him from earning his livelihood because he was man enough to go into the Court and refuse a big fee. . Then the Age continued -

Such persons might point out that the Victorian Parliament passed a law some years ago with the avowed object of amalgamating the two branches of the legal profession; that this law abrogated the exclusive right to “ members of the Bar “ to practise in the Courts, and that it sought to simplify procedure and to reduce the expenses of litigants by permitting solicitors to practise in the Courts as well as barristers. The law, in fact, made every solicitor a barrister, and its central intention was, in opening the Courts to solicitors, to abolish the necessity of either making or marking briefs, by allowing any solicitor who pleased both to prepare the case in his office, and to plead it in the Courts.

Judge Hodges was wrong, and the Age further stated -

It shows how successful the legal profession has been in setting the will of Parliament at nought, and in keeping the people in helpless subjection to the Bill of Costs.

I have accused the honorable member of being a man who is guilty of keeping up that nefarious practice against the law, of the country. It has been said that when the drum throbs alarm, and the trumpet gives its clarion note, none but the base remain behind and neglect the defence of their country. And what do we think of those craven creatures who skulk below in cellars in the hour of need, and come forth in the hour of victory to reap all the benefits? The position of such men is exactly the position of those who will not help the unions to uplift themselves and to benefit humanity, but take all the benefits other men have won. The advancement of the world is merely the history of unionism. It is within the memory of living men that, in England, not more than three men could meet together without being liable to deportation.

Mr Jensen:

– I draw attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Dr MALONEY:

– The Bill is avowedly introduced by the Government to overawe the Senate and twist a portion of the Constitution to secure a double dissolution, on the gambler’s chance that they cannot lose, and may possibly win a few more than seven seats in another place. If I were in their position, I would have the same desire; but I think I would introduce a more important measure to gain my ends. The progress of the Labour movement in Australia is simply wonderful. There are 157 Labour members in the State Assemblies, as against 190 on the other side. Adding the Senate and the House of Repr esentatives, we have 223 Labour members, as against 235 on the other side. Seeing that in 1890 there was not a single Labour member, the advance has been marvellous. The number increased in Victoria from four in 1891 to twenty in 1914; in Queensland, from none in 1891 to twenty-four in 1914; in South Australia, from none in 1891 to sixteen in 1914; in Western Australia, from none in 1900 to thirty-three in 1914; and in Tasmania, from none in 1902 to fifteen this year. I have not counted the Upper Houses, but if a referendum of the people were taken, those Houses of fossils would be all swept into oblivion. Including Labour members in the Legislative Councils, there are altogether 248 Labour members in Australia now, as against none in 1890. Wherever they do not control the Parliament, they constitute the direct Opposition. Labour is one organized body throughout the land, and there has never been, in the history of the world, such a perfectly organized body. Although the Attorney-General, when in the Victorian Parliament, professed to be anxious to reform the second Chamber out of existence, he showed his Conservative instincts in his desire to give a voter in the country twice, or two and a half times, the voting power of an elector in the cities. “Under those conditions, we cannot expect trade unionism to have a fair show. The infamous Governor Gerry, in America, manipulated districts in such a way that 50,000 Gerry supporters had 29 senators, and 55,000 Federalists had only 11 senators. That was the origin of the term “gerrymandering.” Contrast all this scheming with the principles of trade unionism,” which never denies a fellowman the right to vote. I accuse Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia of being combined in a conspiracy to wipe out the equality of man by giving a country voter double the voting power of a city elector. The brightest wits of the country gravitate to the cities, and it is in the cities that the brains of the community are, as a rule, to be found. In South Australia, 122,000 metropolitan voters return only 19 members; and 102,000 country electors return 27 members. In Victoria, the position is even worse; and I thank the Age for its splendid exposure of the infamy which Mr. Watt is trying to place upon the Victorian statute-book. Our party have always maintained that there are too many temporary men employed, and that the casual worker is a menace to the body politic, and should be made permanent; but the Government would prefer to give preference to the non-unionist, and I suppose would make Mr. Packer the high panjandrum and adviser in choosing men for work on the Commonwealth railways. There is not a contractor of any importance in Melbourne to-day who would have anything to do with Packer’s crowd if he wanted men for a big job. When I first built a terrace, I advertised for trade union work, at trade union wages, but during the absence of the overseer his substitute brought on some non-unionists, and what they did was the only bad work in all those houses. We are seeking to delay the passage of this measure, although it is only a trumpery thing in itself, because there is a principle behind it. If I thought the Bill would destroy unionism in any way, I should be prepared to go to any lengths to defeat it. Things are getting to a bad pass in this country, with the trusts creeping in and the cost of living going up. The Hon. Mr. Clarke said recently that meat would soon be ls. a lb. Mr. Benjamin, once a councillor in North Melbourne, and now in a big way in America, has sent to this country full particulars of the operations of the American Meat Trust. To show how they are operating in Australia, I was told by two farmers at a place at which I stopped in Brisbane that the trust are securing a four years’ supply of meat by bribing every farmer to keep his calves for them. Every farmer who has a cow in calf can get a sovereign, which he can keep even if the calf dies; but if the calf lives it must be delivered in four years’ time at the full market price. The Government should stop the export of ewe lambs, for no one who wants to see this country well stocked with sheep would allow a single ewe lamb to be destroyed. They are being exported, in thousands. Under a Liberal Ministry in South Australia the hated name of Armour is branded on the meat that is exported from the Government Department. If the Government of the Commonwealth honestly want to do something of a remedial character, let them give to the people the referendum and the initiative, and afford to them the opportunity to empower this Parliament to control and destroy trusts and combines. The Emperor Napoleon, with that prescience which distinguished his great brain, made it impossible for combines to exist as they exist here to-day. Section 419 of the Code Napoleon, which he made in 1810, reads -

All those who by deliberately spreading abroad false or slanderous facts, by offering a higher price than that asked by the various vendors themselves, by association or coalition, between the principal holders of the same merchandise or foodstuffs, whether with the view to’ withholding them from sale or with a view to selling them only at a certain price, and all those who by any fraudulent means shall effect a rise or diminution in the price of foodstuffs, or in the sale of public securities, . above or below the price determined by free and natural commercial competition, shall be punished by an imprisonment of one month to one year, and by a fine of from 500 to 1,000 francs.

Not a fine or imprisonment, but both fine and imprisonment. Section 420 reads -

The penalty for -the foregoing shall be an imprisonment of from two months to two years, and a fine of from 1,000 to 20,000 francs, if these manoeuvres have been practised on grain, flour, bread, wine, or any other drink.

With his great brain’ Napoleon was able to foreseethe present position 100 years ago. Yet the Government of the Commonwealth are playing with fire by bringing in a measure for which no words of mine can express sufficient contempt. A Liberal Minister in Queensland, Mr. White, has expressed the wish that meat will get dearer and dearer. The honorable member for Franklin, when he recollects that the number of stock is decreasing in the various States, and is less this year than it has been in preceding years, will surely agree that a law like the one in Russia to-day, that no cows shall be destroyed for meat, would add to our herds. In fact, in some of the dairying districts in Siberia they have gone so far that they will not allow a calf to be destroyed, ana provide that it must be allowed two of the mother’s teats to get natural fluid.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– They will never have a dairy industry worthy of the name if they do that.

Dr MALONEY:

– Then I refer my honorable friend to the large export of butter from the country, and to the reports of men who have been through the dairy factories, and declared that they are most up-to-date.

Mr McWilliams:

– The men who work there are practically slaves, for they are getting very little wages.

Dr MALONEY:

– The law in that country is such that the authorities have the power to do what the Government of the Commonwealth are seeking to do now with trade unionists. In many parts of Russia there is not a strike law equal to that which the Attorney- General brought forward in Victoria, and in England there was never a measure passed equal to it. Labour has acknowledged that without trade unionism the world would not be as civilized as it is, and that men and women would not be able to stand up. Even in England at this moment trade unionism has not a fair chance. A man has only to tell soldiers notto shoot their fellow-men and he is sent to prison; but if he is a swell amongst the fillies ofsociety and the Conservatives of England, he can tell soldiers to shoot their fellow-menand advocate civil war, and he is allowed to go about boasting and prating. Such is the state of English law to-day. No man has ever been considered worthy there to hold a vote because he is a man.

Mr DEPUTY:

-SPEAKER. - Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JENSEN:
Bass

.-l This Bill to prohibit preference to unionists casually employed by the Commonwealth has been practically brought about by an act of the Fisher Administration. I contend that they were only meting out justice to citizens who were prepared to fight for the interests of themselves, their wives, and their children, and in the interests of peace and good will to everybody in the community. Lot us glance at the conditions which existed in Australia a few years ago. What caused the creation of trade unions? There must have been some reason for their formation. The men and the women who have contributed to the unions have a right to some sort of recognition from the people and the Parliament for bringing about better conditions. I intend to confine my remarks chiefly to Tasmania, as I am well acquainted with its industrial conditions. Many years ago its workers were livingunder most terrible and monstrous conditions, brought about and insisted upon by the capitalists. I hope that you, sir, will bear with me while I read certain evidence taken by a Royal Commission, which was appointed in 1906 to inquire into the conditions of the wage-earners. Prior to that year, there were not three recognised trade or labour unions in the State, and it was because of that fact that deplorable conditions existed there. It was not until some Labour men were returned to the House of Assembly that the conditions of the workers were denounced. I was a member of the Assembly for nearly eight years. In 1903 four Labour men were returned, including myself and the honorable member for Illawarra. We made it our business to attack the Government of the day because of the terrible conditions that confronted almost every wageearner. We made certain statements which we verified. We kept hammering away in this direction from 1903 to 1906, when we were granted a Royal Commission to inquire into the industrial conditions. I. think, sir, that after this explanation you will bear with me while I read its report. It was the terrible treatment which was meted out to unfortunate people who could not help themselves that brought about the formation of trade and labour unions in Tasmania. The members of the Australian Labour party would not be worth their salt if they did not stand up here and speak on behalf of trade unionists. What is the object of the Bill before the House? It is simply designed to try to create an artificial dead-lock, to try to wrest from the Labour party the representation that we have in the Senate. The Government are not bothering a bit about this House, because they have possession of it. By this anti-preference Bill they are attempting to bring about an election in order to get control of another place. They are not troubling about preference at all ; their only motive is to try to get charge of the Senate. I challenge any honorable member on the other side to say that that is not the motive. Our opponents know in their hearts that the preference granted to casual labourers by the Fisher Administration does not affect the position of Australia one iota. It has nothing to do with the financial position, and it has nothing to do practically with the industrial position. This Bill has been introduced with the desire to secure something which was never intended by the framers of the Constitution. The Prime Minister has admitted that the Bill has been brought in for a specific purpose, and that being so, we on this side are quite justified in putting up a fight against its passage. If the Labour party were opposing some great financial scheme introduced by the Government, and absolutely necessary to the advancement of Australia, I could understand the attitude of honorable members opposite; but no one can say that this Bill is of any importance, or will serve any good purpose. The Government complain because preference ha3 been given to unionists in Government employment. Are not the unionists en-

Air. Jensen. titled to some recognition? They have brought about better conditions for themselves, as well as for those who do not belong to a union, and they are entitled to some recognition at the hands of the Government of the Commonwealth. This Parliament has passed a Conciliation and Arbitration Act, giving power to the President of the Court to grant preference to trade unionists under certain conditions; and surely it is not wrong for a Ministry to observe a principle which it has enforced upon others! Our opponents urge that the Labour Government appointed men to certain positions in the Commonwealth Service in return for political support. I understand, however, that the unionists who did receive preference, other things being equal, were not known personally to any member of the Ministry. They had not met them, nor had they even heard of them before. The principle of preference to unionists was one that we had long advocated, and for which we had fought, so that it was the duty of the Labour Government to put it into operation. I make no apology for it; I never have, and never shall, so that the prospect of an appeal to the people on such an issue does not frighten me. I have spoken in support of the principle many times in the course of an election campaign, and shall not hesitate to do so again. Trade unions improve the lot of the workers, and make for industrial peace. That being so, their members, other things being equal, ought to be entitled to preference. I propose to make some quotations from a report presented to the Tasmanian Parliament by the Royal Commission on Wages and Wage Earners in that State, which was appointed by the Evans Administration in 1906. Members of the State Government had practically declined to accept statements made by members of the Labour party in the State Parliament concerning the position of the workers in many callings, and it was only because of our repeated requests for an inquiry that the Royal Commission was eventually appointed. It discovered that the conditions of the workers in Tasmania were in many instances revolting, and that some of the blue-blooded aristocrats, Conservatives, and financial magnates, who were looked upon as the ladies and gentlemen of the State, and who occupied high places in society, were implicated. The report of the Commission, and the evidence taken before it, was such that the

Government refused to allow it to be placed on the table unless the names of the persons who were mentioned as having treated their employes very badly were deleted. There had been no trade unions to fight for the rights of the workers, and these aristocrats - these society people who appeared in so unfavorable a light - received the protection of the Premier of the State, who determined that their names should not be made public. For many days in the House of Assembly points of order were raised, and the question of whether or not the names of the employers should be deleted from the report was discussed at length. The question finally went to a vote, and every member of the State House outside the Labour party voted for the deletion of the names before the report, together with the evidence, was laid on the table and printed. The motion was carried, and so the good old employers won. I was a member of the State House of Assembly at the time, so that I know of what I am talking. I shall ask honorable members opposite whether, after listening to the quotations which I shall make from the report, they do not think it reasonable that, other things being equal, preference should be given to those who contribute to the funds of a union to secure better conditions, not only for themselves, but for those who work alongside of them, whether unionists or non-unionists?

Colonel Ryrie. - Read the whole report.

Mr JENSEN:

– I should like to be able to do so. It would occupy at least three hours.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Do not give us three hours of it.

Mr JENSEN:

– The honorable member for Franklin, with whom I am on the best of terms, will admit that what I have said concerning this report, and the circumstances leading up to the appointment of the Commission, is absolutely correct. The Commission consisted of three members. The chairman was Mr. Christopher O’Reilly, M.H.A., who sat on the cross benches, and neither associated himself with the Labour party nor the Government of the day; the second member was a strong Government supporter, whilst the third was Senator Long, a member of the Labour party. Two members of the Commission were not associated with Labour, so that it cannot be said that it was prejudiced in favour of Labour. It travelled over Tasmania, taking evidence concerning practically every trade and calling in the State. It visited the two chief cities, Hobartand Launceston, and I think that Hobart came out of the investigation less favorably than did the Northern city. The Commission reported in relation to biscuit factories as follows : -

There were two biscuit factories visited in Hobart, and from the pay-sheets it was found that the wages for biscuit makers and cake makers and pastrycooks varied from 30s. per week to £2 10s.; the next branch,11s. to 30s.; and juniors from 5s. to 15s. The men worked fifty-three hours weekly. A shop is opened in conjunction with one of the establishments, the female employes in which work on an average fifty-three hours weekly, their pay ranging from 8s. to 12s. per week; they are also allowed 9 meals during the week. The clerks (females) work fifty-one hours, and receive 15s. and 16s. per week, and seven meals weekly. A male clerk, with four and a half years’ service in the other establishment, is paid 25s. weekly for forty-seven hours’ work per week. Holidays are allowed and paid for in one factory; but the employes lose time if they fire away sick. In the other establishment the evidence as regards payment for any holidays and sickness is conflicting. At Launceston, the Commission visited one factory, and found that, in addition to the foreman, there are assistants, whose wages are 14s. and 32s. 6d., whilst boys are paid 6s. to 8s. per week. Several girls, employed as packers, receive 6s. to 10s. per week, and the forewoman £11s. The juniors commence at 5s. and 6s. per week. The females work 47½ hours, and the males50½ hours per week. Sick leave and holidays are both paid for. The clerk is in receipt of £2 per week. In this industry we find the following rates of payment made to the undermentioned employes are inadequate for the services rendered : - Clerk, aged 25 years,4½ years’ service, 25s. per week; biscuit baker, aged 22 years, eight years’ service, 30s. per week; general hand, aged 26 years, two years’ service, l1s. per week ; packer, aged 22, in his fifth year of service, 20s. a week; general hand, almost 18, juston three years’ service, 9s. per week.

There was no system under which these persons could better their conditions. There was nobody to talk unionism to them. In those days if any man or woman had dared to talk trade unionism in Hobart his presence would not have been wanted. The Commission reported -

In the boot-making trade we find the rates of payment made to several of those employed are very low, a finisher with eight years’ experience receiving only 22s. 6d. per week, whilst a bootmaker engaged on children’s boots receives 24s. 6d. per week; putter-up, nine years’ experience, 30s. per week; bootmaker, twelve years at the trade, 32s. 6d.; another, thirteen years at the trade, 29s. A packer, 28 years of age, receives 22s. 6d. per week. Female machinists, two years’ experience, 4s. per week, aged 19 years.

Fancy young women in the State of Tasmania in 1906 with two years of service receiving only 4s. per week. The report continues -

Four years at the trade, 9s. a week, age 20. Piece-work prices are as follow : - Kip shooties, 1s. 3d. ; Boston, ls. 4d. ; watertights, ls. 6d. ; light work,1s. 3d.; youths’ kip and lace, 10d.; boys’ kip and lace, 9½d.

I come now to the Government contract for clothing. I learn from the report that-

A female operative that was examined, and who was employed in the manufacture of clothing by the Government contractor, is paid the following rates for the various classes of garments she turns out : - Trousers, of a darkbluey material, 7½d. per pair; cadet trousers, 9d. per pair.

Mr Conroy:

– I could sew a pair of trousers up myself in about half-an-hour.

Mr Higgs:

– I rise to a question of privilege. This morning’s Argus reports Mr. Watt as having described this Parliament as “a venomous debating society,” and in the circumstances I think that he should be summoned to the bar of the House to explain the remarks made by him at St. Arnaud. If honorable members have such a poor opinion of their privileges as to allow expressions of that kind to pass unnoticed I am sorry for them. Personally I resent the remarks made by the Premier of Victoria. I think that he has forgotten his position. He has descended from the high plane he should occupy to what might be described as the larrikin stage. I would not like to call him a larrikin, because I do not know sufficient of him to warrant the application of such an epithet. But when he so far forgets himself as to describe this Parliament as “a venomous debating society,” it is time that we entered a protest. On an occasion like the present, when we are so anxious to get to our homes, I do not know that I should be justified in entering into a long discussion upon this matter.

Mr Anstey:

– The honorable member might go into the history of Mr. Watt.

Mr Higgs:

– On his own confession, the Premier of Victoria appears to belong to the boxing fraternity. He boasts of having knocked out some persons in the Royal Park. I remember reading a speech of his in which he stated that he had knocked out two persons. I do not know sufficient of him to say whether or not he is a reputable individual, but certainly his remarks suggest that his associates have not been of a reputable character.

Mr Gregory:

– That is a rather discreditable thing to say.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member cannot be regarded as a judge, seeing that he described the Trades Hall in Perth as “the thieves’ gallery” - an action for which he will be taken to task when hereturns to Western Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think that these remarks are quite beside thequestion of privilege.

Mr Higgs:

– I submit that we ought to be allowed to conduct our proceedings in an orderly way. We should not be attacked and abused by the Premier of Victoria. I am well aware that he holds a very poor opinion of the members of this Parliament. This question of privilege has suddenly arisen. We are carrying on our debates in a peaceful manner, when we read in the Argus that Mr. Watt has described this Parliament as “ a venomous debating society.” Personally, I think that it is a mutual admiration society. The one disturbing element in this chamber is the Prime Minister, who is occasionally supported by a cynical remark from the AttorneyGeneral. I beg to move -

That the Honorable the Premier of the State of Victoria, Mr. William Alexander Watt, be called to the bar of the House to apologize for describing this Parliament as “ a venomous debating society.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I would point out to the honorable member that our Standing Orders provide that a certain procedure shall be followed in such a contingency - a procedure which he has not followed. Standing order 285 reads -

An member complaining to the House of a statement in a newspaper as a breach of privilege shall produce a copy of the paper containing the statement in question, and be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher, and also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty of contempt.

Mr Higgs:

– I submit-

Mr Groom:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the honorable member for Capricornia has concluded his speech.

Mr Higgs:

– By way of personal explanation, I wish to say that as the honorable member for Bass desires to make a few further remarks, I will treat Mr. Watt’s observations with contempt.

Mr JENSEN:

– When the point of privilege was. raised by the honorable member for Capricornia, I was dealing with the Government clothing contract in Tasmania, and was endeavouring to show that in the old days the employers and Government of that State were prepared to grant a preference to those who were being sweated. I had been illustrating some of the conditions which prevailed there. The females engaged on the Government clothing contracts in Tasmania averaged a wage of only from 10s. to lis. per week. In one of the workrooms girls were taken on as learners and worked up to six months without pay. That is an admission which has

Deen extracted from the employers in Tasmania. Some of these girls have made clothing which has been worn by the Commonwealth public servants in that State, including postal employes and cadets. Girls have been sweated by these financial monsters. What has the Prime Minister to say about that? What has he to say about employers granting a preference, when these persons were being sweated? As to the corporation employés in Hobart, the Commission found that the wages paid were very low, ranging from 5s. to 5s. 3d., 5s. 6d., and 5s. 9d. per day, which, in the opinion of the Commission, were insufficient to decently house and maintain a family. This was a Commission created by the Evans Conservative Government in 1906-7, and on that Commission there was only one Labour member as compared with two members from the opposite side. It was such conditions as those that gave rise to trade unionism; and surely those men who brought about the improvements that we see are entitled to some recognition and consideration at the hands of employers, even though the employers be a Government or Ministers of the Crown. The report goes on to say that the low rate at which the Hobart corporation contracts were let rendered it impossible for the contractors, who received 6s. 6d. to 7s. Gd. per day for horse, cart, and driver, to pay a fair wage to those engaged as drivers. The married men with families, we are told, received from 20s. to 23s. a week. This was in the good old days when there was no Labour party; and these are the conditions to which honorable members opposite would like to return. The Bill we are now discussing has two objects, one to create an artificial dead-lock, and the other to drive a stiletto in the back of every trade unionist.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I thought the Bill was the “ shadow of a sham ?”

Mr JENSEN:

– And so it is, so far as concerns the pretences which honorable members opposite lay before their supporters.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But it is a stiletto in regard to honorable members of the Opposition?

Mr JENSEN:

– There is no doubt that if the Bill could be used as a stiletto it would be so used. The report of the Commission goes on to say that in Launceston there were five establishments visited at which dressmaking was an adjunct of the business; that in one it was found that apprentices were paid 2s. 6d. a week at the beginning of the employment, and that in others the period of service for which no payment was made varied from a fortnight to six months. I suppose that the employers, at the end of the six months, dismissed the girls who had been working for nothing, and took on others on the same terms. This was good old freedom of contract - good old preference! I take it that if ever preference is given and insisted on, it is by the sweater, who extracts labour for nothing out of his neighbour’s children. It is terrible to think that such conditions could exist in beautiful Australia. We hear our country described as the richest and best known, capable of producing almost anything of use to man, and yet in our midst there are the conditions which have made trade unionism necessary for the protection of the people. At the present time there is a Conciliation and Arbitration Act passed by this very Parliament, under which a Judge has the right to grant preference to unionists; and it is, indeed, hard to see why a Minister of the Crown should not mete out the same justice to Government employes. If it is right to give preference in the case of private employment, it is right in the case of Government employment; if it is wrong to give preference to Government employes, it must be wrong to give it to private employes. If preference makes for peace and goodwill in the one instance, it must make for peace and goodwill in the other. In regard to the flour-milling industry in Tasmania, the report of the Commission states that the system of dividing the twenty-four hours into two shifts of twelve for engine-drivers appeared unnecessary and objectionable, considering the nature and responsibility of the work, and the Commissioners expressed the opinion that there should be three shifts of eight hours.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am afraid the honorable member is going beyond what can be allowed in this debate.

Mr JENSEN:

– I am endeavouring to point out that, because of the terrible conditions that prevailed-

Mr J oseph Cook:

– I do not think that the debate all night has been anywhere near the subject.

Mr JENSEN:

– I have referred in my argument to the employment of casual labourers by the Commonwealth Government, and have contended that, in view of the preference that may be given under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is only right that preference should be given by the Government. At present I am describing such conditions as gave rise to trade unionism ; and, of course, if there were no trade unionism there would be no necessity for preference. We contend that trade unionists are entitled to some recognition because of the better conditions they have been instrumental in bringing about, and for their services in establishing peace instead of strife, deadlocks, degradation, starvation, and misery. Surely organizations with such objects are entitled to recognition. We do not believe that this Bill is a proper one for the Government to introduce, and surely I have a right to show the justification for trade unionism, and the reason why trade unionists are entitled to preference?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will be in order in doing that.

Mr JENSEN:

– We are told in the report of the Royal Commission that the conditions prevailing in regard to employment on river steamers in Tasmania were something awful.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– As a point of order, I should like to know what employment on river steamers in any State has to do withFederal Government employment, with which this Bill deals. I submit that all this discussion on trade unionism in general has nothing to do with the Bill; and, in my opinion, the whole debate, to which we have listened throughout this dreary day, has been altogether away from the subject. It is time that speakers were confined to the question whether preference shall be given in Government employment, for everything outside that is, I hold, entirely out’ of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable membersclaim that they used arguments of the kind in order to show that trade unionists, because of the position they have won in the industrial world, should receive consideration in the way of preference in Government employment. As to the river steamers, I understood the honorable member for Bass to say that he proposed to show what was done in connexion with employment on them; and as there are, I believe, steamers already owned by the Commonwealth, on which people are, and others may be employed, his remarks have some relation to the question before the. House.

Mr JENSEN:

– I shall quote no more from the report of the Royal Commission, but reserve that phase of the question until some other time, when, perhaps, I shall be a little more in order. At the same time, I submit that every quotation I made from the report led up to trade unionism and preference to unionists. ‘

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member must clearly understand that the mere leading up to trade unionism and preference to unionists is not sufficient; his remarks must have relation to preference in the Government Service.

Mr JENSEN:

– It is charged against the Labour ex-Ministers that they determined that when a number of men applied for casual employment, and there was not room for all of them, preference should be given by the officers in charge of the works to unionists, other things being equal. That is to say, after all the usual tests had been applied to applicants to ascertain experience, skill, whether married or single, the number of dependents, and so on, and there was no other remaining method of ascertaining which among equal applicants were best entitled to the job, membership in a union of his calling should be a reason for giving a man preference. Seeing that the Commonwealth Arbitration law, which was passed by the Reid-McLean Government, is based on a complete recognition of unionism, and embodies the principle of preference to unionists, and that that law takes no cognisance of persons who are not unionists, it would be difficult to imagine the Federal authorities flouting the spirit of the Statute by giving preference to an applicant because he was a non-unionist. Without entering into the question of the propriety of His Majesty’s Ministers taking upon themselves the granting of preference to unionists or nonunionists without a special Act of Parliament authorizing them to do so, there can be no doubt that the general principle of preference to trade unionists is sound. Arbitration can be effective only when dealing with organizations, and it is therefore in the interests of industrial peace that encouragement should be given to the formation of unions. The Assistant Minister of Home Affairs, speaking in this Chamber in 1911, said -

Preference to industrial unionists is provided for in our legislation to encourage the formation of unions for the purpose of bringing about industrial peace. It is recognised in the Statute that the existence of men outside such organizations makes the securing of industrial peace by a Court more difficult. The law provides, other things being equal, that preference shall be given to the members of industrial organizations registered under the Act.

Mr Groom:

– “ May be given.”

Mr JENSEN:

– The Minister said “ shall.” Mr. Deakin, in introducing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in 1904, said -

The issues as we put them are : Preference ? Yes ! Unionism t Yes ! Encouragement to unionism besides preference ? Yes ! For what purpose ? For the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

The Right Honorable Sir George Reid has said that “ trade unions are the evolution of intelligence,” and, speaking recently at a great gathering in London, he said -

When he was politically opposed to the Labour party in Australia he was, nevertheless, compelled to recognise its character, intelligence, and public spirit. Some people are so accustomed to see capitalists combine to fight for their own interests that they are unable to reconcile a similar development on the part of the workers.

His Lordship Bishop Mercer, speaking in Tasmania on the 28th July of last year, said that -

He was an ardent trade unionist. He was one right down to the ground. There was a lot of talk about union tyranny, but it could not be taken much notice of. He looked at it in this light : that while they had the same conflicting forces as at present there would he strife. The workers were hound to do things in a wholesale way until they got what they deserved, and recognition of their rights. He did not look upon the present system as the ultimate way of arriving at the value of services. The trade unionists were bound to continue, in spite of temporary injustice, until they were able to bring delicacy of manipulation into the organizations.

Bishop Mercer recognises the good qualities of trade unionism.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is there anything about trade unionism in the Bill ?

Mr Webster:

– I should like to know what it is that the Government is striking at, if not trade unionism?

Mr JENSEN:

– I, too, should like to know that. This party has been charged with having given preference to unionists. The unions, we have been told, are our supporters; and if this is not a Bill to put an end to preference to unionists, I do not know what it means. The Prime Minister says that he is not attacking the unions, but I say that he is. He is striking at the root and foundation of unionism. Both he and the AttorneyGeneral know that. For him to suggest that he is not endeavouring to interfere with unionism is to put a false position before the people.

Mr Groom:

– Look at the Bill.

Mr JENSEN:

– I know what is in the Bill. It has been drafted by the legal minds on the Government side, and Ministers are endeavouring to stifle debate upon it. But you, Mr. Speaker, recognise what it is hitting at, and have allowed reasonable debate. If the Prime Minister will say on the public platform that the Bill has no application to unions, we shall understand him better; but when he meets farmers, squatters, and employers generally, he sings a different tune. He has accused us of being supported by unionists, and of giving preference to our supporters.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JENSEN:

– I have only to add that it is unthinkable that the Bill should be allowed to bring about a dead-lock, or that it will cause His Excellency the Governor-General to interfere under our beautiful, great and grand Constitution.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– The last speaker has referred to the sufferings of employes in Tasmania through want of organization. Although some of the statements made are startling, and reveal conditions that are not to be expected in a civilized community, honorable members on this side know that they are as nothing compared with what could be said about the position of labour in older parts of the world. Some of us are well acquainted with the conditions of those employed in various industries in Great Britain. We know what both men and women have had to undergo in the iron works and coal-mines of that country. It is hardly to be wondered at that we are using every means to block this Bill.

Mr Jensen:

– I call attention to the State of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr WEST:

– It is not so much the Bill itself that concerns me, but it is what underlies it - the ulterior motives of honorable members opposite-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in imputing unworthy motives to other honorable members.

Mr WEST:

– At any rate, there are reasons other than appear on the surface for the introduction of the Bill. The necessity for its introduction arose through statements made at the last election concerning the action of the late Government in deciding that, all things being equal, members of trade unions should have the opportunity of securing employment from the Government. It was the first time in the history of Australia that these workers had the opportunity of being dealt with fairly and of obtaining Government employment. But honorable members of the Liberal party so dwelt on the matter that when they came into power they had to do something to justify the slanders and misstatements they had made. Having no policy and no possibility of a policy, they had to conceal their inabilities in an attempt to do something against their opponents, and injure the Labour party, by bringing forward this and another measure, on which they believe that they can dissolve the two Houses and go to the country. The history of Australia does not show an instance of any Government having adopted such a course. So far they have not produced any evidence to justify the course of action that they have taken, nor their claim that during the period the last Government were in power something was done which was not in the best interests of the country, or that the Government did not get from those they employed the class of work expected from them. If that had been the case, there might be some justification for asking for a removal of the declaration issued by the last Government, but there is. no justification for this Bill other than that the step the Labour party took should be wiped out. No British Government coming freshly into office would indulge in pin-pricks in order to annoy the Opposition. They would bring in a policy of their own, one of a national character upon which they could look with some feeling of pride if it came into existence, or on which they could go to the people. The present Ministry cannot feel proud of their position. If they could squeeze out of it they would be anxious to do so. They say that they are not opposing trade unions, but every phase of the measure justifies us in concluding that the object of Ministers is to prevent the employment of trade unionists in Government Departments. I stand by the statement made by my leader when he was at the head of the late Government. He said -

The unions have recognised rates of wages and regulations governing conditions of employment, which enable us to know what, price we must pay for labour, and under what conditions it can be employed. In many trades, unionists will not work with non-unionists, and it is an advantage to have labour organised in unions so that it may be dealt with.

There is hardly a man in the country who would not admit that such an action was worthy of statesmen having charge of the affairs of Australia. Why do we have extreme opposition to trade unionists? Even at the eleventh hour the Prime Minister must feel that it is based on some stupid idea grafted upon him by the company he keeps. That in the interests of Australia it is necessary that those who toil should organize was a principle engrafted on me in my young days, and though I have since become an employer of labour, I have not and cannot get away from it. Professional men find it absolutely necessary to have their organizations; manufacturers are compelled to have theirs; and commercial men have their chambers of commerce. If all these bodies, with the wealth that is behind them, find it necessary to organize, how much more necessary is it for men who work at daily toil to organize? Individually they have no standing. There is more necessity for these men to organize to-day than there was when the Prime Minister was working in coal mines, for then there was some kind of competition. The day of competition is now gone, and organization has taken its place. A few Saturdays ago, when, on behalf of a friend, at twenty minutes before noon, .1 telephoned to a merchant to repeat an order for 6,000 ordinary bags, I was told that no further order could be booked, and that I would need to wait until the Monday, after a telegram had come from Calcutta. Not a bag could be sold in New South Wales until that telegram .arrived, because the merchants wished to know whether there was to be an increase or a reduction in price. Commercial men combine for the purpose of rigging the markets, or looking after their businesses, yet honorable members have to remain in the House during all-night sittings, and have to fight in order to preserve for the industrial section of the community their right to organize. If, at the initiation of Federation, any man would have suggested that such a thing would occur in the National Parliament he would have been the laughing-stock of all sections of the community. All who study social questions must admit that present-day civilization is based on organization. Honorable members on the Government side seem to make statements one day which are completely at variance with their statements on previous occasions. On page 163 of the Hansard reports for 1913, the AttorneyGeneral is reported as having said -

But we must look for greater and greater organization on both sides, and in all forms of industry, before we can arrive at any ultimate solution of the great industrial problems.

That is a statement one would naturally expect to come from a man of the education and attainments of the AttorneyGeneral. We agree with him that it is necessary to the solution of our industrial problems that we should have greater organization than we have, and the necessity seems plainer since the introduction of this miserable abortion of a Bill. It is such a monstrosity that it makes one shiver to think that he has to be in the company of men who are responsible for it, and who desire to rule the destinies of Australia. It is proposals of this kind that make the people outside disgusted with Parliament; and can we wonder? Members in this Chamber should be men above the- average, the cream of the Democracy of Australia; and to ask honorable members to pass a Bill such as this is altogether beyond the realm of reason. Honorable members opposite attack our principles, but to us our principles are more than our religion, because there can be no religion amongst people without peace and happiness; and we, in our organizations, endeavour to bring contentment and peace to the people, so that they may be better able to worship the Being who created them. In speeches delivered by American senators on the Panama Canal tolls question, they stated that President Wilson was trying to induce them to violate principles that were dear to Americans. Those principles had been dear to them for a lifetime, and they would sooner pass- into oblivion than depart from them. Iti is the same with members on this side of the House. It would be better for us, as a party, to be wiped out of political existence than that we should sink our principles. The Government may think that they will obtain an advantage by passing this measure; but, though for a short time we may be kept in the cool shades of opposition, I can assure honorable members that the intelligent Democracy of Australia will not allow that condition of affairs to continue for long,, but will put into power again the Labour’ party, which did such useful work during the three years they held office. I have already quoted the utterances of the Prime Minister and of the AttorneyGeneral, and I now wish to remind honorable members of what was said by one of the Liberal organs. A paper that is supposed to support honorable members on the Government side said that the Liberal party could not do anything but make themselves ridiculous in the eyesof the people; that nothing was further from their thoughts, when they framed their programme, than to do any businessin the people’s interest, and that Liberal members are bound together by no common interest but the desire to down theLabour party. Any unbiased person must admit that the position there described’ is the position of the Liberal party at thepresent time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorablemember must connect his remarks with, the motion before the Chair.

Mr WEST:

– I am trying to show that in proposing this Bill, the Government, are not acting in the best interests of the people, and that they have no other object than to down the Labour party. In doing that, I thought I was quitewithin my rights. During this debate a. number of speakers on the Ministerial side have had a good deal to say about the objects and aims of unions, which they have accused of all the most horrible crimes in the calendar; they said that the unions have extorted money, prosecuted people, and committed other evils. What are the objects of a trade union? For a number of years I assisted to draw up more rules for unions in Sydney than any other man in New South Wales. In one year, when I was secretary and trustee, we increased the Trades and Labour Council by twenty-five unions. These paragraphs appear in every union code of rules: -

  1. To secure, promote, and advance the industrial and social interests of its members.

Can any honorable member object to that purpose?

  1. To uphold, protect, and defend the rights of organized labour generally, and those of our members in particular.

Surely there is nothing in that paragraph to create any alarm amongst members on the Government side. There is nothing objectionable to any sensible man in those words.

  1. To secure and preserve fair and reasonable hours and conditions of work, and proper and sufficient remuneration for the same.

Are not those principles that should commend themselves to any body of men who seek to form themselves into a union?

  1. To secure the adoption of a proper system of apprenticeship, providing for due instruction and proper remuneration of youths apprenticed to the trade.

One of the growing evils to-day is that we cannot secure apprentices in the various trades and callings, and encouragement of apprentices is one of the objects of a union. Yet honorable members opposite would endeavour to prevent unionists from trying to get employment in the Government Service.

  1. To establish funds or otherwise to make due provision for granting assistance to members in case of accident, or to the relatives, nominees, or legal representatives in case of death.

Some honorable members have been very anxious to have it recorded in Hansard that the fees of the unions are extortionate, and some erroneous and idiotic statements have been made. Honorable members have never mentioned that out of the union funds provision has to be made for sickness and mortality dues.

  1. Generally to provide for the due regulation of the trade as a whole, in accordance with the rules of the society.

What is the fundamental reason for a man belonging to a society? By some force of circumstances men have taken up a particular industrial calling in order to obtain a livelihood. A man should use his best efforts to bring his trade or calling up to as high a standard as possible. Any one listening to the debate would naturally conclude that the Government intended by this measure to touch only labourers and mechanics, and not to interfere in any way with professional men; but it should be remembered that the British Medical Association is one of the strongest and most exclusive organizations in the world. In Adelaide some time ago, when a medical man not belonging to the association was appointed to a position at the hospital, the other doctors belonging to the association told the committee that they would not touch him with a 40-ft. pole. It cannot be said that those men lacked education or knowledge, and they would have been very indignant if they were told that they were inhumane to their fellow-beings; but the fact remains that the thing actually happened. In Sydney a member of the association refused to go inside a house until another doctor, who did not belong to the association, had come out and was 20 yards away from the premises, although the case was one of life and death. What are the Government going to do, if they really intend to pass the Bill ? If they bring a non-union doctor into the Defence Department, all the union doctors will leave the Department in a body. What are they going to do in connexion with their big public utilities? Do they expect to put non-unionists into the harness factory, or the dock, or the shipyards ? If they try to do so all the other men will leave, and I should not blame them for doing so. The AttorneyGeneral himself would not go into Court with a man outside his own Bar Association, and what is good enough for him ought to be good enough for the poor unfortunates on the lower rung of the ladder. Surely the honorable gentleman has not reached such a depth of degradation as to want everything for himself, and give his unfortunate fellow-beings nothing !

  1. do not know how he could bring a miserable proposal like this into the House. I am sure the Government never imagined it would meet with so much opposition. They never thought members on this side were composed of the stuff that they are made of. We came here, not for the emoluments attached to the position, but to fight for principles. I do not believe there is another member on the Ministerial side of the House who would do what the Attorney-General is doing. I believe he is the father of the measure, and is in such an awkward position that he has to show a bold front. I think the result in the long run will be the same as followed his career in the Victorian Parliament, which has since been only too eager to undo the work that he did. He has charged us with following Tammany methods, and introducing the spoils to the victors system; but it may be news to him to learn that the London County Council, which employs more hands than the Commonwealth Government does, has adopted preference to unionists. He spoke about American methods, but he evidently does not read much, and does not know what is going on in America to-day. The New York Council, which employs many thousands of hands, had trouble for a number of years, owing to the influence of politicians. When Mr. Steve Lowe was appointed mayor-
Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member will not be in order in proceeding on those lines.

Mr WEST:

– The Government have challenged the Labour party with resorting to Tammany methods and political influence. The mayor of New York was confronted with a similar charge, and I wish to show the Attorney-General that there a very different course of action was taken to remove the evil.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing that course.

Mr WEST:

– Ifyou, sir, will not allow me to quote from this book I must content myself with pointing out that when the mayor of New York wanted to remove that which the Attorney-General has charged us with doing, he immediately called the employes in forty-one establishments together, and the engineer in charge advised them to form trade unions. In less than two years the abuses of the department were en tirely wiped out, and there was no further trouble with the servants. Out of 1,100 complaints no less than 822 were settled by the organizations, and the others were brought before the department and settled in accordance with the principles of trade unionism.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is wandering right away from the Bill. During the last few minutes he has not connected a remark with the question before the House which deals with preference only in connexion with Government employment.

Mr WEST:

– If, instead of bringing in. this Bill,, the Attorney-General had encouraged the formation of Labour organizations amongst the employe’s, he would have taken a course that would secure for the Commonwealth the best workmen. The casual employes would be brought under regulation, and the Government would pay the same rates as outside employers pay. There is another phase of the question which I think has not been mentioned, and that is in connexion with the contractors whom the Government employ. I, as a contractor, say that it is far better for a contractor who has relations with the Government to. know the rates he has to pay for labour, and further, to know that every contractor to the Government will have to pay similar rates. It is far safer all round, and it relieves the Government of the possibility of a charge or complaint that they are not paying the proper rates. Suppose that the Government employ trade unionists after this Bill is passed, what guarantee will they have that they are paying the proper rates? They. will have to go to trade unions to ascertain the rates and the conditions. A man who belongs to a union makes a better husband, father, and citizen than does a man who is mean, or whose temper is so bad that he cannot associate with his fellow beings. Some years ago, when the Prime Minister was on his oath before a Royal Commission, of which the late Dr. Garran was chairman, he was asked a question as to non-unionists, and the Court in which an industrial question could be dealt with by one of the best men who ever lived in New South Wales, James Curley, who was secretary to the Newcastle Miners Union for twenty-nine years, and the honorable gentleman replied that no conference, no body, no-

Court, would compel a non-unionist to work with a unionist.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I agree with that statement.

Mr WEST:

– The Bill in charge of the honorable member is providing for the very same thing.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No.

Mr WEST:

– The honorable member in his speech spoke very strongly of Syndicalists and Socialists. If anything is manufacturing these persons, it is the utterances which come from the other side; because wherever we go we hear disr content. To-day members of the unions are grumbling and growling because they are not satisfied with what we on this side of the House are doing.. We are going as far as is possible, and we can only go as far as the electors will allow us to do. Members of the unions are not satisfied that we have sufficient power now, and, of course, that creates discontent. By measures of this kind the AttorneyGeneral is really creating discontent. If there is any work which this National Parliament should undertake it should be the removal of the unrest in the community. I am not going to say that we will solve the problem entirely. It will be a bitter day, I think, when the problem is solved, and I, for my part, hope that there will always be discontent. Instead of creating dissatisfaction we ought to do something to remove the feeling. One of the objects of the people in placing the Labour party in power was that they should try, as far as possible, to alleviate the situation and bring about better conditions. The people, I admit, made a mistake when they put our opponents in office, and every hour that this Parliament sits the people are becoming more satisfied that they erred at the last election. T cannot enter a train, or an omnibus, or a tram car; I cannot pass through Sydney without hearing complaints that the Government are doing nothing but bringing in a miserable thing like this Bill. It must make the people laugh to recall the fact that I went about, night after night, and advocated the creating of a National Parliament, when such a funny thing as this miserable measure is produced. It will make the Government the laughing-stock of Australia. Another coincidence is that the present Ministry contains more lawyers than did any previous Ministry. I believe that there are thirteen lawyers in the party on the other side.

Mr Groom:

– That is a fatal number.

Mr WEST:

– The Government will never get a renewal of power when they meet the people. There is no question as to what their fate will be. The people will have something to consider when they hear that this Government includes seven lawyers. It is no wonder that they made a mistake. I feel quite satisfied that my constituents expect me to raise as much opposition as possible to this measure, and I oppose its passage withpleasure. As regards the design of the Government to make this Bill an excuse to ask for a double dissolution, I think it is a mean, contemptible way to proceed with the public business.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must withdraw those words.

Mr WEST:

– I do, sir. Sometimes it is very hard to find a way to tell the truth; but I must put my thought in another way. It is placing the new GovernorGeneral in a position in which he ought not to be placed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURNS:
Illawarra

– I wish to raise my voice in opposition to this Bill, which I hold to be quite unnecessary. We are told by the Government that they have already achieved by regulation the object which, this Bill has in view.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We have heard that argument a good many times.

Mr BURNS:

– And honorable members opposite will hear it many times more.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is a standing order against tedious repetition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member not to repeat arguments that have been used by others.

Mr BURNS:

– Private employers of labour have, as the result of conferences or awards of the Court, granted preference to a good many unionists. Members of the union with which I am connected have received preference at the hands of many private employers, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act passed by the Federal Parliament empowers the President of the Court, other things being equal, to grant preference to unionists.

Mr J H Catts:

– I ask whether there is a quorum present. [Quorum- formed.]

Mr BURNS:

– So far as the Government are concerned it is a question of granting preference, not to unionists, but to non-unionists. Trade unionists have had to contend with that sort of thing for many years, and in many cases have had to sacrifice their jobs or their principles in the course of their fight for unionism. In the early part of last century miners in the north of England had not only to work, but practically to rear their families in the bowels of the earth. When some of them tried to organize they had to sacrifice their jobs, and were hounded out of the districts in which they lived. The Government of that time, as well as private employers, were opposed to any combination on the part of the workers. I have before me Howell’s Labour Legislation,

Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders - a recently published work which deals fully with the difficulties with which trade unionists had to contend under the combination laws. The agricultural labourers of Dorset tried to form themselves into a union, and six of their number who had been constituted an executive were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and transported to Tasmania, where they were sold out as contract labourers at £1 per head.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member connect his remarks with the question before the Chair?

Mr BURNS:

– The point that I wish to make is that the chief object of this Bill is to secure preference for free labour. The honorable member for East Sydney, who has just resumed his seat, quoted evidence given before a Royal Commission by the present Prime Minister to the effect that no Court could compel a unionist to work with a non-unionist. The AttorneyGeneral said that he agreed with that statement.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Hear, hear.

Mr BURNS:

– The honorable gentleman says that there should be no preference to unionists in Government employment, and at the same time he agrees with the statement made by the Prime Minister before the Royal Commission in question that a unionist would not work with a non-unionist.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No; that a unionist would not be compelled to work with a non-unionist.

Mr BURNS:

– If the Attorney-General says that a unionist will not work with a non-unionist, then he must admit that, under this Bill, it is proposed that there shall be preference to free labourers in the Public Service. We have been told by honorable members opposite during this debate that whilst the Labour Government was in power preference was given to. unionists throughout the Public Service of the Commonwealth. During the regime of that Administration, however, I was employed in the Stores” Branch of the Postal Department in New South Wales, and was the only unionist among the thirty or forty men engaged in it.

Mr Groom:

– Was the honorable member a casual employe?

Mr BURNS:

– Yes, and so were the others.

Mr Groom:

– Had the principle of preference to unionists in Government employment been applied at that time?

Mr BURNS:

– There were no unionists employed in the Stores Branch when the Fisher Government went out of office, and there are none employed there to-day. That clearly shows that there was no preference to unionists in the Department. The Fisher Government undertook certain public works, such as the construction of railways, the building of the Federal Capital, and various enterprises in the Northern Territory. The Public Service Act, which was passed in the early days of this Parliament, does not provide for railway work, and asa matter of fact the men engaged on railway construction work to-day are nearly all unionists. The Government will have great difficulty in obtaining the services of navvies who are not in a union. That being so, how can it be said that a measure of this character is necessary?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– By the same reasoning, where is the necessity for granting preference if every one is in a union ?

Mr BURNS:

– I am seeking to showthat trade unions are becoming so perfect in their organization that they will be able to enforce preference to unionists, and that this Bill will not prevent the granting of preference. The time of the National Parliament is being wasted by the Government in bringing forward a measure which can have no effect. Behind the Bill, however, is the desire of the Government to obtain a double dissolution. They want to have something on which they may go to the GovernorGeneral and demand a double dissolution. Honorable members opposite, at the last general election, said that if returned to power they would do certain things.

Mr Patten:

– And this is one of them.

Mr BURNS:

– No. They condemned in unmeasured terms the banking legislation and certain other measures passed by the Labour Government.Why do they not propose to repeal that legislation?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– This granting of preference to unionists in Government employment was condemned from nearly every platform in Australia. The honorable member must know that, if he knows anything about the subject.

Mr BURNS:

– But not nearly so strongly as were certain measures passed by the Fisher Government. If the Government went to the country to-morrow on this question they would not obtain what they hope for - an increased number of supporters in this House as well as in another place.

Mr Patten:

– Give us a show to prove that.

Mr BURNS:

– So far as I am personally concerned the Government can have that chance at any time.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Then go out for a little while.

Mr BURNS:

– Let the honorable member go out. This measure, after all, is a myth. The Attorney-General and other honorable members opposite have said that we are Syndicalists. They are trying to encourage Syndicalism.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Honorable members opposite are tied to the Syndicalists.

Mr BURNS:

– We are not. The Syndicalists in Australia to-day are opposed to the Labour party.

Mr J H Catts:

– In my electorate they ran a candidate against me at the last election.

Mr BURNS:

– Only a fortnight ago I was walking down Bathurst-street, Sydney, when I saw a crowd congregated, and found that it was being addressed by a person who belonged to the Industrial Workers of the World. He was preaching sabotage and Syndicalism, and the whole of his remarks were directed against the Labour party. He said that it was because the Labour party had done nothing that he was advocating Syndicalism and sabotage. Knowing, as he does, that this doctrine is being preached by Syndicalists in every large town throughout the Commonwealth, how can the Attorney-General connect the Labour party with these persons who so unreservedly condemn it? The Syndicalists do not believe in arbitration or in industrial legislation of any description. The Labour party, on the other hand, uphold the principle of industrial arbitration, not only in this Parliament, but on the public platform. I propose to quote something from the Encyclopaedia of Industrialism, one of the chapters of which deals with Syndicalism.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr BURNS:

– As the AttorneyGeneral has endeavoured to connect the Labour party with Syndicalism, I think I have a right to traverse his statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member say that that was done during this debate?

Mr BURNS:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will have to connect his remarks with the Bill that is before the Chair ifhe proposes to deal with Syndicalism.

Mr BURNS:

– The Industrial Workers of the World are an industrial association

Mr SPEAKER:

– That fact does not necessarily connect them with this Bill.

Mr BURNS:

– I desire to show that the Syndicalists have no connexion with the Labour party-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That would be a very proper thing for the honorable member to do on the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, but not onthe motion for the second reading of a Bill of this character.

Mr J H Catts:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already ruled on the point.

Mr BURNS:

– The Industrial Workers of the World are an industrial union. The Bill provides that “ no preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth, or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or nonmembership of any political or industrial association.” I submit that as that body is an industrial organization, I am entitled to traverse the statement of the

Attorney-General to show that Syndicalists have no connexion with the Labour party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Notwithstanding what the honorable member for Cook may have instructed the honorable member to do in regard to this matter, the honorable member must take his instruction from the Chair. The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing that line of argument unless he can connect his remarks with the Bill which is before the House. The debate cannot be allowed to traverse the differences of opinion between rival labour organizations in regard to their policies and aims.

Mr BURNS:

– I desire to show that the members of the Industrial Workers of the World comprise all classes. Some of them are employed in our Public Service. It is a different organization from the organizations which are to-day claiming a preference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in proceeding upon those lines.

Mr BURNS:

– I bow to your ruling, sir.

Mr J H Catts:

– This is the object of one of the unions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Cook not to interrupt. I can only hear one speaker at a time.

Mr BURNS:

– I wish to point out that if the object of this Bill is to abolish preference to unionists, it must be designed to grant a preference to nonunionists. That is what we have been fighting against for half-a-century.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the honorable member cite a single case- in which that has occurred during the past twelve months ?

Mr BURNS:

– I would like to hear the Prime Minister giving utterance to the sentiments with which he was imbued in 1890 and 1891. He has affirmed that the unions of to-day differ from those with which he was connected some years ago. They do nothing of the kind.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I will point out one difference if the honorable member will allow me.

Mr BURNS:

– The Prime Minister has stated that they are different because of the fact that unions to-day use their funds for political purposes. When the Prime Minister was connected with them he advocated political action on their part.

They accepted his advice and sent him into the Parliament of New South Wales.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They did not accept my advice, I assure the honorable member.

Mr BURNS:

– The Prime Minister convened a conference–

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I did not.

Mr BURNS:

– The result was that he was elected to the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is an absolute misstatement.

Mr J H Catts:

– It is perfectly true. 1 have the letter.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I would like to know how the honorable member got it. I have never seen it.

Mr SPEAKER:

–Order ! This dialogue must cease. Will the honorable member proceed ?

Mr BURNS:

– If the Prime Minister would only give us reasons why he is supporting this Bill to-day in spite of all that he has said in the past concerning the question of preference to unionists, I should be exceedingly glad. We have been told by several honorable members opposite that this measure has been brought forward because unions to-day devote their funds to political purposes. May I point out that it is no new thing for industrial organizations to subscribe funds for political purposes. A resolution to that effect was carried at a conference in England as far back as 1869. It was submitted by Mr. Broadhurst, who was afterwards elected to the House of Commons. Time and again since then the unions of Great Britain have affirmed the desirableness of subscribing funds to send men into the House of Commons, and of late years they have been able to pay not only their election expenses, but also their salaries. Thanks, however, to the Imperial Government, their salaries are now paid by the Crown. Why should not unions subscribe for the purpose of sending men into Parliament? In 1890 we were told that if we wanted to secure the redress of wrongs, the best course to pursue was to abandon the weapon of the strike and to send men into Parliament to represent us. We accepted that advice, with the result that the present Prime Minister was returned to the New South Wales Parliament in 1891. The amount which unions subscribe for political purposes is infinitesimal.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And the simple result of.it all has been that the miners are not a penny better off to-day than they were.

Mr BURNS:

– I will show that they are better off. I remember the time when the miners in the Lithgow and South Coast districts were working very short time, and were getting only 2s. per ton for their coal. The Prime Minister will recollect that the result of sending Labour representatives into the New South Wales Parliament was that we got a better Coal Mines Regulation Act.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I helped to put it through.

Mr BURNS:

– And I give the Prime Minister credit for that. That Act provided for the compulsory weighing of coal. Previously the miners were paid only on the average and standard weight of their coal. They thus benefited by having every skip of coal weighed, whereas formerly for every ton they handled they were paid for only 15 cwt. Improved conditions and benefits could only have been brought about by the men combining to send representatives into Parliament to voice their opinions and wrongs; and I undertake to say that the miners on the South Coast, and in other mining districts, are better off by 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. in consequence.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In Lithgow the miners are not a penny better off.

Mr BURNS:

– I am not speaking of Lithgow, but of the South Coast.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I believe the men are better off down there, but in Newcastle and Lithgow they are not.

Mr BURNS:

– I know nothing of Newcastle and Lithgow; and, at any rate, it is unionism which has brought about better conditions. The miners of the South Coast and elsewhere have fought for preference and enjoy it to-day; and the Prime Minister was one who, in the early days, gave them his assistance. If preference is good in the coal-mining and in other industries I have mentioned, it ought to be equally good in the Government employ.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Prime Minister does not believe in the Bill.

Mr BURNS:

– I am sure that the Prime Minister, in his heart, condemns the Bill, but he has to follow the lines laid down by his leader, the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Why does the honorable member not read the whole of the speech I made in 1904, and thus give all I said on this very question?

Mr BURNS:

– I am not dealing with any speech of the honorable gentleman in 1904.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Honorable members opposite quote only one paragraph, and leave out the rest, which is an argument against this preference.

Mr J H Catts:

– Nothing of the kind.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Read it and see.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr BURNS:

– During the last century there has been much industrial strife and turmoil, a large percentage of which has been caused by the employment of non-unionists. In the United States of America there is what is known as the “ open shop,” which means preference to non-unionists, and the employment of free labour, because it is the cheapest that can be procured. Only a few years ago we had the same kind of thing in Australia; and we know what a fight the Australian Workers Union had to put up in its early history. No doubt there were some fair employers, and amongst them, I believe, was the honorable member for Riverina; but there were others who would not tolerate unionism in any shape, and insisted on employing free labour, for the reason I have mentioned. When I went to Tasmania fourteen years ago, and when I had the honour to be elected in 1903 to the State Parliament, I found there was no industrial organization of any consequence so far as Hobart and Launceston were concerned. In the factories and workshops were large numbers of people who were paid very low wages, and child labour was rampant; indeed, the only piece of industrial legislation on the statute-book was an Act providing that children under fourteen years of age should not work more than ten hours a day. Men in skilled trades were being paid 28s. per week.; and when efforts were made to organize unions, the employes were told that if they joined or took any leading part they would lose their employment. In the United States of America, where there is the “ open shop,” child labour is exploited to such an extent that out of 10,000,000 children between ten and fifteen years . of age 2,000,000 have to work for their livelihood. This class of labour is employed simply because it cannot organize, and is, therefore, cheap. The AttorneyGeneral said on one occasion that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge; and we were informed in the Governor-General’s Speech that it was proposed to do away with preference, not only in the Government employ, but also under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Had the Government taken that step, I could have admired them; but they have gone only half-way, and, as I say, ‘the Attorney-General describes the measure as the thin end of the wedge. We are told to swallow this Bill and then we shall be given something more. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is favorable to doing away with preference altogether ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is the use of asking me that ? The honorable member knows what I would say.

Mr BURNS:

– The Prime Minister “barracked” for preference in New South Wales, and he supported Mr. Wise when that gentleman introduced his Arbitration Bill in 1899. Is the Prime Minister the one who stopped the AttorneyGeneral from introducing the further measure that was foreshadowed ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I was; I thought it would help things, but it has made them worse; instead of acting as a reconciliator, it has acted as a wedge.

Mr BURNS:

– Nearly every appeal to the Arbitration Court, in both Commonwealth and State, has contained, as one of its plaints, preference to unionists. The tendency of modern industrialism is to get every man possible into the unions, and the only way is to give them prefer - ence.

Mr J H Catts:

– Another way would be to enter into such agreements as that entered into by the Government with the Australian Workers Union in connexion with the Transcontinental Railway.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then we are not destroying the unions?

Mr BURNS:

– But. why not give preference all along the line ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– This measure is not. going to hurt trade unionism, ac cording to what honorable members are now saying.

Mr BURNS:

– The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that he cannot hurt trade unionism, which will take care that he is not allowed to hurt it. If the Government follow the advice of the Attorney-General and attempt to destroy preference to unionists they will do more than anything else could to bring about Syndicalism in Australia. The Attorney-General has said that union funds are largely used for political purposes, and some honorable members have gone to the length of saying that nearly half the funds are so spent. As a matter of fact, a large number of the unions do not subscribe at all to the political funds; and there is no doubt that if, as provided in the rules of. the Political Labour League, each unionist subscribed 6d.per man per year, considerable financial means would be provided for the conduct of our campaigns. It is only of recent date that the unions in the district I represent have contributed, and there is a large union in the Newcastle district, and others elsewhere, who do not subscribe. I question very much whether the whole of the accumulated funds for political purposes represent more than a penny or twopence per man throughout Australia. What becomes of the large sums of money which the AttorneyGeneral says are spent for political purposes? I have lately seen a balance-sheet of the Illawarra Miners’ Association, and I find that, of an income of £2,000 odd, over £700 was spent in law expenses - in briefing barristers, who have preference, to appear for the association in the industrial Courts.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The barristers are good unionists, are they not?

Mr BURNS:

– Yes, and they have preference, and the men in the Government service are also good unionists. The members of the British Medical Association enjpy preference, and, owing to some trouble’ with the Friendly Societies during the last two or three years, they will not work in conjunction with the members of the Australian Association. If preference is good for the members of the medical and legal professions, why should not those at the bottom of the ladder enjoy its benefits. This Government encourages preference to the professional classes;

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Clearly the honorable member does not think that the Government intends to hurt trade unionism?

Mr BURNS:

– The trade unionists will see to that. But the abolition of preference would weaken the Arbitration Court. The unionists gave up the right to strike on the understanding that the Court would do something for them. If the Court cannot do anything for them, they must again resort to strikes.

Mr Falkiner:

– They have never stopped striking.

Mr BURNS:

– There would have been many more strikes but for our industrial legislation. The Court has settled many strikes, and prevented others from lasting as long as they would otherwise have lasted, thus preventing also great misery. In 1800, a law was passed making all persons who combined with others to advance wages or decrease the quantity of work done liable to imprisonment for three months, and in 1803, three women weavers were sent to gaol merely for carrying a letter requesting help for some other workers. That is the sort of legislation that the trade unions have had to fight against. The employers have given preference to free labour. Some of those opposite, who are entitled to their opinions, honestly believe that trade unionism is a menace to society, and the man who candidly expresses his convictions, and declares that he will oppose trade unionism is less difficult to deal with than the man who says that he is in favour of trade unionism, and tries to stab it in the back. Let me read from the second volume of the new Encyclopaedia of Social Reform some arguments for trade unions -

The more intellectually-gifted employers, and the most important English industries, have given an ungrudging recognition to the unions, and comparing the present with the former state of incessant strife, they see in the trade-union movement the instrument which is to restore English industry to the paths of peace. He quotes David Dale, a prominent mine-owner, us saying: “Let me, therefore, declare emphatically, as the result of long and varied experience, that the best securities that employers can have for the rule of reason, and the observance of engagements on the part of the operatives of any trade is that those operatives should have among themselves a union strong in numbers, and with an able and trusted executive.”

That is what Schulze Garveritz says in his Social Peace. Again, Professor Alfred Marshall, in a carefully balanced estimate - Economics of Industry, book vi., chapter xii., section 13 - says -

Little but mischief indeed comes from a weak union, always ready to interfere, but seldom able to secure the faithful carrying out of an agreement, to which its own officers have been a party. But a strong union, guided by able and far-seeing men, who have a grave sense of responsibility, is found to enable a few minutes’ quiet conversation to settle innumerable petty disputes that, in old times, would have caused much delay and worry, and loss of mutual good feeling.

Here is another quotation, from Trant - .

It has been argued: First, that trade unions have succeeded in raising wages and reducing the number of working hours. Second, that these reforms do not benefit the labourer at the cost of either the capitalist or the consumer; as, between certain limits, it is found that high pay and the prospect of an early cessation from work are such incentives to industry that the produce of labour is actually greater than under a system of long hours and low pay. Third, that the workmen have such confidence in the benefits that they derive from union, that, after the experience of “ half a millennium,” they are crowding into societies and into unions in a greater ratio every year. Fourth, that their declared object is to prevent strikes and substitute arbitration; and, although the latter mode of settling disputes is often proposed by the men and refused by the masters, it is seldom proposed by the masters, and still less often refused by the men. It has been argued further, that such being the objects of trade unions, and such . their success in obtaining these objects, the influence of that success must be very beneficial. First, because high wages mean increased comforts, which are not only a social, but a commercial advantage. High wages mean increased production, also the double blessing just mentioned. Second, because high wages do not mean enhanced prices, but the contrary. Third, because the principles of trade unionism teach men the prudence of denying themselves something today, in order that they may have greater advantages to-morrow, and the duty of selfsacrifice by calling upon thom to contribute out of their meagre wealth toward the elevation of the sufferings of their fellow men. Fourth, because trade unions endeavour to obtain for the working classes more leisure for recreation and study. Fifth, because, by lectures and other means, the unions endeavour to make their members better workmen, and by rules which stigmatize and punish the idle, the vicious, and the incompetent, do all in their power to make workmen better citizens, lt is really difficult to conceive how an institution with such noble objects, having attained those objects, can bc anything but a great blessing to the community in which it is placed.

Let me now give some figures -

The statistics on the following table as to wages -and hours are taken from the Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labour (August, 1907). The statements as to the strength of organization in the different trades are generalizations for the whole country, submitted to trade union leaders, Professor Commons, and others. The connexions between the two sets of facts are obvious, lt must be remembered that not a few trades, though generally weakly organized, are strong in some localities and sections, or vice versa, and that these facts are estimates of general conditions in the trade. The table on page 1233 shows almost absolutely, with very few exceptions, and these admitting of explanation, that complete organization is necessary for high wages and short hours.

Then follows a table: -

and so on. Wherever unions are strong, the conditions of labour have been improved. In Australia, the Australian Workers Union, which was formed in the eighties, has increased the wages earned by shearers by 100 per cent, in many instances. The rate for shearing used to be from 12s. 6d. to 14s. per 100 sheep, and now.it is 25s. The union has also obtained better hut accommodation for its members, and shorter hours. Unions tlo not ask too much when they ask for preference in compensation for the sacrifices and sufferings to which the leaders and rank and file have been compelled to submit; and if they ask preference from private employers, they are logical in asking it from Governments too. What is ths Bill going to do?

Mr Groom:

– What it says.

Mr BURNS:

– That is not the object of the Government.

Mr Groom:

– That is what the Bill will accomplish.

Mr BURNS:

– Why has the Government entered into an agreement with the Australian Workers Union in South Australia to pay a certain rate of wages if the union will find men for the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Tarcoola ?

Mr Kelly:

– There is nothing in the nature of preference in that agreement.

Mr BURNS:

– This is the first time thai I have heard any contradiction of the statements contained in the letter read in the House by the honorable member for Cook, and of the statements made by other honorable members. That letter shows that the Government were going to give certain conditions to the Australian Workers Union, and that the union was to find the men to work on the line. If it is correct that the Australian Workers’ Union are to get preference, why should it not be given to other unions?

Mr Kelly:

– The honorable member must have been out of the House when I contradicted that statement. The Australian Workers Union are not getting any preference.

Mr BURNS:

– Are there any free labourers employed on the line?

Mr Kelly:

– Some time ago, there were a few of them, and pressure was brought to bear upon me to get them dismiss-id; but I would not allow it. I do not care whether men are unionists or nonunionists; I want the best workmen.

Mr BURNS:

– The Attorney-General, and others, have said that the unionists are the best men, and that they would employ unionists. Then, why not give preference to them ? There may be. exceptions, but, as a general rule, the men connected with unions in skilled or unskilled trades are the best, and if we wish to secure the best men, we must call for those connected with unions to do the best work. The Bill before us means that the Government intend to give preference to non-unionists, otherwise, there is no necessity for the measure. Honorable members, knowing that the Labour party were up against them, have brought down the Bill for the purpose of putting up a fight to get a double dissolution. On many platforms they have stated that this is their object; but Parliament should be dealing with something of more consequence to the community, with measures that would make the people better off.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– The Bill under discussion is remarkable, for two things. It is not a Bill to deal with anything already in existence, and it brings into existence nothing of any importance to the community. It is the outcome of blind political party prejudice, and I cannot understand why the Government should think it advisable to bring it before a deliberative assembly and occupy the time of the country, at great cost, with something that can be of no direct benefit to the community. The responsibility for this waste of time lies with the Government. Their only justification is that they are prepared to waste the time of the country to gain a certain object. Measures are generally introduced for the purpose of controlling or regulating something in existence, or for the purpose of bringing into being something which will be of benefit to the community ; but this measure is quite the opposite, and, in this respect, differs from legislation considered by previous Parliaments. I am glad I am not associated with a party that would occupy the time of Parliament with a measure of this kind.

Mr Sampson:

– Then why debate it?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Why have the Government run away from the principle announced in their programme of last session - that of taking away from the Judge of the Arbitration Court the right to give preference to unionists? There would have been more justification in putting up a fight on that proposal; but Ministers suddenly discovered that it would be wise to confine the application of their Bill to the Public Service, where preference is unknown, and where, by their own administrative act, they have wiped out the giving of any preference. Yet they deliberately ask Parliament to deal with what has been designated “the shadow of a sham,” which no doubt it is, something that can be of no service to the community. Notwithstanding that Ministers had in their programme a proposal for the abolition of preference to unionists generally, not many honorable members opposite would admit that they favour such a proposal. The Attorney-General has said that if he had his way lie would stand by the abolition of preference to unionists at the first opportunity ; but no other honorable member on the Ministerial side of the House has had the manliness to admit that he is in favour of the abolition of preference to unionists. Taking away from the Judge of the Arbitration Court the power to award preference to unionists would be one of the worst things that could happen in the industrial world. “Unions do not register under the Arbitration Act for the purpose of losing any of the rights they enjoy. Strong industrial unions can enforce preference to unionists, no matter whether they are registered or not, and if the Arbitration Court directed that preference to unionists should not be conceded in regard to any particular award, the unionists concerned would be in the position, if they sought to abide by the award, of having to work alongside nonunionists. In that case, the unions would cancel their registration. The big unions have not got much out of the Arbitration Court, except in the case of the Australian Workers Union, and one or two others. The old militant unions are not much better off. They may have got some slight benefits from the Court when, by force of public opinion, they were compelled to register under the Act. The public recognised that there were two parties to disputes - the disputants on the one side, and the public themselves - and that it was unfair’ to allow the employers and employes to wage war to the detriment of the whole community. The unions were, therefore, compelled to register under the Act, and, in doing so, gave up their right to strike. But they would never have done this if they had thought that they could not have preference to unionists awarded by the Court. The unionists do not claim that it should be compulsory, but they say that they are prepared to register, and to lay down the weapon of the strike, provided that the Court is prepared to grant them preference, if necessary. This Bill does not deal with the general position, but, whilst it applies to nothing to-day the chances are that if it is passed into law, the idea of the AttorneyGeneral will be given effect to in the* near future, and preference to unionists, by order of a Judge in the Arbitration Court, will be abolished. The question of arbitration has been considered by every Parliament since the Parliament was established. From the very inception of this Parliament it was admitted that there should be organizations of employers and employes, which could be registered. An Arbitration Act could not take cognisance of individuals ; the workers must be in bodies if they are to come in under the influence of the Act, and as we compelled organizations to register, surely that was a reason why preference should be granted to them. Having taken away from the unionists the right to strike, what would be the result if the employers were not prepared to meet them amicably, in order to settle any disputes, and other men who were not members of the union were given employment? Surely that would be very unfair to the organization. I claim that that is a reason why preference should be granted in all cases. The day has gone by for isolated action to be taken even on the part of employers. The employers realize that they must com- bine; they do not stand alone; they register under the Act, just as the employes have to do. We have made a law abolishing the weapon of the strike, and we, as guardians of the welfare of the community, say that that method must not be resorted to, but that, in order to get the benefit of the Arbitration Act, unions would be registered as industrial bodies. Surely no fair-minded man will say that we should permit individuals who are outside the union, and have never paid a penny towards its upkeep - notwithstanding the fact that the present position of the employes is due to the efforts of trade unionism - to step in and receive the employment. If it had not been for the efforts of the industrial organizations we should not enjoy much of the progress which we see in the world today. Those industrial organizations have done much for the welfare of the community as well as for their members; they have done far more than .Legislatures towards the uplifting of the -masses. That being so, it is unfair to do anything which would prevent preference being granted to members of those organizations. We must remember, also, that industrial unions are very strong numerically, and have a big voting strength, and once we take away from them their rights and give some other person an advantage as against them we are introducing a system that will breed discontent. The arbitration principle is only on its trial, it is still incomplete, and it will be broken down if unfair treatment is meted out to the unionists, because the men will not submit to it after they have fought so long to obtain even-handed justice. Will any man contend that men who have paid nothing at all towards a union and towards the cost of fighting for improved conditions should be permitted to go into an industry, which previous to registration had never employed men who were other than. unionists, and reap all the benefits? If we admit the principle that preference should not be given to casual employes in the Government service, we shall be allowing the insertion of the thin edge of the wedge. At present the Bill has no application to anybody, because there is no preference to unionists in existence in the Public Service. We all know that the great majority of public servants are under the Public Service Commissioner, and do not come within the scope of this Bill, but we need not be surprised if amongst the few thousand casual employes who are affected, there is some disruption of their employment in some parts of the Commonwealth. I venture to say that if the Government endeavoured to employ nonunionists at the Fitzroy Dock in Sydney,, where the workers are well organized, and where previously no non-unionists have been employed, there would be a stoppage of work at once, and the shipbuilding would be brought to a standstill. The men there are sufficiently strong to assert their rights and to refuse to work with a man who is not a member of a union. I do not say that unionists are arbitrary, and will refuse to allow a man to get employment, but they naturally expect that when he has obtained employment he will join the union. They are always willing to extend the hand of brotherhood to every man, but they do say that once a man obtains employment it is only fair that he should contribute towards the association. On the subject of arbitration Mr. Deakin, speaking on 26th September, 1911 - Hansard, page 768 - said -

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 the House was divided during the first nine years of its existence. Preference takes its root in the original Act of 1004. lt will be seen that Mr. Deakin, who was at the head of the Liberal Party for a considerable time, and was a member of the Ministry that introduced the Arbitration Act, stated that the recognition of preference to unionists dated back to 1904. If the House in 1904 realized the justice of that principle, where is the justification for some members of the Liberal Party to-day seeking to eliminate preference from the Public Service ? If they were then in favour of preference to unionists, and considered that it was necessary to include it in the Arbitration Act, they should be just as keen in insisting upon the principle today I venture to say we are not going backwards. Unionism is growing year by year. The Attorney-General had something to say about New South Wales, and inferred that a good deal of the money of trade unions was expended for political purposes., I find from the latest figures from the Registrar- in New South Wales that the total number of unions is 205, the total membership, 201,144, the total funds £151,943, and the funds per member 15s.11d., the total income in 1912 was £199,157, and the expenditure was £173,474. The Registrar goes on to say -

Those amounts arc inflated by the inclusion of donations from or to other unions. The contributions received by unions on this account amounted to £1,425, and the amounts paid away, £17,242, chiefly to England and New Zealand.

It will be found that a very large amount was paid away to help those who were in distress, principally because the breadwinners were unable to earn the necessaries of life. The Registrar states -

The receipts amounted to £199,157, made up of contributions of members, £179,253; interest, £1,607; and other receipts, £18,297. The expenditure amounted to £173,474, and included benefits, £24,610; legal charges and expenses before wages boards, £12,426; and management and other expenses, £136,438. The benefits comprised sums paid at death, £3,869; accidents, say, £7,484; out of employment, £8,444; sick pay, £1,393; superannuation allowance, £1,640 ; medical attendance, £41 ; tools, £101 ; and other benefits, £1,638.

There is no mention of any payment for political purposes, but it is stated that there was a large amount spent on management and other expenses. I have already referred to the large amountthat is sent outside Australia. The honorable member for Calare stated that the trade unions did not contribute to hospitals out of their funds.

Mr Pigott:

– My remarks applied to the Australian Workers Union.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Every member of the miners’ union I am connected with in the South Maitland district pays1½d. a week towards the hospital, and those contributions, with Government subsidy, keep the institutions going. The honorable member’s statement cannot apply to the Newcastle miners. No one is more charitable than the working man.

Mr Pigott:

Mr. Spence said the Australian Workers Union contributed nothing.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The individual members may subscribe to the hospitals.

Mr Pigott:

– I did not reflect on the individuals. I did reflect on the Australian Workers Union.

Mr CHARLTON:

– If the members subscribe individually, that covers everything.I am sure that very few associations of capitalists make contributions to the hospitals, although some of their members may give individually. Our association is the second largest in New South Wales, with about 25,000 members in all, of whom 8,800 are in my union. The levy of 6d. a week brings in a big income, but the expenses of management are considerable. No doubt the AttorneyGeneral wonders where the money goes in these large unions, and comes to the conclusion that it is used for political purposes, but when I stood for Parliament my union did not contribute 3d. towards the expenses of my candidature. I do not say that it should not, because if the working man realized what is best for himself he would see that sufficient ammunition was provided when political fights were on to enable us to do the best in his interests. He must depend more on political than on industrial action. It is of no use for men combined industrially in favour of preference to rely on their industrial left hand and entirely ignore their political right hand. The two must go together. His opponents are constantly finding money to assist candidates opposed to the Labour party. I refer to the wealthy capitalistic people. It is to the interests of the pastoralist to return a man like the honorable member for Calare, and I do not blame him for looking after his own interests ; but if the working man realized his strength, and used it properly, he would never need to fear the power of wealth, because Parliament would be able to legislate to give even justice to all. In the Newcastle union of which I spoke there are three officers, to start with, at £4 a week and expenses, a clerk at £3 a week, two men constantly employed in the Industrial Court to prevent strikes receiving £4 a week, and two men constantly going round check inspecting at £4 a week and expenses. There is at least one delegate meeting every fortnight, which means another £30 odd, so that, although the contributions may appear great, the money is required to carry on the organization. The statement that the unions find money for political purposes has no foundation so far as the Newcastle miners are concerned. Industrial organization and registration under the Arbitration Act was forced upon the workers, and if we compel them to go to the Court, we have no right to withhold preference from them. In fact, the responsibility of seeing that they get preference rests on Parliament. It would be better for honorable members opposite, and their supporters outside, if preference were made the law of the land. The contractors in the big cities would tell you that they prefer trade unionists to do their work. That is because, generally speaking, they are the cream of die workers. I do not infer that any one who is not in a union is scum. We are constantly accused of calling non-unionists the scum of the earth, but we know there are many good men outside the unions, not because they do not want to join, but because they have not had the opportunity. They are scattered about Australia; but whenever they come to a populated district where trade unions exist they join, and make some of the best unionists that we have. We apply the term scum to the man who is not prepared to work with his fellows in the union for the common good, but is always prepared to take the benefit of others’ efforts. We have not a word to say against legitimate, honest workmen, but we do object to the man who goes about endeavouring to assist the employers at a time of industrial strife, and belongs to no union. If this Bill becomes law he will have the right to get employment alongside a unionist. He will not do the same amount of work as the unionist, he will slum his work, and yet he will be on the same footing as others who have borne the heat and burden of the day. Unionists of long standing are not going to permit other men who have stood aloof to come in and obtain the fruits of their labour. Such a state of things will never be permitted in this country. It has been made to appear during the debate that we have adopted the “ spoils to the victor “ system. Those who make such charges should be fair. Let them point out the high positions that have been given to men on account of their being unionists. No one would contend that the mere fact of a man’s identification with the Labour party should debar him from being employed by the Commonwealth in any position. Our policy has always been to appoint the fittest men, irrespective of their political opinions. Strange to say, in three-fourths of the cases in which we have appointed men they have not been supporters of the Labour party, but have been Liberal in their politics. So that really we could be charged with having given preference to members of the Liberal party, but we gave preference to no one. We simply appointed these men to high positions because we considered that they were qualified. Then because, in one or two cases, we appointed to minor positions some men who it was known were identified with the Labour movement, although they were fully qualified to carry out their respective duties, there were complaints made that we had shown partisanship. It is time that we looked at these matters in a fair way, and gave credit to each other for appointing the men who were best suited to fill the positions. We, on this side, have always followed that course. During the speech of the honorable member for Illawarra it was claimed that trade unionism would hurt us yet. In my view, if the Government abolish preference to unionists and take up a partisan attitude in regard to casual employment, trade unionism will hurt somebody, but it will be honorable members who sit on the other side. It must not be taken for granted that all trade unionists support the Labour party, because there is a large number who support the Liberal party. If all trade unionists were supporting our party, there would be no doubt as to the result politically. A large number of trade unionists support the Liberal party, just as a large number of electors who are not identified with trade unionism support the Labour party.. It cannot be contended rightly that we get the entire support of trade unionists. But we, as a party, knowing the fight of trade unionism for improved conditions, realize how necessary it is to protect and assist those who have done so much for the betterment of the community. In the early days it was a crime for men to organize, and they were thrust into prison for taking that course. It has only been in recent years that trade unionism has obtained a standing before the law, even in Great Britain. It was only after the agitation created by the Taff Vale decision that trade unions got legal recognition at all in that country. It speaks wonders for the Labour movement that it could fight its way there in opposition to the law, improve the conditions of the toilers, do away with the system which permitted children to go into the mines, and, in some cases, girls and women, provide that children could go to school and receive some education up to a reasonable age. Is it not necessary for the welfare of the community that the people who toil and spin should be able to get a decent livelihood, and to rear a family in proper comfort? Is it in the interests of the community that families should be deprived of the necessaries of life, and dragged up, as it were, by the hair because the bread winner was unable to get sufficient food to keep body and soul together ? Such was the state of affairs that existed previous to organization, and since then rapid progress has been made in bettering the conditions of the masses throughout the world. The conditions in Australia, I am pleased to say, compare more than favorably with the conditions elsewhere, and that is due largely to the fact that the educational system in the different States gives greater facilities to people than our forefathers had in older countries. To-day combinations exist everywhere. At one time the employers did not bother about preference to unionists because they reckoned that if they had free and open competition it was all right, but they were aroused by the great success achieved by trade unions, and conceiving that organization in their case would be equally good , they organized, with the result that employers in different spheres are united and possess greater strength to-day than they had when they were disunited. If we do not legislate, here to protect the masses of the workers, ..they will be gradually ground down by the combination of employers. In these days, employers can no longer deal with individuals. They must deal with, a collective body, and, consequently, they are endeavouring to still more closely combine themselves, and by combination they are able to put forward a stronger front than they could in previous years. The only consideration that induces them to stand by the Arbitration Court is the fact that trade unionists are recognised by the Act, and their organizations are registered. But if the right to preference is taken away, a blow will be directed at organized unions which may have a very serious effect. In my view, the Government are treading on dangerous ground. If this Bill is passed, the thin end of the wedge will be driven home, and by-and-bye the abolition of preference will be general, and in doing so our opponents will direct a blow which will react against the proper government of this community, because organizations are not likely to register if other men are permitted to come in and rob them of the fruits of their labour. Take the new union which has been formed in Melbourne. To my mind, the Independent Workers Union was formed for one particular purpose, and that is to work in conjunction with the organized employers, and to break through the ranks of organized labour. What will be the effect if this Bill is passed, or the Government maintain their attitude? About eighteen months ago, Mr. Blackwood, an employer, stated in the Old Country that Packer’s union was brought into existence to compete against the trade unions registered under the Arbitration Act. He pointed out that the employers had arranged with Mr. Packer to give employment to all the men whom he required to. be employed. That was a question of giving preference, not to trade unionists, but to the members of an organization which was committed to breaking down trade unionism, and is not registered under the law of the Commonwealth. Suppose that some engineers, or blacksmiths, or boilermakers belonging to Packer’s union obtain employment on the works at Cockatoo Island, that will be just like holding out a red rag to a bull. Immediately the members of this union go to the island, the other men, who have been in combination for years, and thereby have improved their position, will immediately object, and we shall have the spectacle of the shipbuilding being stopped. We shall have important work which is considered highly necessary suspended because of the introduction of a few men who are entirely opposed to the trade unionists previously employed there. If the same class of men get employment on the railway lines, we shall have trouble there also. Again, in the Small Arms Factory, where continuity of employment is essential, because it is unable to keep pace with the requirements, exception will immediately be taken to the introduction of the new brand of unionist, and the work of the Commonwealth will be held up. Who is going to be responsible for bringing about that state of things ? Will it be claimed that the old trade unionists are .responsible because they refuse to work alongside men who are endeavouring to take the bread from their mouths, and to cut down the wages in the interests of the employers? Or, will the responsibility lie with the Government, who permit such a state of things to exist? Surely it is reasonable that preference should be granted to unionists. By passing this Bill, we may cause the wheels of industry to cease to go round, and give rise to industrial disturbances. I hope that we shall never have another big industrial disturbance - that we shall have a more satisfactory means of settling industrial disputes - but nothing is more liable to cause such a disturbance than an attempt to compel members of unions to work side by side with non-unionists. That which we have done by way of legislation to insure industrial peace may be undone by the passing of this one measure. If there was a breach of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the pains and penalties for which it provides would come into operation, and no doubt would press heavily on the workers, although they might have been driven by the Government to take action. Some consideration ought to be extended to the industrial workers. They are the working bees of the hive, and really produce everything. The miners, for instance, are at the very foundation of all industry. Their labour provides for the world’s fireside. Every industry, with but one or two exceptions, depends upon it for fuel to generate steam power. Yet, if the provision for preference be taken away, these men, who are so necessary to the community, are liable to have placed in their midst non-unionists. They have been able, because of their numerical strength and militancy, to defeat the efforts of employers to introduce non unionists, who would work for a little less than they would do. They were able to do that even before the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was passed. The Government ask us now to say, however, that non-unionists should partake of all the fruits of organization, and should enjoy all that the unionists have achieved, after the payment of levies year in and year out. The militant Miners’ Union says, “ Whilst we are prepared to obey the law, we never expected, when we registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and gave up the right to strike in order to secure industrial peace, that we should be introducing into our midst an element of discord, friction, and revolt.” They never anticipated the present situation. Mr. Deakin stated in 1904 that nine different Ministries had favoured the vesting of power in the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court to grant preference to unionists under certain conditions. But the Government are now introducing the thin end of the wedge to prevent preference to unionists generally. True, this Bill relates only to preference to unionists in Government employment, but the AttorneyGeneral has been man enough to admit that if he had his way he would do away with the power vested in the President of the Court to grant legal preference. We do not know whether the Attorney-General’s colleagues indorse that view.

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

– Silence means consent.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Quite so; we have not been able to obtain a direct answer from Ministers. We know, however, that when Parliament first assembled they said that they were opposed to preference to unionists. If they held that opinion then, they must hold it still. If they do not, then all that can be said is that not one of them has had the courage to say so. Why is this? Is it that the Attorney-General is a strong-minded man, and has openly declared that he does not believe in preference of any kind ? If that is the position, then, should the Government secure a double dissolution, and be returned to power once more - I do not think they have a chance - they will claim that they have a mandate from the people to abolish preference to unionists generally. They will at once introduce legislation to take from the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court the power to grant preference to unionists, public business will be delayed, and the industrial organizations of Australia will demonstrate in a striking manner their entire disapprobation. Such legislation would lead to their opposing industrial arbitration. The great body cif industrial workers, finding that they were not getting a fair deal, would return to this House a party pledged to repeal the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and we should go back to the barbaric system of settling industrial disturbances which existed prior to the passing of that measure.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– I ask the Treasurer to consent to the adjournment of the debate. We have been here since half-past iO o’clock yesterday morning, and I think, therefore, that my request is a reasonable one. If our big-hearted friend the Treasurer had been the Prime Minister we should not. have had the present disgraceful state of affairs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order !

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

– The Treasurer should agree to adjourn the debate if for no other reason than to allow the atmosphere of the chamber to be purified. At present it is simply abominable, and reminds me of some slumming I did in the East End of London iii 1911. Twentyfive honorable members have been sleeping in the chamber all night, and the atmosphere is not fit for any one to sit in. I protest against officers of the Parliament being called upon to work in such an atmosphere. Then again, the snoring that is going on is simply abominable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to discuss the question before the Chair.

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

– I make no apology for speaking to this important question. This Bill should not have been introduced. It is undoubtedly a sham and a myth, but I protest against it because it strikes at the principle of unionism. The honorable member for Echuca said that a man could not join the Western Australian branch of the Waterside Workers Federation without paying an entrance fee of £50. He said that the honorable member for Boothby, who was supposed to have heard it in a railway train, was his authority for the statement. The honorable member for Echuca is apparently prepared to grasp at any straw. Why should he make a statement that he cannot substantiate ? I happen to be one of the representatives of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, and I believe that entrance to that union may be obtained for the sum of £1. Any person is eligible for admission to its ranks provided only that he be properly nominated.

Sir John Forrest:

– The union will not allow its members to become too numerous.

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

– It will. When a farmer, say, in Gippsland, has finished with his men, he does not treat them as he treats his bullocks or horses - he simply turns them adrift. And where do they drift but to the wharfs? I have been told, too, that when work becomes slack in big business establishments in the city the employers dispense with the services of some of their employes, advising them to join the Waterside Workers Union, and promising that if they do so they will use their good offices in securing employment for them. That organization, I may mention, has a funeral fund, and a benefit fund, and if I had time to relate how it treats any of its members who have the misfortune to be injured on a job I am certain that some honorable members would be greatly surprised. They would not then’ be so ready to repeat the charges which have been made in this chamber that the great objection to preference being granted to unionists is that union funds are used for political purposes. Why are those charges made ? So that the honorable member for Echuca and others who represent rural districts may go out into the country, and quote statements which are quite contrary to fact. If the rural workers of Australia were acquainted with the platform of the Labour party we should be able to command majorities in the country electorates just as readily as we command them in the metropolitan areas. During the course of his speech the honorable member for Echuca professed a consuming anxiety to give equality of opportunity to all. I wonder if the flour millers enjoy equality of opportunity. Would any man be able to start a flour mill in Australia unless he first joined the Millers Association? The honorable member should be the last to talk in that way. If he were obliged to start out with his blankets looking for a job, what would the farmer to whom he applied for employment do? He would pass him by every time in favour of a strong, robust, individual like the honorable member for North Sydney. The only chance of the honorable member for Echuca would be for him to join a union so that he might obtain an opportunity to earn his daily bread.

Mr Webster:

– I think that we ought to have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

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

– So far as I know not one union has contributed a solitary cent towards - my election expenses. I have paid those expenses myself on every occasion that I have contested the Denison seat. But the unions do something for Labour candidates which is of far more value to them than would be any mere financial help. They put in a good deal of work on their behalf.

Sir John Forrest:

– What about the literature which is distributed? Who pays for that?

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

– I know nothing of that. I cannot say whether it is paid for by the unions or not. But I do know that union funds are not used for political purposes to the extent that honorable members would have the public believe. I feel sure that the attack of the honorable member for Calare upon unionism will be of vast assistance to us at the next election. It will consolidate the members of unions so that we shall experience no difficulty in getting organizers throughout Australia, and particularly organizers in New South Wales. When we have secured them we will warm the honorable member up. I was indeed pleased to see to-day the exmember for Calare, and I am satisfied that union funds will be well spent if they are employed to bring about a change in the representation of that electoral division of the Commonwealth. I feel sure that the Prime Minister is not present this morning of his own free will, and with a desire to attack unionism. We all know that the Hon. W. H. Irvine is the real Prime Minister - the gentleman who believes in the divine right of kings, and the divine right of W. H. Irvine. He has taken control of this Bill. He has silenced honorable members opposite all the night, whilst he has been absent from the chamber taking his repose. Presently he will re-appear and issue fresh orders. As the Prime Minister is present I will repeat my request for an adjournment of the debate to afford us an opportunity of purifying the abominable atmosphere of this chamber.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Wait until the real Prime Minister comes back. The honorable member says that I can do nothing.

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

– It is a cruel thing to charge the men who received appointments to the Commonwealth Service during the regime of the Fisher Government with having obtained spoils. Each of these officers well earned the money that he received. Then, I had to complain of the fact that the name of one of the most excellent employes that ever entered the Commonwealth service has been dragged into this debate. I refer to Mr. Ryland; and in this connexion I should like to quote from a book entitled The Uprising of the Many, by Chas. Edward Russell, who was a stranger to Australia, but who spent considerable time here, and spoke of us as he found us. On page 230 of his book, Mr. Russell says - “ What,” I asked casually of a new acquaintance in Sydney, “ seems to you the best of all the extant writings on political and social economy?” “Why, the Sermon on the Mount,” he answered promptly. He said, “ Why,” as if he were astonished that any one should ask such a question, and the rest of the sentence he spoke as if he were stating a self-evident truth, obvious to all men.

This was my introduction to the terrible Labour party of Australia. I was talking with George Ryland, Labour member of the Queensland Parliament, and formerly a ploughman on a sugar plantation. He educated himself, and should be proud of the job, though he is not, for he has digested every standard work on economics and social philosophy, and has stored his mind with such a mass of historical data, names, facts, incidents, conclusions, and records as puts to shame the best achievements of the average university man. Of these things study and reading have given a mastery; for years and years he had ploughed by day and studied and pondered by night, assimilating the significance of man’s slow exit from the jungle, and gathering the best thoughts of the best minds. Gradually I drew from him an account.most interesting, of the evolution of his own faith, through many by-ways among the learned writers, up to the “ Sermon on the Mount,” as the ultimate rock of doctrine and practice for all men and all nations. Nothing more was needed, he said, for any guidance anywhere. In manner, strange to’ say, this seemed the least demonstrative of beings, the least assertive, the furthest removed from the arrogance and vanity that the wise world has decided must belong to the Labour agitator; for this man was always low-voiced and gentle-mannered; in all his comments most fair, most moderate, and tolerant; at all times with a certain obvious and unmistakable sincerity that, perhaps, for its novelty exercised a potent charge. At first, I supposed him to ‘be a single specimen, and doubtless unique. Later, to my boundless astonishment, I perceived that he was but a type of what is on the whole the most interesting class of men I have ever met - the Labour leaders of Australia.

All the way from London to Marseilles, from Marseilles to Bombay, from Calcutta to Colombo, from Colombo to Adelaide, I had been warned against these dreadful men. No sooner was it known in any English-born company that I was going to Australia, than uprose the dispraising chorus.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What has all this to do with the question?

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

Mr. Ryland’s name has been repeatedly mentioned, and I desire to show the damaging effect of statements which are at times made by the Prime Minister and other responsible members of the House, and which go abroad to the detriment of Australia.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if all this has anything to do with the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– As I have already remarked, this debate has been conducted on very broad lines, and ou that account I feel a certain amount of hesitation in interfering where I think, perhaps, the line is being overpassed. I have heard from the Government side references to the individual mentioned by the honorable member for Denison; and so long as the subject is not pressed at undue length I cannot interfere with the honorable member.

Mr Boyd:

– If an honorable member interjects from this side his objection is regarded as disorderly, and I ask whether, if it be followed by criticism on the other side, that criticism is not also disorderly?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The point of order raised is consequential on my ruling. I had not in my mind interjections from the Government side. I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that I have heard references to the person named. As I say, the debate has proceeded on such broad lines that it is not for me, as the temporary occupant of the Chair, to limit it further than appears to be done by the general ruling of Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Ryland is a man whom I am proud and pleased to call my friend; and I am of opinion that he has been penalized because of the fact that he is a good unionist.. This to me demonstrates that there is a desire on the part of the Government to give preference to non-unionists. Mr. Ryland was deprived of a position in which he earned his livelihood, and which he filled honorably and well. His work showed him to be a capable, practical, and able man, and it ill-becomes honorable members, who know very little of him, and who have evidently not read Mr. Russell’s book, to speak of him as they do.

Mr Boyd:

– His position has not been filled.

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

– That has yet to be ascertained.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not proceed with that matter.

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

– The Bill is the thin edge of the wedge which is intended to split the very bedrock of unionism, although the Government profess to be in favour of industrial organization. Further, the Bill is introduced in order to provide ground for a double dissolution, and to give the Liberal party an election cry. That cry will take the form of “ spoils to the victor,” and I can fancy the honorable member for Echuca on the platform describing the position from his own point of view, with special reference to the good work done by the present Government. Any one who listened to the honorable member for Bendigo must admit that the Bill will not do what is claimed for it. It is introduced, in my opinion, to delude and side track the farmers ; but at no far distant date the party with which I am associated will have the assistance of that great educator, the Press. Up to the present we have had to depend on our platform utterances and personal endeavours ; but we are shortly to have Labour newspapers throughout Australia, and the public will be informed as to what preference really means. The workers, by means of education, have become aware of the fact that wealth is aggregating, in the hands of the few.

Mr Page:

– I call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

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

– The workers of the world have become sufficiently educated to realize that they can combat the organizations of capital, and the huge combinations which control production, distribution, and exchange, only by uniting. I hope that the day is not far distant when we shall have a combination of workers in Australia which will make itself felt throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is admitted by Chiozza Money, and other economic writers, that in British-speaking communities 10 per cent. of the people have control of the capital, the land, and the means of production. The worker is nothing but a chattel slave.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– After three years of Labour Administration? I thank the honorable member for the word.

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

– The Labour Government considerably improved the condition of the workers, which in Australia is better than anywhere else; but much yet remains to be done.

Mr Jensen:

– I call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

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

– When the workers, who constitute 90 per cent. of the population, and are the rank and file of the industrial army, realize what a small proportion they get of the value of what they produce, there will be a great upheaval, and justice will be done. The invention of machinery, and the consequent easy production of wealth, has merely enriched the capitalist beyond the dreams of avarice, and the workers are realizing that. They are saying-; “ Why should we and our wives and daughters have to work long hours while others enjoy the fruits of our labour?” The honorable member for Flinders said that we carry the “ Old Man of the Sea “ on our backs - meaning the unions. The “ Old Man of the Sea “ whom we have to carry is the capitalistic class to which he belongs.

Mr Page:

– I do not think that there is a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

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

– Haying recently read a speech by the Minister of Trade and Customs dealing with the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill when before this House, I cannot understand his present attitude. Like many others on that side, he has gone back on his declarations. Our object in urging preference for unionists is to increase the membership of unions, and thus secure industrial peace. During the last trying twelve months, the secretaries and leaders of the unions have done much to keep the industrial machine running, and to preserve industrial peace. It ill-becomes members of this House to tell the people that members of this party have no controlling influence in the unions. I give the honorable member for Franklin the opportunity to deny that he went through the Huon district, stating that I was promoting a strike, at a time when I was doing my utmost to preserve industrial peace.

Mr.McWilliams. - I did not say that. Who told the honorable member?

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

– The report was current throughout Tasmania, and the honorable member knows who told me. It is on record in the public press that exSenator Mulcahy, who was in his district about the same time, did the same thing.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is this in order? I did not say what I have been charged with saying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

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

– The honorable member for Robertson has stated that the unions have got out of the control of the leaders. That is not so. Because of the loyalty of the unionists to their leaders, we have been able to do much for the producer during the last twelve months. It is better for the community that labour should be organized. Industrial peace can be secured only by having a trade union on one side and a combination of capitalists on the other. When industry is thus organized, the disaster of strikes can be prevented by the good offices of . a Conciliation Board, or an Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Flinders is candid . He is opposed to unionism altogether. He also trotted out a tale which would lead us to believe that there were no unions in Canada.

Mr Pigott:

– There is no Lahour party there.

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

– No ; but it is coming there as sure as night follows day.

Mr.Falkiner. - On a point of order. Has the condition of Canada anything to do with the Government Preference Prohibition Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– During the debate, I have heard references to the condition of unionism in Canada, and I cannot take a narrower view of the debate than that which Mr. Speaker has taken.

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

-Honorable members would stifle fair discussion on the question.

Mr Page:

Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you count the House? I do not think there is a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

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

– In reply to the assertion that there are no labour troubles in Canada, and that there are no unions there, let me point out that, according to the Labour Gazette, issued by the Dominion Department of Labour, and by order of the Dominion Parliament, there are now affiliated with the Federation of Labour in Canada 2,954,526 paid-up members, or an increase of 225,000 over the membership of the previous year, while the balance-sheet shows that the Federation has $105,000 to its credit. According to this publication, the rate of wage of labourers is 7s. 3$d. a day of ten hours, which is a lower rate than that paid in Australia for similar work. Of course, artisans are paid more, but they have to work longer hours than are worked here, and they lose a great amount of time owing to the state of the weather at different times of the year. According to this authority that I am quoting, the conditions in Canada are simply abominable. Dr. Hastings, the medical health officer of Toronto, reporting to the Board of Health upon overcrowding in the slum districts, and the prevalence of extremely unsatisfactory conditions, stated that there were at least 3,000 houses occupied by from two to six families each, and that as many as eight and ten families were occupying ordinary ten- and twelve-roomed houses.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I cannot connect the honorable member’s remarks with the question before the Chair.

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

– I was merely replying to the Attorney-General. This publication speaks of no less than 400 men being turned adrift owing to the snow and weather conditions rendering it impossible to proceed with the work of constructing conduits. Right throughout Canada, there are conditions existing in the labour market that do not exist in Australia.

Mr Boyd:

– They have no Trades Halls there.

Mr King O’Malley:

– They have one in Montreal.

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

– They have industrial disputes, and they have institutions similar to our Trades Halls. The Labour Gazette, on page 1076, contains the following remarks in reference to the settlement reached in a dispute affecting the shoe-machine workers at Quebec: -

Provision was also made for cases of individual grievances. Any employ^ having such will bo required to make a deposit of 525.00 before the case is heard by the Board of Arbitration, and the party in default will have to bear the costs of the hearing. Another clause exacts that the unions stated shall secure legal recognition by incorporation as soon as possible.

This publication clearly shows that there are labour troubles in Canada, and I am credibly informed by people who have been there that the wages received by permanent-way men on the railways are much less than those paid to the men here, while the conditions under which they work in Canada are considerably more severe than those that prevail in Australia. The number of disputes has increased above what took place in the previous year, and considerable suffering was occasioned to all concerned. I can understand the attitude of honorable members opposite who hold positions in the unions connected with their party. The honorable member for Hume is the president of a union which is a political association, as I can prove by the following statement which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 12th inst. : -

A conference took place yesterday between the Executive of the Federal Liberal League and the Executive of the Farmers and Settlers’ Association with regard to the selection of Liberal candidates for the Senate at the next Federal elections.

These gentlemen will come along shortly and contest a case in the Arbitration Court against the rural workers. They complain that the rural workers are a political organization. But what are honorable members here for but to gain an advantage for their political association, which is also an industrial association?

Mr Patten:

– We are absolutely against preference, you know.

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

– Of course, and the honorable member is trying to bring forward influence in order to prevent preference being given. Honorable members representing farming constituencies oppose trade unions on the ground that they are political unions, but I challenge them to show where any industrial union has gone to the extreme that has been gone to by the union to which the honorable member for Hume belongs. The Daily Telegraph of the date I have mentioned goes on to say -

The Liberals, it may be taken for granted, intend to run the present three senators (Mr. Millen, Sir Albert Gould, and Mr. Oakes), so that there remain three Liberals to be chosen to make up the team of six. The farmers and settlers, who have hitherto supported the selected Liberals, have demanded the right to nominate two candidates - that is, two out of six, or two out of three, according as one looks at it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– On a point of order, I really must call attention to the fact that the honorable member is discussing the political affairs of political organizations in Sydney, and ask if they have the remotest connexion with the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I was noticing that the honorable member was wandering from the point, and was about to call his attention to the fact when the Prime Minister rose. I ask the honorable member for Denison not to go too far afield, and to remember that the Bill relates to preference to unionists in the Government service only, and that the selection of candidates by political organizations has nothing to do with that’ question.

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

– The Prime Minister charges us with being political unionists, and complains of the fact, and therefore he opposes it. He tries to prevent me saying that the farmers-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is not discussing the subject.

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

– It grieves me to find that honorable members who are supposed to represent the workers, who asked the workers to send their representatives into Parliament and make the laws just towards the unions, should immediately attempt to stifle one from giving expression to his opinions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member must not discuss the general principles of unionism. He must connect his remarks with the question of preference being given in the employment of the Public Service. The honorable member has not done this, so far as I have heard him, since I resumed the chair.

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

– I fail to see why any body of unionists who are likely to obtain temporary employment in the Government service should be penalized. We know that now unionists will not work side by side with non-unionists. Hence under this Bill unionists will not be able to get employment in the Commonwealth Service. Preference to unionists’ in the Government Service only means making it possible for unionists to get employment in that service. When the ex-Minister of Home Affairs granted preference to unionists, he prevented one of the most disastrous strikes that might have occurred in Australia. Some of the workers were working side by side with non-unionists ; it was discovered that there were non-unionists on the job, and, but for the action of the ex-Minister, the unionists would have refused to work with the non-unionists. Had the men on the Government work gone out on strike, every man in Australia would have come out in sympathy, because all the union branches are affiliated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– The chamber, this morning, with so many honorable members in a prostrate condition, does not look anything like a floral emblem at “ the beautiful gates ajar.” In fact, honorable members opposite remind me more of mourners at their own political funeral. I am always sorry to see this sort of thing in a great Parliament; I look upon it as folly. Preference to unionists is something that I seem to have cut a big figure in; in fact, I was on the band waggon beating the big drum. I gave preference to unionists purely as a business proposition. Honorable members may laugh, but I know that the unbusiness-like man always laughs at the business-man, and the failures in life always laugh and sneer at the successful man; that sort of thing does not work. I gave preference to unionists as a business proposition, after two years’ experience as Minister of Home Affairs, doing the business and interviewing the men personally. The fact of the matter is that after two years of experience in meeting men with their complaints day after day, I found that it was taking up too much of my time that should be devoted to the legitimate business of the Department. Every day the messenger would come to me and say, “ So-and-so desires to see you. He was dismissed for incompetency, or something else.” And the Minister had either to see him, or allow the statement to be scattered all over Australia that he would not see callers because they were working men. When I gave preference to unionists, I was able to deal with the secretary of the union, and if men were incompetent, I said to the secretary, “ Get those roosters off,” and they were got off. I thought that honorable members on this side were not supposed to be business men; yet I hear honorable members on the other side, who claim to have all the brains in the universe, opposing preference to unionists, which is collective bargaining. A big business man has no time to go into all the complaints, but he can transfer those complaints to the secretary of the union. I was not doing business, like most of the people in this country, not knowing what I was doing. I was not running the Department in a slipshod manner, but I put it on a business footing. I had the results worked out, and I found that preference to unionists gave me 25 to 30 per cent. more value for the money paid out. I challenge the AttorneyGeneral to go to the Department and inquire into that statement. We want to deal with these things on a business basis, and not by talking sentimental rubbish. Is it necessary to dissolve Parliament for the sake of preference to 2,000 casual employes of the Government? That is what this Bill means. When I granted preference to unionists, there were 4,000 men out on strike. They were out on strike for three hours, and I then broke the strike. I do not know that the property-holders of Melbourne, or of Australia at large, are prepared to have great strikes. As one of them, I am not; I am a business man. I may not understand the intricacies of politics like some of my honorable friends opposite, but I can meet them on a business proposition, and if they know more about finance than I do, I am prepared to surrender, because finance is the basis of everything. If capital is the basis of business, and in the negotiations you deal with one man ou the capitalistic side, why should you not also deal with one man on the labour side? You have the two great combinations of capital on the one side, and labour on the other, and you bring the secretaries together and settle the matter in a businesslike way. Men were sacked. I separated the cripples from their crutches. I did not keep them on at 8s. per day when they were earning only 4s. per day. Yet this is the issue that my honorable friends have raised. The great problems of every-day business are the problems of our relations to our neighbours. We have a Tariff. We admit to-day that the great industries of Australia are being strangled by the cheap products of foreign labour. And that is an issue that ought to be brought into the House, instead of our wasting time on this question of preference to unionists. We have great financial questions confronting us, and we have not the courage to tackle them. But we come here night after night for a featherpillow crisis like this, and we call it statesmanship. Let us warn the Government that, as George had his Washington, so will Cook meet his Waterloo on this tin-pot kind of question.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Washington was not at Waterloo.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– But George had Washington, and Washington drove him out of America. The very foundations of our Empire rest on preference, and in this House years ago we introduced a Bill giving preference to Great Britain . Why ? Because we were giving it to our own kith and kin. As Minister of Home Affairs, I found that the thrifty saving men were the unionists. The young single men, who do not bother to join a union, never have a shilling. They are the men who stick you up in the street and ask you for money to take to the “pub.” The unionists are thrifty, and save money, and before you can invest you must save. We should in every possible way encourage thrift. Is this the anti-thrift Government that isin power ? Let honorable members consider the instance of the Lawyers Union. I had a legal case at one time, and I was quickly told that my solicitor could not go into Court. I had to hire two barristers, a junior and a senior. One rooster carried silk, but my solicitor could not go into Court, although the law of Victoria said thatarn “ amalgam “ had the same right as a barrister. The consequence was I had to pay another junior barrister to go into Court with the man who wore silk.

Mr Ahern:

– Was your solicitor an “ amalgam “ ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes.

Mr Ahern:

– Then he could have gone intoCourt.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– He could not, and the honorable member could not go into Court. Let me give some other illustrations. TheGovernment of Australia spend millions of pounds on prospecting annually. Is that not preference, preference to mine-owners, preference to unionists’? And all that money comes out of the pockets of the general public. Yet it is transferred for a specific purpose to certain individuals. We spend in this country millions of pounds on waterconservation. Is that not preference to land-owners? Does not that money come out of the pockets of the general public? Yet it is to go to a few specific men who benefit by it. Honorable members opposite call themselves business men; it is preposterous. Why, some of them would not get a job polishing the door knob in front of a New York Wall-street bank. We have spent thousands of pounds in this country on agricultural colleges for the benefit of the farmers, and that money, too, has come out of the pockets of the general public. Is not that preference to farmers? Let us inquire into this matter without heat. I am not heated; I am only grieved that we have not business capacity enough to conduct our affairs like a number of business directors sitting around a table. The giving of thousands of pounds to agricultural societies throughout Australia is a form of preference to unionists. Thousands of pounds have been spent on the importation of stock for the benefit of a section of the people. All these things were done to increase the comfort and prosperity of the nation, which means preference to stock-owners, and it is good to organize the workers so as to make them independent and contented. The New South Wales Government have spent thousands of pounds to assist the producers on the Northern rivers to get their produce to market. That was preference to a certain section of the people. The money caine out of the pockets of the general public, but it all comes in the end out of the working man, because there is no such thing as spontaneous production. Another form of preference to the business man at the expense of the general public is the cheaper rates of freight on the railways for certain merchandise. The charge of the Attorney-General was that I, as Minister of Home Affairs, dipped my hand into the public pocket for the benefit of the workers. My reply is that I have administered the Department fairly and openly. . I found it in chaos and left it a successful business Department, with a costing system, a digest system, and a schedule system. If other Governments gave forms of preference to different sections of the community to encourage production and so forth, I had a right to do something to encourage the producers of wealth in another form. The moment the Fisher Ministry raised the wages in Melbourne from 7s. to 9s. a day every product in Australia went up, because the men in the town had money to buy the farmers’ products. There is never a bad market when wages are good, and never a good market when wages are bad. The honorable member for Bendigo last night quoted Scripture. Let me refer the

Government to Ecclesiastes, chapter 10, verse 12, where they will find a description of how a man can swallow himself. The Government are starting out in this matter of preference to unionists to swallow themselves. This item is interesting

London, 30th September. - Important eoncession made by the British Admiralty by officially recognising trade unions. In reply to the demands of the dockyard men, the Admiralty have agreed hereafter, in the event of disputes, to meet deputations of workmen either in London or at the dockyard. It has not only granted permission to the men in Government employ to select their own representatives from the dockyard, but will allow them to be accompanied by trade union leaders not employed in the yard.

The British Admiralty has, therefore, given preference to unionists. It does not desire to employ the inefficient and uneconomic. Any man with snap in him belongs to some sort of organization; no man can travel on his own. The world, recognises that we must have collective bargaining. The Home Affairs Department grew immensely when I was there, and a Minister could not spend his time bargaining individually with men as to what wages they were to get. The present Government have not dared to destroy preference to unionists, although they say they have. They cannot do away with it, or do without it. No unionist will work with a non-unionist, and why should he? I am in favour of the lawyers and doctors’ unions. When in the South Australian Parliament I was a supporter of the Kingston Government. The doctors at the Adelaide Hospital struck because some other doctors were not in the union. The doctors went out, and rightly so. The other men could have joined their union, yet I, as a supporter of Mr. Kingston, had to vote in the House against the strikers who were standing up for their rights. I had to stand behind Mr. Kingston to prosecute these men who refused to look after the patients, and went out of the hospital, because, at that time, I was a Liberal. Why should we not come into the House, and when we see something good, fulfil the part of a trustee for the people? Preference to unionists is a part of the scientific, economic, and financial progress of the nation. Whether my honorable friends opposite like the principle or not, they will have to accept it, and, instead of worrying themselves on their farms and stations, and telegraphing for a dozen men, and getting men sent up who often are useless, they will send to the secretary to the union and tell him to pick out three or five men, and that they will hold him responsible if they are not suitable. He will be certain to supply good men.

Mr Falkiner:

– How can he, when they all join the union?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– No men will get in unlessthey are good workers.

Mr Falkiner:

– You cannot allow them to starve.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– We shall have to create a division for those who are not good workers. Why should we have a great industry shut up ? On the occasion of the Mount Lyell strike, hundreds of men were thrown out of work, but it was their wives and their children who suffered most.

Mr Page:

– I call attention to the state of the House, sir. [Quorum formed.]

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The Prime Minister will admit that, in the union with which he was connected, he could find better men than he could find outside, because, in that district, every man who was capable and efficient would be thrifty and belong to a union.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Any man - doctor, or tailor, or candlestickmaker - could come and join the union for nothing.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– But, after a man gets into a union, he gets benefits.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is a wideopen door, which you do not have today.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– On the occasion of the Mount Lyell Strike, not only did the wives of the men suffer, but many of the business men of the whole district were ruined. A number of them could not meet the obligations into which they had entered honestly and sincerely with merchants, bankers, and others. That, of course, immediately withdrew a lot of money from circulation. These men had the same capacity for consuming the products of the factories, the mines, and the farms, as they possessed prior to this strike; but the means to pay for these things was gone. Did not everybody suffer there ? Did not the farmer, the merchant, and the banking institutions which had given the credit, suffer? If my honorable friends can show me any system that will bring the capitalist and the worker together, I am for that system.

Mr Falkiner:

– But do you not think that the capitalist ought to be abolished ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– No; I think he is a very essential person, with a mission. We only need to regulato the capitalist.

Mr Falkiner:

– And to wipe out the middleman with the commission.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I would not interfere with the middleman, because he has a right to live. We want to bring the capitalist and the worker together. The trouble hitherto has been that the capitalist has refused to meet the worker. I venture to say that, when the honorable member for Riverina sat down and talked things over with his men they said, “ Oh, well, it’s all right.” But if he had sent somebody to talk things over with the men, they would have felt insulted as human beings. If this measure is carried, it will be absolutely dangerous to whatever Government may occupy the Treasury bench. I have looked at the measure from every side. I have no political prejudice, as I am purely a business man. Take the case of the transcontinental railway. The Government say that they have let a contract for a portion of the line to a man who can give preference to unionists. Suppose that he does give preference to unionists, and that the Government build the balance of the line. They cannot give preference to unionists, and, therefore, unionists will refuse to work for them. What will the Prime Minister do then ? Will he put on Chinamen to build the line? If he takes that course, other unionists will refuse to carry the goods, and the carriers will decline to give deliveries. In this measure, the honorable gentleman is sowing the seeds of a whirlwind. The effect will be to create great dissension in this country, and there will be a battle-royal. But the authorities will ultimately lose. The trouble is that the Prime Minister has not a business mind, otherwise he would see the danger which underlies this measure. I say here, straight from the. shoulder, that it is not possible to build a railway, or other great enterprise, in this country with half union and half non-union labour, because the unionist will not work with the non-unionist. We shall have continual strife and continual strikes.

Mr Mathews:

– “Scabs” are contagious.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The Prime Minister is on the brink of a volcano, and if he is not careful he will go up with it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I would almost be better in one than here.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– We stood the honorable gentleman when he was on this side of the House for three years. 1 can see him now belting away as he used to do when we were on the Treasury bench. Conservative Leagues in each of the States of Australia have recently selected six candidates for the Senate in anticipation of a double dissolution. I asked in one place, “ Why are you getting ready?” I heard peculiar rumours. If the Prime Minister says that there is nothing in them, well and good. But quite a long time ago there were rumours that the Government knew that they would have a double dissolution. I hope that the rumour is unfounded. If the Australian workers once got it into their heads that capitalistic magnates were in a position to bring to bear power such as is exercised in America, such a belief would act as a fuse leading up to dynamite, which would blow the entrenchments sky-high. The workers of this country ask for nothing more than a square deal.

Mr Fenton:

– And they will have it.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– They are going to have it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They are getting a better deal now than the Labour Party gave them.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I am not saying that they are not. I had a big battle at the outset. I am sorry to say that ‘ Australia is gradually becoming boodle ridden, and that this Government, perhaps unconsciously, are strangling business prosperity. Business men everywhere tell me that they cannot collect their debts. Lots of them cannot pay me, This Bill is the child of a Government which has declared by its acts that it is worthy of a Tammany Ward “ heeler “ of the old school. It is not worthy of the Attorney-General. It is a spleen Bill, which introduces personalities, and in connexion with which partisan politics preponderate. It has been brought in to create spite and to make men hate each other. It has caused much bad feeling. The Government, instead of submitting useful legislation, dealing with such ques tions as national banking, the uniform railway gauge, and the locking of the Murray, have seen fit to introduce a Bill that is poisoning the minds of every ohe. Do honorable members opposite think that the Opposition are sitting up all night and fighting the Bill merely for fun? They are like the Scotchman who, when sick at sea, was asked, “Are you sick, sir?” and replied, “ My God, do you think I am doing this for fun?” The Government should pack up and take a long vacation, otherwise the people will give them one. The Commonwealth, as well as the Government, is tired.. The Prime Minister is not the only tired individual.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am tired.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– And so are the people. The Government have tired themselves and tired the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member connect his remarks with the question before the Chair?

Mr Groom:

– The Commonwealth was never more pleased.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– If the honorable gentleman were in the world of finance he would know that the country is “ busting “ up. Business men want breathing time. I have no hesitation in saying that if through the underground engineering of that weasel of political delusion, the Attorney-General - who could remove the yoke from an egg without cracking the shell - a double dissolution is brought about, the people of this country will have something to say in regard to it. It would be an outrage - a prostitution of the Constitution. It would, in my opinion, produce a new type of human being who would be thrown on the slide classified, diagnosed, and tagged for the delectation of unborn generations. That peculiar type will be as clearly classified as are the dipsomaniacs and paranceics of to-day. It will be the by-product of a partisan generation - the by-product of those who live in the dark cellars of intrigue as compared with those who, in direct opposition to them, live on the house tops and are known as political “ mentalectics.” The Labour party are going to fight to a finish. There will be no surrender. We have not come here looking for “ stoush “ ; we have asked, for business, but have had thrown at us a bone of contention. We are here to take it up. We recognise that this is an attempt on the part of the Government to create a crisis. Is there anything in the Constitution to justify the creation of a crisis for partisan purposes ?Not a line. If the Government can create a crisis in this way, for purely partisan purposes, then, if we come back with a majority in the House of Representatives, while they come back with a majority in the Senate, we shall know how to act. Is it possible for men to enter this House and to engineer a crisis, planning and scheming to bring it about ? If such a thing is good for one side it must be good for the other. If the Government get a double dissolution and come back with a majority in the Senate, whilst we secure a majority in the House of Representatives, shall we not also be entitled to a double dissolution? If their request for a double dissolution is granted, all that we shall have to do in such circumstances is to create another crisis. But to expend £100,000 to create a crisis, and to discover whether Mr. Joseph Cook or Mr. Fisher is to run Australia, is too expensive an undertaking. It is wrong. It is a crime against civilization, and there is no telling where it might end. Labour has in the two Houses sixtysix members, as against forty-five Conservatives. There is a difference of twenty-one in favour of the Labour party. In conclusion, let me say that we have heard of. teaching ducks to swim and teaching dogs to bark, the giving of singing lessons to the joyous meadow lark, teaching of riflemen how to shoot, and Scotchmen how to save, of teaching sharks how to bite, and maniacs to rave. All these things savour more or less of supererogation. But teaching the GovernorGeneral partisan politics is a new occupation.

Sitting suspended from 7.58 to 9.30 a.m. (Friday.)

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– The Bill which is now before us would, to my mind, throw our civilization hack many generations. There is no doubt that organizations of every character have materially assisted to bring our civilization to the forward stage which it has reached to-day. As a matter of fact, all forms of government depend largely on organization. We, who are in the Labour movement, recognise that trade unionism is responsible for every benefit which the worker enjoys today. Most of us are conversant with the attempts which have been made to form trade unions. In the early stages of the movement just the same strenuous opposition was evinced to industrial unions that our Conservative friends today exhibit to trade organizations with a political wing attached to them. We have been told repeatedly during this debate that honorable members opposite have no objection to trade unions as they used to exist. That is the old Conservatism over again. In my young days I recollect that no actor and no singer of that time was regarded as the equal of the actors or singers of bygone days. We have been often assured of late that the good old form of trade unionism was a thing to which no one could take exception. I really believe that the Attorney-General would be willing to accept it. Anything that is useless to more progressive spirits will always be accepted by the Conservative section of the community because they recognise its futility. There is no doubt that if the Labour movement, either in its industrial or political activities, determined that it would be less aggressive in the future we should find my honorable friends opposite exclaiming, “ Oh, that is the proper way to do things; we do not object to your unions, so long as you do not take anything away from us.” It is but natural that our Conservative friends should assure us that present-day methods of unionism are all wrong. They declare that they would have no objection to preference being extended to unionists under the old order of unionism. They seem to think that the political wing of the Labour movement is stronger than is the other wing.

Mr j H Catts:

– I beg to call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have already said that it is generally considered that the political wing of the Labour movement is stronger than is the industrial wing. That is not the case. The industrial wing is the stronger, and its machinery has been almost perfected. In our efforts to improve the political activities of the Labour movement we have resorted to all the constitutional methods at our disposal. We have been told again and again that trade unions would be all right if they did not set aside a portion of their funds for political purposes. It is urged that a worker might be quite willing to be a member of an industrial section of the Labour movement, but that he might object to the funds which he contributes to his union being used for political purposes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Who has objected to the unions using their funds for political purposes? Nobody, so far as I know.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It has been said that a man might be quite willing to become a member of an industrial union, but that he might .be opposed to the funds which he contributes to that organization being devoted to political objects. It is only the political “ scabs “ who say this. They have been deluded by the Conservatives in politics. It is only by political action that trade unionism can make itself heard in the industrial world. But it was only a few years ago in Victoria when even in the metropolitan area it was difficult to convince the worker that political action was necessary for his good. Ten years back I was defeated for the constituency which I now represent by 10,400 votes. Last year I was returned with a handsome majority. Why? Because in the interim the electors have been educated up to a recognition of the fact that political action is necessary for their good.

Sir John Forrest:

– The electoral boundaries were not the same.

Mr MATHEWS:

– They were very nearly the same. The portion which has been excised from the electorate of Melbourne Ports was placed in the division of Maribyrnong, and the honorable member who represents the constituency received an overwhelming majority at the polling places at which I was defeated. Let us suppose that the industrial section of the Labour movement has used its funds for political purposes. It is not the only movement which has expended money to secure the return of its own political party. In the old country money is always the essential at election times, and it comes from the party funds.

Mr P P Abbott:

– But that is subscribed voluntarily.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I can assure the honorable member that if he had been a manufacturer in my electorate at the last election he would have been told how much he was expected to give. The contributions were supposed to be voluntary, but they were nevertheless made when a revolver had been presented at the donor’s head. We know that every organization - political or otherwise - in

Australia, be it the Chamber of Commerce or the Chamber of Manufactures, or an agricultural society, does exactly the same thing as our trade unions do. All these organizations contributed largely to the Conservative fighting fund at the last election.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not think so; not in the State I come from.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Treasurer is too innocent !

Mr J H Catts:

– They sent £500 from Victoria to the present honorable member for Perth.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not know that.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It was admitted by Mr. Brookes that £500 had been sent to fight the Fremantle seat, and that more was promised.

Sir John Forrest:

– The farmers contributed to the funds.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes; but the money was collected by the organizations. In the Wannon electorate, during the last election, a letter which was found was exposed in newspapers - and not Labour newspapers at that - showing that one of the workers on the Liberal, or Conservative, side had said that £300 was not enough to fight that portion of the electorate which he had to look after. Where did that £300 come from ? I know that it is denied that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company contributed, but it must have given thousands of pounds in the endeavour to beat the Labour party on the referenda.

Sir John Forrest:

– Who pays for the honorable member’s printing, and also pays his organizers?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Unfortunately, I have to pay all those expenses myself.

Sir John Forrest:

– For printing?

Mr MATHEWS:

– For all my own printing.

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes, for the honorable member’s own printing; but who pays for the general printing?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I pay for my own printing. Our opponents give preference to their own associations or leagues when the opportunity offers.

Mr J H Catts:

– Have the present Government appointed one Labour man to any position since they came into office ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Not much! If there is any decent job going, they take good care not to give it to me, or any of my way of thinking. This use of money by organizations for political purposes is not singular to Australia.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Labour Government were going to put one of their own men on the Inter-State Commission, a thing which the present Government did not do.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Labour Government were charged, during their whole term of office, with giving preference to their friends.

Mr Patten:

– What about the Northern Territory appointments? Ryland is a good Labour man, is he not?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Surely the honorable member would allow the Labour Government to make an appointment of one of their friends. What I condemn the Labour Government for is accepting the discredit throughout Australia of appointing their friends, and being so foolish as not to obtain the credit they would have obtained by appointing them. If I had any say, I should have done exactly as the present Government are doing; I should have appointed every man from my own side who was fit for any vacant post that offered. That is what the Conservatives and Liberals have done for generations.

Mr P P Abbott:

– Was that done in the case of the Inter-State Commission, or of the Divisional Returning Officers?

Mr MATHEWS:

– What I complain of is that we cannot get a proper election, because all the officials are friends of the Liberal party. Whether this is brought about knowingly or not, I do not care; it is what actually takes place. The men who are appointed to such positions are always ultra-Conservative in their opinions.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– I have some good Labour men in my electorate, and they gave me a “ fair run.”

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have some good Conservatives in my electorate, and they gave me a “fair run.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– I should like the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to show what all this has to do with the Bill.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is very hard to keep strictly to the question, in view of the many side issues that are raised.

Mr P P Abbott:

– Does the honorable member believe in “spoils to the victors” ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I do; because that is the only way to fight the Conservative section of the community.

Mr P P Abbott:

– So that if we adopt the principle, the honorable member will not blame us ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is nothing new to the honorable member’s party, who have been doing it for generations.

Mr Riley:

– Is there a Labour man on the Inter-State Commission?

Mr MATHEWS:

– No; all three Commissioners, while men entitled to our respect, are Conservatives.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The Labour Government offered one of them a position on the Inter-State Commission.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Quite so; and that is what I objected to’ in the Labour Government, though perhaps, in this particular case, it was very hard to obtain a man with Labour views. As I was saying, organizations all over the world contribute money for political purposes, and, markedly, the Conservative organizations are not particular where they get the money from so long as it is available to fight the common enemy as represented by the Labour movement. I should like to read the following extract from the Sydney Sun which, it will be admitted, is owned by an individual who never votes Labour : -

” BUSINESS WITH THE DEVIL.”

American Methods Exposed.

London, Saturday.

Mr. Charles Millen, president of the New York-Haven Railway, admits that £240,000 has been set aside by his company to buy alterations to its charters from the political leaders who acted for the late Pierpont Morgan. Mr. Millen declared that the company was ready to do business with the devil himself in order to get what it wanted.

Every Conservative corporation and organization would take assistance from the devil, or the devil’s father, to beat the Labour movement in a political fight.

Mr J H Catts:

– I call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed. ]

Mr MATHEWS:

– While the Liberal and Conservative funds are contributed to by wealthy corporations, the money collected for the Labour party consists of threepences given by those who have to work hard for their living.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in following that line of argument. I must again call his attention to the question before the Chair.

Mr MATHEWS:

– We of the Labour party have always felt, in view of the necessarily large expenditure, that whenever we gained a point in the industrial world, whether by strikes or political action, we were entitled to claim the full benefit of that fight. Honorable members opposite may call that “ spoils to the victors,” though I do not so describe it; it is merely giving to those who have fought the rights for which they have fought, and withholding them from that section of the workers who stand aside and await the results.Imight quote two or three cases to the point, in connexion with the question of preference to unionists. There is the well known Tramway case, in which the unions endeavoured, as they were entitled to do under the Act, to obtain an award of preference. This award, however, they could not get, but the Court ordered that certain wages should be paid to the gripmen, conductors, and others, providing that men who joined the service up to a certain time should be paid a certain wage, and, after a period, have increases. Now, after the unionists had straggled for years and spent their money - after dozens of them had been “ sacked “ for fighting for unionism - the “zambuks,” who are so called after the cure they use for the scabs contracted during years of blacklegism, lined up and claimed to share in the increase of wages.

Mr Falkiner:

– I submit that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is not keeping to the subject, but advertising a patent medicine.

Mr J H Catts:

– I ask that we have a quorum to hear this point of order decided.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is not necessary to repeat a decision already frequently given.

Mr Tudor:

– I submit that if an honorable member calls attention to the state of the House at any time, a quorum must be formed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As to the point of order, I simply ask the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, as I have asked him before, to keep to the question before the Chair. [Quorum formed.]

Mr MATHEWS:

– Two non-unionists were so eager for the increase that they applied for it before it was due, and although blacklegs had been so useful to the company it did not give them the money any the sooner. No man can get interest from a bank unless he has money deposited there. No man can obtain benefits from a friendly society unless he is a member and he has contributed to the funds. It is only the blackleg who gets something for nothing. It is those who have always helped to resist claims for benefit who have been the first to take advantage of the benefits when obtained. For years an attempt was made to form an organization of the postal electricians, but at last a majority of those in the service was induced to form a union. This union obtained from the Arbitration Court an award giving preference to unionists. Then those who had not been manly enough to take their part in the . fight, those who by no argument or entreaty or moral suasion could be induced to pay their share, rushed with their money to the secretary of the union, asking to be made members. Naturally the secretary did things in a business-like way, and refused to take their money until they had been duly proposed and elected. The mean skunks would not pay until they knew that there was a certainty of gaining something thereby. This Government, disregarding the award of the Court in relation to preference, subsequently paid to all the rates that the judge had prescribed for unionists. It is repugnant to human nature that men should get what they do not deserve and have not fought for, allowing others to bear the brunt of the battle. After an ordinary war the soldiers who have taken part in it and have survived receive medals in recognition of their services; those who have stayed at home do not get anything. It is different in industrial warfare. Under the present system men who took no part in the fight get what others have fought for. Australia is supposed to lead the world in many social reforms, and we are desirous of holding a first place in the world’s civilization. To-day there is industrial unrest in every country, even in Japan, where the workers are beginning to realize that their wages are only a pittance, and are organizing to obtain more. The manufacturers of Japan see that they are coming to the parting of the ways, and that to hold their place in the world’s market they must henceforth depend on the economy of their processes. But the Japanese worker will not wrest from his employers what the wage-earners of other countries have gained until he has created strong industrial organizations. When he has done thathe will claim preference for those who took part in the fight. It has been asked what would the Bill do if passed into law. This Government by administrative act, has nullified the preference given by the last Government in the same way, but not a single man has been put off, and none would be put off if the Bill became law. No one would be put off after next election whether the Liberal or the Labour party was returned to power. No doubt some of those opposite have told the people that preference was shown not only to the casual employes of the Government, but to the permanent employes. The idea that many persons hold is that very soon a man will be unable to get into the Public Service unless he joins a union, but under the last Government preference applied only to casual employment, and men were appointed whether unionists or not, but were expected to become unionists after being appointed. I do not think that there was one man who was refused a position on the ground that he was not a unionist. If a man applied he could be appointed, and he would be working alongside unionists who would take jolly good care that he became a unionist. The situation is just the same to-day. If a man is not a unionist at the time he secures casual employment, he immediately becomes one. The officials in charge of the Government Departments know that I am correct in saying that all those given casual work in the Common wealth employ are unionists, if not at the time of joining the service, at any rate immediately after. The union is not exclusive. The farmer’s son, or any man working in the country can join it with ease after he has obtained employment. The man who is not a unionist, and goes through a district where there are unionists is in trouble.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is again wandering from the question.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Even if we give preference to unionists, and even if every man is expected to join a union, it is not impossible for him to do so. A man is not refused work because he has not already joined before applying for employment; he is allowed a certain time in which to join the union after being appointed. That was the spirit of preference to unionists.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member seems to misapprehend me. If he will look at the terms of the motion he will see that this Bill is one to prohibit, in relation to Commonwealth employment, preference and discrimination on account of membership or nonmembership of an association. The honorable member will not be in order in traversing the principles of unionism generally, or in roaming all over the State in regard to industrialmatters and regulations governing membership of unions, unless he can connect his remarks with employment in the Public Service.

Mr Arthur:

– Will it not be in order to deal with the struggles of trade unionism to obtain preference, seeing that discussion on that point has already been allowed ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It will be in order to do so, so long as the honorable member can apply his argument to the question of preference in Government employment; but he is not even attempting to do that.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I shall try to keep within the limits of the ruling. The kindness of honorable members on both sides of the Chamber has led me further than I should have strayed. There is trouble in the rural districts. There the unions are endeavouring to demand that unionists only shall be employed, and they are asking that certain wages should be paid. The two matters cannot be separated. The object of unionism is to improve conditions of labour, and the object of securing preference to unionists is to retain what unionism has gained. If a union gets certain benefits, and the free labourers take the positions of the unionists, it will naturally follow that wages will go back again, seeing that the unionists are not there to fight, and the non-unionists will not fight. On those grounds it is essential that in rural or other circles once an award is obtained unionists must remain in the positions to hold the benefits gained. At the last election it was said that if the farmers kept the Labour party in power the rural workers would go to the Arbitration Court to ask for increased wages and preference to unionists, and that the Court would give the wages demanded and grant the request for preference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I regret to have to interrupt the honorable member again; but the general question of unionism in relation to rural workers and the attitude of farmers to political parties has nothing to do with the Bill. I would like the honorable member to show how he can connect his remarks with the question before the Chair.

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is very evident that the Government are desirous of using, for political purposes, the Bill, and another measure they intend to bring down. They wish to show that, by doing away with preference to unionists, they are conferring certain benefits on those who vote to place them in the’ House; and, naturally, it is necessary for honorable members of the Opposition to show that preference to unionists, such as they desire, will not be as baneful as it is pictured by those opposed to them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member can establish that point in connexion with the Public Service, he will be in order, but, throughout his speech he has not made more than a mere occasional reference to the real question before the Chair.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I always bow to the ruling of the Chair; but I find it very difficult to illustrate what I wish to point out unless I speak as I have done. If honorable members on this side of the chamber were not desirous of havingpreference to unonists in orderto do some good for the unions, they would not bother their heads about this Bill; they would simply wait until a change brought them again on to the Treasury bench, when they could carry their desires into effect. But, nevertheless, even with the Labour party again in power, the principle of preference to unionists, would be no more understood than it is to-day. The cry of preference to unionists is being used by Ministerialists to beat the Opposition at the next election. This measure, with, another, is being used to create a position which will bring about a dissolution. Ministers know that if they send the Bill to the Senate, composed, as it is, largely of Labour men, it will receive that consideration which a Bill opposed to all the interests Labour senators represent should receive. I think that it is admitted that the measure is to be made a test question, not only for a dissolution, but also for the next political fight. Therefore, I have, in order to prove my case, to traverse grounds which are at variance with Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Undoubtedly, the Government intend that by introducing this Bill, they shall gain some benefit; and I, therefore, consider that the fact that preference to unionists is not in any sense baneful should be placed on record. Honorable members on the Ministerial side seek to show that preference to unionists is something that will injure a great section of the community.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have been listening to the honorable member very intently for the last quarter of an hour, and I have not heard him make any reference to the question of preference of employment in the Public Service, to which the Bill relates. The honorable member has been dealing generally with the question of preference to unionists. This course would be perfectly legitimate if honorable members had before them a Bill dealing with preference to unionists generally; but, seeing that the question is limited to employment in the Public Service, I again point out that the honorable member is not in order in debating generally the broad general question of preference to unionists.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have come to the conclusion that the Bill has no sting in it if it is what you, Mr. Speaker, say it is. In the Public Service, we have every form of mechanic.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will be perfectly in order in dealing with the Bill on those lines.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Commonwealth employs labourers in the work of forming conduits in the streets, also bricklayers, plumbers, cable- joiners, boilermakers, engineers, and men working at every imaginable trade; and they are naturally interested as to the status they will get in their employment. The matter would hardly be worth touching if unionism had not done some good for those in Federal employment ; but I have shown that much good has already been done to men who have organized. If the Bill is passed, it will have little effect on those men, but there are others who do not study the question closely, and take their guidance from newspapers that do not give a proper idea of the situation. They will think that it is not an easy matter to join a union, because the unionist cannot get any preference. As a matter of fact, the position will be exactly the same as it was before. If the Government feel inclined to give preference, they may; if they do not feel so inclined, they need not, and the Arbitration Court can still give preference in its awards. It must be admitted that unionism has done as much for the public servants as it has done for those outside the Public Service. To-day the servants of the Commonwealth can claim to have minds of their own; they are citizens in every sense of the word, because, thanks to the action of the Fisher Government, they are allowed to do that which in the State Service they are not allowed to do. The Victorian Government will not allow a man in their service to get this preference, because they feel that if preference is acknowledged, the unions will become a stronger influence in the State Service, the hope of preference being an inducement to men to join the unions. This Parliament is setting a bad example in considering this Bill. The late Government endeavoured to show a good example to all Governments of the world, when they said to their employes, “ We will give you just the same benefits as are given to the servants of private employers, and we will allow you to go to the Arbitration Court per medium of your union.” It is only natural that the whole of the organizations should take advantage of that liberty. The present Government can hope for nothing more than an advertisement from the carrying of this Bill. They will say to people in the country who do not understand the question, “ See what we are doing ; we are saving you from that terrible party who would give preference only within their own ranks.” But members opposite have their tongues in their cheeks when they make that statement, and this Bill, instead of having the effect they desire, will take away the whole of the benefits that have accrued to unionists, and will produce results for which, in the end, the Government will be sorry.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

– When speaking upon the censure amendment to the Address-in-Reply, I had something to say about the Government’s action in regard to this measure. I pointed out that the Bill should get the criticism which it so richly deserves, not so much for the ground it covered in itself,” as for the hollow pretence on the part of the Government in bringing it forward.

Mr J H Catts:

– I call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum

Mr WATKINS:

– I was saying that I view this measure not so much in regard to the number of men affected, but more particularly in the light of the fact that the Government, while they bring in a Bill dealing only with preference to unionists in Government employment, are trying to make the people, particularly the farmers, believe that they are against preference of every kind in Government employment. I listened to the AttorneyGeneral when he was introducing the Bill, and during the whole of his discourse I did not hear him utter a word of justification for this measure.

Mr Ahern:

– You cannot know what the Bill is about.

Mr WATKINS:

– I shall not go to the honorable member for any advice upon this subject. If the honorable member had had one-fiftieth part of my experience in connexion with industrial questions, instead of being in the trade union to which he does belong, and which has preference, and is protected up to the hilt by the laws of the country, he would be expressing sympathy with the views I am enunciating. The Attorney-General never attempted to defend this Bill from the stand-point of Government employment. The whole of the remarks he addressed to this House were on the general question of preference. And the honorable member said a good deal regarding freedom, and made some reference to feeling in his veins the blood of his ancestors who had struggled for freedom. I hardly know on which side his line of ancestry lies, whether his ancestors belonged to that party which some 600 years ago passed a law to prevent trade unionism altogether, and provided that for a third offence the ear of the offending party should be cut off; or whether his ancestors belonged to the class, who, instead of assisting the workers to gain the liberty which other people fought for and gained, hid behind the law which compelled people to work, not only for the first employer who asked them, but for whatever wages he cared to offer. If those were his ancestors, I do not wonder that he feels his blood tingle when he introduces such a Bill as this into Parliament in this enlightened age. If that is the feeling which the Attorney-General has in his blood, I would like to ask why it is that we have not had any explanation from the Prime Minister as to whether he feels his blood tingling when a Bill is introduced that is opposed to the history of the honorable member and his ancestors as well. It was not the people opposed to preference in Government employment to-day who carried on the struggle for freedom in years gone by. It is not those people who had to meet in secret and hold meetings, not only in fear of loss of employment, but in fear of being imprisoned as well, who are against preference to unionists in Government employment. It was the ancestors of the Prime Minister and myself, and of those who had no freedom in those days, under the ancestors of the AttorneyGeneral, who helped from that day to this the struggle of the working classes to get that which they are properly entitled to. The question of preference to unionists, whether in Government or private employment, is the whole essence of collective bargaining from beginning to end. and without such preference unionism will revert beyond the time when it was nonexistent in the Commonwealth to the more distant time when it was prohibited by laws such as I have referred to. And the country will have again to go through its experience since 1824 to get conditions on a proper level, with respect to organized employment. We find that from the day when the law was altered, and it became permissible to have trade unions, the struggle was always most severe on the question of securing to their officers the right to employment after a struggle took place. When I heard the Attorney- General talking of freedom in this House, my mind went back to the youth of myself and other honorable members. Did we have freedom even in this young country when, because we were the mouth-piece of our fellow employe’s and had to voice the claims of those people, some suffered in employment, and in other respects ? Remembering that, can we be blamed, even though we know this Bill affects only 2,000 employes, if we point out the hollow mockery of the position which the Government have taken up. The AttorneyGeneral, in a cavalier manner, asked honorablo members on this side whether any man had been refused employment because he was a trade unionist. I would advise the honorable member to put that question to the Prime Minister. He can tell him as I can, not of one man, but of scores who have been refused employment all round because of their association with the union movement, and who have had to walk the streets for months.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But not by a Government.

Mr WATKINS:

– They had to walk the streets for months because they were taking a leading part in the trade union movement. In what respect does Government employment differ from private employment so far as this matter is concerned? There is absolutely no difference. I have heard of men even in the employ of a Government being called upon to say whether they belonged to a political or industrial organization; I have heard of men in Government employment finding it necessary for the time being to withdraw from such an association in order to avoid dismissal. Honorable members opposite contend that Government employment is different from private employment, and that they would not object to preference being granted by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court to men in private employment. But should not the right to preference be enjoyed equally by unionists in Government employment?

Mr J H Catts:

– I ask whether there is a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr WATKINS:

– It has always been recognised that the State Service is on a higher plane than private employment, and that the Government should set an example to all employers of labour.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes, that they should set an example of liberty and fair play to every one.

Mr WATKINS:

– Hear, hear. We have nothing to say in opposition to that proposition. But will the AttorneyGeneral explain why the Bar Association to which he belongs has obtained preference not by independent effort, but under the law of the country ? The members of the Association have preference from the beginning of their career to the end of it.

Mr J H Catts:

– Absolute preference!

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member means that they have to qualify to practise their profession.

Mr WATKINS:

– And tradesmen have to qualify to follow their several callings. Some tradesmen, indeed, in order to earn a wage of 9s. or 10s. a day, have to study questions more difficult even than those which members of the legal profession have to master. The members of the Bar

Association enjoy preference, and medical men refuse to meet a doctor who is outside their association, though the life of a patient may be involved. These men may go to extremes, but in respect of casual employment in the Commonwealth Service preference to unionists, we are told is not to be granted.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They have won all that for themselves without asking the Government to help them.

Mr WATKINS:

– I have just pointed out that the members of the Bar Association have never won anything for themselves as the result of independent action. The privileges they enjoy have been secured to them by Statute. The Association took care to have it enacted that only certain persons should be permitted to practise in the Courts of the State.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They must qualify to practise.

Mr WATKINS:

– Then why does the Prime Minister place the Bar Association on the same level as the industrial unions which have struggled outside for recognition ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But the Government gives preference to-day to any man in the Public Service. It is giving preference to men in the Public Service in connexion with electoral appointments.

Mr WATKINS:

– I am glad to have from the Prime Minister the admission that the Government are giving preference of employment to men already in the Commonwealth Service. Since that is the case what a hollow mockery this Bill is.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But we are not giving preference in the sense suggested by the honorable member.

Mr WATKINS:

– The Government are giving preference to those who use the pen, but not to those who wield the pick and shovel. They would crush the man who is down, and give preference to those who have perhaps been born in more fortunate circumstances. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that in Government as well as in private employment it has been found much easier to deal with organized labour than with individuals.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– lt all depends. We are nob finding it very easy to deal with the organization on the east-west railway.

Mr WATKINS:

– The Prime Minister will admit that it would be more difficult to deal with the men individually than it is to deal with them as an organization. Our common experience teaches us that that must be so. Ninety-nine per cent. of the employers for whom the Prime Minister and I once worked prefer today to deal with organized labour rather than with individuals. When the honorable gentleman talks of associations which have secured the recognition of the principle of preference, he should not forget what has happened in the case of industrial unions. Arbitration, conciliation, and preference must go hand in hand if the efforts which have been made by this Parliament to provide a peaceful means of settling industrial disputes are to be attended with success. The industrial troubles existing to-day are of but short duration compared with those which cropped up from time to time in the days of which the Prime Minister speaks. The honorable gentleman knows that in my district, as well as in that in which he used to reside, there have been strikes extending not over a few weeks, but for six and even eighteen months. Would he have usgo back to that state of affairs? Would he have a repetition of those oldtime struggles ? We were advised in those days to send men to Parliament to advocate the passing of conciliation and arbitration laws which would render strikes no longer necessary.We did so, and this Parliament passed a Conciliation and Arbitration Act providing for preferenceto unionists. The only effect of that Act has been to change the battleground of the struggle between Capital and Labour. The old, old strugglestill goes on between the two contendingfactions, and we cannot hope for success in connexion with our conciliation and arbitration system unless preference is extended to unionists who have to represent their fellows whether it be before the Arbitration Court or a Wages Board. That principle must apply to unionists in Government as well as in private employment. I do not think there is a man in this House, no matter on which side he sits, who is nob glad that there has been some improvement since those days, of which the Attorney-General spoke - those days of “ freedom “ which were really days of darkness, even in Australia. That is why I fail to understand how it is that the Prime Minister can for one moment vote against collective bargaining in the Commonwealth Service.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister is not voting against collective bargaining in the Commonwealth Service.

Mr WATKINS:

– Wait until I have finished. I mean that I cannot understand how he can vote against collective bargaining that carries with it the right to employment in the way of preference.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– “The right to employment in the way of preference “ - is that the honorable member’s claim ? It is well that we should have it made dear-

Mr WATKINS:

– I am speaking of casual employment, and I do not wish the Attorney-General to put words into my mouth.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I merely quoted the honorable member’s own words.

Mr WATKINS:

– My words are in reply to an interjection by the Prime Minister some time ago as to day labour on the transcontinental line. The employment of every Commonwealth servant, not a casual, is regulated by the Public Service Act, and this debate has reference only to casual workers.

Mr J H Catts:

– I ask if there is a quorum present. [Quorum, formed.]

Mr WATKINS:

– I have referred to the statement of the Attorney-General that no man has been refused work simply because he belongs to a trade union. I know of scores of cases in which men have been victimized and placed on a black-list, perhaps in more than one district; and, further, I recollect an arbitration case in which the issue was settled by the umpire in favour of the men, but, immediately the decision was given, tlie whole of the employes in that branch of industry were discharged, and the works closed down. These instances only show that the honorable gentleman evidently spoke “ without his book “ when he made the statement to which I have referred. The same thing has happened all along the line, and it obtains to-day, even in this State. Only last week I heard of cases where men who had taken a leading part in an industrial struggle had been refused employment when they applied elsewhere. Even in regard to the permanent employes of the Commonwealth and the States, I ask the Attorney-General whether lie can tell me of any man who, known to be an outandout unionist or Labour worker, has ever been appointed to a position of responsibility by Liberal Governments, or by those who now oppose preference to unionists. I feel confident that he cannot point to one case where a man of Labour opinions has ever had an equal chance with others who happen to support the other political party. I submit that it would tend to economy, and be in the best interests of the Commonwealth, if, as in the case of private employment, preference were given to organized labour in the sense intended by those who oppose the Bill. The Prime Minister has referred to a case; and I ask him whether he can conceive of an officer, who sits in Melbourne, dealing effectively with the works on the transcontinental railway, at either end, if he has to deal with the men employed as individuals.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We have a number of officials there.

Mr WATKINS:

– Have those officials full responsibility in respect to the discharging and employment of men ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is an engineer there who receives about £700 a year.

Mr WATKINS:

– Does not the Prime Minister admit that this official will get on better if he is able to deal with the men collectively instead of individually?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nobody wishes to segregate the men; and I do not know what the honorable member desires to get at.

Mr WATKINS:

– Nobody knows better than the Prime Minister that, if preference be taken away from an organization, that organization must fail.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Who wishes to take preference away ?

Mr WATKINS:

– I say that this Bil! takes preference away.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Rubbish ! The honorable member is not arguing the proposition at all.

Mr WATKINS:

– Does the Prime Minister say that this Bill does not deal with preference ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I say that the Government do not intend, and never have intended, to interfere with the unions in any way.

Mr WATKINS:

– I am glad to have that admission from the Prime Minister.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Honorable members have had it many a time.

Mr WATKINS:

– It, at least, will make it clear to the people, whom the Government intend to mislead, that this

Bill affects only certain employment under the Government. He cannot, however, get away from the fact that, in respect of particular employment, this Bill does take away preference. It is called a Preference Prohibition Bill, and if it means anything, it means that preference is denied; and when preference is denied, a trade union is practically useless.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Nonsense!

Mr WATKINS:

– We have the same old cry to-day that I have heard all my life.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the honorable member answer me one question, as he seems determined to make this a personal matter? Did he ever know any coal miners union which said to a man that he must go and get a ticket before he could get a job?

Mr WATKINS:

– No.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is the whole point.

Mr WATKINS:

– As the Prime Minister knows, when a man comes on a job, he is asked to join the union, and if he does not do so, the other men will not go down the shaft.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is after a man gets a job and begins to work.

Mr WATKINS:

– Admittedly; but when he starts on a mine, he is asked if he will join the union.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And now the honorable member’s suggestion is that if a man has not a ticket, he cannot get on the mine.

Mr WATKINS:

– Absolutely, no!

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Absolutely, yes.

Mr WATKINS:

– As I understand the position, there is no difference between the conditions which obtain on the railway and those which obtain in coal mining. The first thing, as I have said, is to ask the man whether he is going to join the union, and if he says no, there is no work at that mine for the day. It would be very desirable if we could hear from the Prime Minister definitely whether he believes, or does not believe, in preference to unionists. We had better deal with the Bill from the point of view of the real grounds for its introduction. The Government, in regard to this measure, have had but one object in view ever since the last election. Finding parties so nearly equal in this House, and such a majority against the Government in another place, they have laid out for themselves a certain course. Their aim is to utilize the Constitution in such a way as to give them the power of a majority in both Houses. They are, however, unfortunate in their choice of measures to obtain this end. It is admitted by the Government that the Bill before us affects only casual employes - that it does not affect, in any way, the general body politic. Ministers hope to be able to ask for a double dissolution upon the rejection of this Bill in another place. I cannot imagine that the Constitution is intended to be used in that way. It belongs to no party, but is the possession of the people alone, and they only can alter it. No party has the right to try to twist it to serve its own ends. This measure has been submitted, not to end a deadlock, but, as the honorable member for Bendigo pointed out, to create one. Had the party to which I belong remained in possession of the Treasury bench for twelve months on the casting vote of the Speaker, how the metropolitan journals would have clamoured for our expulsion. Never in the political life of the Commonwealth or of a State has a Government had the odds against it that are against this Government, which is homing on to office in the hope of gaining some small political advantage in the near future.

Mr Orchard:

– What about the McGowen Government ?

Mr WATKINS:

– The position of parties in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly was different from the position here, there being three parties there, whereas here we have a clear division between two parties. On a test division the McGowen Government never had a majority of less than nine.

Mr J H Catts:

– Is there a quorum present? [Quorum formed.]

Mr WATKINS:

– The Government haviug thrown down a challenge in respect of preference to unionists, it will be accepted, and the issue will, I hope, be fought out on the public platforms before very long. After the last election the only course to follow was to secure a dissolution of this House, and to appeal again to the people. That would have prevented the wasting of a year. The Government has made no effort to bring forward useful legislation. Ministers have no right to twist the Constitution by trying to secure a double dissolution with a measure of the kind now before us. The constitutional provision, of which it is sought to take advantage, was never intended to apply to a Bill of the character that is being discussed. Although this Government, by Executive minute, has abolished preference to unionists in casual Government employment, after the next appeal to the people preference will still be given, even should the Bill become law. Whether the appeal is made early or late is a matter for the Government to determine. We on this side are willing and ready to make it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr BURCHELL:
Fremantle

– So much has been said for and against the Bill, that it is difficult to say anything new about it. I shall not, however, occupy time unnecessarily. The ironical cheers which greet that statement suggest that Ministers and their supporters are getting tired, and that their nerves are somewhat frayed. Last session there was little or no debate on this measure. I had no opportunity of speaking on it, and therefore will do so now. The measure is neither more nor less than a sham.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in saying that.

Mr BURCHELL:

– Then I shall say it is a political sham. Ministers, having abolished preference to unionists by administrative act, now propose a legislative enactment to do the. same thing. And it seems to me that, to still further bind and secure that which has already been accomplished, is more or less of a political sham; it is a shadow. There is nothing to guide us in the wording of the preamble of the Bill; and there, the measure does not say whether membership of an association means membership of a trade union, or membership of a religious association. One cannot gather what is in the minds of the Government, whether they mean that membership of a religious body is to be considered a bar to entry to the Public Service. However, there seems to me a principle involved. Different speakers on the Government side have made it fairly clear that there is a desire to abolish or prevent preference to unionists in the employ ‘ of the Commonwealth Government. Had the Attorney-General come forward with an amendment to the Arbitration Act affecting a greater number of men, practically the whole of the trade unionists of the Commonwealth, there would have been something worth fighting for; but, even as it is, the attempt on the part of the Government to interfere with the principle of preference to unionists is worthy of the strongest opposition from the Labour party. The principle of preference to unionists has been before the electors on different occasions, and in past years many lengthy and acrimonious debates have taken place in this House regarding it. I believe that the Bill is a political sham, but, nevertheless, I recognise that it has the semblance of an attack on the principle of preference to unionists; and, therefore, I shall oppose it in every possible way. Having spent a number of years in the employ of the Government of Western Australia, I know a little of what Government preference is; also, I happen to know that those who are members of a union, or who take any active part in an association for the betterment of the condition of their fellows, receive treatment that is the reverse of preferential. I ask myself the question whether the Bill is a genuine attempt on the part of the Ministry to give to all a fair and reasonable opportunity of employment, irrespective of their beliefs in regard to trade unionism, or whether it is an attempt to give to Ministers the opportunity to open the door to those who are not members of unions. In other words - are Ministers seeking to give preference to non-unionists ? The experience I have had in Western Australia of those who are of the same political colour as the members of the present Government, leads me to view with the very gravest suspicion any proposition to prohibit, in the Government service, the giving of preference of employment to unionists. Knowing what will happen, unless there is a powerful organization, or some recognised body that can see that fair play is given to all employes in a Government Department, I am inclined to think that, at all costs, we must safeguard the right to organize within the different public Departments, and that, in addition, we should give to the members of the organizations within the Service the right of preference of employment. Something has been said during this debate in regard to the victimization of unionists. To go into details, would not be strictly in accord with the wording of the Bill; but my own experience has shown me that, in many cases, there is a determined effort, by those who are the political friends of the present Administration, to victimize any who take a prominent part in connexion with the trade union movement; and, on this ground, if for no other reason, I think preference should be given to unionists rather than to non-unionists.

Mr Palmer:

– Can you cite a case of victimization ?

Mr BURCHELL:

– I said that I did not wish to go into details; but, as there is an interjection, I can speak of my own experience. For three years, my increments were deliberately stopped because I was president of an organization. I was threatened by the Administration that it was not good for my health to remain as president of that body. The Commissioner of Railways thought that I should take a less important position. He said that I might, perhaps, be a member of the organization, but I should riot take an important part in it. “ You are only standing in your own light,” he said. And later, when through the trade union movement I became an aspirant for political honours, the honorable member for Dampier will probably remember that I was to be transferred to the country - banished from the city.

Mr Gregory:

– Do you say that you were threatened by the Commissioner of Railways on account of your connexion with the organization ?

Mr BURCHELL:

– I was threatened by the Chief Traffic Manager, who was then acting for the Commissioner of Railways in Western Australia.

Mr Gregory:

– We will need to hear what Mr. Douglas has to say.

Mr Finlayson:

– I rise to a point of order. Is not the honorable member for Dampier bound, by the rules and procedure of the House, to accept the statement of the honorable member for Fremantle ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I did not observe that the honorable member for Dampier was asked to accept any statement, or that he declined to accept it.

Mr Finlayson:

– The honorable member expressed a doubt regarding one statement of the honorable member for Fremantle.

Mr Gregory:

– Not at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Fremantle made a statement, and I understood that the honorable member for Dampier, by way of interjection, suggested that the statement should be inquired into. I do not think the matter proceeded any further.

Mr J H Catts:

– I would like toknow if we have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Mr BURCHELL:

– I have no objection whatsoever to the Chief Traffic Manager of Railways of Western Australia being asked whether that incident took place. I know positively that it occurred in the office of the Chief Traffic Manager. The Bill before us affects slightly under 2,000 men.

Mr P P Abbott:

– What about the future members of the Service?

Mr BURCHELL:

– It is questionable whether the number of the temporary employes in the Commonwealth Service will ever be greater, because, as necessity is created for permanent positions to be filled, they are filled as rapidly as possible. The Attorney-General has said that the Bill affects only those who are temporarily engaged, and it is not a vital question whether there will be greater numbers in the future.

Mr Poynton:

– Besides, the policy of the Government is to have contract work in that field of labour.

Mr BURCHELL:

– That phase of the question has also to be considered. The Government are abandoning the daylabour system, and are going in for contract work. The Bill actually covers only those temporarily employed by the Commonwealth, numbering, as I say, under 2,000.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Two thousand improper privileges are as bad as 2,000,000.

Mr BURCHELL:

– The honorable member does not believe in preference to unionists; I do. But the Bill is really introduced with the idea of creating a dead-lock between the two Chambers. I am confident that a small measure such as this, affecting so small a number of men throughout Australia, is hardly likely to influence any one in a responsible position.

Mr Arthur:

– Is the honorable member for New England in order in referring to the speech of another honorable member as “ croaking “ ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The interjection is entirely disorderly, as are all interjections.

Mr P P Abbott:

-i withdraw the word .

Mr BURCHELL:

– I cannot see that a dead-lock forced and created by means of such a Bill as this can come within the meaning of that particuler section of the Constitution that provides for sending both Houses of the Legislature before their masters, the people. I turn now to the general question of preference. We are told that the Labour party are working in favour of one particular class, that the principle of preference to unionists, which is at stake in this Bill, is, so far as the Labour party are concerned, a class question, and that we are supporting the principle because we receive the votes of the whole of the trade unionists throughout Australia. It is well known to members on the other side of the House that that is not correct; unfortunately we do not receive the whole support of ‘the trade unionists, although I think we should. Probably I have as many trade unionists in my electorate as has any other member from Western Australia, but I am firmly convinced that I did not receive the whole of the trade unionists’ votes at the last election. Many other members of the Labour party are in the -same position. This question of class was dealt with very effectively by the honorable member for Darwin, who pointed out that this was not simply a matter of legislating for the Labour party, but that Parliaments throughout Australia were legislating for different sections of the community with a desire to do good for all. And I believe that when one understands the formation of a trade union and the necessity for arbitration, it is only a logical step to go further and give preference to unionists, conscious of the fact that by that means we shall be doing good to the general community. We have many instances of the principle of preference being recognised in other ways. The Medical Association has been referred to, and I propose to quote one instance which came to my personal knowledge. A medical gentleman arrived in Western Australia from England, and hia charges were about 50 per cent. less than those of other medical men in the same district. The doctor was warned by his medical confreres that he must increase his fees. He was compelled, in effect, to adopt the union rules, and to see that preference to the doctors’ organization was maintained to the fullestextent. When the principle of preference is attacked, we have to look at it not only as it affects the Government employes, but also from a general stand-point. The broad principle of preference to unionists is not a new matter; it has been discussed by the House before, but I believe that in this instance it is brought forward by the Government merely as a political placard. Their idea is to throw dust in the eyes of a certain section of the community, and trade on the fears of those who do not delve too deeply into these matters, thus causing votes to be cast in favour of the Liberal candidates at the next election. In my opinion trade unions have earned their preference. We hear a great deal about organization, but we know that the working classes in the past had to organize in order to protect themselves. They had to embrace every opportunity, and many were the battles fought,’ and bitter were the struggles. Many men went down, but still the fight went on, until to-day the unions are recognised by law, and the people of the Commonwealth have decided not only to admit the principle of unionism, but to provide a court in which both employers and employes can come together to settle their disputes by arbitration. With that knowledge behind us, with the experience of history, and having regard to the fact that arbitration is the policy of the country, I desire to emphasize the argument that we should continue, through the courts and through the Government, preference in employment to men who have earned that preference. Much is said about strikes. They are a barbarous form of settling dead-locks that occur between employers and employes. I have very little sympathy with a strike unless all the ordinary means of settlement have been exhausted, and I would not sanction any departure from the law unless it were shown that the law was ineffective. I believe that it is necessary to recognise the principle of preference to unionists in order to avoid strikes. It is known to a number of members that there is unfortunately in Perth at the present time a strike, lock-out, or general disagreement between the employers and the employes, regarding the question of unionism, and, incidentally, the question of preference in employment. Therefore, it is highly desirable that we should weigh all the pros and cons of this Bill, consider it very carefully, and know just how far we are going. Clause 2 of the Bill reads -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or non-membership of any political or industrial association.

The acceptance of the principle that is embodied in those words would be a serious blow to a great number of lawabiding citizens. I am convinced .that the Government have not fully considered the position, and they do not know the danger that may lie ahead of them. They do not realize that there may be a possibility of serious industrial unrest as a consequence of this Bill. I am not a prophet, and I am not in a position to say just what is likely to take place, but it does seem to me that the Government should exercise care. Having adopted the policy of industrial organization, we have evolved a system of arbitration that has been accepted as the policy of the country, and I do not think there are many members of the House who are particularly anxious to oppose the principle. Industrial organization and arbitration are recognised by law, and preference to unionists is the next step. In that regard, let me emphasize the statement made by the honorable member for Yarra when he spoke of the award in the lineman’s case being in favour of the members of the claimant organization. What is to be the attitude of the Government? They do not believe in any preference, but to my limited intelligence it seems that here we have an award that is going to give some preference to members of an organization. If increases are to be paid to the men, do the Government intend to pay them only to unionists and allow the non-unionists to go without increases ? The Government will require to consider their position, and to come to some definite determination upon this point. In regard to compulsory unionism, I would like to point out that in connexion with what is known as the Independent Workers Union, which has its headquarters in Melbourne - in other words “Packer’s” union - there is compulsory unionism in operation to-day., We have the evidence of Mr. Blackwood, who, I understand, is the president of the Employers Federation, and who has said that -

Before taking up a job they must become members of the “ Independent Workers “ by paying ls. down, and agreeing to pay the subscription of fid. per man per week.

The Prime Minister queried the statement made by the honorable member for

Newcastle in regard to the practice affecting coal miners joining their lodges. How does that practice compare with that adopted by the Independent Workers Union ?

Mr Pigott:

– The practice adopted by the Independent Workers Union, to which the honorable member has just referred, was never indorsed by this Government.

Mr BURCHELL:

– Does it not mean compulsory unionism ? Even if it has not been indorsed by the Government the Employers Federation has the reputation of being behind the Government and their supporters.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Prime Minister took up a hundred shares in the Independent Workers Institute.

Mr Groom:

– That is not correct.

Mr BURCHELL:

– The genuine trade unions of Australia will not recognise the Independent Workers Union, and the quotation I have just made from a speech by Mr. Blackwood shows that a system of compulsory unionism is followed in connexion with it. Honorable members opposite declare that exorbitant entrance fees are demanded by trade unions, and that a form of compulsion is followed, but in the Independent Workers Union we have an organization which shelters under the wing of the Government, and undoubtedly adopts a similar system. The Attorney-General, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that “its purpose was to crush, at its very inception, the introduction of the spoils system.” I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to this debate, and during its progress heard many instances cited to disprove the suggestion that the practices of Tammany Hall apply in Australia. The Attorney-General went on to say that “ the purpose of this Bill was to insure that no Government should use behind the back of Parliament the power of public employment as a means of giving preference to its own political supporters.” That statement was aimed at one particular political party. I would point out, however, that where there is no organization of clerical workers and others in the employ of the Government, there is always a doubt as to whether favoritism is not exercised. I desire to emphasize that point. Whilst preference to unionists is the issue raised by this Bill, it seems to me that iti essence it is a covert attack on the whole trade union movement. The present Attorney-General has been responsible for some of the most bitter and strongest attacks upon the trade union movement in Victoria, and I believe that the Bill now introduced by him is but the first step to a general attack upon the broad principle of preference to unionists for which the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides. There is certainly room for suspicion regarding the object which the Attorney-General has in view. The honorable gentleman said, I think, in reply to an interjection, that he would be prepared personally to abolish all preference. The meaning which his words conveyed to my mind was that he would seek so to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as to abolish preference to unionists, and that he would aim at the trade union movement a blow from which it would never be able to recover. This, after all, is on all fours with what is going on in other parts of the world. We know what has happened recently in South Africa, Dublin, London, and elsewhere. The Attorney-General is but true to type. He is but one of a number of men all the world over who are aiming a blow at the trade union movement.

Mr Pigott:

– He said that he favored trade unionism, but was personally opposed to preference.

Mr BURCHELL:

– I do not know whether the Attorney-General has changed his attitude towards trade unionism since his retirement from State politics, but I have before me now a copy of the famous, or rather infamous, Coercion Bill which he introduced into the Victorian Parliament. It is quite conceivable that a gentleman who would introduce such a measure would be capable of inflicting the most serious and grievous wrong that could be done to any body of honest law-abiding working men.

Mr J H Catts:

– Under that Bill he even prohibited railway men from associating with other tradesmen.

Mr BURCHELL:

– I could quote much from the Victorian Coercion Bill in support of my contention. This Bill makes an attack upon a principle that is dear to the hearts of the Labour, party, and I think that it is but the first step towards the introduction in Australia of what is known in other parts of the world, as “The Big Stick Movement.” That is the term used to describe the attempts that are being made elsewhere to force men out of the Arbitration Courts into armed resistance against the armed forces of the employers. I was much impressed by an article which I read in the London Magazine for May, and which was entitled, “ The Big Stick: How Trusts and Trade Unions. are Coming to Grips.” On the Government side of the House we have a party which represents the large combinations of wealth in Australia, whereas on this side we have men who represent the combinations of those who have labour to sell. I believe that what is going on in other parts of the world will be transferred to Australia, and that the question of “ The Big Stick “ - the question of armed force - will be raised in the Commonwealth. A representative of Tasmania in this House recently said that in certain circumstances he would not hesitate to call out the military to deal with strikers. I ask the Government to consider how far this Bill will carry them. The future is pregnant with great possibilities, so far as this measure is concerned. Judging by the experience of other countries, if there be aimed at the trade union movement in Australia such a blow as the abolition of preference to unionists generally, we shall be in danger of something leading up to civil war. I do not pose as a prophet; I am simply giving expression to my own view as to what may take place in the future, and I think that the Government would be well advised to make haste slowly with this Bill. What it purports to accomplish has already been achieved, in relation to the abolition of preference to unionists in Government employ; but it has been introduced with the further desire to create a dead-lock between the two Houses. I feel that it cannot come within that section of the Constitution which relates to dead-locks, having due regard to the surrounding sections of the Constitution. The attack that is being made by means of this Bill on the trade union movement throughout Australia will be detrimental to the wellbeing of the whole community, unless the Government are very careful. In conclusion, I have only to say that the question of preference to union men in Government employment has been brought right home to me as an individual, and that I therefore shall have no hesitation in recording my disapproval of this measure.

Mr J H Catts:

– As weare about to have an important speech, I think that we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– When the honorable member for Wimmera was addressing himself to this question last week I interjected that he should be the last to utter a word against trade unions, since his father was boycotted in the Creswick district, and compelled to leave it simply because he was a good trade unionist. The Attorney-General has frequently referred to the honorable member for Darling as being probably the most reliable authority on trade union questions in Australia. On page 51 of his book we are told by the author -

The boycott was enforced, and I had to seek a living for myself and family as best I could. It turned out a good thing for me, however, as I have not done any mining work since; and it really gave me greater freedom to become a bigger thorn in the side of capitalism by my being able to devote my whole efforts to organizing work and extending unionism. Our first president of the Miners Association at Creswick (Mr . J. Sampson) -

That was thefather of the honorable member for Wimmera.

ColonelRyrie. - Why not leave these miserable personalities out?

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable member for Wimmera denied the statement; and when a man questions the truth of what I say-

ColonelRyrie. - I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is relevant to the question ?

Mr Poynton:

– Last week the honorable member for Wimmera said that a statement I made was untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Wimmera said something that was unparliamentary, he should have been called upon to withdraw it; but, in any case, the honorable member for Grey could have made a personal explanation. The honorable member cannot, however, under cover of the debate on a second reading, make more than a passing reference to the matter.

Mr Poynton:

– Do you rule, sir, that I cannot deal with victimization and the use of the boycott ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may do so if he establishes a connexion with the question of preference in Government employment.

Mr POYNTON:

– We have been challenged by honorable members opposite to cite a case of victimization, or of the use of the boycott; and I am proceeding to do so on the authority of the book of the honorable member for Darling, who tells us that Mr. J. Sampson was the first president of the Creswick Miners Association, and was driven out of the district on that account. Then we are told that Mr. T. Phillips, another president of the same association, was also boycotted. When I made the statement in regard to Mr. Sampson, on Friday last; I was told I was not speaking the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I only ask the honorable member to connect his remarks with the question before the Chair. Can he say that that occurred in connexion with Government employment? I am not disputing his statement as to what took place in another debate last week, but he must realize that I am obliged to call his attention to the terms of the motion before the House.

Mr POYNTON:

– I do not wish to proceed further in that direction.

Colonel Ryrie. - No; not now that the honorable member has jumped on a dead man’s grave !

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr POYNTON:

– I shall “ jump “ on the honorable member, too, for he cannot be allowed to bully in this place. I now desire to show that the Bill before us practically originated in 1891, when, on the 24th April, there was an important conference, at which there were sixty-five employers present, representing shippers, pastoralists, and merchants, together with some members of Parliament. That conference drew up a programme, and I leave the House and the public to judge how closely that programme resembles the policy of the Government, as now laid before us. That programme was set out in thirteen articles, the first of which was -

  1. Plan to overthrow the combination of labour and unionism, and the universal advancement of the workers.

We now have a Bill before us, which has for its object the overthrow of the combination of labour and unionism -

  1. To obtain co-operation of the various Australian Governments with a view to enable the Australian employers of labour to enforce all or any agreed terms of the employers by force of arms.

That was attempted quite recently in Queensland, when the employers called on the Commonwealth to provide the necessary force of arms -

  1. To enforce, through Government, freedom of contract by the force of “ law and order.”

You, Mr. Speaker, represent law and order on this occasion, because this Bill cannot be forced through without your vote. No honorable member can deny that this Bill has for its object freedom of contract, which means “freedom” to starve, “ freedom “ to victimize, and “ freedom “ to sweat. No one knows the truth of this better than does the Prime Minister. I have been in the movement since 1879, and I have known of scores, even of hundreds, of cases of victimization. I have known men driven out of particular localities in the glorious name of “ freedom of contract,” or, as it is termed in the Bill, the “ prohibition “ of “preference” or “discrimination.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member has not been in the movement since that time.

Mr POYNTON:

– I joined the Miners Association of Ballarat in 1879.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I know that.

Mr POYNTON:

– I was afterwards president of the Creswick Miners Association, and I have been in the political movement since 1893.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not understand what the honorable member means. He was not in the political movement, so far as I know, when he was in the same room with us.

Colonel Ryrie. - Was the honorable member a Liberal?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Of course, and a good one, too I

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! This has nothing to do with the question.

Mr POYNTON:

– I was in the room with the honorable member for one reason, and one reason only, namely, the Tariff.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Oh, no !

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is quite beside the question.

Mr POYNTON:

– If I am transgressing, it is the fault of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not obliged to take notice of interjections. These, if not replied to, are not reported in Hansard; and an irrelevant interjection by no means justifies an irrelevant speech.

Mr POYNTON:

– The agreement to which I have referred goes on -

  1. The maintenance of a high standard of wages as applied to shearers and others until such time as the unions agree to receiving freedom of contract under any conditions.

The boast of the present Ministry - and this is the sugar coating to the pill - is that wages are more effective now than under the late Government; and it is true that in some instances more money is paid. Once freedom of contract is established, we shall find this Bill, as the thin end of the wedge, representing an attack on trade unionism, disguise the fact as we may.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No.

Mr POYNTON:

– The next paragraph of the programme was -

  1. The disbanding of unions by means of freedom of contract, and then the rapid reduction of wages at once (25 per cent.) for all employment.

Does any man believe that if this Government get the power, supported as they are by the Employers’ Federation, all the Trusts and Combines, and by the leading journals, who find fault with Mr. Justice Higgins’ awards, wages will not come down? The Prime Minister has himself contributed £50 to an organization which has for its object the encouragement of free labour.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is an absolute misrepresentation!

Mr POYNTON:

– Will the honorable member deny that he took 100 shares at 10s. in an organization known as the Liberal Workers’ Institute?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I absolutely deny it.

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable gentleman absolutely said so himself, on the floor of the House, when a charge in this connexion was made against him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I never said so.

Mr POYNTON:

– On that occasion the honorable gentleman was charged with having taken up £100 worth of shares.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will you, Mr. Speaker, allow me to put this matter right ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is quite irregular. In the first place, I remind the honorable member for Grey that, when an honorable member makes a disclaimer in reference to some statement as to himself, it is customary, not only in Parliament, but among all gentlemen, to accept it. The Prime Minister cannot make a personal explanation in the middle of another honorable gentleman’s speech, but he may do so immediately on the conclusion of that speech. This part of the honorable member’s speech, however, is quite out of order.

Mr Page:

– On the point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Page:

Mr. Speaker, you say that an honorable member should accept a disclaimer from any other honorable member, but, in the present case, there was no disclaimer, only a point of order raised by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That was not a point of order. The Prime Minister will later on be able to make an explanation.

Mr POYNTON:

– Will the Prime Minister deny that he gave the Liberal Workers’ Institute his paternal blessing?

Mr Groom:

– That is not what the honorable member said previously; he repeated an incorrect statement, said to have been made by the honorable member for Cook.

Mr POYNTON:

– I said that the Liberal Workers’ Institute was an association of free workers.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I say that there is not a tittle of truth in the statement that has been made by the honorable member.

Mr POYNTON:

– The secretary of this association is a gentleman named Packer, who, as correspondence read in this House has shown, offered to send free labour to Ballarat when the tramway men were on strike for higher wages - men who, though married, were receiving only 30s. a week. The institute has branches in the various States, and it is composed of what are called “ strike breakers.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How the honorable member got the idea that I contributed to that institute I do not know.

Mr POYNTON:

– It was stated in the newspapers that the honorable gentleman had contributed to the Liberal Institute in Parramatta.

Mr Page:

– That is not Packer’s Institute.

Mr POYNTON:

– But Packer is the secretary, in Victoria, of a branch of thesams institute.

Mr Groom:

– No.

Mr POYNTON:

– Then I am wrong.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The contribution I gave was to a Liberal Club in Parramatta - a meeting place for Liberals.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This irregular conversation must cease.

Mr POYNTON:

– I shall not dispute the matter any further. The Liberal Workers’ Institute in Victoria is an organization to provide strike breakers, or, what would be called out-back, “scabs.” There was a time when the very gaols were scoured, and employers were waiting at the gaol gates to secure men to take the places of honest workers in the shearing industry in both Victoria and New South Wales. This was all done in the name of freedom of contract, or of “ preference prohibition.” Another plank in the conference platform was -

  1. The Shipping Union to arrange as part and parcel of capital to introduce German, Italian, and coolie labour by the importation of 5,000 men per year.

On the Treasury bench we have the wreckage of the coolie-labour advocates. Black labour would to-day be employed in the cane-fields of Queensland if certain honorable gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber had had their way. They fought to the last ditch for the retention of coloured labour, and some of them, if they could, would again introduce it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I think that the honorable member voted with me on this subject thirteen years ago against the Labour party of that day.

Mr POYNTON:

– I will resign my seat if the honorable member can prove that I ever gave a vote in favour of black labour.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member has misunderstood me.

Mr POYNTON:

– It is not to be wondered at. The honorable gentleman was brought up in the mines. The miners put on his coat for him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I expected that something of this kind would happen if the debate proceeded on the lines that it has followed, and intimated that it was out of order from the beginning. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw what he said.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I withdraw what I have said. It is intolerable that I must submit to these lying statements, which are going on all the time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I withdraw, and apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to connect his remarks with the Bill, or I must now direct him to discontinue his speech as being irrelevant. There is no apparent connexion between what he is saying and this proposal for the prohibition of preference to unionists in Government employment.

Mr POYNTON:

– That may be my misfortune. I have spoken of the programme issued by sixty-five gentlemen who met in New South Wales in March, 1891, showing how nearly it resembles the policy of the present Government. The man responsible for this Bill introduced similar legislation in the Victorian Parliament, every bit of which has since been repealed. He stated on the floor of this House that he would wipe out all trade unions.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He has never made any such statement.

Mr POYNTON:

– He said that he would wipe out preference so far as the arbitration law is concerned. The Bill, without that preference, would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. It is a fraud on the Constitution; in fact, it is an abortion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member finds it necessary to apply strong terms to the measure, there are many which he will be in order in using, but the term he has used is unparliamentary as applied to a measure before the House.

Mr POYNTON:

– I challenge any Minister or any Government supporter to show that the Bill is a measure of the kind contemplated by the section of the Constitution providing against deadlocks. Reading the speeches of the members of the Convention, in conjunction with the provisions of the Constitution, it is evident, first, that the Government whose legislation is held up must have bad a mandate from the electors in regard to it. This Government has not a mandate from the electors in regard to the Bill.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes, the strongest mandate.

Mr POYNTON:

– In the Speaker’s chair ?

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– In the loss of ten Labour seats.

Mr POYNTON:

– What evidence is there in the constitution of the other Chamber of a mandate from the people in regard to this measure?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You do not usually look to the other Chamber to ascertain the people’s will.

Mr POYNTON:

– Because of the dreadful misrepresentation of the financing of the ex-Treasurer, the people may have supported the Liberal party in the hope of getting financial reform, but there was no mandate regarding this Bill. The Constitution requires that the Government shall have a substantial majority in this House on some concrete and national proposal. Do honorable, members opposite say that this is a national proposal? They are silent. What was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution was the possibility of the Senate rejecting or failing to pass a Tariff or an Appropriation Bill within a reasonable time. I challenge the AttorneyGeneral to disprove my words.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall wait until my challenge has been answered by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr POYNTON:

– The late Charles Cameron Kingston, the late Mr. Justice O’Connor, Mr. Justice Isaacs, and Mr. Justice Higgins were those who were prominent in supporting the provision in the Constitution, Sir Josiah Symon, Mr. Henry Dobson, Sir John Downer, and the present Treasurer being against it. It was mentioned during a general discussion in the Convention at an early stage–

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is thi3 relevant?

Mr Fenton:

– We should have a quorum to hear the point. [Quorum formed.]

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Grey is inviting the House to peruse the speeches of the members of the Convention with a view to ascertaining the general meaning of the dead-lock provisions of the Constitution, an extremely interesting inquiry, and a subject upon which we should all like to say something, but one, I submit, not relevant to the Bill.

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member for Grey is discussing the second reading of a Bill whose purpose has been declared, both inside and outside the House, by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, to be the securing of a double dissolution. Its purpose is not made apparent in its language.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Will the right honorable member say when in this debate I referred to the matter?

Mr Fisher:

– I do not wish to be out of order. The remarks of the honorable member for Grey regarding the intentions of the framers of the Constitution seem to be perfectly relevant in connexion with the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– So long as tie honorable member makes merely passing and incidental references to the Constitution, drawing therefrom some point in support of his argument against the second reading of the Bill, he will be in order, but if he proposes to discuss the Constitution for the purpose of arguing the question of a double dissolution, as his speech indicates, by itself, he will not be in order.

Mr POYNTON:

– In this House and outside, the Attorney-General has repeatedly spoken of the Bill as one of two test measures that are to be used to get a double dissolution. I think that I shall be in order in quoting reasons advanced by those who framed the Constitution to show that a Bill of the kind before us was not in their minds when they adopted the provision for a double dissolution. The present Minister of External Affairs said-

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I again ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honorable member is proceeding to do what I understand you have indicated he cannot do. He proposes to discuss and quote from the debates of the Convention. The subject-matter of his discussion is an extremely interesting one, and one on which honorable members on both sides would like to say something, if to do so would be in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understood the honorable member to express the intention of referring to the Constitution to point out that a Bill of this kind was not one that came within the scope of the dead-lock provisions of the Constitution. I have already ruled that out of order.

Mr Higgs:

– I rise to a point of order. At any time, and more especially on an occasion like this, when members are in a somewhat distraught frame of mind) through being overworked, it is not rightfor an honorable member to raise a frivolous point of order immediately after you have given a ruling upon it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has raised no new point of orderThere can be no debate raised on it.

Mr J H Catts:

– On a point of order, is not the honorable member for Grey inorder in replying to arguments continually used throughout the speech that the Attorney-General made in moving the second reading ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is the same point of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr POYNTON:

– I wish to give quotations from the speeches of those gentlemen who framed the Constitution. The Minister of External Affairs was at the Convention in Adelaide. It was far from his mind that a measure such as that before us would be used to create a deadlock. In a speech at that Convention he said -

Are we called upon to anticipate the probability of dead-locks? If we are, I trust very largely to the good sense of the people. I say, further, that if a dead-lock occurs in connexion with a money matter in the Appropriation Bill, and if the Upper House insists upon interference, and a dead-lock ensues, itwill open up the way to a revolution.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– May I suggest that, in order that honorable members may prepare for the lunch to be tendered to His Excellency the Governor-General, this is a convenient time to adjourn.

Mr Fisher:

– Until when?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I suggest the usual time - 2.30 p.m. - and if we are not quitefinished then we might leave it to Mr. Speaker to have the bells rung.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the desire of the House that the debate be interrupted at this stage for the purpose of’ adjourning?

Mr J H Catts:

– I object. I have had no opportunity to get ready for thislunch.

Mr POYNTON:

– In another paragraph the Minister of External Affairs said -

If they (money Bills) are blocked the wholeof the machinery of Federation will beclogged.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in entering into such a discussion.

Mr POYNTON:

The evil resulting from that state of affairs-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not continue those quotations. They have nothing to do with the Bill, so far as I have been able to ascertain.

Mr POYNTON:

– It is a most remarkable thing that honorable members on the other side have been permitted to make similar quotations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is simply debating the constitutional question.

Mr POYNTON:

– Similar quotations have been used before. After all the trouble I have gone to to mark them, at the very moment they tell against the Government up jumps the Attorney-General, though here and in other places, when dealing with this Bill, he has repeatedly referred to the dead-lock provisions in relation to the double dissolution. But when I seek to put before honorable members my judgment, gained by a perusal of the various speeches of the men who framed the Constitution, as to what was in their minds, and claim that it is not what is in the minds of the present Government, then, forsooth, the Attorneygeneral blocks me.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not block you. The Standing Orders block you.

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable member was the first to rise and attempt to “block me, though he has used these arguments both inside and outside the chamber, and claimed what was not in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Two great points were before the Conventions in connexion with this matter. First there was the Tariff.

Colonel Ryrie. - I rise to a point of order.

Mr POYNTON:

– Is the usual fair play to be given?

Colonel Ryrie. - Is the honorable member entitled to traverse the ruling of the Chair. He has marked certain quotations, and wants to get them off. But would he be entitled to mark one of Harry Lauder’s songs, and, having done so, to sine it in the chamber?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If I find it necessary to intervene I shall tell the honorable member when he is out of order. I have already laid down what he may not do, and I ask honorable members to cease interrupting, especially as the honorable member’s time is limited under the Stand ing Orders, and repeated interjections and interventions prevent my following his arguments sufficiently to enable me to judge what he intends.

Mr POYNTON:

– I can refer to what the Attorney-General said in moving the second reading. He said -

I now throw down the challenge, as I have done on many occasions, in the House and outside, that if honorable members wish to test the sincerity of the Government let them reject this Bill, or let them pass it through this House and have it rejected on the first occasion it goes to the ‘Senate. They will then have the opportunity of testing the sincerity of the Government.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If you read a little further on you will see that I expressly declined to discuss the matter.

Mr POYNTON:

– The AttorneyGeneral also said -

The honorable member (for West Sydney), who is a lawyer, has expressed strong opinions on the duty of the Governor-General in this regard; in fact he has worked himself up to an opinion that a double dissolution will be refused…… There has never been any answer to the challenge I have thrown out. If the position of Ministers is insincere, if honorable members think that, having reached the conditions under which a double dissolution may lie granted or refused, and it has been refused, Ministers would still continue to occupy these benches, let them put the matter to the test. They have their opportunity. But they are afraid to put the matter to the test. If the honorable member for Hunter seeks an answer to his question - not my answer, but the answer of the whole Government - there is no readier way of getting it than by giving up this futile clinging to every parliamentary buttress, this holding to the banisters of the stair, this having to be dragged out of their place by giving up this wretched parliamentary chicanery and letting the Bill be dealt with in both Houses.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You have omitted the only material part.

Mr POYNTON:

– I have referred to quite sufficient. I have taken the records of the Convention debates to show that there is no justification for the Bill before us, having regard to what was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution. No one knows it better than the Treasurer. There are some very pertinent paragraphs which the Attorney-General has evidently read and does not wish to have repeated. When I was interrupted by the honorable member for North Sydney I was about to say that the Tariff was the one great question that came under review at the Convention. It was alleged that a Government just returned from the country with the mandate to establish Protection, and having a substantial majority, might have its Tariff proposals rejected by the Senate, and would clearly be in great financial trouble, because the whole of the affairs of Australia would be held up; and as the financial position of the Government would be so affected, it was seen that a settlement would need to be arrived at. It was upon a case like that that the Convention had the most strenuous debates. There was serious anxiety as to what the result would be, but at the time it was pointed out that these provisions of the Constitution might be used as a machine for political purposes. Cases on similar lines to what is now being done were cited - where a Government for the purpose of getting a majority under the false issue of a dead-lock would deliberately create trouble with the Senate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– After listening to the honorable member for some time, I do not recollect his making any reference to what is before the Chair. The honorable member is arguing as to what, in his opinion, would constitute a valid ground for raising a constitutional difficulty with the Senate. That has nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill. I now propose to leave the chair. It is customary on an all-day sitting to adjourn until 2.30 p.m., but honorable members may wish to have a different arrangement to-day in view of the luncheon to His Excellency the new Governor-General in the Queen’s Hall adjoining.

Mr Kelly:

– Let Mr. Speaker ring the bells for the re-assembly of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would like to take the sense of the House as to whether they prefer that the usual practice should be adhered to, or whether they prefer that I should have the bells rung at the conclusion of the dinner.

Mr Fisher:

– I am willing to leave it to Mr. Speaker.

Mr J H Catts:

– We should have some idea of the hour of re-assembling.

Mr Boyd:

– Leave it to Mr. Speaker, so long as we do not resume before 2.30.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I take that to be the wish of honorable members.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 3.15 p.m. (Friday).

Mr POYNTON:

– I desire to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether I may have leave to continue my remarks. I really do not feel disposed to go on talking in the same strain, after the most felicitous speeches to which we have just listened. Indeed, I think this is an occasion on which the Government of Victoria might have granted us a halfholiday. I hope the Attorney-General will accede to my most pressing request, so that honorable members may be allowed to catch their trains.

Mr Kelly:

– Continue your remarks on the next Bill, or in Committee.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You have leave to continue now. This is the best time.

Mr POYNTON:

– It seems a most unfitting finish to the harmonious gathering we have just attended that honorable members should be kept away from their homes. We are all expected to arrive in our respective States to-morrow, and to grant an adjournment of the debate would not involve any great expenditure of time.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– We are going to do some work now, I hope.

Mr POYNTON:

– The Prime Minister, being now in the chamber, I wish to repeat to him my request for leave to continue my remarks at the next sitting.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Would it not be more fitting if you were to finish your remarks now, and let us take a vote ?

Mr Higgs:

– We want to place our position before the country.

Mr POYNTON:

– I feel confident the Prime Minister will accede to my request.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Give us this vole, and you will have plenty of opportunities to say all you desire at a later stage.

Mr POYNTON:

– I think the Prime Minister might meet the desire of honorable members, if only for the reason that the officers of the House ought to be considered.

Mr Riley:

– And the Speaker.

Mr POYNTON:

– We have had a strenuous time, and, except for one other occasion, when this House sat from Tuesday till midnight on the Saturday, this is the first time that honorable members have not been allowed to depart to their homes on Friday as usual.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– May I say a word ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the speech of the honorable member for Grey be interrupted while the Prime Minister makes a short statement?

Leave granted.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I wish I could concede what the honorable member is asking for; but I should like to suggest to him that if we were to take a vote now, and get into Committee, the way would still be open to honorable members to discuss the Bill at any length. It is one of those Bills on which the discussion can be just as open in Committee as in the House; therefore, honorable members would forfeit nothing of their rights and privileges if they were to allow us to take a vote now.

Mr Riley:

– But honorable members on this side desire to speak on the second reading.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They will be able to say all they want to say in Committee. No restrictions on debate can be imposed in regard to a Bill of this kind. I do appeal to honorable members to agree to the second reading, and then we will adjourn the House at once. But we arc so much behind in the discussion of this measure already that I feel that to adjourn the House now would not be fair to the interests of the country. It is not as if my honorable friends will be placed under any disability by doing what I suggest ; they will not. The whole scheme of discussion will be as open in Committee as it is now. I appeal to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition to give us the second reading, since, by so doing, no privileges will be curtailed. Anything any honorable member wishes to say may be said just as fully and freely in Committee as in the House. This is one of those peculiar measures on which one cannot limit the range of debate, and, therefore, nothing can be lost by honorable members in allowing the Bill to be read a second time, after which we will formally go into Committee, and then adjourn. I make that appeal to honorable members opposite.

Mr Fisher:

– May I make a statement ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the honorable member for Wide Bay have leave to make a statement?

Leave granted.

Mr Fisher:

– I think the Prime Minister misapprehends the importance of this Bill because of its smallness. The measure involves a great principle, and is openly and avowedly intended by the Government for a great purpose.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But you are not limited in debate.

Mr Fisher:

– As this matter concerns the representatives of half the Commonwealth, they should have full and ample opportunity of discussing the Bill on the second-reading stage. The number of sittings required for that purpose in the ordinary way of business would be limited, and as this Bill involves as great a principle as this Parliament has ever dealt with, it ought, in my opinion, to be given the very widest range of discussion - not wrangling, but ample, full, and open debate. As the Prime Minister knows, I have already indicated to him my opinion that the ordinary hours of sitting will enable a decision to be arrived at in a better way than by attempting to force a division now or at any other time. I cannot, and, personally, I would not, ask my colleagues to give up their right to speak on the second reading, or to discuss the Bill as fully as the Standing Orders permit before it passes from this House. In saying that, I seek no advantage for myself or any other honorable member in deliberating on this Bill. This is a deliberative Assembly, if it is anything, and I appeal to the Prime Minister, to the party in command of the House, and to you, Mr. Speaker, to permit of that full discussion, because finality will only be reached after the representatives of the people have had ample opportunity to express their views in this chamber, whither they were sent by the people for that purpose. Those views may be right or wrong. I do not wish to trespass on the question; I desire merely to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to give honorable members the opportunities they are entitled to when they come into this House as representatives of the people.

Mr POYNTON:

– Do I understand that there is no response to the appeal?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– There is no response to my appeal.

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable member has been assured, as far as it is possible to assure him-

Mr Kelly:

– That the debate may go on for ever.

Mr POYNTON:

– As a result of the action of the previous Government, the time allowed for speeches in this House was limited very considerably, much against the wish of honorable members on the Government side; and as it is proposed to make this Bill a test one, the request of the honorable member for Wide Bay is not unreasonable. We are told that we are to be sent to our masters, and this is the only opportunity we will have of placing our views before our constituents in the concrete form of debate in this chamber. Last session when this Bill was before the House I was not allowed to speak on it. I do not think that my leader” was allowed to speak on it. The Bill was closured, and I am afraid that in that way there was engendered a good deal of bad feeling, which would not have arisen had a reasonable opportunity been afforded for the discussion of the measure. I agree with my leader that this question may not appeal to honorable members opposite as it does* to us. We believe that the Bill is an insidious attack upon trade unionism. Every man on this side of the House has been associated, practically as long as he can remember, with the great trade union movement, and we are all conversant with the benefits which it has conferred upon the public generally. It has, indeed, been, for many years past, a potent force in the formulation of Government policies. One would have thought that in connexion with a Bill of this kind, which is designed to throw the country into the throes of a general election, the reasonable request that we put to the Ministry would be granted. The Government are in power to-day, and it remains with them to grant this reasonable concession.

Mr Fisher:

– We demand it as a right.

Mr POYNTON:

– Exactly. There is only one other instance of the kind.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I anr afraid that the honorable member is departing from the question before the Chair.

Mr POYNTON:

– May I be permitted, then, to quote what the present Treasurer said at the Federal Convention in relation to the dead-lock provisions of the Constitution -

All these precautions are unnecessary, and may he found mischievous because they will encourage differences rather than put an end to them. . . .

The object of this Bill is undoubtedly to bring about a difference between the two Houses and a double dissolution. The Treasurer went on to say -

If you give the power to dissolve both Houses - the double dissolution as it has been called - allowing the Government of the day to appeal to the constituencies whenever a conflict of opinion occurs, it may, as time goes on, be used for a very different purpose from that for which it is being advocated at the present time, I can imagine that a Government which felt itself somewhat weak, or which thought that an occasion’ was an opportune one for an appeal to the country, might encourage a conflict rather than try to avoid it, in order that in this way it might be able to recommend a dissolution of both Houses, in the hope that that would, strengthen their following, or at any rate, give- it more time. . . .

You may depend upon it that as time goeson every possible device will be used to gainpolitical influence and power by taking advantage of the form of the Constitution.

A Bill to do something which could be,, and has already been, done by administrative act cannot be regarded as involving a. great national question. The framers of the Constitution, in discussing its deadlock provisions, referred particularly tosuch momentous questions as the framing, of a Tariff and the passing of an Appropriation Bill as likely to give rise to a. dead-lock necessitating a double dissolution. No sane man would deny that the holding up of a Tariff Bill or an Appropriation Bill - involving the whole financial position of the Commonwealth - by theSenate would make it the bounden duty of the Government of the day to avail themselves of every constitutional mean? at their disposal to overcome the difficulty.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr POYNTON:

– Let me say, in conclusion, that this Bill involves neither the financial position of the Commonwealth nor any broad question of great national significance’;

Mr Hughes:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. In the course of a speech delivered in this House a few daysago, the honorable member for Boothby made the following remarks, as reported in Hansard, page 746 : -

The objection is raised that some unions make it next to impossible for new members to* join by making the entrance fees too high. I do not know whether there is any truth in the assertion, but I was told that one union charged new members £20. I was also told the other day by a man in the train that the Townsville Wharf Labourers Union is charging new members £50. . . .

I desire only to say that I know nothing, about the other union referred to, but. that the Townsville union is a branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, and that that Federation has been working for the last five years under an agreement with the ship-owners, one of the terms of which is that the entrance fee shall not be more than £1. The award of the Court has increased the entrance fee to 30s., so that the statement made by the honorable member for Boothby, upon information disclosed by some one travelling in a railway carriage, is quite incorrect.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the words I am about to utter are worthy of a larger attendance of members of the Liberal party than we see at present. I ask, therefore, that the bells be rung. [Quorum formed.] As a representative of a very important Queeusland constituency, comprising over 30,000 electors, many of whom are pioneering and bearing the heat and burden of the day, I think it my duty to approach the consideration of this question with all the resources that are at my command. After a sitting extending over thirty hours, during which I was unable, owing to the extraordinary atmosphere which always prevails in a Parliament, to obtain any sleep, I do not feel competent to deal with this Bill as it should be dealt with, and it is nothing short of an outrage for the Government, if they regard the Bill as one of supreme importance, to compel us to continue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will the honorable member discuss the motion before the Chair?

Mr HIGGS:

– I think that, in the circumstances, due allowance should be made for the physical and mental condition of honorable members who have been subjected to a very great strain during the last thirty hours.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope that the honorable member will not unduly tax the patience and the mental strain of the occupant of the chair, who has also been required to remain here for many hours.

Mr HIGGS:

– You, sir, have my sincere sympathy. If I had my way, you would be permitted to seek that repose which is necessary to relieve you from the strain under which you are now suffering.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order I I appreciate the honorable member’s sentiment, but I must ask him to discuss the Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

– May I not say, sir, as a reason why the Bill should not be read a second time at present, that, having been subjected to the strain of a sitting extending’ over I really forget how long, we ought to be allowed an opportunity to rest. You, sir, have heard something of “ Nature’s sweet restorer, balmy sleep.” I assure you that I have not had the benefit of that balm during the past 48 hours. I think that we are entitled to consider the motion for the second reading from four stand-points. First, is the Bill necessary; second, what are the motives of its introducer; third, what are its aims and objects; and fourth, are they worthy? I apprehend that I shall be in order in discussing whether the Bill is necessary. In the Age of the 12th July, 1913, I find an article headed, “ Preference to Unionists.” “Action by Government.” “ Regulation Abolished.” The first paragraph reads -

The Cook Government has lost no time in abolishing the directions given by the Fisher Ministry that preference to employment in the Federal service should be granted to members of trades unions.

The regulation in actual administration by the Fisher Government was carried to considerable lengths. If an official was appointed to a position in the Northern Territory, for instance, and he belonged to an occupation which had a union, he received a letter informing him that he was expected to become a member. Under the new order adopted by the Liberal Administration this practice will be discontinued. In new contracts the clause requiring preference to be given will be omitted. Where men are engaged for daylabour work it will not be made a condition when they apply that they shall be unionists.

The Prime Minister, in making the announcement yesterday, said: “The preference to unionists edict has been revoked. Of course it will not affect men already in employment. We shall drop the preference clause from contracts. On day-labour works membership of a union will not be a condition of employment. All citizens will be treated alike.”

That was the edict issued by the present Government.

Mr Jensen:

– On a point of order, sir, I desire to ask you what has become of the mace ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Clerk of the House, reported to me a few moments ago that the mace had disappeared from its place on the table. I regret very much that such an unseemly proceeding should have taken place. I have directed a search to be made, and it is in progress. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has also promised to make inquiries in the matter.

Mr Mahon:

– How can we go on without the mace on the table?

Mr HIGGS:

– I do not know that under the Standing Orders I am entitled to proceed without the inspiration which the “bauble” would afford to me.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is nothing to prevent you from stopping.

Mr HIGGS:

– I have no doubt that the Attorney-General would be very pleased if I were to discontinue my remarks, but I will endeavour to proceed without the aid of the mace. An honorable member at my side has expressed the hope that no suspicion will attach to our distinguished visitors. I sincerely hope not, too. I would rather attribute the disappearance of the article to the democratic tendencies of the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to address his remarks to the Bill. .

Mr HIGGS:

– However, these matters need not concern us. The mere decoration of a piece of wood is not a matter of supreme importance.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I again ask the honorable member to address himself to the Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

– I hope that the honorable member for Bass will not introduce these matters. I do miss the mace. I am like the man who could not speak unless he was fumbling a button, and who, when a friend cut off the button, was “gravelled for lack of argument.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable member is not prepared to proceed with his speech on the Bill, I shall have to direct him to discontinue his speech.

Mr HIGGS:

– The first question I propose to discuss is, Is the Bill necessary? I have shown that on the 12th July, 1913, the Ministry issued an edict that preference to unionists should be prohibited in the Public Service of the Commonwealth. That edict obtains to-day. I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether the Ministry will be prepared at all times to instruct their officers to refuse preference to unionists, and he side-stepped the question by saying that a Bill is before the House. We all know that so long as the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are in power there will be no preference given to unionists; that is the law.

Mr. W. H. Irvine.Hear, hear!

Mr HIGGS:

– On the admission of the Attorney-General there is no occasion for this Bill. Should we not be economical f ls there any reason why we should hamper the statute-book with printed matter which is of no force and effect? I apprehend not. I take it that the Administration are prepared to carry out their promise to effect economies, and restore the regime of economical finance. Here they produce a Bill of two or three clauses, very badly drafted I may remark, which will add to the quantity of printed literature called the Statutes of the Commonwealth. Since the Ministry have by an edict instructed their officers not to grant preference to unionists, this Bill is entirely unnecessary, so far as they are concerned.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That has been said in the same words, I suppose, about, a dozen times or more.

Mr HIGGS:

– Yes. The AttorneyGeneral will recollect that I pointed out the other day that constituents want to know what their member is saying in Parliament. When they open Hansard they will see what I have said ; but if I. were to pay any attention to the interjection of the Attorney-General, that, because a number of honorable members have said the same thing, I am not to say it, they would not know my views on this measure.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Still, there is a. standing order.

Mr HIGGS:

– The members of the Ministry are very like the directors of a. large company. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, who employ many hundreds, possibly thousands, of employes, may issue an order to their overseers, “Do not engage any nonunionists,” or “Do not engage unionists,” or, ‘ You are at liberty to engage nonunionists or unionists, just as you please, all other things being equal.” Suppose that the directors of a company like the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, or tha Mount Morgan Gold Mining Company, or the Broken Hill Company, having issued an order to their overseers not toengage unionists or non-unionists, should approach the State Parliament with a request that they should makea law that the company should or should not employ unionists or nonunionists. The request would be absurd,, and the State Parliament would say tothe company, “ You already have it in your power to do what you ask authority? to do.” The Attorney-General, the Prime Minister, and the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs each has it in his power to tell his officers that they shall not employ unionists or non-unionists, but shall employ a man without any preference or discrimination or favoritism on account of his membership or nonmembership of an association. Therefore, this Bill is unnecessary, -and should not encumber the statute-book.

Mr Kelly:

– That is not what the other leader of your party said a few minutes ago. He said that this was the most important measure which could possibly be submitted to this Parliament.

Mr HIGGS:

-“ Every tub should stand on its own bottom” is a very homely observation.

Mr Jensen:

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr HIGGS:

– I hope I may be allowed to say, by way of illustration, that one of the advantages of Parliament is the good results that accrue from criticism. In America there is a community called the Shakers, who have a custom of meeting together and submitting one of their number to the criticism of the others.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member say what the Shaker community has to do with the Bill?

Mr HIGGS:

– I am. pointing out the advantages of criticism, which, by the Shakers, is used for the purpose of curing colds.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must again ask the honorable member to confine himself to the Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

– I was merely going to say that the perspiration which resulted from the criticism was supposed to prove sufficient ‘ to drive away the deleterious microbes.

On a second reading of a Bill of this kind we are entitled to inquire, first of all, whether it is necessary; then, what are the motives of those who introduce it; and, then, whether those motives are worthy or unworthy. I have dealt with the question of necessity in, I think, a very concise manner, and I have now to say that, in my opinion, the motives of the sponsors of the measure are unworthy; and, further, that they hope to obtain by its means a dissolution of both Houses.

As to the history of the Bill, it will be remembered that in September, 1913, a paragraph appeared in the Adelaide Register, as the result of information given by a well-known legislator, to the effect that it was the intention of the Government to introduce two test measures of a single clause each, one measure providing for the restoration of the postal vote, and the other for the prohibition of preference to unionists. On the 5th September, I asked the AttorneyGeneral whether the information so conveyed was true, and his reply was that at the proper time I should learn the intentions of the Government. We find that the measure now under discussion is exactly similar to that which was introduced last year. The other day the Attorney-General used a metaphor, description, or simile, which, in my opinion, was not a very elegant or admirable one, when he referred to the Bill as the “illegitimate offspring of a political syndicate.” Such language is somewhat surprising, especially from a university man; and I bring it under the attention of those other university men opposite who guffawed to-day when a member on this side made a slight mistake in pronunciation. The most prominent characteristic of a gentleman is consideration for the feelings of others ; and yet we find a trivial error made an excuse for laughter that was vulgar and in extremely bad taste. The figure of speech of the Attorney-General only shows how, as we when boys at school were told in our copy-book heading, “ Evil communications corrupt good manners ‘ ‘ ; but, replying in the same spirit, I may say that I have been able to diagnose this Bill medically and surgically.

Mr Falkiner:

– I rise to a point of order. I should like to know whether the “ illegitimate offspring of a political syndicate “ has anything to do with the BilK

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Capricornia will not be in order in dealing with such matters, but must keep himself to the question before the Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am always inclined to the ideal ; but when I am associated daily with gentlemen who use such metaphors, I may be pardoned if I follow their example. I find that the father of the Bill appears to be mentally and physically sound, but that the political infant is, apparently, affected with infantile paralysis.

It has only one eye, and that eye, no matter how you hold the baby, is always turned frowningly towards the working classes. While it has one eye, it has two sets of teeth, and it suffers from cirrhosis or gin-liver, an ulcerated spleen, and a floating kidney.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have asked the honorable member to confine himself to the question, and if he does not do so, I shall be obliged to direct him to discontinue his speech.

Mr HIGGS:

– You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how the Attorney-General described the Bill, and how he further,, quoting the words that Shakspeare put into the mouth of the Duke of Gloster, said it was “deformed,” “unfinished,” and “sent before its time into this breathing world scarce half made up.” If the Attorney-General is permitted to use such expressions, surely I may describe the Bill-

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member will explain the application of his remarks to the Bill he will be in order.

Mr HIGGS:

– I desire to show that this political offspring is suffering from various complaints - from malnutrition or marasmus - and that, as it has not grown at all since its birth twelve months ago, it would be a charity for this House to put it out of its misery. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no desire to make your position more irksome than it need be under the present circumstances. I was saying that we had an indication from the press in Adelaide as to the motives of Ministers in introducing the measure.

Mr Patten:

– I desire to know whether the utterances of the honorable member for Capricornia are in conformity with standing order 274, which was amongst those placed in my hands for my guidance as a new member. That standing order provides that no honorable member shall digress from the subject-matter of any question under discussion.

Mr Higgs:

– Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to submit that I ought to be permitted to discuss the merits of the Bill and the motives of the Government by whom it is introduced. In considering a Bill, we have to ask what are its aims and objects; and, therefore, we have to consider the motives of its sponsors. I was dealing with the intentions of the AttorneyGeneral, and proving that he, and those who support the measure, are doing so with ulterior motives. That, I think, I am entitled to do; and if I can show that the Bill is unnecessary from an administrative point of view, and that the members of the Government have something more in- their minds, surely I should be allowed to voice my objections.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member proposes to discuss the objects of the Bill, he is certainly in order, for that is what I have asked him to do each time I have had occasion to draw his attention to the fact that he was wandering from the question. As to Ministers, the honorable member is not in order in imputing unworthy motives to any honorable member.

Mr HIGGS:

– There is, I know, a standing order providing that no member shall impute “improper” motives to another, and I can assure you, sir, that I have no desire to impute such motives. I am not dealing with Ministers in a personal sense, but dealing with them as public administrators and legislators; and if you will bear with me for a few moments, I shall show both you and the honorable member for Hume that I am using fair arguments against the second reading of the measure. When the Prime Minister accepted a commission from the Governor-General to form a Government, he, I apprehend, was called upon to show that it was in his power to carry on the business of the country, and, in doing so, to introduce legislation calculated to benefit the people. But the Prime Minister and his colleagues carry on the administration in a more or less inefficient manner, and introduce certain legislation which we have opposed, abandoning the practice of introducing legislation calculated to benefit the country.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order I I direct the honorable member’s attention for the last time to the fact that he is not discussing the Bill. His remarks would probably be in order on the Address-in-Reply or a no-confidence motion, but have nothing to do with the question before the Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

– Permit me to call your attention to a passage on page 472 of May, 11th edition, with regard to second readings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am familiar with the passage, which contains nothing to justify the digression the honorable member was making.

Mr HIGGS:

– My object was to lead up to an amendment I propose to move somewhat to the following effect -

Insert after the word “That” the following words, “ the Bill is unnecessary, will not effect any change of existing conditions, has been introduced .for party purposes, and is not of sufficient importance to be made the basis of an appeal to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral to grant a dissolution of both Senate and House of Representatives.”

I wanted to show that the Government, “having promised the Governor-General, through the Prime Minister, that they would carry on the government of the country, were abandoning that promise, and introducing a Bill having for its object, not the making of any necessary law, but the furnishing of a mere electioneering placard. The following is the passage in May : -

It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the Bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or in the Lords, the opinions of the Judges.

When this Bill was introduced here on the 31st October, 1913, the Melbourne Argus said - “High hopes are inspired by the amended plan of campaign of the Federal Ministry. . . . Two important Liberal principles will be embodied in two short Bills. … it has decided that the hour for the supreme test has arrived. . . . the Ministry, backed by a unanimous party, intends to bring about that double dissolution in the first instance.”

The Bill does not alter existing conditions, because the existing conditions are that .there shall be no preference to unionists. It can be intended, therefore, only for use as an electioneering placard. The Government have no justification for using the time of Parliament or spending public money for that purpose. Those arguments come within the scope of May’s pronouncement. At Mount Gambier, on 3rd March, 1914, the Prime Minister said -

It was only after demonstrating its uselessness as a legislative body under present con ditions that they proposed to seek a dissolution and ask the people to return one side or the other with sufficient numbers and power and authority to make it useful.

According to the Melbourne Age of 10th April, 1914, the Attorney-General said -

He would say a few words before sitting down about the actual parliamentary situation as it now existed. They knew how parties stood in the House. They knew that the Government had practically no majority. It had only a nominal majority. The position meant that the people of Australia, speaking through the constituencies, had given a just sufficient majority to enable the Liberal party to say it was entitled to carry on the government. But they could not have a more extreme travesty of representative government than they saw now with the two Houses, one of which gave a slight majority to one party, while the other gave a majority of twentynine to seven to Labour.

After making certain proposals to alter the representation of the States in the Senate, he concludes -

In the meantime, the Government had a plain duty, and it was to try and meet tlie trouble as it now existed. With that end in view, they would push on with the two measures, and more especially the one dealing with preference, so that if the Senate again rejected it the issue could be referred to the people.

This is the Bill with which the AttorneyGeneral said he intended to push on in order to get a double dissolution. The Attorney-General has stated that it is the intention of the Government to push on with this Bill in order to get a double dissolution. It is very wrong to ask us to pass the second reading. In SUPport of the contention that the Bill is unnecessary, let me draw attention to the statement in the Ministerial policy, put forward on the 12th August last, that -

Ministers are opposed to any preference or favoritism in the Public Service, and have already taken steps to provide that competency and merit .shall he the sole basis of employment and preferment on the public works and in the services of the Commonwealth.

They had, at that time, abolished preference to unionists. Can the Bill do anything more in that direction? Could any more non-unionists be employed if it became law, or would any more unionists be discharged ? I think not. The argument of the Attorney-General that the Bill, if it became law, would make it impossible for a future Government to grant preference to unionists, is a foolish one, because a Ministry which favoured preference to unionists would ignore the measure.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– Would they not be guilty of . illegal acts?

Mr HIGGS:

– What penalties are provided for a breach of the provisions of this measure? The Bill merits the description applied by the Attorney-General to another measure. It is “deformed,” “ unfinished,” and has been “ sent before its time into this breathing world, scarce half made up.” I have a little prose poem consisting of the amendments which I propose to. move to insert in Committee, but I shall not, at this stage, deal with them. The Treasurer is a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, and whose career is one to be emulated. If he had in his Department an. officer who, acting in accordance with good conscience and the merits and equity of the case, and the welfare of the Commonwealth, showed preference to unionist carpenters, labourers, plumbers, or engineers, what would happen to him ? There is no provision for punishment. The Prime Minister, after much deliberation and consultation, and, no doubt, after much prayer for guidance, decided to answer my question about the nonprovision of penalties, and said that section 46 of the Public Service Act met the case. That is not so. The Bill really deserves the objectionable title that Has been conferred upon it, and is an abortion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That word has been ruled out of order.

Mr HIGGS:

– Then I withdraw it. The public should know what is the penalty for disobeying this proposed law. Is the offender to be punished at the whim of the Attorney-General? I admire the honorable gentleman’s best forensic manner, but I would hesitate to submit any person to- him for punishment. Goodness knows what punishment he might order. We know what the punishments were in the olden times. I understand that I am within four minutes of the time allowed to me under the standing order. I must therefore reserve what further remarks I have to make for another occasion. I suppose that I would not be in order in moving for an extension of time. I have a lot of material here. As the Government say that the Bill embodies a vital principle, and that they are prepared to ask the

Governor-General to grant a dissolution of both the Senate and the House of Representatives should it fail to pass the Senate, the opposing side should have the fullest opportunity to present its views regarding the measure. We have not had that opportunity, not half the members of the House having yet spoken. On the last occasion, the Bill was forced through in a single day, and we were given no information on several points on which we desired to be informed. As the Opposition represent nearly half the electors of the Commonwealth, we should have the fullest opportunity to state our objections to a double dissolution. In my opinion, it would be a gross wrong for the Ministry to ask the Governor-General to again within twelve months, plunge the country into the turmoil of a general election, merely to serve their party purposes. I move the amendment which I have already read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member showed me his amendment some time ago, and I then pointed out to him that it was not in order. I went to the trouble, also, of showing him authorities which confirmed my opinion. I now rule it out of order.

Mr Higgs:

– I do not know, sir, whether I should be in order in asking, the reasons why you consider the amendment out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When the honorable member consulted me, I gave him the reasons fully, and showed him the authorities privately, as he knows.

Mr Higgs:

– With great respect, sir, I beg to move -

That the Honorable the Speaker’s decision that the following amendment : - “ That after the word ‘ That there be inserted the words ‘the Bill is unnecessary, will not effect any change of existing conditions ; has been introduced for party purposes; and is not of sufficient importance to be made the basis of an appeal to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral to grant a dissolution of both the Senate and the House of Representatives,” is out of order, be disagreed to.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The debate on the honorable member’s motion will be adjourned until the next sitting day.

Mr DANKEL:
Boothby

.- I am opposed to the second reading of the Bill now before the House; but I wish to point out how important the measure really is. There are some honorable members present, and, possibly, a few people outside, who regard the debate which has taken place as “stone-walling”; but, in my judgment, it is very necessary that so important a question should be debated at some length. Many of the electors of Australia, enlightened as they no doubt are, take some time to fully realize the importance of measures discussed in Parliament. This measure is, from one point of view, very important, although it is true that, so far as its effect, should it become an Act - which is extremely improbable - is concerned, it is of no consequence whatever. Those who have taken an interest in politics for any length of time know how long it takes some people to realize the importance of political questions. Many instances of this have come under my personal observation in South Australia. There have been questions discussed in the South Australian Parliament, session after session, and still some of the people have been unable to get a sufficient grasp of them to enable them to pass an intelligent judgment as to their probable effect.

Mr Jensen:

– I desire, sir, to call your attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr DANKEL:

– I regard it as absolutely imperative that we should discuss this Bill at the greatest possible length, not for the benefit of honorable members, or because they enjoy listening to the speeches made here, but in order that the people outside may fully realize the underlying motive of this so-called test measure. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to answer some statements which have been made by honorable members opposite in reference to what I had to say in speaking on the motion for the introduction of the Bill. On that occasion I put forward certain ideas of my own in support of the principle of compulsory unionism. The idea was, apparently, not generally approved by honorable members; but I have held the views which I expressed on the subject for a number of years, though I never previously gave public utterance to them. The honorable member for Echuca, in referring to my speech this morning, repeated a portion, but not the whole, of what-!: said in connexion with the matter. As the honorable member’s remarks will appear in

Hansard, they will give the people of Australia to understand that I made the bald statement that the Wharf Labourers Union at Townsville demanded an entrance fee of £50 from any individual wishing to join the union. The honorable member for Echuca omitted to say that I distinctly told the House that a gentleman I met on the express train from Melbourne to Adelaide gave me that information. He said, “ The wharf labourers at Townsville are charging £50 admission fee to new members.” I explained, when repeating what I had been told, that I did not know whether the statement was true. I, personally, doubt whether there is any truth in the statement; but, even if it were true, or if the union in question charged an entrance fee of £10 or £5, while that might be too much to expect any working man to pay, the union might have very good reason for fixing the entrance fee at such an amount. Many honorable members on the other side, and some on this side, may have found it necessary, for financial reasons, to do what they would not otherwise have done; and it is possible that the Wharf Labourers Union at Townsville may have had good financial reasons for fixing a high entrance fee, if they have done so.

Mr Jensen:

– I am again compelled, sir, to call your attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr DANKEL:

– We must recollect that some men have been members of these unions for forty odd years, that during that period their subscriptions have aggregated a considerable sum, and that to be members of such organizations meant persecution and to have to submit to many hardships. To protect themselves, therefore, it may be necessary to charge new members a considerable entrance fee. The same practice . obtains in all lodges. New entrants are required to pay a higher admission fee than that exacted from older members. I observed at the opening of my remarks that this Bill, though unimportant in itself, is important from some points of view. After all, it lays down a principle - the principle that unionists who have abandoned the brutal weapon of the strike, and are prepared “ peacefully to submit their industrial disputes to” the decision of an Arbitration Court, shall be denied a preference in the matter of obtaining employment. Of course, that is not the reason why the Government regard the Bill as an important one. They consider it important, because they believe that it will provide them with a really good electioneering placard. They tried it at the last elections, and it is quite true that as a placard it may have influenced the votes of some persons with whom their canvassers came into contact. Indeed, as an electioneering placard pure and simple, I admit that skilfully used by unscrupulous individuals in a house-to-house canvass it might prove of very great value indeed to the Liberal party. The position could be put in such a plausible way as to make many electors think that if they supported the principle of preference to unionists they would be giving away their rights as free-born British subjects. But it must not be forgotten .that representatives of the other great political party would also be on the warpath, and that they would do their best to show the electors that the abolition of preference to unionists is not in the best interests of the industrial peace of the Commonwealth. This measure has been put before us for the avowed purpose of enabling the Liberal party to secure a double dissolution. Nothing has ever been said by them in respect of a single dissolution. Obviously that would not suit their views. ‘I do not blame my honorable friends opposite ‘for not being eager to obtain a single dissolution, because I know how they would be likely to fare in such circumstances. If they obtained a dissolution of this House alone, what possible fighting spirit could be infused into the hearts of their supporters? We all know that the adherents of the so-called Liberal party have not the religious enthusiasm of those of the Labour party. But even the little enthusiasm which they might otherwise feel would be absolutely knocked out of them if they were called upon to exercise their franchise to procure the return of representatives to this House alone. Let me illustrate my meaning by a reference to the electors of Corio, which is represented by my honorable friend, Mr. Kendell, Naturally the Liberal supporters in that constituency would go to the poll in a very half-hearted manner in the event of a single dissolution, because they would reason, “ We intend to vote for the Liberal candidate, but if the Liberal party obtain a majority of even twenty in the House of Representatives - an extremely unlikely contingency - the advantage thus gained will be of no earthly use, because there will still be a solid phalanx of twenty-nine Labour representatives in the Senate as against, seven Liberals.” That, I repeat, would knock a lot of the fighting spirit out of the Liberal supporters. Of course, it would probably be urged that in the event of the House of Representativesalone being dissolved, and of the Liberal party proving triumphant at the polls, the Senate would no longer prove recalcitrant and pass these so-called test measures. I admit that I would adopt that course in such circumstances if I were a senator. But other measures would require to be brought forward, and a lot of the fighting spirit would thushave been taken out of the Liberal voters. I think that the floating vote would probably support the Labour party, seeingthat that party has a vast majority in the Senate. In such circumstances, naturally the electors would argue that they would be acting wisely if they voted for the Labour candidates for the House of Representatives, and thus gave that party a majority in both branches of the Legislature. It must be obvious, therefore, that all the fighting enthusiasm would be eliminated “from the supporters of the Liberal party. But what about the enthusiasm which would be kindled in the minds of the adherents of the Labour party? I venture to say that our supporters will manifest a great fighting spirit even if a double dissolutionshould take place, but that fighting spirit will be greatly enhanced in the event of only a single dissolution occurring.

Mr Pigott:

– I rise to order. I submit that the remarks of the honorable member are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I confess that I was not following the honorable member’s remarks very closely at the moment, but I ask him to confine them to the motion which is before the Chair.

Mr Jensen:

– I beg to call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr DANKEL:

– I was alluding to the fact that several members of the Government, and, I believe, the rank and file on the other side, have said on the floor of this House, and in another place, that this Bill was a means to an end, the end being a double dissolution.

And I pointed out how, in my opinion, that would affect the vote to be given at the next election, if there should be, not a double dissolution, but a single dissolution. Most honorable members on the Government side are men of common sense, and have had experience of electioneering, and they can judge whether my conclusions are correct or otherwise. My opinion is that, if there is a single dissolution, it will sound the death-knell of the Liberal party, because of, firstly, the attitude of their own supporters, the true-blue Liberals or Conservatives, the anti-Labour crowd; secondly, the mental attitude of the floating ‘ vote; and, thirdly, the increased fighting spirit which would be put into the supporters of the Labour party. We would be on a very good wicket from the beginning, and I am sure our supporters would be only too eager to record their votes for their own party. It may be said that with me the wish is father to the thought; but I have come to the conclusion that a single dissolution would spell political suicide to the Government party, and able constitutional minds ‘ in all parts of Australia have said that the granting of a double dissolution on such a Bill as this is inconceivable. I was very pleased to read in Hansard that such a logical mind as that of the AttorneyGeneral approved of my idea that the only solution of a very large part of the present industrial unrest is by the adoption of compulsory unionism.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I said that was a logical and necessary result of your argument.

Mr DANKEL:

– Quite so; but the honorable member made a mistake when he said that it would be necessary under compulsory unionism for the unions and their transactions to be under Government supervision. As a matter of fact, there is Government supervision of trade unions at the present time, just the same as there is of friendly societies. I believe that practically all the unions are registered in either the Commonwealth or the States, and they are compelled to furnish to the Registrars a financial statement. That same Government supervision should continue under compulsory unionism, and I do not think that it need be any more strict.

Mr Pigott:

– Will the honorable member say why the balance-sheets are not made public!

Mr DANKEL:

– Whether they are all made public I do not know, but the balancesheets of unions affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council in Adelaide are certainly printed, and distributed in thousands free of cost to members of the unions, and if the honorable member desired to get a copy of any particular balancesheet, I do not think it would be refused. What a grand thing it would be if a scheme of compulsory unionism could be adopted. I do not think that the difficulties in the way are as insurmountable as some honorable members seem to think. How much difference is there between compulsory unionism and compulsory industrial insurance, which embraces all classes of workers, male and female ? In Europe, compulsory insurance has achieved wonders, and has operated practically without a hitch. Why, in the name of all that is good, could we not have the same result with compulsory unionism) The money paid at the present time by the workers to their unions amounts to much more than the premiums they would have to pay for insurance.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Compulsory insurance does involve a form of compulsory unionism. In England it is worked by means of the industrial associations.

Mr DANKEL:

– Then if we had compulsory unionism it would be much easier to give effect to the desire of some honorable members on the Government side, that a system of compulsory insurance should be introduced. The sentiments of the unionists themselves may be against the compulsory principle at the present time, but if it became the law of the land opposition would soon pass away, and the benefits which would accrue would be very great indeed, because a good deal of the present industrial turmoil would be done away with. If the Government were to go the whole hog, and do away entirely with preference to unionists, they would bring about an industrial revolution. Compulsory unionism would be the means of bringing about more stability in industrial life, and making people generally more happy. It would give to employers more safety and certainty in their business, and also do away with the hardships which many employes have to put up with in a strike. It would do away with the so-called Labour agitators, who are such an eyesore to the anti-Labour politicians. It is said by our opponents that in a strike the salary of the organizers - £3 or £4 a week - runs on, while the poor unionists have to be satisfied with the strike pay of 10s. or £1 a week. I do not know whether or not the organizers are paid at the same rate during a strike, but I know that, even if they do get a salary of £3 or £30 a week, I would not care to undertake the work for £40 a week. I could only bring myself to take the part of a strike leader for love of the cause. No money would tempt me to take a leading part. I never had the opportunity to belong to a trade union. During the brief period that I worked for other persons, there was no union in my calling, and just before I was out of my teens I became an employer. My knowledge of the political Labour movement is sufficient to satisfy me that the organizers have a very strenuous experience at all times, particularly during a strike. In his speech the honorable member for Grey quoted from a book on Socialism and Preference to Unionists, which was ably written by the honorable member for Darling, who is looked upon, even by the Attorney-General I think, as the foremost authority on union matters in Australia. One passage which the honorable member for Grey quoted described the starting of the political Labour movement here. Up to 1891 it was an unknown quantity on this Continent. Then occurred industrial strikes, particularly the maritime strike, and the trade unionists perceived the wisdom of entering the political arena. They did not take this step on their own initiative, but were advised to do so by the large employers throughout Australia, particularly by ship-owners. I well remember how, during the maritime strike, Mr. Harrold, one of the great ship-owners of Adelaide, and other ship-owners had a conference with their men, who were on strike for better conditions. They said to the men, “ Why are you so foolish as to engage in industrial strife? Why do you want to use an obsolete weapon ? Why do you not set to work and elect representatives to Parliament, and thereby get your grievances redressed by law?” Little did these gentlemen think that the men would take them at their word, but they did adopt the wise advice. I feel that this Bill, if passed, would be the first step, though. a trifling one I admit, to crush unionism out of existence. I would be very sorry indeed to see a step taken to’ deprive trade unionists of the political influence which they have gained ever since 1891. It was through the energy of the organizers that the first Labour men were sent to Parliament. Senator Guthrie and ex-Senator Charleston were the first two Labour men elected to the Parliament of South Australia. If unionism were made compulsory, there would be no need for this Bill, because then preference to unionists would disappear. It will be remembered that when the question of industrial insurance was under discussion in the Imperial Parliament, it met with great opposition outside, and that, even after the principle was enacted, a great many persons were against the idea. But now practically every body is becoming reconciled to it. As in the case of many other proposals, the opposition gradually wanes as the good effects are being felt. I feel satisfied that if a politician were to propose to do away with industrial insurance in the United Kingdom, or in any country on the continent of Europe where it has been established for some time, he would not receive a parliamentary seat. I feel equally certain that if we once take the step of introducing compulsory unionism, a good deal of the unpleasantness which we now have to put up with time and again would disappear. There would be no need for a measure of this kind, because everybody would be a unionist.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Do you suggest craft compulsory unionism or voluntary groupings ?

Mr DANKEL:

– No one can work out the details of a scheme on the spur of the moment. The honorable and learned member might as well ask me to state my ideas on Socialism ; it is an impossibility. It is impossible to answer the question off-hand.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable member does not insist on craft compulsory unionism, any other form of unionism would be of little value in connexion with a system of compulsory insurance.

Mr DANKEL:

– Compulsory unionism would do away with non-unionism, and that with me is the great point. My suggestion, if carried into effect, would abolish all the present ill-feeling between unionists and non-unionists, and would banish that detestable word “ scab “ from the language. I am convinced that if compulsory unionism were made the law of the land, it would in a very short time work smoothly. I am not surprised that the idea is opposed, because all reforms are at first regarded as fads, and their proposers as faddists. Two or three years ago an Early Closing Act was passed in South Australia, under which shops in the metropolitan area were closed on the Saturday afternoon; and it so happened that about ten days after the law come into force there was an election for the State Legislature. I was a candidate, but because I had taken a prominent part in supporting the new measure, I was, as it were, boycotted, and I was defeated. At the present time, however, in the most conservative parts of the State, people are only too eager to obtain the benefits of the Act. And so it would be with compulsory unionism; the people would wonder that it had not been put into operation years ago. No law that was ever passed, or ever can be passed, is perfect; but we have to try to improve conditions as much as possible, and by legislation make our lives in this mundane sphere as pleasant as they may be. There would be no greater hardship under compulsory unionism than there is under any other law. All law means compulsion; so that if we drive, or even walk, along a street we must, for the benefit of the general community, keep to our right side. There must be law and order; and to that end there must be compulsion.

Mr J H Catts:

– I think we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– I do not care to give a silent vote, and I must express my regret that the Government have thought fit to persist with this Bill, seeing that, if it becomes law, it will prove of no benefit to the country, and will result in rousing the most bitter passions. This is a strange measure; and I cannot call to mind any legislation introduced in any Parliament of which I have knowledge, that is at once so simple and so mischievous - so far-reaching in its effect, and yet, as I say, so superficially simple. The Attorney-General has made some reference to my description of the Bill as “ a shadow of a sham,” but I think I can show that I was fully justified in using those words. As to preference, the Government, by virtue of their Executive authority, can, by a simple minute, prohibit it, and there is an end of the matter. Of course the Government which took such action might be challenged, but, with a majority in the House, they need not be seriously alarmed. Executive action would be an effectual solution of the difficulty, meeting, as it would, all the requirements of the case from the Government point of view; and there could be only expressions of regret on the part of the Opposition. The Government, however, prefer an enactment which is of very little value except in regard to what the Government may expect to get out of it. A Bill of this character strikes at the root of industrial unionism; but we can easily imagine that if they failed to return to power, one of the first acts of their successors would be to repeal it. That, however, is neither a dignified nor a desirable method of procedure, especially when there is little more than sentiment involved.

Mr Kendell:

– Why should a Labour Government repeal the Act?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Because the Labour party object to it, holding as they do that industrial organization makes largely for the strength, solidarity and peace of the Empire. We are not, perhaps, so deeply concerned with what our English brothers are doing in this connexion, but we have to realize the seriousness of the position as it affects Australia. A repeal of legislation should be entered on only when the importance and the seriousness of the position demand it, and it ought not to be mixed up largely with sentiment There will be no immediate effect of the Bill if it pass, for the reason that the Ministerial minute prohibiting preference is already in force. At the most there are only some 2,000 or 3,000 persons involved, and if the Government continue their bungling policy of substituting contract for day labour - and they are perfectly free to carry out their policy in this regard - it will lessen the number of men to whom the prohibition can apply. It will be seen that there is a great deal of force in the statement that the Bill is “ a shadow of a sham “; and it seems very strange that we should spend the greater portion of the last and the present sessions in debates, over long sittings, on a question of the kind. To treat the Bill merely on its face-value would simply be to play with a serious question, because when you go beneath the surface ‘you find that it is part of a well thought-out policy approaching a political conspiracy. The AttorneyGeneral has confessed that his real reason for bringing it in is that the Government are dissatisfied with the existing state of parties in the Parliament. The deadlock provision in the Constitution was introduced, as every intelligent adult in the community knows, to cope with serious disputes between the Houses affecting the peace and welfare of the Commonwealth. It is a remarkable coincidence that when the proposal was being discussed in the Convention, the right honorable member for Swan, who is now the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, showed how a weak Government could use the section to strengthen their position. No doubt when the present situation arose the Government learnt the right honorable gentleman’s views, and, being a weak Government, saw an excellent opportunity of scraping through by doing the very wrong which he then pointed out as possible. The Government accuse us of striking high and low with regard to this measure, by saying in the one breath that there is very little in it, and in the next that we are going to fight it every inch of the way. The explanation is very simple. We are fighting it partly because of sentimental associations in connexion with the great principle of preference to unionists, but principally because it is being used by the Government to perpetrate a fraud on the Constitution. That is a serious indictment, which may have no more effect on the Government than water on a duck’s back. It may even have very little effect in the country, because the ordinary mar* is too much occupied with his own affairs to study constitutional questions. That may be the reason why the Government hope to “ bluff “ the matter through. If they succeed in getting an appeal to the country, they, will tell the people that their object is to deprive these terrible Labour unions of the tyrannical power which they have been using to the serious injury of the common weal. They evidently hope, by rousing the prejudices and passions of the people, to get from them a blank cheque to do what they like with. Surely those are sufficient reasons for our opposition to the measure. The Constitution contains provisions for its own amendment, and should be amended only in a legitimate and open way. The actions of the Fusion party constitute a huge joke. ‘ At the last appeal to the people they told the electors that the Constitution was too sacred to betouched, yet now they have the hardihood to attempt to strain its provisions and commit a fraud upon- it. If anybody should set an example to the community in justice and equity, it should be the Government, but justice and equity are entirely absent from this proposal. Parliament has already, without asking private employers for their consent, passed a law establishing an Arbitration Court to settle disputes between them and their employes, and has given the Court power to award preference. It is therefore ridiculous for the Government to set up an entirely different method of dealing with disputes between themselves and their own employes. The present Government have consistently waged . war against the industrial community, wasted the time of this Parliament, and aroused the most bitter passions amongst different sections of the people. I cannot recall any Government in Australia with a similarly bad record. Ministers have embarked upon a policy the serious danger of which they do not recognise. The Bill sets out that -

No preference or discriminations will be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or non-membership of any political or industrial organization.

We hear a great deal of the industrial associations which exist in Europe to-day. I ask honorable members to cut out industrial organization from the civilization that we possess as an English-speaking people, and what will be left? Instead of this Parliament attempting to interfere with industrial organizations, its obvious duty is to strengthen them as much as possible. We hear a great deal about the civil and religious liberty which our fathers won for us. We are all familiar with the civil and religious liberty which followed upon the revolution of 1688. But if that civil and religious liberty were excised from our English civilization, not a great deal would be taken out of it. On the other hand, if industrial organization were cut out of our civilization, there would be very little of it left. What has made Australians what they are today? Simply the grit of our ancestors on the other side of the world. Were our civil and religious liberties won by following the line of least resistance? I scarcely think so. What has been the great demand with which age after age has been confronted but the demand of workmen to be permitted collectively to organize, in order to secure the best results from their labour. The conspiracy laws of Pitt were levelled against unionists. As a matter of fact, many of the convicts of Botany Bay were unionists, as will be seen by reference to historical records. Is there any equity in the Government singling out this section of the community and practically preventing the hall-mark of competency being put upon our industrial organizations ? I submit that by granting preference to unionists, no injustice was done to anybody. Every man and woman in the community has a perfect right to employment if he or she can obtain it. But a great many persons throughout Australia have taken a prominent part in building up our industrial organizations, and have had to suffer for so doing. Now that unionists have given up the right to strike, has this Parliament nothing to offer them iri return? Why should they be placed on a level with the individual who has done nothing to improve the lot of his fellows ? Yet, according to the line of reasoning adopted by the Government, all should be placed on the same footing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– -Before the sitting is suspended, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that somebody has removed from my desk a volume of the 11th edition of May, containing several marked passages and reference slips. The officers of the House have instituted a search for it, but have been unable to find it. I ask any honorable member who may have taken the volume, and forgotten to return it, to please see that it is restored to my desk before the House resumes at 8 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Friday) .

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– In suggesting to the Government that they should not proceed further with this Bill, I am not speaking in the ordinary spirit of party politics, because I consider this too big a question to be treated in any other manner than that which the gravity of the situation demands. Scarcely a week passes without the question of industrial unrest cropping up. It is a matter of great anxiety to British statesmen; and

I say, without intending offence to the present Government, that it ought to be a matter of anxiety to the statesmen of Australia. It has been so in bygone times, and I fail to see why it should not be of equally grave importance to the present Government. I dare say that. those who have led the movement of industrial organization have made some mistakes; but it must be remembered that this movement has been built up by the working people, and its leaders have not had the advantages of the finer culture bestowed by university training. It is a. singular fact that, in the history of the movement for religious and civil liberty,, the industrial movement has never been mentioned. The reason is plain. The governing section of the community has been always on the side of property, and wealth, and the educated classes, and they have never had any sincere desire in their hearts to devote themselves to a movement of this character. But there are men of a Conservative turn of mind who are yet statesmen enough to realize that this movement has so much to do with Australian life that they cannot afford to trifle with it. I am not asking the Government to coddle any section of the community or to be afraid of it, but I ask honorable members to forget for a moment that they are legislators, and to look at this matter from the position of the ordinary man in the street. If we block and stifle the avenues for the full recognition of these industrial organizations, and if they, in turn, come to the conclusion that the parliamentary machine is of no use to them, and that they are only wasting their funds and spending their efforts for nought, the result will be that they will ignore Parliament, and they may adopt other methods to force their grievances on the community. If such a step be taken, I shall not envy the statesmen of Australia who have to deal with the question. I was in England in 1911, the coronation year, when practically the whole trade of Great Britain was paralyzed for three days. The newspapers said that the trains were running, but they did not run. That statement was all part of the game. The newspapers always stand on the side of the top dog, and the Labour party has never had their support; the reason being that they are allied with the vested interests of the community, although they live on the pence gathered from the masses of the people. I am not making any threat, but am earnestly appealing to the Government to look at this matter in a statesmanlike way. To cause the industrial organizations to lose faith in Parliament, and in the law, would be one of the worst things that could possibly happen, and a continuance in the steps which the Government are perilously following will bear nothing of the stamp of statesmanship. Honorable members on this side of the House have been intimately connected with the labour organizations from boyhood; they have appealed to them to trust Parliament and always get the sanction of the law ; and if we now shut them out, we shall be doing something that is not in the best interests of the country. Why is it that the learned professions are omitted from the scope of this Bill? The legal profession has already been ably dealt with by previous speakers; but I would like the Government to say why the Bill does not extend to the medical profession, to architects, civil engineers, and to other learned professions. All of those professions have their organizations, which are incorporated in the same way as the engineers, the carpenters and joiners, and other trades. It is because there is a difference, a difference that has been observed through all the ages, namely, that the educated and cultured classes are not on the same plane as the working men; and, therefore,they are singled out for special legislation. What would be the consequences if the Government appointed to a State position a doctor who was not a member of the Victorian branch of the British Medical Association ? The other members of the profession would refuse to work with that man. I am not quarrelling with the medical profession; but I do say that when they carry their adherence to the rules of their organization to the extent of neglecting the sick, they commit a barbarism that has never been equalled by any act of a trade union. I think that the Government are very weak in this respect. What inference can be drawn from their conduct? Is it not rather late in this year of grace to go into class legislation ? What is there to justify this proceeding in the conduct of industrial associations? I hope that the Government will recognise the necessity to make some alteration. I beg to move -

That all the words after the word “That” he left out with the view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: “no measure the effect of which will be to prevent the promotion of industrial peace by the encouragement of organizations by employers and employees can be other than impracticable and fraught with danger to the community.”

The scope of the present debate is cramped, and my amendment will give an opportunity to honorable members to discuss this question on its merits. I can cite a precedent to show that not long ago the Attorney-General approved of an amendment of a similar character. On the 18th October, 1911, Mr. Deakin concluded his speech on the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill by submitting this amendment -

That no measure the effect of which will be to concentrate in any one person the control of all the conditions of carrying on all the industries of this continent can be other than impracticable and fraught with danger to the whole community.

The ex-member for Werriwa, Mr. Hall, challenged the amendment; the honorable member for Flinders, who is now Attorney-General, argued that it was in order; and what is most important of all, Mr. Speaker McDonald ruled that it was in order.

Mr Arthur:

– Read the AttorneyGeneral’s argument in favour of the amendment.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The AttorneyGeneral, in speaking to the point of order, said -

I had always understood that the only condition applicable to amendments of this kind is that they must be relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill. They need not, in any respect, deal with the provisions of the Bill; in fact, if an amendment did deal with the clauses, it would be ruled out of order. Some twelve or fourteen years ago there was a case in the House of Commons, the name of which I forget, but which can be found in May. The amendment on that occasion was that a Bill, which did not make provision for a certain matter, was not satisfactory to the House.

I contend that the House is in a similar position now.

Mr Arthur:

Mr. Deakin said that the amendment was a declaration of the Liberal policy in opposition to the policy of the Labour Government.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– For the information of the House, I will read what

Mr. Deakin said on the point of order raised by Mr. Hall -

The amendment refers distinctly to the measure as one, the effect of which will be to concentrate the whole control of all the conditions of carrying on all the industries of the continent in one person. My argument, from first to last, has consistently returned to the same point. I contend that the only possible method of dealing with these issues is a Federal one, and that this measure is not a Federal proposal; that its effect is to concentrate in the President of the Arbitration Court for the time being the control, under new and extended conditions, of the whole of the industries of the Commonwealth. This is impracticable and fraught with danger. Nothing, I submit, could be more relevant to the measure before us.

Mr Arthur:

– Will you now read what Mr. Deakin said just before he moved the amendment?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– On page 1536 of Hansard, volume lxi., Mr. Deakin is reported to have said -

As the preceding Act distinctly took the wrong road, this Bill proceeds further in the same direction. Of course, for the Opposition to challenge the measure is simply to discharge their duty. There is no possibility of our votes affecting members on the other side, whose majority enables them to dispose of this and other issues as they please. Still we are doing them the service of putting before them, as forcibly as we can, the reasons that direct our judgment. It might lead to misconception of our attitude if, in the case of a measure such as this, containing some proposals which can be made acceptable, if they are not entirely so now, and others that merit examination, honorable members on this side voted against the second reading. In order, therefore, to put their position more clearly before the people, I beg, in conclusion, to move, as an amendment on the motion for the second reading, the introduction of these words.

I have already read the words of the amendment. I unhesitatingly take up the same attitude as Mr. Deakin took up on that occasion, and for the same reason as he did.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr Kelly:

– I submit, sir, that the amendment is not in order, inasmuch as the honorable member has shown that his intention in moving it istogive full scope for a debate on the question of industrial peace, thereby admitting that a discussion of that question is not germane to the Bill as it stands, and, consequently, that it is necessary for his purpose to ask the House to insert certain words in the motion. My point is that the introduction of the words must be out of order, since they are purposely submitted to enable a discussion to take place on what is admittedly not germane to the question before the House.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not relevant?

Mr Kelly:

– Not relevant.

Mr Brennan:

-You had better change your ground.

Mr Kelly:

– I submit, further, that the illustration which the honorable member for Hind marsh gave is in itself not really material, because the amendment to which he referred was very pertinent to the issue before the House on the 18th October, 1911. This Bill seeks to provide for equality of opportunity to all persons entering the Public Service, and nothing more. I submit that the honorable member has shown conclusively the irrelevancy of his proposition, because he has pointed out that without the submission of these words a discussion on the question of industrial peace would not be in order.

Mr Mcdonald:

– The honorable member who has raised the point of order does not seem to understand what the amendment is. It is exactly on all-fours with an amendment that was moved a few years ago on the motion for the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which dealt with the question of preference to unionists, and which the present Attorney-General supported. I remember the occasion very clearly. The amendment then proposed was not only supported, but spoken to, by the Attorney-General, and by yourself, sir, in very strong terms, which, however, were perfectly in order. The amendment before us has been drafted in practically the same way, and, under the circumstances, I maintain that it is relevant, and should be accepted. Mr. Speaker is not called upon to rule on the interpretation an honorable member may place on the words, and I may say that the honorable member tried to twist and turn those words.

Mr Kelly:

– I quoted the exact words of the honorable gentleman.

Mr McDonald:

– I admit that; but the words are not the amendment, which is a different matter altogether. By the amendment before the Chair we merely intend to declare what we on this side believe, in exactly the same way as Mr. Deakin moved the declaration of’ principle, which, as I say, was supported by the Attorney-General, yourself, sir, and a number of honorable members opposite.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think there is nothing more than a mere verbal analogy between the present case and the case which has been cited. As I pointed out in the previous case, and as has often been pointed out by you, sir, the one question that has to be decided is, whether the amendment is relevant to the question; and for that purpose no mere verbal identity in terms can have the slightest effect. We have to look at the question to which the amendment is said to be relevant. The amendment moved by Mr. Deakin was to the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which provided that all disputes should be settled by one Court. It declared that no measure, the effect of which would be to concentrate in any one person the control of all the industrial conditions of the continent, could be other than impracticable, and fraught with danger to the community. The subject-matter to which this present amendment is said to be relevant is -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or non-membership of any political or industrial association.

Mr Mcdonald:

– Is that before the Chair?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course it is, because it is the subject-matter of the Bill to which the amendment is proposed.

Mr J H Catts:

– It has to do with the preference given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It has nothing to do with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr J H Catts:

– Does it not affect the preference given by that Act?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not in the slightest degree. The interjection shows that, although the honorable member has been sitting here for I do not know how many, hours, listening to the debate, he has not the slightest conception of what the Bill is.

Mr,Fenton. - That . is only an assertion.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course it is; and I assert again that it has nothing to do with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This is a Bill to provide that no preference shall be given for or against any person on account of membership or non-membership of any political or industrial association. What is the amendment which is said to be relevant to the subjectmatter? It is -

That all the words after the word “That” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : “no measure, the effect of which will be to prevent the promotion of industrial peace by the encouragement of organization by employers and employees, can be other than impracticable and fraught with danger to the community.”

What has that to do with Government employment, or with a Bill which prohibits preference in Government employment?

Mr J H Catts:

– Everything.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It might just as well be said that no Bill which prevents a man from marrying his second cousin will meet with approval.

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member would argue anything !

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think I ought to be protected from the unintelligent interjections of the honorable member, who has listened to the debate without increasing his knowledge of the Bill. I submit that, although the mover of the amendment has chosen, after a good deal of searching, a proposal which is verbally like that moved on a previous occasion, it is really a different amendment altogether, and not in order.

Mr Hughes:

– I cannot agree with the Attorney-General. The honorable gentleman says that before the amendment can. be accepted, it must be relevant to the question; and that I admit. It is not denied that it is a principle accepted here in regard to amendments at this stage, that they may be in the usual form “ That the Bill be read a second time this day six months,” so as to have the effect of delaying it. In May, 11th edition, page 472, it is stated -

It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the Bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution.

I submit that an amendment is entirely relevant if it sets forth the inevitable consequences of its prosecution. It is perfectly true that this is a Bill dealing only with public servants; but, at the same time, it deals with the Conciliation and Arbitration Acts.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It does not touch them.

Mr Hughes:

– If that is so, then I admit that the honorable gentleman’s contention stands. I submit, however, that it does affect the Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, because the employes whom it affects are persons who are not continuously, but only occasionally, public servants, and who are members of trade organizations, and, in a great number of cases, enjoy, or may enjoy, under section 40, preference in the terms of the Act; and that preference may be taken away, or is taken away, by the Bill. I speak with some special knowledge when I say that nothing is more calculated to promote industrial disturbance than for a boon, granted to men by law, to be taken away, not in recognition of some general moral principle, but only as applicable to those unfortunate persons who happen to work for the Government. Take the case of a man who works for a shipping company, and who, under an award of Mr. Justice Higgins, enjoys preference and other rights, conditions, and privileges, to obtain which he has complied with the law. The Government employs that person, and, immediately, his preference ceases ; and the organization of waterside workers would rightly take that as an invitation to throw the whole industrial machinery into turmoil. There is no exaggeration in what I say, for everybody knows on what an industrial volcano we live. When the honorable gentleman says that there is no relation between industrial peace and his proposal, I ask how could the relationship be more clearly established. The Bill provides -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth, or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or non-membership of any political or industrial association.

Section 40 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1911 provides -

The Court, by its award, or by order made on the application of any organization or person bound by the award, may -

direct that, as between members of organizations of employers or employees and other persons (not being sons or daughters of employers) offering ordesiring service or employment -

Whether by the Government or anybody else - at the same time, preference shall, in such manner as is specified in the award or order, be given to such members, other things being equal.

I say that this Bill acts as a repeal of section 40 of the Act so far as that section applies to Government employes. If we were to declare that preference did not apply to any person in any particular trade or calling, no one would deny that it would be calculated to promote industrial disturbance. The amendment is -

That all the words after the word “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “No measure, the effect of which will be to prevent the promotion of industrial peace by the encouragement of organization by employers and employees, can be other than impracticable, and fraught with danger to the community.”

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at section 55 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which deals with organizations as such, and encourages them to register, promising that their grievances or disputes shall be settled, and, if thought fit, preference given. Yet the Government propose to remove all that, and, at the same time, they declare that their proposal is not a menace to industrial peace. I ask you to agree with that most eloquent and illuminating speech of Mr. Deakin, when, as honorable member for Ballarat, he introduced the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and said it would make for industrial peace by “ extending the arena of law into the industrial sphere.” As a unionist who has had some experience in organization, I say that nothing is more calculated to cause industrial disturbance than to treat the employes of one employer differently from the employes of another employer. I submit that the amendment now before us is on all-fours with that proposed in the case of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and I ask you, sir, to rule, as your predecessor ruled, and say that it is distinctly relevant to the motion. That we may increase the scope of the debate is not to the point; the question is whether this Bill ought to receive the assent of the Chamber. Since the Attorney-General has invited us to do so, we have to consider the reason for the introduction of the measure, which reason, I submit, is not that set forth in the Bill, or even in the motion. This Bill is really introduced to enable the Government to ask the Governor-General to put section 57 of the Constitution in force.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is that in the Bill?

Mr Hughes:

– I am talking about the real reason, and I submit that the amendment is in order.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I submit that the House can do nothing at this stage to widen the scope of the debate. The order of leave for the Bill has been already fixed by the House, and cannot be widened until we get into Committee.

Mr McDonald:

– How can it be done in Committee?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The title of the Bill can be altered in Committee.

Mr McDonald:

– How can that alter the order of leave?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Another order of leave can be obtained to fit the title of the Bill. I do not know why honorable members laugh. It has been done over and over again, but at this stage the House cannot go outside the order of leave already fixed. Therefore, when the honorable member says that his proposal is to widen the scope of the debate on the Bill, he gives the best of all reasons why the amendment is out of order. On the general question of relevancy I also submit that it is out of order.

Mr Arthur:

– The Attorney-General’s argument that the amendment is not relevant to the Bill is utterly fallacious. He said, with a great show of superiority of knowledge, that certain honorable members on this side had not listened to the arguments.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I said that one honorable member did not know what the Bill was about.

Mr Arthur:

– The honorable member, above all others, knows that the question of the effect of the abolition of preference upon industrial organizations, and consequently upon industrial peace, has been the whole heart of the debate. He introduced that very question in his speech, but now wants to debar us from dealing with it. He said that the question of preference to unionists raised in the Bill did not in any way touch the Arbitration Act. I submit that it does, although perhaps not as a rule. The- Arbitration Court has, at present, power to give preference in Government employment. If the Commonwealth, as an em ployer of labour, is engaged with other employers in a dispute extending beyond one State, then the Judge can regard the Commonwealth as an employer, and may award preference against it. Therefore, on the Attorney-General’s own showing, the amendment is relevant. It has been shown again and again that the Bill is wholly and solely an attack upon industrial organizations, and consequently upon industrial peace.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You have said it. We have not admitted it.

Mr Arthur:

– The honorable member does not admit anything, but my appeal is to the Speaker, and not to him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I must ask honorable members on both sides to refrain from interjecting.

Mr Anstey:

– I rise to a point of order. Not long ago you, sir, said you would name any honorable member who interrupted. Am I specially selected for that treatment?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member has no right to cast any such reflection on the Chair.

Mr Anstey:

– I withdraw the reflection, and respectfully draw your attention to your own remarks.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member had several times interjected after I had specially called him to order. I then told him that if he repeated his offence I should have to name him. I am the judge of these matters in the House, and had already called the ‘ Prime Minister and other honorable members to order for interjecting when the honorable member rose.

Mr Arthur:

– The whole purpose of the Bill being to affect prejudicially the organizations of labour, and consequently industrial peace, the object of the amendment is to declare the policy of this side of the House on the question. The Bill cuts right across that policy. The following passage from May, page 472, shows that the Prime Minister’s contention that the amendment must be within the order of leave is untenable -

It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the Bill; or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress, or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or, in the Lords, the opinions of the Judges.

Dozens of examples-

Mr Groom:

– Read on - “the principle of relevancy.”

Mr Arthur:

– I have argued that point.

Mr Groom:

– That is the whole question.

Mr. Anstey. - That is right; keep on interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask honorable members on both sides not to interject.

Mr Arthur:

– The instance which occurred in 1911 is absolutely apposite. It set out what Mr. Deakin declared was the policy of the Opposition, so that the public might know why they were opposing the Bill. That is exactly the scope and intention of the amendment now before us. The question before the Chair is, “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The effect of an amendment of this kind is simply to postpone the second reading. I submit that the precedents are clear and ample for the relevancy and permissibility of the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I cannot sustain the point of order raised by the Honorary Minister on the grounds stated by him; but, whilst an amendment of this kind would be perfectly relevant to the matter of a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill such as has been mentioned, I fail to see in it any relevancy to the Bill before the House, and therefore rule it out of order.

Mr Anstey:

– I desire to give notice of a motion to dissent from your ruling in the following terms: -

That the Speaker’s ruling be disagreed with on the following grounds: - First, that the decision of the Chair upon the amendment in question is in opposition to the ruling of every Speaker in any Parliament in any Englishspeaking community. Secondly, that it is a violation of every precedent, and ignores every authority on parliamentary practice, and that the decision of the Speaker is not only opposed to the ruling of every other Speaker, not only a violation of every precedent, not only an outrage upon all parliamentary procedure -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must see that there is a reflection conveyed in every one of the terms used by him. The whole motion is a reflection on the Chair. The honorable member would be perfectly in order in giving notice to dissent from my ruling in respectful language and in proper terms. Otherwise I shall not only not accept it, but shall demand an apology from the honorable member.

Mr Anstey:

– Well, I will let it go as it is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member will simply move to dissent from my ruling, he can state his reasons afterwards in debate on it when the motion is called on.

Mr Anstey:

– I have now omitted from the motion the remarks to which you object. I am not aware that any of the expressions remaining in it will be regarded by you as a reflection on yourself. If they are, I also withdraw them. I give notice of the following motion : -

That the Speaker’s ruling be disagreed with on the following grounds: - That the decision of the Chair upon the amendment in question is in opposition to the ruling of every Speaker in any Parliament in every Englishspeaking community; a violation of every precedent, and ignores every authority on parliamentary practice -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall not accept a motion couched in those terms. I am prepared to accept one couched in respectful language. Every declaration in the motion read by the honorable member is a reflection on me, and contains an assertion which I would be in a position to refute if I wished to take up the time of the House in doing so. I will accept a simple motion for dissent from my ruling, and the honorable member can later give his reasons.

Mr Anstey:

– I will move it in simple terms.

Mr J H Catts:

– I understand that the motion must be handed in in writing

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is so.

Mr J H Catts:

– If the motion is not accepted, I should like an opportunity of moving one myself.

Mr Anstey:

– I beg your pardon, sir, if I have not done so. Scratch out what is objected to. Let me see - this lot comes out, that lot comes out, and this is objectionable. There is not much left. Then I now give notice of my intention to move -

That Mr. Speaker’s ruling be disagreed with.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! May I take this opportunity of reminding the House that this is a Parliament ?

Mr Anstey:

– And the foundation of parliamentary procedure is-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member refrain from interrupting? I must ask some honorable members to recollect where they are, and I must request the remainder of the House to assist the Chair in its endeavour to preserve order and decency. The honorable member for Bourke has handed in a motion which reads -

That Mr. Speaker’s ruling be disagreed to.

The debate will be adjourned until the next day of sitting.

Motion (by Mr. Boyd) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Question - That the question be now put -put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 31

AYES

NOES

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 -

This Act may be cited as the Government Preference Prohibition Act 1913.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- I presume we have gone far enough this week ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Oh, no !

Mr FISHER:

– We have had a fair discussion this week, and as the Bill is an important one, I can only appeal to the Prime Minister to report progress.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– I regret that I am not able to comply with the request of the right honorable gentleman. It is not his fault that the debate on the second reading is not still dragging its weary length along. The honorable member and his party did their best to revive the whole debate, and repeat it all over again, and the right honorable gentleman, of all members, should not, in view of what has just taken place, ask me to begin to make concessions.

Opposition Members. - We do not want concessions. We shall give you all you want.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I want only one thing, and that is the Bill, so that we may go home. Give us that and we will be satisfied. I hope my honorable friends are not serious in their desire to propose the great sheaf of amendments which they have had printed.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I move -

That the words “ Government Preference Prohibition “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Anti-Trades and Labour Unions.”

We all know that the Attorney-General is a man of “ grit, go, and gumption.” I wonder how he came to be so characterized. Some one must have seen him at a Women’s National League picnic, when he was strutting about the lawn in a particularly frisky mood, saying, “ Chase me, girls ; I have got chocolates.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order 1

Mr HIGGS:

– This proposed title, “ Government Preference Prohibition Act,” is the result of the AttorneyGeneral’s cogitations. But I think it is a misnomer. “ Anti-Trades and Labour Unions Act “ is the name we should give to this measure. Any Statute that goes forth to the world from this House should not bear a meaningless name. This Bill is the outcome of the Attorney-General’s hatred of the working classes, and the hatred of some of the other honorable members opposite, as, for ‘instance, the honorable member for Grampians, one of the most wealthy men in Victoria.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– You are wrong. Ask the working classes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! There are too many interjections, and I hope they will not continue.

Mr HIGGS:

– I invite the intelligent persons who have come to-night to watch the Liberals at work, to say whether the title I propose would not be preferable to that printed in the Bill. We all know what is meant by the word “ anti.” When Sir George Reid was going through Australia talking about the socialistic tiger, he spoke of his party as the AntiSocialist party, “ anti “ meaning “ opposed to.” This measure is opposed to the interests of the working classes. If the Attorney-General had placed in this Bill certain principles, which I and other honorable members hope to introduce to the notice of the Committee, probably tomorrow morning, I would not have moved this amendment, but I cannot anticipate that the proposals we shall offer by way of amendment to make this Bill a fair one will be accepted by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I must at this stage endeavour to give to the Bill the name which I think it deserves. If the Attorney-General had included the members of the Barristers Board, the Architectural Association, the Institute of Surveyors, and other professional classes, the Bill would not be so objectionable. “ Anti-Trade and Labour Unions” seems to be a very apt title for the Bill in its present form. I use the word “ labour “ because there are men who regard themselves as labourers, and not as tradesmen, and I have heard frequently a debate in the Trades Hall as to the use of the term “ trades.” Many builders’ labourers and others have claimed that their names ought also to be included with the term “ trades,” and the consequence is that in many places we find the term ‘ ‘ Trades and Labour Council.” “Anti” prefixed to “Trade and Labour Unions,” well defines the attitude of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, that peculiar heterogeneous political mob who sit on the Ministerial, benches.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Did you say “ mob “ ?

Mr HIGGS:

– Yes. Does the honorable member want me to withdraw it ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yes.

Mr HIGGS:

– Well, I will not.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member has used an expression towards the Ministerial members that is distinctly out of order. I ask the honorable member to withdraw it.

Mr HIGGS:

– I was not as polite as I might have been if the Prime Minister had exhibited better manners.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member to withdraw the disorderly remark.

Mr HIGGS:

– I withdraw it out of respect to you, sir, and I ask that, if the Prime Minister has anything to say, he will rise in his place in a courteous manner, as a man, and not as a boor.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr HIGGS:

– I withdraw that, too. We have embodied in this Bill, in as few words as possible, all the bitter spleen and malice shown by honorable members opposite towards the working classes. The people who are erecting the massive buildings in the big cities, the men who dig the trenches and put in the foundations, the stonemasons, bricklayers, builders’ labourers, carpenters, plumbers, painters, and paperhangers are the wageearners against whom this Bill is directed, and it is due to them and to us that the measure should bear a proper title. If it goes forward with the title proposed by the Attorney-General, it will be masquerading. Other titles might be given which would, perhaps, commend themselves more readily to some people. For example, we might call the measure “ The Coercion Act,” because it is of a coercive character, inasmuch as it will have the effect of coercing people not to join trade and labour unions. The moment the information gets abroad that the Government have issued an edict not to grant preference to unionists, and upon that edict is superimposed an Act of Parliament to prohibit preference to unionists, all uninformed workmen - and, unfortunately, there are a number of uninformed workmen - will form the opinion, which, perhaps, would be excusable, that it is not desired by Parliament that they should belong to unions. I shall be very glad, sir, if you will have the bells rung, in order that I may have a quorum. [Quorum formed.] In the Commonwealth there are probably over 100,000 workmen who will be affected by this Bill.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– A little while ago you said that only 2,000 will be affected.

Mr HIGGS:

– For example, timbergetters, sawmillers, and woodworkers of all kinds will be affected; and if the Bill does not carry its proper title, these men may get an impression that they ought not to join the trade and labour unions. Uninformed persons - and, unfortunately, there are some in the community - having observed that the Government have issued an edict to their officials not to grant preference to unionists, will naturally come to the conclusion that Ministers and their supporters are opposed to trade and labour unions. What is more natural than that? The Prime Minister, who, like myself, is suffering from the strain of this long sitting, and would be better in bed, will recollect-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I have been waiting to hear the honorable member put forward reasons in support of his amendment. I wish to point out to him that May is very clear and emphatic as to my duty in regard to the amendment, and that it is not necessary for him to pursue the matter further, because the amendment is distinctly out of order. On page 485 May lays down that -

Amendments are out of order that are - irrelevant to the Bill; governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived; inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the Bill as agreed to by the Committee; offered at a wrong place in the Bill; or that are tendered to the Committee in a spirit of mockery.

The last ground, in my opinion, applies to the amendment of the honorable member, and I, therefore, rule that it is out of order.

Mr Higgs:

– With great respect, sir, I move-

That the ruling of the Chairman that the amendment moved by the honorable member for Capricornia, namely, that the words “ AntiTrades and Labour Unions,” be inserted in place of “ Government Preference Prohibition “ is out of order, on the ground that it is moved in a spirit of mockery, be dissented from.

I really feel quite pained that you, sir, have decided against me in this way. You say that I have moved the amendment in a spirit of mockery; but I assure you that it was not in a spirit of mockery that I did so, for I sincerely believe that the proper title for this Bill is, as I say, the Anti-Trade and Labour Unions Act.

Mr J H Catts:

– I am interested in this amendment that the Bill should be entitled the Anti-Trade and Labour Unions Act; but the fact that you have come to the conclusion that it was moved in a spirit of mockery is, I hold, no reason why you should prevent other honorable members from giving expression to their views couched in proper language. In my opinion, it is not a good ground on which to rule an amendment out of order. I contend that the words of an amendment must be out of order on their merits before the amendment can be properly ruled out of order. I consider that the proposed title is thoroughly justified.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member was not in the chamber when I gave my reasons for the ruling. In accordance with May, page 485, I ruled that an amendment which is tendered to the Committee in a spirit of mockery is out of order.

Mr J H Catts:

– Yes, sir; but how did you come to the conclusion that the amendment was tendered in a spirit of mockery ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! In a matter of this kind, the Chairman has a discretionary power, which the honorable member must recognise, and that discretion, of course, must be exercised in accordance with precedent.

Mr Higgs:

– Are you not really taking up the position of a clairvoyant to rule in thatway?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I am directed to exercise my common sense, and obviously May is of the opinion that it is the duty of the Chairman to exercise discretion and common sense in a question of this kind. From the passage I have read from May, it is quite clear that the Chairman must necessarily be the judge in this latter regard.

Mr J H Catts:

– I notice that the passage in May shows nine grounds on which the Chairman has discretion to rule out an amendment of this kind, before the ground just quoted by the Chairman. May says, reading from the commencement of the paragraph, instead of at the end -

Amendments may be made in every part of the Bill, whether in the preamble, the clauses, or the schedules; clauses may be omitted, and new clauses and schedules added; though no amendments can be moved to the granting or enacting words of money, and of other Bills. Those words are part of the framework of the Bill, and are never submitted to the Committee. An amendment must be coherent, and consistent with the context of the Bill; -

I take it that as you, sir, passed over this last reason, you agree that the amendment now proposed is consistent with the context of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Not necessarily.

Mr J H Catts:

– You, sir, have chosen to exercise your discretion on a passage considerably further down. The paragraph goes on - and when a proposed amendment had been so amended as to form an incoherent question, the Chairman stated that if no further amendment were proposed he should proceed with the question which next arose upon the clause. Amendments also cannot be moved which are based on schedules or other provisions, the terras of which have not been placed before the Committee. Amendments are out of order that are - irrelevant to the Bill; -

Apparently the amendment before us is not irrelevant to the Bill - governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived; inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the Bill as agreed to by the Committee; -

That is not the ground on which the amendment has been ruled out of order, and I submit that the proposed alteration of title is quite consistent with the whole character of this Bill - offered at a wrong place in the Bill, or that are tendered to the Committee in a spirit of mockery; ….

If we applied that ruling, the whole Bill would go overboard, because everything that can be done by the Bill has already been carried out by Executive act. The Bill itself, therefore, is a mockery.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not discuss that matter, but confine himself to my ruling.

Mr J H Catts:

– I am merely offering an illustration. It is the easiest thing in the world to assert that an amendment is moved in a spirit of mockery.

Mr Mcdonald:

– What is the Bill itself?

Mr J H Catts:

– The Bill is a mockery from start to finish, because it seeks to do what does not appear on its face. I ask the Committee, who have to decide this matter, in what way they are to judge that the amendment is moved in a spirit of mockery] Is it by reason of the appearance of the honorable member who moves it? He is one of the mildest-mannered members we have, and one of the most sincere, a gentleman whose language is uniformly within the rules of Parliament. It is quite evident that the Chairman had made up his mind, but every honorable member who votes must be satisfied that the amendment is moved in a spirit of mockery. It seems to me that the honorable member is offering a title that is the obvious one, it crystallizes a considerable body of opinion, and his amendment ought not to be ruled out, if only for the reason that this will interfere with the right of other honorable members to move amendments of the kind. If the ruling affected only the honorable member for Capricornia, it would be a different matter; but there are honorable members’ who desire to move similar amendments, and who ought not to be deprived of their rightin this regard. It is very difficult to give reasons against the exercise of discretion by the Chair; and we are having rather an unfortunate experience in regard to the moving of amendments. It would appear that amendments that have been in order ever since we have been a Parliament are out of order now, and that the Standing Orders are altogether suspended, so as to take away our rights. The Government majority is only a very small one, but its authority is being exercised without regard to the rights and privileges of honorable members under the Standing Orders.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is the honorable member aware that he is reflecting on the Chair, all the while?

Mr J H Catts:

– If it suits the Prime Minister, he will reflect on anybody, so long as he gets his way ; and he is not overburdened with scruples when the Standing Orders are being altogether twisted out of shape.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw the expression that the Prime Minister is “ not overburdened with scruples.”

Mr J H Catts:

– I shall withdraw the expression, and say that it is quite obvious that the honorable gentleman is so overburdened with scruples that he does not know which one to use.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I suppose we have to sit still and listen to all these insults !

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable gentleman has admitted in the public press that he has put the Standing Orders to uses to which they have never before been put.

Mr Groom:

– I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether these remarks are relevant to the question before us?

Mr J H Catts:

– Is the Minister of Trade and Customs taking exception to some remarks I have made ?

Mr Groom:

– Yes.

Mr J H Catts:

– Well, the Chairman has put the honorable gentleman in his proper place by ignoring his point of order.

Mr Palmer:

– I move -

That the question be now put.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth or any Department or authority thereof on account of his membership or non-membership of any anti-trade or labour union.

That would materially alter the effect of the Bill, and prevent preference being given, for example, to members of the Independent Workers Organization. It would enable preference to be given to members of bond fide trade unions. For that reason it cannot be held that the amendment is introduced in a spirit of mockery, or would have the effect of reducing the debate to a farce. It is introduced in a spirit, not of mockery, but of opposition, which is permitted, and even expected, in debating legislation. Although you may exclude it for other reasons, you cannot exclude it for the reason you have given. It is directly relevant, and could be ruled out of order only because it was, as you have said, tendered in a spirit of mockery. I submit that any reason for upholding your ruling must be made out without any doubt. The mockery must be obvious, and the result must be to reduce the debate to a farce. As a matter of fact, the amendment, if accepted, will produce a piece of legislation which will have a direct effect. It will extend preference to members of bona fide trade unions, and refuse it to members of mala fide unions.

Motion - That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from - negatived.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- I move -

That after the word “ Preference “ the words “ to Contractors, Lawyers, Doctors, and others,” be inserted.

If we are not permitted to make the title of this Bill express its real purpose, we ought, at any rate, to make it applicable to all sorts of combinations. The insertion of the words outlined in my amendment would make the measure allembracing. We have been told that the granting of preference to unionists is objectionable, that it is a violation of liberty, and that it ought to be prohibited. That being so, what is sauce for the goose should surely be sauce for the gander. In other words, the treatment which is to be meted out to organized bodies of labour should also be meted out to organized professional bodies.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I take the same objection to this motion as I did to the previous one. It is quite obvious that it has been moved in a spirit of mockery, that it is entirely frivolous, and that it is out of order.

Mr J H Catts:

– I move -

That the Chairman’s decision in ruling out” of order an amendment by the honorable member for Bourke to add to the short title of the Bill after the word “ Preference,” the words “to Contractors, Lawyers, Doctors,’ and others,” be dissented from.

During the discussions which have taken place upon this Bill, the Attorney- General stated that the prohibition it contained would apply to the union to which he belongs, namely, the Bar Council. This view was disputed. What is proposed in the amendment is that words shall be inserted which will clearly indicate part of the purpose of the Bill - alleged, but unprovided for - which is not at present expressed. I submit, therefore, that the amendment is perfectly in order.

We all know that on the transcontinental railway the Government have employed members of the medical profession. They have also employed doctors in connexion with some of the activities which are being carried on at the Federal Capital. In the administration of the Quarantine Department they have employed doctors who are members of the British Medical Association. As a matter of fact, we believe that they have been granting a preference to members of that Association. It has been stated here that they have given the preference to members of the Bar Council, and that in any litigation in which the Commonwealth might be engaged it would be impossible to secure the services of leading counsel unless they granted that preference.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the honorable member is out of order, inasmuch as he is moving a dissent from your ruling, and in so doing is discussing, not the reasons why he dissents from that ruling, but the main question.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I have been waiting for the honorable member for Cook to continue bis remarks in order that I might get into closer touch with the reasons for his dissent. Of course, a certain amount of latitude is permissible, and I trust that the honorable member will not exceed the limits of that latitude.

Mr J H Catts:

– I strongly object to the statement of the Government Whip that my remarks are not relevant to the motion of dissent from your ruling. The two points with which I have been dealing relate to lawyers and doctors. The Bill purports to prevent preference and discrimination in connexion with workers organizations, but, in connexion with professional organizations, the Government are apparently desirous of the liberty to grant preference.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the only question which can be raised on a motion to dissent from your ruling is whether or not that rulingis correct. Whether certain professional classes ought to be brought within the ambit of this Bill is totally irrelevant to the question of what should be its short title.

Mr Arthur:

– I submit that the remarks of the Attorney-General were entirely beside the point of issue. You, sir, have ruled that the motion of the honor able member for Cook is out of order on the ground that it is a mockery, and it is upon that ground alone that your ruling is being contested. The honorable member for Cook has been dealing with that aspect of the matter, and has been endeavouring to advance reasons why you should not regard his motion as a mockery. I contend, therefore, that his remarks are perfectly in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Of course, I cannot allow anything in the nature of a general debate on the Bill to take place on a motion to dissent from my ruling. The honorable member for Cook has traversed certain ground in a general way, and I am prepared to allow him to proceed a little farther in that direction, but, necessarily, the point at issue is a narrow one, and the debate must be confined within the narrow limits indicated.

Mr J H Catts:

– It is evident from the action of the Government Whip and the Attorney-General that they will be glad to burke any discussion on this question, because the proposed amendment goes right to the kernel of the Bill. The Government are seeking in this Bill to prevent certain discriminations and preferences in regard to the employment of tradesmen and labourers in the daylabour section of the Public Service.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is the title, and not the contents of the Bill.

Mr J H Catts:

– We desire to bring the title into conformity with the Bill, as we hope to amend it; and if the Government will postpone this clause until we have discussed clause 2, this question need not be further pursued at this stage. If we do not amend the title now, we will be at the mercy of the Government in regard to a recommittal of the clause, in order to alter the title to conform to the amendments’ that will probably have been made in clause 2.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Thehonorable member is not discussing my ruling at all.

Mr J H Catts:

– I submit that for the Chairman to rule that amendment out of order before the mover has had an opportunity of speaking on it, is to say that we have no right to move any amendments at all. It is all very well for members of the Government to seek to restrict the rights of honorable members representing large bodies outside Parliament, but it may be that some day they will be on this side of the House, and they ought to be careful as to the manner in which the privileges of the minority are abused.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I trust the honorable member is not making any reflection on the Chair.

Mr J H Catts:

– This is a motion to dissent from your ruling, sir, and I am asking the Committee to take a view different from that which you have taken. I do not say that you set out deliberately to set aside any of the privileges of honorable members, but I am asking the Committee to come to the rescue against the view you have taken, which, I submit, is not in conformity with our privileges. At this very point we propose to test the bona fides of the Government as to the evenhandedness of justice and liberty of the subject which they boast so much about.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must ask the honorable member to address himself to my ruling.

Mr J H Catts:

– Honorable members will have an opportunity of saying whether we shall insert in the Bill a provision that the prohibition of preference shall apply to the classes as well as to the masses, to the professions as well as to the trades. I am entitled to show that the evils to be obviated by this amendment, which has been ruled out of order, are real, because, if the Bill is aimed at alleged abuses existing in the community, surely it cannot be said that amendments to the Bill constitute a mockery. It has Veen stated by the honorable member for West Sydney, ex-Attorney-General, that in seeking for counsel to represent the Commonwealth before the Courts, he was not free to engage persons outside the Bar Council .

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member has moved dissent from my ruling on a specific amendment. It must be obvious that the honorable member cannot go beyond that specific amendment in discussing my ruling.

Mr J H Catts:

– Certainly not; but what I am entitled to discuss is, whether this amendment is a proper one to submit; because, if it is a proper one, it is not a mockery. I am entitled to show that there are abuses which the amendment seeks to remedy.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will be out of order in discussing the general proposition.

Mr J H Catts:

– Will I be in order in discussing whether this preference pro hibition should be extended to the Lawyers Union as part of the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment mentions lawyers, but nothing about a union.

Mr J H Catts:

– I have already pointed out that we propose to endeavour to amend clause 2. This is only the title we are discussing, and we cannot put in the title an amendment that would cover a sheet of foolscap, because you could then properly say that such an amendment was moved in a spirit of mockery. I submit that I am entitled to show that preference is being given to lawyers and doctors associations. There have come under my own notice applications for appointment under the Commonwealth from doctors who were members of the British Medical Association, and the preference insisted upon by that Association is a question of live interest to this community. I have here an extract from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 15th May, headed, “ Scabs and Blacklegs, Doctors Who Differ, Trouble at Wellington Hospital.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I have already pointed out that the honorable member has moved his dissent from my ruling on specific words - “ to Contractors, Lawyers, Doctors, and others.” I ruled that those words were out of order, because the amendment was moved in a spirit of mockery; and the question before the Committee is, whether the words proposed to be added are moved in a spirit of mockery.

Mr Mcdonald:

– If you, sir, had ruled against the amendment on the ground of relevancy, instead of mockery, I could have understood your ruling; but to use the word “mockery” is to insult the honorable member who moved the amendment, and that is what honorable members are dissenting from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I thought the honorable member for Kennedy was rising on a point of order. If the honorable member has risen to speak on the motion the honorable member for Cook cannot proceed.

Mr McDonald:

– I did not intend to interrupt the honorable member for Cook:

Mr J H Catts:

– I object most emphatically to those words being ruled out of order on the ground which you, sir, have mentioned. You ruled those words out of order because they were moved by the honorable member for Bourke in a spirit of mockery, and I want to move them seriously ; but if your ruling is persisted in, I shall be precluded from exercising my rights in this chamber. You have not ruled the words out of order on the ground of relevancy. Suppose another honorable member rose, and, in a spirit of mockery anticipated my moving an amendment, and you ruled his amendment out of order on the ground that it was a mockery, why should I be precluded from moving the amendment seriously ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot give a decision on a supposititious case.

Mr J H Catts:

– But this is a real case, sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have given my decision in this case.

Mr J H Catts:

– I think, sir, that, having considered the matter, you might now withdraw the ruling, and give us an opportunity to move the amendment, seeing that this question has been under discussion right through the consideration of the Bill. I sincerely hope that honorable members will support my motion. If you, sir, hold that the amendment has been moved in a spirit of mockery, I take it that, after my motion has been disposed of, I shall be in order in submitting the amendment on my own behalf, and in a most serious spirit.

Mr Kelly:

– I suggest to honorable members that the Chairman, who is the guardian of the liberties of the House, should be assisted. I ask honorable members to recognise that the Chair is the sole arbiter in a matter of this kind.

Mr McDonald:

– No, the Committee.

Mr Kelly:

– I do suggest that honorable members might support the Chair on this occasion.

Mr Tudor:

– I am not quite sure, sir, as to whether you ruled that the method or the manner in which the amendment was moved was wrong, or as to whether its phraseology was wrong, and thereby introduced a spirit of mockery into our proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment, as a whole, is out of order:

Mr Tudor:

– I support the motion, because I object to the ruling. How can it be contended for a moment that the amendment was moved in a spirit of mockery when it is remembered that the -Government have to employ contractors from time to time? For instance, the Minister of Trade and Customs must employ carters to cart to the King’s Warehouse,, in every port where there is a Customs House, uncustomed goods or goods left overtime in the sheds. Under this Bill, if passed in its present form, there will be nothing to stop the Minister from giving preference to the Melbourne Contractors Association, whose rules I read here last night. If the Government are anxious to penalize the workers, we have a right to amend this Bill in such a direction as to make its provisions applicable to the whole community, and not to a section of it. Evidently it is the desire of the Government to allow the contractors, the lawyers, and others to escape scotfree. No matter what the rules of an association may be, the Government will be able to give any one of these classes preference. I consider “that the ruling is wrong because we have an inherent right to extend the scope of the measure, so that it shall apply to every individual and to every association in the community that is seeking advantages from, or doing work in connexion with, the Government. I feel confident that, if the ruling is upheld by the Committee, it will be possible for a Chairman in the future to say that an amendment is moved in a spirit of mockery although it may be moved seriously, and, of course, the minority will have no right to discuss the question. The object of the proposed amendment is merely to prevent the Government from doing in the future what they have done in the past. We on this side have a right to stand here and try to bring this Bill into conformity with what we desire. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, although we may be a minority - a large one, be it remembered - we have some rights. We know, on the word of the Prime Minister, that in the past the Standing Orders have been strained out of all fair proportion. He said at Cowra that the Standing Orders had been put to uses never intended. We have seen that done here time after time. These words of the honorable gentleman will be long remembered. The proposed amendment, I submit, should be made in order to place all sections of the community on one footing. We are anxious to attain that object, but, apparently, honorable members on the other side do not desire any alteration to be made in the measure which would have that effect. If a division is called for, I shall have much pleasure in voting for the motion.

Dr Maloney:

– I think, sir, that a great deal of this heat has arisen, if I may use the expression, from the illchosen word which you used - “ mockery.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I chose a word which is found in May as a distinct direction to the Chair.

Dr Maloney:

– If the ruling is upheld, it will bear this construction: that the proposal in the Bill is not a mockery when it is applied to workmen, but is a mockery when it is applied to contractors. It will also be held to be a mockery when it is applied to lawyers, doctors, and others. This measure, if passed, should be a law for the whole of the people, and not for a class. I resent very strongly the use of the word “ mockery,” which I had hoped had been unfortunately chosen. I shall insist on a division being taken, so that it may be placed on record that this amendment of the law, when it is applied to a common working man, is not a mockery, but is a mockery when it is applied to lawyers, doctors, and contractors.

Mr Webster:

– I have been in Parliament for some years, but I have never known this passage in May to be brought into use before. Apparently we are digging up old, antiquated customs of days gone by, in order to conduct the business of a modern Assembly. In those days there may have been men of a frivolous nature likely to submit ridiculous motions and amendments; but nowadays a Chairman of Committees should, irrespective of the authority of May, interpret proposals in the light of modern knowledge, and keep clearly in mind the objects which honorable members may have in view. It is a grave responsibility for a Chairman to decide that a proposal is made by an honorable member in a spirit of mockery, for it is a reflection, not only on the honorable member who, according to his lights, is endeavouring to make a measure more effective and widen the scope of the proposed law, but it is a reflection on honorable members generally. The reason given by the Chairman for ruling this amendment out of order-

The CHAIRMAN:

– There may be other reasons, but I gave the most obvious one…

Mr Webster:

– Had any one of the. other eight reasons in May been relied on, the case might have been different; but it seems to me that the reason chosen for declaring the amendment out of order is not warranted under the circumstances. This Bill is put forward as an endeavour to protect the public from favoritism or preference in the Public Service, and I submit that it is just as essential that the public should be safeguarded in the employment of contractors. To limit the application of the Bill is to curtail the liberties of honorable members and their right to amend the measure in what they may consider useful directions; and I sincerely hope that we shall not have too much experience of such rulings as that now under discussion. In all my experience in this and other Houses of Parliament I have never known an honorable member to be told that he has acted, in a spirit of mockery, and that, therefore, a proposal by him is not in order. The ruling is not in keeping with the times, nor with the objects and aims of the mover of the amendment. It ought not to be concluded that the proposal is put forward in a spirit of mockery merely because it comes from a certain source; an amendment should not be judged by the man who proposes it, but on its merits. The object of the amendment is, as I have said, to give further protection to the people of the country, and it is imperatively necessary that there should be. some safeguard, apart from the control of this House, against favoritism and preference to contractors and others. If, Mr. Chairman, you say to an honorable member who has that objectin view-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I remindthe honorable member that we are now discussing the title of the Bill.

Mr Webster:

– We are discussing the ruling of the Chairman on the amendment moved by the honorable member for Bourke, and that amendment is in the title which covers the object of the Bill, that object being to prevent preference to certain bodies of people.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will understand that we are now in Committee, and we cannot discuss the Bill under the clause dealing with the title.

Mr Webster:

– If that be so, how does it come about that the Chairman can read an honorable member’s mind, and judge as to the genuineness or otherwise of the amendment? It exhibits a sort of thought-reading on the part of the Chairman when he bases his ruling on some sort of knowledge he possesses as to whether an honorable member is or is not sincere and in earnest. I fancy that if the precedents could be consulted, it would.be found that the ruling in May, on which the Chairman relies, has never been given in a case where an amendment was, as on the present occasion, relevant to the purpose of the Bill. We shall find ourselves unable to move any amendment, however relevant, if we are to be faced by such a ruling as that now under discussion. Looking at the matter from a common-sense stand-point it would seem that the liberties of the House are being restricted, and the power of honorable members to frame Acts of Parliament frustrated. I am astounded that such an interpretation as has been given should be read into words, the object of which is to make the Bill more effective. I cannot see any evidence of a spirit of mockery, because such an amendment is required in view of the need there is for some preserving power to govern such actions as those of which we have had experience in the last few months. We are now trying to prevent preference being given to contractors; and that surely is a reality, and not a mockery ? Preference has been given to contractors, with the result- that the Commonwealth has suffered serious loss, and to some extent has been hampered and somewhat lowered in public estimation, so far as the administration of our public affairs is concerned. On a Bill of this kind, this is the only chance we have to give voice to our opinions and to broaden our legislation; and, as I said before, I regard the ruling as a reflection, not only on the mover of the amendment, but on the party with which he is associated. It is much to be regretted that the merits of the amendment should be decided oh such an ancient interpretation or ruling as that which has been quoted. Whatever the Chairman’s opinions may be, I seriously suggest to him that he is on dangerous ground, and that he ought to see the wisdom of withdrawing the ruling. This he could do with honour, if he realizes that his view is a wrong one. I have no desire to take up time in discussing this matter, but wish rather to facilitate the public business, and to get at the root of the trouble with which we are dealing. I can readily understand that, with the continuous sittings, the Presiding Officer may not be quite so clear in his comprehension, or so alert, as he is under ordinary circumstances ; and this affords another reason for his reviewing the decision at which he has arrived. Should he” decide to retrace his steps, he will thereby restore to the House those rights which I feel are being quietly frittered away. We ought not to be living on precedents, but making them ; and we now have a chance to take our own course. If the ruling is, as it may be, upheld, I sincerely hope the position will receive serious consideration, so that the legitimate objects of honorable members may not be defeated.

Mr Anstey:

– I am deeply surprised, after our long association, Mr. Chairman, that you should reflect on me in the way you have, for it seems to me that your decision can be regarded in no other light.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the honorable member to discuss the question before the Committee.

Mr Anstey:

– You, Mr. Chairman, have decided that I moved that amendment in a spirit of mockery, and I resent that ruling as holding me up to opprobrium. What is there in my conduct, as a member of this House, to lead you to believe that I would submit any proposal in a spirit of mockery? There is in the amendment an entire absence of mockery. The clause prohibiting the granting of preference to unionists is itself a mockery, and you would be properly exercising your functions if, when it came before you, you swept it out of existence. The terms which you apply to my amendment may very well be addressed on a subsequent occasion to the clause itself, for the benefit of the Government. Will you kindly explain why you have come to the conclusion that the amendment is submitted in a spirit of mockery? Will you tell me what there is in it of an ethereal character? There is nothing spiritual or spirituous in it. It is a material proposition. It deals with contractors and lawyers. Surely, they are material enough. If you will kindly tell me what there is spiritual in it, or what mockery there is in it, I will listen to you with delight. Will nothing I can say induce you to give us a few reasons for your ruling? Can nothing I say draw you from your stolid silence in order to extend our knowledge on the subject? It would save a large amount of time on subsequent occasions if we knew what you mean by spirit, and what by mockery. Can we not arrive at a clear and definite understanding which will guide somebody else when he occupies the Chair when, worn out with your labours, you retire to the rest you deserve. This matter is highly important. Once more I appeal to you, I supplicate you, to provide us with reasons on this allimportant subject. Are you prepared to give the same decision on every amendment that is put before you ? I have advanced a hundred reasons why you should advance one for our consideration. If I could only argue long enough with you, I am sure you would withdraw your ruling, which is injurious to our deliberations. Parliament cannot come to a proper decision if you are going to rule out an amendment upon purely hypothetical grounds. What do you mean by spirit? In what way do you apply the word? It has a wide meaning. There is the spirit of morning, the spirit of night, the spirit that walks in gloom, the spirit that guards our slumbers, the Scotch spirit, and the Irish spirit, the spirit of our race, and the spirit in and out of bottles. You surely do not mean to insinuate that that is the spirit animating us in our deliberations at this hour ? You know it is not. It is not even the spirit of coffee or tea. All words have a meaning ; what is the meaning of this word upon which you rule out every endeavour on the part of myself or my colleagues to table some proposition which will express our views ? Leaving the word spirit to mean what it may - and God knows what it does mean in the mind of the Chairman - I come again to the word mockery. Prom your long knowledge of men, have you any conception or idea that I would attempt to move anything that amounts to mockery? The Bill is a prohibition of preference. We want to lay down to whom that prohibition is to apply. We want it to apply, not to a few purely industrial organizations, but to honorable gentlemen like the AttorneyGeneral. May we not enlarge the Bill to apply the prohibition of preference to some particular class ? As it stands now, it contains some words signifying nothing. I protest against any ruling by any Chairman upon grounds so flimsy. If such a ruling is upheld, no motion or amendment can ever be moved in this chamber with any certainty that it will be accepted. On the grounds I have stated, it is high time that we disagreed with your ruling, and I therefore support the motion.

Motion - That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from - negatived.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I move -

That after the word “ Preference “ the following words be inserted : “ to the Bar Association, to the British Medical Association, to the Contractors and Employers Associations, &c.”

I desire to state most emphatically that I am moving this amendment seriously. I want an opportunity to record my vote in this matter on behalf of my constituents, and I move the amendment in accordance with the practice laid down in the 11th edition of May, page 485. The amendment deals with the question of preference or discrimination which is the subject-matter of the Bill, and I submit that I am entitled to move it on the title of the Bill as a preliminary to a proposed alteration which will be submitted on clause 2. The amendment is consistent with the Bill, and as amendments may be made, according to May, in any part of a Bill, I contend that I am entitled to submit it. Some honorable members may think it would be better to move the amendment in another part of the Bill, but the point is not whether they like the title with those words in it or not. The whole point is that it must be consistent with and relevant to the Bill, and this amendment is both.

I object most emphatically to the class nature of the measure before the Chamber. It is aimed directly at the trade union organizations of this country. There are other associations which it is more than doubtful whether the measure covers, and now is our opportunity to make sure that the scope of the measure includes the professional classes as well as the tradesmen gathered together in trade organizations. There have been references throughout the debate on the measure, to the question of extending the prohibition of preference to the Bar Association, British Medical Association, and the Employers Association. If there is to be preference, we should see that it is all-round preference, and not one to suit a particular class. We know that the trade-union movement has been made the target for the attacks of those on the other side. Governments which have preceded the present Government have been guilty of favoritism to their particular friends. The matter was brought up time after time in the Senate. The Deputy Postmaster-General in Victoria publicly objected to the preference that Liberal Governments extended to individuals in the Postal Department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is generalizing too much.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It is our aim to see that this favoritism is not extended. Therefore, I shall move an amendment to clause 2.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member cannot, in discussing the short title, discuss what he intends to move in another portion of the Bill.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Government in their programme last session, stated that they intended to introduce a measure dealing with favoritism in the Public Service.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member cannot discuss the Bill on the short title.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I propose to alter the title to cover certain groups of associations, and I submit that, in order to prevent any similar discrimination or favoritism being given in the future, I am entitled to discuss those associations and the manner in which they are operating in the Commonwealth employment, also the manner in which so-called Liberal Ministers have, in the past, given favoritism. The British Medical Association have been asserting a claim to discrimination or favoritism. The friendly societies have had experience of their claim.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is delivering what is practically a second-reading speech. I cannot allow any honorable member to discuss questions of preference on the short title of the Bill.

Mr j H CATTS:

– On the next clause I shall take the opportunity to do so. Representing large bodies of workmen the Bill aims at prejudicing, and is directly aimed at, I can only enter my protest against the title given to the measure. The Bill is most obnoxious and extreme class legislation, and I desire to have the title altered in order to indicate that the National Parliament is going to deal fairly with all classes. Seeing that the measure is aimed at what trade unions have won for themselves in spite of honorable members opposite and those who preceded them, I should have the opportunity to alter the title and take out of it some of the class-poison it contains. The preference gained by trade unions has been won in the teeth of honorable members opposite.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is again out of order.

Mr j H CATTS:

– I trust we shall take a vote to test the bona fides of the Government. There may not be another opportunity, as one never knows what may happen in a House where proceedings are conducted in such a manner as in this. Let us test the spirit of fair play that Ministers talk about, and see whether they are prepared to agree to legislation that will have jurisdiction over all classes of the community.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the honorable member proposes to insert in the short title certain particulars that would altogether destroy its pretence to be called a short title, I must rule, on the ground of common sense, that the particulars proposed to be inserted are quite out of order.

Mr j H Catts:

– I move -

That the ruling of the. Chairman bc dissented from.

The Chairman has ruled out my amendment because it does not fit in with common sense.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I also pointed out that it destroyed the short title as a short title.

Mr j H Catts:

– On what authority can the Chairman say that the short title should be limited to so many words? The Chairman has given us an absolutely arbitrary decision, without rhyme or reason. He does not say that the words I propose to insert are irrelevant, or that the subjectmatter of the amendment which has been discussed for days by the AttorneyGeneral, by the ex- Attorney- General, and by other leading members of the Chamber, is inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the measure; but he says that no one may submit an amendment to enable the title of the Bill to be declared in a certain number of other words. Such a ruling is preposterous. As to the further objection that the amendment is opposed to common sense, one would think that the Chairman had sought for the most insulting word in the dictionary to apply to it. A man who resorts to epithets exhibits his weakness.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I used no epithet; and the honorable member is not in order in reflecting on the Chair.

Mr J H Catts:

– You said that the amendment was against common sense.

Mr Boyd:

– And the Chairman was not far wrong.

Mr J H Catts:

– Of course the Chairman is the nominee of the partyopposite.

Mr Boyd:

– I move -

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Cook must withdraw his reflection on the Chair.

Mr J H Catts:

– I withdraw the remark.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the ruling of the Chairman be dissented from - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr. Anstey. - Mr. Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– There can be no debate.

Mr Tudor:

– Why? The closure motion that has been carried applied only to your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Paragraph b of standing order A, under which the closure motion was put, provides that -

When the motion “ That the question be now put “ has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, anyfurther motion may be at once made which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair.

The question “ That clause 1 stand as printed,” has been put from the Chair; and, as I interpret the standing order that I have just read, it falls within the scope of the closure.

Mr Mcdonald:

– The closure was moved in reference to a motion to dissent from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and that is the question that has been decided. The closure must be again carried to prevent discussion on the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I submit that nothing can intervene at this stage, not even a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Kennedy has asked me a question. Strictly speaking, he is not in order.

Mr Mcdonald:

– Whatever May may say has nothing to do with the point before us. Under the Standing Orders recourse is had to May only in regard to matters on which our own Standing Orders are silent. The standing order that you have read is explicit.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Kennedy overlooks the fact that my ruling, from which it was proposed to disagree, was on an amendment to the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed.” May says, at page 225 -

Questions claimed under a previous closure motion. As has been explained on page 219, after a closure motion has been moved and acted upon, any member may claim that such further questions may be put forthwith as are requisite to bring to a decision the question already proposed from the Chair, no second closure motion being necessary.

That shows beyond question that my decision in this matter is correct.

Mr McDonald:

– I move that your ruling be dissented from. That motion must be at once discussed by the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In pursuance of the Standing Orders, I have now to put the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed.” The closure has been carried.

Mr McDonald:

– This is a violation of the Standing Orders.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is not.

Mr McDonald:

– An attempt is being made to wipe away the whole procedure of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have ruled that the closure motion applied to the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed,” it being already before the Chair when the closure was carried.

Mr McDonald:

– I rise to a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There can be no point of order.

Mr Mcdonald:

– You allowed the’ Prime Minister to raise one.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No.

Mr Mcdonald:

– The Prime Minister has no more rights in this chamber than I have. If we allow the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed “ to be put now, we cannot at any future time discuss a motion to dissent from your ruling, Mr. Chairman. That is what it is desired to prevent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not allow the Prime Minister to raise a point of order. On the contrary, I permitted the honorable member for Kennedy to speak. The present discussion is out of order, and I cannot allow it to proceed further.

Mr Mcdonald:

– Can we discuss your ruling after the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed “ has been decided? If we cannot dissent from your ruling now, we shall have no other opportunity to discuss it, because it will be ruled that other business has intervened.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have given my interpretation of the Standing Orders, which I am bound to enforce. My duty is to put the question “ That clause 1 stand as printed.” I trust that whatever differences of opinion there may be, honorable members will assist me in preserving order.

Mr Hughes:

– You should at least hear argument on the point raised, Mr. Chairman. In declining to do so, you are departing from the attitude that you took up when you allowed dissent to be moved from an earlier ruling. Although the point raised has to do with the effect of a closure motion, you have no right to depart from a nractice which applies in regard to all your decisions, whether on the closure or anything else. Dissent from your ruling having been moved, the motion to dissent must be discussed before the main question can be put from the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Under the Standing Orders, there can be no discussion.

Mr Hughes:

– Then, what remedy have we? When there is a doubt, you ought not to resolve it against the Committee.

Mr Mcdonald:

– This is the first time that this has been done.

Question - That clause 1 stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 12.15 to 12.45 a.m. (Saturday).

Mr HIGGS:

– I move -

That your ruling that it is not necessary to have a new motion “ that the question be now put,” on any question before the Chair be dissented from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have just said that I cannot accept such a motion.

Mr Higgs:

– I wish to have your refusal to do so placed on record.

Mr Gregory:

– On a point of order, I wish to ask what is the question before the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no doubt that the discussion which has taken place since the Committee resumed is quite irregular. I permitted it in my desire to enable honorable members to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. I must again point out that it is out of my power to do what the honorable member for Capricornia wishes. I can only return now to clause 2.

Mr Higgs:

– You refuse, sir, to accept my motion?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have no alternative.

Clause 2 -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth or. by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership ornon-membership of any political or industrial association.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I have observed that the Government put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor-General the following words in paragraph 3 of the opening Speech : -

During the first session of this Parliament, “my Ministers, for reasons which they advise me were beyond their control, were unable to pass legislation on many subjects outlined in their policy statement presented to you on 12th August last. Those subjects comprised Bills dealing with the prohibition of preference or favoritism in Government employment, and the restoration of the electoral provisions for voting by post.

Honorable members will observe the strange difference between this Bill and that referred to in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. If any evidence were necessary to show that this Bill has for its intent and purpose anything but the prevention of favoritism, it is to be found in the difference between what the GovernorGeneral said it was to be and what it really is. Honorable members will search in vain in this Bill to discover any word to indicate that favoritism is not to prevail.

Mr Kelly:

– “ No preference or discrimination.”

Mr FISHER:

– The word “favoritism “ is in the Governor-General’s Speech, but it is not in the Bill. Why was it dropped?

Mr Kelly:

– What is preference and discrimination but favoritism ?

Mr FISHER:

– Why was the word “favoritism” dropped from this Bill? Was it to save printer’s ink?

Mr Ahern:

– If some one discriminates in the honorable gentleman’s interests, is not that favoritism ?

Mr FISHER:

– Why put the word “ favoritism “ into the mouth of the GovernorGeneral if it was unnecessary, and why leave it out of the Bill if it was necessary ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable gentleman contend that everything that appears in the Governor-General’s Speech should be also in a Bill? .

Mr FISHER:

– I can understand from what the Prime Minister now says that he regards it as a matter of indifference what is put into the mouth of the GovernorGeneral.

Mr Kelly:

– It is in effect the same thing, although the words are not reproduced verbatim.

Mr FISHER:

– It is generally understood that responsible Ministers carefully scan what they ask the Representative of the Crown to read, because he is reading it, not only to Parliament, but to the people. Now, according to Ministers, it seems that what the Governor-General says in his opening Speech is a matter of indifference.

Mr Kelly:

– What he said is in this Bill.

Mr FISHER:

– It is not. If Ministers desire to put it in, I shall move it, and the Prime Minister will no doubt accept it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– All right; let the honorable gentleman move it. Put it in.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall move that the word “ favoritism “ be inserted, and the Prime Minister, I understand, will accept that amendment?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Oh, no.

Mr FISHER:

– The Prime Minister has just assented to putting the word in, and now he withdraws; and why? Because the Government intend to use their power to discriminate against unionists, and to put on their favorites. Favoritism is being used, and will be used, but the Bill says specifically that unionists shall have no claim. They may fight the battles of their union for preference, and suffer for it outside, but if they seek Government employment they are not to get it. The favorites of the Government are to be employed, and the word “ favoritism “ has been ‘ specifically omitted from the Bill for that purpose.

Mr Webster:

– The honorable member for Darling Downs knows something about it.

Mr FISHER:

-The honorable member for Darling Downs has told the Prime Minister not to agree to the amendment, because the Government would not have the privilege they desire, and would have to forego all favoritism.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable gentleman is quite mistaken as to what I said to the Prime Minister.

Mr FISHER:

– Did not the Prime Minister accept my amendment?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No; I told the honorable gentleman to put it in if he wanted to.

Mr FISHER:

– I asked whether, if I moved the amendment, the Government would agree to put in the word, and both the Prime Minister and the Honorary Minister accepted it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No; I said I had no objection to the honorable gentleman moving it.

Mr FISHER:

– Then the Minister of Trade and Customs made some communication to the Prime Minister, and he altered his opinion. I ask again why the word “ favoritism “ is used in the third paragraph of the Governor-General’s Speech and is omitted from the Bill?

Mr Groom:

– Is not a preference to a political association favoritism ?

Mr FISHER:

– Why was the word “ favoritism “ put into the mouth of the Governor-General ? I have searched all the Speeches made by Governors-General, and I have never seen the word in any other. It was inserted in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech for a special purpose, and now we find it omitted from the Bill referred to in the paragraph of the Speech in which the word is used.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The thing is in; it does not matter what the word is.

Mr Groom:

– The evil the honorable gentleman aims at is prohibited by clause 2.

Mr FISHER:

– Unions are prohibited by the clause.

Mr Groom:

– No, they are not.

Mr FISHER:

– What is the objection to the word “ favoritism “ going into the Bill?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I will tell the honorable gentleman if he will sit down.

Mr FISHER:

– I presume that it is not because it would not be correct, but because it would make the measure differ from the previous Bill. That is what the Minister of Trade and Customs has just whispered to the Prime Minister.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is an absolutely incorrect statement. Do you not think it contemptible procedure on your part ? I rise to a point of order.

Mr Fisher:

– And I call attention to the word “ contemptible.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I withdraw the word, and I direct the attention of the Chairman to an unusual procedure which has sprung up during the last twelve months, since honorable members have been in Opposition, that is, to make accusations concerning conversations which they do not hear, and which they cannot hear. The practice is contemptible. Honorable members have no right to repeat statements which are quite incorrect.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! That is no point of order.

Mr McDonald:

– I rise to a point of order. The Prime Minister spoke of a contemptible accusation, and withdrew the statement. Is he now in order in repeating it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Expressions of that kind are distinctly disorderly. I understood the Prime Minister had withdrawn the word, and I did not notice him repeating it. Honorable members must accept a disclaimer straight away.

Mr FISHER:

– The addition of the words “ no favoritism “ will improve the clause. They cannot do injury, and certainly will do good, being a declaration of policy that will affect the action of all. Governments. The experience of the world has shown that favoritism has been: rampant wherever the plutocratic or privileged classes have been in power. A Royal Commission in England has just reported to this effect. Strange to say, the Commissioners do not condemn the practice utterly. They have gone no further than saying that when the patronage is exercised by a Government, Parliament should be supplied with the qualifications of the persons who are employed. In Australia no prominent Labour man was appointed to the Public Service before the advent of Labour Governments, and it is only since Labour Governments have come into power that, one or two of Labour sympathies, which they expressed openly and honorably, have been employed; yet the Labour Governments have been accused of political patronage of the worst kind. Not 10 per cent. of Labourites have been appointed to offices of patronage in the States or the Commonwealth. Facts are very stubborn things. Two men in particular have been referred to. Mr. Ryland is one of them. The Minister of Trade and Customs sneered at his qualifications.

Mr Groom:

– That is on a par with - well, I shall not say it; but I do say that I have never publicly criticised Mr. Ryland’s appointment, nor sneered at his qualifications.

Mr FISHER:

– I apologize to the honorable member. Brother Ryland, as he has been referred to by the Prime Minister, needs no defence from me. No more honorable, straightforward, upright man Jives in Australia.

Mr Richard Foster:

– No one has .said anything different.

Mr FISHER:

– I am glad now that I have the opportunity to do justice to a man who has been wronged. Mr. Ryland did not go willingly to that position in the Northern Territory; but I was exceedingly anxious that he should go to it, because of his knowledge of farming generally and of land matters. Of course, the honorable member for Wakefield, who laughs, knows better.

Mr Richard Foster:

– So do a good many others.

Mr FISHER:

Mr. Ryland had valuable knowledge of local government law through his long experience as councillor and mayor of Gympie, and he had long parliamentary experience.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is this in order?

Mr FISHER:

– I am dealing with the matter of favoritism, and surely things have come to a rare pass when, because t try to do justice to one man, the Prime Minister asks whether I should be allowed to do so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Notwithstanding the right honorable member’s indignation, I must rise to a point of order. The right honorable member has no right to traverse Mr. Ryland’s qualifications, except as they relate to some organization, and his association with that organization in connexion with his appointment as a public . servant. The right honorable member has no right to go into an elaborate analysis of Mr. Ryland’s qualifications, as they have no connexion with the clause of the Bill.

Mr Fisher:

– I am entitled to illustrate my argument by names and questions of fact. I am bound to show the inter-relationship between one person and another representing an organization complained of, and other persons who do not belong to the organization. I am entitled to show the necessity for carrying an amendment prohibiting favoritism.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The argument of the honorable member may have been laboured. Illustrations may not be discussed at unusual length in Committee, but I can see nothing to justify my interfering with the speech of the honorable member at this point.

Mr FISHER:

– I was speaking in regard to the report of the Royal Commission of Great Britain which laid down the principle that, although patronage should not be absolutely condemned, certain conditions should be laid down. One of those conditions was that the qualifications of the person appointed to any office should be given to Parliament. I further illustrated my point by indicating a person who was appointed by ourselves, but who has been superseded by this Government. Some honorable members opposite suggest that he was unfit for the position.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I would let that alone if I were the right honorable member. He will get nothing out of it.

Mr FISHER:

– I have heard these sneering insinuations before. What does the honorable gentleman mean by his words, “ You will get nothing out of it “ ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They are not sneering insinuations.

Mr Bennett:

– The Prime Minister means that the right honorable member will get no change out of it.

Mr FISHER:

– If the Prime Minister says that, I will stand by my friend, and I will say that I honour him as a friend and a citizen.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The very essence of favoritism: “ Stand by my friend.”

Mr FISHER:

– The Government may either pass this Bill in a form that aims a blow at unionism, or use it as a placard, declaring that it is to prohibit favoritism, while at the same time it leaves open the door to the patronage that can be given by any Government to its friends and supporters. If the Government are anxious to adopt the open course, they will accept my proposed amendment, since it would place the friends of any Government in exactly the same position as an ordinary citizen in respect of employment in the Public Service. At present that need not be. I move -

That after the word “ No,” line 1, the word “ favoritism “ be. inserted.

Mr GROOM:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Darling Downs · LP

– The Leader of the - Opposition says that this Bill does not aim at putting down favoritism. If it does not, then I am at a loss to know at what it does aim. Before the right honorable gentleman and his colleagues took office, the rule in regard to the temporary employment in the Commonwealth service was that -

Whenever, in the opinion of the Minister of a Department, the prompt despatch of the business of a Department renders temporary assistance necessary, and the Commissioner is unable to provide such assistance from other Departments in the State in which such assistance is required, the Permanent Head or the Chief Officer shall select in such manner as may be prescribed from the persons whose names are upon the prescribed register in the State in which such assistance is required, such person or persons who are available as appear to be best qualified for such work……

That was the rule before the Labour Government issuedits Executive minute. It was laid down by the Public Service Act that the men best qualified for such work should be appointed. Up to that time no Government knew or cared anything about the political or industrial opinions of an applicant for employment in the Service.

Mr J H Catts:

– But that rule did not apply to day labour.

Mr GROOM:

– I have just quoted from the Public Service Act the provision relating to the temporary services of the Commonwealth. The Labour party, on coming into power, however, issued an order that, other things being equal, unionists should be preferred.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GROOM:

– That meant, not that the best man qualified for a position should be selected, but that, other things being equal, a unionist was to be preferred for temporary employment in the Commonwealth Service. Where two men of equal ability applied for such a job, then the unionist had to receive the preference. The Labour party have expressed the hope that unions will take political action. The honorable member for Denison, at a conference held about June last, urged, with Mr. Earle, that the unions should become political in their action. Their politics are the politics of the Labour party, so that honorable members opposite desire the unions to take political action to support and keep them in Parliament. The Labour Government issued an Executive order declaring that, other things being equal, unionists should be appointed in preference to non-unionists in temporary and casual employment in the Public Service. In other words, preference was to be given where unions were political to those who politically supported them. Was that not favoritism ?

Mr Arthur:

– No.

Mr GROOM:

– It was favoritism.

Mr Arthur:

– The . present Government have abolished all that.

Mr GROOM:

– Was it not right to do so ?

Mr Arthur:

– Yes; but why all this fuss?

Mr GROOM:

– You admit that it was political favoritism, and that we have abolished the system. It is the will of the people of Australia that there shall be no political preferences in connexion with the Commonwealth Service, and it must be made the law of the land.

Mr Brennan:

– This Bill can have no effect while the present Government are in power ?

Mr GROOM:

– It should have effect whether we or any other party are in power.

Mr Brennan:

– Then if we came back from the people with a mandate, it should also remain?

Mr GROOM:

– If the Labour party came back to power with a desire to give political patronage, and the people of Australia would allow them to do so, they could enact what they chose.

Mr Brennan:

– I said that if we came back with a mandate.

Mr GROOM:

– Our mandate from the people is that there shall be no preference or favoritism in connexion with appointments to the Public Service. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition should have associated my name with the criticism of Mr. Ryland. I have purposely abstained from criticising him in this House, and have never said a word against his personal integrity.

Mr Fisher:

– I take it that the honorable gentleman says that he did not criticise him outside the House?

Mr GROOM:

– I cannot recall having done so. The Leader of the Opposition has now challenged me, however, to express my opinion as to his capacity and fitness. Whatever position Mr. Ryland may take up he will have my good wishes, but if I were asked for my opinion I should say that he was not fitted to fill the position to which he was appointed by the late Government. The right honorable member for Wide Bay interjected, “What about favoritism?” but in his speech a few moments ago he indicated pretty clearly his attitude, when he said, “ I will stand by my friend.” He was referring, perhaps, to what he would do in his private capacity rather than to his attitude as a member of the Executive. I do not wish to carry his statement too far.

Mr.Fisher. - Carry it as far as you like.

Mr GROOM:

– If it was intended to be a declaration of what his administration would be, then I can only say that such administration would not be sound. I shall do all that I can to prevent political patronage being introduced in connexion with the Public Service of Australia.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– The Minister of Trade and Customs has endeavoured to belittle the attempt made by the Leader of the Opposition to improve this Bill, and to make political favoritism impossible. When the amendment was first suggested, the Prime Minister was really in favour of it, but he suddenly changed his mind. That was so apparent, that no member in his sober senses could come to any other conclusion. I wish to help the Government in protecting the Public Service from political or other improper influence. I do not think that it has yet been subjected to such influence, but we are legislating for the future. The Government has succeeded in carrying the second reading of the Bill by tactics which do not do them credit, and though it is galling to be defeated in such a way, the Opposition must submit. We have been sitting in this chamber much too long, and I hope that the Prime Minister will not allow himself to be actuated by any illfeeling that may have been generated by the heat of the discussions.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– It seemed to be the deliberate intention of the Minister of Trade and Customs to create the belief in the minds of those who may read the report of his speech that preference to unionists was introduced by the last Government into the appointments to the permanent Public Service of the country.

Mr Groom:

– I said distinctly that it was not, and that it had affected only the appointment of temporary employes.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The appointment of temporary officials to the service of the various Departments, as, for instance, the appointment of temporary letter-carriers, was not affected.

Mr Groom:

– The minute of the Fisher Government applied to such appointments.

Mr J H CATTS:

– It did not. A week or two ago I read in a newspaper report some remarks made by the honor able member to the effect that preference to unionists had been applied by the Fisher Government to all appointments to the Public Service.

Mr Fisher:

– That is how the Minister is reported to have spoken at Hawthorn.

Mr Groom:

– I did not say that.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Whatever the Minister may have said, that was the meaning which his words conveyed to the reporter, and it is not surprising, in view of his remarks to-night, that he was misunderstood. The Public Service Act has never been held to apply to employment on public works such as the transcontinental railway.

Mr Fisher:

– Those appointments are specially provided for.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes. Has one solitary navvy applied to the Public Service Commissioner for work on the transcontinental railway ? The Minister should be fair. He knows that his remarks will be used, if there should be another electoral campaign soon, to make it appear that the Fisher Government applied the principle of preference to unionists to appointments to the permanent service of the Commonwealth.

Mr Groom:

– My remarks cannot be so used.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Without that explanation they would scarcely bear any other construction. If we are to have a fight, I hope that our opponents will tell the truth in this matter.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– The Minister of Trade and Customs, when I spoke about standing by my friends when maligned, misrepresented, and abused, asked me what I meant, and I replied that I would stand by them in any way. He placed the worst construction possible on those words, and suggested that I had stood by my friends by helping them with Government money.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is precisely what the honorable member did.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that reflection upon the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I say that the Leader of the Opposition, when in power, did exactly what he speaks of. He gave a good lucrative position in the Northern Territory to one of his friends.

Mr FISHER:

– The appointment referred to was a good one; the capacity, honour, and integrity of the person appointed being undoubted. The public got good return for the money that was paid to him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Minister of External Affairs does not think so.

Mr Thomas:

– He has not said so.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The public did not get a good return.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member for Wakefield belonged to a State political party in South Australia which wasted more money in the Northern Territory than all other parties put together have done.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Fisher Government has erected monuments there that will remain for ever.

Mr FISHER:

– I stand by my friends when they are down and are being improperly treated. In the Queensland Parliament there was quite a brotherinlaw epidemic at one time. When the Labour Government took office in Queensland in 1899 for a brief period, it discovered that the so-called Liberal party had favoured their friends in every possible way. The great Barron Falls were given away secretly to favorites. There were scores of agents for syndicate railways in the State, but they all left within a week of our coming into office, and, ever since, syndicate railway proposals, so far as Queensland is concerned, have been dead. I need not defend my own Government’s acts, because they are public, and have been long before the country. As to the appointment of Mr. George Ryland to be Director of Lands in the Northern Territory, I urged Mr. Ryland to accept the position, because I thought that he would make an exceptionally good public servant. In my opinion, no man would more readily do everything possible to help settlers in the Northern Territory to make a beginning. I am sorry that the Commonwealth has lost Mr. Ryland’s services. As to the appointment of Dr. Jensen, if there is an able geologist and scientist in Australia, that gentleman is one. Whatever his political creed may be, the Commonwealth is lucky to be getting his services at the price that is being paid for them.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I wish, first of all, to protest against the brutal tyranny of the Government in forcing the Bill through in this way when we have been nearly 48 hours without rest. I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not at once accept the amendment. Did not the Government put into the mouth of the GovernorGeneral the words -

Those subjects comprised Bills dealing with the prohibition of preference or favoritism in Government employment.

Preference and favoritism are two different things. Of two men seeking work from the Government, one may be preferred to another, but in order that favoritism may be exercised, it is not necessary that an individual should seek employment. The members of the Government might know of some persons to whom they would show favoritism, as Governments have done in the past. It has been suggested that the late Ministry were guilty of favoritism in giving a position to Mr. George Ryland, who was at one time member for Gympie in the Queensland Parliament, and to Dr. Jensen, a very successful and able University student. Dr. Jensen had a more distinguished scholastic career than even the Minister of Trade and Customs, whose name appears in Who’s Who as a distinguished scholar of Ormond College. 1 make the comparison, because it has been suggested that a wrongful preference was shown by the late Ministry in appointing Mr. George Ryland and Dr. Jensen. Those two little appointments are like the swallow which does not make a summer. If life were not too short, we might look into the appointments made by the present Government, and by Governments with which the Prime Minister was associated under Sir George Reid and others.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Would it not be better to let these men alone. Why drag their names in?

Mr HIGGS:

– The Prime Minister knows that he made a victim of Mr. George Ryland. That gentleman was deprived of his position by the Government, not as an act of favoritism, but because of their antipathy to unions and to Labour politicians.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Nobody believes that but the honorable member.

Mr HIGGS:

– I wish I had the time to go through the long list of appointments made by Liberal Governments to show the preference and favoritism they have shown, not to men who had succeeded in spite of great obstacles in working their way up from the ranks, but to the “ curled darlings of society.” Liberal Governments have never been known to give a Labour sympathizer an appointment.

They might give a Labour sympathizer a temporary job in the Post Office as a letter-sorter or some . humble position of that kind, but honorable members opposite cannot mention an instance in which a Labour sympathizer has received from a Liberal Government an appointment worth £300 a year.

Mr Fleming:

– Such appointments were made before we had a Labour Government in New South Wales.

Mr HIGGS:

– If so, it must have been when the Liberals had the support of the Labour party, and thought it wise to throw them a few crumbs. We have found it necessary on many occasions to amend the wording of Bills introduced in this House, and the insertion of the word “ favoritism “ in this Bill would make the measure more perfect. What is the objection to the insertion of the word?

Mr Kelly:

– It is already provided for by the words of the clause.

Mr HIGGS:

– No. One gives a preference to one of two persons, but favoritism is in a different category altogether. I suppose that honorable members opposite decline to make any alteration whatever in the Bill, and are determined .that it shall consist only of the few words it now contains. The AttorneyGeneral, I suppose, in drawing up the clause, thought that the fewer the number of words in the Bill, the less talk there would be upon it. But that does not always follow. As honorable members are aware, many long Scotch sermons have been preached on very small texts. I hope the country will observe the tactics of honorable members on the Ministerial side, who, but for an occasional “ aplurt “ from the Minister of Trade and Customs, remain silent, with the sullen determination to force the clause through in its present form, and defeat the amendment. I hope the matter will go to a vote, so that we may know how honorable members stand, and how they can square their actions in the House with their professions on the public platform.

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

– I would not have spoken had it not been for the most unkind misrepresentation to which I have been subjected by the Minister of Trade and Customs. I have said nothing about desiring unions to become political bodies that I might use my influence to get Government positions for the members of those unions.

I challenge the Minister’ to prove that a member of the Labour party has ever placed a unionist in a Government position on the ground that that unionist is supposed to have voted for him. Let the Minister make a direct charge. To say that we gave preference to unionists for political purposes was utterly unfair. To say that appointments of men, known to honorable members on both sides’ of the House as fully qualified for the positions to which they were appointed, came about through preference to unionists or favoritism is absurd. Unfortunately, statements like those made by the Minister are misunderstood when they go abroad. They convey to the people outside Australia a meaning which is totally different from that given to them by those acquainted with the facts. It is to be regretted that such statements should be made, and that a clause such as this should be placed in a Bill that comes before us for our consideration. I trust that every honorable member will speak upon this clause, so that his opinion may be conveyed to his constituents, and through them to others who may not be so well acquainted with preference to unionists as it has been applied in Australia. It was applied merely for the purpose of preventing a disastrous strike, and in order to bring about industrial peace. There is no sadder sight than that of a worker out of employment, and I can see no objection to any honorable member giving a letter of character in order to recommend a man to a Minister, and secure for him a position in the Government casual service - not in the permanent service, as the Minister of Trade and Customs would try to make us believe. I refer to carpenters on construction work, and to labourers excavating telephone conduits; to men who do that class of work cheaper than it could be done by contract.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

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

– I merely refer to the conduit system at Ballarat in order to show that no favoritism was used to bring about the excellent work done there by men who are unionists, and who worked so faithfully that the Department saved £700 on a £2,000 job, as compared with what it would have cost by contract. Yet they are the men who are supposed to have received favoritism at the hands of the late Government. I trust that the word “ favoritism “ will be added to the clause so that we can understand it, and so that we may convey to the people that the Labour party are opposed to favoritism being extended to any person or class of persons. I have read an article in the Age, showing the favoritism that has been extended to politicians desirous of getting friends into the Public Service of Great” Britain. We do not want that kind of thing in Australia.. That is the system by which word passes from prominent men to the heads of Departments, and certain men get appointments, not on casual work, but on the permanent staff, where there is no check upon their labours. That is not the case with casual work, because foremen must account for the work performed by each and every casual man. I challenge the Minister of Trade and Customs to prove his accusation. He mentioned my name in particular; but I hurl back the accusation in his teeth, and say that he cannot prove that I have been guilty of interceding on behalf of any individual because he voted for me.

Mr Groom:

– I did not say that.

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

– The Minister cannot point out any honorable member of the House who has been guilty of this practice. It is all very well to make these charges in the House, where we know the circumstances, but it is unfair to make them against honorable members collectively and individually for the purpose of taking them into the backblocks, where people are not so well acquainted with politics, and it will be trotted out’ that the honorable member for. Darling Downs says so-and-so. The Minister has not the courage to make the charge here that any honorable member for political purposes has secured a billet for any person.

Mr Groom:

– Is it not correct that the honorable member advocated that unions should become more and more political ?

Mr McDonald:

– I advocated that.

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

– I have said that if unionists were alive to their interests they would become more political. I do not say that they should do so in order to get Government jobs.

Mr Groom:

– Still you admit that in the Public Service preference should be given to unionists.

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

– The honorable member is misrepresenting me. I have said that unionists will benefit through the Labour party being in power, because it is the aim of the Labour party to return to the worker the benefit of the product of his own labour.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– To give him preference?

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

– There is no preference about- it. Our aim is to give him a return for the wealth he produces, and to get off his back the class he has for so long been carrying. I am glad to hear the remarks of the Minister, because they will reach the workers of Darling Downs, and when we go before the people, those workers will be mindful of the abuse they have received from honorable gentlemen who legislate on behalf of a class, a very small class indeed, and give preference and favoritism to that class all along the line. I have heard of certain gentlemen attending garden parties, and of the influence of ladies on their husbands, who are in high places, to get these gentlemen billets. Such methods were useful in the days gone by, but we are drifting away from those days now. I do not believe that there is a unionist in Australia who would so belittle himself as to cringe, as the Minister would have us believe is done, to any honorable member to give him leave to toil. The workers realize the value of their work, and that they are doing something towards production. They know that they can demand the right to toil.

Colonel Ryrie. - Yet you cannot trust them with the postal vote, because you are afraid the bosses will influence them.

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

– I would not like to trust the honorable member with anything. I should not like to trust the honorable member to work for me by the day. I should have to display a lot of favoritism to keep him on. Let us be fair to the workers who to-day receive only a third of that which they produce. At the very most only 2,000 are affected by this question of preference to persons in Government employment. We gave preference to unionists, because a few non-unionists secured employment on a big Commonwealth building, and the unionists said that they would not work with them. The Minister, as he explained at the time, insisted upon unionists being employed in order to avert a strike. I have not been able to find a non-unionist working on any big building in Melbourne or Sydney. The unions are strong enough at present to protect themselves, and their members refuse to work with nonunionists. Atone time mothers used to threaten naughty children with the bogy man, but I am told that to-day it is a common practice for them to say to their little ones, “ Look out. Here comes Mr. Irvine,” because of the fight he is putting up against unionism.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

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

– This clause strikes at the very root of unionism. We oppose it, and desire at least so to amend it as to prevent favoritism of any kind. The workers put us here. They keep us here, and they expect us to do something while we are here. What sort of men would we be if we went back upon our principles, and failed to attack this clause as it ought to be attacked ? Honorable members opposite represent a union of capitalists on the one hand and a union of the small farmers on the other. The small farmers will soon be mopped up by the other section. They will eventually find out that they cannot even obtain justice, let alone favoritism, from the party opposite, because it behoves the representatives of the pastoralists to look after the interests of the big men all the time. The farmers are combining and co-operating all over the States so as to be able to buy in the cheapest and to sell in the dearest markets. They object, however, to our doing something for the men who have done so much for them. They have not always voted for us, but the passing of this clause will consolidate the ranks of Labour as they have never been before. We shall have such a consolidation of forces that when we go to the people, as I hope we shall soon do, for I am sick of being here night after night-

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Hear, hear!

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

– We shall secure a great victory. The honorable member for Wannon knows he will be given a very hard go at the next general election, hence I question the genuineness of his applause. Not long ago I visited a country State school, and was told by the teacher that the boys had to milk so many cows before going to school that they were really too tired to study. There are some men who want children to do the work so that they may reap the profits. No wonder that they object to preference to unionists and to the principle of unionism. Many farmers voted against us at the last general election, but they are coming into our ranks by the score. The small farmer and the workers in the country will note the failure of the supporters of the Government to speak for the men who put them where they are to-day. They will note the fact that they have remained silent while the Government have been libelling them. We have not heard from the country representatives opposite who were returned - not by the squatters, but by the toilers - a word in defence of the men who it is said would seek to use political influence, and even to spend money by securing jobs in the Government service at 7s. or 8s. a day. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. In any event, we shall be able to tell the people that we introduced a provision to prevent favoritism, not only to the man at the bottom of the ladder, but to the man on top.

Colonel Ryrie. - We have heard enough of this. I move -

That the question be now put.

Question - That the question be now put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the word “ favoritism,” proposed to be inserted (Mr. Fisher’s amendment) be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That clause 2 stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 30

Majority … … 1

In division -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

The observation made by the honorable member for Franklin was not disorderly, and I can take no notice of it unless I am informed that it is regarded as offensive by the honorable member concerned, in which case I shall ask that it be withdrawn.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I move -

That the following new clause be added : -

Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, this Bill, if it passes, shall not become law until the electors of the Commonwealth of Australia have the opportunity of voting for or against it, by means of the referendum.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will not think that I desire by this amendment to secure a catch vote. I expect that the’ Government will welcome the amendment. One of its effects will be to show whether the criticism passed upon the measure is deserved. It will show what the people think of the Bill, which will only be carried by the casting vote of the presiding officer of this chamber. I think that the people should have a say in this matter. The referendum is provided for in our Constitution as a means of settling a difference between the two Houses. It is probable that this Bill will meet the same fate as a similar Bill introduced last session. There will then be a distinct difference between the two Houses of this Parliament, and the Constitution provides for a referendum in such a case. The referendum is the most up-to-date method of settling parliamentary differences. In the United States there has been a silent evolution, more effective than a revolution, in favour of the referendum, and the senators of the second Chamber of the National Parliament of that country are now elected directly by the people instead of by the different States. The principle has been adopted in more than 230 cities of the United States, many of which are governed now by commissioners subject to the power of the initiative and referendum, backed up in many cases by the principle of the recall. I ask the Government whether the amendment I propose does not provide a fair way of settling the question involved in this Bill for all time. My own opinion is that the people of Australia will vote against the measure. The great democratic principle of the referendum has appealed not only to the most liberal, but also to some of the most conservative minds of Great Britain. The late Marquis of Salisbury, -when Prime Minister of England, supported the principle. I do not think that the Marquis of Salisbury would go as far as to accept the initiative and the recall, but now that there is a difference between the two Blouses anticipated, instead of putting the electors to the expense of a double dissolution, we should ascertain their opinion by means of a referendum. I am sure I shall have the support of the honorable member for Gippsland in my proposal.

Mr BENNETT:
Gippsland

.- Though I have on the noticepaper a motion to adopt the initiative referendum, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall not support the honorable member’s proposal. This matter of preference to unionists has already been submitted to the people. In Victoria, at any rate, it was one of the main fighting planks of the Liberal party. From the very first we laid down the principle that we would give no preference to any one or penalize any one on account of membership of any organization, and I am prepared to say that the people of Australia do not desire that this question should be again submitted to them; they have already given their’ opinion, the result being the overthrow of the late Government. I absolve the honorable member for Melbourne from blame for bringing forward upon this Bill the question of the referendum, but I repel the accusation of honorable members that I have attempted to forestall the honorable member. He had the whole of the last session in which he could have placed on the business-paper a motion dealing with the matter, and, notwithstanding that honorable members opposite pretend that the initiative referendum forms part of their policy, they omitted to put on the notice-paper last session any proposals to bring it into existence. It was, therefore, quite open to me to do so, and I did it with the best of intentions. I believe that before long the initiative referendum will be part of the Constitution of Australia.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– The suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne is the better way to obtain’ the opinion of the public regarding the question at issue. The honorable member for Gippsland is favorable to the incorporation of the initiative and referendum in our Constitution, but at the first opportunity he has to employ the system he advocates he opposes it, saying that the matter at issue has already been decided. I cannot agree with the honorable member that the question of preference to unionists was made a vital issue at the last appeal to the people. In very few constituencies was it heard of. But even if it was made an important issue, does the honorable member contend that the majority of votes was cast in favour of the proposal of the Government? As a matter of fact, Ministers actually received a minority of votes from the whole of Australia. Apparently the object of the honorable member for Gippsland in submitting his motion was to occupy the time of the House. It was a sort of show-window thing to be indulged in for the purpose of placing something before the people of which the honorable member does not actually approve, for when the honorable member gets the opportunity to demonstrate his opinions he takes every possible care to find some excuse to justify his voting against them, though this is the very time when the honorable member should exercise his right to vote for them. It is often said that honorable members of the Opposition are shackled and have no right of liberty, but here we have a gentleman, who recently desired the House to express an opinion as to whether we should adopt the principle of the referendum in order to ascertain the wishes of the electors in regard to any important questions, when he has the direct opportunity of voting to refer a matter to the people in order to prevent a dead-lock and permit Parliament to proceed with business for the national welfare, sheltering himself behind the statement that the matter has already been decided. An honorable member who would take up that attitude would excuse himself in regard to any question that might crop up. Hardly any question arises that has not been put before the electors in a veiled way.

Mr Bennett:

– You will catch at any straw to stave off the evil day.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The honorable member finds himself now in a position which may not recur for twenty years, and in which he may now give effect to the principle of the referendum, but yet he is running away from it upon an important question.

Mr Bennett:

– You said the other day that the Bill was the shadow of a sham.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The measure is considered to be so vitally important that Ministers say they are prepared to ask the Governor-General for a double dissolution upon it. If it is of that importance surely it is of sufficient importance to get the opinion of the electors upon it by means of a referendum. No one can say that there has been a direct appeal to the people in the matter of preference to unionists. The honorable member for Gippsland is deserting his principles because he thinks that in this case it is sufficiently important for party purposes to appeal to the Governor-General for a double dissolution.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– There is another point that the honorable member for Gippsland can bear in mind. There was nothing dealing with this matter in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Parramatta last year. It is a miserable afterthought. If the Bill goes through the House on the casting vote of the Speaker it will have no chance of getting through the Senate. Consequently, if he wishes to give effect to the principles of this Bill, it must go before the people in some shape or form.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then no referendum is necessary.

Mr J H CATTS:

– But the Government want a double dissolution, which would cost the country about £100,000, to have this Bill indorsed by the people. On the honorable member’s own showing there must be an appeal to the electors before this miserable proposal can have the sanction of the law. There is on the business-paper the following notice of motion in the name of the honorable member for Gippsland: -

That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution should be amended to provide machinery for the initiative referendum.

At the very first opportunity afforded him to give a vote in favour of the principle of the referendum the honorable member runs away from it. There was no sincerity on his part in giving notice of his motion.

Mr Bennett:

– I object to that statement, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I shall withdraw it, and say that there was apparently no sincerity on his part. It would be cruelty, however, to dumb animals to flagellate the honorable member further.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.The honorable member for Melbourne was one of the first to introduce to public attentionin Australia the principle of the initiative and referendum, and honorable members, whether they agree or disagree with the proposed new clause, must admit that he is quite consistent in submitting it. I am rather interested in noting the trouble in which the honorable member for Gippsland finds himself. It is remarkable that the usual silence on the Government side of the House should be suddenly disturbed by an attempt on the part of that honorable member to explain away something he has done. Whilst I generally display Christian fortitude and forbearance, I confess to a feeling, very wicked, I admit, in the direction that everything comes to him who waits. I have been for some time a victim of the honorable member’s wrath, although no one has ever heard me say a word derogatory or otherwise of him. The honorable member for Gippsland is a new-born champion of the principle of the referendum and initiative. His faith in it was born on the day that the Age began to support it. Side by side with this new-found faith on the part of “ Truthful Jimmy “ from Gippsland-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is out of order in using such an expression.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I am out of order. The whole expression is out of order - both the “ truthful “ and the “ Jimmy.” I withdraw and apologize. The honorable member, in the promulgation of the principles he espouses, has had something to say from every platform about myself. He has sought to hold me up to opprobrium, and yet we find him to-night- this man who has set himself up as the lapdog of a great newspaper - confessing that while he is prepared to indorse the general principle of the referendum and initiative, he is not prepared to avail himself of an opportunity to vote for it. At the very first opportunity we find him deserting the principle he has promulgated and called upon to explain in this House in the early hours of the morning that he is at the heel of his party. The honorable member, who claims to be a free man, in a free party, finds himself bound to abrogate, at the dictates of his party, everything that he has supported. So much for principle! So much for honour! So much for “Truthful Jimmy “ of Gippsland.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw that remark.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I again withdraw and apologize.

Question - That the proposed new clause (Dr. Maloney’s amendment) be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I move -

That the following new clause be added : -

No preference or discrimination shall be made for or against any person in relation to any employment by the Commonwealth, or by any Department or authority thereof, on account of his membership or nonmembership of the Bar Association or the British Medical Association, or the Contractors Association, or any other employers association.

I endeavoured to amend the short title of the Bill to cover a provision of this kind, but the amendment was ruled out of order, and the motion to dissent from the ruling was negatived. I also desired to amend clause 2 in this direction; but the “ gag “ was applied, and I was prevented.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is this proposal any less a mockery than the other was?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Bill is a mockery, as the Prime Minister knows. At every stage the question has been raised, shall its provisions apply to workmen’s organizations only, or shall they apply also to professional organizations ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether there is any distinction between this proposal and that which you ruled out of order as a mockery?

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– I ruled that certain words which appear in the proposed new clause could not be inserted in the short title, on the ground that it was contrary to the nature of a short title to make an amendment of the kind proposed. I cannot rule the proposed new clause out of order.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Every effort is being made by Ministers to dodge a vote on this question, but they must nevertheless face it. They have been mouthing freedom and liberty, shouting from the housetops about the liberty of the subject, and we want now to see whether they are prepared to apply the prohibitions of the Bill to the Bar Association, of which the Attorney- General is a member, and to Associations of Doctors, which enforce preference to unionists with a relentless cruelty such as has never been displayed by any workmen’s association. In support of this statement, let me read a passage published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, of the 15th May last. It is headed: “Doctors who differ; scab and blackleg; trouble at Wellington Hospital.” Then follows this telegram, dated Wellington, Thursday -

The Committee of the Wellington District Hospital spent several hours in investigating a complaint by the Secretary of the Friendly Societies Association, to the effect that the matron (Miss Harte) had refused to admit a patient to the hospital on April 14, although he had the necessary permission of one of the medical staff.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Bill relates only to appointments to the Commonwealth Service.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am showing what members of the British Medical Association do outside the Service with a view to explaining my proposal that they should not be given preference - a preference to he denied in the case of workmen - in the making of appointments to the Service. Ministers are constantly saying, “ See what unions do in their relations with private employers. We want to stop them from interfering in connexion with Government employment.” In this case a doctor, who was a member of the British Medical Asociation, refused to attend a patient at the Wellington Hospital because he was called upon to co-operate with another doctor who did not belong to the association -

Admission was refused by the matron on the ground that it was Dr. Savage’s week on duty. Mrs. Lavender said that she then went to Dr. Savage, who asked her if any other doctor had been attending her son, and said that he would have nothing to do with the “ scab “ doctor’s patients. Dr. Savage afterwards went to see the young man, and recommended his removal to the hospital, asking a fee of 10s. 6d., which she paid. When she went for a certificate to notify the council that her house had been fumigated, she asked Dr. Savage if there was any fee to pay, whereupon he said that if she had her name removed from the “ blackleg “ doctor’s list there would be no charge, but that if she still wished to be treated by the “scab” doctor, she would have to pay for the certificate.

When the letter was read, the president characterized the words “ scab “ and “ blackleg “ asshearing-shed language, and not what one would expect from a doctor.

The president also commented upon the fact that the strained relations between the Friendly Societies Association and the hospital had interfered with the ladies who were collecting for the annual ball, and such were the gratuitous insults that they had been subjected to that the ball had been indefinitely postponed.

The president asked Dr. Savage if Mrs. Lavender’s statements were correct, and the reply was “Absolutely.”

The President: And did you refer to the other doctor as a “scab” and a “blackleg?”

Dr. Savage: Yes, I did, and I do now, Mr. President.

The members of the British Medical Association, one of whom calls a fellowpractitioner “scab” and “blackleg,” will not work with non-union doctors, even to save the lives of human beings. Many instances of the kind could be given. But Ministers, while applying the prohibitions of the Bill to trade unions, will not apply them to the British Medical Association. I ask whether any Gut members of that association are employed in connexion with the transcontinental railway, or under our quarantine laws? As to the Bar Association, the ex AttorneyGeneral, byreading some of its rules the other day, showed that it relentlessly boycotts lawyers who are not members. The honorable gentleman told us that in engaging members of the legal profession to conduct cases on behalf of the Commonwealth, he was compelled to retain the services of members of the Bar Association, because, had he gone outside it, senior counsel would have refused to appear with juniors or others who were not members of the association. The coercion of the law is not to be applied to these classic associations, but it is to be applied to organizations of bricklayers, carpenters, labourers, navvies, or other workmen. The refusal of the Government to accept this clause stamps them at once as a Government desiring to legislate for a class, though they told the electors that it was their intention to legislate in the interest of all sections of the community. Ministers have tried by raising various points of order to dodge this amendment, but they have to face the music, and it will be placed on record that they are a class Government fighting for the smallest class against the great mass of the people. Their action in refusing to accept this amendment will serve to educate the community, and enable the people to discover and correct the mistake they made in permitting them to occupy the Treasury bench.

Question - That the proposed new clause be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I move -

That the following new clause be added : -

Any officer charged with a breach of the provisions of this Act shall not be punished before he is given an opportunity to explain, in writing, as to such breach.

Honorable members will have observed if they have paid any attention to my movements during the past five weeks that I have endeavoured on various occasions to ascertain from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General what the Government propose to do with regard to penalties for breaches of this measure. The Bill as it at present stands merely expresses a pious hope. It is a mere expression of opinion, and to be effective it should make provision for some penalty. If we were merely commencing our labours for the day, I might dwell at some length upon the danger of submitting an officer of the Public Service to the tender mercies of our friend the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think he will have nothing to do with it.

Mr HIGGS:

– The honorable gentleman is the head of a Department, and may find it necessary to employ temporary clerks. He might instruct an officer to engage them, and if that officer gave a preference to a unionist, the honorable gentleman might inflict some punishment upon him. I shall not at this hour refer to the various punishments which were inflicted upon offenders in the time of Numa Pompilius, who was mentioned by the honorable member for Werriwa. I shall content myself with leaving it to the Committee to insert the new clause I have moved in the Bill.

Question . -That the proposed new clause be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.Honorable members might as well remain where they are seated. I move -

That the following new clause be added : -

Any officer declared guilty of a breach of the provisions of this Act, may appeal to a Board consisting of an inspector, the chief officer of the Department to which such officer belongs, or an officer nominated by such chief officer, and the representative of the Division of the Commonwealth Public Service to which such officer belongs, elected under the regulations by the officers of the Division to which such officer belongs in the State in which such officer performs his duties. The Board shall hear such appeal and transmit the evidence taken, together with a recommendation thereon to the Public Service Commissioner, who shall thereupon determine such appeal.

The strongest objection I can take to the barbaric treatment we are receiving at the hands of the Attorney-General is to content myself by moving this new clause. I hope the public will see that it is impossible for any honorable member to do adequate justice to the Bill after having been detained in this chamber for something like three days.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- I am surprised that the honorable member in proposing this new clause should treat it so lightly. Every word would furnish him material for an hour’s speech. The honorable member complains that he has been kept up for three days. He is not the only one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr ANSTEY:

– Let me deal with the phraseology of this proposed clause. What is the meaning of the word “ officer “ ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is out of order.

Mr ANSTEY:

– In what way am I out of order?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not speaking to the clause. The question is-

Mr ANSTEY:

– No. I am still here - on the clause; but I feel myself deserted by the honorable member for Capricornia, with whom I have been associated for years.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member cannot continue his parody of the clause. The question is, “ That the proposed new clause be agreed to.”

Mr ANSTEY:

-I claim the right of speech.

Question - That the proposed new clause be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I move -

That the following new clause be added : -

An officer of the Commonwealth Public Service who, acting in accordance to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case, grants preference of employment, shall not be dismissed from the Commonwealth Public Service.

In all cases where any officer is fined, suspended, or dismissed from the Public Service for a breach of the provisions of this Act, the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament a full statement of the grounds of such fine, suspension, or dismissal if the Parliament is in session and actually sitting or if the Parliament is not in session or not actually sitting, within seven days after the commencement of the next session or sitting.

This Act shall not apply to the President of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, or to the Court.

This Act shall not apply to any officer of the Commonwealth Public Service who gives preference to members of organizations or associations affecting which the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court has directed that for the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute or for the maintenance of industrial peace or for the welfare of society preference shall be given.

The object which I have inview is so clearly stated in the proposed new clauses that no long speech is necessary in support of them.

Mr J H Catts:

– They are selfevident.

Mr HIGGS:

– They are. I must apologize to my friend the honorable member for Bourke for the fact that at this early hour in the morning, owing to physical exhaustion, I have to forsake him in his laudable efforts to impress the country with the importance of our proposals.

Question - That the proposed new clauses be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clauses negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Motion (by Mr. Joseph Cook) proposed -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the remaining stage of the Bill to be passed without delay.

Mr.FISHER (Wide Bay) [4.32 a.m.]. - I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to take the Bill ?

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I am opposed to the suspension of the Standing Orders, because I do not think that any good purpose can be served thereby. If the Government desires to show that it has a majority, and intends to use force-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I move -

That the question be now put.

Question - That the question be now put - put. The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

– As the division lists show that the voting is equal, I give my vote in the present instance with the Noes.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr TUDOR:

– The suspension of the Standing Orders has never before been moved in this Parliament at so early a stage of the session as this. The notice of motion that the Prime Minister placed on the business-paper is one that is used to provide for the clearing up of the businesspaper at the end of a session, and is not generally given noticeof until a fortnight or three weeks before the session ends, at a time when both parties have practically agreed that business must be expedited.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think that the Government in which the honorable member was a Minister gave notice of a motion of this kind earlier in the session than that.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am confident that the motion has never before been used within . five weeks of the beginning of a session. The Prime Minister gave notice of this motion less than five weeks after we first met.

Mr Poynton:

– And in a fit of pique.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; I hope that the honorable gentleman will see that he is not likely to get much further by moving the suspension of the Standing Orders, because every honorable member is at liberty to speak for an hour and five minutes on the motion, and when the third reading has been moved the same opportunity for discussion will be given. While I do not threaten, I would remind the Prime Minister that he has been lucky in getting the Bill to its present stage. I understood that at 4 o’clock yesterday afternoon he was prepared to take the second reading next Wednesday.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No. Was this a private arrangement?

Mr TUDOR:

– According to the newspapers, the Prime Minister signified that he would be content to get the Bill by the 3rd June. The Government can get to the third reading on our next sitting day without taking advantage of this motion. I am opposed to the suspension of the Standing Orders in the circumstances, and shall vote against the motion.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I hope the Prime Minister will not press this motion.It is admitted that this measure is the policy of the Government, and that it is upon it they intend to go to the country, if they can get there. It would be more in keeping with the nature of the measure to defer the third reading until a later day. Considering the strength of parties, and the violent opposition of their ideas, the Government have not very much to complain of in the progress made with the Bill. If they pressed the third reading at this sitting, it would appear as if, they did not wish to have their policy fairly discussed, but desired to push it down the throats of their opponents.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable gentleman not think the Bill has been fully discussed ?

Mr HUGHES:

– No. I say that deliberately. The Attorney-General will not find a parallel for anything like this during the time the Labour Government were in office. They never attempted to use their strength in order to force measures down the throats of their opponents.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I was in hopes that the magnanimity shown by the honorable member for Bourke and myself would have met with some sympathetic response from the Prime Minister. We could have talked for hours on some of the new clauses which were proposed. We have been here now since Wednesday morning last, because we had a prolouged caucus meeting before the House met. If the Prime Minister has no consideration for his opponents, I appeal to him, on behalf of the Speaker and Chairman, the officers of the House, and the Hansard staff. Prom my experience I know that it is impossible for the occupant of the Chair to get the rest which he ought to get in these circumstances, owing to the constant strain upon him in following the speeches of honorable members and endeavouring to keep them to the point. The AttorneyGeneral may be irritated with me.

Mr Fisher:

– Why ?

Mr HIGGS:

– Because I have been opposing his imperious will. If he continues in this way it will not be long before Imperial Caesar will be turned to clay. The suspension of the Standing Orders will not help the case of the Government, because there are still several months of the year during which we may discuss legislation. I do not wish to say anything which might make the Prime Minister angry, because I know that he is a combative man.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am not combative. I wish to make an arrangement, but honorable members opposite will not agree to do so.

Mr HIGGS:

– What is the arrangement suggested ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The arrangement suggested from the other side i3 to waste another week over a Bill that has been fully discussed.

Mr Fisher:

– My proposition “is that we should take the vote before dinner on Thursday.

Mr HIGGS:

– I consider that a great concession, in view of the number of honorable members on this side who wish to speak.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am willing to give the Opposition all day on Wednesday. That is a fair thing.

Mr HIGGS:

– That is the response to my appeal on behalf’ of the officers of the House. The Prime Minister says that he will give us Wednesday, but we meet on Wednesday at 2.30 p.m., and that will mean that we shall have about, seven hours, in which it is expected that thirty-seven members of the Opposition will have time to express their opinions on the Bill. There will be thirty-seven men straining in the leash to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye, and offer suggestions why the Bill should not pass.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Dinner-time on Thursday night would leave only six or seven hours for the rest of the week. That would mean practically another week for the third reading of the Bill.

Mr HIGGS:

– Honorable members of the Opposition are still fresh, and could go on until midnight, which would be only seventeen hours, or an average of half-an-hour each. We could fill in the time without trouble. The Minister of External Affairs has very important matters to deal with, and these long sittings cannot contribute to his health. I place one or two honorable members in the gallery, so to speak, as examples of the result of the action of the imperious AttorneyGeneral. I do not know how to appeal to him.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You need not appeal to me. I have nothing to do with the matter.

Mr HIGGS:

– While the Prime Minister is considering the- matter, he might have regard to the Hansard staff. Taking down the remarks of honorable members in shorthand is most monotonous and trying work. I do not think the staff have had any relief. There have been no special men engaged. It must also be remembered that so severe is the strain of tEe work that the shorthand reporters have to so arrange that no reporter takes shorthand notes for more than, say, ten minutes at a time. Then, again, the officers of the House get very little relief. They have to sit in their chairs, and keep their wits about them, and be careful that there are no mistakes made in the records. There is no reason why the Bill should be driven through the House in such haste. To spend another fortnight in discussing it would not be out of place. In fact, the country would be better off if, in a fortnight, we succeeded in blocking the measure altogether. However, the Prime Minister has the bump of combativeness developed to the size of a small melon. He will fight when he should be amiable. While we are wrangling with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker has a bad time. We make it hot for him by our points of order and discursive observations. Also, the Chairman of Committees deserves attention.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the honorable member tell me what he wishes)

Mr HIGGS:

– The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will give the vote on the third reading before dinner on Thursday. The Prime Minister should be reasonable.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I will give you until lunch-time on Thursday.

Mr Fisher:

– That will not suit me. I asked for two days, and then halved it, and now the Prime Minister wishes me to halve it again.

Mr HIGGS:

– How long can thirtyseven men talk?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Go ahead, and try. We shall do our best to be with you.

Mr HIGGS:

– That is self-destruction. If the Prime Minister will give until Thursday, I will remain silent on the third reading, and that is self-denial. Consideration should be given to the poorer-paid members of the staff attached to the House - the attendants and messengers, who have to attend to their duties for such long hours. Some of them appear to be looking fatigued, and their health is suffering. What do a few hours mean to the Prime Minister?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Hear, hear; after you have pumped yourselves dry already.

Mr Anstey:

– I call attention to the constant interruptions of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Though interjections are disorderly, I have not noticed those of the Prime Minister, because I thought they were of such a character that they might possibly lead to an amicable arrangement being arrived at.

Mr HIGGS:

– Honorable members have given up the right to discuss motions on private members’ day, but in return they should have the opportunity to spend a few hours at home to study the business before the House. This is an aspect the Prime Minister should consider. If we have to deal with the third reading of the Bill within six or seven hours, a number of honorable members, representing important constituencies, must give up their right to address themselves to the question. The Prime Minister should accept Ithuriel’s advice, and cultivate amiability. I think I have made an amiable appeal to him. I have tried to avoid saying anything calculated to rouse the anger of Ministers, and I hope that they will respond to the appeal that I have made on behalf of you, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman, and all the officers of the House.

Mr.FENTON (Maribyrnong) [5.15 a.m.]. - I wish to indorse the strong appeal that has been made to the Prime Minister by the honorable member for Capricornia. The Opposition are prepared, I believe, to come to a division not later than half-past 4 on Thursday next. Honorable members generally must sympathize with you, Mr. Speaker, with the Chairman of Committees, the officers of the House, and the Hansard staff, who have been subjected to a very great strain during these protracted proceedings. We can obtain a little rest, but it is killing work for them. I think the proposal made by the Opposition is eminently reasonable, and I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will accede to it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I can only Consult with my leader.

Mr FENTON:

– The Government have full charge of the notice-paper, and have deprived honorable members of the right to deal with private members’ business, although some of the notices of motion on the business-paper deal with important questions. We met earlier this year than ever before, and after a very short recess we have applied ourselves to the business set before us with an ardour and earnest ness that should win the plaudits of the electors.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– I withdraw the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the honorable member have leave to withdraw his motion ?

Mr Anstey:

– I object.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I propose to make the third reading of the Bill an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

Mr Anstey:

– Am I to be deprived of my right to speak on this motion?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes. Sit down.

Mr Anstey:

– No. I want to speak now.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The motion has been withdrawn.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In moving-

That the third reading of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting,

I desire to state that I have taken this course as the result of an understanding arrived at with the Leader of the Opposition, and which, I think, is a fair one. It means that we are practically halving the working hours of next week. We are giving the Opposition a little more than half the time. The vote will be taken at 4 o’clock on Thursday next, and that seems to me to be a fair proposition to make.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.I desire to make a few observations before this question goes to a vote. The Bill has been discussed at some length by the party with which I have the honour to be associated. Members of the Opposition have discussed it for two days and two nights, and the Ministry have pursued their policy of pushing on with the debate and bringing it to an end. So far as preference to unionists is concerned my opinion was that this particular Bill was of such small value that our party might well permit it to go without discussion. It was agreed, however, that it should be fought, and anything that is worth fighting should be fought to the bitter end. The fight commenced, and I am intensely disappointed with the result. I find member after member becoming sick and weary after two nights of discussion. I have had some forty-eight hours of it.- I have not slept for any period of time. I have not rested; but I do not complain of that. I was and am still prepared to go on for a few more hours in opposing the passing of something in which I do not believe.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Feeling well himself, the honorable member would have no consideration for others.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I am addressing Mr. Speaker, not you ; and Mr. Speaker is listening to me. A body of men, having made up their minds to fight this Bill, should surely have made an effort to build up their capacity, both physical and mental, to fight it by every means in their power. I have not the slightest objection to the procedure which the Government have adopted in order to pass the Bill through its various stages ; but I was induced to come into this fight in the belief that it was to be a fight by men who were wrapped up in the cause, and who held that every possible hostility should be displayed towards this Bill. The Prime Minister submitted a proposal for the suspension of the Standing Orders. He was justified in doing bo. He had a majority, and could carry it.

Mr J H Catts:

– But Mr. Speaker did not vote with him for the application of the “ gag.”

Mr ANSTEY:

– The question of the application of the “gag” does not arise in this connexion. The point that I wish to make is that the discussion on the motion for the suspension of -the Standing Orders could have gone on if desired for some time, yet five minutes after the motion had been submitted there was absolutely no life in the debate. Our party, which calls itself a fighting . party, has shown that it has not enough “ guts “ to fight for ten minutes a proposition of this character. The Government, finding the Opposition beaten, were perfectly justified in pushing on with its proposals to the bitter end, but I was surprised to find honorable members of my party pleading fatigue and weariness, and appealing to the Government to come to an arrangement. The whole thing is piffle from beginning to end. We are asked now to come back and have chin music for another couple of days. You will hear no more from me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 6.31 a.m. (Saturday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 May 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1914/19140521_reps_5_73/>.